# Grognard's First Take On 4e



## elijah snow (May 22, 2008)

Couldn't resist getting Shadowfell from Amazon (the 3 maps alone are worth the $20). Though I never plan to run 4e, I was secretly hoping it would be cool. Having glanced through it last night, my initial take on 4e is - 

Wow, it's much worse than I could ever believe and extremely unappealing to a 3.5e grognard. I was open-minded, truly, and still need to read it more carefully, but if you're in the "I'm going to play 3.5e forever" camp, the real thing is not going to change your mind. It's just what we've been predicting and more.

A couple of key issues:

1. The Rules: The rules don't feel like 3e at all, and frankly don't seem any more "streamlined" on first glance. This is essentially a new game system. It's not unlike the feeling I got when I picked up Dark Heresy or Solomon Kane - my eyes just kind of glazed over the rules, and I'm pretty adept at all three previous editions. And the replacement/redefined rules seem clunky. Is it really easier to categorize monsters by type and by minion/lurker/fodder/whatever?

2. The Adventure: I don't like the look and feel of the adventure itself, from the new stat blocks to the mashing together of fluff, tactical encounters, and monster stats in the same page. It's not visually pleasing nor intuitive. Furthermore, nothing here makes me terrified to enter the Shadowfell.

I've got to say it leaves a sour taste in my mouth. I preordered the PHB, despite my vow not to ever run 4e, because I was still curious to see what had changed and what exciting ideas I could port into 3.5e. After seeing Shadowfell, I'm probably going to cancel it.


----------



## Crothian (May 22, 2008)

If it didn't feel like a new rules system it would have been pointless to do a new edition.  I don't think it is supposed to feel like 3ed and I'm very happy it doesn't.  I don't want two games that feel the same way.  All new rules seem clunky when first read and played.  It has a learning curve and once people get used to them then we will know how it is.  3e felt the same way back in 2000.

I don't think it is supposed to make you scared of the Shadowfell.  But at the same time it isn't like there was any Wizard adventure in 3e that made me scared of anything.  We had good adventures but that wasn't what they were for.  Having monster stats on the same page is great and the stat blocks are pretty easy to read once I figured out how the things were set up.


----------



## Silvercat Moonpaw (May 22, 2008)

I've been thinking the rules looked no more streamlined for a while now.  I'm not a fan of 3.5 either, but you could avoid a lot of complexity in that edition by choosing a the right class.  Now everyone has suite of moves with complex features.

It's tactical and adds options, so people who like that will probably get more out of it than I would.


----------



## Piratecat (May 22, 2008)

Having played 4e, I agree that the rules don't feel like 3.5. They do feel like "D&D" to me, though, and that's what I'm looking for. I absolutely love the new stat blocks; as a DM, they make me very, very happy.

In our first game, we had a mix of experienced players and people who aren't too experienced with D&D rules. Both groups adapted quickly. That bodes well to me.

But luckily, you've found a system that works for you. I think you'll be able to find 3.5 players for quite some time. I think that's a great thing.


----------



## Kzach (May 22, 2008)

elijah snow said:
			
		

> 1. The Rules: The rules don't feel like 3e at all, and frankly don't seem any more "streamlined" on first glance. This is essentially a new game system. It's not unlike the feeling I got when I picked up Dark Heresy or Solomon Kane - my eyes just kind of glazed over the rules, and I'm pretty adept at all three previous editions. And the replacement/redefined rules seem clunky. Is it really easier to categorize monsters by type and by minion/lurker/fodder/whatever?




This is a good thing.

It's not meant to feel like 3.x. It's meant to address the issues that many people had with 3.x and present a simpler system for DM's and players to open up the market to new entrants. Simpler also equals more fun for those people who can wrap their minds around abstraction.



			
				elijah snow said:
			
		

> 2. The Adventure: I don't like the look and feel of the adventure itself, from the new stat blocks to the mashing together of fluff, tactical encounters, and monster stats in the same page. It's not visually pleasing nor intuitive. Furthermore, nothing here makes me terrified to enter the Shadowfell.




This is a matter of opinion.

I always felt the Dungeon method of presenting adventures was confusing and haphazard for most of its life. Erik and Chris did a great job of trying to make the 3.x rules a lot easier to game with but the inherent complexity left me scrambling for pages throughout a game.

Though I've only perused a copy, I can already see that KotS will be far, far, far easier for me to run than other adventures in 3.x. Return to the Temple of Elemental Evil, for instance, was a nightmare of page-flipping and confusing details which I'm still recovering from.

It must also be said that this adventure is meant to be simple and straightforward as it is acting as an entry point for new players as well as those simply new to the system. I think it accomplishes this quite well.



			
				elijah snow said:
			
		

> I've got to say it leaves a sour taste in my mouth. I preordered the PHB, despite my vow not to ever run 4e, because I was still curious to see what had changed and what exciting ideas I could port into 3.5e. After seeing Shadowfell, I'm probably going to cancel it.




And this is a bad thing?


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (May 22, 2008)

elijah snow said:
			
		

> Couldn't resist getting Shadowfell from Amazon (the 3 maps alone are worth the $20). Though I never plan to run 4e, I was secretly hoping it would be cool. Having glanced through it last night, my initial take on 4e is -
> 
> Wow, it's much worse than I could ever believe and extremely unappealing to a 3.5e grognard. I was open-minded, truly, and still need to read it more carefully, but if you're in the "I'm going to play 3.5e forever" camp, the real thing is not going to change your mind. It's just what we've been predicting and more.
> 
> ...



I have the same experience with new rules system. You'll have to sink it in to "grog" them. But once you understood the basics, its becoming easier.

4E is not 3E, that much is clear, and I think that was the goal. (I don't see much similarity between AD&D and 3E, either, but I am not an AD&D player)



> And the replacement/redefined rules seem clunky. Is it really easier to categorize monsters by type and by minion/lurker/fodder/whatever?



For usability purposes, yes, it is easier. You quickly understand what a monster does. Artillery Monsters fight from distance, Skirmishers are mobile, Lurker strike from hiding. 
This information is a lot more helpful then just knowing that a monster is an outsider with the fire subtype (which is also useful information, but often, it's more fluff). 
The stat-block is designed to give all information needed to run the monster. Knowing how to place it and deciding its tactics are an important part, and the role descriptor helps a lot here.



> 2. The Adventure: I don't like the look and feel of the adventure itself, from the new stat blocks to the mashing together of fluff, tactical encounters, and monster stats in the same page. It's not visually pleasing nor intuitive. Furthermore, nothing here makes me terrified to enter the Shadowfell.



Hmm. Hopefully I can see that myself this evening... 



> I've got to say it leaves a sour taste in my mouth. I preordered the PHB, despite my vow not to ever run 4e, because I was still curious to see what had changed and what exciting ideas I could port into 3.5e. After seeing Shadowfell, I'm probably going to cancel it.



I am not sure that vowing to not ever run 4E can really count as "open-minded". Still, you got the book and tried it... 


[off-topic]
But such a "vow" to not do something reminds me of myself as a child. 
"No, I don't want to try the salad! I will hate it!" "At least try it!" "Grr." *puts tiny amount of food in mouth* "See, don't like it!" "Okay, at least you tried." (And this would happen regardless how much I'd might like the new taste. I couldn't just go back and say "You know, I was wrong). Ah, well, that was me as a child...  
[/off-topic]


----------



## Heselbine (May 22, 2008)

Can I ask, respectfully, why you have such a closed mind? Why you've already made up your mind in advance?


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (May 22, 2008)

Heselbine said:
			
		

> Can I ask, respectfully, why you have such a closed mind? Why you've already made up your mind in advance?




Can I ask, respectfully, why you think he's being closed minded about it?

He specifically said he had an open mind about it. He bought the adventure, he read it, and he didn't like it.


----------



## Wisdom Penalty (May 22, 2008)

Elijah, you have betrayed Grognards everywhere! Despite your "vow never to run 4e" you admit to "secretly hoping it would be cool" - this is unacceptable. As a fellow Grognard, you _knew_ none of us were to get those books - _for any reason_* - and yet you did it anyway. Your feeble attempts at being dismissive toward the game do not pardon you.

Turn in your Grognard Card.

Wis, Grognard 14/Dumbass 6


* Unless Oprah adds the core books to her _Book of the Month_ club.


----------



## Heselbine (May 22, 2008)

Because he'd clearly made up his mind before buying the adventure. And buying the adventure seems to have been an exercise in proving his own prior prejudices true. Why bother? No-one's forcing anyone to play 4e.

He said he had an open mind - that makes it true, does it? In that case, I've got a porsche and I'm a millionaire.


----------



## Wolfspider (May 22, 2008)

Wisdom Penalty said:
			
		

> * Unless Oprah adds the core books to her _Book of the Month_ club.




Wizards of the Coast should be so lucky....


----------



## nute (May 22, 2008)

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> Can I ask, respectfully, why you think he's being closed minded about it?




Possibly because his quote says "opinions on 4e" and he hasn't seen "4e" yet, only the preview adventure. That's like judging a movie from a teaser trailer.

Having also read through KotS, I can see things that would not have been *my* first choices to change about D&D - I don't know if I'm a fan of the new skill system that seems to remove specialized skill-based characters, for instance - but I also know that the stuff presented in KotS is *not* a reflection of the completeness of 4e. Abbreviated rules mean abbreviated content.

The quickstart rules in the adventure are not comprehensive, although I feel they do their job for the purpose. All pre-made adventures, especially those with pregenerated noncustomizable characters, lie midway between "role-playing game" and "board game" - without a full rules set, you're not getting the full experience.

To the OP - I can understand that the preview adventure might not be all that impressive. Pre-packaged adventures never are - by definition they're not going to be as good as a home-brewed campaign with reactive plotting, customizable characters, cooperative storytelling, etc. The quickstart rules leave a lot of questions unanswered, but I have faith that the end result will be worth waiting for.


----------



## neoweasel (May 22, 2008)

Piratecat said:
			
		

> Having played 4e, I agree that the rules don't feel like 3.5. They do feel like "D&D" to me, though, and that's what I'm looking for. I absolutely love the new stat blocks; as a DM, they make me very, very happy.
> 
> In our first game, we had a mix of experienced players and people who aren't too experienced with D&D rules. Both groups adapted quickly. That bodes well to me.
> 
> But luckily, you've found a system that works for you. I think you'll be able to find 3.5 players for quite some time. I think that's a great thing.



I played 4E (well, the version available through H1) for the first time this week and I have to agree that it felt like D&D.  Was the session deep, immersive roleplay? Not really.  Did I have a lot of fun pretending to be a half-elven holy warrior zorching the snot out of a bunch of kobolds with the might of my god?  Oh, yeah.

Interesting tactical choices and quick resolution are godsends.  There was a bit of a learning curve in which Second Wind was only used once in two encounters, but that's just bad 3E habits that will go away as we get more experienced with the system.


----------



## Baka no Hentai (May 22, 2008)

One thing to keep in mind is that KOTS is simply a preview adventure... Im sure that they had extremely limited space to throw rules in, so it makes sense to me that those rules would not seem very intuitive. After all, they are attempting to pack 300 pages worth of rules (600 if you count the DMG) into the limited page count available for the adventure.

This is why I am purposefully not buying KOTS until after I get the core books.


In regards to the stat block and fluff problem, that sounds more like a page layout issue than a 4E rule issue... unless im misunderstanding you?

Regardless, I'm not trying to change your mind... just saying that your original idea of getting the PHB is pretty sound, and in your shoes I would likely stick with that plan.


----------



## Wolfspider (May 22, 2008)

nute said:
			
		

> Possibly because his quote says "opinions on 4e" and he hasn't seen "4e" yet, only the preview adventure. That's like judging a movie from a teaser trailer.




I would compare it more with judging a movie based on the first 20 minutes of it.

The "teaser trailer" would have been, in this case, the "Wizards Presents" books that previewed 4th edition.


----------



## Transit (May 22, 2008)

nute said:
			
		

> ...but I have faith that the end result will be worth waiting for.




But how can you have that opinion?  You haven't seen "4e" yet, only the preview adventure. That's like judging a movie from a teaser trailer.


----------



## mhensley (May 22, 2008)

I played last night and my grognard take is:  4e is weak sauce.  I played the dwarf fighter and felt less heroic than earlier editions, not more.   Yeah, I got a lot more hit points but when even kobolds have more than 20 hp what does it really matter?  All that did was make me slowly nick opponents to death.  Whee!   

And what about all my kewl powerz?  Wow, I can cleave and do a piddly 3 points of damage to somebody (instead of in 3e where I could possibly kill two guys in one attack).  Whee!  Or I could instead attack and do a piddly 3 points of damage if I miss.  I guess it's pointless if I actually hit my target.  Whee!  Or I could attack and trip my target which imposes an incredible -2 penalty to them.. up until they just stand back up on their turn.  I guess I could trip Orcus himself with this as there's no save and it's not opposed in any way.  Whee!  And best of all is my mighty DAILY POWER where I can attack for an average damage of 24 points... I might be able to kill an unhurt kolbold in one shot... maybe... once a day.  Whee!

Wow, oh wow.  All these options I never had before with a fighter.  Cleave, trip, power attack.  It blows my mind.  Whee!  Are we having fun yet?


----------



## vagabundo (May 22, 2008)

elijah snow said:
			
		

> Couldn't resist getting Shadowfell from Amazon (the 3 maps alone are worth the $20). Though I never plan to run 4e, I was secretly hoping it would be cool. Having glanced through it last night, my initial take on 4e is -




It is cool, for the DM and players. I've been DMing 4e(lite) for the past two months now and my players love it.



> Wow, it's much worse than I could ever believe and extremely unappealing to a 3.5e grognard. I was open-minded, truly, and still need to read it more carefully, but if you're in the "I'm going to play 3.5e forever" camp, the real thing is not going to change your mind. It's just what we've been predicting and more.




Rather than just read the adventure, you really need to actually play it. The rules work much better than 3e in actual play, they are a bit dry if you just read them.



> A couple of key issues:
> 
> 1. The Rules: The rules don't feel like 3e at all, and frankly don't seem any more "streamlined" on first glance. This is essentially a new game system. It's not unlike the feeling I got when I picked up Dark Heresy or Solomon Kane - my eyes just kind of glazed over the rules, and I'm pretty adept at all three previous editions. And the replacement/redefined rules seem clunky. Is it really easier to categorize monsters by type and by minion/lurker/fodder/whatever?




Again, in play they are more streamlined, and each player gets some time to do heroic stuff. They feel very similar to 3e to me, but opinions and play-styles may vary.

Monsters are much easier and loads of fun to run as a DM. What you do with the monster changes depending on the role.


> 2. The Adventure: I don't like the look and feel of the adventure itself, from the new stat blocks to the mashing together of fluff, tactical encounters, and monster stats in the same page. It's not visually pleasing nor intuitive. Furthermore, nothing here makes me terrified to enter the Shadowfell.




I havent DMed the adventure yet, but I hate page flipping, having it all layed out in a two page spread is a Godsend in my opinion.



> I've got to say it leaves a sour taste in my mouth. I preordered the PHB, despite my vow not to ever run 4e, because I was still curious to see what had changed and what exciting ideas I could port into 3.5e. After seeing Shadowfell, I'm probably going to cancel it.




I'm sure there is still some cool stuff for you to insert into your 3e game, 4e is fairly modular. The adventure has very slimmed down version of the rules, if you are looking to see what you can yoink I wouldnt judge 4e on "keep on the shadowfell". It is more a preview of the system as a whole.


----------



## Festivus (May 22, 2008)

After reading "Keep" last night I fell on the opposite side of the fence.  I really like what I am seeing, and look forward to less complexity, smoother DMing with less referencing material in books, and the roles each creature can play.  

Yes it's a very different game than 3.5, but so was 3.x from AD&D.  I missed entirely 2nd edition, and came late to 3.5.  To me it was jarring to play 3.5 at first, the vast array of options, the complexity of the rules compared to "winging it" in AD&D, where the GM was master of the rules, not the rulebooks.

When I took a look at the Pathfinder RPG and compared it to what I am seeing with 4E so far, I can tell you that I choose to go the less complex route without even thinking much more about it.

A totally different game that still feels like D&D... I am all over it.


----------



## Wolfspider (May 22, 2008)

Transit said:
			
		

> But how can you have that opinion?  You haven't seen "4e" yet, only the preview adventure. That's like judging a movie from a teaser trailer.




"A hit, a very palpable hit."


----------



## GoodKingJayIII (May 22, 2008)

nute said:
			
		

> Possibly because his quote says "opinions on 4e" and he hasn't seen "4e" yet, only the preview adventure. That's like judging a movie from a teaser trailer.




I personally have found teaser trailers pretty helpful determining what movies I want to see.

That said, I'm not sure that's the best analogy, because a game system is a complex animal with a lot of moving parts (a morning for mixed metaphors!).  I suspect a myriad of information has been cut out of KotS in order to create a playable preview adventure.

_That_ said, it's probably still a decent gauge of the new edition.  It's a shame elijah didn't like it, but a lot of people didn't like 3rd edition either.  And that's perfectly cool.

Elijah, I'd say after June 6, next lazy Saturday you get, head over to Borders or B&N or your FLGS and sit down with the PHB and DMG for a while and give them a thorough perusal.  I think that's the best way to give a fair shake without spending more unnecessary dough.


----------



## Lacyon (May 22, 2008)

Transit said:
			
		

> But how can you have that opinion?  You haven't seen "4e" yet, only the preview adventure. That's like judging a movie from a teaser trailer.




Faith isn't judgment.


----------



## phil500 (May 22, 2008)

elijah snow said:
			
		

> mashing together of fluff, tactical encounters, and monster stats in the same page.




this is how I knew this was a troll job


----------



## vagabundo (May 22, 2008)

GoodKingJayIII said:
			
		

> I personally have found teaser trailers pretty helpful determining what movies I want to see.
> 
> That said, I'm not sure that's the best analogy, because a game system is a complex animal with a lot of moving parts (a morning for mixed metaphors!).  I suspect a myriad of information has been cut out of KotS in order to create a playable preview adventure.
> 
> _That_ said, it's probably still a decent gauge of the new edition.  It's a shame elijah didn't like it, but a lot of people didn't like 3rd edition either.  And that's perfectly cool.




I dont think you can get a good feel for what the game is unless you actually play it and give it a good shake. 

Still I'm sure a lot of people are still very happy with 3e, if so dont change. That simple really. If it aint broke for ya, dont .....


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (May 22, 2008)

You _are_ allowed to be convinced that 4e will be awesome, even though you haven't seen it. This is not close-minded.

You _are not_ allowed to be convinced that 4e will suck, even though you haven't seen it. This is close-minded.

Even though both groups have been exposed to the exact same limited data on which to form an opinion, the validity of your opinion around these parts is entirely dependent on what ill-informed judgment you eventually arrive at.


----------



## Midknightsun (May 22, 2008)

Hey, if you're gaming and having fun, regardless of the edition, then more power to you.  Too few of us gamers out there to be jumping all over each other for a difference in gaming style. . . 

That said I plan on picking KotSF up tonight and give it a once over.  I'm not a grognard by any means though, so I may have a different take on it.  That and I am more than happy to put 3.5 in storage regardless of what system I intend to switch over, so we'll see how it rolls.


----------



## Cadfan (May 22, 2008)

1. Its fair to judge a movie from a teaser trailer.  Its what trailers are for.

2. Doesn't always mean your judgment will be accurate.

3. 4e isn't 3e, so if your test was "does this feel like 3e," the answer will be "no."

4. Not everyone who says they gave something a fair chance actually did so.

5. No one has an obligation to like 4e.

6. Some dislike 4e based on an accident of history- they, personally, are not in the mood for a new RPG, and they interpret their lack of interest in buying a new RPG as a flaw in the RPG itself.

7. Unconditional fandom and unconditional hatedom are not two sides of the same coin.

8. Bias in favor of having fun, enjoying things, and looking forwards to the future is a positive character trait.


----------



## neoweasel (May 22, 2008)

Huh.  I have exactly the opposite reaction from mhensley (OK, not EXACTLY opposite since I wasn't playing the fighter but you get the picture).  Our fighter seemed extremely tough, going toe-to-toe with a couple of enemies in an ambush long enough the rest of the party to clear a flank and come back to reinforce him.  To me, that's heroism.  

That's a platoon holding down half a battle so the company can reorganize and overcome significant opposition and STILL being in pretty good condition at the end of it.  It's not quite Alvin York or Audie Murphy or anything, but they were totally Paragon level characters or something.


----------



## vagabundo (May 22, 2008)

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> You _are_ allowed to be convinced that 4e will be awesome, even though you haven't seen it. This is optimistic.
> 
> You _are not_ allowed to be convinced that 4e will suck, even though you haven't seen it. This is pessimistic.




...


----------



## GoodKingJayIII (May 22, 2008)

vagabundo said:
			
		

> I dont think you can get a good feel for what the game is unless you actually play it and give it a good shake.




Completely agree, but that's not always feasible.

If he wants to run the game, I think he can do so with KotS and get a good approximation.  Then he can check out the Core books and maybe he'll see some new rules and things that he couldn't experience in Shadowfell.

Not everyone has $90 to spend on the core.  Some just may not want to.


----------



## HeavenShallBurn (May 22, 2008)

elijah snow said:
			
		

> Wow, it's much worse than I could ever believe and extremely unappealing to a 3.5e grognard. I was open-minded, truly, and still need to read it more carefully, but if you're in the "I'm going to play 3.5e forever" camp, the real thing is not going to change your mind. It's just what we've been predicting and more.



You're not the only one.  Personally I think if you got rid of the name and did a "blind test" session a lot of people even those who are in favor of 4e wouldn't know it was D&D.  The changes are just that big.  It feels more like GURPS without the points mixed with M:TG and I've never been able to like either.


----------



## Cadfan (May 22, 2008)

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> You _are_ allowed to be convinced that 4e will be awesome, even though you haven't seen it. This is not close-minded.
> 
> You _are not_ allowed to be convinced that 4e will suck, even though you haven't seen it. This is close-minded.



Well... yes.

Person A: I hate Wulf Ratbane.  I haven't met him in person, but I'm certain he's ugly and smells funny.  Anyone who says otherwise is a chump.
Person B: I like Wulf Ratbane.  I don't know much about him, but I'm sure he's a very nice person.  Anyone who says otherwise is just being mean.


----------



## Alynnalizza (May 22, 2008)

Transit said:
			
		

> But how can you have that opinion?  You haven't seen "4e" yet, only the preview adventure. That's like judging a movie from a teaser trailer.




And haven't we all at one time or another saw a trailer and went....

a. "That looks like crap, not watching that",
b. "Wow that looks good, I need to see that'.

Both are logical opinions from a 20 second clip.

One can form that same opinion from reading any of the 'preview books/adventures'. 

Either answer is acceptable .


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (May 22, 2008)

vagabundo said:
			
		

> You are allowed to be convinced that 4e will be awesome, even though you haven't seen it. This is optimistic.
> 
> You are not allowed to be convinced that 4e will suck, even though you haven't seen it. This is pessimistic.




That presumes a value judgment on 4e.

It is not pessimistic for a 3e player to be optimistic that he has chosen to stay with the better system for himself and his group.


----------



## AllisterH (May 22, 2008)

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> That presumes a value judgment on 4e.
> 
> It is not pessimistic for a 3e player to be optimistic that he has chosen to stay with the better system for himself and his group.




True.

That said, one of his criticisms I don't think is a valid criticsim of 4E. That would be the encounter format. Isn't this the vastly preferred format we were using in the latter half of 3.5?


----------



## Fifth Element (May 22, 2008)

My only comment (having skipped much of the thread) is that _of course_ new rules are going to be difficult to grasp at first, especially if you've never actually played the game. I'm sure that a 2E player reading 3E quickstart rules, without having actually played 3E, would say "You call this streamlined? How is this better?"

You'll never get a good feel for the rules unless you actually play with them. Of course 3E rules would seem more streamlined and easier to get - we've been using them for 8 years and they're second nature to many of us. Judging the 4E rules based only on a read-through of the quickstart rules is unfair.


----------



## malraux (May 22, 2008)

KotS is more equivalent to a pilot for a tv series than a teaser/trailer.  I'd say its reasonable to assess a show based on its pilot, but recognize that the pilot might not represent what the show is like.


----------



## vagabundo (May 22, 2008)

GoodKingJayIII said:
			
		

> Completely agree, but that's not always feasible.
> 
> If he wants to run the game, I think he can do so with KotS and get a good approximation.  Then he can check out the Core books and maybe he'll see some new rules and things that he couldn't experience in Shadowfell.
> 
> *Not everyone has $90 to spend on the core.  Some just may not want to.*




True, of course. I did mean give the adventure a run, you would get a good grasp of how the full game would feel, I think. 

Clearing up of the action sequence and adding the minor and immediate in by default really makes a difference in my opinion. I didnt get that from just reading the DNDXP rules until I actually seen it in play. 

And monsters; much more fun for me to run. Overall I'd say my DMing fun has increased by 100-200%!!


----------



## Steely Dan (May 22, 2008)

HeavenShallBurn said:
			
		

> mixed with M:TG




Ah, an actually well designed game – it would behove 4th Ed to take a tip or two from Magic: The Money Sink.


----------



## Fifth Element (May 22, 2008)

Alynnalizza said:
			
		

> And haven't we all at one time or another saw a trailer and went....
> 
> a. "That looks like crap, not watching that",
> b. "Wow that looks good, I need to see that'.
> ...



Yes, but the real question is, how many times have you said "that looks like crap", only to wind up watching the movie for some reason and finding it's actually pretty good, or even great? It happens.

Conversely, many movies I've thought looked great turned out to be crap. The point is, judging anything based only on a sliver of it leads to bad judgments at times.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (May 22, 2008)

AllisterH said:
			
		

> True.
> 
> That said, one of his criticisms I don't think is a valid criticsim of 4E. That would be the encounter format. Isn't this the vastly preferred format we were using in the latter half of 3.5?




I have seen the "encounter format" used well, and used poorly. Within the same adventure.

At any rate, I wouldn't confuse opinions with criticisms. If he doesn't like the encounter format (even though I agree with you that on the whole it's better), it's not _invalid_. He just doesn't like it. 

You and I don't like having to flip back and forth across multiple pages for the same encounter.

Both are valid.


----------



## Crothian (May 22, 2008)

HeavenShallBurn said:
			
		

> You're not the only one.  Personally I think if you got rid of the name and did a "blind test" session a lot of people even those who are in favor of 4e wouldn't know it was D&D.  The changes are just that big.  It feels more like GURPS without the points mixed with M:TG and I've never been able to like either.




Changes from second edition to third were also huge, it was still D&D.  D&D is less about the rules and more about the feel.  I think a good DM can get D&D out of the GURPS Rules or even White Wolf.  I know I have.


