[Folks that like 4e] What are some things from previous editions that you miss?

[drothgery]

Wow. I don't think I've ever met anyone, in RL or online, who wanted to play a character like that.

Nothing wrong with it if that's what floats your boat, but I'm amazed.

I have, but I pretty much agree.

Still, given the new options in Divine Power, it's not too hard to play a limitted-offense cleric.

 

[hemera]

Wow. I don't think I've ever met anyone, in RL or online, who wanted to play a character like that.

Nothing wrong with it if that's what floats your boat, but I'm amazed.

Yeah, I'm an oddity

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

I keep thinking about it. I don't think 4E is perfect and there are probably a lot of things I'd like to explore, but there is not really something I would consider missing. Of course, my potential for missing something is limtied, since I started D&D with 3E and never tried the previous editions.

 

[Forgember]

I miss Darkvison on Dwarves though its a small price to pay to know for certain that the Dwarven women are beardless and sexy like I always thought they where.

I miss spells (yes the old system for casting), I know there are things in 4e that they label spells but its not the same. More specifically I miss spells as part of the Ranger class, yeah for the most part they where awful but they where MY AWFUL!

I also to some extent miss the wider variety of skills, was no real reason to take out the craft skills.

From 2e I miss the independence from magic gear, played some great 2e games where magic items where few and far between. Seems like 2e was more simulationist and I guess I miss that too. They even put historical facts in the old Arms and Equipment guide, think a love for history is what got me into DnD in the first place.

Oh that reminds me, I miss resource material on non magical gear and equipment. This is something they could really expand on in 4e which would be great.

 

[Remathilis]

Players willing to play.

 

[dangerous jack]

Aside from having the time to play every week for many more hours...

What I miss, mechanically speaking:
From BECMI - ability score bonuses only going to +3
From 2e/3e - racial ability score penalties
From 3e - skill focus only giving +3, less spread in skill bonuses among PCs (although even this was only true at low levels)

 

[Vartan]

More unique mechanics to differentiate classes.

Now the at will/encounter/daily structure works well, makes for good balance, and I don't think the classes play the same or feel indistinct, but I still miss classes operating in completely different fashions mechanically.

Other than that nothing is really springing to mind at the moment.

As a big-time 2E guy I agree: while I like the new Powers system for bringing structure and balance to the game, I miss the idea that my fighter just kept making melee attacks...and made them really, really well. I liked balancing out all of the details of my thief's abilities, or choosing spells for my Mage's spellbook. In 3E feats accomplished a lot in terms of building a character that is now accomplished with powers, but that system was oh-so-easy to break.

What I miss most is the inherent rarity and uniqueness of magic (and magic items) in 2E. The spells had weird effects which were cool even though they could be hard to resolve mechanically. I still don't feel at ease with the "Get your magic swords half off at K-Mart" feel of 3E and 4E, but that can be managed through RP.

Lastly, I miss some of 2E's splatbooks. The Arms & Equipment guide was great (even if those illustrations really should have been in the PHB) and the plethora of "kits" made it easy to run specialized characters and campaigns. I still read The Book of Villains...great stuff in there. The Campaign Sourcebook / Catacomb Guide was instrumental in helping gamers with the non-rules elements of the game, and the 4E DMG has admirably filled that gap: IMO it is the single best guide to starting, designing and managing a campaign and facilitating a fun tabletop experience. I think that gamers of all systems could benefit from reading the 4E DMG.

 

[ProfessorCirno]

I miss the archtypes of 2e and earlier. Paladins weren't just "religious fighters," they were built to fit a very specific niche and archtype. Not one of mechanics either. The classes (before the kits came along, at least) weren't meant to be small nuggets of mechanics like they were in 3e and 4e, but romantic fantasy archtypes, and each one had accompanying examples of real life of fictional characters. The fighter was the weapons master and man-at-arms, becoming a lord of his land, leading soldiers to battle. The cleric was a warrior of his god, dedicated to a singly ethos that guided his behavior. Paladins were ordained champions, dedicating a portion of all their gold and treasure to their church (I'd LOVE to see someone try to pull that in a modern D&D game! ), . Thieves were called thieves, and they didn't sneak attack while flanking, they'd have to take an enemy completely by surprise and backstab them - and in doing so, usually did enough damage to drop them, which was the whole point. It wasn't supposed to be used in the thick of combat. It was a sneak up and murder ability.

Did it always work out mechanically? Well, no, not really. But the feel and flavor of it all, that's something that hasn't been repeated. I loved the fact that each class had examples for you to look at, and that the book suggested you visit a library to read up on fantasy books and mythology. Take the opening paragraph for the paladin in the AD&D PHB:

The paladin is a noble and heroic warrior, the symbol of all that is right and true in the world. As such, he has high ideals that he must maintain at all times. Throughout legend and history there are many heroes who could be called paladins: Roland and the 12 Peers of Charlemagne, Sir Lancelot, Sir Gawain, and Sir Galahad are all examples of the class. However, many brave and heroic soldiers have tried and failed to live up to the ideals of the paladin. It is not an easy task!

How could that fail to get you pumped up and ready to play a paladin? Or lets look at thief:

The profession of thief is not honorable, yet it is not entirely dishonorable, either. Many famous folk heroes have been more then a little larcenous - Reynard the Fox, Robin Goodfellow, and Ali Baba are but a few. At his best, the thief is a romantic hero fired by noble purpose but a little wanting in strength of character. Such a person may truly strive for good but constantly run afoul of temptation.

That one paragraph tells you so much about what it means to be a thief. You have your archtype, your historical and fictional references, your style of gameplay. And if you don't recognize the name, what did you do? You went to a bloody library and read about it!

I wish more games encouraged kids to read :<

 

[Abraxas]

Wow. I don't think I've ever met anyone, in RL or online, who wanted to play a character like that.

Nothing wrong with it if that's what floats your boat, but I'm amazed.

[thread hijack]
I have, multiple times, and played a character like that myself.
I have yet to meet a player who had a Cleric "that out fights the fighter" that gets commented on so much online.
[/thread hijack]

I miss having characters that can pick up the slack when one of the players isn't on top of their game with their PC. We've played levels 1-14 and when one person is off the entire group suffers. This also seems to manifest when the player is playing to their PC's background instead of their combat role (which conflict at times).

 

[Tequila Sunrise]

Although I don't miss a single 2e rule, it did have the best artist to ever illustrate for D&D: Toni DiTerlizzi. I really miss those quirky dream-like paintings, and I miss Planescape. If I could reboot an old supplement for 4e, it would be PS complete with DiTerlizzi artwork.

Players willing to play.

Really? I've met a couple people who are stuck in the '4e is WoW' mindset, but I've managed to get together a solid group of 4e lovers in my little boondock town. Where do you look for players?