Testing The Correlation Between Class Preference And 4E Love/Hate

Not quite. I'm not saying that early D&D was full of non-combat rules and fluffy bunnies. Early D&D was focused on adventure and exploration which may or may not lead to a combat heavy game.

4E is designed for heavy combat, and that effect can be felt in the class design as well as the combat rules.

Early D&D was focused on combat, and gave a lot of exposition and weird arbitrary subsystems for exploration. The game was focused on adventure and exploration only as much as the players and DM was focused on adventure and exploration. It was a miniatures combat engine with a few bits of wire and pretty words tacked on.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Early D&D was focused on combat, and gave a lot of exposition and weird arbitrary subsystems for exploration. The game was focused on adventure and exploration only as much as the players and DM was focused on adventure and exploration. It was a miniatures combat engine with a few bits of wire and pretty words tacked on.

OK then if that is the assertion then riddle me this?

Why, if OD&D is a "miniatures combat engine with a few bits of wire and pretty words tacked on" does the system not require a board or markers to play?

And

If 4E is such a roleplaying game why does it rely so heavily on these things. ;)
 

Remathilis

Legend
OK then if that is the assertion then riddle me this?

Why, if OD&D is a "miniatures combat engine with a few bits of wire and pretty words tacked on" does the system not require a board or markers to play?

And

If 4E is such a roleplaying game why does it rely so heavily on these things. ;)

1.) TSR was not in the market at the time of producing pre-painted plastic miniatures

And

2.) WotC is.

Next.
 

Set

First Post
My cleric is less thrilled with shooting holy lazers at foes to give his allies boosts, and having overall less options than before (granted, clerics need a tone down from 'Every cleric spell in print. Ever.'

My pet notion for the 3.0 divine casters (both Cleric and Druid) is that they should have the option of using either a Spontaneous casting mechanic (small fixed spells known list, flexibly cast) *or* a Prepared casting mechanic (potentially limitless list, but some sort of 'prayer book' or 'ogham runes' involved to limit spells known to the same aquisition mechanic used by the Wizard class). Some Clerics / Druids would learn new spells via ogham inscriptions or sacred texts, and add them to their 'spells known' that way, and prepare them like a wizard. Others would just be divinely inspired with a small Sorcerer-like list of spells known and cast them like a Sorcerer, spontaneously.

(I'd also allow Bards, Paladins and Rangers this option. Some Bards study scraps of lore they pillage and come across, or have been trained in by daddy's high-priced tutors in their aristocratic youth, maintain loose sheafs of arcane lore that they pore over in the morning. Some Paladins don't pick spells in the morning, but simply have been divinely inspired with certain spells known, and can cast them flexibly.)

This would, IMO, go a long way to cutting back the 'my Cleric knows *all* spells' nonsense, and the 'problem' with every supplement increasing the power of *all* Clerics and Druids, instead of giving them new options and maybe some difficult choices to make, as new Sorcerer and Wizard spells do.
 

OK then if that is the assertion then riddle me this?

Why, if OD&D is a "miniatures combat engine with a few bits of wire and pretty words tacked on" does the system not require a board or markers to play?

And

If 4E is such a roleplaying game why does it rely so heavily on these things. ;)

Both OD&D and 1E AD&D assumed you were playing on a board and using minis. Even if they didn't have the fiddly rules 4E(or 3E) had for position and such, the use of those things was largely taken for granted. They used inches(on the game table) for distance and movement. The fact that you could do so without them doesn't really mean anything in terms of the game's intent. The only edition of D&D that truly deemphasized minatures was 2E core.

I'm not saying that 4E is "such a roleplaying game". I'm saying that its a combat focused RPG that you can add as much noncombat as your group likes, same as every other edition of D&D.
 

T. Foster

First Post
And again, this brings up the following question: What was it about previous editions from a system standpoint[b/] that made them other than 90% focused on combat?

Individual behavior by players and DMs make D&D not about combat. As far as the rules have always gone, combat has been 1st, 2nd and 3rd priority. This has been true of every edition, from OD&D through 4th. Rules have been there, in terms of Nonweapon Proficiencies, skills, skill challenges, utility spells/powers, but these have never really been truly important to the core game unless DMs and players made them so.

4E DMs and players can use Skill Challenges and ad-hoc making stuff up ala OD&D/1E/2E to get the same level of non-combat focus as has been possible in any edition.

This is simply not true of OD&D (meaning specifically the 1974 version). Most racial special abilities (bonus languages, bonus at listening, dwarfs' "contruction" skills (noting slanting passages, shifting walls, etc.), elves' spotting secret doors) are non-combat-oriented, most of the class descriptions deal with non-combat matters (building castles and establishing baronies for fighters and clerics, creating new spells and magic items for mages), about half the items on the equipment list have no combat utility (rope, 10' poles, iron spikes, lanterns, mirrors, rations, etc.), at least half of the spells are non-combat-oriented (and even more are mixed-use: spells like invisibility and fly can be used in combat, but also out of combat) as are many of the magic items (ring of water walking, bag of holding, wand of secret door & trap detection, helm of reading magic & languages, etc. -- even magic swords often have non-combat-oriented special abilities such as detecting gems, traps, or secret doors).

Volume III does include fairly extensive rules for aerial and naval combat, but it includes even more extensive rules for non-combat dungeon exploration -- listening for noise, spotting traps and secret doors, opening stuck doors, detailed rules for running away from (i.e. not fighting) monsters, advice for placement of treasures (with monsters or traps to guard them -- but note that the focus is on the treasure being guarded, not the monster doing the guarding), examples of tricks to get players lost and screw up their maps (teleporters, one-way doors, chutes and slides, rotating rooms, etc.), and an example of play that details all the non-combat activity and glosses over combat completely: "(Here a check for surprise is made, melee conducted, and so on)."

