# 11 Reasons Why I Prefer D&D 4E



## Jürgen Hubert (Aug 28, 2008)

Crossposted from my blog.


*No long-term advance planning for PC character development.* No longer do players have to worry how _precisely_ to build their characters at first level when they want to take a specific prestige class twelve levels later. Now they can take character advancement one level at a time.
*Easier high-level PC creation.* Creating high-level PCs - whether to replace an existing character or to start a campaign at a high level in the first place - is now simplicity in itself. You do no longer have to worry about what choices your character made at lower level - thanks to retraining, it's easy to justify the current character feats, powers, and skills. Similarly, picking magic items is easy - you start with three items with specific levels, and have some spare cash over to purchase weaker items.
*Fighters are now actually interesting.* In 3.5, Fighters usually did little more than doing the same attacks over and over again, and their only real tactical choices involved _which_ enemy to hit. No longer - they now have a variety of options as large as that of the other classes.
*Less-complex high-level spellcasters.* Once your player characters hit double digits, deciding which spells your high-level wizards, clerics, and druids choose every day became a real chore, and it frequently held up the game while the players of these characters made up their mind. No longer - even wizards, who still can make some choices in that regard, now spend much less time on figuring out their daily spell lists.
*No class is useless in a specific fight.* Who doesn't know the frustration of a rogue in a fight that involved constructs or undead? Or of a monk in a fight that involved only monsters with the "wrong" type of damage resistance? Or of a wizard when all the enemies had high spell resistances? Some classes were pretty much ineffective against certain kinds of enemies, leaving their players frustrated when an adventure featured them strongly. This is now pretty much _gone_, and for this I am grateful.
*Rituals.* Separating most of the non-combat spells into rituals was a stroke of genius. Now the list of available rituals can be modified at the DM's leisure without giving a specific class too much power or taking too much power away from it. It also makes it easier for world-builders - they no longer have to take hundreds of spell effects into account when figuring out how magic may have impacted society. Conversely, since you do no longer have to be a high-level member of a specific class when you want to cast specific rituals, it's easy to justify NPCs who can cast individual rituals without making them into powerful combat spellcasters, turning them into "support roles" within the adventure without having to explain why _they_ don't defeat the enemies of the local community instead of the PCs.
*Skill challenges.* Skill challenges are a blast to run. They allow the DM to say: "I think _these_ skills would be the most appropriate in this situation, but feel free to convince me of the appropriateness of other skills at well." This allows the PCs to get really creative with their skill uses and gives them a level of narrative control that I was really surprised seeing in a D&D edition.
*Minions.* Minions are lots of fun for the DM. They allow me to "swarm" the player characters without overwhelming them, or without making me keep track of the hit points of large numbers of enemies. Back in 3.5, having two dozen enemies attack the PCs at once was a logistic nightmare. Now, it's no problem at all.
*Easier high-level NPC creation.* In D&D 3.5, I was so frustrated with how much time I spent on creating high-level NPCs - time I could have used on developing the actual plot of the adventure - that I even created a Wiki to have better access to a large number of NPCs (ironically, the wiki became a huge hit while I soon afterwards abandoned D&D 3.5 for other RPGs...). But now, creating high-level NPCs is even easier than creating high-level PCs. Thanks to the straightforward level bonus, calculating derived stats is a snap that doesn't even involve looking up a variety of tables, and giving them specific powers is a straightforward process which doesn't take up much time.
*Easier monster creation/modification.* Building and modifying monsters now is much easier. For my playtest adventure, I built an Aufhocker, a fey creature from German mythology that jumps on the backs of people and frightens them to near-death, and I was astonished how easy the process was. 3.5 sorely lacked such detailed guidelines.
*In-depth discussion on building encounters and monster roles.* The chapter on building encounters and monster roles in the DMG is one of the most impressive pieces of GMing advice I have seen in _any_ RPG. The CRs in 3.5 were extremely vague in comparison. Lengthily explaining how different types of monsters interact with each other in a fight, and giving them according roles that they are built around irrespective of origin was a stroke of genius!

By all means, please feel free to debate.


----------



## Khuxan (Aug 28, 2008)

Rather than debate you, since I agree with much of what you said, I'd rather ask a question I think is more interesting: 

What don't you like about 4E D&D?

For a while after 4E came out I was disillusioned because I had expected it to be perfect. I became much more interested in the indie game _Reign_ (Greg Stolze), and I felt that 4E was soulless. I think 4E captures the spirit of Dungeons and Dragons perfectly, and I had a great session DMing 4E. But I felt like there was something missing. 

So that's why I ask - because as much as I like 4E, I cannot escape the feeling it's missing something.


----------



## Particle_Man (Aug 28, 2008)

Jürgen Hubert said:


> [*]*No long-term advance planning for PC character development.* No longer do players have to worry how _precisely_ to build their characters at first level when they want to take a specific prestige class twelve levels later. Now they can take character advancement one level at a time.




I disagree.  The initial ability score point-buy must take into account what feats (heroic, paragon and epic) one will want to have that have certain ability score prerequisites, because usually you will one to focus the most frequent ability score increases on two stats, and the other 4 stats may be the prerequisites in question.

This may matter more to some classes than others, but I certainly noticed it with my wizard.


----------



## Jürgen Hubert (Aug 28, 2008)

Khuxan said:


> Rather than debate you, since I agree with much of what you said, I'd rather ask a question I think is more interesting:
> 
> What don't you like about 4E D&D?




Here are a few things that come to mind:


*Too few classes.* I would have preferred it if they had used a smaller font size and packed more information into the books. I'm missing druids, bards, and monks, and would have preferred to see them in the PHBI instead of having to wait for the PHBII. I didn't buy many rules supplements with D&D 3.5 (I consider setting books to be more interesting) and would have preferred to do the same with D&D 4E.
*Too few rituals.* While I like the overall _concept_ of rituals, there were a great number of flavorful spells that could have easily been translated into 4E rituals with little work and without hurting game balance. The current list of rituals is much too short for my tastes.
*Where are the metallic dragons?* While I can live with most of the changes in the monster rooster in the MM, I would have preferred the metallic dragons to be included.
*Loss of scope within the classes.* Fighters are now _melee_ fighters. Wizards have little in the way of illusion, summoning, and necromantic powers. While some classes - especially the martial ones - have gained a _lot_ more options (and the "ranged fighter" archetype is now sufficiently filled by the ranger), some archetypes can no longer be built within the existing classes. This wouldn't have been a problem if new classes had been created to fill those archetypes, but again, the number of classes in the PHB is sadly limited.

Apart from that, all I can think of is fairly minor stuff (for example, in our playtest game we found out that Needlefang Drake Swams are _grossly_ overpowered for their level...).


----------



## Monkey Boy (Aug 28, 2008)

Hi Jurgen,

Are you asking for feedback on your 11 reasons? Or asking for people to give their own 11 reasons? Just to mix things up here's my top 11 things I don't like from 5 sessions of play and 2 as DM. 

11. Characters too similar. Few choices make it hard to differentiate.
10. Some at will abilities are no brainers. Ranger I am looking at you.
9. Tieflings and Dragonborn being shoehorned into established settings.
8. the presence of golden-spray icefrost adepts style language (thankfully this was toned down)
7. Dungeon and Dragon no longer in print
6. Low level combat falls back to the same powers over and over. My warlord very rarely does anything other than his 'here have another go' power as it is simply too effective to do anything else.
5. HP inflation, combats simply take too long.
4. Eladrin artwork. 
3. skill challenges - I think these are poorly explained. 
2. Paizo not onboard making it unlikely we will see mature adventures.
1. Magic items boring and limited.

My group are playing 4e now and having fun but I am leaning more and more towards savage worlds after each session.


----------



## amethal (Aug 28, 2008)

Nice to see a positive post about things you like about 4th edition.

It has certainly helped me to explain to myself why I am not so keen on 4th edition, because what you like about it are generally not things that particularly bother me. If they had added rituals and skill challenges to 3.5, that game would have been perfect 

Have you read Dungeonscape? That has guidance on creating encounters, monster roles and the like. Does anyone know if the 4th edition discussion builds on that, or if its a new thing for the new edition?


----------



## Jürgen Hubert (Aug 28, 2008)

Monkey Boy said:


> Hi Jurgen,
> 
> Are you asking for feedback on your 11 reasons? Or asking for people to give their own 11 reasons?




Whichever you prefer, frankly. I intend this to be an open debate.




> 9. Tieflings and Dragonborn being shoehorned into established settings.
> 7. Dungeon and Dragon no longer in print
> 4. Eladrin artwork.
> 2. Paizo not onboard making it unlikely we will see mature adventures.




I wanted to focus on the actual rules themselves. As for point 9, I cannot comment on that yet since I've barely started reading the new FR campaign setting - the only setting presently in print where this issue could apply at the moment.

For the development of my own Urbis, the new races actually worked out fairly well. I'm glad that I hit on the idea of Zionist Dragonborn, and the eladrin made the existing elven realms _much_ more interesting...



> 8. the presence of golden-spray icefrost adepts style language (thankfully this was toned down)




What do you mean with this?


