D&D 4E Palladium's philosophy for D&D 4e? Pros and cons

Here's the thing: There is something nifty about that set of house rules that you hammered together to make AD&D1 or RIFTS work for you and your friends. I have a nostalgia for that myself.

But, realistically, I don't like having to essentially relearn the game every time I play with new people.

And it's not that there isn't a place for house rules and customization. I've got 5 very nice pages of house rules myself. But the difference is that in 3rd Edition everyone acknowledges that they're house rules. In previous editions people would do completely different things and they would both think that this was the "right" way to play the game and be confused when a new player would come along and have a completely different expectation.

And there are still some small things like this in 3rd Edition, but in previous editions these things were often major systems and fundamental aspects of gameplay.

I wouldn't mind having a fast-and-loose system for D&D. In fact, I think it's fairly trivial to strip D&D down to its core -- which is a streamlined, fast-and-loose system. But that would still mean having a firm foundation -- a core ruleset -- on which to build a campaign.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

comrade raoul said:
Were they really any better than 1e/2e proficiencies?

No. Complete rules existed in AD&D 1e books for using proficiences.

What about versions of D&D without proficiencies?

No, not really. Palladium included something but failed to fully explain how it was supposed to be used. Versions of D&D without proficiencies didn't do that, rather, they simply didn't have rules for skills at all.
 

JustinA said:
Here's the thing: There is something nifty about that set of house rules that you hammered together to make AD&D1 or RIFTS work for you and your friends. I have a nostalgia for that myself.

But, realistically, I don't like having to essentially relearn the game every time I play with new people.

And it's not that there isn't a place for house rules and customization. I've got 5 very nice pages of house rules myself. But the difference is that in 3rd Edition everyone acknowledges that they're house rules. In previous editions people would do completely different things and they would both think that this was the "right" way to play the game and be confused when a new player would come along and have a completely different expectation.

And there are still some small things like this in 3rd Edition, but in previous editions these things were often major systems and fundamental aspects of gameplay.

I wouldn't mind having a fast-and-loose system for D&D. In fact, I think it's fairly trivial to strip D&D down to its core -- which is a streamlined, fast-and-loose system. But that would still mean having a firm foundation -- a core ruleset -- on which to build a campaign.

I must say that I agree with all of this, word for word.
 

jdrakeh said:
No, not really. Palladium included something but failed to fully explain how it was supposed to be used. Versions of D&D without proficiencies didn't do that, rather, they simply didn't have rules for skills at all.
The original 1974 version of D&D contains plenty of rules without explaining how they're supposed to be used.
 

T. Foster said:
The original 1974 version of D&D contains plenty of rules without explaining how they're supposed to be used.

Actually, I don't find that to be the case (and, yes, I own said edition of D&D). That said, it does refer the reader to Chainmail for combat rules, character racial bonuses, and quite a few other things. Of course, this is because it was a supplement to Chainmail and, as a supplement to Chainmail, it's very complete.
 

Jdvn1 said:
Palladium ice cream? I'd go for it. ;)
Just mix together vanilla, chocolate, and about thirteen or fourteen other flavours. Pour on a glass of vodka, and a generous spoonful of tabasco sauce. Voila, RIFTS Ice Cream(R)(TM)!
 

Though it's phrased like a positive things, the quote in the original post nicely sums up everything I hate in Palladium's games, not to mention either edition of AD&D.
 

jdrakeh said:
Actually, I don't find that to be the case (and, yes, I own said edition of D&D). That said, it does refer the reader to Chainmail for combat rules, character racial bonuses, and quite a few other things. Of course, this is because it was a supplement to Chainmail and, as a supplement to Chainmail, it's very complete.
Vol. I said:
The whole plethora of enchanted items lies at the magic-users beck and call, save the arms and armor of the fighters (see, however, Elves); Magic-Users may arm themselves with daggers only.
So does that mean they can wear normal armor and just can't wear magic armor?

Vol. I said:
Clerics gain some of the advantages from both of the other two classes (Fighting-Men and Magic-Users) in that they have the use of magic armor and all non-edged magic weapons (no arrows!)
So, again, does that mean clerics can use non-magical edged weapons or not?

Vol. I said:
[Dwarves] note slanting passages, traps, shifting walls and new construction in underground settings
No explanation offered of how they do this...

Vol. I said:
Elves can begin as either Fighting-Men or Magic-Users and freely switch class whenever they chose, from adventure to adventure, but not during the course of a single game. Thus, they gain the benefits of both classes and may use both weaponry and spells. They may use magic armor and still act as Magic-Users.
How does that work, exactly? How, for instance, does an elf determine his hit points -- does he have two different values (one for when he's a mage, one for when he's a fighter)? does he gain a hit die every time he gains a level in either class (in which case an elf will have way more hp than any other character with equivalent XP)? If he's switching between classes, why is he apparently still able to wear magic armor (and can he wear non-magic armor?) when functioning as a magic-user? etc.

