What do 4E people like most about AD&D?

With no negative comments what do people who like 4E like best about AD&D? What are some of the things that AD&D had going for it that didn't get carried into 4E?

Maybe if we frame our thoughts around what we DO like in the differant editions that we don't play we can put together a list of things loved by most that could be used once we get the play test to create a better game!


I'll go first.

I loved many things about AD&D. The system for casting spells,the fact that I could make a character up in minutes.

I know it sounds strange but I even liked the weight and size of the books. I liked that when I held the players handbook I knew I wouldn't need anything else to make a character! 

I liked the speed and length of combat! Nice and fast and simple!


Well thats a start!             
I think there are very few who have played ADD and are fans of 4e. I think for most of 4e fans, that was their first RPG. It was for me and I have just recently researched oldschool type of games. I found Dragon Warrirors and like it better then 4e. It has many similarities with 2e, based on what I have read. So even though I am not the type of person who should answer here, I still add one thing I really like in oldschool games.




  • Spells themselves, that can be used cleverly and creatively. In DW there is a first level spell "make rain". Minor thing, but when putting out a bandits campfire and ambushing them, while they are in their tents has a massive effect

I think there are very few who have played ADD and are fans of 4e. I think for most of 4e fans, that was their first RPG. It was for me and I have just recently researched oldschool type of games. I found Dragon Warrirors and like it better then 4e. It has many similarities with 2e, based on what I have read. So even though I am not the type of person who should answer here, I still add one thing I really like in oldschool games.




  • Spells themselves, that can be used cleverly and creatively. In DW there is a first level spell "make rain". Minor thing, but when putting out a bandits campfire and ambushing them, while they are in their tents has a massive effect




I have played a lot of AD&D in my teens and I am a 4e fan. The thing is, that if you were to tell me one thing I liked about AD&D, I would draw a blank. The thing about 1e/2e compared to 3e was that 1/2e had fewer rules for fewer situations. The DM made some ad-hoc decision and play moved on. 3e tried to simulate everything, which led a lot of 1/2e fans to stay away. The interesting thing is that in 4e, the system consists of a kazillion ad-hoc decisions which are made for you already.  So for a 1/2e fan, it is a bit like playing with a DM emulator. 

 
Mad Scientist
I think there are very few who have played ADD and are fans of 4e. I think for most of 4e fans, that was their first RPG.



I really REALLY wish people would stop making this assumption.

I started playing D&D in Zanzer's Dungeon, back when elf was a class. I played AD&D, tried Skills and Powers, ran 3.5 for more than half a decade. I have over 15 years of experience playing table top RPGs. Please stop assuming that I'm a 13 year old that has never played D&D before I stopped playing WoW for JUST long enough to actually crack a book and play 4e. I'm not like that, the people I play with aren't like that; in fact, few - if any - gamers I know are like that.

What did I like about AD&D? It was all we had at the time, and we house-ruled the CRAP out of that game. As it was, presented RAW in the books, it was nigh unplayable if you were trying to have fun or tell stories of heroic fantasy action. It was punishing to the players, the system was laughable, and it needed so much patchwork done to actually be a role playing game instead of a table-top war game where you only play one minature was excruciating.

I had the change to go back and play AD&D again for a session a few months ago; nothing had changed for me.

I'm not saying I didn't have fun back when I played it in my younger years, but I cannot think of anything that later editions didn't have that 2e did, that we need to bring back.

Supporting an edition you like does not make you an edition warrior. Demanding that everybody else support your edition makes you an edition warrior.

Why do I like 13th Age? Because I like D&D: http://magbonch.wordpress.com/2013/10/16/first-impressions-13th-age/

AzoriusGuildmage- "I think that you simply spent so long playing it, especially in your formative years with the hobby, that you've long since rationalized or houseruled away its oddities, and set it in your mind as the standard for what is and isn't reasonable in an rpg."


I really REALLY wish people would stop making this assumption.



Same here.


I really REALLY wish people would stop making this assumption.



Same here.




Ditto.  I've played D&D since the original red box when Elf was a freakin' class as well.
Another day, another three or four entries to my Ignore List.

I really REALLY wish people would stop making this assumption.



Same here.




Ditto.  I've played D&D since the original red box when Elf was a freakin' class as well.



Especially since that assumption usualy comes with a heaping helping of condescension and a second assumption that if one wasn't a aa child, one would prefer whichever edition of D&D the person making the assumption prefers because only semi-retarded 12 year olds like 4e, ya know.

All in all I was more fond of 3.x than 4th and more fond of 4th than AD&D, but I did really enjoy the ease of multiclassing in AD&D.  If you wanted to make a fighter that packed some magic for emergencies, you could do that from the very outset.  It was horribly unbalanced in certain situations and carried a lot of weird restrictions, but you could do it.  

