First Edition feel with 4E rules
- Thread starter Zelligars Apprentice
- Start date
You got your PHB & DMG in 77 eh?
Time traveller exposed.
lol, time travelling one direction, aging
I am in my 40's now and started when I was in junior high.
Maybe that added to the game, being that age when I discovered it. Now, I am old and cynical, and when I see all these silly "old school feel" games, I have to wonder who they are trying to sell them too. Old school players play the original games, not new stuff. Who the heck wants to learn a bunch of new rules that are supposed to be like a game you already know, but you can't log on without someone posting about an old school feel to a new game, I don't know, I guess it sells to the kids.
Lanefan
Victoria Rules
In this case, perhaps not.
During the 2e era there was, I think, a book put out that had every magic item ever seen in the game, all tabluated in one place. If you're looking for variety, there it is.
True, but a magic item is still a magic item, wherever it comes from; and 2e wasn't all that different than 1e in its items in any case.
Lanefan
Neonchameleon
Legend
No. You know a creature was a minion because he died in one hit. After you have explored you know.
So change it. Add in different items. And I've been in several games with different item identification rules.
They pretty much always are in older editions. Or do you mean that spells were only ever daily powers before 4e? (As for spell resistance, instead spells miss these days).
Uh-uh. DCs and effects up to the DM.
Why do you need to make the players' abilities rather than the world mysterious to them? Durations are now normally more random than ever (save ends). And other random variables are normally one shot (hit points) or a part of the world rather than the PCs themselves.
Two key words started that sentence. "By default." The whole premise of this thread is what do you change. By changing the treasure allocation, you aren't even houseruling 4e. You're just moving it off the default setting.
Again, this is an easy tweak. Change the reward metric, as I suggested. I would also point out that 2e experience points are not gained the same way as 1e experience points; in 2e you gain extra experience points from doing class-ly things. In 1e you gained three times as much experience from treasure (on average) as from fighting, based on published modules.
Yes. Spell casting with room to do it isn't now as deadly. And I can't really see how to bring that back (or if I'd want to). You have a point.
And in 4e if I throw 40 Orc Warriors (L9 minions) at a level 9 party, that's probably to be a very nasty fight unless the wizard specialises at this sort of thing. If it's 37 Orc Warriors, the Chieftain (Level 8 elite Brute), the Champion (Orc Bloodrager - level 7 Elite Brute), and the shaman (an out of his league Eye of Gruumsh) this is going to get extremely messy.
And you think terrain isn't vastly important in 4e?
They have - and most new solos are a lot better at protecting their actions. And the way they take down solos like that is by blowing their daily allocation - equivalent to the wizard and cleric burning through their entire spell allocation for the day and leaving just the melee people standing. That gets through a lot if it can be done.
*headdesk*
Balance is a tool that gives the DM better information. Just because the advice says that something is generally the best course of action doesn't mean that a DM needs to DM that way. The DM simply has a better idea of what will work.
Hint: The reason minions get people to blow area powers is because if they do not, they will be overwhelmed. Minions do more damage for the encounter budget than anything else. They simply don't survive very long. You kill the minions fast because you need to. Otherwise you will be overwhelmed.
It's only not compatable if you take the default assumptions and then claim that they are the only way the game can be played. As the mere existence of Dark Sun demonstrates, they are not. So simply saying the default methods are not compatable with old school methods adds nothing to the thread unless you are saying why they can't be changed. Which you are not.
And it takes surprisingly few tweaks to change the style of a game.
Or strugling for survival in the face of a post apocalyptic nightmare world where every day of water is precious and if you go to town the secret police are going to look harshly on you (Dark Sun).
And the rules could never possibly be used for a high fantasy game. I mean it's not as if it uses the same basic rules as Burning Wheel or anything...
Actually, Dogs in the Vineyard works for any high individual conflict game where violence is not necessarily the first resort.
Yeah, you got me there - but then I've never really thought about using the Maid rules. Or even reading them. On the other hand I know people have used My Life With Master to run such diverse games as Paranoia, a mother in a trailer park with her kids, a mediaeval court, Repo! The Genetic Opera, and someone was planning to use them to run a game of Changeling. It just takes a little imagination and a very few house rules (if that).
Last edited:
WizarDru
Adventurer
Can you recreate AD&D feel in 4e? I'm sure you can. But it would be a very personal design choice.
