Rampant Anti-Groggism

[Fanaelialae]

3e multi-classing has only two problems: (1) cherrypicking the first level of a frontloaded class

There are a few ways to address this issue. The direction I'd currently lean would be to frontload all classes with a starting level package of abilities (for a fighter weapon profs, armor profs, fighter's mark/challenge, opportunity attacks, etc.). However, spread those same abilities throughout the progression. (If you gained it at level 1, you don't also gain it again in the progression, because it's just there for multi-classing.)

Someone multi-classing in to a new class doesn't get the starter package (they just get the non-packaged 1st level abilities). If they stick with the new class, they can eventually earn most or all of the starter abilities, as well as advanced abilities.

I think this reflects the idea of multi-classing better. It always rubbed me the wrong way that a fighter can multi-class into wizard and suddenly gain what supposedly took the wizard a decade of apprenticeship to learn. This way he might be stuck with cantrips during his 1st level of wizard (because in this hypothetical, 1st level spells are part of the starter package). Eventually though, if he sticks to his arcane studies, he might be almost as good as his friend who started as a wizard. Plus, he has some nice fighter tricks to fall back upon if need be.

As to your 2nd point about multi-classing, I couldn't agree more.

And fwiw, I've got nothing against grognards.

 

[Spatula]

3e multi-classing has only two problems: (1) cherrypicking the first level of a frontloaded class, and (2) watering down vancian casters. I can't imagine how they'll begin to address the first problem

Star Wars Saga solves it by only giving you 1 feat from the class' list of starting feats if you multiclass into it. For example, a 3e fighter gets:

Light Armor
Medium Armor
Heavy Armor
Shields
Simple Weapons
Martial Weapons

So if you took a level of fighter and you're not 1st level, you only get one of those.

 

[trancejeremy]

This is new? It was why I left years ago and only came back at the 5e announcement.

 

[TerraDave]

JD: you give a list of personal preferences, that seem fairly particular. Which is fine. Then you somehow link it to grognardism, or attacks on it. Which is also fine.

But I don't really get the link. E.g. multiclassing (or dual classing) is more retro then a skill system.

I do also like weird stuff. And used a silver standard for years in previous games.

 

[Jack7]

Me personally I could care less what others think of me as long as I'm not harming others unfairly or for no good reason.

And to me it's just the internet, opinions, and a game. All are interesting, nothing I'd ever care about in the important sense of caring about it.

I'd like to see 5E succeed, and of course I have ideas about how the game would be good, or not good. If it works out the way I'd like that'll be good to me. If not well, I'm sure someone will like it and that'll be good for them.

But the thought of someone's opinions (counter to mine) or attempted insults (assuming they meant one) on the internet attaching to me or disturbing me makes me laugh.

I existed before I knew them (assuming I ever know them) and I'll exist afterwards no problems at all. I'll exist if I had never heard of them or their opinions. I'll exist if I find their opinions interesting, or even useful. I'll be good if their opinions are baseless and unfair.

But the thought to me personally, of taking the opinion of another person I'll never know over the internet just because that is their opinion (I wouldn't take another person's opinion as important even if I knew them unless I actually thought them right) as an important matter kinda makes me laugh. No offense intended to anyone who does take the opinions of others seriously, different folks are different folks. I've just never been that way. Maybe I got that from my old man, maybe I was just born that way.

My opinion on it is - it's just the internet (I remember those ancient days long before the internet) and it's just their opinion. I wouldn't let it bother you, assuming it does.

Maybe it doesn't bother you and it's just an interesting topic to ya. How different people react to things. If it does really bother ya my opinion is, it's not important at all what others think of you or your way of doing things.

That's just me though. Feel free to differ.

 

[mkill]

When I started gaming in the mid-90ies, AD&D 2nd was "current D&D". To the teenage me, it felt awkwardly anachronistic in many places. Most RPGs were much cleaner, more refined at the time. AD&D had great stuff (Planescape!) and horrible crap (Elves of Evermeet!). The core rules were a mess of good and whacky ideas all tossed together.

I had the books at the time, but I was unimpressed and played other stuff.

