4e: On the Subject of 4e's purported resemblance to other games

[wodan46]

We all know deep down its true. 4e's combat gameplay has certain... changes. It consists of waves of easily dispatched enemies who exist only to be destroyed and for thematic feel, in order to give the more powerful enemies an edge. Bosses and mini-Bosses, will upon the loss of half their life, suddenly turn red and gain new and powerful abilities. The story is unimportant and exists only to justify an interesting set of weapons and abilities. Clearly, Dungeons and Dragons has decided to the appeal to the unwashed masses and make their game into a side scrolling starfighter. Apparently, they consider taking efficient ideas that make for entertaining gameplay more important than wallowing in the nostalgia of past editions full of inbalances, errata, internal inconsistency, and a myriad of other minor flaws that players tolerated, but which the public was repulsed from. HOW DARE THEY.

Oh wait, you meant something else?

[Cuddly]

The sarcasm is off the scale!!

[TempusCCK]

The sarcasm is off the scale!!

As is the bias!

[wodan46]

Of course the bias is off the scale. It is the nature of Sarcasm to provide an exaggerated example reminiscent of the actual target in order to emphasize its absurdity, by showing to what illogical extents the idea can be taken to.

[Eldmor]

The sarcasm is off the scale!!

I think Vegeta would agree with me that it is over nine thousand.

[Lady Tialait]

I think Vegeta would agree with me that it is over nine thousand.

WHAT?!?! NINE THOUSAND?!?.....

[wodan46]

I considered approaching this issue from a more standard and serious angle but this way was more fun.

As for the truth, D&D bases its fluff on LotR and its ilk and its combat mechanics on Chainmail, a Turnbased Tactical Wargame. Fluff of epic fantasy, crunch of a turn-based tactical wargame, that's D&D. WoW is based on all of the aforementioned sources and more, and does a good job distilling their elements. MMMORPG's preference for player interaction actually is rather reminiscent of the roleplaying side of D&D just as Fire Emblem's party of characters hacking and slashing for exp and loot is reminiscent of the combat side of D&D, and taking ideas from them is not a big deal, as they are far higher up in the tree of what's based on what anyway.

[Ozymandias]

I, for one, haven't played Galaga since they nerfed the 3-way shot. I mean, it's supposed to be better than the missiles. So what if it's not balanced? Breaks verisimilitude, if you ask me.

[TempusCCK]

Actually, from what I've seen in interviews with the late Mr. Gygax, LotR was very little inspiration to the original D&D game.

Anywho, as to your original point, sure, you can have that game if you like, however, D&D to me is not just rules and balance and mechanics working in a fashion to ensure that everyone is blah blah blah.

You already have that unless your group is a big bunch of powergamers, your Dm is a slave to RAW, and you personally smell (yes, you smell) what I'm looking for is immersion, and alot of things about 4e break immersion.

[wodan46]

I agree that certain aspects of 4e break immersion (encounter level powers most prominently). However, I'm talking about claims that 4e is based on mechanics from WoW and Dynasty Warriors, claims which have minimal basis in reality. 3e is a lot more like Dynasty Warriors regarding weaker enemies, and 4e only cribbed a few combat tips from WoW, no more than it did from side-scrolling starfighter games.

[Khanderas]

The sarcasm is off the scale!!
A sarcasm detector ? Thats really useful. :smallwink:

[Attilargh]

I so want to play in a D&D game set in Gensokyo right now.

[Corolinth]

Actually, from what I've seen in interviews with the late Mr. Gygax, LotR was very little inspiration to the original D&D game.And that's why, with the exception of hobbits being renamed as halflings, all of the races were carbon copies of LotR races?

[bosssmiley]

Yeah, ok. Thanks for that. :smallannoyed:

http://www.marcusleatherdale.com/images/adivasi/fullsize/adivasi_49_fs.jpg

[Tsotha-lanti]

And that's why, with the exception of hobbits being renamed as halflings, all of the races were carbon copies of LotR races?

If you look closely, D&D actually bears more resemblance to R.E. Howard's, Fritz Leiber's, and Clark Ashton Smith's writings than to LotR. The reason you think it's more like LotR is precisely the above - the races are from LotR (as is, I suppose, the party structure). The rest is pretty much from the sword and sorcery -style fantasy that is rooted, funnily enough, in the writings of Lovecraft's "disciples" (more like contemporaries, I guess, but they were following his lead, in a way).

I gotta admit that I'm not familiar with 50s and 60s fantasy, though (with the exceptions of Moorcock and Leiber - both influenced by Howard, and Moorcock by Clark Ashton Smith), so I'm not that up on what the immediate influences might have been.

[nagora]

And that's why, with the exception of hobbits being renamed as halflings, all of the races were carbon copies of LotR races?

All the races were carbon copies of LotR? Like what? Dwarves are stock northern European characters from legends. D&D elves are short and mortal unlike both LotR and mythical elves. Gnomes don't figure much in LotR. The humans are all pretty much alike, there's no Numenorean strain or anything like that. The similarities in the player races are slight.

Orcs, hobbits, Type VI demons, and Ents were the obvious LotR influnces, IMO. Ents (renamed Trents) never really caught on, but of course Orcs are very common stock monsters.

The bigger influnces, were Howard, Lieber, Burroughs (there's a list in the 1ed DMG), with a big dollop of faery thrown in. Even kobolds were supposed (before Dave Sutherland went a bit mad on the picures) to be a type of faeryfolk and there are far more creatures in the MM based on that milleu than on LotR - including goblins, hobgoblins, and giants.

Attempts at sarcasm aside, 4e's combat system design is clearly an attempt to emulate computer games and CGI movies with their over-the-top and highly implausible combat and is vastly different to 1e's attempt to be more like the combat one sees in most written stories and myth.

In 1ed, taking on hoards of opponents is something characters can only really do against "normal" opponents - normal humans or demi-humans, relatively weak non-humans. An 8th level fighter in 1ed can still turn the tide of a battle more or less single-handed, but not against "monsters". Monsters are supposed to be the things you send for the heroes to cope with and as such are their equals in combat at least, so there's no option to "short cut" combat with them, no matter how high level the fighter is. Although, of course, in AD&D it takes literally years of play to reach levels like 10th, and 20th level characters are simply not something that one ever sees.

So, it's simply not the case that 4th or 3rd edtions have not changed the style of combat and it's also clear to anyone who looks that the changes have been in the direction of cinematographic combat and away from "realistic" combat. Computer games have gone the same route and I think the new edition is taking its cue from its computerised rivals.

It's a taste thing at the end of the day, but it is a real change and not some nutty conspiracy theory.

[Dhavaer]

Yeah, ok. Thanks for that. :smallannoyed:

http://www.marcusleatherdale.com/images/adivasi/fullsize/adivasi_49_fs.jpg

That would make an awesome monster.

[Reel On, Love]

Attempts at sarcasm aside, 4e's combat system design is clearly an attempt to emulate computer games and CGI movies with their over-the-top and highly implausible combat and is vastly different to 1e's attempt to be more like the combat one sees in most written stories and myth.


1e is more like the combat one sees in myth than 4e?! Let's not get crazy, here.

I mean, when Cuchulainn entered a battle-rage, "his sinews bulged with knots the size of a baby's head; a poisonous black mist rose above his head; and he snapped his jaw shut with enough force to kill a lion, showering sparks."
Cuchulainn was practically a Super Saiyan, okay?

Beowulf had the strength of 30 men (and killed monsters all over the freaking place), Achilles was invulnerable (and cut through enemies better than any 4E warrior can), etc.

Meanwhile, the 4E fighter gets to hit stuff hard, push it around, knock it down, and keep its attention. Ooh, so fancy.

[Tsotha-lanti]

The change in the style of combat is just fine, really - D&D never had anything vaguely like realistic combat. AC and HP? lulz. Let other games stick with realism or some approximations thereof - RuneQuest, Rolemaster, Pendragon, etc.

Also, yeah, kobolds were a type of German fairy, weren't they? Possibly related to Nibelungs ( = Germanic version of Nordic dwarves, who Tolkien's resemble 99%). Mine-knockers, laying traps for miners underground, and the like.

4E is taking to their logical conclusion (and better execution, less encumbered by attempts to bow to the old editions) the changes started in 3E. Hooray for them. If I want fantasy tactical combat gaming, I know where to turn. For real roleplaying, D&D was never the game of choice anyway.

[nagora]

1e is more like the combat one sees in myth than 4e?! Let's not get crazy, here.

I mean, when Cuchulainn entered a battle-rage, "his sinews bulged with knots the size of a baby's head; a poisonous black mist rose above his head; and he snapped his jaw shut with enough force to kill a lion, showering sparks."
Cuchulainn was practically a Super Saiyan, okay?

Beowulf had the strength of 30 men (and killed monsters all over the freaking place), Achilles was invulnerable (and cut through enemies better than any 4E warrior can), etc.

There are exceptions, but for every Cuchulain there were any number of Fergus MacRois or other heroes. Cuchulain is not an arcitypical fighter.

In Greek myth we have Achilles (who may or may not have been invulnerable, but in the Illiad is very like a high-level 1ed fighter) but also Bellerophon, Hector, Perseus etc.

Beowulf was very like a high-level fighter.

The point I was making is that the "You're fighting less than 1 hit die monsters" rule in 1ed made mass combat against normal foes possible, but it did not scale up to fighting extraordinary enemies.

Beowulf fights three monsters, but he fights them individually.

Achilles almost exclusively fights normal men, but when he fights other heroes he mostly fights one-on-one.

Cuchullain, with a couple of cheaty exceptions, spends the whole of the Tain in single-combat against heroes or in mass combat against normal people. So even the exceptional warped-man fits the style of 1ed combat.

In 3/4ed there is an expectation that this style scales with the character, whereas in 1ed it does not. That's the change.