IMAGE(http://www.nodiatis.com/pub/10.jpg)

Well I have been playing since the Original D&D.  The little white box that had pamphlets.  AD&D was as playable as any game of the genre.  But to answer your question I loved the fact that the rules were not so set in stone...they were just a guide line. I not only got to use my imagination,but i got be really creative in resolving rule issues if need be and over all I did not have any rule issues.  I added my house rules for flavor and convience and then we played.  The fact that I could make a 1st lvl character almost from memory was also pretty nice. It awesome on those days that we would just end up hanging at somebody's house and they didn't have all the books. But right from memory we could play because you knew what where in the books anyway.  At least  those of us who speant a lot of time as DM's could. I really don't like 4E at all.  It more of a tabletop MMO crossed with a collectiable card game.  Doesn't fuel my imagination in the least. 
Being able to make a character from memory does not a good game make.

I am also sick of it being compared to an MMORPG. Lets break down what an MMO this is from wikipedia en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massively_multipla...

Common elements are themes, progression, social interaction, roleplaying, culture, and system architecture.

Now lets compare them against D&D and the MMO everyone associates 4e with which is WoW.
Theme - fantasy themed. Both D&D and WoW are based in a fantasy universe. D&D came first so point to them.

Progression - Both D&D and WoW use a system to progress in level and power. D&D came first so point to them again.

Social interaction - Both D&D and WoW are based in a group of people coming together to have fun. D&D came first so point to them again.

Roleplaying - Both D&D and WoW one can roleplay your characters typically how you want. This is more restrictive in WoW since everyone shares the same story. in D&D any story you want to play out can happen. Point to D&D for doing it first and better. However WoW helped bring roleplaying out of the shadows showing that more people then just nerds will roleplay.

System Architecture - how the game is delivered. D&D is pen and paper, WoW is through use of computers. Not only that but D&D was released in the orginal format, AD&D, 3.0 and 3.5 before WoW even came out. Only then was WoW released in 2004.

So if anything WoW copies off of D&D and D&D itself is to blame for why you don't like it.

Next we come to the comparison of 4e to a CCG. First there is nothing to collect in 4e except for treasure and experience. Which was how it has been in all editions. Next everyone I know had cards to use to write down your information. You or no one you knew didn't use index cards to write down stats for a Power attack, or Great Cleave? Or a mounted charge? The only CCG part of the game is the fortune cards, releaed a few years after the launch of the game and it is a completely optional part of the system.
You may not like being to compared to MMORPG... well too bad because regardless of what Wikipedia or any othe source says.  Its what 4E feels like to me and many others.  Healing surges, at will powers, encounter powers, daily powers, all harken to what happens in a MMO... Whether you lovers of 4e realize it or not this game was designed for that crowd.  Where it feels like a CCG.  Those encounter cards that were given out and some being rare c'mon.  I understand you love the game and you support it.  I will not sit here and argue the finer points of game  imbalace with you of earlier edition because they were there. I will however argue how to handle them and where the merits may have been in some of them.  This no different than the fact when 4e 1st started 3 years ago... there have been many improvements.  It still does not change what it is to or what it si to me. 
4e was/is a mash up of MMO's and CCG's.  It good in its own right and if I ever feel the urge to use less imagination when I game I can always break out my 4E core rules and go to town. 
I have no clue about encounter cards that were being handed out. None of my DMs ever had anything of the sort. It seems to me that you are against resource management though. However they just put a name to the exact same system that was already in place and defined it more precisely. Your highest level, most dangerous spells, those are dailys, you don't get to do that many of them. Mid level spells, with a decent effect, those are your encounters. You can use a few of them per day. Low level spells, well you can nearly spam them at-will. Healing surges are just another way of your cleric not having to prepare a few more cure light wounds for the day.

The looks, rules, spells, powers, classes and a lot might of appeared to change between the editions. But in reality not much at all has changed.
I have no clue about encounter cards that were being handed out.



Probably because there weren't.
The power cards that were sold were complete sets (at least for all the powers for that class that were out at the time).  The idea of 'common and rare powers' is a complete fabrication.
Another day, another three or four entries to my Ignore List.
Like I said if I want to play an MMO on table top I'll play 4E. 
With no negative comments what do people who like 4E like best about AD&D? What are some of the things that AD&D had going for it that didn't get carried into 4E?

Maybe if we frame our thoughts around what we DO like in the differant editions that we don't play we can put together a list of things loved by most that could be used once we get the play test to create a better game!




Come on guys,leave the Trolls alone and just stay on topic. I agree it can be hard with Trolls posting knee jerk posts all over the place but there is nothing we can do about them.