Arumvorax's description of what AD&D was is entirely correct....for him. Much of what he describes did NOT describe my 1e experience at all. Not the campaigns I ran or played in. The games he describes were hardcore, with DMs acting as direct opponents in some cases. Our games rarely ever ran like that. We were heavy into narrative and metaplot almost from the beginning. There wasn't an air of 'foolish players, you shouldn't have done that! Now I'll show you why you're all wrong!' I knew of games like that and didn't see anything wrong with them, but that wasn't the style we enjoyed. We were recreating some of our favorite fiction and ideas, playing more as a shared narrative than a tactical exercise more related to the kind of play you'd see in Wizardry.
Recreating a 1e feel would be totally different for us than for others. Our AD&D game had me turn into a half-demon through the use of a magic pearl, fight alongside orcish objectivist samurai against a purple worm, enslaved in an ancient city-state, fighting elemental dragons and pretending to be a zombie to fool an ogre invasion. It didn't always make a lot of sense, but it was HELLA-FUN. And really, that's what 1e was to us.
Arumvorax's description of what AD&D was is entirely correct....for him. Much of what he describes did NOT describe my 1e experience at all. Not the campaigns I ran or played in. The games he describes were hardcore, with DMs acting as direct opponents in some cases. Our games rarely ever ran like that. We were heavy into narrative and metaplot almost from the beginning. There wasn't an air of 'foolish players, you shouldn't have done that! Now I'll show you why you're all wrong!' I knew of games like that and didn't see anything wrong with them, but that wasn't the style we enjoyed. We were recreating some of our favorite fiction and ideas, playing more as a shared narrative than a tactical exercise more related to the kind of play you'd see in Wizardry.
Recreating a 1e feel would be totally different for us than for others. Our AD&D game had me turn into a half-demon through the use of a magic pearl, fight alongside orcish objectivist samurai against a purple worm, enslaved in an ancient city-state, fighting elemental dragons and pretending to be a zombie to fool an ogre invasion. It didn't always make a lot of sense, but it was HELLA-FUN. And really, that's what 1e was to us.
Aurumvorax
First Post
[MENTION=87792]Neonchameleon[/MENTION] I'm not going to quote everything you wrote but a few key things:
This is personal opinion but I feel it cheapens a game when I have to tell people "That chapter on items? Forget it, I'm not using it." I could come up with different identify rules but that's another balancing act within 4e's strict internal structure. Do I charge them money like in other editions? I really don't want to because money is tighter in 4e than any other edition. A skill check would work but frankly I never liked skills even in 2e and 3e. In the end you'll give it to the "expert" who almost never fails and you're basically just delaying what could have been hand-waved in 5 minutes.
Since this topic is about 1st edition "feel" I like it when people experiment with their equipment. Identify was always an option in AD&D but it poisoned you making it an unappealing choice for any wizard. You can't do this with 4e items since they're all battle dependent. The experimentation is "I activate the item's daily power, tell me what happens?"
If you want an AD&D feel the first thing I suggest is making daily powers encounter powers. Players should want to use items because in almost every condition a PCs at-will abilities are better than an item's dailies.
I mean not being 100% sure something won't blow up in your face. I can't interrupt an enemy's power in 4e. I don't have to take into effect random durations for abilities like fly. I don't have to worry about teleporting away from my destination, losing my mind when I contact an extraplanar creature, or ruining the potion in my backpack because a fireball hit me.
Everything works in 4e as its intended to. Some people like this but it goes against the 1st edition feel.
Because there is no mystery when you know how everything will work. You know that the trap around the hall will only burn through your healing surges meaning another day to rest. You know the monster's disease doesn't pose a real threat because you have 3 different attempts at 50% each to recover. Magic items are already listed for the players so where's the mystery in discovering them? Why should the DM go through the trouble of making his own magic items when their only purpose in the game is to give a +whatever bonus here and a duplicate of a common power?
Magic items in 4e are completely worthless. The Dark Sun setting is awesome because it insists on using inherent bonuses and tossing away magic item bloat. In this way the character's powers are the highlight and they don't have to worry about treasure parcels and the like. Their money is spent on buying supplies so they don't die horribly in the wilderness. That's closer to the AD&D feel right there.
The change is a fundamental part of the game. The "default" is what's assumed in in every single 4e book. If I change one thing in 4e then I follow a domino effect for each source I use.
No, I'd rather nix magic items altogether but most 4e players aren't expecting that.
Another domino effect. I could reduce the amount monster's are worth but combat in 4e takes long enough as is. If I change experience then I'll also have to change how parcels are obtained or just do away with parcels altogether. This means careful management of what treasure PCs get, when, and where.
