D&D 3E/3.5 Does 4e sound more D&Dish to you than 3e did?

[Celebrim]

And you didn't worry about whether you ran into orcs, giant snakes, or otyughs...You could clear a dungeon level and rest next to the pile of bodies, at a natural break point, before you went down the stairs to the next level.

This was mostly a function of how weak monsters in 1e where compared to PC's - especially as it related to thier THAC0 and the ability to threaten PC's once the characters acquired plate mail and a magic shield (or equivalent quality armor). Monsters didn't have strength bonuses generally - that was kinda rolled into the general idea of hit dice. So, for the most part 1e edition encounters (whether BD&D or AD&D played as it usually was much like BD&D with more options) occurred with relatively few 'incidents'. The expected damage per encounter was very low, because most monsters would only hit on about 15% of thier attacks. The expected damage per blow was also quite low, so that so long as you had a nice 'cushion' you could feel safe continuing on. The clerics healing and an emergency potion would keep you going if you got into trouble.

You can simulate this in 3e quite easily. Ignore the CR/EL system. Don't ramp up the EL of fights to match the level of the characters. Instead of single large dangerous opponents, mainly use lots of mooks with fairly low attack bonuses. Keep the magic low to moderate, and slow down the rate of advancement at higher levels.

I like the idea that 4E's challenge system will be more forgiving than 3E's CR/EL system, so I don't have to carefully weigh out whether I should have three ogre bashers and two orc shamans, or three orcs and two ogres. It reminds me of the old days when I used to design adventures by flipping through the Monster Manual with a few bookmarks and thinking about what it would be fun to fight this week.

You could do that because after about 9th level or so, there was very little in the MM that a 1st edition character couldn't beat in a straight up fight. A whole party of 6-8 9th level characters could mope the floor with almost anything.

To the extant that I agree such a thing even exists (because it hasn't really been any more of a problem for me in 3e than in 1e), I don't see alot of indication that 4E is going to get away from the current 15 minute adventuring day. The 15 minute adventuring day is a product of the idea that every fight needs to be 'interesting' in the sense of severely threatening PC's right at that moment. Fourth is moving in that direction, not away from it, and unless it abandons the idea of 'per day' or limited resources entirely, the game will still gravitate in that direction.

 

[BBQ]

I personally love what D&D is becoming with 4e. It'll be faster mechanically (my group is a bunch of expert players, but they tend to use every wierd, esoteric action they can, and anything streamlining gameplay is a godsend), but also, I love some of the story possibilities and roleplaying opportunities that will present themselves. I delight in thinking of my wizard character (I've already planned backstory and everything for my 4e wizard) eventually gaining an apprentice and taking him out to see the Astral Sea, looking out at the vast scope of the planes, as well as explaining to him the nature of magic, the planes and other such things. I've been talking extensively with my own gaming groups at my University and in my hometown, and we're all quite excited about where the game is going. I run about 2 games a week, as well as a play-by-post game. We're all stoked for it. That's twenty people giving a big "thumbs up" to 4e!

 

[ivocaliban]

My impression of 4e is that it will continue the trend of 3E, which is taking D&D play away from the sort of play found in AD&D (especially 1st ed).

Have a read of the 1st ed PHB. The rules for character build are very simple - about the only choice a player has to make is one of weapon proficiency. The rules for action resolution are also very simple - there is a discussion of armour class and hit points. A good chunk of the book is spells - the most complex point of interface between character build and action resolution - and a good chunk of the book is advice on successful dungeon delving, bascially none of which draws expressly upon the character build and action resolution rules.

And a module like Tomb of Horrors or White Plume Mountain is entirely consistent with this - the challenges in those modules are not mechanical challenges to be solved through sound mastery of the game rules - they are essentially operational challenges to be solved by clever players persuading the GM of the cleverness of their solutions. (IMO, it is this immediacy of this interface between player choice and GM decision that gives AD&D its reputation for suffering from abusive GMs.)

Now look at 3E. Extensive rules for character build. Extensive rules for action resolution, that interface in an intricate way - far more intricate than 1st ed spells - with those character build rules. Good play is very much about sound mechanical mastery. And there are frequent complaints about the GM being nerfed.