----------



## Fifth Element (May 22, 2008)

GoodKingJayIII said:
			
		

> If he wants to run the game, I think he can do so with KotS and get a good approximation.  Then he can check out the Core books and maybe he'll see some new rules and things that he couldn't experience in Shadowfell.



Well yes, running the adventure should give you a good feel for 4E. But IIRC the OP is basing judgments not on _playing_ KotS, but _reading_ KotS.


----------



## TwoSix (May 22, 2008)

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> You _are_ allowed to be convinced that 4e will be awesome, even though you haven't seen it. This is not close-minded.
> 
> You _are not_ allowed to be convinced that 4e will suck, even though you haven't seen it. This is close-minded.
> 
> Even though both groups have been exposed to the exact same limited data on which to form an opinion, the validity of your opinion around these parts is entirely dependent on what ill-informed judgment you eventually arrive at.




That's because "open-minded" has 2 different connotations; the first being "willingness to revise  a held opinion", and the second being "receptive to change or new ideas."  Liking 4e without having the full evidence gives you the benefit of meeting the second concept without actually having to meet the first.


----------



## Alynnalizza (May 22, 2008)

Fifth Element said:
			
		

> Yes, but the real question is, how many times have you said "that looks like crap", only to wind up watching the movie for some reason and finding it's actually pretty good, or even great? It happens.
> 
> Conversely, many movies I've thought looked great turned out to be crap. The point is, judging anything based only on a sliver of it leads to bad judgments at times.




Exactly, but it doesn't make the initial opinion any less 'acceptable'.

That's the joy of life. You can kick yourself in the arse three years down the road when you open the book or watch the movie and say. "Why didn't I get this or see this originally?".

Could be your tastes were different then, and come later, things change. Could just be bad marketing .


----------



## Cadfan (May 22, 2008)

Ah, the joys of geek fandom- where unconditional love and unconditional hate are both defended by pedants as being equivalent.  Because, after all, the only possible way of comparing the two is through symbolic logic from a value neutral perspective.  Both generate truth values in equivalent manners.  They are clearly the same.


----------



## HeavenShallBurn (May 22, 2008)

Crothian said:
			
		

> Changes from second edition to third were also huge, it was still D&D.  D&D is less about the rules and more about the feel.  I think a good DM can get D&D out of the GURPS Rules or even White Wolf.  I know I have.



I was talking about the feel, the feel of the game is very different from every previous edition.  Different enough that it just doesn't feel like the same game to me anymore.  Not everybody will feel the same, but for me it just isn't D&D anymore.  My pet peeve is the magic system.  It's efficient, balanced, mostly easily adjudicated.  Even the ritual rules are elegant, but the result just doesn't feel like D&D.


----------



## vagabundo (May 22, 2008)

Cadfan said:
			
		

> Ah, the joys of geek fandom- where unconditional love and unconditional hate are both defended by pedants as being equivalent.  Because, after all, the only possible way of comparing the two is through symbolic logic from a value neutral perspective.  Both generate truth values in equivalent manners.  They are clearly the same.




I fear we are getting into the alignment of different members here.


Hands up who is True Neutral?


----------



## vagabundo (May 22, 2008)

HeavenShallBurn said:
			
		

> I was talking about the feel, the feel of the game is very different from every previous edition.  Different enough that it just doesn't feel like the same game to me anymore.  Not everybody will feel the same, but for me it just isn't D&D anymore.  My pet peeve is the magic system.  It's efficient, balanced, mostly easily adjudicated.  Even the ritual rules are elegant, but the result just doesn't feel like D&D.




I cannot disagree more. It took the feel of 3e for me and got rid of the cruft. It feels as DND to me as 3e did, but is now easier to run.


----------



## Ginnel (May 22, 2008)

vagabundo said:
			
		

> I fear we are getting into the alignment of different members here.
> 
> 
> Hands up who is True Neutral?




surely you mean unaligned? *ducks*


----------



## HeavenShallBurn (May 22, 2008)

Damn
*Lowers Hand*
Sorry Lawful Evil here.  Do you have any crimes against humanity I could commit instead?


----------



## pinbot (May 22, 2008)

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> Can I ask, respectfully, why you think he's being closed minded about it?
> 
> He specifically said he had an open mind about it. He bought the adventure, he read it, and he didn't like it.




Yeah he SAID he was being openminded.  He also said he never planned to run 4e, and it certainly doesn't sound like he's actually tried it.  That is not openmindedness.


----------



## vagabundo (May 22, 2008)

Ginnel said:
			
		

> surely you mean unaligned? *ducks*




I was using the Old Tongue, so the Grognards could understand me.


----------



## Wormwood (May 22, 2008)

I would say that any claim of open mindedness is somewhat undermined by a "vow to never run 4e"


----------



## Alynnalizza (May 22, 2008)

hmm, interesting opinions of open/closed minds...

I will state I AM Close-minded when it comes to 4E. I don't want to read,play, or have anything to do with 4E. That is close-minded. Heck, even if the books feel into my lap, I wouldn't give them the benefit of the reading.

Open-mindness: adjective
1.	having or showing a mind receptive to new ideas or arguments.
2.	unprejudiced; unbigoted; impartial.

there are clearly two definitions of open-minded. I believe the OP is right in their opinion. They were receptive to new ideas even if they don't want to run 4E. Those saying he wasn't surely are using definition 2 here, once again, both are right


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (May 22, 2008)

Wormwood said:
			
		

> I would say that any claim of open mindedness is somewhat undermined by a "vow to never run 4e"




I guess that depends on whether you are looking at his open-mindedness with regards to wanting to _like_ 4e or wanting to _run_ 4e.

I'm certainly open-minded when it comes to BASE jumping. I'm sure it's crazy fun. I have no intention of ever BASE jumping.

He said he was hoping 4e would be cool. He put down his hard-earned money and bought KotS. 

That open-minded gesture is irrelevant if he didn't subsequently like what he saw?


----------



## Brown Jenkin (May 22, 2008)

My biggest concern as well is the leveling of all the classes in terms of complexity. Right now I am playing a Fighter because it is simple, I don't have to do much but stand there and hit things and it is fun when I am in the mood for that. In the past I have also played spellcasters and my next character will likely be a Wizard because I am looking forward to that level of complexity again. Both types of play are fun for me but rely on different mindsets. I am not really interested in a system where everyone is forced to play at higher level of tactics and complexity to be successful. To me that would get draining in even the medium run and force me out of D&D altogether and into either a different RPG system or out of RPGs for awhile.


----------



## Pssthpok (May 22, 2008)

> I will state I AM Close-minded when it comes to 4E. I don't want to read,play, or have anything to do with 4E. That is close-minded. Heck, *even if the books feel into my lap, I wouldn't give them the benefit of the reading.*




Why? What benefit would you possibly gain from being so obtuse and obstinate? Does it satisfy you to feel like you're taking a firm stance on something, even if it means you're being bull-headed, willfully ignorant, and deliberately left behind? Do you thing you achieve some elusive nobility by acting this way?
I only ask because of the bolded comment, which just flatly makes no sense to me. Seriously.. why would you not even give them a read? What would make the books so beneath you?


----------



## shadowguidex (May 22, 2008)

It's human nature for some to fear change - without them the balance would be off, and we'd be flooded by the happy-go-lucky optimists who think anything new is better.

I for one plan to implement a conversion to 4E because, from a DM's perspective, I will have much more time to devote to crafting a good storyline and descriptions, instead of spending the bulk of my time crafting varied and unique monsters as it is now.  Creating a squad of orcs with varied roles in 3E is terrible.  In 4E it's a breeze.  Logic dictates my conversion with simple time-efficiency being at the heart.


That said, I'm not thrilled with every change, but I'm not horrified by any change either.


----------



## JeffB (May 22, 2008)

This grog should have his copy tonite- I hope.

Frankly, I'm very happy its NOT 3.X, which for my tastes had good intentions on the part of the design team, but very flawed execution. I'm a  pre-3 Grog   

To me (so far) 4E seems to kinda have an old  Basic D&D free-wheeling type of vibe-along with 3.xs "options"- which **should** make a good combo. I have my reservations about certain things, but I'll pick up the core books before I make any final decision (Have them pre-ordered). If its good, I'll introduce my son to it,pick up the Necro stuff when it's available, and maybe even sign up for DDI for some online play. If not, off to ebay my books go, and play something else.


----------



## Lacyon (May 22, 2008)

HeavenShallBurn said:
			
		

> You're not the only one.  Personally I think if you got rid of the name and did a "blind test" session a lot of people even those who are in favor of 4e wouldn't know it was D&D.  The changes are just that big.  It feels more like *GURPS without the points* mixed with M:TG and I've never been able to like either.




...


----------



## Alynnalizza (May 22, 2008)

Pssthpok said:
			
		

> Why? What benefit would you possibly gain from being so obtuse and obstinate? Does it satisfy you to feel like you're taking a firm stance on something, even if it means you're being bull-headed, willfully ignorant, and deliberately left behind? Do you thing you achieve some elusive nobility by acting this way?
> I only ask because of the bolded comment, which just flatly makes no sense to me. Seriously.. why would you not even give them a read? What would make the books so beneath you?




Beneath the inflammatory comments, there is a legitimate question there.. When an addict is presented with something that is potentially harmful, he should stay away from it.

Seeing as WOTC is going with a subscription based release for fourth edition (Yes I call multiple players handbooks subscription based) there will be alot of time and money needed to invest in the game.

I have an addictive nature. I do it with my art, hockey, and computers in general. I use to do it with D&D and Marvel comics. Much to the detremint to myself and my last marriage.

I would not look at 4E books even if they feel on my lap because I MIGHT like something about it. I don't have enough faith in myself, knowing my addictive nature to material things, especially with a month old baby in the house, to not splurge like I have in the past. So I am being completely close-minded, but at this point I have to.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (May 22, 2008)

Pssthpok said:
			
		

> Seriously.. why would you not even give them a read? What would make the books so beneath you?




Presumably the same thing that motivates some folks to have zero interest in Pathfinder (for example), to leave 3e, adopt 4e, and never look back.

I've seen such sentiments expressed here many times, without such commentary provoking a visceral rebuttal.


----------



## Umbran (May 22, 2008)

phil500 said:
			
		

> this is how I knew this was a troll job





Hello, phil500, welcome to EN World.

You're a bit new around here, so allow me to remind you - we expect a higher standard of civility from folks on these boards than you may be used to elsewhere.  

If you think someone is trolling, the appropriate thing to do is to ignore them, or to report the post (using the little exclamation point icon at the bottom of the post).  We ask that you not escalate into being confrontational.  Please don't do this sort of thing again, thanks.


----------



## drjones (May 22, 2008)

HeavenShallBurn said:
			
		

> It's efficient, balanced, mostly easily adjudicated.  Even the ritual rules are elegant, but the result just doesn't feel like D&D.



Yeah they should add some of the clunky garbage back in to make it feel more old school.

For me dnd feels like sitting around with some guys dicking around and drinking beer.  4e feels just right so far on this point.

RE: the OP: is it just me or does 3.5 seem a little recent for grognardism?  What sort of longbeard would ever play such a munchkiney gamist system?  not that I care about 3.5 or whatever i just don't want the term to lose any of it's cache.


----------



## Fifth Element (May 22, 2008)

Alynnalizza said:
			
		

> Exactly, but it doesn't make the initial opinion any less 'acceptable'.



Well yes, of course it's acceptable. I don't think anyone's saying the OP's opinion is unacceptable (not sure what that would mean anyway). But that doesn't mean others can't try to help by pointing out that you've formed your opinion without having all the appropriate information.


----------



## Alynnalizza (May 22, 2008)

Fifth Element said:
			
		

> Well yes, of course it's acceptable. I don't think anyone's saying the OP's opinion is unacceptable (not sure what that would mean anyway). But that doesn't mean others can't try to help by pointing out that you've formed your opinion without having all the appropriate information.




Oh I agree absolutely, and most points are valid. I just really hate seeing people say he's not being open-minded, instead of saying, 'hey, read the PHB when it comes out, you may like more that wasn't presented in that adventure.' Nothing is more off-putting than being told you're not open-minded when you are at least willing to go to the theatre and look at the posters 

And I'll say for the record, I hope 4E does well.


----------



## Phoenix8008 (May 22, 2008)

Hello all, I'm here to offer my opinion as a grognard who's been playing D&D since before the red Basic boxed set. So I'm a grognard in the time sense, not in the '3.x is the be all-end all and you'll have to pry those books out of my cold, dead, fingers' sense.

I bought KotS Tuesday night and have been reading it since then. Overall, I like what I've seen so far. There have been questions (which have been answered mostly in thanks to those on these boards) and there have been epiphanies as I put together a few important pieces of 4E tech and went "Wow! That's really neat!"

I had expected to like what I saw though, since most of what I've heard about 4E sounded good to me. The production value of the adventure could have been better, but the crunch of it's innards was satisfying. All in all, the reason I think I'll prefer 4E to 3.x is simply a matter of ease. My wife questions why I'm going to buy another whole new set of books when the old ones were good enough when they were new. Especially since it'll be a few years before they have enough books out to match all the options which are available now at the end of 3.x. My answer to her was that I believe I can have more fun playing this new system with less options(for now) than I can with that clunky system with more options.

This is my main reason for leaning towards 4E. It seems to fix what I felt were problems which cropped up due to the nature of the rules in 3.x. Just like I was hopeful towards 3E when reading about it at the end of 2E (when these boards were young and new   ). Personally, I can't wait to play the adventure. But I think I'm going to hold off until I get the Core Book giftset that I preordered back in February (when I had tax-return money). Until then, I'll probably run a few combat tests to get more familiar with the rules I have and using the pre-gens for that. Once we have a PHB, we'll make up our own characters and then start into KotS. 

So for me, 4E looks great so far, and I look forward to more and to getting to actually play it. For those that still prefer 3E and don't care for the new stuff, that's your perogative.

To each his own...


----------



## Blackeagle (May 22, 2008)

Wolfspider said:
			
		

> I would compare it more with judging a movie based on the first 20 minutes of it.




More like judging a book based on the Cliff Notes.


----------



## Pssthpok (May 22, 2008)

Alynnalizza said:
			
		

> I would not look at 4E books even if they feel on my lap because I MIGHT like something about it. I don't have enough faith in myself, knowing my addictive nature to material things, especially with a month old baby in the house, to not splurge like I have in the past. So I am being completely close-minded, but at this point I have to.




Well, I'd certainly avoid it then if that's the concern. You might find something you like. 

And for the record, I wasn't trying to be 'inflammatory'. I'm glad your line of thinking is rational, reasonable, and not some high-minded grognard aggrandizement of the older edition(s). For what it's worth, I apologize for using the terms 'obtuse' and 'bull-headed'. I knee-jerked a little there, not having the full breadth of your reasoning in front of me.


----------



## Goobermunch (May 22, 2008)

Blackeagle said:
			
		

> More like judging a book based on the Cliff Notes.




Nah.  Really, it's more like judging a game system based on the intro adventure.

--G


----------



## Zil (May 22, 2008)

Interesting.  Without actually seeing the adventure, I'm not sure what the complaint over the stat blocks and tactical setup was.  From reading other notes in this thread, I'm guessing they've stuck with a similar approach to what they did with the Ravenloft 3E adventure, Demonweb Pits, Eyes of the Lich Queen, etc?   I've never been sure about that format.  Sometimes it just gets me confused when things in the regular section don't seem to match what is described in the tactical encounter section, plus there is all the flipping back and forth when reading through the adventure.  Or perhaps they've done something different?  I haven't actually run any of the adventures with the new format so perhaps it works well in actual play.  It just never quite worked (for me)  when reading the adventure.

As for how open minded or closed minded the original poster was, this is all kind of silly.   Essentially the post boiled down to he was a strong doubter of the merits of 4E but was secretly hoping to be converted in some small way, but wasn't.  What's the reason to get upset about that?  

As for using trailers to pre-judge whether you want to invest the money (and time) in a movie, what's the problem with that?  9 times out of 10 a trailer oversells rather than undersells a movie.  If the trailer seems bad to you, odds are you won't like the movie.

My own plans have been to pick up Keep on the Shadowfell even though I have not liked most of what I've read or heard about 4E just in case all of that is somehow wrong.   I fully expect this adventure to capture the essence of the new game.  If not, then it was a poor decision to release this particular adventure before the rule set with a set of quick play rules.   While I have pretty firm plans to continue play with 3.5 and then switch to Pathfinder for the next while, I still might pick up the main 4E rules if Keep on the Shadowfell seems interesting.  If not, it will be a while longer before I pick up the core rules, but I expect I will eventually get them just because I'm a  bit of a D&D completest.


----------



## tomBitonti (May 22, 2008)

Zil said:
			
		

> ... I fully expect this adventure to capture the essence of the new game.  If not, then it was a poor decision to release this particular adventure before the rule set with a set of quick play rules. ...




Nice post, Zil.

I was wanting to post about what is written in the quote, but instead will only emphasize: This adventure is *designed* to introduce the new edition.  It *should* provide a good estimate of what's there.


----------



## Alynnalizza (May 22, 2008)

Pssthpok said:
			
		

> Well, I'd certainly avoid it then if that's the concern. You might find something you like.
> 
> And for the record, I wasn't trying to be 'inflammatory'. I'm glad your line of thinking is rational, reasonable, and not some high-minded grognard aggrandizement of the older edition(s). For what it's worth, I apologize for using the terms 'obtuse' and 'bull-headed'. I knee-jerked a little there, not having the full breadth of your reasoning in front of me.




No problems, we are all friends here as far as I'm concerned. We all love the game D&D, if not all creations of it, at least one. 

::twitch, twitch:: 4 years of counseling ::twitch, twitch:: and I'm much better now. ::twitch, twitch:: heehee.


----------



## Spatula (May 22, 2008)

Zil said:
			
		

> Interesting.  Without actually seeing the adventure, I'm not sure what the complaint over the stat blocks and tactical setup was.  From reading other notes in this thread, I'm guessing they've stuck with a similar approach to what they did with the Ravenloft 3E adventure, Demonweb Pits, Eyes of the Lich Queen, etc?   I've never been sure about that format.  Sometimes it just gets me confused when things in the regular section don't seem to match what is described in the tactical encounter section, plus there is all the flipping back and forth when reading through the adventure.  Or perhaps they've done something different?  I haven't actually run any of the adventures with the new format so perhaps it works well in actual play.  It just never quite worked (for me)  when reading the adventure.



I rather like the format in KotS, although it takes up a lot of extra space via reprinting monster stats for each encounter.  Obviously there's a tradeoff there between convenience and space.  You get the setup, relevant skill DCs (perception for noticing the monsters or whatever), a rundown of how the monsters respond to the PCs, then the monster stats, overall tactics, later developments, and finally treasure.



			
				Zil said:
			
		

> As for how open minded or closed minded the original poster was, this is all kind of silly.   Essentially the post boiled down to he was a strong doubter of the merits of 4E but was secretly hoping to be converted in some small way, but wasn't.  What's the reason to get upset about that?



You're not allowed to reject 4e after being exposed to its awesomesauce.  It's like insulting someone's girlfriend!  Or spitting out the sacred kool-aid.  Either way, it's a grevious act that cannot go unanswered... or un-rationalized (at some point, people are going to have to drop the "it's not the full package" excuse and admit that some people just might not like it - and no, that doesn't invalidate your liking it).


----------



## malraux (May 22, 2008)

For those familiar with it, how does the adventure of KotS compare with Sunless Citadel?  Not in terms of production values, but in terms of giving a good adventure while introducing the rules?


----------



## Crothian (May 22, 2008)

malraux said:
			
		

> For those familiar with it, how does the adventure of KotS compare with Sunless Citadel?  Not in terms of production values, but in terms of giving a good adventure while introducing the rules?




Well, Sunless Citadel do not introduce the new rules.  They were out and the book assumed that you knew them.  Sunless Citadel was also not restricted in the rules it used since it was based on the all of them.  So, they really can't be compared like that.


----------



## Blackeagle (May 22, 2008)

tomBitonti said:
			
		

> This adventure is *designed* to introduce the new edition.  It *should* provide a good estimate of what's there.




Yeah, but there's only so much you can do in 25 pages of rules material (and 10 pages of that is the character sheets).


----------



## Stereofm (May 22, 2008)

nute said:
			
		

> Possibly because his quote says "opinions on 4e" and he hasn't seen "4e" yet, only the preview adventure. That's like judging a movie from a teaser trailer.




Which is perfectly acceptable since a trailer is supposed to be the best part.


----------



## eleran (May 22, 2008)

elijah snow said:
			
		

> Couldn't resist getting Shadowfell from Amazon (the 3 maps alone are worth the $20). Though I never plan to run 4e, I was secretly hoping it would be cool. Having glanced through it last night, my initial take on 4e is -
> 
> Wow, it's much worse than I could ever believe and extremely unappealing to a 3.5e grognard. I was open-minded, truly, and still need to read it more carefully, but if you're in the "I'm going to play 3.5e forever" camp, the real thing is not going to change your mind. It's just what we've been predicting and more.
> 
> ...




Words cannot thank you enough....for confirming that why i like 4e so much better than 3.x


----------



## HeavenShallBurn (May 22, 2008)

Lacyon said:
			
		

> ...



I stand by the statement 4e is like they took a GURPS style point buy system and filed off the point values.  Using limited power slots instead of points for balance


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (May 22, 2008)

Brown Jenkin said:
			
		

> My biggest concern as well is the leveling of all the classes in terms of complexity. Right now I am playing a Fighter because it is simple, I don't have to do much but stand there and hit things and it is fun when I am in the mood for that. In the past I have also played spellcasters and my next character will likely be a Wizard because I am looking forward to that level of complexity again. Both types of play are fun for me but rely on different mindsets. I am not really interested in a system where everyone is forced to play at higher level of tactics and complexity to be successful. To me that would get draining in even the medium run and force me out of D&D altogether and into either a different RPG system or out of RPGs for awhile.



I worried a bit about the same, especially if I wanted to take the position of a newbie not familiar with D&D or possibly roleplaying at all. Playing a Fighter is pretty simple... off course, I think that actually is not true in 3E. At higher levels, he might be ineffective, but that's hardly good for a newbie. 

3E introduced a level of tactical complexity into the game that I haven't seen in many others. 
Combat Maneuver, complex spells, and similar aspects all require tactical understanding. Even a Fighter is not excluded from this.

And if I look at the Fighters I enjoyed most - they were usually build around using special combat tactics (the most successful one was a Fighter specializing in all kinds of combat maneuvers, typically ending up with trip as the most useful). 

In short, I think that the complexity of each class isn't that different.

The difference lies in fact more in what you do - as a Fighter, you hold off enemies (possibly so that the Cleric can buff himself or the Wizard can cast his best spells), and coordinate with other melee combattants for flanks. And typically (not a given in 3E, but common) you fight in melee.
As a Wizard, you usually fight from range. And you strike multiple targets, and use "non-evocations" to weaken your enemies or buff your allies. 

I think that's why the design time ultimiately decided to give every class a "spellcasting-like" ability progression, but define the 4 roles. Because these exemplify the differences the classes best. How often you can use an ability is less important then what kind of abilities you have.


Off course, that's my opinion, and your experience might be different.


----------



## TwoSix (May 22, 2008)

HeavenShallBurn said:
			
		

> I stand by the statement 4e is like they took a GURPS style point buy system and filed off the point values.  Using limited power slots instead of points for balance




So they kept the ability to customize your character, but cut back on the calculations, overwhelming number of options, and capacity for powergaming that derail a true point-buy system?  Someone fire those designers!


----------



## Lacyon (May 22, 2008)

HeavenShallBurn said:
			
		

> I stand by the statement 4e is like they took a GURPS style point buy system and filed off the point values.  Using limited power slots instead of points for balance




GURPS without point buy isn't GURPS.

Using points buy instead of classes, level progressions, and spellpower slots is precisely what makes GURPS different from D&D.


----------



## Spatula (May 22, 2008)

malraux said:
			
		

> For those familiar with it, how does the adventure of KotS compare with Sunless Citadel?  Not in terms of production values, but in terms of giving a good adventure while introducing the rules?



As an intro, KotS is definitely superior, but as Crothian notes, Sunless Citadel was not designed as such.  KotS is sprinkled with a few pages of good newbie DM advice, along with some sidebars giving you tips on how to deal with some monster abilities.

The adventure itself is a series of outdoor encounters followed by a short dungeon crawl.  There's a couple of skill challenges, a room full of traps, and nasty monster synergies.  The dungeon inhabitants aren't quite as interesting as Sunless Citadel's in terms of roleplaying opportunities, but the village is under more direct threat, opening up more roleplaying possibilities at that locale instead.  And there is a Meepo-wannabe.

The later bits are somewhat undead-heavy, which makes it seem like running without the paladin & cleric pregens would be a mistake, at least for a group of people new to the game.

At the end, the PCs are assumed to have reached level 4.  I think Sunless Citadel put the characters partway through level 2 or maybe starting level 3 by the end.


----------



## Rykion (May 22, 2008)

HeavenShallBurn said:
			
		

> I was talking about the feel, the feel of the game is very different from every previous edition.  Different enough that it just doesn't feel like the same game to me anymore.  Not everybody will feel the same, but for me it just isn't D&D anymore.



I and some of my group have found this to already be the case with 3.x.  We've talked about how it feels like a generic D20 fantasy game rather than D&D.  I'm looking forward to 4e.  I don't know that it will be the game I want to run and play, but I know that 3.x definitely is not.


----------



## Scribble (May 22, 2008)

On the point of GURPS but not GURPS...

Remember the WOTC mathematician's gleemax post? He talks about the failures that yu find in point buy? (Where even though you have a bazillion options available there really ends up only being one or two "good" builds... everything else is sub optimal.)

I think 4e took the best of both worlds. The good parts of point buy, mixed weith the good parts of class system. 3e started to do this, but didn't find the right balance.

Point buy allows an amazing amount of options and characters, yet has the problem of really there are only a few builds that are "good." people end up playing the same role.

Classes give each character a defined role, but end up being too restrictive.

You want characters that are customizable, but if you go too far, you end up just giving people a bunch of different options that are a filter for making one character. So the best bet? Mix the two options. Give them a defined role, but with the ability to wiggle that role a bit.

In 3e they introduced character customization through feats. People liked this. You could still play a "class" but at the same time customize it to make it different. Feats "failed" in a couple of ways, however.

1. The prerequisite/chain thing. Essentially once you took a feat you were locked into that progression. (unless you didn't mind a suboptimal character.) So really it wasn't so much a a customized character, as it was a class with several different "sub" classes based on feats. 


2. They were confused about what they were. Should I be a power for a certain class or should I be something everyone can take. I know, I'll be open to everyone, but really be only useful to a certain class. 



I like the 4e solution and think it works well. 

Powers seem to be doing what feats wanted to; make each class customizable, yet still keep them within the "feel" of the class role. A fighter still fights, but in a way the player envisions.

