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

[Warbringer]

In philosophy, yes, but with 35 years of mechanics learning...

 

[Warbringer]

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.

Actually, it seems from what we've heard of paragon paths it makes ypu even more "single-classed" diving into an even narrower role of the class... but I could have completely misunderstood

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

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.

That pretty much sums up my opinion. This is, of course, a very good thing. I love me some BECMI.

 

[PeelSeel2]

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.

That is a good account of it.

 

[PeterWeller]

Yeah, I get more of a BECMI vibe than I do a 1E AD&D one.

 

[AtomicPope]

I wanted to vote yes because they're getting back to the basics as far as class structure and narrowly focused design concepts for flavor but that's it.

Unlike 1e, 4e is mathematically sound, contains balanced powers between the classes (fighters sucked in 1e, 2e, and 3e), and scales very well (unlike all previous editions). It's just a better system, with better fluff (no ubiquitous symmetry), and streamlined rules (I've been playing 3.5 and we still stop to look up AoO).

 

[Mishihari Lord]

1E DMG p. 196ff, Appendix E.

Really? I can't check since I'm on travel right now, but how could that work? THAC0, at least as it's used in 2E can't work with 1E because of the repeated 20s in the to-hit tables. Which is probably why they changed the tables in 2E. I know I never used it 'til 2E. (/threadjack)

 

[Ipissimus]

Superficially, 1E and 4E might share some similarities IMO. Once you get into it, I can't really say it's the same at all.

Getting rid of the Vancian magic system and save or die effects really take a big chunk out of what 1E is all about. Level limits on magic items isn't very 1E. A mere 17 powers by level 30. Clunky classes (1E Monk or Assassin anyone?). Useless 1st level Wizards who then dominated the game after level 5. Random tables (I miss those, though). Level limits for Demihumans (I haven't used the word 'Demihuman' for a decade now). Illusionists. Total lack of guidelines for making unique monsters (even if I miss 'just making them up'). Playing with noob DMs who make 1st level characters fight 3 'Asmodeus' devils (ok, not a real 1E issue ). Cursed items everywhere. Sphere of Annihilation in the mouth. Lack of character options...

I mean, to me, alot of that stuff is what 1E was about. I think 4E is the first DnD edition that seems to really explore the idea of teamwork in the mechanics.

 

[Henry]

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.

You have to remember though that in the Basic D&D game, the difference between fighters. thieves, and the spellcasters was less than the AD&D editions. Fighters even had a system of snazzy maneuvers and tricks (starting with the companion rules) they could gain as they leveled, and the spells that wizards and clerics got, when they actually got them, was far tamer than AD&D's lists.

Oh! That kicked in another thing about the BECM/4e comparison: Spell ranges in BECM D&D usually had fixed ranges, rather than varying by caster level; I'm not sure, but it seems like all the preview characters' spell ranges and areas aren't affected by their level or ability scores.

 

[Bold or Stupid]

No. Mostly because I tend to doubt that 1e had any over arcing design philosophies, lots of good ideas but no overall philosophy.