|
1 year ago ::
May 18, 2012 - 11:26AM
#21
|
Date Joined:
Jan 15, 2009
|
The 4e superhero myth always amuses me. What made you think 4e characters are super heroes? In AD&D a single fighter could take on an Orc or a few goblins no problem. In 4e a single fighter has about a 60% chance of beating one goblin in a one on one fight, and no chance against the Orc or 2+ goblins. In AD&D a wizard can wiggle his fingers and make 2-8 trained soldiers fall asleep for ten minutes with no save. Alternatively they can warp someone's mind so they become your best friend and go to suicidal lengths to protect you for a few hours. At level 3 they can be invisible all day until they attack. Pre 4e you had superheroes in every party. Which game seems more superheroic?
Nods this stuff and after a paltry few levels the spell caster has personal flight and missile immunity and so on...
The level you get stuff mostly like that in the latest game is half way through your career. There is less superhero in 4e. Just less lame-o too.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
May 18, 2012 - 11:43AM
#22
|
Date Joined:
Apr 27, 2012
|
@Rogan
I'm glad you had fun and enjoyed the spell point rule but it is by no means almost universally accepted. You played in a particular circle where that rule became popular probably by cross pollination. I never knew any group that used it.
I happen to like the straight up Vancian magic user.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
May 18, 2012 - 12:15PM
#23
|
|
|
Yes, IF they did option #2, they would need THACO or something like it, and spell points. Without those to modifications, AD&D was slower moving and not as much fun.
I think the majority of ADnD lovers would play with a modern additive to hit system replacing thac0.
More sex and gender equality and racial equality shouldn't even be an argument--it should simply be an assumption for any RPG that wants to stay relevant in the 21st century.
I could say anything in D&D is silly though, because it's a silly game and we are silly people.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
May 18, 2012 - 12:18PM
#24
|
|
|
The 4e superhero myth always amuses me. What made you think 4e characters are super heroes? In AD&D a single fighter could take on an Orc or a few goblins no problem. In 4e a single fighter has about a 60% chance of beating one goblin in a one on one fight, and no chance against the Orc or 2+ goblins.
Actually that's not true. A 4e fighter can take about half an at level encounter solo, if the fighter is even mid level optimized. A single orc is within reach.
More sex and gender equality and racial equality shouldn't even be an argument--it should simply be an assumption for any RPG that wants to stay relevant in the 21st century.
I could say anything in D&D is silly though, because it's a silly game and we are silly people.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
May 18, 2012 - 12:34PM
#25
|
Date Joined:
Jan 15, 2009
|
The 4e superhero myth always amuses me. What made you think 4e characters are super heroes? In AD&D a single fighter could take on an Orc or a few goblins no problem. In 4e a single fighter has about a 60% chance of beating one goblin in a one on one fight, and no chance against the Orc or 2+ goblins.
Actually that's not true. A 4e fighter can take about half an at level encounter solo, if the fighter is even mid level optimized. A single orc is within reach.
I seem to recall a basic Orc is level +4 for a starting character.. and the fighter wouldnt be teased if he hides.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
May 18, 2012 - 12:43PM
#26
|
|
|
The 4e superhero myth always amuses me. What made you think 4e characters are super heroes? In AD&D a single fighter could take on an Orc or a few goblins no problem. In 4e a single fighter has about a 60% chance of beating one goblin in a one on one fight, and no chance against the Orc or 2+ goblins.
Actually that's not true. A 4e fighter can take about half an at level encounter solo, if the fighter is even mid level optimized. A single orc is within reach.
I seem to recall a basic Orc is level +4 for a starting character.. and the fighter wouldnt be teased if he hides.
I forget that monsters have set levels. too much time spent in the monster builder, i guess. :P
More sex and gender equality and racial equality shouldn't even be an argument--it should simply be an assumption for any RPG that wants to stay relevant in the 21st century.
I could say anything in D&D is silly though, because it's a silly game and we are silly people.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
May 18, 2012 - 12:45PM
#27
|
Date Joined:
Jun 29, 2010
|
I started playing D&D back in 1979. Around that time it began to be a bit of a phenomenon, and it was in the press alot (both good and bad).
Someone talked me into playing one night at Ohio State University, and I was hooked.