----------



## vagabundo (Aug 28, 2008)

I agree with this list. I'm enjoying my DMing - on and off the table - a lot more these days.

However - whats missing - something is missing from 4e. It is not a race or class or spell. I think the homogenisation of the classes through the power structure has taken a little of the mechanical flavour from the game. 

I also find that i'm defaulting to a mini - well counters in my case - wargaming mode when I am DMing. I think it is an easy trap to fall into because 4e is so mechanically beautiful and easy to run I dont have the "oh no not comabt" feeling I had for the last few years running 3e. 

It is something I am going to change, more ad hoc skill challenges and a little more random, non treatening NPC encounters and some mini-less encounters - lets play old skool guys - for smaller more minor combats.

Saying that, my players have not noticed and they love the new classes and the tactical sytle of play. I've never seen them take to an edition like this before.


----------



## functionciccio (Aug 28, 2008)

Monkey Boy said:


> 5. HP inflation, combats simply take too long.




This.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Aug 28, 2008)

amethal said:


> Nice to see a positive post about things you like about 4th edition.
> 
> It has certainly helped me to explain to myself why I am not so keen on 4th edition, because what you like about it are generally not things that particularly bother me. If they had added rituals and skill challenges to 3.5, that game would have been perfect



Aren't incantations and complex skill checks in the Unearthed Arcana book? 
I think the biggest problem was that it was hard to balance the "alternative" spell systems for ritual-like spells. But maybe just nobody tried hard enough?



> Have you read Dungeonscape? That has guidance on creating encounters, monster roles and the like. Does anyone know if the 4th edition discussion builds on that, or if its a new thing for the new edition?



I haven't read it, but if I am not mistaken, it is a book of WotC? I am pretty sure that the designs of 4E were at least informed on that. I suppose the monster role idea might have been around far longer than that, at least in the design community, but only in 4E they decided to make it an explicit part of the mechanical expressions for monsters. 

In a way, that was an inconsistency in 3E. Character Classes tend to define a certain "role" and were used to describe HD, skill points, BAB and Saves. But for monsters, they didn't go from the personality/combat role approach, they went from the origin (outsider, elemental, humanoid and so on) approach. If I'd wanted to redo how monsters are done in 3E, I would probably remove the idea of type/origin defining HD and instead base it on the "goals" or "role" of the monster. If it makes sense that a Ranger has different saves then a Fighter, why shouldn't be the same be true for a Demon that fires energy burst and a Demon that fights with a greatsword?


----------



## CapnZapp (Aug 28, 2008)

The single best improvement in 4E, to my mind is 

*Rituals.*

Having them (and having them separated from a certain wizard level, as you say) adds immensely to the storytelling power of the game.

I'm not yet there, but I imagine *less high-level complexity* will become a strong second over time. (This would include at least three of your points: Less-complex high-level spellcasters, Easier high-level PC creation & Easier high-level NPC creation)

---

As for dislikes, 

My current pet peeve is monster hit points: as in how some get absurd heapings (i.e. most monsters) and others get absurdly few (i.e. minions).

The concept of minions (or mooks) is great for a certain style of play, but it ruins verisimilitude for others. Having them in the game by default (as opposed to some secondary option) means the game shuts out many gamers. Having minions fosters a heavy elitism, where some people (and monsters) just are better, more worthy to live, than others. Not to speak of absurd consequences, where "minion people" die from injuries everybody else would consider a scratch only. 

Combine this with the complaints fights take too long against regular monsters, and I believe you have yourself a mistake on the part of WotC.

Currently, my solution (after all, the best complaints are those coupled with a suggested solution) is to halve hit points for standard monsters (and assign the same amount to former minions).

If nothing else, this will make elites and solos truly stand-outs, which I too think is good for the game.

I might list other complaints about the game, but those are of such a nature, they could well be met by "okay, but why don't you go play another game then?".

Regards,
Zapp


----------



## Monkey Boy (Aug 28, 2008)

Jürgen Hubert said:


> I wanted to focus on the actual rules themselves.



I think of 4e as more than just the rules. There is the whole sideshow taking place that leaves a bad taste. To be honest though I was just trying to fill out my 11 things and was running out of rules issues. I like 4e, its a nifty system. If it wasn't for the longer combat lengths I'd be a very happy gamer.



Jürgen Hubert said:


> What do you mean with this?




Me - 'It's Bob the clerics turn.'
Bob 'I use Clarion call of the Astral sea' then I spend an action point and use 'Knights of unyielding valor.'
Me - Ok, just what exactly do those powers do? 

I was being a little facetious with the golden-spray wyvern adept comment. As a general rule the powers are well named. Some spring out as unintuitively named. Its a fluff not a crunch issue.


----------



## Monkey Boy (Aug 28, 2008)

CapnZapp said:


> My current pet peeve is monster hit points: as in how some get absurd heapings (i.e. most monsters) and others get absurdly few (i.e. minions).
> 
> The concept of minions (or mooks) is great for a certain style of play, but it ruins verisimilitude for others. Having them in the game by default (as opposed to some secondary option) means the game shuts out many gamers. Having minions fosters a heavy elitism, where some people (and monsters) just are better, more worthy to live, than others. Not to speak of absurd consequences, where "minion people" die from injuries everybody else would consider a scratch only.
> 
> ...




This is my hang up as well and is almost a deal breaker. The fights have taken too long and are boring the hell out of me. Fighting goblins shouldn't take this long! I will be implementing half HP for monsters in my current game, hopefully that will fix things for my group.


----------



## vagabundo (Aug 28, 2008)

Monkey Boy said:


> This is my hang up as well and is almost a deal breaker. The fights have taken too long and are boring the hell out of me. Fighting goblins shouldn't take this long! I will be implementing half HP for monsters in my current game, hopefully that will fix things for my group.




I've seen this as a problem initially, but it seems to have gone away. My players are becoming more tactically aware and are doing a lot more damage per round. 

I think in the long term, once the skill-set of players increases, the current HPs will be challenging but not over the top. For the moment I'm taking it easy on them, a little - I usually lob a third off the high HP monsters.


----------



## D'karr (Aug 28, 2008)

Monkey Boy said:


> This is my hang up as well and is almost a deal breaker. The fights have taken too long and are boring the hell out of me. Fighting goblins shouldn't take this long! I will be implementing half HP for monsters in my current game, hopefully that will fix things for my group.




I guess that this is a case of different strokes for different folk.  This is the kind of thing that would never even come up as a deal breaker for me.

The only time I've seen fights take "too long", which is a completely subjective measure, was when the party decided that they would have 2 controllers, 2 leaders and a defender.  In addition the encounter was against brutes and soldiers, with no minions.  

Without a striker the party will take longer to whittle down the opposition.  I simply resolved that by killing the creatures when I felt it was appropriate, which is a completely subjective value judgement.

So that specific soldier might have had 10%-20% less HP and that brute might have had 20%-30% less HP but in the end the fight stayed exciting.  So it was no big deal.

This situation is one that the DM has complete control over.  My recommendation, before the fight starts to drag, go ahead and start ending it.  My solution was to simply drop some HP as necessary from the creatures and then I awarded 10-50 less XP per creatures to signify not the standard level of challenge.

This was completely ad-hoc and posed no significant difficulty on my part.  The players did not notice the difference at all.  Since then I've strongly hinted that having a striker in their group would probably be a very beneficial thing.


----------



## Olgar Shiverstone (Aug 28, 2008)

*No long-term advance planning for PC character development.*

I'm not sure this is true, as stat requirements almost make it more critical that you careful consider future feat and power preferences before you assign stats.  Retraining does eliminate a lot of feat planning, admittedly.

*No class is useless in a specific fight.*

Heck, yes.  Best feature of 4E IMO -- plus 4E significantly increased the importance of team tactics, which is a good feature IMO.

*Easier high-level PC creation.* 

Mostly, yes.  I'd argue that it's much easier for high-level spellcasters, and much harder for high-level melee characters.

*Fighters are now actually interesting.* 

3E Fighters were interesting too, if you actually took advantage of the range of feats -- orders of magnitude better than prior edition fighters.  I'll grant that 4E fighters are now a step more interesting than even their 3E counterparts, though.

*Less-complex high-level spellcasters.*

Goodness, yes.

*Rituals.*

I like these mechanics, but I'm disappointed with the number, and the fact that rituals have essentially killed the prior "clever use of flexible spells" that you could do.  It's fun to play "101 uses for a 1st level spell" -- not quite as fun now.

*Skill challenges.* 

Frankly, I see this as a mechanic that isn't unique to 4E -- easy enough to port it back to 3E (and even 2E's NWPs with some further tweaking).  The fact that they screwed up the initial SC release in the core rules still irqs me.

*Minions.* 

Again, not a unique-to-4E mechanic.  Take almost any 3E monster, reduce to 1 hp = minion.

*Easier high-level NPC creation.* 

Yes and no.  If you weren't anal about having every single spell, feat, and skill point accounted for, high level NPCs in 3E aren't really that hard -- you just put together those items that you need for play and wing the rest.

