Rebutting a fallacy: why I await 5e (without holding my breath)

[diaglo]

1977? Isn't that Three Little Book terrirory?

you are correct mostly. they had the supplements out by then too. Greyhawk, Blackmoor, Eldritch Wizardry, and ....

I don't think the 1E AD&D DMG came out until 1979!

the 1edADnD MM was released first in 1977, followed by the PHB in 1978, and then the DMG in 1979 (revised).

THACO is 2E terminolgy. 1E used the combat matricies.

To Hit AC 0 was in Appendix E of the 1edADnD DMG (1979 revised)

And, under 1E rules, you wouldn't roll initiative for spells. Use used the casting time to find initiative. The d6 initiative was used to somewhat order melee blows in combat. And, yep, it was a straight d6 throw, except for bows, which used the DEX based "reaction" modifier. Melee blows would alternate--so if you won initiative and were allowed two attacks that round, you got in one at the beginning, but the other came at the end of the round after your enemy had a chance to tag you.

i'm not even going to bother with this...

 

[Greg K]

The idea that 3e was similating a heroic fantasy world is simply a rationalisation of knee-jerk 4e bashing.

Just your dismissive opinion. Nothing more

The bitching about the powers system comes from a very negative place. Removing the powers system and re-enstating the kind of garbage that preceeded it would not result in a less 'samey' system, quite the opposite:

Again just your dismissive opinion

After all, combat is far, far less versatile in 3e than it is in 4e. By better balancing the classes, the designers are able to do interesting, exciting, versatile things with them. While there are certainly duds and false starts in 4e class design, compare that to the endless mess of traps and OP casters you see in 3e design.

ditto

4e combat is defined by the clases and monsters, and the extremly versatile, often unique mechanics they involve. Those mechanics work because they are reasonably balanced. As time goes on, the monster builds are getting better and better- but they work because they exist in a balanced context.

Balance is not the be all end all

3e combat is defined by buff stacking and the mega-turns of full progression casters.

That may be your experience. It is not mine or the people I know

3e monsters are a pot luck of arbitary values and sudden death effects that tend to punish again, non-casters and fighter types, further aiding key classes in the monopolisation of time.

Yawwn! Once again, it is just your opinion. Nothing more than your experience.

You can all gab on about the amazing roleplaying you're doing when the joke-pcs are swinging their swords around, but the truth is that 4e doesn't take anything away from roleplaying, world building, or simulation.

Just your own opinion once again presented as fact. For some people it does interfere with the latter two and, by doing that, it does interfere with the first.

It just adds a lot of quality to combat.

A lot people on these boards disagree just as there are people that will agree

 

[Water Bob]

you are correct mostly. they had the supplements out by then too. Greyhawk, Blackmoor, Eldritch Wizardry, and ....

That's right. I get fuzzy about those and the Basic D&D release (that ended up being concurrent with AD&D).

To Hit AC 0 was in Appendix E of the 1edADnD DMG (1979 revised)

Sure, the concept was there. Anybody who knew something about math could figure it out from the Combat Matrix.

But, the term "THACO" started, full-force, with 2E (although I believe that "THACO" made it into some Dragon articles before 2E was published).

i'm not even going to bother with this...

Then, you don't know your 1E combat very well (as complicated as it is). Most people House Ruled it, and I am fuzzy on it as I haven't seen it in years. But what I wrote was close to how it went.

Initiative was only rolled for melee and bows, on a straight D6 without modifiers except for the DEX based reaction modifier (for bows).

In fact, on the first round, the longer weapon attacked first. On the 2nd and following rounds, initiative was thrown.

On an initiative tie, weapon speed factors were compared, possibly allowing the weapon with the smaller speed factor to attack an extra time during the round (or maybe even have three attacks).

Spells were counted in the combat order according to their casting time--no die roll there.

 

[ExploderWizard]

Spells were counted in the combat order according to their casting time--no die roll there.

Not exactly. The die roll was still applicable to casters. If side A rolled a 2 for initiative and side B rolled a 5 then a caster from side B would begin casting on segment 2. In this scenario any spell with a casting time of 3 segments or less could be cast before side A could interrupt the casting.

 

[catastrophic]

Just your dismissive opinion. Nothing more
. . .
Again just your dismissive opinion
. . .
ditto
. . .
Yawwn! Once again, it is just your opinion. Nothing more than your experience.
. . .
Just your own opinion

In my opinion, your post is completly worthless. Saying "that's just like, your opinion, MAN!" is an utterly pointless response given when people have nothing worthwhile to say.

Everything is not just a matter of preference. Design matters, system matters, and if you're going to make statements about the design of a system, then you don't get to cop out and act like everything's subjective.

I know that people like to pretend this is all just a matter of preference, but it's not. That's just a cop-out people use because they don't want to admit that they aren't arguing rationally, but simply gathering fuel for a witch-burning.

Where's your proof? What makes your opinon so special, that you think yours somehow dismisses mine?

There are too many dodgy arguments in this debate to just chalk everything up to opinion.

I know the 4e-bashers would prefer not to be held accounable in any way, shape or form, but if design is a meaningful process that operates on the basis of merit, regardless of the role of preference, sooner or later people are going to have to drop the 'just your opinion' BS and make arguments of substance.

 

[Guest 85555]

I think these are great conversations but people might want to tone it down a notch. There is no reason people should be attacked for simply preferring a different edition of the game. Systems are designed with different goals in mind and for different sets of preferences. If you've found a a game that works for you that is great. Let others enjoy the game that works for them.

 

[ExploderWizard]

You can all gab on about the amazing roleplaying you're doing when the joke-pcs are swinging their swords around, but the truth is that 4e doesn't take anything away from roleplaying, world building, or simulation.

Having run a 4E campaign for a year (and doing it my way) I have to say this was true for our campaign.

It just adds a lot of quality to combat.

And, IME this was not.

 

[Umbran]

Where's your proof? What makes your opinon so special, that you think yours somehow dismisses mine?

It is very simple - you make a claim to an objective truth. The burden is upon you to support that it is, in fact, objective. Until you do that, your position really is just an unsupported assertion. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof, and all that.

Mind you, just thumping you over the head with that statement is not constructive. It is unlikely to change your mind, just as your unsupported assertion is unlikely to change anyone else's mind.

So, the two of you are butting heads to no good purpose.

 

[Greg K]

It is very simple - you make a claim to an objective truth. The burden is upon you to support that it is, in fact, objective. Until you do that, your position really is just an unsupported assertion. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof, and all that.

Mind you, just thumping you over the head with that statement is not constructive. It is unlikely to change your mind, just as your unsupported assertion is unlikely to change anyone else's mind.

So, the two of you are butting heads to no good purpose.

Not butting heads with him at all. Being dismissive of his post, because of the dismissive tone of his rant while making claim to some objective truth without providing the proof to support such a claim? Yes.

 

[Umbran]

Not butting heads with him at all. Being dismissive of his post, because of the dismissive tone of his rant while making claim to some objective truth without providing the proof to support such a claim? Yes.

Oh, so you were intentionally being rude, then. That's not any better.

EN World does not operate on the basis of "Well, he did it to me, so I can do it to him." In the future, if you are tempted to be snarky to prove a point, please resist that temptation.