Powers aren't locked into a chain, so theoretically you could bounce around and make some crazy combos without "ruining" the class.  

Powers make no claim that they are open to everyone. A fighter takes fighter powers, a ranger takes ranger powers. Again allowing for customization, but still defining a class.

My fear wuith the pwoers, is that they might start to subconciously/unconciously start designing powers that "stack."


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (May 22, 2008)

HeavenShallBurn said:
			
		

> I stand by the statement 4e is like they took a GURPS style point buy system and filed off the point values.  Using limited power slots instead of points for balance



I* always thought of the magical item system in 3E was like a latched on point-buy system to a level based system. 4E seems to do it more the other way around. 



> I and some of my group have found this to already be the case with 3.x. We've talked about how it feels like a generic D20 fantasy game rather than D&D. I'm looking forward to 4e. I don't know that it will be the game I want to run and play, but I know that 3.x definitely is not.



I have come to the conclusion that "It's not D&D" or "still feels like D&D" has little meaning without knowing the persons definition of what constitutes D&D. There is universal, objective truth of what D&D is (if there is, we'd certainly have to ask diaglo). There are a lot of common elements that can be part of D&D, and a subset of them must be part of it, but the subset is not exhaustive enough to describe something that can uniquely describe D&D.
The strongest identifier for something being D&D is the label on the cover, which off course is not a satisfying solution. It's a necessary element (at least it was, until Pathfinder came around, but that at least still is just one D&D edition on steroids)  but it's not sufficient. 

I have no experience with AD&D, OD&D, BECMI  or the Rules Cyclopedia or what ever else of rules were used to define D&D. D&D started with 3E for me. I would probably not even bother to check out the older systems, since everything I hear about them make them look like inferior systems.**). And for all intents and purposes, D&D 4 still looks like D&D to me. 

Asking an avid AD&D fan to use my definition of D&D to determine whether 4E is still D&D is asking a bit too much. 

I am actually hard pressed to formulate my own definition of D&D. Maybe something along this:
- Pseudomedieval Fantasy
- A phletora of creatures and monsters from myths and folklore, plus an assortment of D&D-specific monsters (Beholders, Mind Flayers, many-colored Dragons)
- Dwarves, Elves, Humans, Halflings.
- Main archetypes are Fighter, Cleric, Wizard and Rogue
- Rules allows for complex tactical combat
- Mechanics focusing on dungeon exploration and fighting monsters.

*) rather: Other smart minds made me understand this. I believe it was actually Monte Cook that wrote that in a blog where I read it first...
**) Yet, for some reasons, these games could inspire thousands of roleplayers, and (if I can trust the "Is D&D 4E retro" contained some interesting design aspects or "gameplay feeling".)


----------



## Brown Jenkin (May 22, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> - Rules allows for complex tactical combat




Part of my fears is that the rules *require* rather than allow for complex tactical combat. It seems that 4e relies on all players knowing how and when to use their powers in conjunction with everyone else. In 3.x there were classes and abilities that could be taken that allowed for players without strong tactical ability to play alongside those who did have that ability. Yes in both systems strong tactical players will do better in combat, but in 4e weak tactical players will be at a larger disadvantage.


----------



## JohnSnow (May 22, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> I* always thought of the magical item system in 3E was like a latched on point-buy system to a level based system. 4E seems to do it more the other way around.
> 
> ...
> 
> *) rather: Other smart minds made me understand this. I believe it was actually Monte Cook that wrote that in a blog where I read it first...




Well, if so, I'm pretty sure Monte was quoting his colleague, (now 4e Developer) Mike Mearls. Mike made that observation in the run-up to the release of _Iron Heroes_.




			
				Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> I am actually hard pressed to formulate my own definition of D&D. Maybe something along this:
> - Pseudomedieval Fantasy
> - A phletora of creatures and monsters from myths and folklore, plus an assortment of D&D-specific monsters (Beholders, Mind Flayers, many-colored Dragons)
> - Dwarves, Elves, Humans, Halflings.
> ...




That's not bad. I actually think one could argue that being "class and level-based" is also at the heart of what makes D&D "D&D."

I'll confess that I've been playing since before the AD&D books had orange bindings, and that I think of the "Red Box" as a "New Edition." That said, I had started to drift away from 3e because it was getting too hard to prep for (as a DM). I had a friend who tried to convince me to give _Castles & Crusades_ a try, and while parts of it appealed to me, parts of it absolutely did NOT. Largely, I think that's because they just imported the 30-some year-old D&D magic system (with all its attendant flaws).

What I see when I look at Fourth Edition is the flexibility and logic of 3e in a system that seems to lend itself more to a basic/1e style of game prep. I know there are some people who miss certain of the legacy "flavor" elements, but I can't honestly think of anything mechanically superior about previous editions. 

Where the game has diverged from previous editions and introduced something "new" is in play - by giving options to all the classes that were previously only the province of spellcasters (barring the inclusion of late 3e supplements like the (4e-derived) _Tome of Battle_).

I doubt anyone would quibble with the notion that having tactical options (in the form of "powers") makes the classes more fun. And the only thing I can say is that, on reading, the fighter's "exploits" feel very "different" than the wizard's "spells." And the wizard's spells still feel like spells, even though they get more magic to use.

Of course, I was never a fan of fire-and-forget magic, or "Wizards über alles" so if those are some of the things you think "make D&D what it is," (and I know for some people they *are*) then I have to admit 4e doesn't support that as well.

Time will tell, but I think 4e will be a more fun (i.e. exciting and engaging) game that still captures _the essence of D&D._

My two coppers.


----------



## Blackeagle (May 22, 2008)

HeavenShallBurn said:
			
		

> I stand by the statement 4e is like they took a GURPS style point buy system and filed off the point values.  Using limited power slots instead of points for balance




You know, back around the time 3e came out, I seem to recall people saying that it was basically a point-buy system dressed up as a level based system.


----------



## Rykion (May 22, 2008)

I should point out that the main reason I want to leave behind 3.x is complexity rather than my feelings as to whether or not it is D&D.  It becomes complex as a player at high level.  It can be complex even at low levels to DM, and I don't have any fun DMing a high level game.  Any attempt to mod the game requires a lot of thought, as even minor changes can cause big balance issues.

I believe combat role was a defining part of the archetypes in earlier versions of D&D, and I'm glade to see 4e putting an emphasis on it.  I also hope 4e is easier to DM and play at high levels.  My primary concern is that there will be so many exception based rules and abilities that complexity level will not be reduced much between 3.x and 4e.


----------



## Duelpersonality (May 22, 2008)

Brown Jenkin said:
			
		

> Part of my fears is that the rules *require* rather than allow for complex tactical combat. It seems that 4e relies on all players knowing how and when to use their powers in conjunction with everyone else. In 3.x there were classes and abilities that could be taken that allowed for players without strong tactical ability to play alongside those who did have that ability. Yes in both systems strong tactical players will do better in combat, but in 4e weak tactical players will be at a larger disadvantage.



I think that this one is probably highly dependent on the group.  From what I've seen, if a group has a very large disparity between the tactical abilities of players, it doesn't really matter what game they're playing:  it's going to cause a huge power difference.  

Note that this does not just come from D&D.  My group plays 3.5, Marvel, Star Wars (d6 all the way through Saga), Star Trek, DC, Champions (boy do we need to learn how to focus).  When a few of the players first started playing several years ago, the problem was immediately apparent.

I think what 4e does in comparison to 3.x is take a lot of the pre-play tactics out of the equation.  A very tactically sound player is usually a fairly rules-savvy player as well, and can widen the gap to an extreme with a highly competent build.  I obviously don't know to what extent 4e will fix this problem (if at all), but it seems to me from the information we have that it will really help narrow that gap.


----------



## HeavenShallBurn (May 22, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> I* always thought of the magical item system in 3E was like a latched on point-buy system to a level based system. 4E seems to do it more the other way around.



For the most part so did I, even before 3e I kind of felt that magic items weren't necessarily implemented a way I would have preferred.  And I experimented with several ways of altering the system to create differing styles of campaign and setting.   



> I have come to the conclusion that "It's not D&D" or "still feels like D&D" has little meaning without knowing the persons definition of what constitutes D&D.



And I agree that's something each person can only judge for themselves.  Some will decide it maintains the elements they consider vital to D&D others will decide it doesn't.  Just the nature of people.


> The strongest identifier for something being D&D is the label on the cover, which off course is not a satisfying solution. It's a necessary element (at least it was, until Pathfinder came around, but that at least still is just one D&D edition on steroids)  but it's not sufficient.



Here I've got to disagree the label D&D is neither necessary nor sufficient as a criteria to the game actually being D&D.  To re-use an example if I put an F-250 emblem on a Camaro does that make the Camaro an F-250?  The title D&D is nothing more than a label applied by the party owning the label, it can be applied to literally anything.  Changing the label does not change the nature of the thing because the thing is not the symbol.  

Ultimately I'm just a different sort of gamer.  I started with 1e kept going into the beginning of 2e, adopted many of the 2e changes but stuck with a lot of 1e mechanics.  Then got out as TSR started the downward spiral.  I can back to 3e because it preserved much of the old feel and sacred cows but had a lot better mechanics.  It allowed me to play the sort of games I liked well, consistently and with a minimum of difficulty well into the epic levels.  

And my main beefs with the new edition have to do with design philosophy and changes to a few specific systems.  Mainly they've shifted the game heavily toward a fortune-in-the-middle model and I've never liked those.  Plus the exception based design is at odds with the consistency and PC/NPC transparency of 3e which were some of my favorite parts, and a good change from 1e.  The magic system is my largest irritant.  The distinctive magic system and spells of prior editions were always one of my favorite D&D elements.  they've essentially gutted the magic system and replaced it entirely.  For one I find far less interesting than what it replaced.

We're different people who like different things, nothing wrong if either of us likes something different.  I just can't bring myself to like 4e, and this is sad considering when I heard the announcement I really hoped the new edition would be great and fix the issues with 3e.  But in fixing the perceived issues they just changed too many of the wrong things for me to be happy with it.  Hey I've still got 3e and Pathfinder and for me they're fine.


----------



## ProfessorCirno (May 22, 2008)

Cadfan said:
			
		

> Ah, the joys of geek fandom- where unconditional love and unconditional hate are both defended by pedants as being equivalent.  Because, after all, the only possible way of comparing the two is through symbolic logic from a value neutral perspective.  Both generate truth values in equivalent manners.  They are clearly the same.




Uh, they ARE the same if you stand in the middle.  The only people that think they're different ARE those with unconditional love or unconditional hate.  You're both crazy fanatics from everyone who isn't on the far side.

And right now, it's the ones with the unconditional love that are showing their crazy side.

The idea that someone who dislikes 4e somehow has an opinion that inherently means less then someone who likes it is precisely why so many people are saying "4e's biggest problem is its fans."


----------



## Mark (May 22, 2008)

Duelpersonality said:
			
		

> (boy do we need to learn how to focus)





"Oh, ho, ho, irony! Oh, no, no, we don't get that here. See, uh, people ski topless here while smoking dope, so irony's not really a, a high priority. We haven't had any irony here since about, uh, '83, when I was the only practitioner of it. And I stopped because I was tired of being stared at."  - Steve Martin as C.D. 'Charlie' Bales in _Roxanne_ (1987)


----------



## gribble (May 23, 2008)

mhensley said:
			
		

> Wow, oh wow.  All these options I never had before with a fighter.  Cleave, trip, power attack.  It blows my mind.  Whee!  Are we having fun yet?



Well, while the tone of your post isn't the most conductive to a rational discussion, I'm afraid that the substance of your post is quite concerning...
I can actually see the point you're making, and it seems to have some validity. Parodoxically (given the "superhero" feel of the powers system), it seems to me that unless all you're facing are minions, then the game might actually make 1st level characters seem *weaker* than 3e. After all, most level 1 opponents in 3e *do* drop after one hit... hmmm...

I guess I'll get to see next week when we give KotS a play.


----------



## The Little Raven (May 23, 2008)

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> Presumably the same thing that motivates some folks to have zero interest in Pathfinder (for example), to leave 3e, adopt 4e, and never look back.




Uh, no. You see, we've played 3e. We know what it's like. A decision to leave 3e is based on a large amount of actual information and experience. A vow to never run 4e or to never even give the books a read is entirely different, since it isn't made from a position of knowledge like the decision to leave 3e.


----------



## The Little Raven (May 23, 2008)

HeavenShallBurn said:
			
		

> I stand by the statement 4e is like they took a GURPS style point buy system and filed off the point values.  Using limited power slots instead of points for balance




As 3e classes were designed to merely be "buckets" that you could dip into in order to gain certain things (armor/weapon proficiency, front-loaded abilities, etc), it was far more of a "point buy" system than 4e is, with it's smaller focus on multiclassing. When you have players that go through 3 base classes and 4 prestige classes to make the uber-archer character (which I saw plenty of in 3e), that's far closer to "classes don't matter" than a system that restricts the amount of classes you can access with a single character to avoid cherry-picking of that nature.


----------



## ProfessorCirno (May 23, 2008)

Mourn said:
			
		

> Uh, no. You see, we've played 3e. We know what it's like. A decision to leave 3e is based on a large amount of actual information and experience. A vow to never run 4e or to never even give the books a read is entirely different, since it isn't made from a position of knowledge like the decision to leave 3e.




There really isn't a difference.

You like one system, they dislike it.

You dislike one system, they like it.

Reading through the adventure is SUPPOSED to be a show of exactly how the system work.

The only reason there's a difference is so you can pretend to be more special.


----------



## The Little Raven (May 23, 2008)

ProfessorCirno said:
			
		

> There really isn't a difference.
> 
> You like one system, they dislike it.
> 
> You dislike one system, they like it.




If you don't see the difference between disliking a system after 8 years of playing it, and disliking a system without playing or even reading it (or even being willing to read it, as some have stated), then I'd suggest you stop taking crazy pills.

Mourn, out of the thread. This is completely rude.  ~ Piratecat


----------



## Jasperak (May 23, 2008)

mhensley said:
			
		

> I played last night and my grognard take is:  4e is weak sauce.  I played the dwarf fighter and felt less heroic than earlier editions, not more.   Yeah, I got a lot more hit points but when even kobolds have more than 20 hp what does it really matter?  All that did was make me slowly nick opponents to death.  Whee!
> 
> And what about all my kewl powerz?  Wow, I can cleave and do a piddly 3 points of damage to somebody (instead of in 3e where I could possibly kill two guys in one attack).  Whee!  Or I could instead attack and do a piddly 3 points of damage if I miss.  I guess it's pointless if I actually hit my target.  Whee!  Or I could attack and trip my target which imposes an incredible -2 penalty to them.. up until they just stand back up on their turn.  I guess I could trip Orcus himself with this as there's no save and it's not opposed in any way.  Whee!  And best of all is my mighty DAILY POWER where I can attack for an average damage of 24 points... I might be able to kill an unhurt kolbold in one shot... maybe... once a day.  Whee!
> 
> Wow, oh wow.  All these options I never had before with a fighter.  Cleave, trip, power attack.  It blows my mind.  Whee!  Are we having fun yet?




Same exact thoughts here. Slow as crap on a Vermont morning. Not nearly as many tactical options as any of the other characters. In my next life I will be the rogue. He kicked butt.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (May 23, 2008)

Mourn said:
			
		

> If you don't see the difference between disliking a system after 8 years of playing it, and disliking a system without playing or even reading it (or even being willing to read it, as some have stated), then I'd suggest you stop taking crazy pills.




Huh?

How is your position superior to someone LIKING a system after 8 years of playing it and DISLIKING everything they have seen of 4e so far?

Why is it permissible to form ONLY a positive opinion of 4e from the information we know so far?

(You might also want to stop making personal attacks.)


----------



## drjones (May 23, 2008)

Wait, the same board full of 100 page posts bemoaning the lack of -1 level sheep molesters now also has complaints that x class/race/power is not powerful enough at level 1?

It makes me want to puke in my hat, unfortunately it is already full.


----------



## Doug McCrae (May 23, 2008)

elijah snow said:
			
		

> Is it really easier to categorize monsters by type and by minion/lurker/fodder/whatever?



It's more useful for the DM than 3e's biological taxonomy. The job a monster does in an encounter is much more important than whether it's an aberration or an ooze.


----------



## MyISPHatesENWorld (May 23, 2008)

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> Huh?
> 
> How is your position superior to someone LIKING a system after 8 years of playing it and DISLIKING everything they have seen of 4e so far?




I agree with your point in general, but a lot of cases are far less absolute. There are people who dislike 4e or are on the fence with some concerns (like me) that don't necessarily dislike _everything_ they've seen so far. But I've seen enough of the system and enough of the design goals and process have been explained to allow me to see things that aren't going to work for me based upon the information released so far. 

Some or all of those things may wash out when all the rules are available in the PHB or DMG and some more may wash out with supplements. But it looks like some sacred cows of DND have been traded for sacred ponies of the 4e devs and other sacred cows have been resurrected and/or made more strict and limiting. In some cases it feels like 4e  created arbitrary limitations based upon designer pet peeves and/or complaints on message boards from people who like a game more for what it restricts others from doing than for what it allows them to do themselves. Which, if it turns out that way, would be a shame because there is a lot to the system that I like.


----------



## ProfessorCirno (May 23, 2008)

Doug McCrae said:
			
		

> It's more useful for the DM than 3e's biological taxonomy. The job a monster does in an encounter is much more important than whether it's an aberration or an ooze.




Not neccisarily.  I, for one, have had more cases where I saw "Let's see, I need a bunch of demons..." over "Let's see, I need a bunch of heavy damage but low armor creatures..."  When your party is in the hells, I find it easier to look up creatures by subtype ("Oh hey, these next few pages will be EVERYTHING I need!) over role (Dammit, time to go BACK to the table of contents ten more times).


----------



## hong (May 23, 2008)

ProfessorCirno said:
			
		

> Not neccisarily.  I, for one, have had more cases where I saw "Let's see, I need a bunch of demons..." over "Let's see, I need a bunch of heavy damage but low armor creatures..."  When your party is in the hells, I find it easier to look up creatures by subtype ("Oh hey, these next few pages will be EVERYTHING I need!) over role (Dammit, time to go BACK to the table of contents ten more times).



 What makes you think the MM will organise monsters by role as opposed to species?


----------



## ProfessorCirno (May 23, 2008)

hong said:
			
		

> What makes you think the MM will organise monsters by role as opposed to species?




Nothing does.  I'm responding to the response to "Is it really easier to categorize monsters by type and by minion/lurker/fodder/whatever?"


----------



## mhensley (May 23, 2008)

gribble said:
			
		

> Well, while the tone of your post isn't the most conductive to a rational discussion, I'm afraid that the substance of your post is quite concerning...
> I can actually see the point you're making, and it seems to have some validity. Parodoxically (given the "superhero" feel of the powers system), it seems to me that unless all you're facing are minions, then the game might actually make 1st level characters seem *weaker* than 3e. After all, most level 1 opponents in 3e *do* drop after one hit... hmmm...
> 
> I guess I'll get to see next week when we give KotS a play.




Sorry, I built up quite a load of snark while playing and needed a release.  aahhhh...

Yes, that was my point exactly.  We were told that 4e would be more heroic and 1st level characters would be kicking butt right from the word go.  In 3rd edition, if I was playing a first level fighter built along the same lines as the one in the preview mod (16 str, two-handed wpn, cleave, power attack) and was in a fight with a group of weak monsters (kobolds, goblins, etc.) and it lasted 5 rounds, I could reasonably expect to kill around 2-3 monsters - given average rolls.  In a 4e fight I would probably only kill 1 in the same time frame. 

Cleave was a lot more fun when there was a significant chance to actually kill something with it.  The same with tripping.  In 3e, getting knocked prone was really dangerous.  In 4e, it's a minor inconvenience.  And we noticed real quick, that the sleep spell is so nerfed now that we'll probably never use it again.

At low levels, combat was not faster.  I'm sure it probably is faster at high levels, but you probably won't see any difference in round speed compared to 3e until you're up around 7th level.  Combat at 1st level seemed slow, slow, slow compared to 3e mainly because it took so much longer to kill our opponents than it would have in 3e.  Is 3e combat riskier? Sure it is, but it also seemed a lot more interesting to me.  YMMV and all that.


----------



## Jasperak (May 23, 2008)

Zil said:
			
		

> My own plans have been to pick up Keep on the Shadowfell even though I have not liked most of what I've read or heard about 4E just in case all of that is somehow wrong.   I fully expect this adventure to capture the essence of the new game.  If not, then it was a poor decision to release this particular adventure before the rule set with a set of quick play rules.   While I have pretty firm plans to continue play with 3.5 and then switch to Pathfinder for the next while, I still might pick up the main 4E rules if Keep on the Shadowfell seems interesting.  If not, it will be a while longer before I pick up the core rules, but I expect I will eventually get them just because I'm a  bit of a D&D completest.




Exactly my thoughts on the intro adventure and 4e in general.


----------



## pawsplay (May 23, 2008)

elijah snow said:
			
		

> Couldn't resist getting Shadowfell from Amazon (the 3 maps alone are worth the $20). Though I never plan to run 4e, I was secretly hoping it would be cool. Having glanced through it last night, my initial take on 4e is -
> 
> Wow, it's much worse than I could ever believe and extremely unappealing to a 3.5e grognard. I was open-minded, truly, and still need to read it more carefully, but if you're in the "I'm going to play 3.5e forever" camp, the real thing is not going to change your mind. It's just what we've been predicting and more.




Well, that's too bad. I've grown kind of resigned to that idea, but one always hopes. Of course, I still keep getting tempted, just like I have copies of The Arcanum, Runequest, WFRP, even though I'm unlikely to run more than one... still, 4e is to me distinctly unappealing, not D&D-ish enough in the characteristics I prize in D&D, and a poor imitation of more elegant games like Hero System, D6, or Shadowrun.


----------



## elijah snow (May 23, 2008)

I really appreciate the responses to my initial post. I feel like there needs to a grognard's 4E board so I don't raise the ire of too many 4E fans, as the primary audience for my thread was my fellow grognards.

I'd like to point out that being a devoted 3.5E grognard does not mean pretending that 4E isn't here, that it isn't a legitimate game system, or that I may not find myself playing (not running) a game in it someday. I just wanted to reality check the amazing, glowing reviews that Shadowfell & 4E previews are getting from the grognard's perspective.

After a bit more reflection, it may be more fair to say that 4E looks like a variant D&D - like d20 Modern, Star Wars Saga Edition, True20, etc. - rather than something as foreign as Savage Worlds - but it's not a natural progression/improvement on 3.5E, which is the implication from the marketing department - that it's faster, more intuitive, and just plain better.

Also, let me give three examples of what is terrifying in third edition - the Blood War, the fact that your wizard may run of kewl spells before the end of the day (at least he doesn't have to hit with a ranged attack to fire a magic missle), and fighting a tiefling warlock/chainfighter that comes from a rift in the planar fabric of reality, not the tiefling city a half day's ride from this point of light.


----------



## hong (May 23, 2008)

ProfessorCirno said:
			
		

> Nothing does.  I'm responding to the response to "Is it really easier to categorize monsters by type and by minion/lurker/fodder/whatever?"



 Unfortunately, either your response, or the original claim, made no sense.


----------



## gribble (May 23, 2008)

mhensley said:
			
		

> Sorry, I built up quite a load of snark while playing and needed a release.  aahhhh...



Well, thanks for the more rational response. I hadn't actually considered this scenario, so it's good to have some actual playtest feedback. When I think about it, your observations make a lot of sense.




			
				mhensley said:
			
		

> At low levels, combat was not faster.
> ...
> Combat at 1st level seemed slow, slow, slow compared to 3e mainly because it took so much longer to kill our opponents than it would have in 3e.



This makes sense. The damage values in 4e don't appear to have increased significantly (even at higher levels), whereas the available HP have (especially when considering healing surges). The logical conclusion is that, everything else being equal, combat will last a lot more rounds. Unless the rounds individually take a lot less real-time to play out, combat overall will take longer...



			
				mhensley said:
			
		

> Is 3e combat riskier? Sure it is, but it also seemed a lot more interesting to me.  YMMV and all that.



I was actually having a conversation with a friend about the "swinginess" of 3.x the other day. He didn't like it and was looking forward to 4e solving that problem (I can understand his point - one of his players has died in the first couple of rounds of the first encounter 3 sessions in a row...). Me? I prefer swinginess to samey predictableness - it's one of the charms of 3.x to me. Of course, until I try out 4e I won't know how samey and predictable it is, but early playtests like yours seem to indicate it might be.

I think this is very much one of those personal preference kind of things. Some people like games where every attack roll could be the one that kills you, others prefer games where characters only die if it's "plot-appropriate".


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (May 23, 2008)

JohnSnow said:
			
		

> Well, if so, I'm pretty sure Monte was quoting his colleague, (now 4e Developer) Mike Mearls. Mike made that observation in the run-up to the release of _Iron Heroes_.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Hmm. You might be right. It might be so essential that I simply forget to mention it. 

Still, in the end, even with all these elements, I must admit that it doesn't matter that much for me if it's D&D. I am also happy if it's just a good game. It's not like a need a special "D&D fix". But maybe I am wrong, and if I ever stop playing D&D, I might show signs of withdrawal?


----------



## Boarstorm (May 23, 2008)

So, have we convinced the barbarians to embrace the enlightened truth of 4E, yet?  

No?  Well, keep plugging away.


----------



## Shadeydm (May 23, 2008)

Blackeagle said:
			
		

> More like judging a book based on the Cliff Notes.



I guess putting the cliff notes out before the book is just another WotC marketing issue then?


----------



## BeauNiddle (May 23, 2008)

gribble said:
			
		

> I was actually having a conversation with a friend about the "swinginess" of 3.x the other day. He didn't like it and was looking forward to 4e solving that problem (I can understand his point - one of his players has died in the first couple of rounds of the first encounter 3 sessions in a row...). Me? I prefer swinginess to samey predictableness - it's one of the charms of 3.x to me. Of course, until I try out 4e I won't know how samey and predictable it is, but early playtests like yours seem to indicate it might be.
> 
> I think this is very much one of those personal preference kind of things. Some people like games where every attack roll could be the one that kills you, others prefer games where characters only die if it's "plot-appropriate".




I'm a tactician and I hate / dislike quick deaths. In 3.x is was charge at the enemy and hope they die first. Massive fights end in 1 or 2 rounds due to save or dies being thrown around or just massive damage output. That gives no time to change plans in combat. There is a certain amount of pre-combat planning (or buffing as it mostly is) but nothing in the actual combat itself.

I have this same problem in Savage Worlds and a few other games I've tried which don't have hp. The battles result in a 'lucky' blow finally getting through the defences and the fight is over.

So it's "I'm fine" - "I'm fine" - "I'm fine" - "I'm fine" - "I'm dead"

I prefer "I'm fine" - "I'm hurt" - "I'm healed" - "I'm hurt" - "I'm critical" - "I'm hurt" - "I'm ..."