[nagora]

The change in the style of combat is just fine, really - D&D never had anything vaguely like realistic combat. AC and HP? lulz. Let other games stick with realism or some approximations thereof - RuneQuest, Rolemaster, Pendragon, etc.

Pendragon's combat is much less realistic than 1ed D&D. I'm not sure what your issue is with AC but I know HP are too abstract for many people.

At low levels, 1ed combat is very realistic (too realistic, probably) - one hit with a sword can kill you and people don't waste time on fancy feats or tricks, they just hit you very hard with pointy things until you stop breathing. That's what real combat is like.


Also, yeah, kobolds were a type of German fairy, weren't they? Possibly related to Nibelungs ( = Germanic version of Nordic dwarves, who Tolkien's resemble 99%). Mine-knockers, laying traps for miners underground, and the like.

That's right, and the text description of them fitted that, but for some reason they were drawn as strange reptilian dog things. Go figure!


4E is taking to their logical conclusion (and better execution, less encumbered by attempts to bow to the old editions) the changes started in 3E.

I agree.


Hooray for them. If I want fantasy tactical combat gaming, I know where to turn. For real roleplaying, D&D was never the game of choice anyway.

I disagree.

[Drascin]

I so want to play in a D&D game set in Gensokyo right now.

If you do start this game, drop me a note, please :smallwink:.

[Artemician]

If you do start this game, drop me a note, please :smallwink:.

Nah. D&D can't really model the absurdities of power found in Touhou very well. You want Mage or Exalted.

[wodan46]

To reiterate, Dungeons and Dragons combat mechanics are derived specifically from Chainmail, which was a turnbased tactical miniatures Wargame. 4e is simply returning to its roots.

My argument is not a straw man. My point was that 4e draws from side-scrolling starfighters(bloodied bosses, minions) just as much as it does from WoW(set of powers).

Given that WoW is insanely popular anyways, I don't see why taking a tip or 2 out of their combat/leveling system is such a horrible thing anyway, given that its good enough to make people happily treadmill the game for way too many hours.

[Kurald Galain]

Dude, D&D has totally turned into a collectible card game! It's t3h obvious!!! [/sarcasm]

[wodan46]

Well, it will, sorta, when someone moves all the powers onto a magic card style template. I kinda like the idea of them then issuing a Barbarian Deck and a Druid Deck, with a foldout page showing the basic loadout and features, while the cards list all the powers. Would probably cost less than getting a hardcover book that does the same. And if they don't, players will.

[SamTheCleric]

I tap my halfling rogue to do 3d8 sneak attack damage...

And then I place a +1/+1 rage counter on the half-orc.

Your turn.

[Jarlax]

I agree that certain aspects of 4e break immersion (encounter level powers most prominently). However, I'm talking about claims that 4e is based on mechanics from WoW and Dynasty Warriors, claims which have minimal basis in reality. 3e is a lot more like Dynasty Warriors regarding weaker enemies, and 4e only cribbed a few combat tips from WoW, no more than it did from side-scrolling starfighter games.

this was really just the common banner that ignorant naysayers used early after the announcement.

before 3e was launched people were claiming that since D&D's rights had been bought out by wizards of the coast that they would make it into a CCG.

[nagora]

To reiterate, Dungeons and Dragons combat mechanics are derived specifically from Chainmail,
You can iterate as many times as you like but it's still not true. D&D's combat system was specially designed as a replacement for Chainmail's and was, in OD&D, referred to as "the alternative combat system" for people who did not like Chainmail's. This system very quickly became the normal system and the Chainmail system was dropped completely before the end of the 70's.

Some terminology remained, but the mechanics were almost all changed.

[wodan46]

One or two forumites in particular still seems rather obsessed with the concept that 4e is made entirely out of bad mechanics from videogames, when in actuality 4e draws its mechanics from many sources, most of which are not from videogames, and those that are are from videogames based on D&D anyway, and are elements taken to make the game balanced, efficient, and fun.

As for me, I consider the encounter powers to be a loss of immersion, as why can I cast lightning bolt 5 times over the course of 5 encounters, but not twice in the same encounter, even if I continue to throw fireball spells around? Then again, compared to Vancian spellcasting, its a godsend. I tolerate encounter powers because they work very well from the standpoint of combat mechanics, if not with common sense. Vancian spellcasting didn't make much sense either, having little in common with basically all spellcasting systems, and screwed up combat by making wizards having limited amounts of ammo, unlike the fighter, who didn't but was often much weaker.

I recognize the problems with 4e, but I tolerate them because a wonky minion mechanic here and a power set here are what's needed for an entertaining and balanced game to run properly.

[Rutee]

Encounter Powers are Encounter for dramatic (and balance) reasons. They're too cool to make regular abilities. But it's easy for me since I'm used to "Scenelong" type effects.

[nagora]

Vancian spellcasting didn't make much sense either, having little in common with basically all spellcasting systems,

Since it was the first game spellcasting system it's hard to see how not being like any of the others is a fair criticism. Surely the complaint should be that the others did not copy it?


and screwed up combat by making wizards having limited amounts of ammo, unlike the fighter, who didn't but was often much weaker.

How did that screw up combat? It was a balance. Fighters keep going but have all sort of limitations. Magic Users can hit at range and do all sorts of special attacks but have to plan what spells to take. I don't see why that inherently "screws up combat".


I recognize the problems with 4e, but I tolerate them because a wonky minion mechanic here and a power set here are what's needed for an entertaining and balanced game to run properly.
The many decades-long AD&D campaigns argue against that statement.

Minions were specifically brought in to fix the mistakes in 3ed combat. In a classic bit of refusing to admit their mistakes, instead of simply fixing the previous error, WotC have brought in new ones. There was an old lady who swallowed a fly...

[hamlet]

Nagora: You won't win this argument. It's like going over to Dragonsfoot and arguing the merits of 3.x.. Just not gonna happen. It's a fact on this board that all editions of D&D prior to 3.x were terrible and have no merit.


That said, it should be noted that the combat systems of AD&D and 3.x (and seemingly 4e) were aimed at very different styles of play. Very specifically, 3.x is designed to replicate cinematic and dramatic combat. People leaping all over the place, performing amazing maneuvers, and doing all sorts of "cool" stuff.

AD&D combat, while you could certainly do this with a DM who was willing to sit down and figure out the basis for how these kinds of things would work, aimed at a different style, a semi-realistic style in the end. Specifically, combat was hectic, violent, brutal, confusing, and above all, deadly. A good sword thrust from an enemy and you were dead. People rarely came out of it unscathed and, in fact, a lot of people didn't come out at all. You weren't sure exactly where your friends were in relation to you, or how the enemies were deployed tactically, all you really knew was that the guy right in front of you had a sharp bit of metal that he was trying to introduce to your bowels in a rather unpleasant manner and that, if you wanted to live to your next meal, you'd better consider doing the same to him.

[wodan46]

How about a spellcasting system involving mana? Granted, D&D probably predates most such systems, but still, Gandalf didn't have to remember to memorize a Kick Balrog's Ass spell, he just kinda did it freeform. Oh, and Balrogs are copied directly by D&D, among other things (surly dwarves in mountains, haughty and proud elves, orcs, goblins, and other stuff).

Ever heard of linear fighters and quadratic wizards? Its functional for like 3 levels, when the wizards have spells and powers enough to last them through the day's encounters, but before they become insanely overpowered compared to fighters.

You tolerated wonky game mechanics in D&D 3e because of the nice fluff and campaigns that could be built to overlook that, I tolerate the wonky fluff in 4e because it allows for functional game mechanics that allow for balanced and fun combat, and choose to overlook the illogic of encounter powers. Encounter powers make no sense from a fluff standpoint, but work well for combat.

[Rutee]

That said, it should be noted that the combat systems of AD&D and 3.x (and seemingly 4e) were aimed at very different styles of play. Very specifically, 3.x is designed to replicate cinematic and dramatic combat. People leaping all over the place, performing amazing maneuvers, and doing all sorts of "cool" stuff.
.

You mean 4th here, don't you? 3rd didn't really have a lot of cinematic or dramatic enhancers outside of some splats.



You tolerated wonky game mechanics in D&D 3e because of the nice fluff and campaigns that could be built to overlook that, I tolerate the wonky fluff in 4e because it allows for functional game mechanics that allow for balanced and fun combat, and choose to overlook the illogic of encounter powers.
Encounters are perfectly logical. It's just metalogic, not IC logic.

[Kurald Galain]

It's a fact on this board that all editions of D&D prior to 3.x were terrible and have no merit.

Hahaha! That was funny.

Or, in case you were serious, completely and utterly wrong. I get that you don't like it, and I know that opinions are strongly divided on the issue, but proclaiming anything to be a "fact on this board" is ludicrous. Make any statement you like, and the board will find somebody who disagrees with your so-called fact. Go on, we'll wait.

[hamlet]

How about a spellcasting system involving mana? Granted, D&D probably predates most such systems, but still, Gandalf didn't have to remember to memorize a Kick Balrog's Ass spell, he just kinda did it freeform. Oh, and Balrogs are copied directly by D&D, among other things (surly dwarves in mountains, haughty and proud elves, orcs, goblins, and other stuff).



Uhm, there's nothing in this paragraph that doesn't bug me.

1. Gandalf (and, by the by, the Balrog itself) were not adventurers of any sort. They were semi-divine beings if imense power on a level with those that, a few thousand years ago, destroyed a large part of the physical world known as Beleriand. Gandalf didn't have to memorize the "kick balrog's ass" spell because Gandalf didn't need spells. Kicking Balrog's Asses was an innate quality of who and what Gandalf was.

2. Balrogs were not copied whole cloth over into D&D. If they were, they woudl be, AT LEAST, demi-gods. Sure, the thing might have inspired the Pit Fiends and Balors, but to say that those two creatures are exact copies is very incorrect.