Balance is to keep the game flowing in a clear direction. As much as I like AD&D, it's lack of clear guidelines on treasure and experience lead to the famous Monty Haul sessions or players being of vastly varying power. If you ignore the rules then your game will fall apart. That last statement is based on personal experience but I have yet to play a single D&D game where more than a handful of house rules didn't turn into an absolute mess.
The number of games that go from level 1 to 30 is disproportionately less than games that end after a few levels. This could be attributed to a number of reasons but I can guarantee you that people who rewrite the game find their campaigns ending a lot sooner than those that don't.
Dark Sun does absolutely nothing the game wasn't intended to do. DMG1 already had inherent bonuses. They removed the ridiculously retarded 3/3/3 rule and instead give an abstracted "supply" list. They added in a couple of features from PHBIII to incorporate psionics and profane magic.
I've been doing what Dark Sun has established since the game came out. All the setting did was combine the new material made over the past 2 years in a single campaign setting.
What's your definition of few because judging by the number of points you quoted, by the number of bullets in the average poster's laundry list of ideas, by the number of times this topic has appeared since Essentials was released and Wizards teased us by reusing the Basic Set red box I'd say the tweaks you have to make are more than a few.
-Use magic items not in the PHB (count 1 point for every new item you create)
-Use a system of identify that isn't "fondle object for five minutes"
-Redefine the way experience points and encounters are designed
-Give more oomph to spells/rituals (1 point for each spell/ritual you redesign)
-Make traps deadlier and conditions more debilitating (1 point for each one you change)
-Devise a system where monsters can join in a battle without lopsiding the fight and ruining the action economy
-Devise a system of handing out treasure that doesn't ensure players can buy every magic foo under the sun or don't come out empty handed
-Change extended rest so it doesn't instantly heal you of cancer in 8 hours
That's more than a few.
Even though I can walk into town and buy food/water for a piddling amount a day and basically never run out unless the DM says "Okay, that's a enough." The post-apocalyptic nightmare where monsters roam every corner is already what the Points of Light concept incorporates minus the stretch of desert.
Mouse Guard's similarities with Burning Wheel end at how you throw the dice and simplified combat, making up about 20 total pages. 4e's basic rules include 16 pages of races, 112 pages of classes, 14 pages of skills, 18 pages of feats, 45 pages of equipment, and 29 pages of combat. If I wanted to make derivitive product or change the way the game plays and feels, I'd need to alter the contents of your average RPG.
But violence is often the best resort. I gain no bonuses to my dice with talking. Physical tests in Dogs is rewarded by adding bonuses from your items and by Dog's design the fallout for combat is more narrative than mechanical meaning it's actually better from a roleplaying perspective to approach things with forcefulness and hostility.
Your mileage varies, of course, but I'm trying to speak primarily in mechanics. AD&D's modular design gave you the freedom necessary to say "damn the rules, full speed ahead!" Your experience in 1e was a free reign narrative and I argue that this is only possible in a game that doesn't stress so many tactical options.
The Essentials Red Box perfectly encompasses everything 4e is about and I feel this closes the argument. "Heroes don't hide, heroes don't refuse adventure hooks, and heroes throw themselves in danger" to sum the entire thing up. Every edition of D&D ever has described the PCs as great heroes but they never said "BTW your hero is assumed to act in this manner..." until now.
For example, what would happen if the same character became a half-demon in 4e? Would you change his race into a tiefling? Would you write up a couple of encounter powers and change ability scores around? Or would it simply be hand waved as a cosmetic change? In all cases but the latter, it's a major change to the way the character is run and the assumed "balance" of the game. The DM would have more work on his hands as he ad-hocs new situations based on something that goes against what 4e assumes.
--------------
This is a lot of crap and this is a very touchy subject but my question remains unanswered: why go through the effort of modifying a game to do something it wasn't designed to do?
This is a difficult subject because there's no real evidence, but from personal experience I've never played in a long lasting game based on heavy house rules. House rulings are an accepted (and expected) result of playing a game but when your rules reach a point where the resulting changes is longer than another game of the same type, just play that game!
4e is a well designed game because the designers built it around clear assumptions. I'm not comfortable with the idea of butchering a product like Dr. Frankenstein and turning it into a shambling, mindless monster . It might be entertaining for a few sessions but after a while I just want to play the original. Every old edition of D&D is available in some modern incarnate that's 99% true to its source. Give me that instead of a new car with a crappy engine inside it.
I wonder what will happen 30 years from now assuming D&D is still ongoing. Will we see topics like "4e feel with 9e rules?"