Likewise, the section on wilderness adventuring has details on getting lost, running away from monsters (again), and dealing with inhabitants of castles (which may involve combat, but not necessarily), and the rest of the book covers miscellaneous non-combat topics including construction of castles & strongholds, hirelings (which does include men-at-arms but also non-combat figures such as sages, alchemists, and animal trainers), gathering information, rumors & legends, character upkeep, and establishing baronies.

Coverage of combat in OD&D is limited to 2 pages of tables and some spell descriptions in Vol. I, the monster descriptions in Vol. II, and the aforementioned aerial and naval combat rules in Vol. III -- maybe 1/3 of the pagecount tops. It seems highly unlikely to me that anyone could read these rules with an open mind and come away thinking they're 90% about combat. Yes, it is described as a "wargame" on the cover, but that's simply because at the time there was no term to describe the type of game it actually was -- about exploring the unknown, gathering treasure (which often, but not always, involves fighting guardians for it), and developing a "character" over the course of months (or even years) of play from a simple flunky into a powerful baron, wizard, or patriarch. Combat was a part of the game, maybe even the most prominent single part, but it was by no means the only, or overwhelming, expected activity. That game was Chainmail; D&D was something different, something more.
 

This is simply not true of OD&D (meaning specifically the 1974 version). Most racial special abilities (bonus languages, bonus at listening, dwarfs' "contruction" skills (noting slanting passages, shifting walls, etc.), elves' spotting secret doors) are non-combat-oriented, most of the class descriptions deal with non-combat matters (building castles and establishing baronies for fighters and clerics, creating new spells and magic items for mages), about half the items on the equipment list have no combat utility (rope, 10' poles, iron spikes, lanterns, mirrors, rations, etc.), at least half of the spells are non-combat-oriented (and even more are mixed-use: spells like invisibility and fly can be used in combat, but also out of combat) as are many of the magic items (ring of water walking, bag of holding, wand of secret door & trap detection, helm of reading magic & languages, etc. -- even magic swords often have non-combat-oriented special abilities such as detecting gems, traps, or secret doors).

Volume III does include fairly extensive rules for aerial and naval combat, but it includes even more extensive rules for non-combat dungeon exploration -- listening for noise, spotting traps and secret doors, opening stuck doors, detailed rules for running away from (i.e. not fighting) monsters, advice for placement of treasures (with monsters or traps to guard them -- but note that the focus is on the treasure being guarded, not the monster doing the guarding), examples of tricks to get players lost and screw up their maps (teleporters, one-way doors, chutes and slides, rotating rooms, etc.), and an example of play that details all the non-combat activity and glosses over combat completely: "(Here a check for surprise is made, melee conducted, and so on)."

Likewise, the section on wilderness adventuring has details on getting lost, running away from monsters (again), and dealing with inhabitants of castles (which may involve combat, but not necessarily), and the rest of the book covers miscellaneous non-combat topics including construction of castles & strongholds, hirelings (which does include men-at-arms but also non-combat figures such as sages, alchemists, and animal trainers), gathering information, rumors & legends, character upkeep, and establishing baronies.

Coverage of combat in OD&D is limited to 2 pages of tables and some spell descriptions in Vol. I, the monster descriptions in Vol. II, and the aforementioned aerial and naval combat rules in Vol. III -- maybe 1/3 of the pagecount tops. It seems highly unlikely to me that anyone could read these rules with an open mind and come away thinking they're 90% about combat. Yes, it is described as a "wargame" on the cover, but that's simply because at the time there was no term to describe the type of game it actually was -- about exploring the unknown, gathering treasure (which often, but not always, involves fighting guardians for it), and developing a "character" over the course of months (or even years) of play from a simple flunky into a powerful baron, wizard, or patriarch. Combat was a part of the game, maybe even the most prominent single part, but it was by no means the only, or overwhelming, expected activity. That game was Chainmail; D&D was something different, something more.

Shows how much I know about OD&D compared to 1E/2E. I will say that I wouldn't consider people to whom OD&D is D&D above all else are in any way part of the "core" audience of mainstream D&D, and are certainly not a priority in terms of people to whom a new edition needs to cater to.
 

mmadsen

First Post
The issue is that martial powers aren't based on Simulationist or even Gamist "reality" but Narrative "reality".
There is no such thing as gamist or narrative reality; it's an inherently simulationist concept -- unless you want to get into silly notions like "simulating" someone playing a board game or writing a story.
You only get an opening to use an encounter power once per encounter, or an opening to use a Daily once per day. You, the player, get to pick when that opening happens. Push/Pull/Slide powers are also based in Narrative "reality".
I understand the notion perfectly well; I just don't like it. And I'm not alone.
 

Raven Crowking

First Post
Dissatisfied with 4e, about even on spellcasters/non-spellcasters as a player. I was going to say "if anything, put me slightly on the non-spellcaster side of things" because I think I have played more fighter- and thief-types, but it really is probably closer to even. I enjoy the different challenges different classes in previous editions had to offer.


RC
 

amysrevenge

First Post
I love 4E.

My favourite PC classes varied by edition, but were generally a mix of spellcasters and non-casters. My number one thing in 3.x was to dual-role (melee/healer, arcane/trapsmith, "tank"/battlefield control, etc). I was also the king of hogging the spotlight (Leadership, animal companions, summons, etc), which has been completely removed from 4E and yet I still love it. :p

1E: Thief, Barbarian (UA), Knight (Dragonlance)
2E: Druid, Fighter, Ranger
3E: Paladin, Wizard, Cleric
4E: Strikers (esp. Barbarian), Leaders (esp. Cleric), anything Warforged
 

Remove ads

Top