D&D 4E Can WotC Cater to Past Editions Without Compromising 4e Design?

[Zaran]

By adding 3.5 in its entirety to the DDI.

They haven't even finished adding 4e to DDI.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

That wasn't really what I was getting at. Even absent the sort of spells that poached other classes roles, planning and careful selection of spell load was a useful thing to do in previous editions; it was the sole redeeming feature of "Vancian" magic, really.

I didn't hate Vancian magic in quite the way some people seem to. It has its limitations and I'm perfectly happy with the treatment you get in 4e as a replacement. Anyway, there is still the Spellbook feature, which I think is again pretty underutilized for similar reasons. I can live with that, but it would be more useful with monsters that had more significant strengths and weaknesses.

Fair enough - I guess my experience with 4E has just been different to yours. Although I do think that non-combat challenges could do with more depth in the systems (and several "strategic" challenges like scouting and research fall into this area), I find that strategy is still alive and well in 4E. Wizards still get to choose dailies, consumable items, imperfect as they (still) are can be used, and there are always encounters tough enough that these preparations can be a good idea.

Yeah, and I don't entirely disagree with this either. In fact I think the 'problem' is more subtle. I'll say a bit more on that later.

I have used such encounters for reason 1 and they have worked pretty well, so far. They do take some resources - a few healing surges, maybe a daily - and can give some consequences for failing skill challenge rolls. They have to fit the specific challenge, of course, but skillfully handling them is important, just as skillfully handling full encounters is. They take less time and fewer resources - which is just what I hear some folk pining for...

Basically, they are not there to be a real threat - just an obstacle that can, if mishandled, cost resources. As an incentive not to bog down into overcautious play or to get sloppy, I think they have a place (albeit a limited one).

Yeah, I do think that there could be some varieties of monsters that are particularly suitable for this though. Instead of needing to use a very few at-level monsters or several that are down level enough to be less interesting it would be fine to have some monsters with a different offense/defense ratio. 4e fixes that too tightly IMHO.

Again, my experience simply differs. The differences of Ref or AC may look "insignificant" in the context of the full spread of a d20 roll, but when you normally hit monsters on a 10+, hitting on a 7 comes as a very welcome surprise. Just using published monsters, I have seen a pretty good variation in defences and damage. More would make encounters more "swingy", and the balance between luck and skill for a 30-level campaign progression seems about right, already.

On the whole, but the problem is perception. When playing these 2 point variations are lost in the noise. Maybe your super tactical people track everything with an eagle eye and notice. What I see is that the more ordinary players can't tell the difference between a REF of 20 and a REF of 22, it is simply lost far down in the noise of situational bonuses and penalties and conveys next to nothing. Meanwhile the giant Purple Worm that dodges blows 95% as well as a Quickling isn't conveying any sense of anything whatsoever except that the numbers are arbitrary and purely gamist. I've come to believe that this simply leads to a perception that monsters are just game pieces and seriously subverts their distinctiveness despite anything designers try to do with traits and powers.

I fully appreciate all the gamist advantages of 4e design. However, I've simply come to the conclusion that gamist considerations are overvalued in 4e. Hell I KNOW they are because I hear the complaints about it both online and at my table, consistently and without end. I don't want random broken BS game mechanics, but there IS a middle ground here somewhere. I'm just here to say that within the scope of 4e this would be one of the very easiest and most visible ways to cater to both existing players (who can always simply hammer every monster down to the level of consistency it has now anyway) and the people that feel differently. That was the topic of the thread, and that would be my advice to Mike and Co. It will increase the value of strategic thinking by making the strengths and weaknesses of monsters come through more in their basic math, make them FEEL more appropriate, and I don't think it will impact tactics and consistency anywhere near as much as some people think.

In any case, it is easy to find out, try it. At the simplest level. Just make a few encounters with some customized monsters with a +/- 5 envelope on defenses instead of the typical 2-3 points. You'll find it actually makes things more fun, and if it makes a few encounters easier it will also make a few harder and you have plenty of simple ways to adjust that.