This is personal opinion but I feel it cheapens a game when I have to tell people "That chapter on items? Forget it, I'm not using it." I could come up with different identify rules but that's another balancing act within 4e's strict internal structure. Do I charge them money like in other editions? I really don't want to because money is tighter in 4e than any other edition. A skill check would work but frankly I never liked skills even in 2e and 3e. In the end you'll give it to the "expert" who almost never fails and you're basically just delaying what could have been hand-waved in 5 minutes.
Since this topic is about 1st edition "feel" I like it when people experiment with their equipment. Identify was always an option in AD&D but it poisoned you making it an unappealing choice for any wizard. You can't do this with 4e items since they're all battle dependent. The experimentation is "I activate the item's daily power, tell me what happens?"
If you want an AD&D feel the first thing I suggest is making daily powers encounter powers. Players should want to use items because in almost every condition a PCs at-will abilities are better than an item's dailies.
I mean not being 100% sure something won't blow up in your face. I can't interrupt an enemy's power in 4e. I don't have to take into effect random durations for abilities like fly. I don't have to worry about teleporting away from my destination, losing my mind when I contact an extraplanar creature, or ruining the potion in my backpack because a fireball hit me.
Everything works in 4e as its intended to. Some people like this but it goes against the 1st edition feel.
Because there is no mystery when you know how everything will work. You know that the trap around the hall will only burn through your healing surges meaning another day to rest. You know the monster's disease doesn't pose a real threat because you have 3 different attempts at 50% each to recover. Magic items are already listed for the players so where's the mystery in discovering them? Why should the DM go through the trouble of making his own magic items when their only purpose in the game is to give a +whatever bonus here and a duplicate of a common power?
Magic items in 4e are completely worthless. The Dark Sun setting is awesome because it insists on using inherent bonuses and tossing away magic item bloat. In this way the character's powers are the highlight and they don't have to worry about treasure parcels and the like. Their money is spent on buying supplies so they don't die horribly in the wilderness. That's closer to the AD&D feel right there.
The change is a fundamental part of the game. The "default" is what's assumed in in every single 4e book. If I change one thing in 4e then I follow a domino effect for each source I use.
No, I'd rather nix magic items altogether but most 4e players aren't expecting that.
Another domino effect. I could reduce the amount monster's are worth but combat in 4e takes long enough as is. If I change experience then I'll also have to change how parcels are obtained or just do away with parcels altogether. This means careful management of what treasure PCs get, when, and where.
Balance is to keep the game flowing in a clear direction. As much as I like AD&D, it's lack of clear guidelines on treasure and experience lead to the famous Monty Haul sessions or players being of vastly varying power. If you ignore the rules then your game will fall apart. That last statement is based on personal experience but I have yet to play a single D&D game where more than a handful of house rules didn't turn into an absolute mess.
The number of games that go from level 1 to 30 is disproportionately less than games that end after a few levels. This could be attributed to a number of reasons but I can guarantee you that people who rewrite the game find their campaigns ending a lot sooner than those that don't.
Dark Sun does absolutely nothing the game wasn't intended to do. DMG1 already had inherent bonuses. They removed the ridiculously retarded 3/3/3 rule and instead give an abstracted "supply" list. They added in a couple of features from PHBIII to incorporate psionics and profane magic.
I've been doing what Dark Sun has established since the game came out. All the setting did was combine the new material made over the past 2 years in a single campaign setting.
What's your definition of few because judging by the number of points you quoted, by the number of bullets in the average poster's laundry list of ideas, by the number of times this topic has appeared since Essentials was released and Wizards teased us by reusing the Basic Set red box I'd say the tweaks you have to make are more than a few.
-Use magic items not in the PHB (count 1 point for every new item you create)
-Use a system of identify that isn't "fondle object for five minutes"
-Redefine the way experience points and encounters are designed
-Give more oomph to spells/rituals (1 point for each spell/ritual you redesign)
-Make traps deadlier and conditions more debilitating (1 point for each one you change)
-Devise a system where monsters can join in a battle without lopsiding the fight and ruining the action economy
-Devise a system of handing out treasure that doesn't ensure players can buy every magic foo under the sun or don't come out empty handed
-Change extended rest so it doesn't instantly heal you of cancer in 8 hours
That's more than a few.
Even though I can walk into town and buy food/water for a piddling amount a day and basically never run out unless the DM says "Okay, that's a enough." The post-apocalyptic nightmare where monsters roam every corner is already what the Points of Light concept incorporates minus the stretch of desert.
Mouse Guard's similarities with Burning Wheel end at how you throw the dice and simplified combat, making up about 20 total pages. 4e's basic rules include 16 pages of races, 112 pages of classes, 14 pages of skills, 18 pages of feats, 45 pages of equipment, and 29 pages of combat. If I wanted to make derivitive product or change the way the game plays and feels, I'd need to alter the contents of your average RPG.
