D&D 3E vs. 4E: An Essay

[Xeviat]

Eh ... I don't understand a good chunk of what's mentioned as changes, due to my infamiliarity with 2E. I will comment on what I do understand:

2E's "Hovering on Death's Door" rules are dumb, plain and simple. Dead at -10 is awful when the typical damage for a monster is Level+8. Without something to change this, like, say, a level bonus, you can go from up and fighting to dead in one hit. Woops. That's heroic.

Not sure what their problem with the initiative system is. I suspect they misunderstood something? Initiative in 4E works just like it worked in 3E; in 2E, you rolled initiative each round, which I suppose would be a difficult thing to change for some people?

Being able to pick skills/languages in play, rather than during character generation, is a perfectly valid house rule (especially because it does little to unbalance the game). This is really only going to effect the first session or so anyway.

Dragonborn are cool (minus dragonboobs). Likewise, the Eladrin/Elf split makes perfect sense (if Dark Elves are distinct from the others, then why not High Elves and Wood Elves too?).

His firearms are cool. I'd bump them up and make them martial weapons, or bump them up further and make them superior weapons, just so they're rare. It all depends on how you want the world to feel.

[Steerpike]

I definitely didn't see it as a hack that would appeal to you per se, Xeviat - its sensibilities and mechanics are probably too lethal/grognardy/old-school - but I did think it was an interesting example of how a fairly quick hack might be constructed.

2E's "Hovering on Death's Door" rules are dumb, plain and simple. Dead at -10 is awful when the typical damage for a monster is Level+8. Without something to change this, like, say, a level bonus, you can go from up and fighting to dead in one hit. Woops. That's heroic.

I'm pretty sure this is kind of the point, actually.  Earlier editions tended to have prominent "save or die effects" and promote a feel of general lethality and risk.  The high probability of character death even at high levels is meant to encourage creativity/resourcefulness/outside-the-box thinking while sweetening the sense of achievement for surviving.  The way I see death's door as functioning is kind of like how massive damage thresholds function.  Higher level monsters are more likely to hit that threshold, requiring a save-or-die to kick in, thus keeping things dicey even for upper-level heroes.  Many 3E hacks lowered the damage threshold in some way (sometimes to a character's Con, sometimes to Con+HD or something similar).  This approach, however, is definitely not for everyone.  Fans of the later editions - especially 4th - would probably be inclined to see this kind of rule as fundamentally unfair, because to such players, D&D is structured around a series of balanced encounters that offer a carefully scaled level-appropriate challenge and likewise-modulated level-appropriate treasures (which is great, if you're into that sort of play-style).  Stuff like death's door is designed to mess with that kind of balance, in a sense; 4th edition makes it fairly hard to characters to die, so this kind of hack undermines its lack of lethality.

Not sure what their problem with the initiative system is. I suspect they misunderstood something? Initiative in 4E works just like it worked in 3E; in 2E, you rolled initiative each round, which I suppose would be a difficult thing to change for some people?

I think you misread that bit.  I think they're talking about rolling 1d6 per side in the combat.  So if it's the party vs. some orcs, both sides just roll 1d6.  Super-simplified initiative.  In some earlier versions, you just went in order of Dexterity and rolled a d6 in case of a tie, so this may also be what he's talking about.  Personally it's not to my taste, but some people dig this kind of simplification.

Dragonborn are cool (minus dragonboobs). Likewise, the Eladrin/Elf split makes perfect sense (if Dark Elves are distinct from the others, then why not High Elves and Wood Elves too?).

I think Dragonborn are great for those that like them, but they feel much, much more like something out fo a videogame than something out of classic/pulp fantasy literature.  As for the Eladrin/Elf thing, it always puzzled me in 4th edition, as I always thought the term "High Elves" was fine, but to each their own.  Although some interesting parallels could be drawn between 4th edition's Elf-splitting and Tolkien's approach to elves, the execution reminded me more of World of Wracraft's Elf-divisions (Night Elf, Blood Elf) for some reason, so my guess is that in an effort to cultivate the classic/old-school feel - the point of this particular hack - those races were merged/eschewed.

I basically just posted it as an example of what a quick hack might look like in overview.

[Matt Larkin (author)]

2E's "Hovering on Death's Door" rules are dumb, plain and simple. Dead at -10 is awful when the typical damage for a monster is Level+8. Without something to change this, like, say, a level bonus, you can go from up and fighting to dead in one hit. Woops. That's heroic.