That way you get feedback on whats going on and how good the enemies are.

In 3.x the time you know you've bitten off more than you can chew is when they are burying your corpse. At least in 4th ed you stand a chance of knowing when to start running. You might not make it but at least you have the option 

A long battle doesn't preclude the threat of death or limit you to "plot-appropriate" deaths it just gives the player more warning on whether or not a death is headed their way and it allows the player to choose if they want to do anything about it.


----------



## Iron Sky (May 23, 2008)

^^^

This.


----------



## DeusExMachina (May 23, 2008)

This times 2 even...

I love the tactics that are possible even at 1st level...


----------



## ExploderWizard (May 23, 2008)

mhensley said:
			
		

> Sorry, I built up quite a load of snark while playing and needed a release.  aahhhh...
> 
> Yes, that was my point exactly.  We were told that 4e would be more heroic and 1st level characters would be kicking butt right from the word go.  In 3rd edition, if I was playing a first level fighter built along the same lines as the one in the preview mod (16 str, two-handed wpn, cleave, power attack) and was in a fight with a group of weak monsters (kobolds, goblins, etc.) and it lasted 5 rounds, I could reasonably expect to kill around 2-3 monsters - given average rolls.  In a 4e fight I would probably only kill 1 in the same time frame.
> 
> ...




What you experienced seems to be the designed intent. The numbers got larger on all sides to stretch the combat out over more rounds. While this model does allow combatants more time to use various abilities, the thrill of putting things down in one shot gets lost. Yes you can do that to minions but how good can you feel about your accomplishment of putting down a minion? Ok so I killed a minion in one hit from my mighty axe, the wizard did the same thing with with a ST 10 punch. Intentionally expanding combat length by numbers bloat is probably going to feel more like a boxing match going a set number of rounds than a deadly encounter.


----------



## JohnRTroy (May 23, 2008)

Well, I think Wulf had some good points about the fact people can like 4e with little information and be praised for that opinion while those that don't like it can be seen as "closed minded".

There's fear on both sides of being the minority.  

If 4e succeeds in getting the majority of the player base, then the fans of the older editions feel isolated and in the minority.  

However, if 4e is rejected by the core and either fails or even has a significantly lower adoption rate, then people who are hoping 4e will have the majority will feel threatened and they might be in the "isolated minority", if their dreams for a new D&D game will be soured by this.  Maybe that's why there's some shouting down of legitimate 4e criticisms and concerns.

So I think he has a very good point.


----------



## Ginnel (May 23, 2008)

ExploderWizard said:
			
		

> What you experienced seems to be the designed intent. The numbers got larger on all sides to stretch the combat out over more rounds. While this model does allow combatants more time to use various abilities, the thrill of putting things down in one shot gets lost. Yes you can do that to minions but how good can you feel about your accomplishment of putting down a minion? Ok so I killed a minion in one hit from my mighty axe, the wizard did the same thing with with a ST 10 punch. Intentionally expanding combat length by numbers bloat is probably going to feel more like a boxing match going a set number of rounds than a deadly encounter.




The fighter with stupidly high strength, cleave and power attack clearing an encounter by himself was not fun or thrilling and then having to put the hps up of everything else to counter this then made it impossible for other classes to one shot. 

The fact that any class can defeat enemies with their attacks is great, I mean surely the point of attacks is to like kill/incapacitate, a wizard using a str 10 punch knocking someone out with a lucky blow fair enough but he's more likely going to be using bolts of magical energy.


----------



## AllisterH (May 23, 2008)

The funny thing is, I've always seen the high lethality of 3E D&D as taking cues from Type I in M:TG.

In Type 1, depending on the era, the winner of a duel literally came down to who won the coin flip to start the match. Which to me was part of my lack of enthusaism for mid to high level D&D.


----------



## WalterKovacs (May 23, 2008)

mhensley said:
			
		

> Sorry, I built up quite a load of snark while playing and needed a release.  aahhhh...
> 
> Yes, that was my point exactly.  We were told that 4e would be more heroic and 1st level characters would be kicking butt right from the word go.  In 3rd edition, if I was playing a first level fighter built along the same lines as the one in the preview mod (16 str, two-handed wpn, cleave, power attack) and was in a fight with a group of weak monsters (kobolds, goblins, etc.) and it lasted 5 rounds, I could reasonably expect to kill around 2-3 monsters - given average rolls.  In a 4e fight I would probably only kill 1 in the same time frame.
> 
> ...




Just a note from recent 3.5 experience.

It may speak more of the power creep of splat books, and considering it involves the Book of Nine Swords [which had some 4e concepts in it] then it might not be completely appropriate.

But, through a straight point buy, starting at level 4, I'm playing an Orc, with 22 STR and 4 levels of Crusader. So, there the party tank is swinging around a greatsword +1, getting +11 to hit and dealing 2d6 + 10. That's before his delayed damage pool allows him to get an extra couple points to attack and damage. And through the Stone Power feat, plus his maneuvers, he can effectively keep himself standing in addition to healing other party members, or add another pair of d6's to his damage, etc. 

The character is fun, and he can mow down the baddies. It has essentially reached the point where the DM basically has to find ways to take the Orc out of the fight to make it challenging [or course, it helps that I roll horribly]. Of course, even the trog stench proved to be ineffectual. Sitting behind my Tower Shield and Full plate, I was able to wait several in game minutes worth of turns until I was able to fight again ...

So, we get to fight monsters burrowing through the earth and incoporeal creatures, and other things that require miss chances, or that can at least run away every other turn. Of course, this doesn't help out the rouge/swashbuckler much as he doesn't really have much to help him except some better saves [well, and he actually has skills]. The cleric and the wizard can get more involved against the harder to stop creatures. Still, comparing the characters of the same level, their combat capabilities are so different that either it's a cakewalk or a potential TPK.


----------



## ExploderWizard (May 23, 2008)

Ginnel said:
			
		

> The fighter with stupidly high strength, cleave and power attack clearing an encounter by himself was not fun or thrilling and then having to put the hps up of everything else to counter this then made it impossible for other classes to one shot.
> 
> The fact that any class can defeat enemies with their attacks is great, I mean surely the point of attacks is to like kill/incapacitate, a wizard using a str 10 punch knocking someone out with a lucky blow fair enough but he's more likely going to be using bolts of magical energy.




Its not about the fighter dominating combat. Other classes could easily drop a kobold with an average hit (from a d8 weapon) or a good hit (from a weaker weapon). Other classes could still one shot these guys. The thing is, now  nobody can defeat enemies quickly including the fighter. Every (non minion) combatant is designed to last several rounds no matter what, which can (at times) make the heroes feel less effective than ever before. It sometimes feels great to drop all your enemies in a round or two. Having to send out clay pigeons (minions) to get this effect is kind of unfun.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (May 23, 2008)

ExploderWizard said:
			
		

> Its not about the fighter dominating combat. Other classes could easily drop a kobold with an average hit (from a d8 weapon) or a good hit (from a weaker weapon). Other classes could still one shot these guys. The thing is, now  nobody can defeat enemies quickly including the fighter. Every (non minion) combatant is designed to last several rounds no matter what, which can (at times) make the heroes feel less effective than ever before. It sometimes feels great to drop all your enemies in a round or two. Having to send out clay pigeons (minions) to get this effect is kind of unfun.



I think more it's like you should use Minions in most encounters, so that the PCs have something to cut down while they harass the nasty foes. 

Maybe Minions are needed more in 4E then they were needed in 3E - 3E combats typically took 1-5 rounds, and you could sometimes take down a single enemy in 1-2 rounds. 
Though a single round in 4E will probably feel shorter (especially at high levels when comparing to 3E), since there are no iterative attacks and similar effects. (Well, we'll see how true this holds in the end...), so this might reduce the need for "quick dispatches". 

I can see the possibility of 4E fights feeling more mentally exhausting since you're always on the edge - you hit your foes, but he doesn't fall. Minions and the Bloodied state will be important to keep the feeling of a non-static battle.


----------



## WalterKovacs (May 23, 2008)

ExploderWizard said:
			
		

> Its not about the fighter dominating combat. Other classes could easily drop a kobold with an average hit (from a d8 weapon) or a good hit (from a weaker weapon). Other classes could still one shot these guys. The thing is, now  nobody can defeat enemies quickly including the fighter.




Of course, the fighter in 4e is very different from the fighter in 3e/3.5. He's not supposed to be the one doing the most damage in each attack ... he's supposed to be the one with the best AC, the most hit points, the one that keeps an opposing character locked down so that the rogue, or the ranger, or the warlock can do the most damage. One of the strikers is more likely to take out a single character quickly ... that is their job. It's not a fighter's job to do that anymore ... so that changes things a bit.



> Every (non minion) combatant is designed to last several rounds no matter what, which can (at times) make the heroes feel less effective than ever before. It sometimes feels great to drop all your enemies in a round or two. Having to send out clay pigeons (minions) to get this effect is kind of unfun.




It does sometimes feel great to wipe out your enemies quickly. However, while a minion is guaranteed to go down in one hit ... they aren't as puny as a character "guaranteed to go down in one hit" in 3.5

Sure, those kobolds could be easily plowed over by most of the party ... but they also need to pretty much get a critical threat to hit certain members of the party. If the choice is a legitimate threat, that will be killed by any hit vs. something that barely threatens you, but only dies when hit with 5 or more damage ... It's not much of a comparison. Minions are more than just popcorn to make players feel "cool", they are expendable, but they can actually hit, and not automatically get hit when put against appropriate levels of PCs.

I've had enough 3.5 encounters that last only 2 or 3 rounds that I'm looking forward to longer rounds where everyone gets a chance to participate.


----------



## vagabundo (May 23, 2008)

I think it comes down to:

Some people like to swing and others don't...


----------



## ExploderWizard (May 23, 2008)

WalterKovacs said:
			
		

> Of course, the fighter in 4e is very different from the fighter in 3e/3.5. He's not supposed to be the one doing the most damage in each attack ... he's supposed to be the one with the best AC, the most hit points, the one that keeps an opposing character locked down so that the rogue, or the ranger, or the warlock can do the most damage. One of the strikers is more likely to take out a single character quickly ... that is their job. It's not a fighter's job to do that anymore ... so that changes things a bit.




This is type of change I feel uncomfortable with. In my opinion "aggro mechanics" have no place in tabletop games. They exist in computer games because the encounters are run by a CPU that needs a mathematical formula to calculate threat and govern behavior. A pen and paper game is run by a DM with a brain (hopefully). Granting classes artifical abilities to make them "sticky" screams MMORPG. I can accept a fighter having an ability to "hold a creature at bay" when defending a narrow gap that prevents the opponent from moving past but the whole marking concept just feels wrong. I enjoy playing WOW a lot, but I play tabletop RPG's for a different experience than that. 

On another note, you have a good point about relative threat. The minions rules do look interesting and I will actually use them in play before totally dismissing them.


----------



## Ginnel (May 23, 2008)

ExploderWizard said:
			
		

> Its not about the fighter dominating combat. Other classes could easily drop a kobold with an average hit (from a d8 weapon) or a good hit (from a weaker weapon). Other classes could still one shot these guys. The thing is, now  nobody can defeat enemies quickly including the fighter. Every (non minion) combatant is designed to last several rounds no matter what, which can (at times) make the heroes feel less effective than ever before.




players can crit and role high this will drop an equal level monster if hmm 3 party members hit with basics? then you include encounter powers, Wham bam thank you mam, combat over in 2 or 3 rounds with some good rolls. Of course this will happen less and all members of the party will now be able to do useful things during the battle including the clerics extra heals and warlocks cursing and then zapping.



			
				ExploderWizard said:
			
		

> It sometimes feels great to drop all your enemies in a round or two. Having to send out clay pigeons (minions) to get this effect is kind of unfun.




Umm Why?

A fighter hitting for 5 hp and a 5hp 3rd ed monster goes down
A fighter hitting for 5 hp and a 1hp minion goes down

A fighter in 3rd ed hitting the low AC and doing 3 hps of damage monster stays up
A fighter in 4th ed missing due to the scaling AC and the monster stays up 
both round about equally as likely

theres not to much of a difference as far as I can see.

and if you want the critter to almost definitely go down in one round use a lower level minion


----------



## timbannock (May 23, 2008)

nute said:
			
		

> Possibly because his quote says "opinions on 4e" and he hasn't seen "4e" yet, only the preview adventure. That's like judging a movie from a teaser trailer.




Except this is the extended teaser trailer, whose sole purpose is to show off what the game looks and feels like in actual play.

Remember that Nick Cage "Snake Eyes" movie, where the extended trailer gave away the entire plot of the movie, and quite literally came out and named which of the two only named actors was playing the villain?  Based on that, I had no reason to see the movie.  So, if KOTS gives almost everything away without seeing the full movie -- and you don't like what you're seeing -- then I'd say that's a pretty good basis for his judgment.

Not perfect, but pretty darn good.


p.s. I like nearly everything about 4E so far, so I'm not defending his opinion on that.  Just the basis for his opinion, from his standpoint.


----------



## mmu1 (May 23, 2008)

ExploderWizard said:
			
		

> This is type of change I feel uncomfortable with. In my opinion "aggro mechanics" have no place in tabletop games. They exist in computer games because the encounters are run by a CPU that needs a mathematical formula to calculate threat and govern behavior. A pen and paper game is run by a DM with a brain (hopefully). Granting classes artifical abilities to make them "sticky" screams MMORPG. I can accept a fighter having an ability to "hold a creature at bay" when defending a narrow gap that prevents the opponent from moving past but the whole marking concept just feels wrong. I enjoy playing WOW a lot, but I play tabletop RPG's for a different experience than that.
> 
> On another note, you have a good point about relative threat. The minions rules do look interesting and I will actually use them in play before totally dismissing them.




Quite aside from whether it makes the game feel MMO like, the "tank" classes were basically the worst idea anyone ever had in the history of MMORPGs, and it took ages for designers to catch on and finally do something about it. (And it still hasn't been enough - the whole tank/dps/crowd control/heal paradigm might have been OK for Everquest, but they've had a decade to think of something better, but they didn't, because it's easier to stick with the same old crap. Now, mind-bogglingly, the same "innovation" is finding its way into PnP games...)

Game after game, the same idiotic design: "Hi. We decided to make a class that's really good at getting hit so that other people can use their fun abilities and magic spells. And since you're already great at taking damage, we figured it's a bad idea to also let you do the most damage. Unbalancing, you know. We're going to make it someone else's _job_ to do the huge damage."


----------



## ExploderWizard (May 23, 2008)

Ginnel said:
			
		

> A fighter hitting for 5 hp and a 5hp 3rd ed monster goes down
> A fighter hitting for 5 hp and a 1hp minion goes down
> 
> A fighter in 3rd ed hitting the low AC and doing 3 hps of damage monster stays up
> ...




While the end result may be mechanically similar I think some players may become tired of thier damage rolls not mattering. Everything is new and exciting at first but after plowing through tons of 1hp minions and not getting to roll damage it might become less so.


----------



## timbannock (May 23, 2008)

ExploderWizard said:
			
		

> This is type of change I feel uncomfortable with. In my opinion "aggro mechanics" have no place in tabletop games.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Tuft (May 23, 2008)

mmu1 said:
			
		

> Quite aside from whether it makes the game feel MMO like, the "tank" classes were basically the worst idea anyone ever had in the history of MMORPGs,




I have to agree with that. Not from the viewpoint of the tank, but from anything but the tank in a group that included one. 

In my very subjective opinion, an attack feels effective only if the opponent _reacts_ to it. It doesn't matter how large the number is that floats off above his head is, if he doesn't acknowledge my presence, well, the attack might not as well have existed.

That used to be a source of constant argument between me and a good friend and fellow "City of Heroes" MMO player, who loved playing Tanks. 

That's also a good reason why I in 3.5 love status-effect causing magic (which is what "control" is to me, not the new 4E:ism of area damage), utility magic and indirect magic highly over pure damage infliction magic. It forces the opponent to react in a way other than the DM just jotting down a few numbers on a scrap of paper..


----------



## timbannock (May 23, 2008)

That's a really good point.


----------



## hong (May 23, 2008)

mmu1 said:
			
		

> Quite aside from whether it makes the game feel MMO like, the "tank" classes were basically the worst idea anyone ever had in the history of MMORPGs, and it took ages for designers to catch on and finally do something about it. (And it still hasn't been enough - the whole tank/dps/crowd control/heal paradigm might have been OK for Everquest, but they've had a decade to think of something better, but they didn't, because it's easier to stick with the same old crap. Now, mind-bogglingly, the same "innovation" is finding its way into PnP games...)
> 
> Game after game, the same idiotic design: "Hi. We decided to make a class that's really good at getting hit so that other people can use their fun abilities and magic spells. And since you're already great at taking damage, we figured it's a bad idea to also let you do the most damage. Unbalancing, you know. We're going to make it someone else's _job_ to do the huge damage."



 Play more Guild Wars.


----------



## Brown Jenkin (May 23, 2008)

vagabundo said:
			
		

> I think it comes down to:
> 
> Some people like to swing and others don't...




Yeah, baby.


----------



## ExploderWizard (May 23, 2008)

neuronphaser said:
			
		

> Honest question: what other mechanics might make a fighter truly shine as an individual class that sums up a fighter, that also gives the fighter the same level of tactical battlefield presence?




Honest answer: there are many possibilities for maneuvers that could be used. Without the rest of the 4E rules to reference I couldn't lay out specifics. I can say that I would NOT design ANY class that was created primarily to soak up damage. Why would anyone who wasn't a masochist train to be a fighter?


----------



## med stud (May 23, 2008)

ExploderWizard said:
			
		

> While the end result may be mechanically similar I think some players may become tired of thier damage rolls not mattering. Everything is new and exciting at first but after plowing through tons of 1hp minions and not getting to roll damage it might become less so.



You know, there _are_ opponents that aren't minions, that you _do_ get to roll damage against.


----------



## med stud (May 23, 2008)

ExploderWizard said:
			
		

> Honest answer: there are many possibilities for maneuvers that could be used. Without the rest of the 4E rules to reference I couldn't lay out specifics. I can say that I would NOT design ANY class that was created primarily to soak up damage. Why would anyone who wasn't a masochist train to be a fighter?



The fighter's primary role is not to soak up damage, it is to be the frontline. The frontline has to hold to give the other parts of your unit space to do what they do best. Why would you train to be the frontline? Some options are: You like the adrenaline. You didn't have a choice; it was being a soldier or starving. You are the best man/woman for the job.


----------



## mmadsen (May 23, 2008)

gribble said:
			
		

> Some people like games where every attack roll could be the one that kills you, others prefer games where characters only die if it's "plot-appropriate".



And D&D is designed to be neither.  It is very, very difficult to one-shot anyone in D&D unless they're fragile enough to be guaranteed to go down on a second shot.  Also characters don't have plot protection against spells or grapples, only against attacks to kill, and their plot protection is not tied to plot appropriateness.


----------



## ExploderWizard (May 23, 2008)

med stud said:
			
		

> The fighter's primary role is not to soak up damage, it is to be the frontline. The frontline has to hold to give the other parts of your unit space to do what they do best. Why would you train to be the frontline? Some options are: You like the adrenaline. You didn't have a choice; it was being a soldier or starving. You are the best man/woman for the job.




I totally agree. The fighters primary role should be eliminating threats as efficiently as possible while on the front line,but the rules don't support that. The rules support defenders having a "kick me" sign on.


----------



## hong (May 23, 2008)

mmadsen said:
			
		

> And D&D is designed to be neither.  It is very, very difficult to one-shot anyone in D&D unless they're fragile enough to be guaranteed to go down on a second shot.  Also characters don't have plot protection against spells or grapples, only against attacks to kill, and their plot protection is not tied to plot appropriateness.




It may not be easy to kill someone in one shot (in 3E), but it's very easy to kill them in one round. Even easier in two rounds.


----------



## Tuft (May 23, 2008)

ExploderWizard said:
			
		

> I totally agree. The fighters primary role should be eliminating threats as efficiently as possible while on the front line,but the rules don't support that. The rules support defenders having a "kick me" sign on.





The tank's job is bluffing opponents into thinking he is the biggest threat, so that they don't notice the strikers massacring them. That's why he gets the biggest, shiniest, most obvious armor, and ditto weapon...


----------



## timbannock (May 23, 2008)

hong said:
			
		

> It may not be easy to kill someone in one shot (in 3E), but it's very easy to kill them in one round. Even easier in two rounds.





Does that still hold true in 4E?  I'm sure the possibility is there, but PCs seem much more hardy based on what I've seen so far.


Edit:
Also, the pre-gen fighters (from both KoTS and the earlier ones we've seen) aren't what I'd call wimps either.  The damage they can put out there doesn't appear to be of the type that I would sneeze at.  Maybe I'm missing something in my comparison, though.


----------



## crosswiredmind (May 23, 2008)

I know the OP may have been addressed by many in the 10 pages of posts that followed but i want to offer some personal observations from my experience running H1 and Scalegloom Hall.



			
				elijah snow said:
			
		

> 1. The Rules: The rules don't feel like 3e at all, and frankly don't seem any more "streamlined" on first glance. This is essentially a new game system. It's not unlike the feeling I got when I picked up Dark Heresy or Solomon Kane - my eyes just kind of glazed over the rules, and I'm pretty adept at all three previous editions. And the replacement/redefined rules seem clunky. Is it really easier to categorize monsters by type and by minion/lurker/fodder/whatever?




The rules are different but the basic framework is still the same.  You still roll a d20 add modifiers and compare it to a target number.  Characters still act in rounds and take actions that allow them to move and attack.  There are still hit points, levels, classes, skills, feats, etc.  The players (all long time D&D'ers) had very little trouble adjusting to the changes.  These were the same people that _did_ have difficulty learning to play Call of Cthulhu, WFRP, RuneQuest, and Traveller.  4e is similar enough to make it a close cousin to 3e.



			
				elijah snow said:
			
		

> 2. The Adventure: I don't like the look and feel of the adventure itself, from the new stat blocks to the mashing together of fluff, tactical encounters, and monster stats in the same page. It's not visually pleasing nor intuitive. Furthermore, nothing here makes me terrified to enter the Shadowfell.




I picked up the mod when it was mailed to my FLGS and started to run it within 15 minutes of tearing open the envelope.  The format made that possible.  Everything I needed for each encounter was right there on the page.  The new stat block took a little time to learn but now it is second nature - everything a GM needs is right there.  There are no more delays to look up spells or feats.  GMing D&D has not been this easy in the original edition where the GM had to improvise nearly everything since the rules were basically a simple framework.



			
				elijah snow said:
			
		

> I've got to say it leaves a sour taste in my mouth. I preordered the PHB, despite my vow not to ever run 4e, because I was still curious to see what had changed and what exciting ideas I could port into 3.5e. After seeing Shadowfell, I'm probably going to cancel it.




That's too bad and i hope you have reconsidered.  4e may not be everyone's cup of tea but it sure is a slick game to run and, from my players' recations, a real hoot to play.


----------



## med stud (May 23, 2008)

ExploderWizard said:
			
		

> I totally agree. The fighters primary role should be eliminating threats as efficiently as possible while on the front line,but the rules don't support that. The rules support defenders having a "kick me" sign on.



They still do eliminate opposition. If you look at the fighter's raw damage and the powers of a fighter you see that it can deal lots of damage. The main thing the fighter lacks is mobility and the ability to project damage long distances. The ranger and warlock, as distance strikers, can deal damage essentially everywhere they want on the battle field. The rogue has lots of movement abilities going to be able to strike where needed.

The fighter has to move up to an opponent and attack it. By doing that, it "locks" the opponent to a weak degree. It's mere presence at the front also makes it uncomfortable to run past it as the one who does that may end up sandwiched. If the the enemy doesn't want "two fronts" it has to attack the fighter who then can respond in kind.

I have run a bunch of test combats, the fighter wasn't a low damage punching bag in any of them. It might look like it, so I can see where you are coming from, but I really think you should try it out. I think you have the wrong impression of the defenders.


----------



## ExploderWizard (May 23, 2008)

Tuft said:
			
		

> The tank's job is bluffing opponents into thinking he is the biggest threat, so that they don't notice the strikers massacring them. That's why he gets the biggest, shiniest, most obvious armor, and ditto weapon...




I see what they are trying to achieve but the mechanics are not written as a bluff at all. The fighter does not have to taunt, or have his target understand him,and the target can be a machine without any emotion whatsoever. Can you bluff a programmed construct or mindless undead? The problem is that the mechanic is so artificial that there is no reasonable explanation for it. As a tabletop skirmish wargame rule it works just fine.

As for not noticing the strikers..............thats even harder to believe. Even the most dimwitted troll would realize the source of greatest harm. Otherwise none of them would have lived long enough to be encountered at all. I could understand an invisible striker driving a critter mad with pain that proceeds to attack the most accessible (visible) target it can though.


----------



## ExploderWizard (May 23, 2008)

med stud said:
			
		

> I have run a bunch of test combats, the fighter wasn't a low damage punching bag in any of them. It might look like it, so I can see where you are coming from, but I really think you should try it out. I think you have the wrong impression of the defenders.




I fully intend to try it out. I withold my final judgement until games have been played with the full rules.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (May 23, 2008)

mmu1 said:
			
		

> Quite aside from whether it makes the game feel MMO like, the "tank" classes were basically the worst idea anyone ever had in the history of MMORPGs, and it took ages for designers to catch on and finally do something about it. (And it still hasn't been enough - the whole tank/dps/crowd control/heal paradigm might have been OK for Everquest, but they've had a decade to think of something better, but they didn't, because it's easier to stick with the same old crap. Now, mind-bogglingly, the same "innovation" is finding its way into PnP games...)
> 
> Game after game, the same idiotic design: "Hi. We decided to make a class that's really good at getting hit so that other people can use their fun abilities and magic spells. And since you're already great at taking damage, we figured it's a bad idea to also let you do the most damage. Unbalancing, you know. We're going to make it someone else's _job_ to do the huge damage."




If it's any help for you, it doesn't really look like the Defenders are bad at dealing damage. Strikers might deal more, but they have to run around the battlefield like crazy to get in the best position, or to avoid getting mauled. A Defender charges his foes, and hammers him down, forcing him not to run away*. That should be a satisfying play experience (at least for many players.)

If that doesn't help you: The Defender or Tank is, unfortunately, something that is an inherent property of combats. You need someone to take the hits. As the designers wrote in Races & Classe: "If you don't pick a defender for yourself, the monsters will." There is always someone that _has_ to take the hits. You might as well build a class concept around it and make someone good at this. Unless you want everyone to be equally able to take hits. That's possible, but how well does it serve it as a character build option or class profilation, or promote tactical play? (I am not saying everyone wants tactical play, but D&D at least since 3E supports it).