But violence is often the best resort. I gain no bonuses to my dice with talking. Physical tests in Dogs is rewarded by adding bonuses from your items and by Dog's design the fallout for combat is more narrative than mechanical meaning it's actually better from a roleplaying perspective to approach things with forcefulness and hostility.
Your mileage varies, of course, but I'm trying to speak primarily in mechanics. AD&D's modular design gave you the freedom necessary to say "damn the rules, full speed ahead!" Your experience in 1e was a free reign narrative and I argue that this is only possible in a game that doesn't stress so many tactical options.
The Essentials Red Box perfectly encompasses everything 4e is about and I feel this closes the argument. "Heroes don't hide, heroes don't refuse adventure hooks, and heroes throw themselves in danger" to sum the entire thing up. Every edition of D&D ever has described the PCs as great heroes but they never said "BTW your hero is assumed to act in this manner..." until now.
For example, what would happen if the same character became a half-demon in 4e? Would you change his race into a tiefling? Would you write up a couple of encounter powers and change ability scores around? Or would it simply be hand waved as a cosmetic change? In all cases but the latter, it's a major change to the way the character is run and the assumed "balance" of the game. The DM would have more work on his hands as he ad-hocs new situations based on something that goes against what 4e assumes.
--------------
This is a lot of crap and this is a very touchy subject but my question remains unanswered: why go through the effort of modifying a game to do something it wasn't designed to do?
This is a difficult subject because there's no real evidence, but from personal experience I've never played in a long lasting game based on heavy house rules. House rulings are an accepted (and expected) result of playing a game but when your rules reach a point where the resulting changes is longer than another game of the same type, just play that game!
4e is a well designed game because the designers built it around clear assumptions. I'm not comfortable with the idea of butchering a product like Dr. Frankenstein and turning it into a shambling, mindless monster . It might be entertaining for a few sessions but after a while I just want to play the original. Every old edition of D&D is available in some modern incarnate that's 99% true to its source. Give me that instead of a new car with a crappy engine inside it.
I wonder what will happen 30 years from now assuming D&D is still ongoing. Will we see topics like "4e feel with 9e rules?"
Neonchameleon
Legend
I'm now going to ask you a simple question: Have you ever played 4e with a group that liked the game? Because you sure don't understand it from your list.
You mean use magic items not in PHB1,2,3, Adventurer's Vault 1 or 2, Primal/Martial/Arcane/Divine/Psionic Power, either DMG, or any world guide? And then don't use the new Essentials item rarity rules?
As for not creating magic items, next you'll tell me not to create homebrew monsters.
Your only point on the list.
Changing exps is a simple tweak with far reaching consequences. As for encounters, the goal is to play in a specific style. You can play in that style without setting encounters for it?
Unnecessary.
How about none? But homebrew traps are now banned? I guess I'll just have to put away Grimtooth's Traps.
Wait, what? 4e works fine with multiple monsters and attacks in waves.
This reads like something you've read on a message board and not actually understood. The problem is with locking down solos. And that's because a solo is approximately 80%+ of the enemy force in a given fight most of the time. Giving simple debuffs a disproportionate effect. (Stun an elite and a regular monster and on average half the enemy is still fighting that round. Stun a solo and all that's left for the round is his minions and traps).
Already been done by the official (Essentials) rules.
And once more you demonstrate a lack of understanding of 4e rules even from the earliest books. Cancer would be an obvious use of the condition track (normally poisons/diseases).
It depends why. Because I'm not telling them "forget it, I'm not using it". I'm telling them "I want to run a game in this style. Here's what I think will make the mechanics fit the rules."
4e is more robust than people give it credit for. So are most games.
Wait, what?
I've got weapon breakage rules in one of my current games. From Dark Sun.
News to my Warlord. Interrupt powers, countercharges, held actions. Yes I can interrupt an enemy's power. I just need to think to do it.
0I don't have to take into effect random durations for abilities like fly. I don't have to worry about teleporting away from my destination, losing my mind when I contact an extraplanar creature, or ruining the potion in my backpack because a fireball hit me.
Everything works in 4e as its intended to. Some people like this but it goes against the 1st edition feel.
Unless it's poisoned. Because many poisons use the condition track. Or it's a chute leading somewhere. Or...
Once again you are ignoring the condition track. Used by such things as Quori brain seeds, rot grubs, mummies, and lycanthropes. Fail that first recovery roll - and (a) it gets worse and (b) you now need two successes to recover.