*Easier monster creation/modification.* 

Creation, yes.  I'm not convinced that systematic modification is a strength of 4E.  Point modification is neither significantly easier or harder than before.

*In-depth discussion on building encounters and monster roles.* 

I wouldn't say that the concepts are any better or worse, but certainly including the design discussion in the DMG is one of the smartest decisions made for that book, and results in a significantly more useful DMG than prior editions (where the DMG was just the place to srtore magic items).

My criticisms of 4E:  Missing classes plus limited rituals/spells and magic items compared to prior editions core rules make the initial release feel incomplete; changes to the base "fluff" of D&D feel like "change for change sake" that I have to undue to match my personal vision of the game.  Finally, character creation is much more role constraining (pending the release of supplements) -- that's both a bug and a feature.


----------



## Charwoman Gene (Aug 28, 2008)

Are my players just gods of combat or something?  Fights seem pretty fast for us.  Solos are a little boring once we all run out of encounter powers, but otherwise, were good.


----------



## D'karr (Aug 28, 2008)

Jürgen Hubert said:


> Crossposted from my blog.
> 
> 
> *No long-term advance planning for PC character development.*
> ...




I agree with almost all of these.  My biggest agreement comes from those points that boil down to *Ease with which a DM can modify the game or an adventure*.  My preparation time is now spent on things that matter to the excitement of the game.  Things like adventure design and new and improved plot hooks for the campaign.  Gone is the tediousness of attempting to balance encounters for my group.

From your list there are two of those that I just wish they would have added more of.  I would have liked to have seen more rituals on the core books.  I would have liked at least one additional controller class, and I would have liked to have the Wizard have a little more granularity, specially in spell selection.  These are things that I'm actually house-ruling, which is no longer a chore either.

As far as complaints, I've only got two so far.  


*Low Level Monster Variety* -- I really wish the Monster Manual would have had about 4-5 more creatures for low level play.  Every time we have played a low level adventure we've fought kobolds or goblins.  Some more variety would have been really nice.

*More At-Will Powers as levels increase* -- The limitation on 2 at-will powers seems rather contrived.  Specially since the economy of actions in 4e already prevents abuse.  I'm going to house rule for my campaign that players can select 2 at-will powers at 1st level.  One additional one at 5th level and another one at 15th level.  Since they can only use them once per turn anyway, unless they use an action point, I can't see much problem with letting them have all the at-will powers for their class as they increase in level.

One major thing that *I really love* about 4e:


*Ease with which a new player can jump in and start playing*

I have found 4e to be a huge breath of fresh air.  My wife now games with us on a regular basis.  She was a complete newbie to gaming.  When we played 3e, she played a rogue and had quite a hard time keeping track of everything.  She has mentioned several times that now she is actually excited to play because she does not feel like she is lost trying to find what she should do.  Everything is spelled out rather clearly on her sheet.  To me that is a major reason to prefer 4e.


----------



## Henry (Aug 28, 2008)

Monkey Boy said:


> This is my hang up as well and is almost a deal breaker. The fights have taken too long and are boring the hell out of me. Fighting goblins shouldn't take this long! I will be implementing half HP for monsters in my current game, hopefully that will fix things for my group.



The one thing to watch out for in this is pre-published encounters with minions; personally I'd advise reducing the number of minions slightly, because an encounter with a half-dozen minions, that each take two or three hits to drop one, could spell disaster for your party whereas the as-written encounter might be intended as an even or a hard challenge.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Aug 28, 2008)

Henry said:


> The one thing to watch out for in this is pre-published encounters with minions; personally I'd advise reducing the number of minions slightly, because an encounter with a half-dozen minions, that each take two or three hits to drop one, could spell disaster for your party whereas the as-written encounter might be intended as an even or a hard challenge.




 I would have thought the opposite. Fighting monsters with lots of hit points might get boring if nothing "new" happens, but with Minions you always have the thrill of knowing - if I hit, it's gone. And this results in a lot more actions going on. Ultimately, 4 Minions probably take the same time to take down as an equal level monster, but you have the satisfaction of dropping foes more often. 
Or is this entirely subjective?


----------



## Ander00 (Aug 28, 2008)

I'll have to disagree with your first point as well. While your plan doesn't have to take into account the prerequisites for any number of prestige classes, you'll still need to think ahead to meet the prerequisites of feats (something magic items can no longer help you with, and attributes cannot be retrained).

Edit: And of course, many paragon path abilities are also dependant on various ability scores.


cheers


----------



## vagabundo (Aug 28, 2008)

@Monkey Boy

Just out of curiousity how many PC's do you have in your group? I've got four and noticed the issue your having. 

I have a funny feeling that combat time is inversely proportional to the number of PCs, even with adjusted XP budgets.


----------



## Nebulous (Aug 28, 2008)

Monkey Boy said:


> This is my hang up as well and is almost a deal breaker. The fights have taken too long and are boring the hell out of me. Fighting goblins shouldn't take this long! I will be implementing half HP for monsters in my current game, hopefully that will fix things for my group.




I'm going to start adlibbing monster hit points i think, at least near the end of a fight.  Some of the battles with little toadsquat goblins really shouldn't be as hard as they are and really can take too long.


----------



## Wednesday Boy (Aug 28, 2008)

Jürgen Hubert said:


> *No long-term advance planning for PC character development.* No longer do players have to worry how _precisely_ to build their characters at first level when they want to take a specific prestige class twelve levels later. Now they can take character advancement one level at a time.




This is the only disagreement I have with your list because, as a few others have mentioned, you have to look down the line when setting your attributes in order to meet some feat prerequisites.  It certainly isn't the same level of planning that was needed to meet prerequisites for certain PrCs, but I did have to do a little advanced planning to make sure that my stats would let me take the feats I wanted.


----------



## Crosswind (Aug 28, 2008)

vagabundo said:


> @Monkey Boy
> 
> Just out of curiousity how many PC's do you have in your group? I've got four and noticed the issue your having.
> 
> I have a funny feeling that combat time is inversely proportional to the number of PCs, even with adjusted XP budgets.




Agree here.  Reason's pretty simple:  The power of each individual PC grows with each character added, due to synergy.  Monsters rarely synergize as well.

Leaders have buffs which affect all the party - the more people, the more bonuses.
The more people there are, the more likely that the rogue will always get sneak attack (I'm in a 7-8 person party.  I have not gone a single round without sneak attacking in 9 sessions).
...and that the ranged ranger won't have to ever enter melee.
...and that the defenders will be attacked by multiple enemies
...and that the wizard can catch multiple creatures with his burst spells

etc, etc.

-Cross


----------



## Plane Sailing (Aug 28, 2008)

Jürgen Hubert said:


> *No long-term advance planning for PC character development.*
> *Easier high-level PC creation.*
> *Fighters are now actually interesting.*
> *Less-complex high-level spellcasters.*
> ...




My feeling is that a lot of these things either existed (or potentially existed) in 3e too.

Long term advanced planning was mostly necessary if lots of prestige classes where available and strict prestige class entry requirements were observed. For those using the Unearthed Arcana method of 'tests for entry' it wasn't an issue. That was certainly my preferred option, as I like PCs to be able to grow organically as time goes on, rather than be planned to death.

Easier high level PC creation? I don't really see this. Perhaps for casters, but even then I'm not sure. I'm still finding 4e creation a bit of a pain to get my head around at upper heroic and above levels. How many encounters of which level, how many dailys and utilities of which levels, does he have the ability points to support certain feats and so on.

Fighters are more interesting (and much, much more deadly).

High level spellcasters are certainly less complex, but I don't think that is a positive thing (just my taste)

Rituals were a great idea, but I think they really, really suffer from having too few first level rituals. They should have had at least 10 arcane first level rituals and at least 5 divine 1st level rituals, to give a breadth of choice. Heck, there is enough source material available!

Minions have been used effectively in other games (I first saw them in Bushido) and are pretty optional. They could be used in 3e by just giving certain monsters 1hp as someone else has noted.

Easier high level NPC creation? I don't really see that, for the same reasons as PCs above. Also NPCs and monsters by default have a pretty slim range of stuff they can do - I prefer monsters with a wide range of powers and abilities personally.

In depth discussion of etc - an excellent addition.

For the things that I think they have particularly done well:


Crits automatically on a 20 for maximum damage.
Magic items a bit more special (crits and daily powers)
implements for caster classes equivalent to magic weapons
Encouraging team work rather than solo glory

Cheers


----------



## TerraDave (Aug 28, 2008)

Good list!

I would add: *super streamlined d20 system*. 

The common 1/2 level modifier, simple skill training, consolidated skill list, simplified combat manuevers, unified mechanics for attack "powers"...

This is probably my single favorite change.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Aug 28, 2008)

> This is the only disagreement I have with your list because, as a few others have mentioned, you have to look down the line when setting your attributes in order to meet some feat prerequisites. It certainly isn't the same level of planning that was needed to meet prerequisites for certain PrCs, but I did have to do a little advanced planning to make sure that my stats would let me take the feats I wanted.