*) forcing in the sense of: "Sure, pick anyone else, but I hit you on your way out or when you're hitting him. Might as well stay with me, don't you think? Oh, and 11 points of damage from my Maul, sucker!"


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (May 23, 2008)

Tuft said:
			
		

> The tank's job is bluffing opponents into thinking he is the biggest threat, so that they don't notice the strikers massacring them. That's why he gets the biggest, shiniest, most obvious armor, and ditto weapon...



It's a Bluff in WoW, in D&D, it's real. He hits you if you ignore him. 
Paladins channel divine energy to punish you for ignoring his challenge, Fighters strike at you if you move away or attack his comrades.


----------



## ProfessorCirno (May 23, 2008)

I think the best way of dealing with that problem is to just get a different name for Defenders .

Honestly, just make them seem to be baseline fighters that can take hits, whereas rogues are baseline fighters that can't and have to do a little jig on the field to make sure they don't get squashed.  I think the only BIG problem in this field so far is, from what reports we've heard, rangers do obscene damage at close range.  Those buggers are the reason "threat" or "aggro" doesn't translate well in P&P.  Rogues do their "you can't hit me!" dance, which is why they ideally won't be stepped on, but what do rangers do to avoid a giant sword through the skull?

Granted, keep in mind that I've always disliked rangers and their druid ilk


----------



## ExploderWizard (May 23, 2008)

ProfessorCirno said:
			
		

> Granted, keep in mind that I've always disliked rangers and their druid ilk




Indeed!!!  Strange folk those rangers, always wandering about in the wild


----------



## Mirtek (May 23, 2008)

Brown Jenkin said:
			
		

> Part of my fears is that the rules *require* rather than allow for complex tactical combat. It seems that 4e relies on all players knowing how and when to use their powers in conjunction with everyone else. In 3.x there were classes and abilities that could be taken that allowed for players without strong tactical ability to play alongside those who did have that ability. Yes in both systems strong tactical players will do better in combat, but in 4e weak tactical players will be at a larger disadvantage.



This is my fear as well.


			
				Duelpersonality said:
			
		

> I think that this one is probably highly dependent on the group.  From what I've seen, if a group has a very large disparity between the tactical abilities of players, it doesn't really matter what game they're playing:  it's going to cause a huge power difference.



I don't mind other players being more powerfull than me, I am actually used to having the weakest char at the table (more often than not by deliberately making weak choices for other reasons). I am usually glad to have the players with the more powerfull characters handle the main part of the fight because that means I can more easily keep a low profile and stay where it's more safe for me (I guess in 4e I will be the one who only fights minions and stays as far away as he can from anyone with more than 2 hp)

I fear that 4e will much more require all players to participate close to the tactical optimum and that just a few tactically avid players won't be able to make up for what the less tatically avid players lack. So instead of just being on the battlemat and neither contributing much nor hurting the team effort, I will be a dangerous weak link in 4e that could lead the party to doom


			
				Duelpersonality said:
			
		

> I think what 4e does in comparison to 3.x is take a lot of the pre-play tactics out of the equation.  A very tactically sound player is usually a fairly rules-savvy player as well, and can widen the gap to an extreme with a highly competent build.  I obviously don't know to what extent 4e will fix this problem (if at all), but it seems to me from the information we have that it will really help narrow that gap.



I really hope that this gap can be just as extreme as in 3.x.

So I can build my weak fighter (because I deliberately take less Str/Con to take more Int/Cha because I just want a smart womenizer despite knowing that I will cripple my usefullness on the battlemat) and can just rely on the guys more into char-optimizing to be as effective as two ordinary chars (so they cover me being only 1/3 as effective as an ordinary char)


----------



## hong (May 23, 2008)

Mirtek said:
			
		

> I fear that 4e will much more require all players to participate close to the tactical optimum and that just a few tactically avid players won't be able to make up for what the less tatically avid players lack. So instead of just being on the battlemat and neither contributing much nor hurting the team effort, I will be a dangerous weak link in 4e that could lead the party to doom




1. Required tactical nous is a function of player intelligence and DM intelligence. If your DM tends to play monsters dumb, whether deliberately or inadvertently, then there is no great pressure to play PCs smart.

2. Part of being a DM is the responsibility of tailoring the threats to the group. That's (one reason) why you would play p&p as opposed to electronic. If your DM cannot do this, go play WoW because the DM will be no worse, and you'll have better special effects.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (May 23, 2008)

Mirtek said:
			
		

> This is my fear as well.
> 
> I don't mind other players being more powerfull than me, I am actually used to having the weakest char at the table (more often than not by deliberately making weak choices for other reasons). I am usually glad to have the players with the more powerfull characters handle the main part of the fight because that means I can more easily keep a low profile and stay where it's more safe for me (I guess in 4e I will be the one who only fights minions and stays as far away as he can from anyone with more than 2 hp)
> 
> ...




I think 4E tries to make suboptimal builds less likely, so your character build will not be as 1/3 as effective as an ordinary character. But your tactics might be. But this can be fixed - tell another player to play a Warlord (I bet any optimizer/tactician in your group will love that class anyway), and just tell him to roleplay his tactical expertise and tell your character what to do. 

And who knows, maybe if you notice that your character is just as good as anyone else as he does, it will also be easier for you to see the tactical opportunities for your character? [/pipe dream]


----------



## Blackeagle (May 23, 2008)

Mirtek said:
			
		

> So I can build my weak fighter (because I deliberately take less Str/Con to take more Int/Cha because I just want a smart womenizer despite knowing that I will cripple my usefullness on the battlemat) and can just rely on the guys more into char-optimizing to be as effective as two ordinary chars (so they cover me being only 1/3 as effective as an ordinary char)




In 4e, it seems like an Int based fighter will be a workable build.  So you can have your desired characterization and be effective on the battlefield.


----------



## Cadfan (May 23, 2008)

Mirtek said:
			
		

> I fear that 4e will much more require all players to participate close to the tactical optimum and that just a few tactically avid players won't be able to make up for what the less tatically avid players lack. So instead of just being on the battlemat and neither contributing much nor hurting the team effort, I will be a dangerous weak link in 4e that could lead the party to doom



If you intend to be essentially a nonparticipant in combat situations, the solution is to have your player not count when deciding how much XP to spend building the encounter.  So if a 5 person party for your level gets an encounter worth 500 XP, the DM instead gives you an encounter worth 400 XP because he knows you won't help.

This was true in 3e as well, really.


----------



## Duelpersonality (May 23, 2008)

Mirtek said:
			
		

> I really hope that this gap can be just as extreme as in 3.x.
> 
> So I can build my weak fighter (because I deliberately take less Str/Con to take more Int/Cha because I just want a smart womenizer despite knowing that I will cripple my usefullness on the battlemat) and can just rely on the guys more into char-optimizing to be as effective as two ordinary chars (so they cover me being only 1/3 as effective as an ordinary char)



I think the question here is "Why should you have to make your character that sub-optimal to roleplay that concept?"  I can almost see it in the 3.x mindset:  every point of ability bonus is necessary to compete.  I don't think 4e will be quite this rough.  Having one (or even two) points less in your Str bonus than the ultra Str-optimized fighter isn't going to lose you too much in terms of effectiveness as far as build is concerned.

Also, you have to think about a larger number of group dynamics.  If you allow one character to be as effective as 2 other characters based solely on their build, what happens to the players that are not so good at char-op but want to be just as effective in battle?  They get hosed most of the time.

As has been said, if you really want to play a fighter that is not good at fighting, it's more up to you and your DM to work out how combat will work best for you and the rest of your group.  Building the rules around that kind of play is not going to work well for most groups.


----------



## drjones (May 23, 2008)

elijah snow said:
			
		

> ..3.5E grognard ..



Maybe I am just old fashioned but I still don't believe such a creature exists.  Unless the term has been expanded to mean 'person who does not love everything about 4e'.  All the 'nards I have met would not touch 3e with a pole.


----------



## mhensley (May 24, 2008)

drjones said:
			
		

> All the 'nards I have met would not touch 3e with a pole.




I touch it all right, but I make sure to wash my hands afterwards.


----------



## SSquirrel (May 24, 2008)

AllisterH said:
			
		

> The funny thing is, I've always seen the high lethality of 3E D&D as taking cues from Type I in M:TG.
> 
> In Type 1, depending on the era, the winner of a duel literally came down to who won the coin flip to start the match. Which to me was part of my lack of enthusaism for mid to high level D&D.




I don't think I would say they looked at M:tG and decided that was something to emulate, considering WotC moved as far away as they could from 1 and 2 turn wins.  Type I is also almost completely unsupported by WotC.


----------



## SSquirrel (May 24, 2008)

Mirtek said:
			
		

> I am usually glad to have the players with the more powerfull characters handle the main part of the fight because that means I can more easily keep a low profile and stay where it's more safe for me (I guess in 4e I will be the one who only fights minions and stays as far away as he can from anyone with more than 2 hp)




Do minions have some magical tattoo on their forehead only adventurers can see an it points to their neck and says "your sword here"?  If I run 4E I will always have people give me damage rolls.  The lucky crit and max damage roll and the celebration afterwards from the players is completely worth that.  He doesn't need to know it was actually a minion that lucky roll got used on.  Minions look no different than other members of their race right?  They're just the Red Shirts scripted to die


----------



## Trainz (May 24, 2008)

BeauNiddle said:
			
		

> I'm a tactician and I hate / dislike quick deaths. In 3.x is was charge at the enemy and hope they die first. Massive fights end in 1 or 2 rounds due to save or dies being thrown around or just massive damage output. That gives no time to change plans in combat. There is a certain amount of pre-combat planning (or buffing as it mostly is) but nothing in the actual combat itself.




A huge AMEN to this.

My last 3.5 character was a rogue that I played from 1st level to about 17th. During the whole course of this character's career, by the time he finally got in an advantageous position to truly sneak attack, the fight was over (or 1 round away). I felt cheated by the unachieved potential of a rogue during a whole year of weekly game sessions.

If anything, 4th ed looks like this will not be the case anymore, for ANY class.

That's a humongous plus, if you ask me.


----------



## Agamon (May 24, 2008)

SSquirrel said:
			
		

> Do minions have some magical tattoo on their forehead only adventurers can see an it points to their neck and says "your sword here"?  If I run 4E I will always have people give me damage rolls.  The lucky crit and max damage roll and the celebration afterwards from the players is completely worth that.  He doesn't need to know it was actually a minion that lucky roll got used on.  Minions look no different than other members of their race right?  They're just the Red Shirts scripted to die




But they can look different, of course.  There's another thread devoted to this topic, but I agree with those there.  Does playing "guess if it's a minion" increase metagame thinking or does subtly making possible minions more obvious (most if the time) maybe move that kind of thinking to the background?  Players will wonder "if it's worth it" anyway (they did in 3e with spells); taking the guesswork out of it (but not doing so obviously, leaving some doubt) will probably actually help verisimilitude.


----------



## JohnRTroy (May 24, 2008)

drjones said:
			
		

> Maybe I am just old fashioned but I still don't believe such a creature exists.  Unless the term has been expanded to mean 'person who does not love everything about 4e'.  All the 'nards I have met would not touch 3e with a pole.




Well, all people become Oldies fans as their music gets that label.  (My generation tends to not even want to use the term "Oldies", but that's what "Back to the 80s" or "Back in the Day" really means).

So I suspect Grognard will mean 3e players if/when 4e displaces them as the current playerbase.


----------



## Aeolius (May 24, 2008)

JohnRTroy said:
			
		

> So I suspect Grognard will mean 3e players if/when 4e displaces them as the current playerbase.




   Examine WotC's D&D Forum. First they changed the D&D forum into the "Previous Edition" forum (leaving the D&D 4e forum alone). Then they consolidated and combined 3e threads. Then they dumped all "Other Worlds" forums into one forum (except FR and Eberron). Then they closed the "Concerns and Criticisms" topic. Then they put the Previous Edition forum within the 4e forum. Now the 4e button at wizards.com/boards is gone entirely. All this before 4e launches.

   WotC clearly does not want to acknowledge that a large number of malcontents will prefer the 3.5 ruleset.


----------



## Henry (May 24, 2008)

drjones said:
			
		

> Maybe I am just old fashioned but I still don't believe such a creature exists.  Unless the term has been expanded to mean 'person who does not love everything about 4e'.  All the 'nards I have met would not touch 3e with a pole.




Considering "grognard" in geek-speak is someone who has been in for a long time and usually prefers something different than the current game, then there are indeed 3e grognards now - one could probably use WotC's forum change as the demarcation point. With Keep on the Shadowfell out now, there are indeed people playing the whole 4th Edition - or at least the first three levels of it. And considering the word "grognard" means "grumbler", then there are INDEED 3e grognards. Technically speaking, I'm one of 'em.


----------



## Jack99 (May 24, 2008)

Aeolius said:
			
		

> WotC clearly does not want to acknowledge that a large number of malcontents will prefer the 3.5 ruleset.


----------



## Aeolius (May 24, 2008)

Henry said:
			
		

> Technically speaking, I'm one of 'em.




   Right there with you though, since I was a 1e old-timer that returned to the fold with 3e, I still prefer leap-grognard.


----------



## Arashi Ravenblade (May 24, 2008)

Well it seems Keep on the Shadowfell is out officially.
I actually got to see the rules about a month ago when a dealer had the adventure out early.
I didnt want to say anything cause I didnt want the guy to get into trouble, but I think I can offer my opinion of 4e now as ive seen the rules, and read them.

Ive come to call 4e Dungeons and Dragonsball Z, cause thats the way it seems. After reading how to I feel? Well about the same. The Rules do seems clunky, the monster layout is ugly and like most adventures it's boring.
Think Exalted when you play this game and you'll be fine, but if your like me and you like your games  (D&D)to still feel More traditional Fantasy (Eberron being as far as I'd like to get from traditional fantasy), then 4e wont really appeal to you. 
IM getting the Gift set because I collect the core books of D&D and i'lll get the campaign setting stuff, but Im sticking with 3.5 and then pathfinder when that comes out.


----------



## AllisterH (May 24, 2008)

Agamon said:
			
		

> But they can look different, of course.  There's another thread devoted to this topic, but I agree with those there.  Does playing "guess if it's a minion" increase metagame thinking or does subtly making possible minions more obvious (most if the time) maybe move that kind of thinking to the background?  Players will wonder "if it's worth it" anyway (they did in 3e with spells); taking the guesswork out of it (but not doing so obviously, leaving some doubt) will probably actually help verisimilitude.




Are people really that concerned about players "wasting" powers on minions? I don't think this is a valid fear due to the rest of the system for monsters. The bloodied mechanic will quickly teach players NOT to open with their big guns until after a monster has been bloodied.

Assume an at-will does 1 hit worth of damage, an encounter power 2 hits while a daily does 3.

Let's say you have a monster that can be taken down in 8 hits. This monster has no "Bloodied" trigger a la the gnoll and the angels. Mathematically, there's no difference in opening up with an at-will and then using encounter/daily powers when compared to the reverse method.

The monster in both cases will be dead in 5 rounds. However, there's a huge difference if the monster is one that has a "Bloodied" threshold trigger. Opening up with an encounter means that the PC will be subject to 4 more rounds of the monster at usually a STRONGER point (the gnoll for example), Whereas if the PC is smart and opens up with at-wills until the monster is bloodied, it only has to worry about facing a bloodied monster for 2 more rounds. I know which one I'd prefer.

This even works if the monster gets *WEAKER* at Bloodied like the Angels. Encounter powers unlike dailies can be whiffed thus it is better when facing an angel to *WAIT* until the angel's defenses are weaker than to start the battle with an encounter power.

So wouldn't the proper tactic pretty much always be "use at-will powers?" until at least the monster is bloodied, which means that the players never waste an encounter power/daily on minions?


----------



## Zil (May 24, 2008)

Trainz said:
			
		

> My last 3.5 character was a rogue that I played from 1st level to about 17th. During the whole course of this character's career, by the time he finally got in an advantageous position to truly sneak attack, the fight was over (or 1 round away). I felt cheated by the unachieved potential of a rogue during a whole year of weekly game sessions.
> 
> If anything, 4th ed looks like this will not be the case anymore, for ANY class.
> 
> That's a humongous plus, if you ask me.



In my 3.5 games, it seems as if the rogues are getting their sneak attacks with great regularity - not just towards the end of an encounter.  Of course, it might help that I generally eschew the recommended encounter build guidelines so my encounters tend to last much longer than the norm - probably 8 rounds is average for us.  Also, given that I don't have very many 5' and 10' corridor fights and my player rogues always make use of tumbling, they are always maneuvering about to get flanking advantage.  And the NPCs do the same - it's like a dance.  And we didn't need a new rule set to achieve this.

Unfortunately when I sit down and build a 3.5 encounter according to the guidelines I find it much less interesting and combat lasts 1-2 rounds - and the players feel let down by how easy it was.   I wonder how many 3.x games were run this way?   Because I came from 1E and 2E, I never quite adjusted to the 3E way of building encounters but I think the game was better for it.


----------



## Imaro (May 24, 2008)

AllisterH said:
			
		

> Are people really that concerned about players "wasting" powers on minions? I don't think this is a valid fear due to the rest of the system for monsters. The bloodied mechanic will quickly teach players NOT to open with their big guns until after a monster has been bloodied.
> 
> Assume an at-will does 1 hit worth of damage, an encounter power 2 hits while a daily does 3.
> 
> ...




Uhm...unless you die before you get a chance to use your encounter/daily.  IMHO, this more than anything else will drive PC's to use their most powerful abilities first.  What use is holding it back if you don't get a chance to use it before your paste?

In your example above you forget to compare how many "hits" it takes before the PC dies.   It also doesn't take into consideration the random nature of damage.  I think combat boils down simply to...Defeat opponent before opponent defeats you.  This means it is better to do more damage as quickly as possible rather than less damage early on and risk being taken out before bringing your big guns out.  It's the classic strategy for most monsters in CRPG's for a reason.


----------



## Surgoshan (May 24, 2008)

Imaro, the PCs have more hit points and the monsters do less damage, plus crits have been turned to max damage rather than double.  Basically, it takes longer to kill players, too, even if the dice swing in a bad way, meaning you're not going to see any one or two round deaths.  Unless you hit on the DM's girlfriend.

So if PCs last longer, there's less reason to open up with your BFG; you know you can afford to wait until you _need_ it.


----------



## Spatula (May 24, 2008)

Surgoshan said:
			
		

> Imaro, the PCs have more hit points and the monsters do less damage, plus crits have been turned to max damage rather than double.  Basically, it takes longer to kill players, too, even if the dice swing in a bad way, meaning you're not going to see any one or two round deaths.



http://www.enworld.org/showpost.php?p=4242362&postcount=2
"So the gnome's halfling slinger opens up on the pcs as they head down the steep slope, and combat breaks out. This combat was crazy- the two drakes both hit the warlord in the first round, before he had a chance to act, and did enough damage to kill him outright!"


----------



## AllisterH (May 24, 2008)

Imaro said:
			
		

> Uhm...unless you die before you get a chance to use your encounter/daily.  IMHO, this more than anything else will drive PC's to use their most powerful abilities first.  What use is holding it back if you don't get a chance to use it before your paste?
> 
> In your example above you forget to compare how many "hits" it takes before the PC dies.   It also doesn't take into consideration the random nature of damage.  I think combat boils down simply to...Defeat opponent before opponent defeats you.  This means it is better to do more damage as quickly as possible rather than less damage early on and risk being taken out before bringing your big guns out.  It's the classic strategy for most monsters in CRPG's for a reason.




Um, I didn't forget that at all. It makes no difference in how many hits a PC can take. Mainly because, irrespective of "WHEN" the hits are administered, the total number of hits remain the same.

A monster that requires 8 hits to bite the bullet where an at-will is one hit -> daily = 3 hits will ALWAYS require 5 rounds (assuming you hit each round).

The only time your scenario would be an issue is if the monster could be one-shotted by a daily power and on average, none of the dailies we've seen been capable of wiping out an equivalent level monster by itself.

The reason why it works in CRPGs is because you already KNOW when a boss encounter will be.


----------



## Imaro (May 24, 2008)

AllisterH said:
			
		

> Um, I didn't forget that at all. It makes no difference in how many hits a PC can take. Mainly because, irrespective of "WHEN" the hits are administered, the total number of hits remain the same.
> 
> A monster that requires 8 hits to bite the bullet where an at-will is one hit -> daily = 3 hits will ALWAYS require 5 rounds (assuming you hit each round).
> 
> ...




Ok, now look at this from a more realistic scenario, where there are  5 PC's.  Now we run  into situations where 5 daily powers could be unleashed on a single monster in the span of one round...which amounts to 15 of those hits that it would only take 8 to down the beast.  In fact according to this logic you'v proposed...5 characters could eliminate 1 of their opponents in the first round and have another set up to drop in the second, thus reducing the amount of return attks and damage the party members will in turn take or have to worry about for the next round, if they unleash first.  And they totally avoided a long-term bloodied condition of one (poossibly two) of their opponents 

     Now if they go with at-will's then it amounts to a total of 5 hits...not even enough to take out one monster...leaving a greater rate of oppositional attack and damage in the next round.  Now do you understand what I am trying to get at?  In a group environment there are totally different results when unleashing those daily powers all at once. 1 use of a power might not be able to kill a monster in one round, but what about 2 or 3?


----------



## Primal (May 24, 2008)

Wisdom Penalty said:
			
		

> Elijah, you have betrayed Grognards everywhere! Despite your "vow never to run 4e" you admit to "secretly hoping it would be cool" - this is unacceptable. As a fellow Grognard, you _knew_ none of us were to get those books - _for any reason_* - and yet you did it anyway. Your feeble attempts at being dismissive toward the game do not pardon you.
> 
> Turn in your Grognard Card.
> 
> ...




Wis,

I'm sorry to inform you about this, but you'll be required to change your username to 'Wisdom Bonus', because when EnWorld shifts to 4E, there won't be any *penalties* mentioned anywhere (they're too difficult to calculate -- positive modifiers work better). 

Of course, the Grognard Council tried to protest this matter, but to no avail -- those tricksy representatives of the Wizards pulled off some implement-empowered Charm spells, which also hurled us violently back 15 fe... 3 squares!  

You're not alone in this -- my name will change to 'Primal Power' next year.


----------



## Primal (May 24, 2008)

Agamon said:
			
		

> But they can look different, of course.  There's another thread devoted to this topic, but I agree with those there.  Does playing "guess if it's a minion" increase metagame thinking or does subtly making possible minions more obvious (most if the time) maybe move that kind of thinking to the background?  Players will wonder "if it's worth it" anyway (they did in 3e with spells); taking the guesswork out of it (but not doing so obviously, leaving some doubt) will probably actually help verisimilitude.




I'm convinced that metagaming will dramatically increase as combat becomes even more tactically orientated and "abstracted" (i.e. less simulationist) in 4E. It's all about shifting, pulling, opportunity actions, movement, teleporting, and whatnot -- and how to respond to those 'exception-based' monster powers/hazards. I guess more tactically-oriented players and DMs will get more out of it, but I don't think my group will.


----------



## crosswiredmind (May 24, 2008)

Primal said:
			
		

> I'm convinced that metagaming will dramatically increase as combat becomes even more tactically orientated and "abstracted" (i.e. less simulationist) in 4E. It's all about shifting, pulling, opportunity actions, movement, teleporting, and whatnot -- and how to respond to those 'exception-based' monster powers/hazards. I guess more tactically-oriented players and DMs will get more out of it, but I don't think my group will.




You will need to pay attention in combat when it is not your turn - that is true.  The tactical nature of the game is not all that different than 3.5 was.  In 3.5 you could tune it out a bit more but 4e is definitely more of a team game than a bunch of solo artists taking their turns.


----------



## BeauNiddle (May 24, 2008)

Imaro said:
			
		

> Ok, now look at this from a more realistic scenario, where there are  5 PC's.  Now we run  into situations where 5 daily powers could be unleashed on a single monster in the span of one round...which amounts to 15 of those hits that it would only take 8 to down the beast.  In fact according to this logic you'v proposed...5 characters could eliminate 1 of their opponents in the first round and have another set up to drop in the second, thus reducing the amount of return attks and damage the party members will in turn take or have to worry about for the next round, if they unleash first.  And they totally avoided a long-term bloodied condition of one (poossibly two) of their opponents
> 
> Now if they go with at-will's then it amounts to a total of 5 hits...not even enough to take out one monster...leaving a greater rate of oppositional attack and damage in the next round.  Now do you understand what I am trying to get at?  In a group environment there are totally different results when unleashing those daily powers all at once. 1 use of a power might not be able to kill a monster in one round, but what about 2 or 3?




Ah the old 'Take off and nuke them from orbit - it's the only way to be sure' gambit.

In 3rd ed where a monster had an almost guaranteed chance to hit and could do enough damage to paste the players then an all out nuke was the only sensible tactical choice.

In 4th ed they have gone to great pains to produce a much more reasoned response. Take healing surges for example - as long as you have 4 left at the end of the encounter then you can heal back to full. Also compare encounter and at-will to daily's, yes the daily's are impressive but not so much that you have to spend the rest of the day cowering in a rope trick. The enemies also have a much more balanced damage output (and chance to hit).

If a party run into their first encounter and unload their full set of dailiy's on the first round then that fight is going to be much easier. But was the party do next? They'll have used maybe 10% of the healing available to them and they still have 75% of their powers. It's assumed that the party will continue adventuring. If they do so they get used to multiple combats and hence will start pondering WHICH encounter to use their daly's in. From their it's only a short step to working out WHEN during an encounter they should use their daily's (and per encounter's). Thus 4th ed is designed to teach the players NOT to use the nuke strategy.

Much to the joy of this tactician.


----------



## Primal (May 24, 2008)

crosswiredmind said:
			
		

> You will need to pay attention in combat when it is not your turn - that is true.  The tactical nature of the game is not all that different than 3.5 was.  In 3.5 you could tune it out a bit more but 4e is definitely more of a team game than a bunch of solo artists taking their turns.




It seems 4E is not only more tactical than 3E from the players' POV -- based on what I've seen (and read) the DMs are also required to "up their game" and plan every encounter from much more tactical perspective than ever before. And I must confess that I just can't get those monster roles or their 'exception-based' abilities. Does every encounter need every "type" of monsters (e.g. "artillery" or "brutes")? If so, why? And when I'm thinking of marking and how complicated (and abstract, from a 'simulationist' POV) those PC abilities are... sheesh, maybe I'm not just cut to running 4E?


----------



## Mistwell (May 24, 2008)

You have a spoon you like.  People around you told you that forks were cool.  So you bought a fork, and with an open mind, you tried to consume soup using the fork.  It didn't work, and are very disappointed with the fork.  Despite the fact that the people who told you that forks were cool never told you to consume soup with it.