3. Not all dwarves in Tolkien were surly, that's a stupidity that got added on by years of role players.

4. Elves in Tolkein bear very little resemblance to D&D elves of any generation or sort except, MAYBE, the seemingly universal arrogance. But then again, in most respects, elves were superior to humans and had every right to that arrogance.

5. Orcs and goblins in Tolkein were VERY different than D&D orcs and goblins. If anything, Gygax reached back to an older form of those creatures and discarded some of Tolkien's world specific mythos and baggage attached to them (that orcs were, in fact, twisted elves that were created by Morgoth before he was cast down by his compatriots). In D&D, orcs and goblins are just another monster race (that is, until 3.x when they suddenly became "just another PC race").

D&D was originally inspired much more by Lieber, Moorcock, Howard, and that group than it was by Tolkien. In fact, it's my understanding that Gygax didn't even really like Tolkien all that much in the first place, so it's odd to think that he would base his game on the books he didn't care for. It'd be like me writing up a game based entirely on Pride and Prejudice.

[hamlet]

You mean 4th here, don't you? 3rd didn't really have a lot of cinematic or dramatic enhancers outside of some splats.


No, I meant 3.x. Combat in D20 provides hard and fast rules for, if not actually encourages, cinematic style combat such as swinging from chandeliers, leaping off balconies, tumbling around the battlefield like some sort of acrobat, etc.

As so many detractors of AD&D are so quick to point out, AD&D combat can very often be reduced to "I hit it with my sword" for groups that aren't into that particular action or system.

D20, supposedly, "fixed" that.

[hamlet]

Hahaha! That was funny.

Or, in case you were serious, completely and utterly wrong. I get that you don't like it, and I know that opinions are strongly divided on the issue, but proclaiming anything to be a "fact on this board" is ludicrous. Make any statement you like, and the board will find somebody who disagrees with your so-called fact. Go on, we'll wait.

Dude: Maybe your sarcasm meter is out of whack, but you do realize that I'm one of the most vocal proponents of AD&D and Classic D&D right?

I was referring to the general attitude on this board that seems prevelent that older editions of AD&D are deficient as a fact rather than an opinion.

[Kurald Galain]

As so many detractors of AD&D are so quick to point out, AD&D combat can very often be reduced to "I hit it with my sword" for groups that aren't into that particular action or system.

D20, supposedly, "fixed" that.

And likewise, as so many detractors of 3.5E are so quick to point out, 3.5E combat can very often be reduced to "I hit it with my sword" for groups that aren't into that particular action or system.

The Tome of Battle, supposedly, "fixed" that.

I expect that a year from now, there will be detractors of 4E that believe that 4E combat can 'very often be reduced to "I hit it with my sword"', as there'll plausibly be some players that pick one power they like best, and use it as often as possible.

The point? Every system will have its detractors; that doesn't mean the system is bad.

[fendrin]

Minions were specifically brought in to fix the mistakes in 3ed combat.

What mistakes, specifically, are you referring to?


AD&D combat, while you could certainly do this with a DM who was willing to sit down and figure out the basis for how these kinds of things would work, aimed at a different style, a semi-realistic style in the end. Specifically, combat was hectic, violent, brutal, confusing, and above all, deadly. A good sword thrust from an enemy and you were dead. People rarely came out of it unscathed and, in fact, a lot of people didn't come out at all. You weren't sure exactly where your friends were in relation to you, or how the enemies were deployed tactically, all you really knew was that the guy right in front of you had a sharp bit of metal that he was trying to introduce to your bowels in a rather unpleasant manner and that, if you wanted to live to your next meal, you'd better consider doing the same to him.

Yeah, 4e is keeping up with what the market demands. What were the designers thinking?

As for your description of combat... that might have been true for the average untrained soldier, but a little research into historic soldierly arts shows that trained soldiers didn't just stab and slash at each other; they utilized a variety of techniques and maneuvers to gain an an advantage, either to protect themselves or more rapidly disable their opponent.

[Kurald Galain]

Dude: Maybe your sarcasm meter is out of whack, but you do realize that I'm one of the most vocal proponents of AD&D and Classic D&D right?
No, I don't. Perhaps that has something to do with the fact that, according to the post-o-meter, you only posted in three threads in the past month. No offence, but to me you're simply not one of the posters who are so frequently present that I know their opinion at sight.

Regardless, I disagree that what you claim is the "general attitude", although I'm sure that a number of vocal posters hold that opinion.

[hamlet]

Yeah, 4e is keeping up with what the market demands. What were the designers thinking?

As for your description of combat... that might have been true for the average untrained soldier, but a little research into historic soldierly arts shows that trained soldiers didn't just stab and slash at each other; they utilized a variety of techniques and maneuvers to gain an an advantage, either to protect themselves or more rapidly disable their opponent.

1. I wasn't degrading the style of 4e or 3.x at all, merely describing.

2. Actually, aside from some basic maneuvers such as feints and flourishes (which were assumed to have been built into the 1 minute long AD&D combat round in the first place), ancient and medieval solders were instructed to keep it simple. The showier and more flourishy that you got, the more likely that the guy you were fighting would just "cut the carp" and stick you while you were trying to get the advantage.

[hamlet]

No, I don't. Perhaps that has something to do with the fact that, according to the post-o-meter, you only posted in three threads in the past month. No offence, but to me you're simply not one of the posters who are so frequently present that I know their opinion at sight.

Regardless, I disagree that what you claim is the "general attitude", although I'm sure that a number of vocal posters hold that opinion.

I've greatly reduce the frequency of my posting of late simply because of the generally unfriendly tone I get at times when I try to defend the older editions from, as you say, a vocal few.

As I said, it's much like walking into Dragonsfoot and proclaiming that 3.x and 4e are the best games in the world.

The fact is, this is a board if not in fact than de facto devoted to d20 and post 2000 games. Except in the form of nostalgia, old versions of the game don't get a warm reception.

[AKA_Bait]

Go on, we'll wait.

Why wait? You just did. :smallbiggrin:


I was referring to the general attitude on this board that seems prevelent that older editions of AD&D are deficient as a fact rather than an opinion.

I wouldn't say that's really a general attitude about older editions. I'd say that it's a general attitude of posters (anywhere) to present their opinons as facts. Honestly, I've found this board to be much better about that than many. Although there are vocal posters who don't like older editions, I'd say there are just as many who say 'not my cup of tea' or, like me, 'Thaco makes me cry'.


The fact is, this is a board if not in fact than de facto devoted to d20 and post 2000 games. Except in the form of nostalgia, old versions of the game don't get a warm reception.

I'm honestly sorry that has been your experience here. I haven't noticed it myself and have had quite a few conversations with a different tone than the one you describe.

[nagora]

What mistakes, specifically, are you referring to?

This is from Wizards' Minion excerpt:

The D&D game is full exciting scenes and encounters where the PCs must face a potentially overwhelming number of foes. In previous editions of the game, these encounters might have been filled with low-level “mooks” who would be promptly ignored by the PCs, since the PCs usually possessed sufficient AC or saving throws that they could ignore attacks from dozens of CR1 goblins or skeletons.
The problem described here did not exist in 1st or 2nd edition. Therefore it is a problem introduced in 3ed.

What caused the problem? It's hard to pin it down to one thing but the general inflation in PC levels, ACs, hit points, and various other defensive options which make it very much easier to be invunerable to attack in 3ed are the main suspects, I think.

Minions do solve this problem, but probably at the cost of making combat very cartoony.

Plus, the inflation continues so that we're looking at examples from WotC where three-figure HP totals are common and damages have to be scaled ever upwards to cope. I don't think it's a good idea to have to deal with such numbers during combat (or any other time), especially when the exact same effect can be obtained by dividing every number involved by 5 and having 30hp monsters being struck for 3 damage instead of 150hp monsters being hit for 15.

This is all style and taste, and I'm not here to preach the gospel of "1ed is perfect". But if people are finding that the new style is putting them off, then why not try 1ed? It costs a whole $4 each for the 3 rulebooks as PDFs IIRC and there's plenty of material out there and still being produced.

1ed was not perfect and it needed a revision which it never truely got. But it's still a game that many people have played for decades. One poster over on Dragonsfoot recently passed 26 years of regular play in a single campaign - including 2 characters from the first game who are still going. A good game is a good game, even if it's been around for a long time.

1ed and 4ed seem to me to be offering such different styles of gaming that it's hardly worth thinking of them as editions of the same thing. They're just options; some people might like one and some the other.

[hamlet]

I wouldn't say that's really a general attitude about older editions. I'd say that it's a general attitude of posters (anywhere) to present their opinons as facts. Honestly, I've found this board to be much better about that than many. Although there are vocal posters who don't like older editions, I'd say there are just as many who say 'not my cup of tea' or, like me, 'Thaco makes me cry'.



I'm honestly sorry that has been your experience here. I haven't noticed it myself and have had quite a few conversations with a different tone than the one you describe.

To be honest, yes, this place is better than a lot of other places. If I really wanted abuse, I could go one of two places: 1. My parents' house, or 2) the Gleemax forums.

Still, it is there, at least in my perception, and it's something that, to put it mildly, irks me. Of course, I can't claim to be shining white and innocent in the matter, but I try to phrase my opinion as just that, an opinion. Doesn't always work out that way, though, when it's been "one of those days" in the office.

[purepolarpanzer]

2. Actually, aside from some basic maneuvers such as feints and flourishes (which were assumed to have been built into the 1 minute long AD&D combat round in the first place), ancient and medieval solders were instructed to keep it simple. The showier and more flourishy that you got, the more likely that the guy you were fighting would just "cut the carp" and stick you while you were trying to get the advantage.

.....No. Just no.

Craptastic soldiers may have done this, but that little thing called "training" was ALL ABOUT maneuvers to gain advantage. As our heroes are presumably more skilled than the guys who die by the thousands on a battle field, they will certainly be using maneuvers, and since you later become on par with a demi-god, it's safe to say you can do more than "feint", "parry", "slash", and "thrust".