While I agree that it's not "perfect" yet, I think the problem is far from being as pronounced as in 3E. Sometimes, it was just a matter of the absurd high ability score requirements, but sometimes its also a matter of the several class abilities, spells and feats you had to get. 
In 4E, you just need to look at your ability scores. If you pick the standard spread for scores, you should eventually be able to qualify for most feats. The general ability increases at Level 11 and Level 21 certainly make it a lot more easier to get one of this Score 13-requirement feats, and this is what will probably be the ones you want to get most.



Plane Sailing said:


> Easier high level PC creation? I don't really see this. Perhaps for casters, but even then I'm not sure. I'm still finding 4e creation a bit of a pain to get my head around at upper heroic and above levels. How many encounters of which level, how many dailys and utilities of which levels, does he have the ability points to support certain feats and so on.



About the character creation: There are two tables, one in the PHB, and one in the DMG, that list the gains per level. The PHB table is good for advancing, as it notes changes. The DMG table is good for creation at high levels, as it states the absolute numbers. The DMG table is really perfect for character creation at higher levels. 



> High level spellcasters are certainly less complex, but I don't think that is a positive thing (just my taste)



Well, if it's "reasons why I prefer D&D 4", this is a perfectly valid answer. If it was "reasons why D&D 4 is superior to any other edition", it wouldn't. But then, most things might not be used to say that.
(Heck, I sometimes even enjoyed working out my characters to the last skill point in 3E...)




> Minions have been used effectively in other games (I first saw them in Bushido) and are pretty optional. They could be used in 3e by just giving certain monsters 1hp as someone else has noted.



Actually, it's not that easy. Wulf Ratbane once pointed out to me that high level PCs tend to automatically hit (or be hit) with primary attacks. That would be terrible for Minions. You might be able to make some adaptations, though, but they are no longer as simple as in 4E.


----------



## Remathilis (Aug 28, 2008)

Just for a random sampling:

As of this post, of the replies to Jurgen's post (including the starter)

4 were positive leaning in their opinion/assessment
7 were negative leaning in their opinion/assessment (this inlcuded Jurgen's what I don't like post)
9 were neutral or didn't give a general impression
4 were mixed nearly evenly or tried a balanced approach (or damned with faint praise)

Just a snapshot of what people are thinking, keep it in mind.

Now, my opinions match Jurgen's so I won't repeat them. My only complaint so far has been WotC inability to get skill challenges to work right and the general incompleteness of the core-rules for certain things (druids & bards in PHB2, Frost Giants in MM2, 90% of the magic item list in Adventure's Vault, etc)


----------



## DM-Rocco (Aug 28, 2008)

Olgar Shiverstone said:


> *No long-term advance planning for PC character development.*
> 
> I'm not sure this is true, as stat requirements almost make it more critical that you careful consider future feat and power preferences before you assign stats.  Retraining does eliminate a lot of feat planning, admittedly.



The PHBII, or was it DMGII, in 3.5 did have rules for re-training as an optional rule.  The problem was that it wasn't an established rule, just an alternate rule, so most DMs dismissed it.  Now that 4e made it apart of the regular rules, everyone loves it.  Go figure.



Olgar Shiverstone said:


> *No class is useless in a specific fight.*
> 
> Heck, yes.  Best feature of 4E IMO -- plus 4E significantly increased the importance of team tactics, which is a good feature IMO.



I don't think this is always good.  I don't like that WOTC has decided to make us forced into a team event.  I am speaking mainly of the wizard, but others too.  The wizard is now, IMO, so underpowered that they have to be apart of a group or they can't survive.  Yes, wizards had a lot of power before so maybe a tone down was in order, but IMO they swung the pendulum the other way a little too far.  M

Maybe that is just me, but an interview I am doing for the next issue of Dragon Roots Magazine about what was behind some of the changes to D&D suggests that I am not alone in this regard.  Even some of the insiders hint that they might have toned down the wizard a tad too much.  Thus, forcing them into a role of cooperation with others.

Don’t get me wrong, I think cooperation is a good thing.  It is what D&D should be.  However, it should be our choice as player to be cooperative and not forced upon us be definition. 



Olgar Shiverstone said:


> *Easier high-level PC creation.*
> 
> Mostly, yes.  I'd argue that it's much easier for high-level spellcasters, and much harder for high-level melee characters.



Eh, not totally sure about that.  Yes, it is easier for spellcasters only because there are not a lot of powers out there.  Give it a few supplements and it will be just as hard.  Non-spellcasting classes just took a huge step into the complex realm for building a high level PC, IMO.



Olgar Shiverstone said:


> *Fighters are now actually interesting.*
> 
> 3E Fighters were interesting too, if you actually took advantage of the range of feats -- orders of magnitude better than prior edition fighters.  I'll grant that 4E fighters are now a step more interesting than even their 3E counterparts, though.



I agree with you that the fighters were not dull in 3.5.  They only became so when you limited the feat selection to the core books, but even with just those rules, the fighter could make interesting choices.  It all really depended on the player.

Also, prestige classes added a lot of flavor to the fighter and that is really something that opened the door for the fighter.  Fighters were only as dull as the limits the DM put on them.



Olgar Shiverstone said:


> *Less-complex high-level spellcasters.*
> 
> Goodness, yes.



  I guess, for now.



Olgar Shiverstone said:


> *Rituals.*
> 
> I like these mechanics, but I'm disappointed with the number, and the fact that rituals have essentially killed the prior "clever use of flexible spells" that you could do.  It's fun to play "101 uses for a 1st level spell" -- not quite as fun now.



  I think it also sucks that a ritual takes so long to cast and that you need so much gold to cast them.  Okay, the low level ones don’t need a lot, but some of the costs of the higher level ones make it very hard to cast, IMO.



Olgar Shiverstone said:


> *Minions.*
> 
> Again, not a unique-to-4E mechanic.  Take almost any 3E monster, reduce to 1 hp = minion.



  I agree with that; and really, for me anyway, having a bunch of 2nd or higher level “minions” in 3.5 with a few hit points wasn’t all that hard to deal with.  IMO, the only thing that makes the 4e minion different is that they basically capped the ACs of the PCs to within reach of the minions to be effective in hitting them.



Olgar Shiverstone said:


> *Easier high-level NPC creation.*
> 
> Yes and no.  If you weren't anal about having every single spell, feat, and skill point accounted for, high level NPCs in 3E aren't really that hard -- you just put together those items that you need for play and wing the rest.



I am a big fan of winging it for the most part, specially with spells at higher levels.  A lot of times I would leave a few spell slots open to fill them in as needed in a given situation against the players.  I account for this with the NPCs taking time to find out about the PCs and preparing spells to counter some of the PCs normal tactics.  Just as the PCs can find out about the enemy, the enemy can find out about them.



Olgar Shiverstone said:


> *In-depth discussion on building encounters and monster roles.*
> 
> I wouldn't say that the concepts are any better or worse, but certainly including the design discussion in the DMG is one of the smartest decisions made for that book, and results in a significantly more useful DMG than prior editions (where the DMG was just the place to srtore magic items).
> 
> My criticisms of 4E:  Missing classes plus limited rituals/spells and magic items compared to prior editions core rules make the initial release feel incomplete; changes to the base "fluff" of D&D feel like "change for change sake" that I have to undue to match my personal vision of the game.  Finally, character creation is much more role constraining (pending the release of supplements) -- that's both a bug and a feature.



I don’t think a lot of it is change for change sake.  Again, in my interview with Richard Baker about the changes to D&D in 4e, I asked him a lot of the reasons for some of the more game breaking changes in 4e, like why add in the whole dragonborn, tiefling and gnome debate.  I’m not going to give away the answers here for free, but after talking to him, I don’t think they are just for change sake.




Monkey Boy said:


> Hi Jurgen,
> 7. Dungeon and Dragon no longer in print




No, but Dragon Roots Magazine is.  We have been compared to the early days of Dragon and some have said we contain more useful content than Kobold Quarterly.  If you are looking for a print replacement for Dragon and Dungeon, we would love to have you.


----------



## Nahat Anoj (Aug 28, 2008)

I absolutely adore 4e and feel it's the best edition to date, no contest.  But I'll start with my top dislikes:


No Gnomes, Half-Orcs, Barbarians, Druids, Bards and Monks at launch.
Fights can drag sometimes, particularly with larger parties, it doesn't feel faster than 3e did (at least at low levels, I've never played 3e beyond level 12).
I'd like something halfway between minions and regular monsters.
No minion creation guidelines.
The MM is missing some much loved monsters, like metallic dragons.
Frequently trying to come up with in-game justifications for the powers.
Ability score prerequistes for some feats - I really don't like requiring any sort of prereqs for feats.  But because those prereqs *are* there ...
No mention of ability score retraining, so that you can get those ability score prereq feats later in case you need them.
No mention of ways PCs to make their own mundane gear (weapons and armor, mostly).
No mention of how PCs might remove a condition (such as being on fire) by themselves instead of waiting to make a save.
No Martial Controller! I want one!


