D&D 4E Is 4E retro?

[mmadsen]

1st-level PCs are too far above "Normal Man" -- 3E is the maximum I can tolerate for D&D, and even that's pushing it.

I don't mind that the default starting strength is higher than in the past, but making that newer, more-competent starting point "first level" causes some problems. There's no good option for playing in the older style.

Too many temporary bonuses and modifiers (again, not necessarily any worse than 3E, but nowhere near as good as BECMI)

Good point.

The very existence of "expected wealth by level" and the ability to buy magic items, regardless of how these flaws may have been tweaked

I don't see how you can not have "expected wealth by level" -- your choice is either to make it explicit or to keep it implicit.

The real problem is fungible magic items in a liquid market. There's a huge difference between having exactly the mix of magic items you want, optimized for your build, and having the same "market value" of magic items, picked randomly from treasure hoards.

Finally, one of the most important game design elements of any fantasy RPG is how to balance magic against mundane abilities, particularly in terms of the versatility that magic allows. I dislike 4E's approach and will not be switching.

What is 4E's approach to balancing magic against mundane abilities?

 

[Nahat Anoj]

But still, it gives me this feeling.

As do I. I cut my D&D teeth on this product where you escape from Zanzer Tem's salt mines and have to fight your way out. The next adventure was in a dwarf ruin called Stonefast - the ruin was left largely empty so the newb DM could populate it. I beleive this set also described Threshold, but I may be conflating this with memories of the Basic and Expert sets, with a dash of Rules Cyclopedia.

I really don't know how to describe this feeling, but it definitely is "back-to-basics."

 

[CleverNickName]

Well, it depends. If you mean it as a compliment, then yes...4E is indeed retro. Why, it is so retro, the books come wrapped in a Members Only jacket! But if you mean it in a derogatory way, then no...4E is not retro at all, never was, it's more modern than a hydrogen-powered iMac.

In other words, I think it is as "retro" as you would like it to be. I think the feel of the game is developed more by the GM and the players, than by the rules.

 

[Grimstaff]

(B/E D&D in OP includes BECMI and RC)

Hmm. So is the feeling that:

4E is to 3E as BECMI was to the more baroque AD&D

More 4E is to 3E as OD&D is to 2E Players Options

I definitely got the old-school feeling during my Megadungeon experiment:
http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=225011

4E lends itself well to running fast and furious dungeoncrawls, just like B/X or AD&D. The power margin between different levels of creatures is narrower, so not so much effort in designing "balanced" encounters like with 3.x.

 

[Remathilis]

1st-level PCs are too far above "Normal Man" -- 3E is the maximum I can tolerate for D&D, and even that's pushing it.

Compared to BECMI, where the "Normal Man" was 0 level, had worse saves than a fighter1, a Thac0 of 20, 1d4 hp, AC 10, no ability scores to speak of, and attacked with a random garden tool that dealt 1d6 damage.

Its been a long time since I played, but I'm sure my first level fighter did a lot better than that.

 

[Mouseferatu]

I've been saying, more or less since I learnt about the tiers concept, that 4e sounds like BECMI reloaded.

As have I.

And I love it.

 

[2eBladeSinger]

Good Thread

I've had this same feeling as well.

3.5 left a really bad taste in my mouth, to the point that I was considering going back and running some OD&D to get my "kick in the door" dungeon adventures.

So when I started hearing more about 4e, and the retro-direction it was going, I was pretty happy.

Looking forward to it.

Couldn't agree more.

IMO D&D is following in the footsteps of the Star Trek films franchise, roughly every other one being crap. I Hope 4e continues the trend.

One of the things I love about 4e is that it appears monsters will be more viable choices at at a wider range of levels, very 2e.

I wish I still had that book. I've found it online, used but in great condition, for $55. I'd be tempted if 4e didn't look like it was going to scratch this itch for me.

They'll bury me with mine.

 

[the Jester]

I definitely get 'the feeling' as well. I can't wait to get my hands on the books- heck, even on Keep on the Shadowfell- and try it out. Damn, but I can't wait!!

Anyhow, as far as design philosophy and approach goes, I see pre-3e as kinda like a cobbled-together monster of a machine. You don't know why it works, but man! It works great! It might be messy, and you have to improvise on it a lot, but it produces beautiful results full of character. 3e, on the other hand, took a lot (imho) from the Magic design approach. With MtG, the cards have to be balanced against everything else in the play environment. There are lots of options, but there should rarely (if ever) be an option that is flat-out the best. Likewise, in 3e, you have lots of class, race, feat and spell options, and there usually isn't a no-brainer of a choice. (The worst offenders were fixed with the 3.5 revision.) Weapons are the best example of this- all martial weapons should be about equal, when you factor in their damage die, special abilities, threat range and critical multiplier. Encounter math- how many of what CR make the EL you need to challenge your party?- becomes very important too. If you design encounters sloppily, you might easily provoke a tpk by underestimating the potency of a monster (or several monsters).

4e seems to take the best of both worlds, using rigorous math to ensure that the game doesn't go off the deep end into tpk land (assuming appropriate encounters) and working hard to ensure balance between the classes while still being willing to leave the room a mess and take the car out for a random joyride to the caves under the dam at midnight. 4e seems to have a harrowing sense of fun like the Thai 'sanuk'- fun is almost getting eaten by an otyugh, but narrowly escaping and then slaying it with your bow. Fun is jumping 100' off a mountaintop into a raging river to escape pursuing orcs, or stealing the evil necromancer's spellbook and getting away with it.

It looks great to me so far. We'll see in just over a month.

 

[Voss]

1st-level PCs are too far above "Normal Man" -- 3E is the maximum I can tolerate for D&D, and even that's pushing it.

I can see where you're coming from on your other points but this one stands out. The 1st level Human Guard is a respectable combatant with a solid attack bonus, good to very good damage, some useful effects and hit points between a striker and a defender. While any given PC is almost certainly better than he is, it isn't by very much.

One on one, it is certainly within the realm of possibility that he could drop a PC- a PC defenses might be slightly higher, but other than that, all they have over this guy is the choice of two at will attacks (rather than one), and a daily power and a single use of an action point. Possibly second wind too, but you aren't likely to come out ahead if you stop to use it.

So, yeah, I don't see a huge gape between PCs and other people.

 

[Henry]

I had originally said "1E" when I had made up my original list of points, but Mouseferatu convinced me that "BECMI" D&D was what the feeling was closer to. Actually, sort of a mix of the two, but closer to Basic D&D. I honestly think the designers looked at some of the older concepts, realized that some of them worked BETTER than what replaced them (to make D&D an easier game to "throw together with friends to play for a couple of hours") and revisited those concepts. Things like the reduced monster stats, the "XP Challenge Rating" system, the simplification of arms and armor, visiting class roles more strongly, etc.