The D&D 4th edition Rennaissaince: A look into the history of the edition, its flaws and its merits

[Joshua Randall]

even just randomly picking a class in a game like 4E and just sticking with it and having a, roughly, just as powerful character as someone with complete system mastery is a pretty cool achievement and that's probably my favorite thing about it.

There was a guy in our local area who, because he was a weirdo contrarian (even moreso than me), insisted upon creating a character with 14s in every ability score (or whatever the closest point buy got to that) and randomly rolled for powers.

And aside from his attack bonus being 2 points lower than expected? (Which got compensated for with smart gameplay (combat advantage) and situational buffs from the Leaders) -- aside from that, his character was completely effective and fun at the table.

As you said -- that is a HUGE accomplishment for any game system that somehow ALSO rewards system mastery!

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

For me, though, it turned out that the greater complexity and wealth of options available to single-classed martial characters made them exciting to me for the first time. I could play a single-classed Thief all the way to 30th, and a single-classed Fighter to 20th (two examples from two of the first campaigns I played in) and be happy as a clam with them, not needing spells to feel like I had cool abilities.

To which I’d respond that “single-classing” like that- while I did occasionally do it in D&D- is not a unique D&D experience. I could play that kind of PC in virtually any RPG.

 

[TwoSix]

To which I’d respond that “single-classing” like that- while I did occasionally do it in D&D- is not a unique D&D experience. I could play that kind of PC in virtually any RPG.

So that would kind of be an argument that since that method of multiclassing is specific to D&D, that specificity is part of what makes D&D feel more like itself?

I can appreciate that perspective. Thanks!

 

[payn]

I know for some friends of mine, this was a big issue. They came from a place where achieving total system mastery rewarded you with a substantially better character at the table. Which, if you have a wider array of "valid" or useful things to do at the table than everybody else that equates to more fun, right? So when 4E didn't really reward it in the same way they bounced off of it.

D&D does have this issue where the moment you sit down and make a character you basically have to have the whole level 1-20 progression (or 30 in 4E's case) mapped out in your head. It can be very intimidating.

By not multiclassing, and even just randomly picking a class in a game like 4E and just sticking with it and having a, roughly, just as powerful character as someone with complete system mastery is a pretty cool achievement and that's probably my favorite thing about it.

I think the view is two fold on this. One is the system mastery and effectiveness gap, that I do not value and agree with modern design to close up as much as possible. The other is tailor building a PC for a game. With 3E I was able to make a controller, striker, or defender fighter. Add MC and I could even make a gish or skill focused fighter blend. Add PF1 traits, alternate ancestry types, and archetypes and the possibilities are endless. MAD design gave a unique way to really make a great combination of any particular class. SAD design and feat based MC just felt homogenizing and limiting in comparison. I understand now, that the game was designed under entirely different assumptions, but its still not my preference.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

To me, the 4e question is more like asking "Is this band a rock band?"

That’s a question that isn’t cut & dried, though.

To illustrate: in the 1960s, the Beatles were considered a Rock & Roll band. If they released their first song today, they would be called Pop.

Musically, Black Sabbath is considered to be the first Heavy Metal band, but by today’s standards, a lot of their catalog would be called Rock & Roll or Hard Rock. Even Ozzy once said BS was hard blues. Some younger metalheads don’t consider them metal at all. (Seriously- that’s one of the reasons I started the Metal School thread.)

 

[TwoSix]

That’s a question that isn’t cut & dried, though.

To illustrate: in the 1960s, the Beatles were considered a Rock & Roll band. If they released their first song today, they would be called Pop.

Musically, Black Sabbath is considered to be the first Heavy Metal band, but by today’s standards, a lot of their catalog would be called Rock & Roll or Hard Rock. Even Ozzy once said BS was hard blues. Some younger metalheads don’t consider them metal at all. (Seriously- that’s one of the reasons I started the Metal School thread.)

The fact that it isn't cut and dried is why I find it so interesting to discuss. No right answers, just lots of perspectives.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I would have preferred the pool (like what Level Up uses to fuel combat maneuvers et al) over what 4e did. To me easy design is if anything a mark against using a particular approach. Certainly it's not a good reason IMO to go that way.

Yeah, but you already know you're idiosyncratic, at least in the D&D sphere, in various ways. Watch the hostility to bringing up spell point systems in some circles; its not all about how balanced they are or aren't.

 

[cavalier973]

That’s a question that isn’t cut & dried, though.

To illustrate: in the 1960s, the Beatles were considered a Rock & Roll band. If they released their first song today, they would be called Pop.

Musically, Black Sabbath is considered to be the first Heavy Metal band, but by today’s standards, a lot of their catalog would be called Rock & Roll or Hard Rock. Even Ozzy once said BS was hard blues. Some younger metalheads don’t consider them metal at all. (Seriously- that’s one of the reasons I started the Metal School thread.)

Led Zepplin was a blues band.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Well, for certain values of 0E. From the historical accounts I've seen, almost no one actually used the Chainmail rules you're referencing.

It certainly seemed awfully rare on the West Coast U.S. at the time.

The so-called Alternate Combat System of 0E, using d20s and attack rolls against Armor Class, depleting Hit Points, was in practice the default way basically everyone played from the start. Especially new players, who wouldn't want to buy the Chainmail rules in addition to the D&D rules, since they didn't have to.

Yeah, even the people who bought Chainmail seemed to rarely use it. This might have been different earlier on or in other locations.

 

[Zardnaar]

My homebrew D&D kind if uses a hybrid of the 4E and 5E engines. I wanted it more modular than 5E. So I stole the Star Wars Saga Rules.

Class design is sonething like.

Talent
Feat
Talent
Feat
Talent

Etc.

I made a defender Talent tree. It's basically the 4E defender mechanic with some tanking type abilities.

Since spellcaster still get a spell table their talents don't tend to be very good. A martial Talent is along the likes of a 4E or 5E class feature the spellcaster ones more like a 3E or 4E curated Feat eg skill focus arcana.

ATM martials also level up faster. I'm using B/X xp tables (might drop a 0 or two off them) . To hit level 2 rogues need 1200 xp, fighters, 1500, clerics 2000, wizards 2500.

Theoretically you could do a 4E type character a warlord for example would get 4E powers and it's class features would be talents. You could tune those talents or xp tables to have it play nice beside a Rogue for example.

Main reason for 5E engine was 5E players. You can tweak it to replicate 3E or 4E eg bonus action is basically a minor action and you can swap a action or move for extra bonus action.