 

[LostSoul]

Encounters in 4e, from a tactical gaming perspective, are awesome. If you like combat encounters, 4e is definitely the RPG of choice. Even the strategy of being prepared beforehand is alive and well: What kinds of enemies are we going up against? What are their weaknesses? What are their special abilities? Is there anything we can do to mitigate those abilities? These are all useful questions in 4e (as they were in previous editions, and basically any RPG ever made for that matter).

One problem with strategy in 4E is that there's an optimal solution: take an extended rest. Consequences of taking extended rests are not baked into the game.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

One problem with strategy in 4E is that there's an optimal solution: take an extended rest. Consequences of taking extended rests are not baked into the game.

Sorry, but that is plain wrong...

sleeping after a single combat never was the best solution in any edition of D&D. Usually it is not safe to rest in a dungeon...

And without easy acces to spells that make such rests easy, the 15 min workday is not very advisable...

If you believe 15 min workdays are the best tactic, and it works in your group ok, but the system is quite robust...

 

[Balesir]

One problem with strategy in 4E is that there's an optimal solution: take an extended rest. Consequences of taking extended rests are not baked into the game.

I agree, and this has got worse, not better with magic item "rarity".

Luckily, however, mind blastingly dull "optimality" is not the only way to play 4E as a challenge based "Gamist" game - and neither, in my view, is it the best. After all, character death is only a speedbump in practical terms; rituals and the simple expedient of creating a new character see to that. I favour, instead, players effectively "dared" to maximise encounters per "day" and vieing with one another to pull off the most effective "gotcha" on monsters. As long as the encounters are tough enough for this to matter, it works out well for us, so far.

 

[Matt James]

If you're letting your players take extended rests at any point they choose in 4e--You're doing it wrong.

Though, in 3e (and even 2e) I always remember getting pissy when my players wanted to quickly set up prior to going into combat. Their sole objective was to take the time to buff up. Heroes Feast in 3.x/Pathfinder anyone?

 

[The Little Raven]

You may want to go back and peruse your old 1e MM if you doubt this.

I have it in front of me and I can't find this "more variance than 4e" you speak of. In fact, having gone through the Demons, Devils, and Dragons, which are the big baddies of the book, I'm incredibly underwhelmed. Care to provide some examples of 1e monsters that have more unique character traits than the 4e equivalent? With the exception of monster that have spells lists (which I find the least unique and most boring design element of previous editions), I can't find any that I would quantify as unique.

 

[Aenghus]

In any case, it is easy to find out, try it. At the simplest level. Just make a few encounters with some customized monsters with a +/- 5 envelope on defenses instead of the typical 2-3 points. You'll find it actually makes things more fun, and if it makes a few encounters easier it will also make a few harder and you have plenty of simple ways to adjust that.

I would advise care with the above suggestion, especially with solos and elites.

I find monsters can need customisation to suit a particular group. There is no guarantee that the group will have a lot of attacks targetting a particular defense, so a weak point may be effectively useless, and the corresponding strong points may lead to horrible grind or a TPK.

It also can lead to degenerate DM tactics - if only one or two PCs can hit the monster with any accuracy, just target those and ignore the others. This is brutal, effective, and not much fun for me as referee more than once in a lwhile.

Monster stats are arbitrary. They make sense only relative to other monster stats and PC stats.

I generally tweak stats to suit my group. Too many monsters have sky high Fort defenses, making fort attacks bad, which sucks for the storm sorcerer. The newer monsters are better.

I find hints and exposition are needed to reveal strong and weak defenses. There are more monsters in 4e encounters and the players tracking them all is
difficult. Describing monsters as being ponderous and heavily armoured or quick and dexterous but scrawny and lightly armoured makes sense in a lot of cases.