You mean the players never read the DMG back in the day.
[quot]Why should the DM go through the trouble of making his own magic items when their only purpose in the game is to give a +whatever bonus here and a duplicate of a common power?[/quote]
I don't know. But you've clearly never read AVII. Or the DMG/DMGII and artifacts. Or seen any of the new item rules.
In the same way that most +1 swords in the old rules were worthless. Right. Special pleading.
Rules that came from the DMGII. And because the math was clear I drew houserules that predated that.
"The AD&D feel?" What? Monty Haul?
Except the DMG 2. And Dark Sun. And that's off the top of my head.
Congratulations. There's no game you are allowed to houserule even if you understand the consequences.
So tell them upfront. They will expect it if you tell them what you are doing and why.
The whole point is to make combat less rewarding. I'm not suggesting changing the size of encounters. Just the reward the PCs get at the end.
So apparently you can not put treasure in an adventure? And consider yourself able to run an old school game? Parcels are merely a means of keeping score.
That's why you keep them simple and clear. Which is what I'm proposing. Mangling subtle numbers so everyone trips over themselves is a problem. Also: Calling Raven Crowking - 100 pages of house rules, wasn't it?
AD&D was as far as I know, almost never run straight out of the book.
And how many games do you know that ran from 1-20 in previous editions?
And by doing so elegantly changed the feel.
See above for quite how wrong your list was. I quoted two. Changing identify is a third.
[quotre]Mouse Guard's similarities with Burning Wheel end at how you throw the dice and simplified combat, making up about 20 total pages. 4e's basic rules include 16 pages of races, 112 pages of classes, 14 pages of skills, 18 pages of feats, 45 pages of equipment, and 29 pages of combat. If I wanted to make derivitive product or change the way the game plays and feels, I'd need to alter the contents of your average RPG.[/quote]
I'll add exception based design to the list of things you don't quite get.
The tactical options are just that. Tactical. Once weapons are drawn. And you only have a few seconds to think. Outside combat, 4e is rules light.
Straw man. The red box also points out that hiding in the wagon would be stupid. That the goblins would find you anyway so you'd have to fight. Straw man twice over. The red box does give you an option to hide and stab the goblins from behind. That way you end up as a rogue. Straw man three times over. You start the scenario already in danger. It's hardly throwing yourself in danger if it has come to you.
Having changed a PC into an undead flaming zombie, I can only say that this isn't the case.
Why use a BMW engine rather than one belonging to a kitbash car?
And I have listed precisely two house rules. You have added a third (item identification).
Probably.
Aurumvorax
First Post
Yes. It's the only game I play in and occasionally run offline because my friends have moved on and don't want to look back.
If I want to retain mystery, I would not use magic items found in any books players are expected to own and use. That instantly rules out 80% of your list.
My point isn't an aversion to creating magic items, it's the fact that I'm doing extra work for no reason. The magic items in D&D are fine as is but they should not be in the player's hands if the game expected to keep any sense of wonder or unknown to the players.
I don't know what your point is here. The AD&D style is that experience comes from recovering treasure and completing quests. The 4e style is fighting monsters. Your defense is to reduce monster experience and assign an experience value to the treasure. My offense is that the "I roll and find it" skills like perception negate the point of even hiding treasure because "Oops, I rolled a 30 and found your hidden cache."
The only way to fix this is force the characters to specifically designate what they're searching for but this now undermines a major skill.
Spells are a major factor in the AD&D feel making it very necessary. Rituals are, in almost all conditions except raising your character, a waste of resources. Majority of them do little more than save you time from more manual labor.
I don't know what your point is here.
I'm not talking about waves, I'm talking about the battle increasing beyond the experience point budget. Waves are easy. 10 minions that appear after the previous group of 10 is an easy fight. 40 minions at once is not an easy fight.
My point is that large battles in 4e are not manageable because so many things happen during a round. In Gygax's modules, alerting a base would have every single enemy rushing to get you at once. In 4e, I have to use waves or suffer from "I move this guy here, opportunity attack, this guy here, interrupt, this guy there, okay another interrupt, this guy..."
So Essentials keeps a newly created player from having more wealth than a player who actually levels up? That's another hit on the parcel system as devised; in a 10 parcel system with the level + 5 rule, two people in a 5 man party will always come out empty handed.
DM: Player B has blinding sickness. Make a heal check.
Player A: I'm a level 8 cleric and use my heal check in his place. +5 from wisdom, +4 level bonus, +5 trained bonus, the other 5 characters aid me for a total +24 bonus. I roll a 2 and succeed.