Even disregarding the magical/supernatural aspects of D+D, your a highly trained soldier. You can do a lot more than you seem to think. If you can "cut the carp" and kill someone whose doing a maneuver, then they obviously arn't doing the right one or are not skilled whatsoever.

[hamlet]

.....No. Just no.

Craptastic soldiers may have done this, but that little thing called "training" was ALL ABOUT maneuvers to gain advantage. As our heroes are presumably more skilled than the guys who die by the thousands on a battle field, they will certainly be using maneuvers, and since you later become on par with a demi-god, it's safe to say you can do more than "feint", "parry", "slash", and "thrust".

Even disregarding the magical/supernatural aspects of D+D, your a highly trained soldier. You can do a lot more than you seem to think. If you can "cut the carp" and kill someone whose doing a maneuver, then they obviously arn't doing the right one or are not skilled whatsoever.

No, just . . . no.

This is the difference in the style between AD&D and later editions. Specifically in what makes a hero.*

In 3.x and 4e, your a hero due to some innate quality that makes you actually superior in every way to those around you.

In AD&D, you were not actually better than everyone around you in every way. What made you a hero was what you did . . i.e., wading into a battle or going into the dark places that others feared to tread. No special quality made you a hero, you made yourself one by going into danger and coming back out alive and successfull.

And historically, combat training did, in fact, emphasize simplicity. Skill does not mean complex and flashy like you see in Crouching Tiger Hidden Moron type movies. Skill meant that you were able to kill your oponent quickly and efficiently without having him or his friends kill you. Flashy was something reserved almost entirely for tournament and gladiatorial arenas because those were, first and foremost, entertainment and combat second.

*Coincidentally, historically, heroes are heroes not because they have special powers, though they sometimes help, but because of what they do. Beowulf was a hero because he killed the monsters that were killing the innocents, not because he had the strength of 30 men. Arthur was a hero not because he had Excalibur, but because he formed the round table and went about adventuring (this depends a lot on what version of the stories you're reading).

[nagora]

.....No. Just no.

Craptastic soldiers may have done this, but that little thing called "training" was ALL ABOUT maneuvers to gain advantage. As our heroes are presumably more skilled than the guys who die by the thousands on a battle field, they will certainly be using maneuvers, and since you later become on par with a demi-god, it's safe to say you can do more than "feint", "parry", "slash", and "thrust".

Even disregarding the magical/supernatural aspects of D+D, your a highly trained soldier. You can do a lot more than you seem to think. If you can "cut the carp" and kill someone whose doing a maneuver, then they obviously arn't doing the right one or are not skilled whatsoever.

On a battlefield of, say, 10,000 soldiers perhaps 9,900 will be "trained" in the single most time-effective method of learning how to weild their weapon. For one thing, they're expendable, and for a second complex training costs money and takes able-bodied men away from the fields. These were not options that feudal leaders had.

PCs, are truely highly trained and unusual people and are not comparable to the normal ancient and medieval solder (at least past level 3ish they aren't). That's why they have lots of hit points and low "to-hit" scores.

Both of these are perfectly reasonable abstractions for "special maneuvers", although more detail can of course be added. But the more detail you add the harder the design becomes to balance and the slower the game generally plays, and the less well-defined your classes become.

[nagora]

In AD&D, you were not actually better than everyone around you in every way.

I think you're overstating your case here. My 13th level AD&D fighter is better in every way compared to the normal population - vastly more hit points, 13 times more dangerous in mass combat (not allowing for increased chance to hit!), more resistant to poisons and other things which would kill a normal peasant stone dead etc.

[Rutee]

On the other hand, Gilgamesh and Herakles were born heroes. That notwithstanding, you completely missed his point, because he's saying /real fighters did maneuvers/. You just kinda ignored this to focus on the Hero bit. God in heaven.

[Shhalahr Windrider]

I think you're overstating your case here. My 13th level AD&D fighter is better in every way compared to the normal population - vastly more hit points, 13 times more dangerous in mass combat (not allowing for increased chance to hit!), more resistant to poisons and other things which would kill a normal peasant stone dead etc.
Indeed.

If there's any change in "specialness" it's that it definitely starts at 1st level. You could argue that 1st level PCs weren't terribly "special" in 2e compared to the general population. But given the concept of 0-level NPCs, I would tend to disagree.


And historically, combat training did, in fact, emphasize simplicity.
So defensive maneuvers can't be simple? They have to be flashy?

[hamlet]

I think you're overstating your case here. My 13th level AD&D fighter is better in every way compared to the normal population - vastly more hit points, 13 times more dangerous in mass combat (not allowing for increased chance to hit!), more resistant to poisons and other things which would kill a normal peasant stone dead etc.

Yes, but my point still stands, that before the number inflation and all the special abilities granted by feats and "powers," your 13th level fighter was much more threatened by 1st and 2nd, or even 0-level, enemies. With luck and numbers, they actually stood a chance of hurting him or defeating him.

For one thing, your AC was far more likely to be closer to something they could hit, probably in the -1 - 4 range. AC's below 0, or in d20 terms, above 20, were far less common then.

Second, you had significantly fewer hit points, by orders of magnitude.

Third, you did less damage overall (a long sword in the hands of a 13th level fighter still does 1d8 points of damage) not counting any super special magic items and so those 0-level enemies actually stood a chance of surviving a single blow from you (an issue which has actually been specifically removed from 4e).

And, in terms of the fighter himself, that 13th level fighter got where he is now not because of some ineffable heroic quality he had, but because he had the cajones to walk into Tharizdun's evil temple back when he was little better than a shepherd and confront Lareth the Beautiful toe-to-toe with nothing more than a sword or a club in his hands.

[Helgraf]

Uhm, there's nothing in this paragraph that doesn't bug me.

1. Gandalf (and, by the by, the Balrog itself) were not adventurers of any sort. They were semi-divine beings if imense power on a level with those that, a few thousand years ago, destroyed a large part of the physical world known as Beleriand. Gandalf didn't have to memorize the "kick balrog's ass" spell because Gandalf didn't need spells. Kicking Balrog's Asses was an innate quality of who and what Gandalf was.

Also, read the book. It took Gandalf _10 days_ to 'kick the balrog's ass'.

10 ... freakin' ... days.

[Indon]

I dunno about 4'th edition really resembling any video games - at least, intentionally.

Looking at just the rules changes for 4'th edition isn't going to get you the whole picture. The rules changes are based on changes in design philosophy - Wizards of the Coast didn't say, "Let's steal stuff from video games," when they made 4'th edition.

So I think the important thing is to look at that design intent, and see how that intent makes the game more similar to video games or whatever else.

[hamlet]

Indeed.


So defensive maneuvers can't be simple? They have to be flashy?

Straw man, and no, I'm not saying that.

I'm saying that training rank and file soldiers extra maneuvers beyond parry, thrust, and possibly feint was a recipie for disaster as it over complicated the matter and was more liable to lead to confusion on the part of the individual soldier when clarity was most needed, in the midst of the hurly burly of battle.

Training somebody beyond "the pointy end goes into the other man, don't let the other man stick his pointy end into you" for most circumstances was just asking for trouble.

In fact, the Roman Legion, one of the most technically (technically referring to skill rather than technology) advanced militaries of any age focused on training its soldiers the very basics and then reinforcing them through endless practice of those basic actions until the rank and file could actually do them in their sleep.

Even some of their more specialized maneuvers (i.e., the "tortoise" formation) amounted to "hold your shield so it overlaps with the guy next to you and duck."

In any event, much of those is besides the point because, in the end, my point was this: that the combat system in AD&D specified that all of these special maneuvers were assumed to be subsumed into the 1 minute round and the actions taken round by round of the PC's while in 3.x, these things got singled out and became actions of their owns on top of attacking.

[AKA_Bait]

So I think the important thing is to look at that design intent, and see how that intent makes the game more similar to video games or whatever else.

That's true. Also consider though that 4e was planned to be relased with several computer based additions/components. Some of the design philosophy may have been influenced by what would make the anticipated programs function more easily.

[fendrin]

This is from Wizards' Minion excerpt:

The D&D game is full exciting scenes and encounters where the PCs must face a potentially overwhelming number of foes. In previous editions of the game, these encounters might have been filled with low-level “mooks” who would be promptly ignored by the PCs, since the PCs usually possessed sufficient AC or saving throws that they could ignore attacks from dozens of CR1 goblins or skeletons.
The problem described here did not exist in 1st or 2nd edition. Therefore it is a problem introduced in 3ed.

I can't speak for 1e, as I have never played it, but it certainly does exist in 2e.

It may not exist in your games because of the way you (or your DM, if you aren't the DM) runs the game. the same can be done in 3e, if the DM is willing to put in more legwork or avoids certain types of encounters.

However, what 3e introduced that revealed the problem was challenge ratings. No longer was the DM left to guess what kind and how many creatures comprise a "difficult-but-surmountable" combat (well, at least that was the idea... ).

What the CR system showed was that in order to keep an encounter "difficult-but-surmountable" with a large number of foes (on the scale of 4-6 per PC), those foes had to be weaker than if there were only one per PC. The problem is that as you substituted in linearly lower CR creatures, those creatures were exponentially weaker.

The same thing happens in 2e, except that the DM has to 'guess' at the challenge ratings. In my experience, this led to one of three possible outcomes:
The 'mooks' are too weak and the PCs can ignore them.
The 'mooks' are too tough and the PCs are slaughtered by them.
The 'mooks' have been modified by the DM and are the right temperature, such that Goldilocks is threatened by them, but manages to overcome them in the end.

Whaddayaknow - that's the same as in 3e.