----------



## Victim (May 24, 2008)

Primal said:
			
		

> It seems 4E is not only more tactical than 3E from the players' POV -- based on what I've seen (and read) the DMs are also required to "up their game" and plan every encounter from much more tactical perspective than ever before. And I must confess that I just can't get those monster roles or their 'exception-based' abilities. Does every encounter need every "type" of monsters (e.g. "artillery" or "brutes")? If so, why?




You don't think that encounters with mixed groups of enemies are more interesting than homogenous groups in 3e?


----------



## Henry (May 24, 2008)

Mistwell said:
			
		

> You have a spoon you like... [SNIP]




You do realize don't you that you've just created the perfect analogy for the people complaining that 4e won't let them run the kinds of games they like? If the fork won't ever let you consume soup, then it's all the more reason to ditch the fork. 

It's very possible that 4e won't work for what he used to use 3e for.


----------



## Henry (May 25, 2008)

Primal said:
			
		

> It seems 4E is not only more tactical than 3E from the players' POV -- based on what I've seen (and read) the DMs are also required to "up their game" and plan every encounter from much more tactical perspective than ever before. And I must confess that I just can't get those monster roles or their 'exception-based' abilities. Does every encounter need every "type" of monsters (e.g. "artillery" or "brutes")? If so, why? And when I'm thinking of marking and how complicated (and abstract, from a 'simulationist' POV) those PC abilities are... sheesh, maybe I'm not just cut to running 4E?




From what I've seen, you don't use every single type in a combat. You instead use critters that fit the kind of combat you want to run. It's really no different from 3e on this. For instance, in an encounter where you think it will be cool to have some enemy ranged attacking across a cliff where the PCs are hard pressed to go, you wouldn't use stock hook horrors to do it. You'd use another monster, or a variant "piercing horror" that flung barbs from his arms or something.

Same idea. If you have a very mobile terrain, you use kobold skirmishers. If you have a narrow corridor, you'd say "kobold dragonshields would work here to stop 'em up." The thing is, you don't have to know what variety of monsters can do ranged, what runs around like a mage killer, etc. Instead, you say, "OK, I need an Orc/Kobold/Goblin/Thayan artillery for this, and some Soldiers for the ground," etc. Most monsters that are intelligent have this kind of breakdown, from what we've seen, and the unintelligent monsters will have customization rules that let you trick them out like some Darwinian God-GM to make that artillery critter you want for the task, complete with the one or two special powers that set him apart as a member of a given species.


----------



## Primal (May 25, 2008)

Victim said:
			
		

> You don't think that encounters with mixed groups of enemies are more interesting than homogenous groups in 3e?




Well, not necessarily, no. See, I think it quickly becomes quite boring if *every* encounter has one or more Controller, one or more Artillery, one or more Brute, one or more Skirmisher, a host of Minions, and so on. And it's not just that -- your character's role more or less determines which monster you're supposed to attack (e.g. rangers keep peppering arrows at the Artillery and Controllers, while fighters and paladins are supposed to always tangle with Brutes and Minions). So while the first few adventures it might seem cool and awesome to take on a host of monsters in each fight, but soon it may become wearisome to always concentrate on certain enemy "types" in the spirit of team play, because you're are *expected* and even *required* to. 

Not to mention that if you're not a tactically-minded DM, encounter/monster design in 4E might take a lot longer than it did in 3E.


----------



## Imaro (May 25, 2008)

BeauNiddle said:
			
		

> Ah the old 'Take off and nuke them from orbit - it's the only way to be sure' gambit.
> 
> In 3rd ed where a monster had an almost guaranteed chance to hit and could do enough damage to paste the players then an all out nuke was the only sensible tactical choice.
> 
> ...




I'm not really seeing how this relates to what was being discussed.  I wasn't arguing if 4e promotes or doesn't promote going nuke...I guess I could think about it and post my response later.  The discussion was about whether there was an advantage or not to using your more powerful abilities early on in a fight or using weaker abilities and waiting...whether you decide to use those powers or not in ay specific encounter is a different beast all together. 

Even just using encounter powers where they equal "2 hits" and at-wills equal "1 hit" it is better for the group to hit most encounters with their most powerful abilities first...again with the 8 hit monster, if everyone in the party does "2 hits" instead of "1 hit" then the beast dies as opposed to being able to attk one or more players on it's turn.  I think this will appear more and more in D&D 4e as time progresses, almost to the point where it will become redundant and predictable...I saw it happen with jedi in SW Saga ed.  85-90% of the time the players opened with most powerful to least powerful force powers.


----------



## Cheesepie (May 25, 2008)

Primal said:
			
		

> And when I'm thinking of marking and how complicated (and abstract, from a 'simulationist' POV) those PC abilities are... sheesh, maybe I'm not just cut to running 4E?



And somehow these PC abilities are more complicated and abstract than the ridiculous amount of spells available to each spellcasting class in 3.5?

Just like I'm sure you got comfortable with the most common spells you encounter and quickly adapting to new spells in 3.5, I am sure you will be fine with powers in 4E.


----------



## Mal Malenkirk (May 25, 2008)

Random Thoughts : 

For those who bemoaned that the fighter is just a punching bag, consider that a fighter using a two-handed weapon is probably up there toward the top of the heap for damage dealing.

It's likely that a daily doing 3D12 (or 6D6) +6, for example, is the best damage dealing attack available to the party at level 1.  And if the guys turn Kensai, I expect he's easily worth a striker in pure damage dealing.

Of course, shield rocks in 4e and you dismiss it at your perils but the increased offense seems worth it.

Minions : I expect appropriate for their levels last longer on the battlefield than 3e monsters that could be one-shot (Which were used by DMs for exactly the same purpose as 4e minions will be).  The fact they don't die on a miss means they'll survive area attack better and since their defense is appropriate for their level, they'll probably be alive deeper in any given fight than their 3e equivalent would have been.  And of course, they'll have more of an impact.


The fact that a fighter with cleave can kill two minions at once is probably a big deal, too.


----------



## Primal (May 25, 2008)

Henry said:
			
		

> From what I've seen, you don't use every single type in a combat. You instead use critters that fit the kind of combat you want to run. It's really no different from 3e on this. For instance, in an encounter where you think it will be cool to have some enemy ranged attacking across a cliff where the PCs are hard pressed to go, you wouldn't use stock hook horrors to do it. You'd use another monster, or a variant "piercing horror" that flung barbs from his arms or something.
> 
> Same idea. If you have a very mobile terrain, you use kobold skirmishers. If you have a narrow corridor, you'd say "kobold dragonshields would work here to stop 'em up." The thing is, you don't have to know what variety of monsters can do ranged, what runs around like a mage killer, etc. Instead, you say, "OK, I need an Orc/Kobold/Goblin/Thayan artillery for this, and some Soldiers for the ground," etc. Most monsters that are intelligent have this kind of breakdown, from what we've seen, and the unintelligent monsters will have customization rules that let you trick them out like some Darwinian God-GM to make that artillery critter you want for the task, complete with the one or two special powers that set him apart as a member of a given species.




You see, here's my beef with the 'exception-based' monster design: I just can't fathom how to stat any 'Piercing Horrors' or other variants. What powers to give it? I don't have a clue what "role" it should have and why. If I need an orc, I'll use an orc -- if it's supposed to wield a greataxe and challenge the group's fighters, I'll give it some barbarian and/or fighter levels. What's with these odd 'Bloodied Rages' and triggered abilities? Why do some monsters have no 'at-will' melee/missile abilities, while others have very "flavored" ones? (e.g. "Whirling Double Axes of Death +6" vs. "Greataxe +8")?

The whole system seems odd from my own perspective, and I'd feel very uncomfortable with doing that, since I'm a simulationist and so are my players (I hated how monsters worked in AD&D, too). If I give weird and effective "unique" powers to monsters that are not in balance with the PCs can accomplish with their powers, my players will soon want to create Dragonshield Kobolds, Bloodaxe Berserkers and Eyes of Gruumsh. And frankly, I would have statted orc barbarians and adepts with completely different kind of powers than the ones in the Orc MM excerpt. And I'm a lousy tactician, to boot.


----------



## Primal (May 25, 2008)

Cheesepie said:
			
		

> And somehow these PC abilities are more complicated and abstract than the ridiculous amount of spells available to each spellcasting class in 3.5?
> 
> Just like I'm sure you got comfortable with the most common spells you encounter and quickly adapting to new spells in 3.5, I am sure you will be fine with powers in 4E.




To your first question: oh, yes -- by far! For example, what's with all that Sliding/Shifting/Pulling stuff? Or why does the Warlord grant my guy extra actions, but I can't do that myself? It can't be just "he knows the perfect moment", because I should get an Insight/Perception/Dexterity check to try figuring it out myself, right? And how come the rogue can throw a dagger at a dragon/golem/tarrasque and shift it three squares, unless he can load his daggers with kinetic/magical energy? Why can the warlord force my guy to charge? And so on. A lot of the abilities do not make a lot of sense from a simulationist POV. Therefore, the combat is more abstract in nature, because you are not supposed to question the logic or realism behind the actions.


----------



## Kwalish Kid (May 25, 2008)

Primal said:
			
		

> To your first question: oh, yes -- by far! For example, what's with all that Sliding/Shifting/Pulling stuff? Or why does the Warlord grant my guy extra actions, but I can't do that myself? It can't be just "he knows the perfect moment", because I should get an Insight/Perception/Dexterity check to try figuring it out myself, right? And how come the rogue can throw a dagger at a dragon/golem/tarrasque and shift it three squares, unless he can load his daggers with kinetic/magical energy? Why can the warlord force my guy to charge? And so on. A lot of the abilities do not make a lot of sense from a simulationist POV. Therefore, the combat is more abstract in nature, because you are not supposed to question the logic or realism behind the actions.



Simluation was never supposed to be about identifying a roll of the dice with every single possible episode of consciousness of every character in the world. Nor was simulation every supposed to be about assigning a roll of the die to every particle in the world to dertermine its position in phase space. There was always some abstraction. It is quite possible in games that focus on simulation to allow some characters to do one thing and not allow others to do that same thing.


----------



## Primal (May 25, 2008)

Kwalish Kid said:
			
		

> Simluation was never supposed to be about identifying a roll of the dice with every single possible episode of consciousness of every character in the world. Nor was simulation every supposed to be about assigning a roll of the die to every particle in the world to dertermine its position in phase space. There was always some abstraction. It is quite possible in games that focus on simulation to allow some characters to do one thing and not allow others to do that same thing.




I'm well aware of that and I did not imply, to my knowledge, that *everything* should be covered by the rules of a game. However, I *did* note that combat is *more* abstract in 4E than it was in 3E. As to your last point: agreed, I never said it weren't so, and you're a bit off the mark there, because that is hardly relevant here. For every "non-PC" being, 4E seems to be mostly about "unique" abilities tied to everyone's "role" *and* mixing them with the crunch that is shared by everyone and strictly derived from the rules. Now, I wouldn't mind if it worked the same way (i.e. consistently) for everyone, but it doesn't -- the PCs live on their own "thread" of existence within the rules and the story. Therefore, they can do stuff nobody else (except major villains) can do, and monsters/NPCs can do stuff they can't do. And before anyone comments on it -- yeah, your fighter couldn't have Energy Drain or Petrifying Gaze in 3E either, but I'm referring to things that you should realistically be able to accomplish (e.g. whatever stunts a goblin/kobold/bugbear/orc whatever does in combat, should be allowed for PCs, too).


----------



## crosswiredmind (May 25, 2008)

Primal said:
			
		

> It seems 4E is not only more tactical than 3E from the players' POV -- based on what I've seen (and read) the DMs are also required to "up their game" and plan every encounter from much more tactical perspective than ever before. And I must confess that I just can't get those monster roles or their 'exception-based' abilities. Does every encounter need every "type" of monsters (e.g. "artillery" or "brutes")? If so, why? And when I'm thinking of marking and how complicated (and abstract, from a 'simulationist' POV) those PC abilities are... sheesh, maybe I'm not just cut to running 4E?




If you are a "simulationist" gamer then you should appreciate that combat does require tactics and coordination.  Furthermore combat teams should alway leverage the use of combined arms to enhance their effectiveness.  Good simulation use rules to generate expected results.  4e does that very well.  So I guess I am not getting what you see as the real problem.


----------



## WalterKovacs (May 25, 2008)

Primal said:
			
		

> You see, here's my beef with the 'exception-based' monster design: I just can't fathom how to stat any 'Piercing Horrors' or other variants. What powers to give it? I don't have a clue what "role" it should have and why.




Of course, they have not yet put out the section for the core books on building monsters. We have heard from people that peeked that there is such a thing.

It's very easy to say "I know how to do it in 3.5 but how do you do it in 4e?" ... well, because we have the DMG and Monster Manuals available ... but we don't have the same yet for 4e.



> If I need an orc, I'll use an orc -- if it's supposed to wield a greataexe and challenge the group's fighters, I'll give it some barbarian and/or fighter levels. What's with these odd 'Bloodied Rages' and triggered abilities? Why do some monsters have no 'at-will' melee/missile abilities, while others have very "flavored" ones? (e.g. "Whirling Double Axes of Death +6" vs. "Greataxe +8")?




In general ... a monster COULD be designed like a character. But if he isn't going to be using most of those abilities because he's dead after the encounter ... it's extraneous information.




> The whole system seems odd from my own perspective, and I'd feel very uncomfortable with doing that, since I'm a simulationist and so are my players (I hated how monsters worked in AD&D, too). If I give weird and effective "unique" powers to monsters that are not in balance with the PCs can accomplish with their powers, my players will soon want to create Dragonshield Kobolds, Bloodaxe Berserkers and Eyes of Gruumsh. And frankly, I would have statted orc barbarians and adepts with completely different kind of powers than the ones in the Orc MM excerpt. And I'm a lousy tactician, to boot.




The powers may be unique ... but they are only "not in balance" with the PCs to the extent that they have such low life expectencies.

You could say they could play with those powers ... but they'd have considerably lower ammounts of healing surges ... not to mention a distinct lack of daily powers, etc ...

And, we have already heard that PCs do get access to some powers with are similar to those of the monsters. For example, a rogue can pull off the same garotting tricks that the monsters do. It could very well be that many of the monster powers DO exist for PCs ... but with some minor fluff changes in some cases. The "shiftiness" of kobolds is likely a racial ability, and if they made a PC playable version of the race, it would probably get a racial power involving shifting which could be improved over time with racial feats. [See also drow and darkness, gnomes and their 'illusions', etc].

So, some tricks that monsters have, especially if they appear for many monsters of that race, are likely racial in nature [or is a racial 'tradition' that they are trained in]. Orc society would likely train it's "fighter types" differently than those of human civilizations. So, the fact that there are things a PC can't do because they are of a different race than the monster shouldn't cause simulist disonance. It makes perfect sense in a world that monster races may not have shared the training in all their tactics with the "PC races".


----------



## crosswiredmind (May 25, 2008)

Primal said:
			
		

> I *did* note that combat is *more* abstract in 4E than it was in 3E.




I wholeheartedly disagree.  I think both systems are equally abstract but 4e requires more tactical thinking - you need to play as a team.


----------



## mhensley (May 25, 2008)

crosswiredmind said:
			
		

> I wholeheartedly disagree.  I think both systems are equally abstract but 4e requires more tactical thinking - you need to play as a team.




Chess requires a lot of tactical thinking but is very abstract.  They are not linked in any way.


----------



## mhensley (May 25, 2008)

Henry said:
			
		

> You do realize don't you that you've just created the perfect analogy for the people complaining that 4e won't let them run the kinds of games they like? If the fork won't ever let you consume soup, then it's all the more reason to ditch the fork.
> 
> It's very possible that 4e won't work for what he used to use 3e for.




Yep, that is a very good analogy.  It also means the utensil company has turned their backs on soup lovers and has fired them as customers.  Well, there are other companies that still make spoons and still like soup.


----------



## Hussar (May 25, 2008)

ProfessorCirno said:
			
		

> Not neccisarily.  I, for one, have had more cases where I saw "Let's see, I need a bunch of demons..." over "Let's see, I need a bunch of heavy damage but low armor creatures..."  When your party is in the hells, I find it easier to look up creatures by subtype ("Oh hey, these next few pages will be EVERYTHING I need!) over role (Dammit, time to go BACK to the table of contents ten more times).




Hrm, comparing this with:



			
				Primal said:
			
		

> Well, not necessarily, no. See, I think it quickly becomes quite boring if *every* encounter has one or more Controller, one or more Artillery, one or more Brute, one or more Skirmisher, a host of Minions, and so on. And it's not just that -- your character's role more or less determines which monster you're supposed to attack (e.g. rangers keep peppering arrows at the Artillery and Controllers, while fighters and paladins are supposed to always tangle with Brutes and Minions). So while the first few adventures it might seem cool and awesome to take on a host of monsters in each fight, but soon it may become wearisome to always concentrate on certain enemy "types" in the spirit of team play, because you're are *expected* and even *required* to.
> 
> Not to mention that if you're not a tactically-minded DM, encounter/monster design in 4E might take a lot longer than it did in 3E.




You can kinda see why monster roles are a good idea.  Using the 3e system of monster type did no favours to the tactically challenged.  Is creature X best used as a toe to toe brute or as an artillery piece?  How does the monster's type (Outsider, Evil) tell you anything about how it should be used?  What is the most effective way to use a Glabrezu?

So, the designers actually set out to categorize all the creatures.  But, instead of taking existing monsters and then slapping on a category (the way the CR system was designed), they redesigned the monsters to fit them into a given category.  So, a Pit Fiend is a leader.  He has abilities that fit with being a leader as defined in the rules.  

This is why the new categories are useful.  They actually tell us something about the monster.  Magical Beast tells me pretty much nothing about how to use a monster.  Leader Level 26 tells me a fair bit, even before reading the stat block.


----------



## crosswiredmind (May 25, 2008)

mhensley said:
			
		

> Chess requires a lot of tactical thinking but is very abstract.  They are not linked in any way.




I did not say that they were linked.  I said that 4e is just as abstract as 3e and in addition 4e will require more tactical thinking.


----------



## Mal Malenkirk (May 25, 2008)

mhensley said:
			
		

> Chess requires a lot of tactical thinking but is very abstract.  They are not linked in any way.




How is _your_ post linked to crosswiredmind's post?

1 - Chess is no more abstract than poker or solitary, IMO.  Unless you insist it's a representation of war, but then checkers would qualify too...

2 - He said 3e and 4e are equally abstract but one is more tactical.  If you insist on the abstract chess metaphor, then he essentially said that chess and checkers are both equally abstract but chess is more tactical.

I would tentatively say that what I've seen so far tells me he's right and that I dearly hope it is so.


----------



## ExploderWizard (May 25, 2008)

crosswiredmind said:
			
		

> I wholeheartedly disagree.  I think both systems are equally abstract but 4e requires more tactical thinking - you need to play as a team.





I think the major point of contention is the definition of tactics in this case. There is old school fantasy combat tactics and the newer "role" based tactics. In both cases good teamwork is beneficial. The "role" version forces teamwork in a very specific manner. Each role has a defined subset of tasks that must be performed in order to do the very best both mathematically and tactically. I can see this as exciting for tabletop skirmishing but getting old in an extended campaign. Classes are already limiting by themselves without adding a the role layer to that.


----------



## Blackeagle (May 25, 2008)

ExploderWizard said:
			
		

> I think the major point of contention is the definition of tactics in this case. There is old school fantasy combat tactics and the newer "role" based tactics. In both cases good teamwork is beneficial. The "role" version forces teamwork in a very specific manner. Each role has a defined subset of tasks that must be performed in order to do the very best both mathematically and tactically. I can see this as exciting for tabletop skirmishing but getting old in an extended campaign. Classes are already limiting by themselves without adding a the role layer to that.




I'm having trouble seeing how the role is any more limiting than classes.  In 3e, each class has just as much of a role as it does in 4e (some classes are even more narrowly constrained by their 3e role than their 4e one).  The only real difference is that the roles in 3e are implicit, while the roles in 4e are explicitly laid out.


----------



## AllisterH (May 25, 2008)

Imaro said:
			
		

> I'm not really seeing how this relates to what was being discussed.  I wasn't arguing if 4e promotes or doesn't promote going nuke...I guess I could think about it and post my response later.  The discussion was about whether there was an advantage or not to using your more powerful abilities early on in a fight or using weaker abilities and waiting...whether you decide to use those powers or not in ay specific encounter is a different beast all together.
> 
> Even just using encounter powers where they equal "2 hits" and at-wills equal "1 hit" it is better for the group to hit most encounters with their most powerful abilities first...again with the 8 hit monster, if everyone in the party does "2 hits" instead of "1 hit" then the beast dies as opposed to being able to attk one or more players on it's turn.  I think this will appear more and more in D&D 4e as time progresses, almost to the point where it will become redundant and predictable...I saw it happen with jedi in SW Saga ed.  85-90% of the time the players opened with most powerful to least powerful force powers.




That might be a problem if the standard encounter was "party vs one standard monster" but the only time the PCs are facing one single monster is against a Solo. Solos have the hitpoints to easily stand up to 5 dailies from the PCs which then results in a Solo monster that quickly reaches Bloodied and I'm willing to bet most Solo monsters get TOUGHER when they hit their Bloodied state.


----------



## AndrewRogue (May 25, 2008)

ExploderWizard said:
			
		

> I think the major point of contention is the definition of tactics in this case. There is old school fantasy combat tactics and the newer "role" based tactics. In both cases good teamwork is beneficial. The "role" version forces teamwork in a very specific manner. Each role has a defined subset of tasks that must be performed in order to do the very best both mathematically and tactically. I can see this as exciting for tabletop skirmishing but getting old in an extended campaign. Classes are already limiting by themselves without adding a the role layer to that.




But... unless you were a class who had the ability to do everything awesomely at once, you already had a "role" that defined what your class would function most optimally doing. 

Your two-hand fighter with Power Attack was already charging low AC targets to blow them away with explosive damage. The rogue was already avoiding heavy hitters and diving into flanks to gain his sneak attack. The Wizard and Cleric are using their defined spell list to do whatever they are supposed to do.

Could you perhaps elaborate how the situation is any different now? About the only possible argument I can see is the concept that, because of role, class design is a little more streamlined, but even this argument is inherently faulty because every class has ALWAYS had some degree of streamlining about what they could and couldn't do. Any character not built as a jack of all trades (which tended to suck anyway, really) was FURTHER specialized.

So yeah. Hash this out with me.


----------



## Imaro (May 25, 2008)

AllisterH said:
			
		

> That might be a problem if the standard encounter was "party vs one standard monster" but the only time the PCs are facing one single monster is against a Solo. Solos have the hitpoints to easily stand up to 5 dailies from the PCs which then results in a Solo monster that quickly reaches Bloodied and I'm willing to bet most Solo monsters get TOUGHER when they hit their Bloodied state.




I feel like you are still missing the point...it actually is just as good with more than one monster.  Let's say you have monster A, B, C, D all 8 "hit" monsters.  Now here's two examples of combat....

1st combat PC's (5) use at will powers (1 hit) first....so even if they gang up on one monster it still isn't enough "hits" to take him out of the fight. 5*1=5.  This means on the monsters turn they now have 4 total attacks against the players.
Monster A (3/8 hits) attks
Monster B, C, & D(8/8 hits) attks
Total attks for monster on their turn is 4


2nd combat PC's use encounter powers (2 hits) first...so now if they gang up on a monster they can actually kill one this round and bring another down so that it has 6 out of 8 hits left. 5*2=10.  This means the next round they only have to worry about 3 attacks instead of 4 on the next round they will suffer the 3 attacks again unless they burn the daily.
Monster A (0/8 hits) no attk
Monster B (6/8 hits) attk
Monster C & D (8/8 hits) attk
Total attks for monster on their turn is 3

3rd combat PC's use daily powers (3 hits) first...so now if they gang up on monsters they will kill one and bring a second down to 1 out of 8 hits left.  5*3=15 . Thhis means in then next round they will deal with 3 attacks and the following round only 2 attacks (regardless if they use encounter or daily attacks) from the monsters.
Monster A (0/8 hits) no attk
Monster B (1/8 hits) attk
Monster C & D  (8/8 hits) attk
Total attks for monster on their turn is 3

So here we see that you can lessen attrition of your party's hit points (and thus chance of dying) by opening with the daily then the encounter (which kills Monster B & C) then using the daily once there is only one monster to worry about.

Doing it in reverse means your party will take more damage from attacks by the monsters and thus there ius a greater chance you can be knocked unconscious or die before using the encounter or daily powers.


----------



## ExploderWizard (May 25, 2008)

AndrewRogue said:
			
		

> But... unless you were a class who had the ability to do everything awesomely at once, you already had a "role" that defined what your class would function most optimally doing.
> 
> Your two-hand fighter with Power Attack was already charging low AC targets to blow them away with explosive damage. The rogue was already avoiding heavy hitters and diving into flanks to gain his sneak attack. The Wizard and Cleric are using their defined spell list to do whatever they are supposed to do.
> 
> ...




Of course classes have always been limited by thier selection of abilities, the addition of a role just adds more.

I agree that jack of all trades types in a class based game never work out very well. 

A fighter could be a swashbucker with a high DEX, a lighter weapon and a selection of feats that supported this concept and didn't have to be a heavy tank. A rogue could be a second story type of lockpicking wizard who only engaged in combat as a last resort. If by streamlining you meant pigeonholing a character concept into the most efficient combat model possible then I guess 4E did a pretty thorough job.


----------



## Victim (May 25, 2008)

I'm not sure the party is always going to have the information to make opening with big powers a good call.  It makes you really vulnerable to bait.  If you don't necessarily know which monsters in a fight are the most dangerous or toughest, then you have to pay for that information as the encounter progresses.


----------



## AllisterH (May 25, 2008)

Imaro said:
			
		

> I feel like you are still missing the point...it actually is just as good with more than one monster.  Let's say you have monster A, B, C, D all 8 "hit" monsters.  Now here's two examples of combat....
> 
> 1st combat PC's (5) use at will powers (1 hit) first....so even if they gang up on one monster it still isn't enough "hits" to take him out of the fight. 5*1=5.  This means on the monsters turn they now have 4 total attacks against the players.
> Monster A (3/8 hits) attks
> ...




Ah, I see what you're doing.

Wouldn't be advisable in my opinion since the reverse ALSO happens to be true. If the situation is such that the PCs can gang up on one standard monster, the reverse also happens to be true


----------



## Blackeagle (May 25, 2008)

ExploderWizard said:
			
		

> A fighter could be a swashbucker with a high DEX, a lighter weapon and a selection of feats that supported this concept and didn't have to be a heavy tank.




I never really felt that 3e supported the swashbuckling type of fighter very well with just feats.  You really need a separate class (Swashbuckler, or the AE Unfettered) to do it right.  I think 4e is going to do a much better job supporting this out of the box.  In 4e, the light-armor fighter is on a much more even playing field with the heavy armor fighter, since heavy armor fighters don't get to add their dex to AC.  The rapier no longer has a smaller damage die than the longsword.  Plus if you want to add any of the rogues cool mobility oriented powers, just throw in a few multiclass feats.