Lets not forget we are trying to build a better game!      
I apologize for calling them encounter cards... Fortune Cards and here a link...
www.wizards.com/dnd/event.aspx?x=dnd/4ne...

Add D&D Fortune Cards and Enhance Your Game


Dungeons & Dragons Fortune Cards, sold in booster packs of 8 cards, give players fun new ways to survive the challenges of the D&D Encounters in-store play program, as well as their home campaigns. These cards give characters fun, temporary benefits that feel different from the benefits gained from powers and feats, without adding undue complexity to the D&D game.



You mean those entirely optional and completely unnecessary Fortune Cards?  Yeah, it's just like a CCG, except you don't need the cards to play.

Keep trying.  I won't be reading it.
Another day, another three or four entries to my Ignore List.
There are few differences between AD&D and 4E. The main difference is that the average AD&D combat, played by an experienced group familiar with the rules, not using options and not omitting morale, etc, takes about 5 minutes. The average 4E combat takes about 45 minutes.

That's got to do with tons of things. Encounter design philosophy, different assumptions about what parts of the game are 'fun', all sorts of stuff. If you want to spend half an hour to an hour in combat, 2 to 4 times per session - play 4E. Want to spend 5 minutes, 15 times per session? Play AD&D.

Otherwise, they ain't that different. 
As silly as it sounds, I just like the word "proficiency." I would prefer that they worked differently, however.  And I did like the variety of changing attack spells every day (although I really would be loathe to give up my at-will wizard attacks.)
Healing surges 



No - the unlimited healing of potions and wands are a video game that is earlier D&D.
Surges are a limit on healing (recovery of luck and fatigue) you can use in a given time frame.
Second Wind is a movie and real life fatigue recovery thing (that probably would only be once per day or week? if it were real life modelled) Real life second wind isnt just pain supression its actually cellular level repair of fatigued muscle systems.

Hit points loss are not and never have been = to wounds so
I dont care if you like energy drinks and I prefer them to be MORE limited and more inkeeping with fiction, myth and legend which has very few "fix it" potions, they are usually just.

Surges are just longer term deeper resources, you could quick think of it as hit points being short term fatigue and healing surges representing long term fatigue.


  Creative Character Build Collection and The Magic of King's and Heros  also Can Martial Characters Fly? 

Improvisation in 4e: Fave 4E Improvisations - also Wrecans Guides to improvisation beyond page 42
The Non-combatant Adventurer (aka Princess build Warlord or LazyLord)
Reality is unrealistic - and even monkeys protest unfairness
Reflavoring the Fighter : The Wizard : The Swordmage - Creative Character Collection: Bloodwright (Darksun Character) 

At full hit points and still wounded to incapacitation? you are playing 1e.
By virtue of being a player your characters are the protagonists in a heroic fantasy game even at level one
"Wizards and Warriors need abilities with explicit effects for opposite reasons. With the wizard its because you need to create artificial limits on them, they have no natural ones and for the Warrior you need to grant permission to do awesome."

 

There are few differences between AD&D and 4E. The main difference is that the average AD&D combat, played by an experienced group familiar with the rules, not using options and not omitting morale, etc, takes about 5 minutes. The average 4E combat takes about 45 minutes.

That's got to do with tons of things. Encounter design philosophy, different assumptions about what parts of the game are 'fun', all sorts of stuff. If you want to spend half an hour to an hour in combat, 2 to 4 times per session - play 4E. Want to spend 5 minutes, 15 times per session? Play AD&D.

Otherwise, they ain't that different. 



I felt in AD&D your choices in combat were mostly meaningless I am told it may have been because my DMs sucked but  after I became DM things like 1 combat round equals a whole minute of action? The choice density wasnt anything I or my players were interested in.... so I found myself hacking it to death I cant be sure what I would want from AD&D land but ultra-quick fights that feel like just rolling dice no thanks. 
  Creative Character Build Collection and The Magic of King's and Heros  also Can Martial Characters Fly? 

Improvisation in 4e: Fave 4E Improvisations - also Wrecans Guides to improvisation beyond page 42
The Non-combatant Adventurer (aka Princess build Warlord or LazyLord)
Reality is unrealistic - and even monkeys protest unfairness
Reflavoring the Fighter : The Wizard : The Swordmage - Creative Character Collection: Bloodwright (Darksun Character) 

At full hit points and still wounded to incapacitation? you are playing 1e.
By virtue of being a player your characters are the protagonists in a heroic fantasy game even at level one
"Wizards and Warriors need abilities with explicit effects for opposite reasons. With the wizard its because you need to create artificial limits on them, they have no natural ones and for the Warrior you need to grant permission to do awesome."