No, just . . . no.
Yes, just... yes.
I have been a student of martial arts (western, eastern, historic, and modern) for oh, 15 years or so. Every one has special maneuvers that you are trained to use, whether a [prise de fer in fencing, an uppercut in boxing, butterfly palms in kung fu, so on and so forth. Even Krav Maga, designed in modern times to be as simple and effective as possible, has it's own 'special maneuvers'.

[nagora]

Yes, but my point still stands, that before the number inflation and all the special abilities granted by feats and "powers," your 13th level fighter was much more threatened by 1st and 2nd, or even 0-level, enemies. With luck and numbers, they actually stood a chance of hurting him or defeating him.

For one thing, your AC was far more likely to be closer to something they could hit, probably in the -1 - 4 range. AC's below 0, or in d20 terms, above 20, were far less common then.

Absolutely. Any fighter could be overborn and have their throats slit by a large number of even level-0 men-at-arms. It would have to be a very large number of fanatical level-0s, mind, because I'll take 13 down per round if I can reach them.


Second, you had significantly fewer hit points, by orders of magnitude.

Just over 100, actually.


Third, you did less damage overall (a long sword in the hands of a 13th level fighter still does 1d8 points of damage)

I didn't have a strength bonus (Str 12), so this was generally true especially after our run-in with Fraz Urb Lu!


And, in terms of the fighter himself, that 13th level fighter got where he is now not because of some ineffable heroic quality he had, but because he had the cajones to walk into Tharizdun's evil temple back when he was little better than a shepherd and confront Lareth the Beautiful toe-to-toe with nothing more than a sword or a club in his hands.

Yes. Jesus, that was a bad day at the office too!

[nagora]

I can't speak for 1e, as I have never played it, but it certainly does exist in 2e.

Well, perhaps. I'd have to look at 2ed again to be sure. It's very, very hard to be totally invincible in 1ed, even to kobolds.


However, what 3e introduced that revealed the problem was challenge ratings. No longer was the DM left to guess what kind and how many creatures comprise a "difficult-but-surmountable" combat (well, at least that was the idea... ).

Ah, well, that's another kettle of fish. CL was a myth - you simply can't put a number on challenge without knowing the players' and the DM's styles and abilities.


What the CR system showed was that in order to keep an encounter "difficult-but-surmountable" with a large number of foes (on the scale of 4-6 per PC), those foes had to be weaker than if there were only one per PC. The problem is that as you substituted in linearly lower CR creatures, those creatures were exponentially weaker.

Nelson used the square law of forces in planning Trafalgar: 2 foes are 4 times more dangerous than 1, assuming all else is equal. I think most DMs learnt this from experience.


The same thing happens in 2e, except that the DM has to 'guess' at the challenge ratings. In my experience, this led to one of three possible outcomes:
The 'mooks' are too weak and the PCs can ignore them.
The 'mooks' are too tough and the PCs are slaughtered by them.
The 'mooks' have been modified by the DM and are the right temperature, such that Goldilocks is threatened by them, but manages to overcome them in the end.

Whaddayaknow - that's the same as in 3e.

The concept of mooks is not a popular one in 1ed. Masses of low-level opponents are reserved for the battle field, in my experience, not as hangers-on to "real" monsters. But regardless of that, your list of options can be applied to any encounter, it doesn't really say anything in particular about mooks or minions.



Yes, just... yes.
I have been a student of martial arts (western, eastern, historic, and modern) for oh, 15 years or so. Every one has special maneuvers that you are trained to use, whether a [prise de fer in fencing, an uppercut in boxing, butterfly palms in kung fu, so on and so forth. Even Krav Maga, designed in modern times to be as simple and effective as possible, has it's own 'special maneuvers'.

But do you need to express them as such in a game? Can't you just add to the attack die and keep the game moving for exactly the same effect? This is the general AD&D approach - subsume the attacker's skill, special maneuvers, magic weapon, strength bonus etc into one roll.

[hamlet]

Yes, just... yes.
I have been a student of martial arts (western, eastern, historic, and modern) for oh, 15 years or so. Every one has special maneuvers that you are trained to use, whether a [prise de fer in fencing, an uppercut in boxing, butterfly palms in kung fu, so on and so forth. Even Krav Maga, designed in modern times to be as simple and effective as possible, has it's own 'special maneuvers'.

And I wasn't speaking about Martial Arts in the pejoritive sense at all, but about European and Classical combat and war techniques.

I've been a student of Medieval and Classical history and culture for, oh, 20 years now and even I am able to discern the difference between Asian martial Arts and warfare. Even in Asia, warfare did, in fact, closely resemble European warfare in many ways, in that for the most part, soldiers expected to go into combat were trained in the basics and not special techniques.

[Morty]

But do you need to express them as such in a game? Can't you just add to the attack die and keep the game moving for exactly the same effect? This is the general AD&D approach - subsume the attacker's skill, special maneuvers, magic weapon, strength bonus etc into one roll.

But what is more dynamic and interesting? To just keep on attacking and describe it appropriately, or use different in-game "manuevers" and then describe it appropriately?

[hamlet]

Well, perhaps. I'd have to look at 2ed again to be sure. It's very, very hard to be totally invincible in 1ed, even to kobolds.



2e was not at all different. If anything, it made fighters just a little more vulnerable against possible mobs because it removed the "fighter sweeps" rule about multiple attacks against less than 1hd monsters.

There was no such thing as being able to ignore low level creatures because they were so much less than you. Doing so was a short trip to the afterlife.



But what is more dynamic and interesting? To just keep on attacking and describe it appropriately, or use different in-game "manuevers" and then describe it appropriately?

That is entirely a matter of preference. I prefer the former. You, I assume, prefer the latter.

[Reel On, Love]

But do you need to express them as such in a game? Can't you just add to the attack die and keep the game moving for exactly the same effect?

Well, shucks! Might's well just make one roll for the whole fight, then! In fact, why not just make a couple of rolls for the whole adventure, and then describe the rest of it?

More seriously, yes, you can, but you could represent multiple attacks per round by adding damage and simplify combat in a bunch of other ways. When I "express them as such in a game", it's more fun.

So, sure, you can. But "I attack. 20. 8 damage" can and will crop up. Tactical maneuvers, using various powers, etc, can help give the fight a feel that just rolling attack and damage won't. It also gets the player involved resource-management-wise.

What's more, maneuvers and powers affect how the fight goes on a tactical level. Just consider the difference between full-attacking 3.5 fighter types and 2E fighters (who could move and then get all their attacks in). What your powers do and which you use will determine where you move, whose attacks you're subject to after, etc etc. It makes combat a more tactical affair.

[hamlet]

What's more, maneuvers and powers affect how the fight goes on a tactical level. Just consider the difference between full-attacking 3.5 fighter types and 2E fighters (who could move and then get all their attacks in). What your powers do and which you use will determine where you move, whose attacks you're subject to after, etc etc. It makes combat a more tactical affair.

And what about those of us who don't want a more tactical affair?

Personally, I don't want to NEED miniatures to even figure out how things work in every single combat. I didn't need them in AD&D and combat was lively, exciting, engrossing, and very interesting.

I don't want to sit down and count squares on a battle mat to figure out the most tactically sound move, it's just not fun.

[RukiTanuki]

In before Dynasty Warriors and 300!

*victory pose*

Okay, pet peeve aside... I really do feel that 4th is taking a different direction than 3rd did. Third Edition tried to encapsulate and make a rule for everything, whereas Fourth seems to be letting the game mechanics adjudicate what they do best (combat in particular), simplify the areas where mechanics meet DM calls (you can pick the best skill or ability vs. an appropriate defense or save and expect reasonable results), and leave the DM to create the rest in the areas he or she does so best.

That system works for me. I understand how it wouldn't work for others, but I'd rather see more of them bring up valid points, rather than memetic nonsense that just gets repeated louder, rather than explained.

[fendrin]

Well, perhaps. I'd have to look at 2ed again to be sure. It's very, very hard to be totally invincible in 1ed, even to kobolds.Oh, it's hard to be invincible against a horde of mooks in 3e, too. There's always that pesky 'natural 20'. I do agree that there is a power-scale difference, though, which leads to hordes of enemies being too powerful in 2e. Same problem, other end of the spectrum. You can't send 20 thugs after the PCs 'cause they will get slaughtered [without houseruling].


Ah, well, that's another kettle of fish. CL was a myth - you simply can't put a number on challenge without knowing the players' and the DM's styles and abilities.Oh, i wholeheartedly agree that the CR system does not work well, but at least it gives DMs a starting point (and also mentions about adapting CR based on environmental/tactical factors), which is better than nothing.


The concept of mooks is not a popular one in 1ed. Masses of low-level opponents are reserved for the battle field, in my experience, not as hangers-on to "real" monsters. But regardless of that, your list of options can be applied to any encounter, it doesn't really say anything in particular about mooks or minions. Ah, but popular or not doesn;t matter in this regard. In 4e they don't have to be used at all, but the mechanics allow for it. That is a best-case scenario to me.



But do you need to express them as such in a game? Can't you just add to the attack die and keep the game moving for exactly the same effect? This is the general AD&D approach - subsume the attacker's skill, special maneuvers, magic weapon, strength bonus etc into one roll. Well, that is, to borrow a phrase, another kettle of fish. Whether or not it is necessary depends on the play style of the group. In my experience, some groups will describe what's happening in combat regardless of whether there is any mechanics involved, but most resort to "I swing my sword, I get an 18. 5 damage", which quickly gets boring, at which point some people start bringing video games to D&D night. Yes, I have seen that. No, I was not a happy camper (though I wasn't DMing, I still felt it detracted from my fun).


Even in Asia, warfare did, in fact, closely resemble European warfare in many ways, in that for the most part, soldiers expected to go into combat were trained in the basics and not special techniques.
No argument here. I was talking specifically about trained soldiers, not the untrained peasant conscripts that made up the majority of armies.