			
				ExploderWizard said:
			
		

> A rogue could be a second story type of lockpicking wizard who only engaged in combat as a last resort.




Seems like you could do pretty much the same thing in 4e, save that the rouge will at least be competent at the last resort.



			
				ExploderWizard said:
			
		

> If by streamlining you meant pigeonholing a character concept into the most efficient combat model possible then I guess 4E did a pretty thorough job.




From what we've seen so far, I think it does a good job in enabling almost any character concept to be realized without compromising it's combat ability too much.  What's wrong with that?


----------



## fnwc (May 25, 2008)

Blackeagle said:
			
		

> I never really felt that 3e supported the swashbuckling type of fighter very well with just feats.  You really need a separate class (Swashbuckler, or the AE Unfettered) to do it right.



Actually, in 3E the 'light fighter' generally gets outclassed by all 'heavy fighters' pretty quickly, with only a few exceptions (Dervish, Chain Tripper).


----------



## SSquirrel (May 25, 2008)

mhensley said:
			
		

> Yep, that is a very good analogy.  It also means the utensil company has turned their backs on soup lovers and has fired them as customers.  Well, there are other companies that still make spoons and still like soup.




But if the soup in question was always Campbell's Chunky Soup "The soup that eats like a meal", they've always shown people eating it just fine with forks.  So I guess it depends which soup you're talking about.  Me, I love me some Chunky and my 4E fork works just fine


----------



## Blackeagle (May 25, 2008)

fnwc said:
			
		

> Actually, in 3E the 'light fighter' generally gets outclassed by all 'heavy fighters' pretty quickly, with only a few exceptions (Dervish, Chain Tripper).




I think the Unfettered does a pretty good job standing up to the heavies, even in comparison to the Warmain, which is the heavy fighter extraordinaire.


----------



## Cheesepie (May 25, 2008)

ExploderWizard said:
			
		

> I think the major point of contention is the definition of tactics in this case. There is old school fantasy combat tactics and the newer "role" based tactics. In both cases good teamwork is beneficial. The "role" version forces teamwork in a very specific manner. Each role has a defined subset of tasks that must be performed in order to do the very best both mathematically and tactically. I can see this as exciting for tabletop skirmishing but getting old in an extended campaign. Classes are already limiting by themselves without adding a the role layer to that.



What exactly is "old school fantasy combat tactics" and how does 4E no longer qualify as this? Other than its non-old-school-ness, of course!


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (May 25, 2008)

Henry said:
			
		

> You do realize don't you that you've just created the perfect analogy for the people complaining that 4e won't let them run the kinds of games they like? If the fork won't ever let you consume soup, then it's all the more reason to ditch the fork.
> 
> It's very possible that 4e won't work for what he used to use 3e for.



It is a good analogy like that. If there is something in 4E missing that you want from your game, you just won't get it, regardless of how much I or anyone else might love 4E and believe it to be the best things since sliced bread!

Off course what's the soup standing for? 
"Role-playing intensive storytelling"?
or at the other side of spectrum
"Bloated mess of unbalanced rules favoring spellcasters over anyone else"?
or something more reasonable like
"A game featuring the Great Wheel Cosmology build around the 9 alignments, and a lot of the metaphysical/magical effects based around that"?

See, it still doesn't help.


----------



## hong (May 25, 2008)

In MY day, generic food metaphors used peanut butter and ice cream, and we LIKED it.


----------



## BeauNiddle (May 25, 2008)

Imaro said:
			
		

> I feel like you are still missing the point...it actually is just as good with more than one monster.  Let's say you have monster A, B, C, D all 8 "hit" monsters.  Now here's two examples of combat....
> 
> 1st combat PC's (5) use at will powers (1 hit) first....
> Total attks for monster on their turn is 4
> ...




Average chance for monster to hit 50% (depends on whom they target but it seems reasonable)

So it becomes:

At will - 2 hits
Encounter - 1.5 hits
Daily - 1.5 hits.

Cost of being hit is probably less than a healing surge for a suitable encounter.

So you give up the tactical flexibility of saving encounter and daily powers for the cost of a healing surge. Not a good deal in my book.

Yes I fully understand your point that in the one 'important' battle the best tactical option is to go in all guns blazing. But you seem to be arguing that the players should treat every battle if it's the one true battle when in fact most battles are 'just' scene setting.

With longer adventuring days and battles set up with reinforcements and stages most players will be quite willing to open with at-will powers and to do so is tactically sound.

It might not be the most efficient method but it is tactially sound.

4th ed has finally created a seperation between the two scoring metrics, FINALLY

As was mentioned in one of the earlier blogs from WotC when you spend a round maneuvering to get into a decent position it DOESN'T feel a wasted round unlike 3rd ed.


----------



## Imaro (May 25, 2008)

BeauNiddle said:
			
		

> Average chance for monster to hit 50% (depends on whom they target but it seems reasonable)
> 
> So it becomes:
> 
> ...




Huh?  In the post I was responding to, "hits" represented damage, now it seems you are equating them with chance to hit.  Since this is a static, and it doesn't change based on a time factor/variable...how does at what time you choose to use an encounter or daily power matter at all?  In fact taking into consideration that most powers still do damage when they miss this furthers the fact that at what point you use them, as far as chance to hit, is irrelevant and only the damage they do is the determining factor.

You later argue that opening with at-will is tactically sound...but not the most efficient option, well isn't the best tactical option also the most efficient?

I still don't see how reducing the amount of damage a party takes in a wholistic manner is in anyway not the best tactical approach.  If you reduce the number of enemies quickly, regardless of how many there are, it is a bigger advantage in the long run than leaving more enemies standing with the chance to deal damage to your party.  I mean this is just logical.

Maybe I'm not understanding the argument here since my point is that the most tactical and efficient way to deal with a room of monsters is to unleash as much damage to specific monsters as quickly as possible to reduce the number of enemies that must be dealt with.  Are you arguing this is wrong?  If so please elaborate what is a better strategy.


----------



## AllisterH (May 25, 2008)

Imaro said:
			
		

> Maybe I'm not understanding the argument here since my point is that the most tactical and efficient way to deal with a room of monsters is to unleash as much damage to specific monsters as quickly as possible to reduce the number of enemies that must be dealt with.  Are you arguing this is wrong?  If so please elaborate what is a better strategy.




Actually, it has one metagame problem. It assumes that the PC can gang up on a single monster in a 5 monsters encounter AND the monsters lose initative. Wouldn't the BEST tactic for monsters be the same thing, a.k.a, focus on one PC but that's always been true thanks to D&D not having the spiral of death.

That said, I'm not sure this is the best tactic for the PCs anyway. If a monster can take 6-8 hits and an encounter power is 2hits while a daily is 3 it actually requires two PCs to take out each monster, thus, wouldn't the PCs end up with 1-2 monsters and they only have at-wills left?

This of course assumes that the monsters are setup to allow for this


----------



## Primal (May 25, 2008)

crosswiredmind said:
			
		

> If you are a "simulationist" gamer then you should appreciate that combat does require tactics and coordination.  Furthermore combat teams should alway leverage the use of combined arms to enhance their effectiveness.  Good simulation use rules to generate expected results.  4e does that very well.  So I guess I am not getting what you see as the real problem.




I think we may have a disagreement over what 'simulationism' entails. I see it meaning that the system models existing characters and the setting *realistically* and in detail. You see, the combat options in 4E are "class-specific" and work in very 'non-simulationist' way in my opinion -- for example, I can't just understand how the sliding/pushing stuff works from a logical POV. Does the rogue "empower" his weapons with kinetic energy, because he can slide even dragons or golems with certain attacks? Does the warlord have some sort of "psychic control" over allies and opponents, as he can also move them around and grant them extra actions? And why only certain fighters can attempt to trip their opponents? 

All of the examples above only highlight the fact that 4E is moving away from whatever degree of 'simulationism' 3E achieved into a strictly "abstracted" combat in which balance and effectiveness and teamwork are the key issues and "realism" is ditched in the name of "fun". I see the end result being very much boardgame-y, but that's just my opinion.


----------



## Primal (May 25, 2008)

crosswiredmind said:
			
		

> I did not say that they were linked.  I said that 4e is just as abstract as 3e and in addition 4e will require more tactical thinking.




I disagree -- 3E was more 'simulationist' and less "abstract" than 4E. See my reply above.


----------



## Fallen Seraph (May 25, 2008)

Primal said:
			
		

> I think we may have a disagreement over what 'simulationism' entails. I see it meaning that the system models existing characters and the setting *realistically* and in detail. You see, the combat options in 4E are "class-specific" and work in very 'non-simulationist' way in my opinion -- for example, I can't just understand how the sliding/pushing stuff works from a logical POV. Does the rogue "empower" his weapons with kinetic energy, because he can slide even dragons or golems with certain attacks? Does the warlord have some sort of "psychic control" over allies and opponents, as he can also move them around and grant them extra actions? And why only certain fighters can attempt to trip their opponents?
> 
> All of the examples above only highlight the fact that 4E is moving away from whatever degree of 'simulationism' 3E achieved into a strictly "abstracted" combat in which balance and effectiveness and teamwork are the key issues and "realism" is ditched in the name of "fun". I see the end result being very much boardgame-y, but that's just my opinion.



I'm just gonna break down that post to show how it would work from a logical perspective:

*Does the rogue "empower" his weapons with kinetic energy, because he can slide even dragons or golems with certain attacks?*

Now of course this depends on the ability, we have seen some which only work on one size above and below. 

The manner in which a Rogue would go about sliding a Dragon or a Golem can vary, for example with a Golem: A Rogue could lodge a dagger in a leg mechanism causing it to stutter in its steps and "slide". With a Dragon: The Rogue goes about slipping in small attacks that annoy and frustrate the Dragon, causing the beast to try and move aside.

Essentially, not every slide is the PC literally pushing the enemy himself.

*Does the warlord have some sort of "psychic control" over allies and opponents, as he can also move them around and grant them extra actions? *

The warlord's abilities set up circumstances from which the other PCs can act, he sets up openings and such. So the other PCs can gain the chance to move and/or attack when normally they wouldn't. Same thing with the enemies, his abilities shove opponents out of the way or frightens them/disorganizes them.
*
And why only certain fighters can attempt to trip their opponents?*

We already know this is not the case from the other thread. But it makes sense that a fighter be more able then say a Wizard for example in tripping more effectively and able to deal out additional effects then a Wizard. Since he has trained in doing so, thus he understands how to trip more effectively and deal additional effects, ie: Trip and then stomps on head.


----------



## Imaro (May 25, 2008)

AllisterH said:
			
		

> Actually, it has one metagame problem. It assumes that the PC can gang up on a single monster in a 5 monsters encounter AND the monsters lose initative. Wouldn't the BEST tactic for monsters be the same thing, a.k.a, focus on one PC but that's always been true thanks to D&D not having the spiral of death.
> 
> That said, I'm not sure this is the best tactic for the PCs anyway. If a monster can take 6-8 hits and an encounter power is 2hits while a daily is 3 it actually requires two PCs to take out each monster, thus, wouldn't the PCs end up with 1-2 monsters and they only have at-wills left?
> 
> This of course assumes that the monsters are setup to allow for this




Yes, but look at it like this...

COMBAT 1: 5 pc's and 5 monsters( 8 hits for all)...daily used first

Round 1: (monsters first they do 5 hits, leaving PC's at 3/8/8/8/8...Pc's use daily for total of 15 hits so monster 1 is dead and the rest are 2/8/8/8

Round 2: (Monsters do 4 hits killing one PC and leaving the rest at 7/8/8/8...PC's use encounter abilities for total of 8 hits killing another monster and the remaining two are at  1/8.

Round 3: (Monsters do 2 hits and kill no PC's this round, but reduce the remaining PC's to 5/8/8.  The PC's use their daily powers and kill another monster leaving the last at 4...next round they will kill his monster and no other PC will fall.

COMBAT 2 (5 PC's and 5 Monsters/ 8 hits each) start with at-wills

Round 1: Monsters attk 1st and do 5 hits to PC's leaving them at 3/8/8/8/8.  PC's attk with their at-wills and leave monsters at 3/8/8/8/8.

Round 2: Monsters attack again and do 5 hits.  Killing one PC and leaving the rest at 6/8/8/8.  PC's attk and use encounter powers, doing 8 hits, killing one monster and leaving the rest at 3/8/8/8.

Round 3: Monsters attk again and do 4 hits, leaving the PC's at 2/8/8/8.  PC's attk and use their daily for 12 hits, killing two monsters and leaving the last two at 7/8.  

Round 4: Monsters attack again and do 2 hits, killing another PC, and leaving the remaining PC's at 8/8/8.  PC's attk and use at-wills for 3 hits, leaving the monsters at 4/8.

Round 5: Monsters attk again and do 2 hits, leaving the PC's at 6/8/8.  PC's attk with at-wills and do 3 hits, leaving the monsters at 1/8.

Round 6: Monsters attk and do 2 hits, leaving the PC's at 4/8/8.  PC's attk w/at-wills and do 3 hits, killing another monster and leaving the remainding monster at 6 hits.

Round 7: Monster attks for 1 hit, leaving PC's at 3/8/8.  PC's attk w/at-wills and do 3 hits...reducing monster to 3 hits.

Round 8 Monster attks for 1 hit, leaving PC's at 2/8/8.  PC's attk and kill last monster.


This looks like a really big difference in effectiveness to me.


----------



## BeauNiddle (May 25, 2008)

Imaro said:
			
		

> You later argue that opening with at-will is tactically sound...but not the most efficient option, well isn't the best tactical option also the most efficient?




There's a reason forces left off the battlefield are called a tactical reserve. It would be more efficient to commit all forces at once, it's more tactical to keep a reserve to handle any changing situations.

Tactics is the art of delivering maximum damage to the enemy whilst sustaining minimum damage to yourself.

Efficiency is the mathematics of calculating damage given over damage taken.

Tactics is an art and not a science due to the fact it's subjective. It alters in every battle and every situation. As you have repeatedly proved the most efficient way to deal with 8 identical monsters is to open with the daily's first.

But what if you don't have 8 identical monsters. What if you have 7 identical monsters and one monster that can raise the dead? To calculate the efficiency of the battle you'd have to calculate the probability that your first kill is the resurrector. But what if there are 2 resurrectors? Your maths shows the players can't kill both in the first attack so 'efficient'ly it's impossible for them to win the fight. Tactically they must wound both resurrectors and then, when one falls, they must finish the other as fast as possible - a task for which daily's are perfectly suited IF the player's save them for the right moment.

Okay so that's a very forced example and you're unlikely face monsters that can ressurect but it also applies to other monster layouts. Why use your daily's on the meatshields if it's the casters in the back that are causing the most damage? Why use your daily's on the artillery when they are just there to draw you towards the soldiers?

Many comments were made about 3.X's theoretical "15 minute workday" just because it could be shown to be much more efficient to use the "nuke 'em from orbit method". The problem was there wasn't anything in the rules for 3rd ed that made it sensible to have multiple encounters in one day. There were suggestions to have 4 encounters a day but no rules making it worthwhile.

In 4th ed the main resource you have is healing surges. The rules limit the number you can spend in any one encounter so that you are unlikely to spend a third of them in any encounter. Therefore the RULES support the idea of having multiple encounters since it wouldn't be efficient to have a full rest with 60% of your resources unspent. (There are also action points and milestones which further encourage adventuring). If the rules themselves encourage multiple encounters then the players should learn to judge which encounter (and when in the encounter) to spend their daily's.


----------



## Primal (May 26, 2008)

Fallen Seraph said:
			
		

> I'm just gonna break down that post to show how it would work from a logical perspective:
> 
> Now of course this depends on the ability, we have seen some which only work on one size above and below.
> 
> ...




Yet the dragon does not avoid a fighter's greatsword in like manner? I wouldn't mind if the whole "forced movement" thing was done via some sort of combat "maneuvering" check -- it would make sense. But most of the stuff is not linked to anything like that -- you attack and if you hit, you inflict damage, and *then* the enemy is (as the result of the damage) pulled/slided/shifted. Sorry, but to me that tells that it's the actual *damage* of a successful attack which moves the opponent -- not the action or any sort of clever combat maneuvering (e.g. an Acrobatics check against REF or something).



> The warlord's abilities set up circumstances from which the other PCs can act, he sets up openings and such. So the other PCs can gain the chance to move and/or attack when normally they wouldn't. Same thing with the enemies, his abilities shove opponents out of the way or frightens them/disorganizes them.




And why can't a fighter try that? Or a paladin? Should be it allowed to do with an Insight check, and if not, what 'pseudo-magical' quality makes the Warlord able to "demoralize" opponents and seeing "openings" where even veteran fighters do not? Do you see my point here? For a more simulationist-minded the rules and the explanations just don't make sense.



> We already know this is not the case from the other thread. But it makes sense that a fighter be more able then say a Wizard for example in tripping more effectively and able to deal out additional effects then a Wizard. Since he has trained in doing so, thus he understands how to trip more effectively and deal additional effects, ie: Trip and then stomps on head.




More effective, yes, but that's not the case here -- the wizard, or a ranger/paladin/rogue/etc. cannot even *attempt* to trip an opponent, unless the DM allows the PC to try an improvised combat "stunt" (ATK vs. REF, I'd dare assume). And if that's possible, I wonder why the power exists in the first place?


----------



## AllisterH (May 26, 2008)

Imaro said:
			
		

> Yes, but look at it like this...
> 
> COMBAT 1: 5 pc's and 5 monsters( 8 hits for all)...daily used first
> 
> ...




I think right there you kinda shortchanged the monster. Most monsters have a basic attack but also a STRONGER attack as well at least on the order of an encounter power (even if it needs to be recharged). 5 monsters ganging up on one PC should be able to kill said PC in one round (the 1st level kobolds certainly can gank any one PC if they all surround one)

Again, it also only works if the situation allows for one monster to literally be gangpiled on. Which I don't think actually happens that often.


----------



## AllisterH (May 26, 2008)

Primal said:
			
		

> More effective, yes, but that's not the case here -- the wizard, or a ranger/paladin/rogue/etc. cannot even *attempt* to trip an opponent, unless the DM allows the PC to try an improvised combat "stunt" (ATK vs. REF, I'd dare assume). And if that's possible, I wonder why the power exists in the first place?





Trip wasn't used much as is. IMPROVED trip though was but it too effective in that a tricked out Tripper was uber-annoying until you had encounters where it once again because useless.

So, as a designer, you want to allow people to trip other people and make it a viable combat option instead of just swinging their sword, yet at the same time, not make it so effective that it gets done ALL the time.

That's probably why it became an encounter power. You can make it effective yet at the same time, not have it dominate combat.

As for the issue of "powers", I think there's a hint of pro-magic in these discussions in that nobody questions how a spell works because it's magic (and that's not an excuse. A proper simulation would have actual rules defining what magic can and can not do)


----------



## crosswiredmind (May 26, 2008)

Primal said:
			
		

> I think we may have a disagreement over what 'simulationism' entails. I see it meaning that the system models existing characters and the setting *realistically* and in detail.




D&D has never done this.  "To hit" has always been an abstraction for a series hot smaller swings and attacks.  "Hit points" have always been an abstraction for toughness, luck, experience, etc.  "AC" has always been an abstraction for the mobility and damage reduction provided by armor.  D&D has never been a realistic simulation at any level.



			
				Primal said:
			
		

> You see, the combat options in 4E are "class-specific" and work in very 'non-simulationist' way in my opinion -- for example, I can't just understand how the sliding/pushing stuff works from a logical POV. Does the rogue "empower" his weapons with kinetic energy, because he can slide even dragons or golems with certain attacks?




Or, perhaps like "to hit" has always simulated a series of attacks and parries the rogues ability is a result of a series of strikes and feints that shifts the relative positions of the combatants.



			
				Primal said:
			
		

> Does the warlord have some sort of "psychic control" over allies and opponents, as he can also move them around and grant them extra actions? And why only certain fighters can attempt to trip their opponents?




The Warlord is adept at command.  His ability is that of a tactician and a drill sergeant. He has the ability to command and help shape movement on the field.  And as to fighters and tripping - some have learned how to do it and some have not. 



			
				Primal said:
			
		

> All of the examples above only highlight the fact that 4E is moving away from whatever degree of 'simulationism' 3E achieved into a strictly "abstracted" combat in which balance and effectiveness and teamwork are the key issues and "realism" is ditched in the name of "fun". I see the end result being very much boardgame-y, but that's just my opinion.




There is no realism in 3e to be ditched.  What they have added in 4e is an abstract sense of movement on the battle field that is just as abstract in its execution as any combat element already in 3e.


----------



## Fallen Seraph (May 26, 2008)

Primal said:
			
		

> Yet the dragon does not avoid a fighter's greatsword in like manner? I wouldn't mind if the whole "forced movement" thing was done via some sort of combat "maneuvering" check -- it would make sense. But most of the stuff is not linked to anything like that -- you attack and if you hit, you inflict damage, and *then* the enemy is (as the result of the damage) pulled/slided/shifted. Sorry, but to me that tells that it's the actual *damage* of a successful attack which moves the opponent -- not the action or any sort of clever combat maneuvering (e.g. an Acrobatics check against REF or something).



It isn't that the damage is what causes the being to move (though in some cases it could, ie: kicked in the crouch you stumble back). It is simply a conglomeration of what the actions the Rogue takes in that turn. 

So the attack the damage and the shifting are all rolled into one complete whole. Essentially it does the same thing if you had multiple roles for each thing, it is just cut down to be faster/more elegant.

I think anyone who have experienced the shift in combat from oWoD to nWoD in terms of amount of dice used would agree with this view.

As for the Fighter, if the attack the fighter has doesn't cause shifting it is simply because during that turn of combat the Fighter didn't do anything to provoke the Dragon into moving.

The Powers and how they are used is simply a mechanical-shortcut to create a narrative throughout the combat session.


> And why can't a fighter try that? Or a paladin? Should be it allowed to do with an Insight check, and if not, what 'pseudo-magical' quality makes the Warlord able to "demoralize" opponents and seeing "openings" where even veteran fighters do not? Do you see my point here? For a more simulationist-minded the rules and the explanations just don't make sense.



Once more the "Insight Check" is within the usage of that combat power. 

So with a Warlord he is trained and focused on battlefield control and giving advantages to his allies and disadvantages to his enemies.

The Fighter yes can certainly cause openings and demorale the enemy outside of his "Powers", this goes into ordinary strategies the party employs. But during the period of him actually doing something, the Powers he has are focused on certain aspects and completing such aspects.

This is the whole point behind classes is to have a focus.



> More effective, yes, but that's not the case here -- the wizard, or a ranger/paladin/rogue/etc. cannot even *attempt* to trip an opponent, unless the DM allows the PC to try an improvised combat "stunt" (ATK vs. REF, I'd dare assume). And if that's possible, I wonder why the power exists in the first place?



Umm... Yes they can attempt a trip. We already know they can. It is a simple action, not something more complex that is combined into a single Power.

Thus why with a Fighters "Trip Power" he isn't simply tripping, he is tripping and stabbing the enemy in the gut.

Essentially Powers are a way to shorten and also highlight certain aspects of a class they be able to pull off and do easier then others. That are generally more complex or not the focus of another class.

If you want a class to do everything, as equally complex and with equal focus then.... Why are you playing a class based system at all? Or not allowing Fighters to naturally have the same abilities of a Wizard?


----------



## Primal (May 26, 2008)

AllisterH said:
			
		

> Trip wasn't used much as is. IMPROVED trip though was but it too effective in that a tricked out Tripper was uber-annoying until you had encounters where it once again because useless.
> 
> So, as a designer, you want to allow people to trip other people and make it a viable combat option instead of just swinging their sword, yet at the same time, not make it so effective that it gets done ALL the time.
> 
> ...




I've never claimed that D&D is a simulationist game at its core (it's highly gamist, if anything), or that 3E managed to implement simulationism better than, say, Riddle of Steel, Rolemaster or Hero. However, I *do* claim that 3E managed to do it better than 4E. As for magic, I'm a bit confused what you're after here -- I think 3E pretty much has more or less clear-cut rules on what magic can do and what it can't (unless you're referring to "limitations" such as Ars Magica has?). 

You're correct about Improved Trip, but I have a house-rule that using any "Combat Feats" (i.e. Sunder/Improved Trip/Improved Disarm/Stunning Fist et al.) is a *full-round* action. Now, if you want to use that uber-combo to down/disarm/stun your opponent with one attack, you have to sacrifice all your attacks to land that one powerful attack. It's a choice, and I feel it makes combat more "grittier" and a bit more realistic (i.e. you have to wait for the "perfect" moment). That once/encounter stuff is not very realistic, because even in a duel you may fall for the same trick more than twice (even if you pay attention to your opponent). And, it's nowhere near as "effective" as landing, say, three or four attacks on your opponent, but it may be tactically sound against certain opponents (and even the outcome is not certain).


----------



## hong (May 26, 2008)

Primal said:
			
		

> Yet the dragon does not avoid a fighter's greatsword in like manner? I wouldn't mind if the whole "forced movement" thing was done via some sort of combat "maneuvering" check -- it would make sense. But most of the stuff is not linked to anything like that -- you attack and if you hit, you inflict damage, and *then* the enemy is (as the result of the damage) pulled/slided/shifted. Sorry, but to me that tells that it's the actual *damage* of a successful attack which moves the opponent -- not the action or any sort of clever combat maneuvering (e.g. an Acrobatics check against REF or something).




You are solely responsible for your construction of the narrative.



> And why can't a fighter try that? Or a paladin?




Of course they can try that. They just have to take the appropriate game-mechanical feature that allows it.


----------



## Primal (May 26, 2008)

crosswiredmind said:
			
		

> D&D has never done this.  "To hit" has always been an abstraction for a series hot smaller swings and attacks.  "Hit points" have always been an abstraction for toughness, luck, experience, etc.  "AC" has always been an abstraction for the mobility and damage reduction provided by armor.  D&D has never been a realistic simulation at any level.




3E managed to implement *some* level of simulationism, but I agree that there are many systems which do it far better (see my reply above). Again, I never claimed that D&D has done it *well*, but IMO 3E does it better than 4E. Now, that is not inherently a bad thing -- as Keith Baker noted on the WoTC boards, 4E may not be a "better" system for simulationist-minded groups. Yet I agree with him that it *is* D&D and for gamers who do not mind about lesser degree of simulationism it may work far better than 3E ever did.

You're correct that (A)D&D combat was very abstract in nature (e.g. combat rounds lasted a minute and consisted of several attacks, ripostes, parries, dodges, etc.), yet 3E -- as I've noted -- added more simulationist aspects to it. It never achieved "realism", though.



> Or, perhaps like "to hit" has always simulated a series of attacks and parries the rogues ability is a result of a series of strikes and feints that shifts the relative positions of the combatants.