 

You may not like being to compared to MMORPG... well too bad because regardless of what Wikipedia or any othe source says.  Its what 4E feels like to me and many others.


By "many others" you mean to propose that because other people share it, it's okay to have a belief, and that it somehow makes it correct. Well, that's nice, but no. If you're wrong, you're wrong, no matter how hard you and other people jam your heads into the dirt or stuff your fingers into your ears and scream whenever anybody corrects you.
Healing surges, at will powers, encounter powers, daily powers, all harken to what happens in a MMO...


Name one MMO that has healing surges? Oh, because they're actually designed for table top games. And what MMO has daily powers? Oh, right, none. So basically you are saying something that is patently false, because there isn't an MMO with those concepts. How about an MMO with an Immediate Interrupt action? Oh, because that's more or less IMPOSSIBLE to have in a video game. That is just one of the many, MANY reasons why 4th edition would make a poor video game.
Whether you lovers of 4e realize it or not this game was designed for that crowd.


If you tried harder, you might be able to sound more condencending. In all reality, the people that actually designed the game and not some fool screaming about previous editions actually said that they took inspiration from many, many sources - previous iterations of the game, other table top role playing games, video games, MMOs, board games, etc.
Where it feels like a CCG.


This idea is so ridiculous I don't even have a logical reply. No, 4e feels like a board game, no it feels like tetris, no I got it! It feels like washing a car! None of these have any bias, so you can scream about it all you want with absolutely no reality to your statement.
Those encounter cards that were given out and some being rare c'mon.  I understand you love the game and you support it.  I will not sit here and argue the finer points of game  imbalace with you of earlier edition because they were there. I will however argue how to handle them and where the merits may have been in some of them.  This no different than the fact when 4e 1st started 3 years ago... there have been many improvements.  It still does not change what it is to or what it si to me.


You could just admit that you're upset 4th edition was different and not just another splatbook for a previous edition.
4e was/is a mash up of MMO's and CCG's.  It good in its own right and if I ever feel the urge to use less imagination when I game I can always break out my 4E core rules and go to town. 


This is patently false; MMOs are video games. I'm not sure what prevents you from using your imagination when playing a different version of D&D, but I assure you, there is actually nothing there that prevents it.

Supporting an edition you like does not make you an edition warrior. Demanding that everybody else support your edition makes you an edition warrior.

Why do I like 13th Age? Because I like D&D: http://magbonch.wordpress.com/2013/10/16/first-impressions-13th-age/

AzoriusGuildmage- "I think that you simply spent so long playing it, especially in your formative years with the hobby, that you've long since rationalized or houseruled away its oddities, and set it in your mind as the standard for what is and isn't reasonable in an rpg."

The reference to MMO or WoW is not meant literary in this context. It means when playing 4e, in your imagination you don't see realworld character, but a computer game character in a cartoon land.

For me healing surges and extended rests are the worst. After a fight, where my HP went negative, I am not "brand new" the next morning. In tom and jerry cartoon it is so. In a computer game also.

Also combat. In a computer game it is mostly about fighting. Soon you get used to it and bored with it. It becomes a grind. In real life, when facing a fight to the death, you think twice about it. In 4e usually not. When DM has drawn all the encounter map and pools of acid and lava, you just go forward and solve problems with weapon (powers).

Powers. What is power. That too is computer game concept. I swing from left to right and from up to down - 2 powers right? Does it really have to matter? In real life you don't a mighty blow power. You have a fighting skill.
Really? You couldn't have just started you own thread and talked all the negative crap you wanted to? Instead you had to come to mine and crap all over it?


Fine,I'm done.


  The reference to MMO or WoW is not meant literary in this context. It means when playing 4e, in your imagination you don't see realworld character, but a computer game character in a cartoon land.


Stop,take a break,step back and look at that remark. You are telling other people what they see when they think about something. You know better than them what is going on in their own head? Come on guy! Even the worst of the worst must look at that and get a chuckle.Maybe,just maybe you realize you are a little too worked up and just flinging mess at people?

For me healing surges and extended rests are the worst. After a fight, where my HP went negative, I am not "brand new" the next morning. In tom and jerry cartoon it is so. In a computer game also


Well at least you wrote the "For Me" part. If that is actually how surges worked I would agree. Think of it this way. A ogre just hit your character with a called shot tot he head for 24 points of damage with a two handed sword. What you are still alive? How the HELL are you still alive? What a crappy game! Oh what? you mean that you have a ton more hp than that and so the blow must have just nicked your metal helm and not done any real damage to you? After the battle you rested for a second or ten and got your breath back,took off you helm and rubbed your bruised head and now are ready to march deeper in the ogre caves?