Player tolerance for missing varies a lot, and some players get very frustrated from missing e.g. because their attacks happen to target a monsters strong point.

 

[Nagora]

I have it in front of me and I can't find this "more variance than 4e" you speak of. In fact, having gone through the Demons, Devils, and Dragons, which are the big baddies of the book, I'm incredibly underwhelmed. Care to provide some examples of 1e monsters that have more unique character traits than the 4e equivalent? With the exception of monster that have spells lists (which I find the least unique and most boring design element of previous editions), I can't find any that I would quantify as unique.

I think weak DMs and players have always looked to mechanics to differentiate things in the game and in that light the degeneration of the game is easy to understand. This is why the massively more complex character generation of 3e is treasured by many and why 4e's outlandish and counter-intuitive combat is also welcomed by those that like it - all the fancy mechanics give the players' something to do instead of using their imaginations, which is harder than memorizing feats and traits (or just reading them off cards and character sheets). But if you're looking at the details of specific abilities or stats as being the source of inspiration for an exciting role-playing game then I think you've already lost.

It isn't how big it is, it is how you use it. A given 1e game can be much more exciting than a given 4e game and vice versa given the right/wrong players and DM. From that PoV, the accumulated "development" of later design paradigms has in fact delivered precisely nothing, for they have not managed to reliably build a more enjoyable role-playing game, although they may have delivered a more enjoyable tactical combat game or character design game for those who want such things (which is not a small number).

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I have it in front of me and I can't find this "more variance than 4e" you speak of. In fact, having gone through the Demons, Devils, and Dragons, which are the big baddies of the book, I'm incredibly underwhelmed. Care to provide some examples of 1e monsters that have more unique character traits than the 4e equivalent? With the exception of monster that have spells lists (which I find the least unique and most boring design element of previous editions), I can't find any that I would quantify as unique.

Well, as I posted someplace, you could have a 5+5 HD monster with AC -5, and another similar level monster (hill giant, slightly higher HD 8+1-2 IIRC) with an AC 5. That's a huge variance. That's the whole point, there is no 'formula' and you can see the same with damage output. You've got large high hit die monsters with no more than a medium damage attack, and lower level creatures with 5 attacks that each do only slightly less damage. The average melee attack damage of 1e monsters is thus all over the map. 1e monster's special abilities and special attacks are also quite a bit more varied. I don't know what you looked at, but the special abilities of 4e monsters are particularly constrained. Yes, there are a lot of them, but they are virtually all limited to highly constrained superficial effects.

Thus greater variation in numbers, slightly less constrained abilities, etc would not break 4e and would make monsters more distinctive and interesting.

As for the argument that you'll have some parties that are not able to exploit a monster's weaknesses. This is what I would call '4e thinking'. Why are you fighting a monster you can't get an advantage over? This is foolish. It is exactly the kind of thing you EXPECTED would get you killed fast in 1e. Don't expect me to cry or be generous to you when you go into that fight against a giant and expect to be able to hit his FORT very much. Should have thought ahead. This is exactly why 1e was much more of an exploration focused game and did that style of play so well. 4e actively works against it by removing the need to plan, and some other things that haven't been addressed here. Besides, it is not as if you can't do the 'haha I nerfed the party' thing in 4e either. Flying monsters vs a melee heavy party, etc all amply allow for that, it is just much less prevalent.

[MENTION=56645]Nagora[/MENTION]
I disagree. While 1e was an excellent framework for exploration it was pretty limited in almost every other way. Clever players could get around most plots with magic except at low levels, and many characters had nothing at all they could do if they weren't fighting except the same stuff every other character could do, or they had special abilities but they only worked in specific environments, etc. It wasn't a good tactical combat game either, so it was pretty narrow. Later editions provide a lot more depth over a wider range of play. You can say it is has gained us 'nothing', but that's only true if we were all wanting to play the game that 1e delivered. That was a fine game, for a while.