Based on the leaked DM sheet, essentials reduces the difficulty for skill checks. Say I give a character a level 5 hard disease which is a DC 22 to beat. A level 1 cleric has +3 from wisdom, +5 trained, and everyone in the five man party aids him for +18. You succeed 80% of the time making even the deadliest effect trivial.
I didn't even count the other typical bonuses such as background, feats, and items.
That's the exact same thing. "Don't expect to use this material because I'm changing it *presents printed paper of changes*"
Perhaps but my point being that there are more robust games out there. I'd rather play those.
I can list the number of times my players use an item's daily powers on one hand. It basically amounts to the same number of times a player normally uses a daily (read: when facing a solo or overwhelming minions).
Items with daily powers is 4e's worst idea ever. People don't like using one-shot items. With 4e, you always have a trick up your sleeve making one-shots even more unappealing than normal until the inevitable "boss" fight.
The rules which say you can accept the miss and keep your weapon? Not too exciting there.
Your rebuttal will probably be "then houserule it so weapons break regardless." Whatever you house rule, the fact that the game gives you the option of not breaking a weapon proves the designer's intent already.
I already explained the flaws of the condition track when it comes to skill checks. I don't care for the 50/50 aspect of saves either unless every poison I make implies a penalty to the saving throw. I don't see a point considering poisons do nothing but deal damage (which is instantly healed) or inflicts a condition like immobilized (which is useless outside combat). I could make a trap that inflicts a disease or saps healing surges but the party will just leave and return the next day.
DM: You find a chute in the corner.
Player A: Dungeoneering check. 25, master information. Tell me about it. Oh yeah, everyone aids my perception and I get a 30. I pretty much spot every trap in the room including the treasure you've probably hidden in here.
You forgot the saving throws for those. I have a 50% chance to contract the disease rolled once after combat.
Becoming infected can be debilitating but thankfully it's a minimum 80% check with any leader in the party to completely remove it. With essentials, I can't see anyone dedicated in a skill ever failing.
Honestly, no. I never did until I started playing as DM. I can't vouch for everyone, but it's not like it matters. If I give you a sword you're not going to figure out it's a flametongue +1 sword unless you pay a sage, wait a week, and see if he can discover the command word.
The adventurer's vaults are good sources but they're trumped by the combination of material found in PHB 1-3 and all the Powers books. I haven't incorporated artifacts into my games so the DMG's lists aren't appealing.
I have 2 sources of items that I can reasonably expect the players not to thumb through and surprise them with vs. 10+ sources that don't.
I don't know what your point is here. I don't need a magic weapon to damage an enemy in 4e. I most certainly need it to fight anything that's not an animal in AD&D. Even when that magic item overstays its welcome I can give it to my henchman and increase his base loyalty. I could keep it and use it as a bargaining chip when I demand the services of a demon.
In 4e, I can sell it for 1/5 of its base price which buys me an item 5 levels lower. Joy.
Perhaps I wasn't clear but I very well consider DMGII to be part of the "default" rules. They wouldn't have named it that, thus insinuating it's part of the "core" game, if it wasn't.
Knowing that your equipment was just as important as your skill. Or have we forgotten that, by default, 4E assumes humans can survive 3 days before dehydrating which is an average of 30 day process before dying?
If combat is so demanding, why am I getting fewer rewards? Players will grow frustrated that their hard work amounts to nothing.
No, it means you'll have to ensure players don't get stiffed because Player A got a level + 5 items the past three levels while Player C received level + 1 items the entire time.
But it's not changing the style or feel. Your changes, if applied by themselves, will do nothing to make me feel like I'm playing AD&D. Period. If you wanted to make me feel like I was playing an older edition, you would have to do a lot more than change how healing and identifying items works.
And Crowking pretty much wrote an entire OGL game... unless you consider things like Castles & Crusades to be nothing but houserules.
I ran it straight from the book. Now you know one person.
Without splat books galore? A lot. I ran three. With splat books like Players Options and all that garbage? None. I've also never seen a Basic game reach immortal levels.
My statement was a subjective one and has nothing to do with the topic so I'll let it drop.
But I'm still playing 4e and nothing has changed that feeling. I now have to tally my supplies and a few other conditions but if you told me "How does it stack with 2e Dark Sun?" I would say "On a completely separate level."
My argument is that your changes aren't enough. It simply doesn't give me the AD&D feel I'm looking for.
This is another subjective opinion as it's obvious AD&D meant different things to different people. I already told you my gripes but still magic, permanent conditions, hiring out helpers, and not relying on skills as a catch all for everything haven't been answered.
