Essentials' "Give Backs"

[jeffh]

Sorry, I've played every edition except 3.x basically and I'm just going to have to totally disagree with you here. It isn't even close. 4e (and I would say 3.x in general though with the understanding that I haven't really studied it much) is VASTLY more complex than AD&D, Basic, or OD&D. I can't even comprehend how someone could come to any other conclusion with a straight face. Either you haven't played AD&D or your memory of the system has been badly clouded by time.

Late 2e STARTED to reach the levels of complexity that exist in 4e, but you could still play a dirt simple fighter. Said character could be described by class, race, level, xp, ability scores, hit points, AC, weapons, proficiencies, and not much else. It can easily fit on a single sheet of paper with a big chunk of empty space left over. Even a 2e wizard is significantly less complex than ANY 4e character, even an Essentials Slayer. The game is MUCH simpler in play too, generally speaking. Things COULD get ugly with certain types of monsters in play at higher levels but IN GENERAL it was a less complex system for players by a LOT.

I don't think it's as clear-cut as all that. For example, no-one used the 1E initiative system as written; it's labyrinthine, much more complex than any comparable mechanic in 4E. A long time ago there was a whole big thread on it here and eventually a Word document several pages long was produced that attempted to make sense of it all. But I know of no-one who even tried to play it as written; everyone house-ruled it, often without intending to or even consciously realizing that was what they were doing.

Unarmed combat and psionic combat were equally... interesting. Of course most people avoided at least the first of these, and a fair number house-ruled the second out of existence; but again, we're talking about the RAW here. Even in normal combat, I don't know anyone who worried much about space requirements, and almost nobody played with the weapon versus armour type rules.

Surprise, healing and recovering spells, experience, even something as simple as listening at doors all had a lot of rules that were complex, cumbersome, and even mutually contradictory. But again, few people played these as written, and of those who didn't, few even realized they weren't playing them as written.

Even in terms of character options, sure, fighters and thieves were very simple compared to 4E characters, but to borrow a phrase of yours, I can't comprehend how anyone could say the same of wizards with a straight face. Perhaps, through long experience, you got to where it was second nature, lots of people did; however, I also know plenty of people who found 1E spellcasters overwhelming, some of whom think 4E is about perfect in terms of complexity.

(Let me add that one of my worries when 4E was on the way was precisely that they seemed to be doing away with that feature of having different characters at different levels of complexity; I felt it would limit the game's appeal. This is by no means an unqualified positive for 4E. And the designers seem to now think much the same, since they have reintroduced that element to a certain extent.)

Prefer whichever one you prefer; it's probably neither possible nor desirable for anyone to persuade you to change your mind on that. But I do think it behooves you to get your facts right; perhaps the unwittingly house-ruled version of 1E you played was clearly simpler than 4E, but the comparison between the two rulesets as written is not nearly so straightforward as you suggest.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Okay, admittedly i am interested in how they implement a "Essentialized" Warlord. Not sure if they are willing to give up INspiring Word, but I think Mearls might be doing just that. Leaving the same-old "Healing Surge"+X healing 2/encounter and give something that works just as well but has a better "mechanical flavor".

I wonder. The core of the "scream your head back on" issue is the Healing Surge mechanic, which is still very much in the game. Using a healing surge during combat with your Second Wind is seen as tending to your own wounds in some respect, and doesn't break the game reality too heavily.

The Warlord's core healing mechanic lets you heal yourself more effectively by enabling you to spend Healing Surges quicker (using their own actions).

So if the only difference was that, say, it didn't work while you were unconscious. Or if it gave you Temp HP instead. Or if it simply gave you a free action of some sort. Or if it had an aura that let everyone spend an extra healing surge while they were in it. Or some other really simple fix. It might not even be much of an issue. The fluff is "you bind your own wounds," the Warlord just lets you do it more often than usual.

Which is part of the pattern of Essentials. The rules are still basically the same, but they're meshed a little better with what you might expect.

Versus the Cleric, who heals your wounds for you.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I have to agree somewhat with jeffh's last paragraph: nobody I know personally has ever used AD&D in it's unaltered form- nearly everyone dropped weapon speed factors, for instance.

Still, to my eye, the complexity of AD&D was more modular and thus, more easily removed than in 3.X or 4Ed, where the complexity suffused the systems.

 

[TarionzCousin]

I have to agree somewhat with jeffh's last paragraph: nobody I know personally has ever used AD&D in it's unaltered form- nearly everyone dropped weapon speed factors, for instance.

I ran AD&D for years and used the weapon speed factors. The look on the bastard-sword player's face when he had to add +8 (?) to his initiative vs. the monster's natural weapon +0 was priceless.

However, I did have some other homerules and alterations.

 

[AllisterH]

In my neck of the woods, we didn't use weapon speeds (or casting time) with the 1e initiative system...we DID though with the 2e initiative system....

As mentioned, the 1e initiative system wasn't what I would call "straightforward".

 

[jeffh]

I didn't mention speed factors because I did occasionally see those used, both to break initiative ties in 1E and for their more extensive intended use in 2E. Most people I know of first- or second-hand eventually decided they were unfair and/or too cumbersome and dropped them, but I've seen people give them a shot.

(I never, however, knew anyone who played by the rule that said a dagger got multiple attacks on a polearm user in 1E, and most people IME are extremely surprised when they even learn that rule existed.)

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I can't say I ever saw that one...but then again, I don't remember a single polearm being used in our games.

 

[TarionzCousin]

I can't say I ever saw that one...but then again, I don't remember a single polearm being used in our games.

One guy I knew always played characters who used the well-known "Pike + Whip" combination.

 

[TerraDave]

Sigh. Are we getting back into this?

I didn't mention speed factors because I did occasionally see those used, both to break initiative ties in 1E and for their more extensive intended use in 2E. Most people I know of first- or second-hand eventually decided they were unfair and/or too cumbersome and dropped them, but I've seen people give them a shot.

(I never, however, knew anyone who played by the rule that said a dagger got multiple attacks on a polearm user in 1E, and most people IME are extremely surprised when they even learn that rule existed.)

But isn't this only true with tied initiative?

 

[CovertOps]

Let us not forget the (1e) ever popular weapon vs AC attack adjustment chart. Also that the chart didn't go below AC 2 so you had to "guess" what "armor type" a given opponent was wearing if their AC was below 2 (and sometimes you wanted to do that even if their AC was 2 or above).