Everyone I talked into trying it loved it. It wasn't your typical group of antisocial folks either. It was full spectrum and a mix of both guys and girls from all social circles.
What made that version of AD&D so much fun, and so successful was that it was relatively easy to play, it was flexible, and it moved along smoothly and quickly.
Almost every gaming group I ever joined that played AD&D had adopted two very popular optional rules, 1) spellpoints, and 2) THACO. Other than those two modifications, nearly every DM I ran across played straight AD&D.
Later versions lost the "magic" for me and those I played with. Those later versions felt more constrained, slower moving, and more and more like a boardgame. We kept playing AD&D (with those two modifications) for about a decade and then drifted off to other interests.
I think that WoC should do one of two things:
1) Try to capture that fast paced, simple functionality, and fun of AD&D in D&D Next or
2) Re-publish AD&D with new artwork, and add in those two almost universally used optional rules (spellpoints and THACO). Call it "AD&D Classic".
I suppose they could do both. There is money to be made with option #2 I believe. You have all the material, and you could use updated artwork. You have to admit, there was something about AD&D that made it so fantastically popular the first time.
Recently, my kids and their friends tried D&D 4e. They thought it was fun but moved too slow. I bought a set of AD&D books off of ebay (expensive), and low and behold, they love it!
I wish the team the best of luck.
I'd like to see that old spirit back in the game, whichever path they take.
I've seen a couple groups mess around with spell points, but all dropped them. There was a wave of it when 2.5 Spells & Magic came out. It just wasn't D&D. I personally wouldn't play that option in this franchise.
THAC0 was definitely clumsy, but at the same time it's soooo iconic. The best compromise we've found is reatining the THAC0 acronym and concept as a base to hit number, but flipping it to an additive system. In reality it's nothing more than BAB as a target instead of bonus, but it somehow FEELS more like D&D.
DISCLAIMER - Everything said by anyone is absolute subjective opinion. There are no objective claims being made by me, or anyone else, unless they overtly state 'The following is an objective claim'. At this point if you choose to be offended by anything I (or anyone else) say the problem is ENTIRELY your own.
WotC won't let us give them money because they won't produce a game we want to play.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
May 18, 2012 - 12:50PM
#28
|
Date Joined:
Mar 28, 2001
|
@Rogan
I'm glad you had fun and enjoyed the spell point rule but it is by no means almost universally accepted. You played in a particular circle where that rule became popular probably by cross pollination. I never knew any group that used it.
I happen to like the straight up Vancian magic user.
Actually, I've seen spell point systems in D&D that work along with Vancian magic. The way it worked was you have a given number of spell points at a given level. Each day, as you prepare and memorize spells, your spell points are "pre-spent" on the spells you use during the day.
I for one would love to see a spell point system work just like that. If we were to have an at-will/Vancian blend, then the spell points could be used to enhance the at-wills during a given casting; using Vancian, you could simply prepare that specific casting in advance.
To speak of THAC0, it was really more of a penalty to an attack roll rather than it being how good you were at defense. Back in those days, HPs was the "defensive" abstract of deflecting a deadly blow, while your AC was to avoid being damaged all together (as apposed to being hit like it is now.)
But, I agree, I would not want to see THAC0 return. Positive defenses are more intuitive, and they end up being attack DCs instead of attack penalties.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
May 18, 2012 - 2:59PM
#29
|
|
|
@Rogan: Take a look at OSRIC. It's basically AD&D with ThAC0 instead of the hit charts. Some of the rules are clarified, some of the stuff Gary just hated in AD&D was left out. It's a free download, and you can buy a big book with lots of art if you lean that way. Completely compatible with the old modules, monsters, etc.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
May 18, 2012 - 6:32PM
#30
|
Date Joined:
Nov 17, 2003
|
Yes, IF they did option #2, they would need THACO or something like it, and spell points. Without those to modifications, AD&D was slower moving and not as much fun.
I think the majority of ADnD lovers would play with a modern additive to hit system replacing thac0.
I am an AD&D lover who DMs with a modern additive to hit system replacing the to-hit tables. The players are all perfectly cool with it. Though one of the more mathematically challenged players does remain skeptical that the statistical chance to hit remains identical. It is funny watching him continue to argue even after directly showing how the number needed to roll is the same.
|
|
|