Vol. I said:
Strength will also aid in opening traps and so on.
How?

Vol. I said:
Intelligence will also affect referees' decisions as to whether or not certain action would be taken
How?

Vol. I said:
[Dexterity] will indicate the character's ... speed with actions such as firing first, getting off a spell, etc.
How?

Bonuses and Penalties to Advancement due to Abilities Table (Vol. I, p. 11): Characters with Constitution scores of 13+ will always "withstand adversity" ("being paralyzed, turned to stone, etc." - p. 10 -- does this mean everytime a character is struck by a ghoul he must make a system shock roll or die?); Constitution 7-12 means a 40-90% chance of withstanding adversity; but what if you have a Constitution of 6 or less -- is your chance 30%? 0%? Does a character with a Con 3 have the same or worse chance of withstanding adversity than a character with a Con 6?

Equipment List (Vol. I, p. 14): What, if any, benefit does purchasing Holy Water, Wolvesbane, Belladonna, or Garlic provide? is there any reason to buy a Silver Cross instead of a Wooden Cross? is there any reason to buy a Helmet?

LEVELS AND NUMBER OF EXPERIENCE POINTS NECESSARY TO ATTAIN THEM Table (Vol. I, p. 16): How many XP are needed for levels above those shown? To go from Lord to 10th level Lord does a fighter need 120,000 more XP or 240,000 more? And how much does he then need to go to 11th level Lord -- 120K, 240K, or 480K? The same for Magic-Users and Clerics.

STATISTICS REGARDING CLASSES (Vol. I, p. 17):
Dice for Accumulated Hits:When a fighter goes from Veteran (1+1 dice) to Warrior (2 dice) does he roll 1d6 or 1d6-1? And when going from Lord (9+3 dice) to Lord, 10th (10+1 dice) does he roll 1d6+1 or 1d6-2? And so on
Fighting Capability: Chainmail (p. 30) says a Wizard fights in normal combat as 2 Armored Foot (or 2 Medium Horse if mounted), whereas a Hero fights as 4 Men -- so does that mean that when a Magic-User goes from Sorcerer (fights as Hero+1) to Necromancer (fights as Wizard) that he actually loses fighting capability of 2 Men+1?

ATTACK MATRIX II: MONSTERS ATTACKING (Vol. I, p. 20): Does a monster with 3 hit dice attack as a creature with "2-3" hit dice or as one with "3-4"? How about a creature with 4 hit dice? or 6?

Vol. I said:
Slow Spell: A broad-area spell which effects up to 24 creatures in a maximum area of 6" x 12". Duration: 3 turns. Range: 24".

Haste Spell: This is exactly the opposite of a Slow Spell in effect, but otherwise like it. Note that it will counter its opposite and vice-versa.
So, umm, other than canceling each other out and affecting up to 24 creatures in a 6" x 12" area with a range of 24" and duration of 3 turns, what does either of these spell actually, you know, do?

And so on and so forth, with many more examples over the remaining 2 and a half books. Note that all of the above questions are entirely rhetorical and I'm not looking for answers to any of them. My point is simply that someone who is looking for answers isn't going to find them in these rulebooks (which, like the people praising RIFTS in this thread and its companion at RPGnet, I consider to be a feature, not a bug -- I like, as OD&D referee, having the freedom to decide how much of a chance the dwarf has to find traps, what weapons exactly the cleric can use, what Holy Water actually does, how the Haste Spell actually functions, etc.; an approach which I very much realize ain't for everyone...).
 
Last edited:

Razz said:
If I see one more 4E thread, I'm going to probably bludgeon the first person I personally meet who even puts the two symbols together in his speech...seriously, give the 4E talk a rest. You're just going to make it arrive that much quicker and make it that much more painful for all of us

It's just an easy and obvious label for obvious discussion about advancement of the game. Rather than a long and involved description of the next edition of the game, 4E is a simple shortcut (especially when discussing dramatic changes to the game) to use.

These threads aren't necessarily advocating 4E soon, or even predicting it. 4E isn't like the Demon Lords of old where the more you said their names, the more likely they'd suddenly appear.
 

[chanting]4Ed! 4Ed! 4Ed! I summon thee![/chanting]

Well, that didn't work!

Perhaps if I built a Lament Configuration 6 sided die...
 

Remove ads

Top