D&D 5E Blog Post by Robert J. Schwalb

[Emerikol]

In classic D&D (especially Moldvay, but also Gygax), the main point of balance that they emphasise is risk/reward - ie how much treasure the monsters are guarding. That is a big deal in XP-for-gold systems. In 4e, where treasure (by default, at least) is handled in a completely different way, that sort of balance is almost irrelevant.

Exactly. Or the idea that the deeper you go the more dangerous the threats and the greater the rewards. I'm just saying that that attitude is different from what we have today.

 

[Neonchameleon]

This last exchange is rather bizarre to my eyes. IMHO, the fact that all classes could hold their own in an effective way in combat, is one of the great (nay, awesome) thing of 4e. And here we have a 4e detractor 'accusing' it of doing so and a 4e lover trying to prove the claim wrong.

The point I'm making is that the design goal of 3.X was exactly the same. That everyone should have features and abilities that allow them to hold their own in combat - which is why the rogue was upgraded from Backstab to Sneak Attack. That 4e actually succeeds at its intent is a whole different story.

 

[Nikosandros]

The point I'm making is that the design goal of 3.X was exactly the same. That everyone should have features and abilities that allow them to hold their own in combat - which is why the rogue was upgraded from Backstab to Sneak Attack. That 4e actually succeeds at its intent is a whole different story.

Well, I can't really disagree with that. in AD&D backstab is a once per battle thing, if you're lucky and the DM isn't too strict. Sneak attack is reliable and rogues are certainly more effective in combat that thieves in AD&D.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Exactly. Or the idea that the deeper you go the more dangerous the threats and the greater the rewards. I'm just saying that that attitude is different from what we have today.

Indeed. The attitude changed some time in the early 1980s when D&D moved away from wargamers and to sci-fi fans. DL1 (one of the most popular modules ever) had, of course, the Obscure Death Rule. The rule that said you couldn't die because you were too important to the plot. And by 1989 2E removed the XP for GP rule, devoted a lot of time to encounter based play and unless I'm completely mistaken suggested the GM fudge results.

It's been about 30 years since the dominant attitude in the hobby changed.

 

[Emerikol]

Indeed. The attitude changed some time in the early 1980s when D&D moved away from wargamers and to sci-fi fans. DL1 (one of the most popular modules ever) had, of course, the Obscure Death Rule. The rule that said you couldn't die because you were too important to the plot. And by 1989 2E removed the XP for GP rule, devoted a lot of time to encounter based play and unless I'm completely mistaken suggested the GM fudge results.

It's been about 30 years since the dominant attitude in the hobby changed.

Thanks for the support.

I always thought at the time that gp for xp was a dumb rule. I've reconsidered my judgment after seeing where it has led us. Perhaps Gygax knew something or maybe he was just lucky.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Thanks for the support.

I always thought at the time that gp for xp was a dumb rule. I've reconsidered my judgment after seeing where it has led us. Perhaps Gygax knew something or maybe he was just lucky.

In this case? Knew something. He played oD&D to death with hardcore wargamers going flat out for whatever advantage they could find. Also IIRC when he discovered people were slaughtering low level monsters for XP he dropped their XP value by a factor of 10 so goblin killing really wasn't worth it compared to loot collection.

 

[Zardnaar]

I have been using xp for gold in ACKs and C&C. BiTD our BECMI DM did not give us xp for gold and it took us a year to get to level 4 playing the caves of Chaos. With xp for gold you deem to level up every 3-4 sessions I suppose. It has taken us 2-3 months to get to level 4 in C&C.

Kind of coming around to xp for gold as well as it was not a standard rule in 2nd ed but it was an optional rule for thieves that if it was used let them get to level 7 or 8 while the rest of the party was level 5 or so. Thieves were kinda meh though so being 3-4 levels ahead was about right.

 

[Jester David]

I don't understand.

A 3E rogue without tumble can move through the battlefield, risking OAs. So can a 4e rogue. The only way to avoid OAs in 4e is to Shift - and rogues only get shifting abilities if they choose particular powers.

All 3E rogues have combat skill: medium BAB and sneak attack. (And evasion, too, which I think counts as a combat skill.) There are no 3E rogues who are "spymasters" who have no combat skills whatsoever.

The difference is a 3e rogue without combat skills won't be able to get the flanks needed to take advantage of sneak attack (not without risking death). Often they won't be able to at all because movement through an enemy's space is required. They'll be at the edge of the combat with the wizard using a crossbow.
A 4e rogue who takes all social skills will still be very effective in combat as so many rogue powers add movement. Most of a class' combat effectiveness comes from their powers and not their skills and feats.

And a 4e rogue who spends all his/her feats on non-combat, skill and utility related stuff will play very differently in combat from one who takes the various light-weapon buffing feats, two-weapon fighting, the feat that boosts sneak attack damage to d8, etc. @keterys gave an example of variance in combat effectiveness.

I'll repeat: there's variance in combat effectiveness but far, far less variance than 3e. When you look at the variance when comparing a 4e character and another 4e character it will look like a lot but when you compare the effectiveness of a low-damage 3e character and low-damage 4e the difference is.

This last exchange is rather bizarre to my eyes. IMHO, the fact that all classes could hold their own in an effective way in combat, is one of the great (nay, awesome) thing of 4e. And here we have a 4e detractor 'accusing' it of doing so and a 4e lover trying to prove the claim wrong.

Which kinda proves my emphasises that 90% of edition warring is in the reader. I say something 4e fans take as derogatory regarding 4e, that characters in that edition are more dedicated to a single purpose than 3e, and they spend the next 3 days trying to prove me wrong.

Oh, and in this instance I'm not a 4e detractor. IIRC I picked an example to try and expand Schwab's point about builds and system mastery, and tried to pick one that wouldn't cause an edition war. But just like Schwab, because it's slightly implied that there's a possibility that I might be being negative regarding 3e or 4e and suddenly everyone NEEDS to defend their beloved edition from the slight.

 

[Nikosandros]

I agree with your assessment of 4e rogues and, as I stated upthread, I think that this is a very good feature. It's possible to create characters that are good in social situations without significantly impairing their combat effectiveness. A definite plus in my book!

 

[keterys]

The difference is a 3e rogue without combat skills won't be able to get the flanks needed to take advantage of sneak attack (not without risking death). Often they won't be able to at all because movement through an enemy's space is required. They'll be at the edge of the combat with the wizard using a crossbow.

You can be just as boneheaded with a 3e rogue as a 4e rogue.

Your 3e sorcerer example is perfectly decent, but your rogue one is flatly incorrect. That's why people keep pointing it out.

If you make identical choices for the 3e rogue as the 4e rogue, both end up ineffective at combat and hopefully more effective at the other thing they chose. Though perhaps not so. 3e certainly allows you to cripple a character far more effectively than any other edition (the 10th level character with 0 BAB and no higher than 1st level casting someone made as an example springs to mind). No one is arguing that 4e doesn't make it harder to make a bad character. I've seen plenty of rogues fail to get sneak attack, or deal only their stat in damage (ie: 5 damage) instead of a full amount.

They're just nitpicking your specific very flawed example

A 4e rogue can choose not to take movement powers. Can choose to use a crossbow and hang out with the wizard. Can even choose to focus on Charisma and Intelligence, dropping his Dex to 8 or lower cause he's RPing a clumsy oaf. These are not unique facets of 3e. Really, the unique aspect of 3e is its multiclassing system which lets you scatter a character's focus (and also maximize its focus to an incredible degree).