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

[Pinotage]

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.

That's a great summary, Henry. It captures a lot of what I was thinking about when I asked the question. Thank you!

Pinotage

 

[UngeheuerLich]

I didn´t play 1e, but i do find similarities with 2nd edition... is that enough to vote yes?

 

[The Little Raven]

Personally, I think 3rd Edition and BECMI got a little friendly at a bar, had a passionate night together, and 9 months later, we get 4th Edition.

 

[mattfs5]

That's a great summary, Henry. It captures a lot of what I was thinking about when I asked the question. Thank you!

I also voted no, but also agree that there are some interesting similarities.

 

[Voss]

I didn´t play 1e, but i do find similarities with 2nd edition... is that enough to vote yes?

Most likely. The early days of 2nd edition were 95% identical to 1st. They just dropped in some spell damage caps, took out a few classes, and moved non-weapon proficiencies into the PH from the dungeoneer's and wilderness survival guides.

Though they did leech most of the flavor out of the books in the process of condensing them back down to 3.

 

[Dice4Hire]

4E has similarities with all editions of D&D, as well as similarities with most other gaming systems out there. But a significant regression back to 1E, no, I do not think so.

 

[Spinachcat]

Yes, 4e has a distinct early D&D vibe.

I would not call it 1e because that pidgeonholes it to a single version. Instead, I see the designers looking back on the days when D&D sold like hotcakes and today when WoW is king and deciding how they could distill the best from those two giants and enhance the D20 system.

As we have seen, Mike Mearls is an OD&D fan so its not a big surprise to see that influence his design work.

 

[Mishihari Lord]

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

I hope so but I can't tell yet. I've been kind of getting that vibe though.

Nah, all that at-will-power stuff, the way how hitpoints are calculated, the combat system (we don't use a THAC0-system), ...

1E didn't use THAC0 either, that was a 2E innovation.

 

[Korgoth]

1E didn't use THAC0 either, that was a 2E innovation.

1E DMG p. 196ff, Appendix E.

 

[Dinkeldog]

Yeah, THACO is really a derivative of the attack charts.

I also don't think that 4E is moving back to a single-class mentality. What's been dribbled about Paragon Paths and Epic Destinies is sort of hinting at some sort of implied multi-classing.

One of the other things that I think is significantly different is that 1E followed an exponential power growth, especially for spellcasters. Meanwhile, 4E from what has come from the developers is following a linear power growth plan. Hopefully, at least. But there's an intent there, while the 1E intent was clearly exponential power growth.