Seriously, a 13th level fighter shouldn't, in my opinion, represent an untrained soldier, or even a skilled, trained veteran. A 13th level fighter should be a landsknecht or other well-trained soldier, who you can darn well bet your britches knew much more than just 'the pointy end goes in the other guy'.


And what about those of us who don't want a more tactical affair?

Personally, I don't want to NEED miniatures to even figure out how things work in every single combat. I didn't need them in AD&D and combat was lively, exciting, engrossing, and very interesting.

I don't want to sit down and count squares on a battle mat to figure out the most tactically sound move, it's just not fun.
Not fun for you. I have no problem with that, but what you enjoy is not necessarily what I enjoy. Don't tell me what I enjoy is wrong or bad or whatever. You have your fun and I'll have mine. If you have any actual critiques on whether the mechanics work as they are intended then by all means share. Simply saying 'I don't want that kind of game' doesn't help anybody.

[hamlet]

No argument here. I was talking specifically about trained soldiers, not the untrained peasant conscripts that made up the majority of armies.

Seriously, a 13th level fighter shouldn't, in my opinion, represent an untrained soldier, or even a skilled, trained veteran. A 13th level fighter should be a landsknecht or other well-trained soldier, who you can darn well bet your britches knew much more than just 'the pointy end goes in the other guy'.


Actually, the concept of a "trained soldier" is one that was largely non-existant during the Middle Ages. The standing professional army pretty much died with the Roman Empire and stayed dead until after WWII really.

The closest you can get in most cases is the equivalent to a "knight" in whatever culture. They were not so much as trained soldiers as extremely practiced killers. What's more frightening, really, is that a lot of the knights of history, far from being examples of chivalry and light, were in fact borderline psychotics who enjoyed murder, rape, and the sacking of villages.

Yes, they eventually learned more than just "the pointy end goes here," but when it comes down to brass tacks, fighting for your life is a brutal and horrifying affair. Believe me I've been there. When you know it's for real, most of those nice genteel things you learned tend to slip away in favor of exerting all your energy on killing somebody else.

Personal anecdote that is worth exactly how much any personal anecdote is: I was trained by my grandfather, who had been a boxer in the army during the 40's and 50's (bare knuckle baby!) in the basics of boxing and some of the finer moves towards the end. When, not too long after that, I was put in a situation of life and death and having to defend myself, all the nicities over the difference between a jab, a right cross, and a hook were completely forgotten. Instead, it amounted to me pounding the ever living life out of somebody who had pulled a knife on me, so much so that it was me the cops arrested first, misunderstanding the situation. The point: when it comes to life and death, anything beyond "the pointy end goes into the other man" tends to get lost.





Not fun for you. I have no problem with that, but what you enjoy is not necessarily what I enjoy. Don't tell me what I enjoy is wrong or bad or whatever. You have your fun and I'll have mine. If you have any actual critiques on whether the mechanics work as they are intended then by all means share. Simply saying 'I don't want that kind of game' doesn't help anybody.

I never EVER said it was wrong, or that your idea of fun was wrong.

I did say, however, that it was not fun for me, that 3.x and 4e do not seem to support the kind of fun I like to have, and that I was free to comment so.

That has, since, been taken up as a straw man multiple times that I am condemning 4e and 3.x (which I am not) and that I need to be shouted down.

Much like Matthew, I feel that it is a difference of opinion. Unlike Matthew, I'm a far less civilized person.

[Reel On, Love]

Actually, the concept of a "trained soldier" is one that was largely non-existant during the Middle Ages. The standing professional army pretty much died with the Roman Empire and stayed dead until after WWII really.
That's nice. The Middle Ages got nothin' to do with D&D.


Yes, they eventually learned more than just "the pointy end goes here," but when it comes down to brass tacks, fighting for your life is a brutal and horrifying affair. Believe me I've been there. When you know it's for real, most of those nice genteel things you learned tend to slip away in favor of exerting all your energy on killing somebody else.
And you fight, seriously, how often?

Look, nobody's talking about "nice genteel" things. They're talking about all sorts of nasty, dirty, brutal things that are a part of combat skill beyond very basic parry-slash-dodge, which trained soldiers did and do have, and did and do use in life-or-death situations.


Personal anecdote that is worth exactly how much any personal anecdote is: I was trained by my grandfather, who had been a boxer in the army during the 40's and 50's (bare knuckle baby!) in the basics of boxing and some of the finer moves towards the end. When, not too long after that, I was put in a situation of life and death and having to defend myself, all the nicities over the difference between a jab, a right cross, and a hook were completely forgotten. Instead, it amounted to me pounding the ever living life out of somebody who had pulled a knife on me, so much so that it was me the cops arrested first, misunderstanding the situation. The point: when it comes to life and death, anything beyond "the pointy end goes into the other man" tends to get lost.
Yeah, that's true... the first few times. It's NOT true for people who do it on a regular basis. Eventually, they can even think straight despite the adrenaline rush.

Rachel spars with people all the time, and not for points based on technique; I can ask her to chime in on the subject if you'd like.

[Prophaniti]

Personally, I see valid points in both sides of the argument here. Yes, real combat is a lot more messy, brutal, and ugly than any study of martial arts prepares you for, or any game can really replicate. And, yes, once you've been though this life-or-death struggle a few dozen times it becomes a lot easier to think or 'maneuver' to gain an advantage (which is usually followed very quickly by the death of your opponent).

The point has been made, and I think is quite true, that D&D is moving away from gritty, realistic combat toward more cinematic, drama-laden awesome-fests. Whether this is good or bad is entirely up to the player. Does this shift (which began well before 4E, the new edition is merely a culmination and further step) make D&D more like a video game? Perhaps, but the contention could also be made that it makes it more like certain novels, as many writing styles opt for more cinematic and flashy fight scenes.

Personally, I like my rules more gritty and realistic. I like it when some random guy off the street with spear (or gun, if playing a modern one) is still a threat. D&D has never been realistic enough for me (I started playing with 3.0) in this regard, but since that's what most everyone I play with knows and likes, I deal with it. Sometimes I get a chance to play systems with more lethal combat (the new WH40k is my favorite so far) and that keeps me satisfied. Of course, my group isn't really digging 4E so far either, mostly because we've all spent so much money already on 3.x books, so it doesn't really matter to me that 4E is less realistic, aside from just not liking it.

BTW, if anyone can direct me to a place online or physically where I can get some 1st edition material, I'd appreciate it. I've asked my DM, who started playing back when D&D first came out, to try playing some older stuff, but he loves 3.5 and won't go back... figures, huh?

[Matthew]

Hey, is this the first AD&D versus 4e thread? Great, I have been looking forward to this since last August...

[SurlySeraph]

WHAT?!?! NINE THOUSAND?!?.....

Nine thousand? THIS! IS! SPAAAARTA!!! *kicks Tialait down a well*

Now that I've gotten that out of the way, I actually agree with the OP, even though he was being sarcastic. Those are conventions that started in the earliest video games and were carried on to MMPORPGs, which 4E is taking a lot of its cues from. I'm not angry that 4E is influenced by MMPORPGs, but it definitely *is* influenced by them.

[Reel On, Love]

Hey, is this the first AD&D versus 4e thread? Great, I have been looking forward to this since last August...

You like flames?

[Matthew]

You like flames?

I might have been being sarcastic... (but I am not sure if that word quite articulates my feelings on the matter).

[Starbuck_II]

You like flames?

We burn ourselves to know we are still alive. :smallbiggrin:

[Aquillion]

I don't think it's a good idea to have to deal with such numbers during combat (or any other time), especially when the exact same effect can be obtained by dividing every number involved by 5 and having 30hp monsters being struck for 3 damage instead of 150hp monsters being hit for 15.Granularity. Having 150 hp monsters being hit for 15 means you can also have them being struck for 13 by a weapon that has slightly longer range, or for 16 by a player who focused slightly more on their relevant stat.

Why is this important? Because without it, even a small difference in stats (or whatever is used to differentiate between different players, weapons, spells, and so on) could cause unbalancing differences in damage. If players are supposed to be doing 3 damage to the 15-hp monster, suddenly you have to prevent even small deviations from the expected damage, because they could be potentially unbalancing. Having everyone do exactly the same damage is dull, so they changed it.

This exists to an extent at level 1 already, in 3rd edition, but it quickly disappears.

They're also constrained by the size of the dice that are easiest to use. Rolling a d6 against a 15-hp monster and adding even small bonuses kinda doesn't work if you want that monster to be even remotely tough. If you make every weapon a d4, you're going to have to use bigger bonuses to separate battleaxes from daggers, and things break down even more...

High granularity allows for 'flavor' differences in the amount of damage you deal. Low granularity doesn't; when the base damage is 3, every difference is massively overwhelming, and everybody in the same role has to do nearly the same damage.

[nagora]

Granularity.
Yes, granularity is an issue and perhaps dividing by 5 was too much, but as a DM or a player I don't want to be tracking three digit numbers all the time. It's not supposed to be a mathematical exercise.

Plus, I'll take granularity issues over game balance issues any day of the week.


No argument here. I was talking specifically about trained soldiers, not the untrained peasant conscripts that made up the majority of armies.
The question is: what counts as trained? Levied troops who can use polearms in formation are clearly trained. Are they likely to be using any sophisticated techniques? History suggests not.

What about two knights in armour? Well, again, probably not. Armour was effective - much more so than in most RPGs based, like D&D, on a generally mediaeval level of social and technological development. Two knights on foot probably just hit each other with maces with a bit of overbearing/bashing thrown in. In between - the lightly armoured sea-raider, for example, is where finesse is most likely to be found, I suspect.

Reality aside, D&D fighters are highly trained and practiced and I think the original points were just that: a) such people are quite rare in history, b) playing out the details of what makes them dangerous opponents is slow and can be done other ways, and c) a detailed system is unlikely to be any more realistic.