Here are my top likes:


It's much more straightforward and easier for me to make a balanced, "by the book" encounter, from minions to traps to boss monsters to solo monsters.
The overall darker tone and pushing the "points of light" concept to the forefront.
The new cosmology, from the new planar structure to the new pantheon (the best D&D pantheon ever, IMO).  It's condensed, refined, industrial-strength D&D.  
Warlocks, Warlords, Dragonborn, and Tieflings have become iconic D&D races and classes for me.
Streamlined skill list and how every stat pretty much goes up by 1/2 level.
Skill challenges are a great idea, so great IMO that I'm willing to forgive their initial mistakes.
Fort, Ref, and Will Defenses rock, and I like the new saving throw mechanic (particuarly as applied to death and dying).
The way healing works, from healing surges to second wind to being completely healed after a long rest.
The DMG, particularly the lengths it goes to to insure that DMs try to incorporate players' ideas and to make dynamic, tactically interesting, stunt-filled encounters.
Explicit discussion of roles in combat and designing classes according to that.
Rituals allow D&D to played with no power source other than the Martial source and still have magic involved.  Kickass!  I just want an intelligence-based Martial controller!

IMO, my likes dramatically outweigh my dislikes.  Except for when I was young and new to the game - before I got old and jaded  - I've never had so much fun playing D&D.


----------



## Wednesday Boy (Aug 28, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> While I agree that it's not "perfect" yet, I think the problem is far from being as pronounced as in 3E. Sometimes, it was just a matter of the absurd high ability score requirements, but sometimes its also a matter of the several class abilities, spells and feats you had to get.
> In 4E, you just need to look at your ability scores. If you pick the standard spread for scores, you should eventually be able to qualify for most feats. The general ability increases at Level 11 and Level 21 certainly make it a lot more easier to get one of this Score 13-requirement feats, and this is what will probably be the ones you want to get most.




Yeah, that's true.  It's much improved.


----------



## Vael (Aug 28, 2008)

I keep switching back and forth on the unified class mechanic. On the one hand, I like that each class isn't its own subsystem ... you just need to read its different powers. OTOH, I played spellcasters in 3.5 ... I miss all my spell slots (and even preparing spells, though only at lower levels).

Otherwise, I agree with the OP.


----------



## amethal (Aug 28, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> Aren't incantations and complex skill checks in the Unearthed Arcana book?



They are.

From memory the book has something like 2 example incantations, and the system for creating your own was pretty cumbersome. (At least for me, the one time I designed an incantation to transform a rock gnome into a whisper gnome.)

I don't know how similar complex skill checks are to skill challenges, as I don't have any 4th edition books. They don't seem that similar, from what I've read on ENWorld.



> I haven't read it, but if I am not mistaken, it is a book of WotC?



Yes, the last one I bought.



> In a way, that was an inconsistency in 3E. Character Classes tend to define a certain "role" and were used to describe HD, skill points, BAB and Saves. But for monsters, they didn't go from the personality/combat role approach, they went from the origin (outsider, elemental, humanoid and so on) approach. If I'd wanted to redo how monsters are done in 3E, I would probably remove the idea of type/origin defining HD and instead base it on the "goals" or "role" of the monster. If it makes sense that a Ranger has different saves then a Fighter, why shouldn't be the same be true for a Demon that fires energy burst and a Demon that fights with a greatsword?



That's an interesting idea.

I remember the glee with which my DM used sylphs, from MM2 (I think). They are fey in everything *but* type, which is outsider - which makes them much more of a challenge than they otherwise would be.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Aug 28, 2008)

amethal said:


> They are.
> 
> From memory the book has something like 2 example incantations, and the system for creating your own was pretty cumbersome. (At least for me, the one time I designed an incantation to transform a rock gnome into a whisper gnome.)



I never tried them. Urban Arcana (d20 Modern) supplement also had incantations, but I don't know how different they are. The easiest thing would be to base them on existing spells.



> I don't know how similar complex skill checks are to skill challenges, as I don't have any 4th edition books. They don't seem that similar, from what I've read on ENWorld.



IIRC, Complex skill checks meant just using the same skill multiple times, and you had to achieve a certain number of successes. Skill Challenges combine multiple skills (any skills that make sense). The advantages of 4E is that due to the changes of the math and the stacking of bonuses, the skill ranges are far more predictable, and therefore there is a general guideline on DCs.

Skill Challenges are a framework that you can use for other games, too. I think the core idea is to "model" a complex scenario (be it a urban chase, a social encounter, or investigating a crime scene) simply by saying "these are the skills you can use, and these are the number of successes you have to get and the number of failures you want to avoid. The rest is done by narrating/role-playing the individual checks, basically explaining what you attmept to do when you roll your Nature check during overland travel. (It could describe how you hunt down some food for the party, or it could be you finding a safe route through a forest).


----------



## Jürgen Hubert (Aug 28, 2008)

Remathilis said:


> Just for a random sampling:
> 
> As of this post, of the replies to Jurgen's post (including the starter)
> 
> ...




People like to argue, so I'm not surprised by these replies. Heck, I like to argue, too.

For a more accurate snapshot of what people really think, the recent poll probably works fairly well.


----------



## Jürgen Hubert (Aug 28, 2008)

DM-Rocco said:


> I agree with you that the fighters were not dull in 3.5.  They only became so when you limited the feat selection to the core books, but even with just those rules, the fighter could make interesting choices.  It all really depended on the player.
> 
> Also, prestige classes added a lot of flavor to the fighter and that is really something that opened the door for the fighter.  Fighters were only as dull as the limits the DM put on them.




I tend to be annoyed when I have to rely on supplements to make a certain character concept interesting. That's also why I am judging 4E on its initial release as well - I'm just as annoyed that they left out several classic classes in 4E.

Sure, you could _individualize_ fighters in 3.5. But they still tended to have a single type of attack that they would stick to pretty much all of the time to be effective. _Not_ very interesting.



> I agree with that; and really, for me anyway, having a bunch of 2nd or higher level “minions” in 3.5 with a few hit points wasn’t all that hard to deal with.  IMO, the only thing that makes the 4e minion different is that they basically capped the ACs of the PCs to within reach of the minions to be effective in hitting them.




4E minions are actually a genuine _threat_ to the PCs now, which is a huge difference. I've used a bunch of them in gameplay, and the players were always worried about the minions in the fight so that they concentrated on taking out first. A huge shift in combat dynamics, in my opinion.


----------



## DM-Rocco (Aug 28, 2008)

Jürgen Hubert said:


> People like to argue, so I'm not surprised by these replies. Heck, I like to argue, too.
> 
> For a more accurate snapshot of what people really think, the recent poll probably works fairly well.




Polls are not really a fair assessment of anything.  I checked out your post to see what it was all about and here you link it to an edition war thread.  IMO, you should have let your arguments stand on their own.  Now it just feels like a trap instead of a place to discuss likes and dislikes.  I thought people brought up good points on each side, now, it feels like you just wanted people to come out of the closest and express views or read your thread when they might not have before.

I found those results very interesting.  In your linked thread it appears that 4e is more popular, but that doesn't really mean anything.  When I was manning the Dragon Roots Magazine booth at GenCon I got a lot of feed back from people telling me that they either were stuck in AD&D or wanted more 3.5 content.  Very few actually said they made the move to 4e.  

So, IMO, it either means that this poll is not all that accurate because the people not playing 4e are ignoring this thread (and/or are tired of getting bashed for defending an edition they like) or that the ENWorld is more in tune with 4e.  The truth can't be judged by those results

That said, we offer both editions in our magazine so I don't care one way or another, I was just making an observation.

However, you can't claim that poll for anything unless you force every ENWorld member to read and vote on it.


----------



## DM-Rocco (Aug 28, 2008)

Jürgen Hubert said:


> I tend to be annoyed when I have to rely on supplements to make a certain character concept interesting. That's also why I am judging 4E on its initial release as well - I'm just as annoyed that they left out several classic classes in 4E.
> 
> Sure, you could _individualize_ fighters in 3.5. But they still tended to have a single type of attack that they would stick to pretty much all of the time to be effective. _Not_ very interesting.



Then I'm not sure what you are complaining about, the whole 4e core set is, in spite of making some classes better, very generic.  Hell, the feat selection really blows.  Too many supplements spoils the game, but a nice balance is fine.  By dismissing everything but the core rules you have limited the game.

They had to leave out those classes, instead of taking up 3 pages per class, each class not takes up 10 or more pages because of the need to add in more powers.  It is the biggest PHB in the history of D&D and it doesn't cover everything.

As to having to reply on certain supplements to make certain classes more interesting, well, it goes both ways.  Wizards are interesting, an Incantrix is more so, an Arch Mage even more.  Fighters by themselves, with just the 3.5 core books, were fun to play and it was up to the player to be creative to find new uses for the feats and such.  Sorry if you never figured that out.





Jürgen Hubert said:


> 4E minions are actually a genuine _threat_ to the PCs now, which is a huge difference. I've used a bunch of them in gameplay, and the players were always worried about the minions in the fight so that they concentrated on taking out first. A huge shift in combat dynamics, in my opinion.



IMO, the only difference in combat dynamics is that now, because of WOTC “balancing” the math of the game, the minions can actually hit the PCs at higher levels because it is harder to get outrageous ACs.  Other than that, they still seem to pose the same threat as the 3.5 minions.