That is healing surges at work. Healing surges do not heal wounds,they prevent them. Now that is differant than other editions and you can argue not as good or better or whatever but its working off the exact same vague hit point system we always did.Just coming at it from a differant angle.


     
Also combat. In a computer game it is mostly about fighting

When is combat ever about not fighting?   At least ya made me laugh.


     Powers. What is power. That too is computer game concept. I swing from left to right and from up to down - 2 powers right? Does it really have to matter? In real life you don't a mighty blow power. You have a fighting skill.


You mean like Power Attack? Power strike? You mean like all those AD&D races that could do things 1 per day? Drow,Gnomes ect.. Tons of em.

In real life you don't a mighty blow power. You have a fighting skill.


Dude,in real life every damn character we ever made would not exist! If they did exist they would just die.

In real life you get to sit at your computer and type hate edition crap in a post asking people for no negative remarks about editions and just wanting people who like 4E to post about AD&D. In Real life life you get to ignore what other people want and spout your views on a subject regardless of the topic or desire of the other people talking.

Are you sure you want to base D&D Next on the real life?     
     

I felt in AD&D your choices in combat were mostly meaningless I am told it may have been because my DMs sucked but  after I became DM things like 1 combat round equals a whole minute of action? The choice density wasnt anything I or my players were interested in.... so I found myself hacking it to death I cant be sure what I would want from AD&D land but ultra-quick fights that feel like just rolling dice no thanks. 



In the AD&D games I run, a Fighter can attack, attempt to disarm, shield bash, trip, push, charge, fight defensively, fight reckelessly, swing in from a chandelier, pick up a table and hurl it, raise an army, ride a dragon, invoke a power from a kick-$@! magic-sword, use another magic item, or do anything else he can think of, so long as it's within the bounds of the laws of the milieu. 

I also give fighter's Cleave, which may be the best idea 3.x swiped from Dave Arneson.

I think it's fun, but YMMV.  
In the AD&D games I run, a Fighter can attack, attempt to disarm, shield bash, trip, push, charge, fight defensively, fight reckelessly, swing in from a chandelier, pick up a table and hurl it, raise an army, ride a dragon, invoke a power from a kick-$@! magic-sword, use another magic item, or do anything else he can think of, so long as it's within the bounds of the laws of the milieu


Sure you do. I do as well but at the same time if you were honest you would admite that most of the time its "I swing at him and rolled a 13,is that a hit?"  
In the AD&D games I run, a Fighter can attack, attempt to disarm, shield bash, trip, push, charge, fight defensively, fight reckelessly, swing in from a chandelier, pick up a table and hurl it, raise an army, ride a dragon, invoke a power from a kick-$@! magic-sword, use another magic item, or do anything else he can think of, so long as it's within the bounds of the laws of the milieu


Sure you do. I do as well but at the same time if you were honest you would admite that most of the time its "I swing at him and rolled a 13,is that a hit?"  



Why wouldn't I be honest?

Of course, rolling "to hit" is the bread and butter of an AD&D fighter! Laughing 

Frequency of other actions, depends upon the situation, the player, the DM and PC level. I also give players a printout, detailing combat options and modifiers. Incomplete, obviously. But, as far as older players go, I rarely meet one who plays the game like he did when he was 13. I don't DM like I did at 13, either. 

Player skill is important in my games. There are incentives for players to be creative and think outside the box. Survival, for one.  
Honestly, I can't think of a single system from AD&D I would like ported.  Maybe some tighter balance on some of the skills and power options, but that being said, they started doing this late in 4E with much greater balance as just swapping out racial features.  I liked the shorter combat times but I also remember why they were so short.  Most monsters went down in one round, frequently before some characters could act.  Our rogue with a bum d10 didn't act in five consecutive combats... the cleric and paladin just mopped the floor.  I liked some of the optional rules for XP, such as rogues disarming traps, etc, but skill challenges are a more inclusive system and don't necessitate party members standing there not doing anything.  The multiclassing was slipshod.  IF human, it was a huge inconvience but could be a massive reward.  IF not human, it was extremely powerful, especially if level limits were removed as we did in our games.  I'd say the less reliance on a battle map, but I've been running a game for 24 levels, and due to it being an hour drive to where I run and no time to set up, we've gone this far with out one.  We just do what we did in AD&D, and go, "How far away are they?"  They brought back having monsters have different rules for creation in 4E, which was something I was very thankful for. 