In my youth I was a good swordfighter in an re-enactment group using real weapons and light armour. When we as a group practised we did all sorts of tricks and feints that we would never risk in public. Very few of them were things that could really be codified into any detailed combat system that would not be the size of the DMG on its own. And that was sham fighting where we were not (usually) actually trying to kill each other.

So, given an unrealistic abstract system which plays quickly and can be spiced up by enthusiastic players describing their actions and the DM handing out a +/- 1 or 2 here or there for doing something interesting, and a detailed, slow and unrealistic system where the action is constrained by a grid, I know which one I'd prefer.

To go back to the point of the thread: I do think 4e is a true break with the past and is really a new game, and I think that's a good thing in a way. It's not a game I can imagine getting much long-term fun out of but I can imagine playing through a scenario or two and having a laugh. 3ed, to me, was a total disaster, mostly because the designers were a mixture of talentless and lazy. They just cobbled together some badly thought out rules and shoved the resulting mess onto the market where it promptly fell apart and had to have a .5 patch just to stop it expiring completely. WotC's "What's changed in 3ed" FAQ is like a list of everything that could possibly go wrong when updating D&D.

4ed has, it seems, cleared the deck and kept almost nothing from 1ed apart from some nomenclature and I think that is one of the two genuinely legitimate ways to go, the other being a return to 1ed and fixing some of its flaws - back to basics as it were. I, personally, would have preferred that approach, but I much prefer either approach to what happened with 3ed.

I think 4ed will be a better game for not resembling 3ed but in the long run it will suffer from too much resemblance to WoW. WoW has 5% player drop-out per month but a constant stream of new players. 4ed may well have the churn but will it have the stream? WotC don't publicise their sales, which is almost certiainly a sign that they're stagnant - companies boast when things are going well, especially ones owned by multinationals who have shareholders.

[Matthew]

Yes, granularity is an issue and perhaps dividing by 5 was too much, but as a DM or a player I don't want to be tracking three digit numbers all the time. It's not supposed to be a mathematical exercise.

Plus, I'll take granularity issues over game balance issues any day of the week.

Hmmn. I have to say I don't really see using larger numbers as a clear cut advantage in terms of granularity. I think it allows a greater latitude in how you mess around with bonuses and penalties, but that only really matters if the game system uses a lot of bonuses and penalties (which D20 does). I think it's a good fix to the problem D20 created, but since it wasn't much of a problem prior to D20 the advantage remains subjective.

A lot also depends on the style of play. There are some interesting points being made in 'old school' circles about the importance of combat in AD&D compared to later iterations of the brand. The up and down of it is that the sheer deadliness of AD&D meant that 'good' or 'successful' players actively tried to avoid combat unless the odds were extremely favourable (either because of good fortune or good strategy).

I think that runs counter to a lot of perceptions and experiences of D&D as a 'hack and slash' game and perceived shortcomings that has created as a result [i.e. D&D is this, but it is not very good at being this].

The math of D&D is quite interesting, especially when one considers that the desired results of the formulae may not be consistent between playing styles.

Here are a couple of links:

Tim Kask on early D&D experiences (http://malirath.blogspot.com/2008/05/more-from-kask.html)
Misconceptions about early D&D (http://malirath.blogspot.com/2008/05/misconceptions-about-early-d.html)

[Charity]

Well, perhaps. I'd have to look at 2ed again to be sure. It's very, very hard to be totally invincible in 1ed, even to kobolds.


Just a quick chiming in here, it really isnt that hard to be invulnerable to Kobolds, all you need is an AC of -5 for a nat 20 not to nessisarily hit, not really that tricky.

Elf with Dex 18 is not all that rare, fighter, 1st level can afford banded or splint + shield that gives you... AC -1 at 1st level (AC is king in 1E all hail the mighty DEX)
couple more levels gives you platemail and a +1 shield now you're at -3..
Another ... 4 levels or so and you can generaly expect what?... +1 plate and +2 shield, or +1 plate, +1 shield and ring of protection +1 and the you're golden, wade into as many of em as you like... heck if you're a Ranger don't you get to make your level/attacks a round against goblinoids or some such, you could be goblin Armageddon by level 7 or 8.

Don't get me wrong I loved 1e, but looking back it was just as open to 'brokeness' as every other edition, heck try out the dart double specialist for size, 4 attacks a round +3 to hit and damage + str to damage ... that adds up to 3/4 dead opponants a round at 1st. Your only issue is carrying enough of the damn things. Bow specialists were almost as nasty, that notched arrow> I always go first trick was sooo wrong.

[nagora]

Just a quick chiming in here, it really isnt that hard to be invulnerable to Kobolds, all you need is an AC of -5 for a nat 20 not to nessisarily hit, not really that tricky.

Actually, even AC -10 is not invulnerable to kobolds in 1ed.

-5 is invulnerable to A kobold, I'll give you that.

[hamlet]

Granularity. Having 150 hp monsters being hit for 15 means you can also have them being struck for 13 by a weapon that has slightly longer range, or for 16 by a player who focused slightly more on their relevant stat.

Why is this important?

<snip a long post>

High granularity allows for 'flavor' differences in the amount of damage you deal. Low granularity doesn't; when the base damage is 3, every difference is massively overwhelming, and everybody in the same role has to do nearly the same damage.

I don't see any advantage to this, really, nor do I see it actually being true in 3.x, or even 4.0.

In my view, it looks a lot more like wish fulfillment in that players can now say "I did 78 points of damage, take that Mr. DM Man!" or that they absorbed a 100 hit point wound and kept on going.

It's number inflation, nothing less.

That's one of the greatest things about AD&D, is that the numbers were kept at a rational level. Yes, it's possible to cause what my group calls "1dhandful damage" with something like a fireball or anything like that, but more common is rolling a single die for damage and then adding a modifier, usualy between 1 and 5.

Fights lasted longer than 2.4 rounds. Fighters became VERY important because they were the guys who could consistantly and over longer periods dish out the kind of damage that needed doing while the mage stood back and used his spells to do things that the fighter couldn't . . . like picking off the spell caster in the back, or using a grease spell to slip up the chieftans particularly tough group, or using an enlarge spell on the fighter so that he was even bigger and caused even more damage.

It's entirely a matter of preference. My problem is that, before long, I see somebody making the argument that in order to get a sufficcient level of granularity, they need hit points exceeding four digits with weapons that do hundreds of damage in one hit.

At what point do you stop needing further granularity? Personally, I reached my point of balance back when 2nd edition came out, but I still have the occasional hankering for the time when ALL weapons did 1d6 points of damage no matter what they were. Made for a really tense first couple of levels.

[hamlet]

Just a quick chiming in here, it really isnt that hard to be invulnerable to Kobolds, all you need is an AC of -5 for a nat 20 not to nessisarily hit, not really that tricky.

Elf with Dex 18 is not all that rare, fighter, 1st level can afford banded or splint + shield that gives you... AC -1 at 1st level (AC is king in 1E all hail the mighty DEX)
couple more levels gives you platemail and a +1 shield now you're at -3..
Another ... 4 levels or so and you can generaly expect what?... +1 plate and +2 shield, or +1 plate, +1 shield and ring of protection +1 and the you're golden, wade into as many of em as you like... heck if you're a Ranger don't you get to make your level/attacks a round against goblinoids or some such, you could be goblin Armageddon by level 7 or 8.

Don't get me wrong I loved 1e, but looking back it was just as open to 'brokeness' as every other edition, heck try out the dart double specialist for size, 4 attacks a round +3 to hit and damage + str to damage ... that adds up to 3/4 dead opponants a round at 1st. Your only issue is carrying enough of the damn things. Bow specialists were almost as nasty, that notched arrow> I always go first trick was sooo wrong.

And if my DM handed out that kind of treasure at that rate . . . well I'd hang him by his toenails.

Add on top of that the fact that a lot of fighters in first edition simply couldn't even CARRY that kind of weight, or wouldn't even want to in some cases.

Plus, speaking as a DM that used a pack of half a dozen kobolds to TPK a 7th level party, kobolds are the deadliest creature in the game. Nobody ever thinks to check the loose earth floor in the tunnel for razor blades and poison.

[Charity]

Actually, even AC -10 is not invulnerable to kobolds in 1ed.

-5 is invulnerable to A kobold, I'll give you that.

Really, how so? I must have lost that rule in my faltering memory, genuinely I'm interested to know, can they gang up to hit or some such?

Hamlet er, when I was 8th level I would expect to have found 3 or 4 magic items... maybe my groups were a bit more generous... but if you play any of Gygax's own modules up to that sort of level you'd pick up many more than you seem to indicate... more than 4 thats for sure.

As for fighters being able to "even CARRY that kind of weight" I'm not sure what you are refering to, the armour? Didn't your armour not count towards encumberance in 1e... I seem to dimly recall that was the case, I may be wrong, but even so a fighter could I imagine, manage to wear plate... otherwise what is it for?

[Matthew]

Really, how so? I must have lost that rule in my faltering memory, genuinely I'm interested to know, can they gang up to hit or some such?

Yeah, apart from Dexterity and Shields only counting against enemies to the front, the little bastards could overwhelm a character with the overbearing rules and cut his throat.

However, conventionally, you will get eight Kobolds around a Medum sized Fighter...



Flank Attacks: All flank attacks negate any defender armor class addition for shield. Attacks against a rear flank, where the opponent is virtually unable to view the attackers, negate dexterity armor class bonus.

Rear Attacks: Opponents attacking from the rear gain a +2 to hit, negate any consideration for shield, and also negate any consideration for dexterity.


Probably like this

Front: 1 Kobold [Full AC]
Front Flank: 3 Kobolds [Full AC]
Rear Flank: 3 Kobolds [No Shield or Dex]
Rear: 1 Kobold [No Shield or Dex, +2 to hit]

Plus, Large Shields only count against a maximum of three enemies...

So, say you had a Level 8 Elf Fighter with...