----------



## Nahat Anoj (Aug 28, 2008)

DM-Rocco said:


> Polls are not really a fair assessment of anything.



I think polls are a great way to get the "pulse" of a population, and, when done properly, are fairly accurate.  However, I'd be hesitant to extend the results of internet polls to the general gaming community for two main reasons.  First, these kinds of polls are self-selected - even though it's relatively easy to click an answer, only people with strong feelings one way or the other are likely to respond.  Second, the population of gamers who frequent EN World - computer savvy, articulate (in general   ), passionate about their game, aware of events in the industry -  may not be representive of the population of gamers at large.  

However, I do think the EN World poll is a better indicator of the level of interest in 4e than the number and nature of posts to this thread.  One reason is that the number of respondents is larger, but the main reason is that the level of self-selection in this thread is even higher than the internet poll.  Only people who truly give a damn one way or the other will spend 10-20 minutes reading the thread and writing a response.  The average gamer - perhaps even the average EN Worlder - just doesn't care.


----------



## Stalker0 (Aug 28, 2008)

I disagree that players don't' have to plan for higher levels. As others have mentioned, stat prereqs are such that is an important decision, perhaps too important with some of those high prereq feats.

I will say that I think high level character creation is much much easier for everyone, and it has nothing to do with picking powers. Its the magic items!

In 3e, when I made a high level character, first thing I did was pick a class, then I picked a race, then I picked magic items. Not feats, not skills, not even mage spells, magic items.

I need a +6 Ac here, need some energy resistance there, oh...got to have something of death ward. Okay, I'm a fighter, need some way to fly..or teleport...or both.

Magic item buying was by far the longest step in the creation process in my opinion and all the math you had to do afterwards also took forever. 4e has definately streamlined that process down.


----------



## DM-Rocco (Aug 28, 2008)

Jonathan Moyer said:


> I think polls are a great way to get the "pulse" of a population, and, when done properly, are fairly accurate.  However, I'd be hesitant to extend the results of internet polls to the general gaming community for two main reasons.  First, these kinds of polls are self-selected - even though it's relatively easy to click an answer, only people with strong feelings one way or the other are likely to respond.  Second, the population of gamers who frequent EN World - computer savvy, articulate (in general   ), passionate about their game, aware of events in the industry -  may not be representive of the population of gamers at large.
> 
> However, I do think the EN World poll is a better indicator of the level of interest in 4e than the number and nature of posts to this thread.  One reason is that the number of respondents is larger, but the main reason is that the level of self-selection in this thread is even higher than the internet poll.  Only people who truly give a damn one way or the other will spend 10-20 minutes reading the thread and writing a response.  The average gamer - perhaps even the average EN Worlder - just doesn't care.




I myself didn't go to that thread with the poll when it first came out just because I don't like the edition battle threads.

I went to this one, read the OPs point of view, saw a few civil folks reply in what appeared an honest debate on pros and cons and I wanted to get in on the conversation.

I like both for different reasons.  I prefer 3.5 because I feel I have more control with my character and I loved all the different options.  To me 4e feels like a video game but I like a lot of changes too, so I improve on my 3.5 games.

I play and DM both versions and for our magazine I create content for both.  I don't really fit in either edition.

I think ENWorld is a good pulse for what people want, but I still hold firm, unless you get the entire community of D&D goers to read and vote, it will never be a true reading.


----------



## Jürgen Hubert (Aug 28, 2008)

DM-Rocco said:


> Polls are not really a fair assessment of anything.  I checked out your post to see what it was all about and here you link it to an edition war thread.  IMO, you should have let your arguments stand on their own.  Now it just feels like a trap instead of a place to discuss likes and dislikes.  I thought people brought up good points on each side, now, it feels like you just wanted people to come out of the closest and express views or read your thread when they might not have before.




Why is the other thread an "edition war" thread? Just because the original poster (who _wasn't_ me) started a poll asking people for their preferred edition?

I know that internet polls are purely anecdotal. However, this poll probably represents a more accurate snapshot of the mood on ENWorld since it takes so little time to answer, while posting in this thread or others takes considerably more effort and thus the posts are much less likely to be representative.

(And I really don't get the "trap" claim, either...)



> I found those results very interesting.  In your linked thread it appears that 4e is more popular, but that doesn't really mean anything.  When I was manning the Dragon Roots Magazine booth at GenCon I got a lot of feed back from people telling me that they either were stuck in AD&D or wanted more 3.5 content.  Very few actually said they made the move to 4e.




It could just as well be that 4E fans are less vocal because they are more content with the new edition, while those who don't like it are much more likely to speak up because they are dissatisfied. That's a rather old phenomenon - it's the exceptions which are more noticeable than the norm.



> However, you can't claim that poll for anything unless you force every ENWorld member to read and vote on it.




I said that that poll was "more accurate" than individual posts, not "absolutely accurate". At the very least, it has a far greater number of responses, which tends to count for a lot in statistics.



DM-Rocco said:


> Too many supplements spoils the game, but a nice balance is fine.  By dismissing everything but the core rules you have limited the game.




When I'm buying RPG supplements, I'm primarily interested in setting materials, and I follow multiple game lines - not just D&D. Thus, I play D&D only part of the time, and I have little interest in purchasing pure rules supplements unless they are particularly awesome.

To my mind, an RPG system - any RPG system - should be able to stand on the merits of its core rule set alone, without the help of any supplements. I realize that other people see things differently, but that's my general approach.



> They had to leave out those classes, instead of taking up 3 pages per class, each class not takes up 10 or more pages because of the need to add in more powers.  It is the biggest PHB in the history of D&D and it doesn't cover everything.




I think the 3.5 PHB had a similar page count _and_ it had a much smaller font size - 10 pt. instead of 12 pt. or something like that. If they had used a smaller font size for the 4E PHB, they could have put more material into it. I realize that other people like the new font size, but I am not one of them.



> As to having to reply on certain supplements to make certain classes more interesting, well, it goes both ways.  Wizards are interesting, an Incantrix is more so, an Arch Mage even more.




Wizards were plenty interesting with the 3.5 rules alone. I can't say the same thing for fighters.



> Fighters by themselves, with just the 3.5 core books, were fun to play and it was up to the player to be creative to find new uses for the feats and such.  Sorry if you never figured that out.




Well, give me some examples. What kinds of builds - using the 3.5 core books alone - would have resulted in a fighter who could, say, use four different combat maneuvers in a single, "typical" fight that each represented effective tactics?



> IMO, the only difference in combat dynamics is that now, because of WOTC “balancing” the math of the game, the minions can actually hit the PCs at higher levels because it is harder to get outrageous ACs.  Other than that, they still seem to pose the same threat as the 3.5 minions.




In 3.5, low-level NPCs and monsters represented no threat at all to high-level PCs. Any enemies that were actually capable of hitting such PCs also had a fairly large number of hit points which made it next to impossible of killing such foes with one hit. That 4E minions work differently changes the combat dynamics significantly. In 3.5, such foes were basically boring - no more than a kind of obstructive terrain that the PCs would have to deal X points of damage to get to their real enemies. Now minions are a danger in their own right and can no longer be ignored.

Becoming a real threat to the PCs is a huge difference from "no threat at all".


----------



## DM-Rocco (Aug 28, 2008)

Jürgen Hubert said:


> Why is the other thread an "edition war" thread? Just because the original poster (who _wasn't_ me) started a poll asking people for their preferred edition?
> 
> I know that internet polls are purely anecdotal. However, this poll probably represents a more accurate snapshot of the mood on ENWorld since it takes so little time to answer, while posting in this thread or others takes considerably more effort and thus the posts are much less likely to be representative.
> 
> ...




Fighters had variety based on feats and style of play.  I played in a game that restricted use to core rules with a fighter and because of the way I played him I had a blast.  Add in things like the duelist and even more so.  Sure, they didn't have hundreds of spells to choose from so yes, they didn't have hundreds of different options, so if you need that many options, I guess a fighter is not for you but they can and are fun to play even with just the basics.  However, compared to magic in 3.5, I guess you could argue that everything else is boring.  You can read threads like, "Does magic marginalize rogues," to get in on that fight.

Minions in 3.5 is all in how the DM house rules them.  To me, house rules are as much a part of DMing and D&D as the regular rules.  Even Gary Gygax house ruled the game and encouraged others to as well.  In his most famous quote he says, “The secret we should never let the gamemasters know is that they don't need any rules. I'm sure you won't agree since you appear to like only the source books.  I don't want to assume that you limit yourself to just the straight rules but if you don't use anything but the core books, one could imply from such a statement that you don't use house rules or vary sparingly if you do.

My point is that, yes, if you used a 1 hp standard orc fresh right out of the MM, yes, a hundred of them will not touch a mid to high level PC with even just a little AC.  However, smart DMs who don't let things get out of control like 40-100 ACs and use a few select house rules can have minions that are just as effective as 4e.  The DMGII introduced mob tactics and that even worked better for 3.5 minions.  With a mob, you didn't need to have special house rules for dealing with effective minions, all you needed was a swarm of the same type of creature and they would deal damage to a PC or most likely many PCs regardless of ACs.