I think the only thing I would want is something that would primarily be railed against.  I miss the more fleshed out worlds, and the bredth of character race options.  But I also remember that's one reason why TSR went under, so again, I can see why they didn't go this path.  To get that much depth, you have to produce alot of products for a very niche market.  3E tried to do this by tying in a small handful of character options, which angered my player to no end.  4E tried to completely divorce it, and I'm not sure that was successful.  New DM's probably didn't have their head wrapped around the world enough to really feel enticed to run in it, even if I've tied in the new with the old in FR and it's worked out fairly well in games.  So if you ask me for my opinion, these are them.  Races?  Yes I know too many people get frustrated with this many options, I don't blame them.  It's a personal taste.  Besides, nine times out of ten I'm still going to say, of these 135 races, I'm going to play... a human.  I just like the options.

I'd rather them not listen and keep D&D going than kill off a fairly storied franchise.
You may not like being to compared to MMORPG... well too bad because regardless of what Wikipedia or any othe source says.  Its what 4E feels like to me and many others.  Healing surges, at will powers, encounter powers, daily powers, all harken to what happens in a MMO... Whether you lovers of 4e realize it or not this game was designed for that crowd.


Yeah, I really can't stand the absolute homogeny of at-will, encounter, daily, etc. It takes all the uniqueness away from choosing spells and whatnot. No pen-and-paper RPG should be that sterile. Leave that stuff to video and/or card games.

And then of course the 4E people will scream that the earlier editions of D&D were not balanced...

BUT THAT'S A SEPARATE ISSUE(!) Of course 5E needs to find ways to prevent the mechanical imbalances, but that that's not the same thing at all as homogenizing every little thing to the point of sheer monotony.

Just look at the way SAGA does it, if you need proof of what I'm saying. It is every bit as well-balanced as 4E, but without ANY of that homogenized, card-game type-stuff. 

Leadership and class choice should have NOTHING to do with each other, EVER. Conflating the two is simply horrendous game design.
In the AD&D games I run, a Fighter can attack, attempt to disarm, shield bash, trip, push, charge, fight defensively, fight reckelessly, swing in from a chandelier, pick up a table and hurl it, raise an army, ride a dragon, invoke a power from a kick-$@! magic-sword, use another magic item, or do anything else he can think of, so long as it's within the bounds of the laws of the milieu


Sure you do. I do as well but at the same time if you were honest you would admite that most of the time its "I swing at him and rolled a 13,is that a hit?"  



Why wouldn't I be honest?

Of course, rolling "to hit" is the bread and butter of an AD&D fighter! Laughing  



I think what he's trying to say is that you can do all of those things in 4E. Well, except maybe disarm, but I bet a GM would be willing to give you a shot at it with a -5 penalty. But at the end of the day, you're rolling a d20 and adding a modifier to determine how successful you were.
Yeah, I really can't stand the absolute homogeny of at-will, encounter, daily, etc. It takes all the uniqueness away from choosing spells and whatnot.



I don't know what you mean by this. If you mean that the powers are homogenous, that is demonstrably, provably wrong. I see many others that dislike 4E keep using this word homogenous.

That word  

I mean if you have a DDI account, I think you can just look up the, I'm gonna say, hundreds of different kinds of class powers and see that they're all quite different. 

Are you saying you dislike that all encounter powers can only be used once per encounter? That's kind of a weird complaint, but I can actually still disagree because there's other powers that let you recharge encounter powers. Except if the encounter power says it can't be recharged like that. Or if the encounter power already lets you use it multiple times (like every heal power)

  BUT THAT'S A SEPARATE ISSUE(!)



You may say so but the designer in me says that balancing the powers between classes isn't separate from the issue of "Game Balance" so I consider them linked. Inextricably.

Hell, according to Monte Cook, they're going to want to be able to have people playing 4E style alongside people playing AD&D style and have them be balanced. So I think they agree that power balance and game balance are linked.

Part of my problem with people misstating what 4E does is that there is no ability to learn. Even if you dislike 4E, you can't figure out what works and what doesn't from 4E if you don't even know it.
What I liked about AD&D? The settings. Birthright, Spelljammer, Planescape, Dark Sun.

Everything else I could take or leave. And I left it.
Yeah, I really can't stand the absolute homogeny of at-will, encounter, daily, etc. It takes all the uniqueness away from choosing spells and whatnot.



I don't know what you mean by this. If you mean that the powers are homogenous, that is demonstrably, provably wrong. I see many others that dislike 4E keep using this word homogenous.


Everyone gets so many at-will powers, and everyone gets so many encounter powers, and everyone gets so many daily powers....

It's the same rubric repeated all over the place for every class. I mean, come on. Where is the mystery?

I've never enjoyed homogenous systems like that, and I never will. This is one of the things that a great many people dislike about 4E.

  BUT THAT'S A SEPARATE ISSUE(!)



You may say so but the designer in me says that balancing the powers between classes isn't separate from the issue of "Game Balance" so I consider them linked. Inextricably.