I wouldn't say plain and simple, dumb--that's an unfair simplification of the issue. They work for some people; it depends what you want out of your game. And it could be argued fighting when you know a single thrust could kill you is not only more realistic, but more heroic. It's easy to charge into battle if you know it's a "fair" fight (by which we mean weighted in your favor) and you're most likely going to come out on top. It takes a bit more heroism to go into a losing situation, eyes open, and ready to take that last desperate chance.

Regardless, lying on the floor bleeding to death, whether it be for 1 round or 5, is not generally what I consider heroic.

[Steerpike]

I found the section on making 4E monsters feel old school pretty interesting.  Particularly this crude (but effective?) approach:

Here are some of my techniques for tweaking monsters to dampen the above-mentioned dynamics without totally scrapping the system. If I'm using a monster from the monster manual, my default method is to cut the HP in half and double all damage dice (before bonuses). This makes battles of attrition less likely and also produces a credible threat. When PCs are equipped with healing surges and piles of HP, doing 1d6 or 1d8 damage is just not scary. If I use minions, I make their damage variable so that it is not obvious to the players which enemies are minions (though I have been using minions less recently; they end up just feeling like clutter).

...

Thus, a 15 hit die (level) dragon would have 225 HP and a AC of 25 (18 from plate + 7 from inflation). Primary attack: claw/claw/bite +10 vs AC (2d8/2d8/2d12, each +7 for inflation). Secondary attack: breath weapon (fire): 10x10 area, 15d10 (luck throw for half damage, no hit roll required). Speed 10, fly 20. For a dragon, I might add one more special attack as well (because, you know, dragon). XP 2000 (15 * 10 + 500 for flying and fire breathing). I'm still experimenting with the relationship between hit dice and attack bonus.

Compare to the Adult Blue Dragon from the Monster Manual (page 78), which is a level 13 solo artillery monster. HP 655, AC 30, XP 4000, claw +16 vs. AC 1d6 + 6, lightning breath +18 vs. reflex 2d12 + 10 (miss is half damage). The dragon created using my house rules is easier to hit and has fewer HP, but has much more destructive attacks. This requires more planning and less direct assault, and also cuts down on the time required for combat, which is exactly what I want.

[sparkletwist]

2E's "Hovering on Death's Door" rules are dumb, plain and simple.

In the context of 4e, I completely agree. Here's why:

Earlier editions tended to have prominent "save or die effects" and promote a feel of general lethality and risk.

Earlier editions also had character generation processes that took five minutes and were highly randomized. 4e characters need to be more survivable simply due to the degree of optimization and decision-making that goes into making a 4e character-- it's basically insulting to the player to have a system that stipulates all that work and preparation be done and then have it potentially taken away the first time the dice hit the table.

[Steerpike]

That's a legitimate criticism, sparkletwist (though 2nd edition characters did take a little time to build).  Based on what little the hack actually shows, though, it sounds like the game isn't absurdly deadly (i.e. very early D&D/AD&D), just a lot more lethal than 4th.  The question the Nalfeshnee Hack GM would have to ask themself would be whether the trade-off is worth it.

Remember, too, that death in most modern D&D games isn't permanent.  It's really more along the lines of a 5000 gp fine (or whatever) and having to sit out for part of the combat.  So it's not like every time a character dies all the time/energy that went into making them is rendered worthless.  Nothing necessarily gets "taken away" when a character dies, except for some pretend money.  If the other characters are strapped for cash, a quick Gentle Repose and a premade extra character handed to the dead character's player by the GM can mitigate the problem and start a new adventure (i.e. raise funds to bring back so-and-so) until the character can get brought back.

I run a fairly lethal Pathfinder game (I'd say someone dies every 3-4 sessions or so), and we still haven't "lost" a PC in any real sense.  PCs have been raised or reincarnated a lot, and the characters have to burn some of their funds to make this happen (though they sometimes manage to get people to give them such services for free or at a discount), but there's no perma-death.

[sparkletwist]

Ok, I see your point. I was taking dead to mean, you know, actually dead.

I don't really like that approach either, but for other reasons. Amusingly, part of why I come down rather squarely on in anti-character-death camp is that I have a kind of more "hardcore" stance in that I want "dead" to actually mean something.

[Matt Larkin (author)]

I don't really like that approach either, but for other reasons. Amusingly, part of why I come down rather squarely on in anti-character-death camp is that I have a kind of more "hardcore" stance in that I want "dead" to actually mean something.