It did in AD&D, as I mentioned above, although it felt odd when you suprised and backstabbed a guard, for example... you still fought with him for a minute and yet he didn't have the chance to raise alarm! 
So that's probably the reason why 3E rounds were "shortened" to represent a smaller time scale and fewer actions.



> The Warlord is adept at command.  His ability is that of a tactician and a drill sergeant. He has the ability to command and help shape movement on the field.  And as to fighters and tripping - some have learned how to do it and some have not.




Any fighter or paladin could also become a master tactician and/or a drill sergeant with full understanding and command of movement on the field. Yet they can't grant extra actions to their allies or control their movements. 

Tripping... in 3E, at least my scrawny wizard or destrous rogue could *try* to trip his opponents, although it wasn't probably very wise under most circumstances. Now, taking Improved Trip represented the training, and any sort of mechanical "abuse" seemed to disappear when you made it a full-round action. 



> There is no realism in 3e to be ditched.  What they have added in 4e is an abstract sense of movement on the battle field that is just as abstract in its execution as any combat element already in 3e.




Oh, there's some realism in 3E, although it's not actually a simulationist system (as I've stated above). And I think there's much more abstraction to 4E combat, since it's quite clear that they've stepped away (and even admitted doing so) from any level of simulationism 3E achieved.


----------



## hong (May 26, 2008)

Primal said:
			
		

> You're correct about Improved Trip, but I have a house-rule that using any "Combat Feats" (i.e. Sunder/Improved Trip/Improved Disarm/Stunning Fist et al.) is a *full-round* action. Now, if you want to use that uber-combo to down/disarm/stun your opponent with one attack, you have to sacrifice all your attacks to land that one powerful attack.




... or you could just play 4E. Seems to save an awful lot of house ruling.


----------



## crosswiredmind (May 26, 2008)

Primal said:
			
		

> Oh, there's some realism in 3E, although it's not actually a simulationist system (as I've stated above). And I think there's much more abstraction to 4E combat, since it's quite clear that they've stepped away (and even admitted doing so) from any level of simulationism 3E achieved.




It must be a relativistic thing.  I played RuneQuest most of my gaming life (which started in 1976).  Compared to RQ - 1e, 2e, 3e, and 4e are all completely abstract and I just don't see the fine distinctions that you see.

I guess this is just one of those agree to disagree things.


----------



## Hussar (May 26, 2008)

ExploderWizard said:
			
		

> I think the major point of contention is the definition of tactics in this case. There is old school fantasy combat tactics and the newer "role" based tactics. In both cases good teamwork is beneficial. The "role" version forces teamwork in a very specific manner. Each role has a defined subset of tasks that must be performed in order to do the very best both mathematically and tactically. I can see this as exciting for tabletop skirmishing but getting old in an extended campaign. Classes are already limiting by themselves without adding a the role layer to that.




I think this may have been addressed earlier, but, I really don't understand this.  How does calling attention to the roles which have always existed, suddenly change the tactics?

Also, why do each tasks need to be performed in a particular order in order to be the best?  I suppose it makes sense that you would trip first and then bludgeon the baddy, but, that's always been true.  Or you would open the combat with an area of effect spell then charge in.  Again, that's unchanged.

Can you elaborate on what you mean?

Imaro - I think you are taking a fairly simplistic view of encounter design.  In all honestly, it sounds an awful lot like a 3e design - each encounter is self contained, does not overlap with other encounters and all of the actors in that encounter are known at the beginning.

This is certainly true in the vast majority of modules designed for 3e that I've seen.

4e seems to be moving away from that, from what we've seen.  Your encounter should span a number of areas, with various actors entering the combat at various times.  In the GRZ podcast, they mention the Lurker role for monsters - something that hasn't been exploited as much in 3e.  So, you open the door to the room, see the four undead and think, "Hey, 3 standards and an elite" and open up with your dailies.  

Only, you can't tell which one is elite, so, which one do you blast with a daily?  And, then it's the monster's turn and suddenly, even though you've blasted two of the baddies with your dailies, a fifth monster pops out of the woodwork (like the wraith can do) and now your dailies are expended.  

Plus, you might just have blown dailies on minions.  Maybe those four baddies are just minions - zombie minions for example, and you've just dusted them all, only to find that those four brutes come crashing out of their coffins.

Opening with dailies in the first round requires you to have a fair bit of knowledge about the fight in front of you.  It might very well be that you will do so sometimes.  Particularly if you are ambushing someone for example.  But, I highly, highly doubt that it will be the best option in every fight.

In 3e, where encounters were typically self contained, with the actors known beforehand, combined with the fact that any of those actors can kill you in one round, it made perfect sense to blow through your big weapons ASAP.  The fight was likely only going to last three, four rounds anyway, so, use it or lose it.

We know that fights are meant to last much longer now.  Your example gives the monsters WAY too much firepower.  At no point should the PC's be facing creatures of equal power.  You have the baddies killing the PC's in the same amount of hits that the PC's require to kill the baddies.  I think you will find that encounters should never be that powerful.  

Again, I think it's a 3e prejudice, where it was likely true that a given monster could kill a given PC with equal numbers of rounds of attacks.  In other words (cos that's an ugly sentence) a CR 10 monster that takes 8 hits to kill, could probably kill a Lvl 10 PC in 8 attacks.  We know that this isn't true in 4e.  A monster that takes 8 hits to kill probably requires significantly more attacks to kill a PC.  Why?  Because the monsters aren't meant to be fought alone, like 3e monsters were.  

So, your dogpiling monsters will likely take two or three rounds to kill a PC with standard attacks, while the PC's can likely do it in half the time.

I think that's where your example goes wrong.


----------



## ExploderWizard (May 26, 2008)

Cheesepie said:
			
		

> What exactly is "old school fantasy combat tactics" and how does 4E no longer qualify as this? Other than its non-old-school-ness, of course!




Old school tactics are simply battle maneuvers that take place somewhat in a world with consistent physical laws. If you want to get a monster's attention you have to do something to grab it instead of "activate a sticky power" to do so.  If you want to protect softer party members, you have to find a defensible position.


----------



## Mister Doug (May 26, 2008)

ExploderWizard said:
			
		

> Old school tactics are simply battle maneuvers that take place somewhat in a world with consistent physical laws. If you want to get a monster's attention you have to do something to grab it instead of "activate a sticky power" to do so.  If you want to protect softer party members, you have to find a defensible position.




Of course, those old-school tactics only work as much as the DM allows it to. There is not consistency with physical laws within the rules, only within the DM's ad-hoc adjustment of the game and the ability of players to learn to maintain consistency with the DM's interpretation of how things work. There was no way, for instance, to stop the goblins from running past the front-line fighters to attack the softer wizard unless the DM agreed that the goblins had to stop because the position was defensible and the fighters couldn't be overrun.

There is a value to arguing that looser, less-defined systems to allow DMs to insert a set of tactical factors not defined by the rules, but that doesn't mean that the rules support those tactics directly.


----------



## Imaro (May 26, 2008)

Hussar said:
			
		

> I
> Imaro - I think you are taking a fairly simplistic view of encounter design.  In all honestly, it sounds an awful lot like a 3e design - each encounter is self contained, does not overlap with other encounters and all of the actors in that encounter are known at the beginning.
> 
> This is certainly true in the vast majority of modules designed for 3e that I've seen.
> ...




Okay, let me address a few points.  Given that there is no sign on a minions back that says "Minion" how do you ever determine if they are minions, you could again hold onto your daily and still blow it on a minion.  Also given that minions are constructed to viably threaten PC's...why does it matter if you use your dailies to kill them.  You still reduced the number of attacks that can come at your party.  In fact even if 20 more goblins come rushing into a room...you still reduced the number of attacks you have to deal with.  I think alot of people are missing this very important point...You have reduced the number of actiona against as well as the amount of damage in a quicker span of time that can affect your party as a whole.

As far as the power level of monsters...what about elites or other types that are as powerful or moreso than the PC's .  I think you are making a very general and broad assumption that I do not believe (especially looking at the kobolds vs. 1st level PC's) will not necesssarily be true.  But we'll see on June 6th.


----------



## hong (May 26, 2008)

ExploderWizard said:
			
		

> Old school tactics are simply battle maneuvers that take place somewhat in a world with consistent physical laws.




4E has perfectly consistent physical laws.



> If you want to get a monster's attention you have to do something to grab it instead of "activate a sticky power" to do so.




In 4E, if you want to get a monster's attention you grab it by activating a sticky power.




> If you want to protect softer party members, you have to find a defensible position.




In 4E, if you want to protect softer party members, you tell them to find a more defensible position.


----------



## hong (May 26, 2008)

Imaro said:
			
		

> Okay, let me address a few points.  Given that there is no sign on a minions back that says "Minion" how do you ever determine if they are minions, you could again hold onto your daily and still blow it on a minion.




You determine it in exactly the same way you determine who is the 1HD orc warrior grunt and who is the 15HD orc barbarian chieftain.


----------



## Mistwell (May 26, 2008)

Henry said:
			
		

> You do realize don't you that you've just created the perfect analogy for the people complaining that 4e won't let them run the kinds of games they like? If the fork won't ever let you consume soup, then it's all the more reason to ditch the fork.
> 
> It's very possible that 4e won't work for what he used to use 3e for.




Yes Henry, that was my point.  He tried to use 4e rules to replicate a 3e game.  If 3e was the perfect system for him, 4e won't work as well for the types of games he likes.  

However, most people do not think 3e was the perfect system.  

If he does think 3e was the perfect system, then obviously he should use that system for his games.


----------



## RigaMortus2 (May 26, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> [off-topic]
> But such a "vow" to not do something reminds me of myself as a child.
> "No, I don't want to try the salad! I will hate it!" "At least try it!" "Grr." *puts tiny amount of food in mouth* "See, don't like it!" "Okay, at least you tried." (And this would happen regardless how much I'd might like the new taste. I couldn't just go back and say "You know, I was wrong). Ah, well, that was me as a child...
> [/off-topic]




Haha, sounds like me (both as a child and presently...

I just discovered the wonderful world of Sushi (although, I only do the spicy tuna roll...  still afraid to try other types, but ya got to start somewhere.)


----------



## AndrewRogue (May 26, 2008)

ExploderWizard said:
			
		

> Of course classes have always been limited by thier selection of abilities, the addition of a role just adds more.




This is fairly arguable when you consider what realistically constitutes an option. I'll yield that, in the most literal sense with the most open classes? Sure. Generally though, I'm not seeing a huge decrease in options.



> I agree that jack of all trades types in a class based game never work out very well.




They suck pretty hard in point buy games too. Even real life isn't too kind to them. 



> A fighter could be a swashbucker with a high DEX, a lighter weapon and a selection of feats that supported this concept and didn't have to be a heavy tank.




Of course, the only way to really have this option be supported is to multiclass and PrC. Core Fighter doesn't make a great light fighter. But, then again, why should every class necessarily need to support multiple play styles? Why can't there be... say... multiple classes dedicated to filling out multiple concepts.

Like, say, a class for heavy types who are all defendery and a class for the swift and clever swashbuckler?

To simplify the question... why does the Fighter (class) have to be able to support both archetypes, when the swashbuckler type is better supported by the Rogue (class). Your class title isn't everything. It is simply the means to an end. 



> A rogue could be a second story type of lockpicking wizard who only engaged in combat as a last resort.




I don't see anything stopping you from doing this in 4th. Feel free to ignore your combat abilities and suck it up in a fight. Again, this isn't new. Even a diplomatic scoundrel who barely ever touched a weapon, spent all his time talking his way out of problems and the like still had a 3/4 BAB and 10d6 worth of sneak attack under his belt. 



> If by streamlining you meant pigeonholing a character concept into the most efficient combat model possible then I guess 4E did a pretty thorough job.




Show me a concept that can be realized in the core of 3rd that is somehow explicitly prohibited by the 4th Ed design model, and I'll give this to you.


----------



## Brown Jenkin (May 26, 2008)

Mistwell said:
			
		

> Yes Henry, that was my point.  He tried to use 4e rules to replicate a 3e game.  If 3e was the perfect system for him, 4e won't work as well for the types of games he likes.
> 
> However, most people do not think 3e was the perfect system.
> 
> If he does think 3e was the perfect system, then obviously he should use that system for his games.




I agree wholeheardedly. What gets me though is the number of people not just telling me to use a fork instead of a spoon, but that the soup I'm eating isn't any good.


----------



## Imaro (May 26, 2008)

hong said:
			
		

> You determine it in exactly the same way you determine who is the 1HD orc warrior grunt and who is the 15HD orc barbarian chieftain.




Uhmm...and that would be...


----------



## smetzger (May 26, 2008)

elijah snow said:
			
		

> 1. The Rules: The rules don't feel like 3e at all, and frankly don't seem any more "streamlined" on first glance. This is essentially a new game system. It's not unlike the feeling I got when I picked up Dark Heresy or Solomon Kane - my eyes just kind of glazed over the rules, and I'm pretty adept at all three previous editions. And the replacement/redefined rules seem clunky. Is it really easier to categorize monsters by type and by minion/lurker/fodder/whatever?




So far, the rules don't feel like D&D to me.  Or at least they don't seem to be enough of an improvement for me to never play 3.5 again.

When 3.0 came out it was a breath of fresh air and I would never play 2.0 again.  

With 4.0 it doesn't seem to be a replacement for 3.5 but rather a different way to play D&D.  

In conclusion, without having played 4.0, I will play 4.0 but it has not completely replaced 3.5 and I will still play 3.5 given the chance.


----------



## hong (May 26, 2008)

Imaro said:
			
		

> Uhmm...and that would be...



 So. Tell me how you determine who is the 1HD orc warrior grunt and who is the 15HD orc barbarian chieftain.


----------



## Hussar (May 26, 2008)

Imaro said:
			
		

> Okay, let me address a few points.  Given that there is no sign on a minions back that says "Minion" how do you ever determine if they are minions, you could again hold onto your daily and still blow it on a minion.  Also given that minions are constructed to viably threaten PC's...why does it matter if you use your dailies to kill them.  You still reduced the number of attacks that can come at your party.  In fact even if 20 more goblins come rushing into a room...you still reduced the number of attacks you have to deal with.  I think alot of people are missing this very important point...You have reduced the number of actiona against as well as the amount of damage in a quicker span of time that can affect your party as a whole.
> 
> As far as the power level of monsters...what about elites or other types that are as powerful or moreso than the PC's .  I think you are making a very general and broad assumption that I do not believe (especially looking at the kobolds vs. 1st level PC's) will not necesssarily be true.  But we'll see on June 6th.




But, you're assuming that the daily power is an area affect.  If a daily simply does scads of damage to a single target, then blowing it on a minion actually doesn't make things any faster.  You haven't reduced the number of attacks against you any more than if you had used an at-will power.  

Only solos are actually more powerful than a PC.  Even elites won't be.  One elite is still only 2/5ths of an encounter.  Remember, that encounter, presuming its an appropriate level encounter and not way above the party, assumes that the aggregate of all actors will still be weaker than the entire party.  An elite might be close to a single PC, but, still will likely be weaker since you're supposed to have three other actors there.  The elite might be twice as powerful as the regular monster, but, he's still not more powerful than a single PC.

Actually, powerful is the wrong word.  Durable is probably a better word.  It should never be to the point where the baddies can kill the PC's as easily as the PC's can kill the baddies.  This is the primary mistake that was made in 3e.  Baddies did too much damage.  You absolutely HAD to kill the baddies as fast as possible, because if you didn't, you died.  Letting a baddie get two or three full attacks on a PC meant a dead PC, barring emergency healing.

We know that this isn't true in 4e.  The PC's are considerably more durable for one and the monsters do less damage each for another.  

Again, you are making assumptions here that aren't based in what we know.  You assume that daily powers affect multiple targets, and that you can catch large numbers of targets in area of effect powers as well.  Neither of that is necessarily true.  You also assume that all the actors in a given combat will be known a the beginning of the combat, allowing the players to optimally decide when to use their dailies.  You also assume that dailies will always be effective as well, when we've seen examples like Sleep, where it has been less then stellar.  You also assume that dailies do damage.

There's a whole bag full of assumptions there and none of them are really rooted in any concrete examples.


----------



## AllisterH (May 26, 2008)

One point I disagree with is that an elite isn't more powerful than a PC of the same level.

I'm thinking it is probably worth just under 1.5 times worth the value of a PC.


----------



## Imaro (May 26, 2008)

Hussar said:
			
		

> Again, you are making assumptions here that aren't based in what we know.  You assume that daily powers affect multiple targets, and that you can catch large numbers of targets in area of effect powers as well.  Neither of that is necessarily true.  You also assume that all the actors in a given combat will be known a the beginning of the combat, allowing the players to optimally decide when to use their dailies.  You also assume that dailies will always be effective as well, when we've seen examples like Sleep, where it has been less then stellar.  You also assume that dailies do damage.
> 
> There's a whole bag full of assumptions there and none of them are really rooted in any concrete examples.




No, I don't make any of these assumptions you list...first, the original argumnet was posed on certain criteria where certain abilities represented "hits", but it wasn't my assumption.  Secondly I don't assume you can catch large numbers of opponents in area of effect powers...I assume the PC's will coordinate to eliminate one target rather than displace damage amongst numerous targets, which is dooable.  

Once again, I don't assume optimization of when to use a daily...my whole argument is based around releasing the daily power first.  And in my argument one of the crux is that it doesn't matter how many opponents arrive later since there will always, no matter if you use a daily in the first round or fifth round, a finite number of opponents in an encounter.

Last but not least, again the original argument set the parameters in which to judge the powwers on.  There is no guarantee any of the powers will go off successfully, but that is irrelevant in determining a most likely scenario for success since nothing but chance determines if that is the case.  In discussing this randomness can not be accounted for, a player could roll a series of ones through a whole combat,  but does that in anyway determine how tactically sound his judgement was.


----------



## IanArgent (May 26, 2008)

hong said:
			
		

> In MY day, generic food metaphors used peanut butter and ice cream, and we LIKED it.




By an odd coincidence, my favorite flavor of ice cream involves peanut butter...

Me, I'm going for the analogy of the D&D gendandkenspace being a stew - it has chunks and it has liquid, veggies and meat, and what you get out of it depends very much on what you're using to eat it with. Me, I plan on using a spork and some bread on the side to sop up the leftover juices...


----------



## IanArgent (May 26, 2008)

smetzger said:
			
		

> So far, the rules don't feel like D&D to me.  Or at least they don't seem to be enough of an improvement for me to never play 3.5 again.
> 
> When 3.0 came out it was a breath of fresh air and I would never play 2.0 again.
> 
> ...





No I've been a big booster of 4E around here, but I can certainly agree with this - it is a ifferent system, not just a better system. Given my druthers, I'd _play_ 3.5 again. What I won't do is _run_ it - I found that to be too much tedious work.


----------



## Hussar (May 27, 2008)

Imaro said:
			
		

> No, I don't make any of these assumptions you list...first, the original argumnet was posed on certain criteria where certain abilities represented "hits", but it wasn't my assumption.  Secondly I don't assume you can catch large numbers of opponents in area of effect powers...I assume the PC's will coordinate to eliminate one target rather than displace damage amongst numerous targets, which is dooable.
> 
> Once again, I don't assume optimization of when to use a daily...my whole argument is based around releasing the daily power first.  And in my argument one of the crux is that it doesn't matter how many opponents arrive later since there will always, no matter if you use a daily in the first round or fifth round, a finite number of opponents in an encounter.
> 
> Last but not least, again the original argument set the parameters in which to judge the powwers on.  There is no guarantee any of the powers will go off successfully, but that is irrelevant in determining a most likely scenario for success since nothing but chance determines if that is the case.  In discussing this randomness can not be accounted for, a player could roll a series of ones through a whole combat,  but does that in anyway determine how tactically sound his judgement was.




Sorry, I attributed the assumptions to you.  But, the fact is, you are still following those flawed assumptions, whether you originated them or not.

See, while there is a finite number of opponents, leading with dailies isn't always going to be the best answer.  Overkilling weaker opponents means that stronger opponents last longer.  So, blowing all your dailies on the soldiers just means that the elite is going to be that much harder to take down.

On the elite being 1.5 of a PC.  I highly, highly doubt it.  An elite shouldn't be doing 150% the damage of a PC.  That's too much.  That's what made 3e combat so swingy.  The elite will do more damage, true, but, it will not be even equal damage to what the PC is doing.  It can't be since the monsters will already start from a position of having more hit points.  If the Monster has more HP's than a given PC, and then does significantly more damage than a single PC, then he's going to be killing PC's.


----------



## LcKedovan (May 27, 2008)

I guess from what I've been reading, from a few places and from both sides, is that combat takes longer and is more battlemat intensive. For me, if I wanted D&D Miniatures I would have bought that game. It really appears to me that things are very much more of a boardgame or tabletop than previous editions and that is not really my game of imagination. If I want tabletop I'll play Warhammer Fantasy battle or some other game, if I want a compter game then I'll go with that.

That said maybe I'm getting the wrong impression from other people's impressions....

For me WotC did something unforgiveable with Dragon and Dungeon and it is really hard for me to find a reason to even look at 4e let alone spend hard earned (and these days hard to come by) cash on it.

-W.


----------



## carmachu (May 28, 2008)

Transit said:
			
		

> But how can you have that opinion?  You haven't seen "4e" yet, only the preview adventure. That's like judging a movie from a teaser trailer.





Why is it when someone is critical of something 4e, we keep seeing folks trot out the tired excuse of "you havent seen 4e yet?

KotS is their very first shot at showcasing 4e. Its not exactly inspiring from what other people have said in  reading it:

Heck even orcus has a complaint or two.

Wotc should have done a better job with the preview out of the gate.


----------



## Hussar (May 28, 2008)

carmachu said:
			
		

> Why is it when someone is critical of something 4e, we keep seeing folks trot out the tired excuse of "you havent seen 4e yet?
> 
> KotS is their very first shot at showcasing 4e. Its not exactly inspiring from what other people have said in  reading it:
> 
> ...




To be fair though, it also depends on the intellectual honesty of the reviewer as well.  We've seen a number of reviews starting from very, very hostile positions, which is going to skew the review heavily as well.  I've seen more than a few "reviews" start with, "I hate 4e, I'm going to stick with 3.x/Pathfinder/whatever but, I bought this 4e product and now I'm going to spew vitriol all over it."  Less common have been reviews starting with, "I love the idea of 4e, I'm going to change to 4e no matter what, now, listen as I sing the praises of the new edition."

I'm sure they're there, they just haven't really stuck out as much in my mind as the former kind of review.

Whether the preview is good or not, depends on a lot of things.  Claiming, at this point, that the preview is a failure is somewhat premature.  If nothing else, the level of buzz it generated makes it a success.  How many modules can you think of that have every board dedicated to D&D talking about it?


----------



## carmachu (May 28, 2008)

Hussar said:
			
		

> To be fair though, it also depends on the intellectual honesty of the reviewer as well.  We've seen a number of reviews starting from very, very hostile positions, which is going to skew the review heavily as well.  I've seen more than a few "reviews" start with, "I hate 4e, I'm going to stick with 3.x/Pathfinder/whatever but, I bought this 4e product and now I'm going to spew vitriol all over it."  Less common have been reviews starting with, "I love the idea of 4e, I'm going to change to 4e no matter what, now, listen as I sing the praises of the new edition."




The problem is.....as much as some gronads complain without looking, I see WAY too may pro-4e folks jump like rabid wolverines on any criticism. 

KotS was subpar for their very first release to showcase 4e. I wont say failure, becuase folks are buying it. But everything I heard makes me put money back in teh wallet rather than shell it out.


----------



## Hussar (May 28, 2008)

carmachu said:
			
		

> The problem is.....as much as some gronads complain without looking, I see WAY too may pro-4e folks jump like rabid wolverines on any criticism.
> 
> KotS was subpar for their very first release to showcase 4e. I wont say failure, becuase folks are buying it. But everything I heard makes me put money back in teh wallet rather than shell it out.




Why do you consider it subpar, keeping in mind the limitations (no core books to reference, page count, pregen characters, module format) that they were under?


----------



## carmachu (May 28, 2008)

Hussar said:
			
		

> Why do you consider it subpar, keeping in mind the limitations (no core books to reference, page count, pregen characters, module format) that they were under?





Judging by various reviews of it, even from very pro-4e people. Their words, keep in mind, for a $30 price tag(or a bit cheaper on amazon):

"I really think the adventure is generic. Come on, arent we all about done fighting kobolds for goodness sake. There are ways to spice things up a bit. The dungeon is generic. The themes basic. There is no real interaction of note in the village. It is a very underwhelming adventure."

"The "adventure book" doesnt have a cover, it is just saddle stitched cheesy flimsy paper. Really disappointing. For a company that has been all about usability at the game table for 4E, that was a MAJOR disappointment for me."

"The quality of the paper is annoying at this cost level. Smudges all over the place and boy does it pick up finger prints. "

"There is not alot of content there. Very little in the way of roleplaying. Just lots of encounters strung together. Its like a bad movie script. Does very little to show off the great things about 4E, which I think is a shame. Clearly, the DMG wasnt done when they wrote this thing. The DMG has a real cool trap stat block. This adventure doesnt use it. Rushed. Weak. Unoriginal. Flimsy. Linear. Forced."


minor one:

"Mini intensive. Okay, maybe it's me but if I'm in charge of Dungeons of Dread, I make sure that the starter set has all of the pregenerated players and major bad guys as opposed to some interesting figs that really don't matter to anything outside of themselves. The first encounter is with eight enemies. This doesn't count the PC's so we're up to 13 minis for the first encounter. "



Those are just some I've read, for your VERY FIRST product out the door as a showcase 4e. Its not a product that seems to jump out at me, grab me and say "WOW!"

Forget that it doesnt have complete 4e rules. Or reference....its the first 4e product that showcases it. Its quality seems subpar from the reviews thus far as a product.


----------



## carmachu (May 28, 2008)

Hussar:

Someone elsewhere made an interesting point.....


"The big error was this should have been out a month or two ago, now, so close to the rules being released its function is diminished as you can just get a PHB at the same cost to get a feel for the game over having this. That alone makes it not worth it in my opinion."


----------



## Steely Dan (May 28, 2008)

carmachu said:
			
		

> Come on, arent we all about done fighting kobolds for goodness sake.




Funnily enough, in my 20 years or so with this bizarre game, I have yet to experience an encounter with kobolds, as a DM or player, though to be fair, I'm almost always the DM, so I guess that says something.

…That I was burnt on kobolds (and orcs – never used them) pretty much the day I got in on this game.

But I am disappointed to hear about _KotS_, I was going to pick it up at _The London Dungeon_ on the 6th of June along with my core bundle, but now I'm not sure.

I have never run pre-generated anything (modules, NPCs, towns etc), so once I have the actual books it will be of absolutely no use to me.


----------