You are missing the point. You can simply balance the classes by giving them balanced trees, full of powers that vary in many ways (including frequency of use), and that way you aren't forcing the character to take a daily or encounter power or whatever just because the game designers say so.

My wrists are just more comfortable without handcuffs on them.
Leadership and class choice should have NOTHING to do with each other, EVER. Conflating the two is simply horrendous game design.
Really? You couldn't have just started you own thread and talked all the negative crap you wanted to? Instead you had to come to mine and crap all over it?


Fine,I'm done.



Ohh cheese louise, I did not want to crap all over your personal thread. I was just explaining to miss blacksheepcannibal what mr Straduss1 meant when 4e feels like WoW to him.

And about fighting is about fighting, well I was rushing and didn't explain it fully. I mean't figthing should be faired, it should be dangerous, it should be remembered. It should not be your daily routine. In 4e it does not happen to me. These are just things I want to be fixed in next version.
To be honest I get my panties all in a bunch sometimes because of all the 4E ranting. This forum is supposed to be about 5E but because we don't have a clue really what it looks like,it has turned into a what the hell is wrong with 4E,

I'm not even a huge 4E fan. Till essentials I didn't even play it. To be honest I like Labyrinth Lords Advanced better then them all but my players don't. The eat 4E up like its hot pancakes!

So I end up playing it a lot. I think its a ok game but I hope D&D Next is better.


I suspect it will be more like a merging of Basic D&D and 4E. I think it will both piss off all the anti D&D crowd and the 4E crowd.

A 2fer!        
One thing I miss about the early editions is how the game wasn't designed around the combat grid alone. A lot of the spells were utilitarian and could be used to affect the world and the things in it. The focus wasn't on how to buff yourself your dog or your weapon. There were few if any ability score buffs that didn't have some other primary effect associated with them.

I would love to see large area spells return. I think spells taking longer than a full round should return and nearly all spells should be full round actions regardless of how long it really takes to cast a spell. 

If mages and clerics were considered to be too over powered in 3e then there should be more restrictions on the way they use their powers. Maybe a return to a more arduous form of spell management. Giant spell tomes that cost serious money to create and maintain. make them so cumbersome that they need to be left behind or packed away when adventuring. restrict the maximum level of spells a caster can learn to a certain intelligence score. and stop giving players an ability score boost for free as they advance in level. Make the player waste a feat if they want to increase their ability scores.

Making combat the only place a spell is of any use is far too restrictive in my opinion. 
So I had a really long post explaining 4E, but that's not what this thread is supposed to be about. So out of respect to the OP, I highly recommend that if you guys really want to understand 4E (and why it's fun) then you should check out an Encounters group at your FLGS. Seriously, it only costs you an hour and a half or two hours of your time and while compiling a list of everything you hate you might accidentally have fun.

Me, I never played AD&D, but I can tell you from a 4E perspective, I hope 5E makes things as easy on the DM as 4E did. Being able to quickly build and modify encounters, and quickly knowing just how difficult that encounter should be, is a huge blessing.
The one thing I miss from AD&D is racial class restrictions.  I still can't get my head around Dwarf wizards - it just seems wrong. 
Welcome to ZomboniLand - My D&D Blog http://zomboniland.blogspot.com/
Yeah, Dwarf Wizards still make my head hurt. I remember playing a Dwarven "Ranger" (fighter/thief w/ Wayfinder kit) and that was fun. But that aside, I really miss the settings and the way modules were laid out/written. I started a thread on module layout here. community.wizards.com/dndnext/go/thread/...(maybe)_importance.

2E especially was rich with cool, unique settings and "The Haunted Halls of Eveningstar" is my favorite low-level adventure ever even with Keep on the Borderlands and Sinister Secret of Saltmarsh on the shelf. 

I also loved how they kept the heavy hand of rules out of role playing portions of the game and was really glad to see 4E adopt that mentaility while giving a general set of skills to use when rolls were needed rather than that bloated clusterf&%*^ of a system in 3E.
So I had a really long post explaining 4E, but that's not what this thread is supposed to be about. So out of respect to the OP, I highly recommend that if you guys really want to understand 4E (and why it's fun) then you should check out an Encounters group at your FLGS. Seriously, it only costs you an hour and a half or two hours of your time and while compiling a list of everything you hate you might accidentally have fun.



I also recommend this.  It's one thing to bitch about it, it's another to do so after actually having played the game, though to be fair, I don't recall anyone having done that in this thread.

Me, I never played AD&D, but I can tell you from a 4E perspective, I hope 5E makes things as easy on the DM as 4E did. Being able to quickly build and modify encounters, and quickly knowing just how difficult that encounter should be, is a huge blessing.



