D&D 1E Do you think 4e is d20 1e?

[Pinotage]

Question says it all, really: Do you think that the 4e design principles are like 1e but just using the d20 mechanics?

Pinotage

 

[DandD]

Nah, all that at-will-power stuff, the way how hitpoints are calculated, the combat system (we don't use a THAC0-system), feats, making will-, reflex- and fortitude-saves passive stats that the enemy must overcome instead of you trying to save with such stats against the enemy effect (no save vs. boulders, dragon-breaths, wands, death-magic and so on), and the presumption of point-buy as default instead of rolling 3d6 and applying the results in order is definitively proof for me that 1st edition D&D has nothing in common with 4th edition D&D safe for the idea of a class- and level-system.

 

[jimpaladin]

I think your poll will not give the answer you may be looking for. I answered yes; but that is because I played 1e and so this to me seems a throwback to what I did in 1e with the d20 mechanic thrown in.

Those that may not like 4e or didn't play 1e obviously will have wildly differing ideas as to what the question could mean. Not wanting to rain on your parade but just like to throw my coppers around. Ignore if that works better after all I just play the game

 

[Thornir Alekeg]

I would say no. I think they 4e design principles are to try and capture some of the openness of 1e, but with a much stronger logic base behind it.

 

[Psion]

No. Both in good ways and bad ways.

 

[hamishspence]

1st ed

I can vaguely remember playing a beginner set of 1st ed, the Black Box with the big red blue eyed demon on the front. Would not mind seeing a few things brought back for nostalgia: rattlesnakes, spitting cobras pit vipers, whip snakes, rock pythons.

Sabre toothed cats, giant crocodiles, bronze golems, amber golems, thouls, rhagodessa.

Encumbrance in coins, letter tables for treasure, and so on.

And I kinda wish the Big Red Demon would make a reappearance: lookwise its much bigger than the modern pit fiend.

 

[Grazzt]

No. Both in good ways and bad ways.

Im gonna have to agree with Psi- on this one

 

[Nikosandros]

Not at all. They are two extremely different games.

 

[Mercule]

There are some similarities of thought. Of course, there were some similarities of thought between 1e and 3e ("back to the dungeon" anyone?).

Each is its own thing. That's not necessarily bad. I did 1e. I stopped playing it for a reason.

 

[Henry]

I'm going to say "no", but it's not that far off. The design principles are indeed similar enough to make some comparisons:

• Monsters' XP rewards are listed on a solid scale (1e) instead of a floating one (3e)
• Monster stat blocks are very truncated and give a DM the necessary info (1e) instead of being very detail oriented (3e)
• Most combats will have a 5-minute rest period associated with them; in 1e, it was assumed that regardless of how long a combat took, a turn (10 minutes) was spent binding wounds, looting the dead, etc., keeping the time between combats expanded a bit from what would sometimes happen in 3e.
• Single-classing seems to be stressed over multiclassing. There will be options, apparently, but they are working to avoid the 'dipping' seen in 3e, from what they've said.
• Saving throw targets are static numbers again, instead of variable DCs.
• DMs seem to be given far more leeway in the creation of magical effects, unique creature abilities, and magic treasure than in 3e.

Overall, from the info, I can't help but get an odd 1E, or even Basic D&D vibe from the material they've released.