It is all in how you present and deal with the rules and monsters.

As to the trap I was referring to, you come on and say 11 things you like about 4e, someone asks you a few things you don't like and you come on with a cordial reply and then others start to chime in and share their pros and cons, then you slap everyone in the face and say, "hey, this is how I figure people posting on this thread feel about 4e but really, check out this thread which is how people should feel about 4e."  

To me that seemed disingenuous.  I would have had more respect for your thread had you not tried to do your poll within your own thread and point out results in yours.  Your thread was things you liked about 4e, not how many people like 4e and why I or others should too.


----------



## La Bete (Aug 28, 2008)

DM-Rocco said:


> To me that seemed disingenuous.  I would have had more respect for your thread had you not tried to do your poll within your own thread and point out results in yours.  Your thread was things you liked about 4e, not how many people like 4e and why I or others should too.




I _really_ think you're reading a bit much into this.


----------



## Scribble (Aug 28, 2008)

Jürgen Hubert said:


> I tend to be annoyed when I have to rely on supplements to make a certain character concept interesting. That's also why I am judging 4E on its initial release as well - I'm just as annoyed that they left out several classic classes in 4E.




I think though, that there really wasn't much they could do about it based on how the design of the game works.

Once they decided they wanted power sources and roles, they probably first started with concepting which classes went into what role and power source. 

They only had so much space to work with, so probably once they did that they realized they could only realistically include three power sources while still giving people options within the power sources and roles. They chsoe the 3 most "classic" power sources. Martial, Arcane, and Divine...

Barbarian Druid, Monke and Bard, didn't make the cut because of their power sources. The only other option would be, change their power source, or reduce the options within the already present power sources.

Races fell into a similar issue... Once they decided theyw anted each race to sort of fill an archetype and be the epitome class/race combo they ahd to make some choices.

They put Warlock in to give Arcane some options, but what race best suited a Warlock class/race combo? The Gnome? Somehow Gnome Warlock just doesn't seem like it's the right fit...

Half orcs fit with Barbarians right? So they had to be out... 

Tiefling just works well with Warlock. Dragonborn were a good fit for paladin. (Since Humans were intended to be a can do any of the classes race...)

1/2 elf made the cut because they can do the cleric schtick. 

The only option for including the dropped races would be to completely revamp them, or reduce options wthin the space you had...


----------



## Plane Sailing (Aug 28, 2008)

DM-Rocco said:


> then you slap everyone in the face and say, "hey, this is how I figure people posting on this thread feel about 4e but really, check out this thread which is how people should feel about 4e."
> 
> To me that seemed disingenuous.  I would have had more respect for your thread had you not tried to do your poll within your own thread and point out results in yours.  Your thread was things you liked about 4e, not how many people like 4e and why I or others should too.




Don't read too much into an off-hand comment, and certainly don't take offence from it or start attacking other people (which your last paragraph here is doing).

Keep it nice, folks.


----------



## Plane Sailing (Aug 28, 2008)

TerraDave said:


> Good list!
> 
> I would add: *super streamlined d20 system*.
> 
> ...




I forgot about that - I agree, that is one of the stand-out changes to my mind.



Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> About the character creation: There are two tables, one in the PHB, and one in the DMG, that list the gains per level. The PHB table is good for advancing, as it notes changes. The DMG table is good for creation at high levels, as it states the absolute numbers. The DMG table is really perfect for character creation at higher levels.




Good call, I've not been all through the DMG yet, and didn't notice the DMG table.

Cheers


----------



## DM-Rocco (Aug 28, 2008)

La Bete said:


> I _really_ think you're reading a bit much into this.




I could be, but then why even bring up a post poll in this thread ans then compare it to another?


----------



## DM-Rocco (Aug 28, 2008)

Plane Sailing said:


> Don't read too much into an off-hand comment, and certainly don't take offence from it or start attacking other people (which your last paragraph here is doing).
> 
> Keep it nice, folks.




I don't really think I am attacking him.  I think I am being civil, at least that is how I am trying to come off.  Then again, I don't always come off as intended in posts.

To me, the thread started off as one thing and that comment just made me feel like it was trying to switch gears.  Of course, by me bringing it up, I am aiding in the gear switching.

Anyway, no worries, I am just making comments.  If the OP doesn't want input just let me know and I will not ruin his thread.  I just wanted in on the orignal debate.


----------



## DM-Rocco (Aug 28, 2008)

NOTE:The above post is not meant to be sarcastic or in anyway back talking a mod.  Just to make sure we are all clear on that.


----------



## Wonka (Aug 28, 2008)

Whether or not the OP wanted feedback/comments or not, they posted here and didnt blog it, so thats exactly what they are going to get. It worked the same way in the "Disowning D&D" thread thats gotten a bit long. It works both ways


----------



## D'karr (Aug 28, 2008)

DM-Rocco said:


> I could be, but then why even bring up a post poll in this thread ans then compare it to another?




Maybe 'cause it was relevant.  Somebody put up some numbers and he pointed them to a location that might represent "more accurate" numbers.

There was no bait & switch.

Now back to the thread:

I use house rules to accomplish multiple things in my game all the time.  I limit my game to Core Rules only, with a few exceptions.  If a player wanted something specific from another source, I've always been open to their suggestions.  90% of the time we have made some flavor changes & few mechanical changes and they've gotten what they wanted.  In turn I got what I wanted, which was control of outside sources that might or might not fit what I had in mind for a specific campaign.  

For 4e, I've found that the classes serve many purposes with just a bit of "reflavoring".  I have a player that is playing a Swashbuckler, in this case a ranger repurposed.  I have another that is playing a psionicist, using the warlock as a base.  I find that the core classes, due to the amount of powers they have, can easily fit several concepts with very little modification, except for flavor.

This was something that was available in 3e also, to a certain extent.  But most of the time it was better to either create or institute a new class rather than repurpose one that already existed.

So for me the "genericness" of the classes is a good thing.


----------



## D'karr (Aug 28, 2008)

Wonka said:


> Whether or not the OP wanted feedback/comments or not, they posted here and didnt blog it, so thats exactly what they are going to get. It worked the same way in the "Disowning D&D" thread thats gotten a bit long. It works both ways




Comments is one thing, rudeness is another.


----------



## DM-Rocco (Aug 28, 2008)

D'karr said:


> Maybe 'cause it was relevant.  Somebody put up some numbers and he pointed them to a location that might represent "more accurate" numbers.
> 
> There was no bait & switch.
> 
> ...




I both love and hate the 4e classes.  I like most of the new features that the clases have but the thing I really hate is how long it takes to make a new class, and I am referring to a new class from the ground up, not just switching a power or two.  You feel almost obligated to come up with 50 new powers.

  I didn't think of it until your post, but it would have been cool if they would have printed a base class for a controller, leader, defender and a striker with just the basics and what each level of powers should look like and then just add in your own flavor.  It would be easier than having to modify a "base" class like the Warlock for example.

  i did create a few new classes for 4e and i had a blast making them.  They didn't really fit into the 3.5 realm.  I thought them up years ago but 3.5 doesn't, IMO, work all that well with  at will powers and things like that and these calsses were based on at will powers so they just happened to fit into 4e better.


----------



## Wonka (Aug 29, 2008)

D'karr said:


> Comments is one thing, rudeness is another.




Ill just state that I don't think anyone is being rude in this thread, just as I didn't think anyone was rude in the other thread I mentioned. And again Ill preface this with maybe I've just gotten myself used to other forums, where if people were rude you KNEW it, and that I just don't see it here. Again, this speaks highly of the general community here and the work of the moderators, and makes this forum such a nice one to visit.


----------



## DM-Rocco (Aug 29, 2008)

Wonka said:


> Whether or not the OP wanted feedback/comments or not, they posted here and didnt blog it, so thats exactly what they are going to get. It worked the same way in the "Disowning D&D" thread thats gotten a bit long. It works both ways







D'karr said:


> Comments is one thing, rudeness is another.




I'm not sure if you are calling me rude, Wonka rude both of us or neither.

Anyway, if me, I am not trying to be, I look at my posts as just comments.  

I'm not sure i agree with you Wonka.  The OP didn't come on and say, "to hell with all other editions, 4e rules and you are wrong," he simply stated why he liked it and wanted input, which I can respect.  I don't think anyone's post should be derailed by someone coming in to just pick a fight.

I don't like it when peole think that way of me, so I don't want to say that is why you are here.  However, it sounds like it.


----------



## D'karr (Aug 29, 2008)

DM-Rocco said:


> I both love and hate the 4e classes.  I like most of the new features that the clases have but the thing I really hate is how long it takes to make a new class, and I am referring to a new class from the ground up, not just switching a power or two.  You feel almost obligated to come up with 50 new powers.




I kind of agree.  Repurposing a class is actually pretty easy.  Even doing some power swapping from several classes is doable to conform to a given concept.  I think the best way to approach this is to get a clear picture of what the concept for the class will be.  Then look for existing powers that fit that concept.  Then supplement with new powers as you see fit.