I'll say the same thing about you. Mouse Guard is entirely different from Burning Wheel. That's not an exception, that's modular. DMGII replaces magic items with the bonuses characters should be receiving. That's an exception based design.
So what's the difference between modular and exception? You don't step on the toes of another rule in modular. In AD&D, a modular game, I can add a rule without conflicting with another and use them both at the same time. In 4e, if I want inherent bonuses, I have to remove magic items; I can't have both without also boosting monsters.
Exception based rules don't create anything. That's why they're called exceptions. "This rule takes effect... unless another rule says it doesn't." If I made a derivative of 4e I would have to take combat and powers with me. Without it, it's not even 4e.
If you say so. Excuse me, I'm going to use my nature lore to completely map out my back yard. What kind of bluff do I need to convince the police officer the blunt in my mouth was actually a toothpick? An perception DC 12 is enough to see the barely noticeable pot hole in the ground, yes? *Yawn* I don't feel like talking to the dragon, I roll diplomacy and handle it myself.
Alternatively they could have given me the option to run away with the response "You run from adventure and will make nothing of yourself. Start again." Mentzer's basic set, the set which 4e reuses art from, did it. I don't think it's a strawman, I think it's very important facet of the game's intended design. "No, you don't run from danger ever!"
By all means, please post how you did it. I hope it was more interesting than +2 con, +2 dex, encounter power "flaming punch."
It's cheaper.
And Lanefan listed about 20 and other posters have contributed what they think might work. You're not the only person whose posted here.
I still stand by my statement. I play 4e to play 4e. Changes to the game, even after playing Dark Sun, don't change the fact that I'm quite well aware I'm playing 4e. I have yet to see house rules that alter the way 4e functions and is successful at it. If anyone wants to try and shut me up permanently, I invite you to do so. I will eat my favorite hat and tip a glass in your honor.
While you're busy making it, I'm going to go over here and just run the game you're trying to poorly emulate.
Neonchameleon
Legend
I am currently running two tables. At both of them to my certain knowledge three of the players also DM. (One overlap other than myself). At one of them, two of the players have been playing D&D longer than I've been alive. One of those who I do not believes DMs is a completist on books. I expect them not to have read the modules I'm running, and vise-versa. But to have not touched the books?
AD&D 1e. And my change is less experience for monsters, more for treasure.
So go back to old school pixelbitching. Where are you searching? I mean, Elves have an automatic chance of detecting secret doors in AD&D. Does that defeat the point of them?
Not really. Perception is damn powerful as it is to avoid ambushes. And to account for perception, give them a passive perception sweep of the room.
They just take creativity. Object reading and eyes of alarm have both saved our necks, and we've got a lot of mileage out of Tenser's Floating Disk and Bloom.
Nor is it meant to be. 40 minions and the PCs ought to be running.
Find me a minion with an interrupt power. Not many have them. This sort of thing is what minions are for.
I misunderstood, sorry.
You miss errata. Aid other fails have a -1. But is your problem really that the DCs aren't high enough.
You sure? I was under the impression hard checks had become harder.
So your problem is that the DCs are too low? Is that all?
"Here's what I'm thinking of changing and here's why? Your thoughts?"
My mileage varies.
That the DC is too low and doesn't account for aid-other spam?
... and find that the monsters had prepared for them.
Over half my players also DM. See above. And I didn't count ones thinking of it.
So you complain about items being dull and then don't use the complex and interesting ones?
The 3e Christmas Tree effect?
That is the point. Combat is big and cinematic. But doesn't get you very far. Low exp for monsters. As in 1e.
*yawn*
But it's not changing the style or feel. Your changes, if applied by themselves, will do nothing to make me feel like I'm playing AD&D. Period. If you wanted to make me feel like I was playing an older edition, you would have to do a lot more than change how healing and identifying items works.
Before that.
Really? Weapon vs armour type? Grappling?
The other difference, of course, is that in modular you can't see what the hell you are doing. (And you can have inherent and magic items - they simply don't stack).
Level 12 martial practice as well?
I don't know. How are you trying to convince him of that? Tell me and I'll assign easy, medium, or hard difficulty.
No. And I didn't mention it so how do you know about it?
Good luck. All hard DCs, no aid others. RP it and I'll drop it to medium unless you put your foot in your mouth (hard), or do something really clever (easy).
Insubstantial (i.e. half damage taken) unless put out by being drenched or hit with a cold attack. Aura - fire 5. Death saves were house ruled so unless the body was dropped in the river he'd get back up again. Hp reduced by 1/3 (but counterbalanced by being insubstantial).
But that's not what was asked for.
Similar Threads
- Poll