We are told that 4e will have equally extensive character build rules, and more complex action resolution mechanics (eg every class having at-will, per-encounter and per-day resources). So on the players side of the screen, those respects in which 3E differs from AD&D will be emphasised. At the same time, we are told that GM-ing will become easier ("points of light" makes it easy to world-build on the fly, new monster rules mean the GM does not have to interact with the character build rules, SWSE-style skill rules and reduction in contribution of per-day resources to PC power make mechanically-balanced module writing easier, etc). So the dominant role of the GM at the table will be reduced further, to perhaps being merely first among equals.

My own suspicion is that 4e will be a good game, worth playing for those who like heroic fantasy RPGing. But while it will have some tropes and themes in common with AD&D, I think the actual play experience will be very different.

Of course, YMMV.

I think WotC should hire you to be their spokesperson for 4E. I haven't liked much of what I've seen of the changes so far, but after reading your take on it I'm almost convinced to give it a try. That's the first time I've said that since the announcement, too.

 

[pemerton]

Very nicely stated. You make some very good points in your post. Thanks!

Thanks.

I think WotC should hire you to be their spokesperson for 4E. I haven't liked much of what I've seen of the changes so far, but after reading your take on it I'm almost convinced to give it a try.

I wasn't really setting out either to advocate for or against 4e (that depends very much on playstyle preference, I think) but I'm glad I succeeded in depicting it as having a coherent design logic. Thanks!

 

[pemerton]

I don't see alot of indication that 4E is going to get away from the current 15 minute adventuring day. The 15 minute adventuring day is a product of the idea that every fight needs to be 'interesting' in the sense of severely threatening PC's right at that moment.

I don't want to derail this thread, so I'll just give a link to a 35 page thread where this question is being debated. Suffice it to say that many posters on that thread (including me) think there is a important sense of "interesting" that is not synonymous with "severely threatening" and which is well supported by the introduction of per-encounter resources and which can survive the retention of per-day resources.

 

[Celebrim]

I don't want to derail this thread, so I'll just give a link to a 35 page thread where this question is being debated.

If you'll dig back into the first 10 or so pages of that thread, you'll see that I was a participant at one point. For an overview of the highlights of my contribution, see: here and here and here and here and here and here andhere and here and
here and here and
here and here and here.

Also, see IMO one of the most important posts in the whole thread by Imaro here.

I believe you jumped into the thread (to respond to me no less) about the time I felt everything interesting that could be said had been said, and that the various sides were just going around in circles. I haven't really paid attention to the thread in a while, as it has reached the point in a threads life cycle where not only is it going around in circles, but it has developed its own specialized internal jargon for discussing itself. At this rate, posters will just start numbering the most salient points and conduct a debate solely by posting the number.

 

[Xyl]

If you have to make a workaround, there is a problem.

This is the single most succinct argument for changing the game I have seen so far. Bravo.

 

[Plane Sailing]

...snip...
Just trying to chase off everybody who isn't jumping up and down with cheer at the sheer mention of 4E? Had a bad day and need to vent your frustration on somebody who simply answers a posed question? Got a personal problem with me? What is it, huh? I'd like a good reason to not report you for harassment, you know...

...etc...

Geron, inappropriate behaviour, unnecessarily rude and aggressive.

Take a 3 day break to think this over.

(edited to clarify precise reason for moderation)

 

[Baby Samurai]

It sounds like it might be the game I have wanted D&D to be for the past 20 years.




…But it might actually suck donkey schlong.

 

[hopeless]

Is 4e d&d more d&dish than 3e?

Don't know, personally I thought 3.0 was better than 3.5 but thats because there was less books to worry about and I could use the vancian system for the psionic rules and make them work much better than what they come up with.

Bought 3.5 and then Eberron mostly out of curiousity though Eberron is whats keeping my interest, that is until 4e was announced.

Actually didn't find the teaser video that bad, would have preferred they at least demonstrated what they had developed so far, the backwards compatibility is one problem they really should have considered but it looks like they really want people to buy 4e and 4e part 2, 3,4,5 etc..

I don't care for tieflings becoming core, and absolutely loathe the idea of warlocks since I still think the one area they really messed up in 3e was downplaying sorcerors instead of making them a true character class instead of leaving most dms I've played with the absurd idea that they're a sub class of wizard when it should have been made clear they're not.

Sorry but the news about Faerun has given me an idea on how to explain why tieflings can be core and warlocks are the new class for the bad guys and not pcs unless they're evil aligned PERIOD.

So it comes down to the simple fact we'll have to wait and see... and pray for the best even if the podcasts make me think they're morons...