Is D&D as we know it dead?

[DemonKing]

On the contrary. Many here (including Henry, Mouseferatu, etc) see 4e as closer to 1e than the previous editions.

I see it as very 2e-ish, but more tactically focus.

In what way is it closer to 1e than 2nd or 3rd edition? I found 2nd Edition to be little more than 1st edition with a few clarifications (until kits and Skills & Powers came along) and 3rd edition a more radical but logical evolution of the 1st two editions but I can't see much relationship between 1st and 4th editions at all...

...I mean how does going from a half-dozen or so percentage-based thief skills unique to a single class (ok -Assassins had a couple of them as well) to a single cover-all skill called "thievery" make 1st and 4th editions related, for example?

 

[Doug McCrae]

If D&D is dead, 4e is a Frankenstein's Monster made up of the decayed parts of previous editions.

Combat system from 3e, restrictive classes from OD&D, exception-based monster powers from pre-3e, monsters with stats and skills a la 3e, coherent system a la 3e, no monks or assassins like 2e and so on.

 

[The Little Raven]

...I mean how does going from a half-dozen or so percentage-based thief skills unique to a single class (ok -Assassins had a couple of them as well) to a single cover-all skill called "thievery" make 1st and 4th editions related, for example?

Aren't you forgetting some skills like Climb Walls (Athletics), Find Traps (Perception), Hear Noise (Perception), Hide in Shadows (Stealth), Move Silently (Stealth), and Read Languages (falls under Linguistics feat now)?

Only Open Lock, Pick Pockets, and Disarm Traps falls under Thievery.

 

[Rechan]

In what way is it closer to 1e than 2nd or 3rd edition?

1e monsters were very exception-based, and built to do things that nothing else Could Do. Whereas in 3e, monsters were built like PCs, PCs could eventually get a feat or spell that simulated the same thing, and monster SLAs were just wizard or cleric spells.

2nd edition, there wasn't a whole lot you could do with your gold, except build armies and keeps. In fact, that was the assumption. 3e, everything was based on gold, and your magical items pretty much made your character. In 4e, the money is also abstract; sure, you Could buy your magical items, but actually your items are based on what level you get them, and you're more likely to get them in treasure. So the money has to go towards other things, which I again assume is the keep/army building.

2e was pretty narrative focused. I feel that 4e, while it's more on a grid, is also narrative-focused, especially when describing all your powers.

The mechanics are different. But I feel that the feel and how they play are much closer than they appear.

 

[Allensh]

Wasn't there an edict from the mods to stop all the "edition wars" style posts for a month? Last time I checked, that would be sometime in July.

Mods: enforce your ban on this stuff or you risk a lot of people leaving this site in droves.

Allen

 

[Lord Mhoram]

It's still D&D to me (with apologies to Billy Joel).


I can play a wizard who teams up with a fighter a cleric a thief (well rogue) and go fight orcs, undead, Beholders, Illithid, and maybe face down Orcus.

That's D&D.

Yeah, sure the mechanics of how I do it is the same, but I still get to strap on my spellbook or sword, kill things, take their stuff, and have great fantasy stories get made as I do so.


I started with the box set in 77, AD&D, and then played 3rd (Skipped 2nd and all it's settings except for spelljammer) 4E feels just as much as D&D as AD&D did after the old box set, and more in some ways than 3rd did.

 

[Gundark]

As far as I'm concerned, 4e is more D&D than D&D used to be.

But whatever. Play the edition you like.

QFT

 

[Doug McCrae]

2nd edition, there wasn't a whole lot you could do with your gold, except build armies and keeps. In fact, that was the assumption. 3e, everything was based on gold, and your magical items pretty much made your character. In 4e, the money is also abstract; sure, you Could buy your magical items, but actually your items are based on what level you get them, and you're more likely to get them in treasure. So the money has to go towards other things, which I again assume is the keep/army building.

I'd say 3e and 4e are the same in terms of buying magic items. In 3e, the DMG states that the assumption, or default, is that magic item trade exists. The 4e PHB states "in general you can buy any item you can afford" on page 223 and prices are given. Ritual components are an additional money sink in 4e.

It was always kind of weird in 1e that there was a big emphasis on sword & sorcery, Conan-style treasure seeking, but little to do with the money once you got it. Though you could say that was also just like Conan. Maybe 1e needed a proviso that between adventures all the PCs' money was assumed to have been spent on ale and haughty courtesans brazen strumpets whores.

 

[Kichwas]

DnD as you have always known it is now called Pathfinder.

4E is some other game that now has the branding, but the game you knew that has evolved since 1974 is now Pathfinder.

 

[carmachu]

Just checked and all the books on my shelves are still there. Drivethrurpg (for example) is also still selling a whole bunch of D&D stuff that isn't 4e.

Don't want to see 4e stick around? Don't buy into it.

The new GSL will assure that fewer will buy into it, dont you worry.

Things will only stay on drivethurrpg if they dont adopt 4e....