I agree death should mean something, and character death should be rare, though I'm not sure I agree that 4e goes the way I like a system to as far as making fights feel meaningful.

[Gamer Printshop]

If your character cannot die in combat - why play at all? If there's no danger of losing, there's no pleasure in winning. This is true in any game, RPG or otherwise. Why play chess if you can't lose - same logic here.

Really once D&D came out with 4e, I stopped considering WotC a company worth following. Really, no matter how successful DDN becomes, I won't even look at it, because WotC made it - which to me is a reason not to look.

[Elemental_Elf]

Really once D&D came out with 4e, I stopped considering WotC a company worth following. Really, no matter how successful DDN becomes, I won't even look at it, because WotC made it - which to me is a reason not to look.

I've never understood absolutist attitudes like this.

If a company makes a product I don't like, I won't buy it. If a company recognizes its mistake and attempts to make amends, then I will be amenable to them (especially if they are actually trying to right their wrongs (i.e. the way WotC is)). :)

WotC is in the business of making games, it's not like they are running out and cutting the fins off sharks.

[sparkletwist]

If your character cannot die in combat - why play at all? If there's no danger of losing, there's no pleasure in winning. This is true in any game, RPG or otherwise. Why play chess if you can't lose - same logic here.

This based on two large and largely wrong assumptions:

1. The logic isn't the same as chess at all because chess is overtly a competitive game between two players. An RPG is a cooperatively told story that the table builds together. While there may be challenge and a competitive element, even the D&D rules themselves say that it is fundamentally a cooperative game and the real goal is to have fun.

2. Even assuming a more competitive element, there is nothing saying that "losing" has to equal "death." Even without character death, there is plenty of chance to lose: characters can be defeated, suffer setbacks, be socially disgraced, and have all kinds of interesting things happen-- most significantly, they can lose in ways that enrich and expand the story of that character, as opposed to simply bringing it to an end, which is all that (permanent) death does.

[Steerpike]

I don't really like that approach either, but for other reasons. Amusingly, part of why I come down rather squarely on in anti-character-death camp is that I have a kind of more "hardcore" stance in that I want "dead" to actually mean something.

That's fine if that's what you're into, but to remove raise/resurrection/reincarnate spells from D&D (or to make them prohibitively expensive/rare by default) would be a very fundamental change, especially for recent editions of the game.  Death means something in D&D, it just doesn't mean as much from a narrative/thematic perspective, which I'll readily admit is a major tradeoff compared to a system where permadeath is the norm.  Character death does have some serious short-term consequences - the party is now down a member, making every fight considerably harder.  If their cleric/druid died, they're out a healer, if their rogue died, they'd better backtrack carefully or they're much more likely to run into traps, etc.  There's now a body they have to lug around, which is heavy, and if they don't have access to Gentle Repose there's a ticking clock on how long they have to get the body to a temple, which, depending on how common high level clerics are, may be quite some distance away.  And on top of that there's the  financial burden.  Death has meaning here, but it's as much or more pragmatic/logistical as it is emotional.  Even with resurrection, though, death can still have some dramatic resonance.  If/when the character comes back, they may want to get revenge on whatever killed them (assuming it's still alive), for example.  Death may have been a very truamatic event (a la Buffy the Vampire Slayer), altering the way the character behaves.

And, of course, a GM can always prohibit resurrection spells or make casters capable of them extremely uncommon, although such a GM would then be advised to either be very careful with the lethality levels or make sure their players are onboard with risking their characters' very existence.

[Elemental_Elf]

Heck, being unable to recover your ally's body can be a huge setback.

I think there's a better middle ground between Gygaxian Death Dungeons with no possibility of resurrection and the Comic Book/MMO-style constant resurrection concept.

[Steerpike]

I think there's a better middle ground between Gygaxian Death Dungeons with no possibility of resurrection and the Comic Book/MMO-style constant resurrection concept.

Amen!

What would be even beter would be a game with flexibility of play-style and guidelines for tailoring the game to one's desired lethality levels built into the system itself, though this may be overly ambitious.

[sparkletwist]

These are fair points, but I contend that the "insult to the player" is still largely there: the player of the dead character is, after all, usually forced to sit out during all of these resurrection hijinks. That is, the play time lost creating a new character now becomes play time lost because the group has go through whatever resurrection hoops are in place-- which, as you've pointed out, can be significant.

Granted, you can play a random NPC or something, but that may wreck immersion for some people, and probably feels "less fun" than playing your own character. At least, it would to me.