Plate Armour +1 [AC 2]
Large Shield +2 [AC -1]
Dexterity 18 [ AC -5]

Front Kobold - one cannot hit
Front Flank Kobolds - two cannot hit, one hits versus AC -2 (20+)
Rear Flank Kobolds - three hit versus AC 2 (19+)
Rear Kobold - one hits versus AC 4 (17+)

That Fighter is going to kill every damn Kobold there within the round (he has eight attacks, after all and if he's double specialised... well, it's over), but not before seven replies. In any case, that's how it would work out.

[hamlet]

Really, how so? I must have lost that rule in my faltering memory, genuinely I'm interested to know, can they gang up to hit or some such?

Hamlet er, when I was 8th level I would expect to have found 3 or 4 magic items... maybe my groups were a bit more generous... but if you play any of Gygax's own modules up to that sort of level you'd pick up many more than you seem to indicate... more than 4 thats for sure.

As for fighters being able to "even CARRY that kind of weight" I'm not sure what you are refering to, the armour? Didn't your armour not count towards encumberance in 1e... I seem to dimly recall that was the case, I may be wrong, but even so a fighter could I imagine, manage to wear plate... otherwise what is it for?

Charity, from my perspective, I'm coming at it from a 2nd edition view point where your armor did, in fact, count against carrying limit, and it's always something I've changed when I went into 1st edition. So yes, it actually is more common to see fighters in armor a lot lighter than plate simply because they can't carry it and their other stuff all at the same time.

As for magic items, I'm currently in a game where the party is about 4-6th level (we've had a bit of high turnover thanks to a really nasty group of monsters) and there's a total of about 3 magic weapons in a party of 8 people, one amulet that enhances the cleric's ability to turn undead, a net of entanglement that was pulled off of the dead paladin, and that's it.

It's a lot more fun, IMO, to have far fewer magic items and have to rely almost entirely on your wits.


Oh, and as for the Kobolds, I believe Nagora is talking about the same thing I am. In a fight with Kobolds, your AC means very little because Kobolds don't fight fair. Had them lead a party down a narrow corridor which suddenly became short enough for the little guys to duck through on their feet, but anybody taller than that would have to crawl on hands and knees and suddenly found that the floor of that tunnel was lined with razor blades coated with poison. And they were wondering why kobolds would be wearing heavy boots . . .

[Charity]

Yeah, apart from Dexterity and Shields only counting against enemies to the front, the little bastards could overwhelm a character with the overbearing rules and cut his throat.



You'll get eight Kobolds around a Medum sized Fighter

Probably like this

Front: 1 [Full AC]
Front Flank: 3 [Full AC]
Rear Flank: 3 [No Shield or Dex]
Rear: 1 [No Shield or Dex, +2 to hit]

Plus, Large Shields only count against a maximum of three enemies...

So, say you had a Level 8 Elf Fighter with...

Plate Armour +1 [AC 2]
Large Shield +2 [AC -1]
Dexterity 18 [ AC -5]

Front Kobold - Cannot Hit
Front Flank Kobolds - 2 cannot hit
Rear Flank Kobolds - Hit versus AC 2
Rear Kobold - Hits versus AC 4.

That Fighter is going to kill every damn Kobold there (he has eight atatcks, after all), but that's how it would work out.


OK I had indeed forgotten those complexities, (a party would be fighting back to back in these circumstances) so yeah a fighter on his own would be... vulnerable seems to be overstating the threat he's under but you know what I mean...

hamlet, fair enough thats your playstyle and to each his own, but it is hardly standard to expect so few magic items, and we were talking 1e as far as I know... though even in 2e my fighters all wore plate and managed to move about the place.

[Matthew]

OK I had indeed forgotten those complexities, (a party would be fighting back to back in these circumstances) so yeah a fighter on his own would be... vulnerable seems to be overstating the threat he's under but you know what I mean...

Yep, eight Kobolds are not really a challenge for a level eight fighter, never mind a party of level eight characters. If they were unfortunate enough to get in such a party's way, then they would have to rely on something other than direct melee confrontation, that's for sure. :smallwink:

[nagora]

OK I had indeed forgotten those complexities, (a party would be fighting back to back in these circumstances) so yeah a fighter on his own would be... vulnerable seems to be overstating the threat he's under but you know what I mean...
Matthew's pretty well covered it and the addition of a bit of tree-frog poison would sharpen up the danger from those 17 "to hits".

If there's lots of kobolds this starts to add up (I have played in a game where two 12th level fighters took on several hundred kobolds and learnt the meaning of "hubris").

Sure, the kobolds are in deep trouble too, but if they're cornered they are not quite as harmless as many players think they are. If the kobolds know you're coming, they can set a very nasty encounter up for you too, since they're pretty keen on missile weapons. Kobolds are the classic example of monsters that can't be given a CR: it's totally dependant on how the DM runs them, they can be a push over for 3rd level characters or a worrying challenge for 10th.


hamlet, fair enough thats your playstyle and to each his own, but it is hardly standard to expect so few magic items, and we were talking 1e as far as I know... though even in 2e my fighters all wore plate and managed to move about the place.

Plate really does slow you down, and if it's hot too it becomes a real drag.

Magic armour is a bone of contention in 1ed where an editing error in the DMG left it up to the DM to decide whether magical armour encumbers or not. I generally count it as not restrictive but still heavy (so, full move rate but it still counts towards what you can carry).

[fendrin]

a party would be fighting back to back in these circumstances

I'm honestly hoping that 4e's minions will bring back some of that. One of the things that bothered me in 3.x was this idea that the tank(s) would run up to (i.e. charge) the bad guys, keeping them busy while the wizard stands in back and casts. With minions, you [hopefully] won't be able to to keep them all busy (short of taking up position in a doorway, but that's kind of poor encounter design on the DM's part if that is a frequently effective tactic). If the enemies can get around the tanks, then the wizard is vulnerable. That means the tank shouldbe staying within reasonable proximity of the wizard, so that their 'attack me or suffer' abilities can protect the wizard. In other words, I'm hoping to see more teamwork and less 'we each do our own thing'.

[Charity]

I'm honestly hoping that 4e's minions will bring back some of that. One of the things that bothered me in 3.x was this idea that the tank(s) would run up to (i.e. charge) the bad guys, keeping them busy while the wizard stands in back and casts. With minions, you [hopefully] won't be able to to keep them all busy (short of taking up position in a doorway, but that's kind of poor encounter design on the DM's part if that is a frequently effective tactic). If the enemies can get around the tanks, then the wizard is vulnerable. That means the tank shouldbe staying within reasonable proximity of the wizard, so that their 'attack me or suffer' abilities can protect the wizard. In other words, I'm hoping to see more teamwork and less 'we each do our own thing'.

Me too, I am lucky enough to have had a glance or two of the rules, and i fully expect 4e to be pretty hardcore they have got the simple stuff (underlying math and scalar progressions) right so I am still fealing quite positive. One thing though, with all the 100's of powers and various ongoing effects, folk are going to need to be on the ball when they play, no more knocking back a bottle of red wine er olives... while waiting till it's your go I fear.

[hamlet]

hamlet, fair enough thats your playstyle and to each his own, but it is hardly standard to expect so few magic items, and we were talking 1e as far as I know... though even in 2e my fighters all wore plate and managed to move about the place.

Oh, absolutely, it is a playstyle.

However, I think that playing 1e through the Gygaxian Modules (as very incredly good as they are) is distorting, really, since they were very specifically overloaded with treasure in order to make up for XP expectations.

In my experience, running adventures that don't involve a surpluss of treasure, or where all the treasure is actually rolled for on the random charts by the DM (except for very important things), then your expectations are correspondingly adjusted. You're not going to get many magic items per person, in the end.

Either way is fine, but you have to realize that your expectations of x number of items by level y are just as biased as mine are.

[Charity]

Well in fairness, I am taking the modules written by the games Author as canon... rather than just saying it's how we play.
In fact any pre-written module I have seen has given out at least 1 or 2 items/ character, given that most of them only span 2-3 levels I would say empirical evidence is in my favour for 3 low power magic items for an 8th level character.

[Matthew]

From what I hear over on Dragonsfoot, it's generally thought the amount of magical treasure given out in the standard modules is somewhat excessive. I don't recall what the rationalisation was, though, but I think it was based on the idea that parties wouldn't get it all [i.e. linking back to what I was saying before about hack and slash as a playstyle].

Looking at the pregenerated characters for L2, it would seem that characters of levels 2-5 could expect to have one or two magical items.

In my own campaigns, an Armour Class of 0 to -2 was considered pretty high at levels 5-6, but an Armour Class of 2 was also considered fairly standard [i.e. for mail clad weapon and shield fighters] at levels 1-6.

[nagora]

Well in fairness, I am taking the modules written by the games Author as canon... rather than just saying it's how we play.
In fact any pre-written module I have seen has given out at least 1 or 2 items/ character, given that most of them only span 2-3 levels I would say empirical evidence is in my favour for 3 low power magic items for an 8th level character.

I think you're right about the modules, but there is a reason for it: early modules were written in the expectation of party sizes right up into double figures, so treasure was much more spread around. As the game went mainstream, it gradually became clear that not all groups were centred in places like universities where there were hordes of players.

It was also this change which led to classes like cavaliers and barbarians and rules like specialisation and cantrips. These were all geared towards smaller groups having better chances to survive, since that was the reality of how people were playing.

[hamlet]

Well in fairness, I am taking the modules written by the games Author as canon... rather than just saying it's how we play.
In fact any pre-written module I have seen has given out at least 1 or 2 items/ character, given that most of them only span 2-3 levels I would say empirical evidence is in my favour for 3 low power magic items for an 8th level character.

Well, do you take the modules written by the author to be more authoritative and canonical than the core rule book treasure tables also penned by Gygax?

I tend to hold with the treasure tables personally. It seems that they are a closer barameter of "how the game was meant to be played" than the modules.