When 3rd ed was announced, people called it "D&D dragged kicking and screaming into the 90ies", and it pretty much described what anyone but the die-hards thought about it.

I don't think there is an anti-grognard war going on. It's more nostalgia filter grognards vs. newfangled stuff grognards.

As for the 4E newbies, don't blame them. They're D&Ds future. The groggies should realize that they have nothing against old-school play. They just look at the books and think... yeah, that's great, it's nice to see where the game is coming from, but why should I play this when I can play something current that achieves the same but incorporates 30 years of experience in game design?

 

[nedjer]

5e was always going to come at some stage. Is it so bad for 4e players?

They can use the light core to get younger relatives, geek mates and those with only a couple of hours to spare started at the drop of a PC sheet - and then invite them to the 'full' game where the same PC gets an 'upgrade' for the 4e flavoured sessions. In 4e terms it seems a real easy way to buff new players.

Maybe I'm reading it all wrong; but I've never seen a Classic Traveler v's Mongoose Traveler bunfight along the lines of a D&D bunfight.

 

[Raith5]

Grognards are a simple people. We like what we have always liked, and all we want is more of the same. That should be a pretty easy business model, all things considered.

"What do we want?!"
"MORE OF THE SAME!"
"When do we want it?!"
"AT THE SAME RATE AS BEFORE!"

But business doesn't work that way. And that isn't anybody's fault. You can blame the Old Guard for the advent of 5E, but you are only fooling yourself. This game, like anything else, must adapt in order to continue to thrive. We should let it.

This is the funniest comment I have seen on these boards!

Despite starting playing in 1982 I dont understand either the sentiment of Grognardism and I dont want to see the Grognardization of D&D because I have copies of the preceding versions and I like new things in my gaming. But I certainly hope any new system of D&D is supportive of preceding styles of play both for the business of WOTC and the strength of the hobby.

 

[Saracenus]

It isn't just 4e folk that behave badly. Everytime an edition has come to a close and a new edition is on the horizon a few folks act out in their fear, uncertainty, and doubt (FUD).

FUD does funny things to people, they start looking for someone to blame and old-schoolers seem to be the current target.

Everything about D&D Next has pointed to older editions as a source of inspiration and those 4e folks aren't seeing where they fit into the new picture.

Unfortunately, the fiddy bits that will add 3e and 4e style of play haven't been written yet. The core system appears to be a rules light system.

I wouldn't worry to much about my misbehaving 4e brethren, feel compassion for them. Eventually, it will pass, they will either see the promise of a system that supports different types of play or they will join the heard of disgruntled old-edition hold outs, groaning about how it was in their day.

Who knows, if Next doesn't live up to it's potential, I might join them in exile. I doubt it, but that option is there.

In the mean time, I am going to go play some D&D, hang out with my friends, and have a good time.

EDIT: I cannot claim the authorship of FUD. FUD is a term that has been in use for a long time in Marketing and Sales (its heavily associated with the computer hardware industry, but has since branched out). Thank you for the xp, but I wanted to be clear that I did not coin this term.

 

[SeRiAlExPeRiMeNtS]

I started in 93 and fell the same, 3e d&d is what make me like to play d&d...

When I started gaming in the mid-90ies, AD&D 2nd was "current D&D". To the teenage me, it felt awkwardly anachronistic in many places. Most RPGs were much cleaner, more refined at the time. AD&D had great stuff (Planescape!) and horrible crap (Elves of Evermeet!). The core rules were a mess of good and whacky ideas all tossed together.

I had the books at the time, but I was unimpressed and played other stuff.

When 3rd ed was announced, people called it "D&D dragged kicking and screaming into the 90ies", and it pretty much described what anyone but the die-hards thought about it.

I don't think there is an anti-grognard war going on. It's more nostalgia filter grognards vs. newfangled stuff grognards.

As for the 4E newbies, don't blame them. They're D&Ds future. The groggies should realize that they have nothing against old-school play. They just look at the books and think... yeah, that's great, it's nice to see where the game is coming from, but why should I play this when I can play something current that achieves the same but incorporates 30 years of experience in game design?