Meh.  That's not a system issue, it's a DM experience issue, AFAIC.  I can do AD&D off the cuff, because I've gleaned enough DM XP to be able to do it! Laughing I've played and DMed enough to know how to build/modify a game session and have it pretty well balanced and fun.

I'm another vote for simplified combat.  4E for me appears to be a miniatures wargame with some oddball things your mini can do and only one mini per player.   I'm not a Warhammer person, so I can't say how the two compare, but I have done a lot of gridded, turn-based wargaming, and, well, 4E appears to be that with a preciously thin veneer of "other stuff".  It's not as complicated as Pathfinder - praise be to all that's holy! - but it's still not as fluid and above all fast as the way I play 1E AD&D.  

I just realized that if I ran AD&D combat truly BtB it's complicated as hell - speed factors, range, weapon types vs. armour types, blah blah blah...So never mind.  Innocent  

So let's examine powers and magical sh!t.

I prefer the AD&D method of spells and spellcasting, hands down.  First - more variety.  A high-level spellcaster should have a wide variety of magicks at her beck and call.  In 4E, not really so. Yeah, there are items, but... Yes, there are rituals, but those don't count once initiative is rolled.  

In 1E, a 10th-level mage can do all kinds of stuff both in combat and out; she can fireball the baddies, use some other spell - and she's got 15 different spells she can use, plus all the magic items she's got, scrolls, potions, rings, wands, rods, staves, etc.  Use of spells and items really isn't restricted to combat.  A 4E 10th-level mage is comparatively restricted with what she can do in combat.  A half-dozen encounter powers, a couple-three dailies, and whatever items she's got, none of which have the same versatility as her 1E ancestor.  

Here's the kicker - that 4E fighter over there has just as many spell-like powers.  They focus on different things, but the red, gray and orange "cards" on his Character Builder sheet look exactly like the Wizard's "cards", have very similar flavor text, and do a lot of the same sort of paranormal, superhuman stuff.  I'm aware of - or can guess at - the inclusive reasoning behind this: Everyone should feel like they're contributing approximately the same to the outcome of the encounter.  It's fair if everyone has about the same level of impact.  I just prefer the 1E/AD&D way of doing it - classes are designed for specific situations.  Got a room full of kobolds?  Bringin' a fireball on line here, BD.  That's a job for the Mage, not the Fighter.  Got an evil knight guarding a bridge?  Have at thee, Sirrah! saith Sir Digby Chicken-Caesar, Paladin of Light.

And that's why I think the effort to bring 1E and 4E together will fail.  They're not just different games, they're totally different kinds of game.  4E uses skills and powers and individual PC builds; every PC is by the nature of the PC creation process, completely unique and different.  1E uses archetypes, paradigms of classes.   You can easily build Conan in 4E as a 1st-level character.  Not so in 1E; it's just not possible without multi-classing.  The two games are as different as 4E D&D and MERP or GURPS or Shadowrun or Twilight:2000, as chalk and cheese.  The only thing they really share are some words which have little effect on how the game engines run.  Smashing them together will only alienate people who like each.

Be that as it may, another thing 5E can nick from 1E is the different Thief's abilities.  A Burglar has a different set of skills than a Pickpocket, and a Safecracker (mechanic?) has a different set of skills than either of those.  In 4E, all those highly individualized skills are subsumed under Thievery, which makes no sense to me.  In earlier editions, a PC Thief/Rogue could really specialize.  And that's important.

Yet another: Alignment, and make it stick.  I know, I know, alignment is useless, alignment is stupid, alignment is restrictive, yes, I've heard all that.  Done? Wink  Alignment BtB has an important game effect which shouldn't be ignored.  More importantly, it is a useful starting point for roleplaying.  Speaking as someone who often has difficulty stopping the metagaming and starting the roleplaying, imagining my character's alignment and trying to act like the book says that alignment should act is incredibly useful.  It's like being given a role to act.  "What's my motivation, Pete?"  That it can have a very interesting in-game effect is just sauce for the goose.

That's enough rambling from me.

Bob 
The one thing I miss from AD&D is racial class restrictions.  I still can't get my head around Dwarf wizards - it just seems wrong. 


This kind of thing definitely needs to be a setting issue, and not a core game rules issue. The core rules should tell you how to make a character, not why you can't. In some settings, Dwarf Wizards make complete sense, in others there is nothing unusual about it.

Supporting an edition you like does not make you an edition warrior. Demanding that everybody else support your edition makes you an edition warrior.

Why do I like 13th Age? Because I like D&D: http://magbonch.wordpress.com/2013/10/16/first-impressions-13th-age/

AzoriusGuildmage- "I think that you simply spent so long playing it, especially in your formative years with the hobby, that you've long since rationalized or houseruled away its oddities, and set it in your mind as the standard for what is and isn't reasonable in an rpg."