Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Nest
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
First Edition Feel: Why Is This a Good Thing?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Neonchameleon" data-source="post: 6544397" data-attributes="member: 87792"><p>Indeed. Misconceptions are worth clearing up. Which is why I'm going to clear up one of yours.</p><p></p><p>4e and 1e used the same approach to design until Mike Mearls took over (and handed the lead to Pathfinder). If you read the 4e PHB you find two martial strikers and no martial controllers - indeed there was never a martial controller until Essentials. Each role in 4e was a collection of benchmarks of roughly how able someone should be if covering that spot in the party. And although a missing power/source combination acted as inspiration, there was never a need to fill holes. Which is why the Martial Controller was conspicuously absent until Mearls took over - and there was double duty in Martial Striker (Ranger/Rogue) and Arcane Leader (Bard/Artificer) even before the PHB3. It was just that when you designed a new class you tried comparing it to the benchmarks.</p><p></p><p>Now. Where does this fit with oD&D and 1E?</p><p></p><p>oD&D has class design also based on benchmarks of the Core 4. And indeed we can see this very clearly if we look at the 1E Monk. The benchmark class is, of course, the Thief just as the Druid's is the Cleric. How can we see this? First ignore everything after level 10 and the wandering around duelling - that's an endgame and part of an almost completely different game entirely. The Monk attacks on the same table as the thief. They have all thief abilities except Read Languages and Pick Pockets of a thief of the same level. They then have a similar number of HP to the thief; the thief gets d6hp/level - the monk gets d4/level and an extra d4. Pretty close. The thief gets extra damage from backstabbery 1/combat. The thief has terrible armour that's expected to go up to Elven Chain. The monk's is worse - no armour and a tiny AC bonus. Yes, the Monk gets additional abilities on top of this - but they get hit hard in the XP chart to compensate.</p><p></p><p>In short, the reason the monk was designed was because they thought it would be fun after watching the TV show Kung Fu. But the method used to design it was by taking one of the core four classes (the Thief) and tweaking it so you had another class able to fill the role the thief did. (This was a part of good game design that mid-2e lost when they came out with speciality priests without such basic benchmarks and was only brought back by 4e that made the benchmarks separate from the classes, and called them roles). The Balrog Mike Mornard played in oD&D was also designed by taking a class (the fighter IIRC) and tweaking it to make it Balroggy.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Neonchameleon, post: 6544397, member: 87792"] Indeed. Misconceptions are worth clearing up. Which is why I'm going to clear up one of yours. 4e and 1e used the same approach to design until Mike Mearls took over (and handed the lead to Pathfinder). If you read the 4e PHB you find two martial strikers and no martial controllers - indeed there was never a martial controller until Essentials. Each role in 4e was a collection of benchmarks of roughly how able someone should be if covering that spot in the party. And although a missing power/source combination acted as inspiration, there was never a need to fill holes. Which is why the Martial Controller was conspicuously absent until Mearls took over - and there was double duty in Martial Striker (Ranger/Rogue) and Arcane Leader (Bard/Artificer) even before the PHB3. It was just that when you designed a new class you tried comparing it to the benchmarks. Now. Where does this fit with oD&D and 1E? oD&D has class design also based on benchmarks of the Core 4. And indeed we can see this very clearly if we look at the 1E Monk. The benchmark class is, of course, the Thief just as the Druid's is the Cleric. How can we see this? First ignore everything after level 10 and the wandering around duelling - that's an endgame and part of an almost completely different game entirely. The Monk attacks on the same table as the thief. They have all thief abilities except Read Languages and Pick Pockets of a thief of the same level. They then have a similar number of HP to the thief; the thief gets d6hp/level - the monk gets d4/level and an extra d4. Pretty close. The thief gets extra damage from backstabbery 1/combat. The thief has terrible armour that's expected to go up to Elven Chain. The monk's is worse - no armour and a tiny AC bonus. Yes, the Monk gets additional abilities on top of this - but they get hit hard in the XP chart to compensate. In short, the reason the monk was designed was because they thought it would be fun after watching the TV show Kung Fu. But the method used to design it was by taking one of the core four classes (the Thief) and tweaking it so you had another class able to fill the role the thief did. (This was a part of good game design that mid-2e lost when they came out with speciality priests without such basic benchmarks and was only brought back by 4e that made the benchmarks separate from the classes, and called them roles). The Balrog Mike Mornard played in oD&D was also designed by taking a class (the fighter IIRC) and tweaking it to make it Balroggy. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
First Edition Feel: Why Is This a Good Thing?
Top