Once the concept for the class is clear it makes it a lot easier to do.  But creating one from scratch can seem truly daunting, if you are trying to create each power from scratch.

I would not necessarily like a generic class build up but I'd like to see some sample concepts and how they would implement them.  I think that would be more useful for the scratch builder.


----------



## DM-Rocco (Aug 29, 2008)

Wonka said:


> Ill just state that I don't think anyone is being rude in this thread, just as I didn't think anyone was rude in the other thread I mentioned. And again Ill preface this with maybe I've just gotten myself used to other forums, where if people were rude you KNEW it, and that I just don't see it here. Again, this speaks highly of the general community here and the work of the moderators, and makes this forum such a nice one to visit.




Ah, I see what you are saying.  ENWorld is as obvious as say Circvs Maximvs for example.  You do need to be a bit more mindful and while most people will truely know if you are being a pain, some people seem a but more sensative than others.

For the record, I don't think anyone in this thread is being either too mean or too sensative and that a debate is still going on in good standing


----------



## Wonka (Aug 29, 2008)

DM-Rocco said:


> I'm not sure i agree with you Wonka.  The OP didn't come on and say, "to hell with all other editions, 4e rules and you are wrong," he simply stated why he liked it and wanted input, which I can respect.  I don't think anyone's post should be derailed by someone coming in to just pick a fight.
> 
> I don't like it when peole think that way of me, so I don't want to say that is why you are here.  However, it sounds like it.




Woah woah woah!  That was completely NOT the intention of my post. I was in NO way saying you were doing this. In fact, I was SUPPORTING your arguments as being civil and reasonable. My original post was directed at no one in particular, and everyone in general. I was merely stating, and responding to an earlier post suggesting people were getting rude, out of hand, and off topic in the thread. My point was that if you take the time to post your views, regardless of the subject and your opninon on them, on a message board such as this, you have to expect responses and that not all of them will agree with you. If you just want to post your thoughts without dealing with responses, your best off Blogging. I further responded by saying that I didnt think anyone in this thread was being rude, yourself included. Sorry if I came of sounding like I was attacking you, because I most certainly wasn't.  Hopefully I have cleared up any misunderstandings!


----------



## DM-Rocco (Aug 29, 2008)

D'karr said:


> I kind of agree.  Repurposing a class is actually pretty easy.  Even doing some power swapping from several classes is doable to conform to a given concept.  I think the best way to approach this is to get a clear picture of what the concept for the class will be.  Then look for existing powers that fit that concept.  Then supplement with new powers as you see fit.
> 
> Once the concept for the class is clear it makes it a lot easier to do.  But creating one from scratch can seem truly daunting, if you are trying to create each power from scratch.
> 
> I would not necessarily like a generic class build up but I'd like to see some sample concepts and how they would implement them.  I think that would be more useful for the scratch builder.




I like it when people agree with me, even if kind of

I think they should have still included the classes they did, but they should have also included a break down of target numbers to reach for each power at each level and things like that.

I interviewed WOTC personal for an interview in our next issue and they do have target numbers, based on controllers, strikers, defenders and leaders.  I think it increases the playability of the game to release those numbers so people can kick around ideas and not get too crazy with creation.  As it is, I made a chart for a break down of target numbers based on what I saw in the PHB so I could create new classes and I think I got it pretty close.  Now making a new class from the ground up goes a bit smoother.


----------



## DM-Rocco (Aug 29, 2008)

Wonka said:


> Woah woah woah!  That was completely NOT the intention of my post. I was in NO way saying you were doing this. In fact, I was SUPPORTING your arguments as being civil and reasonable. My original post was directed at no one in particular, and everyone in general. I was merely stating, and responding to an earlier post suggesting people were getting rude, out of hand, and off topic in the thread. My point was that if you take the time to post your views, regardless of the subject and your opninon on them, on a message board such as this, you have to expect responses and that not all of them will agree with you. If you just want to post your thoughts without dealing with responses, your best off Blogging. I further responded by saying that I didnt think anyone in this thread was being rude, yourself included. Sorry if I came of sounding like I was attacking you, because I most certainly wasn't.  Hopefully I have cleared up any misunderstandings!



See, a good example of why it is hard to know the intent of a post if you can't hear the voice behind it.  I think that if everyone in this thread sat down and had a cup of coffee, not one person would think the other is attacking them.  It is just the lack of a voice to give it feeling and intent that makes us jump to conclusion.

I could tell by your follow up post that I miss read your first post and did my own follow up post.  I don’t think you are here to cause trouble so no worries and sorry for a false assumption on my part


----------



## D'karr (Aug 29, 2008)

DM-Rocco said:


> I like it when people agree with me, even if kind of
> 
> I think they should have still included the classes they did, but they should have also included a break down of target numbers to reach for each power at each level and things like that.
> 
> I interviewed WOTC personal for an interview in our next issue and they do have target numbers, based on controllers, strikers, defenders and leaders.  I think it increases the playability of the game to release those numbers so people can kick around ideas and not get too crazy with creation.  As it is, I made a chart for a break down of target numbers based on what I saw in the PHB so I could create new classes and I think I got it pretty close.  Now making a new class from the ground up goes a bit smoother.




I think that is where the Damage by Level table in the DMG comes in handy.  It gives you a low, medium and high number that you can use as an average depending on what the power "feels" like.  And like you said there are a lot of core classes so looking at what they have as an average, based on their role is a good starting point.

If anything an article in Dragon that detailed some of the design ideas for each role would be nice.  Something like what they did for the original concepts of Prestige Classes when 3e came out.


----------



## Wonka (Aug 29, 2008)

DM-Rocco said:


> See, a good example of why it is hard to know the intent of a post if you can't hear the voice behind it.  I think that if everyone in this thread sat down and had a cup of coffee, not one person would think the other is attacking them.  It is just the lack of a voice to give it feeling and intent that makes us jump to conclusion.
> 
> I could tell by your follow up post that I miss read your first post and did my own follow up post.  I don’t think you are here to cause trouble so no worries and sorry for a false assumption on my part




No worries, just glad we've got this cleared up. I found your follow up after I had posted my thirdup (is that a real word? Who cares im using it anyway! ) post. And I agree, it is very hard to know where someone is coming from without hearing a voice. It makes me sad that my absolute favorite form of humor, sarcasm, sadly doesn't work to well on internet message boards  

I don't have coffee, so have a d6 instead!


----------



## DM-Rocco (Aug 29, 2008)

D'karr said:


> I think that is where the Damage by Level table in the DMG comes in handy.  It gives you a low, medium and high number that you can use as an average depending on what the power "feels" like.  And like you said there are a lot of core classes so looking at what they have as an average, based on their role is a good starting point.
> 
> If anything an article in Dragon that detailed some of the design ideas for each role would be nice.  Something like what they did for the original concepts of Prestige Classes when 3e came out.




Are you referring to the chart on page 42 of the 4e DMG?  Just so I know what you are referring to.

If so, it is helpful, but I have seen some people already make a mistake and begin to use that as a bible for creating when you can't use that alone.  The for PC roles of controller, defender, leader and striker each do different types of damage based on what role they have.  Sure, the base chart on page 42 is a good starting point, controllers do less damage and effect more creatures (one of my grips for why i think wizards are weaker IMO) and strikers do more damage but usually target one creature like the Warlock.  

Here is another things I am on the fence about for 4e.  I like that they have roles, but I dislike them at the same time.  I think, as a DM, it rocks because it gives the DM a good idea of what they should be doing in combat under normal conditions.  As a player though, I think they made the roles too rigid.  A wizard shouldn't have to be forced into a controller role, he should have an option to be a striker without having to be a warlock.  I also don't really see the leader role or the defender role as being middle ground either.  In this regard, I feel 4e made too many restrictions on the PCs.


----------



## DM-Rocco (Aug 29, 2008)

Wonka said:


> No worries, just glad we've got this cleared up. I found your follow up after I had posted my thirdup (is that a real word? Who cares im using it anyway! ) post. And I agree, it is very hard to know where someone is coming from without hearing a voice. It makes me sad that my absolute favorite form of humor, sarcasm, sadly doesn't work to well on internet message boards
> 
> I don't have coffee, so have a d6 instead!




In person I am, so I have been told , just a wee bit sarcastic too.  Sadly, I agree, I have to tame myself on the boards so I don't come off wrong.  Also sadly, this gives others the misunderstanding that I am either mocking them or that I am somehow making a personal attack.  Sometimes I feel like it is a lose/lose battle.  But I like to chat it up, so here I am.

d6 right back at ya , and one for everyone else, d6's for all , , , , , , , , , , , ,


----------



## DM-Rocco (Aug 29, 2008)

DM-Rocco said:


> In person I am, so I have been told , just a wee bit sarcastic too.  Sadly, I agree, I have to tame myself on the boards so I don't come off wrong.  Also sadly, this gives others the misunderstanding that I am either mocking them or that I am somehow making a personal attack.  Sometimes I feel like it is a lose/lose battle.  But I like to chat it up, so here I am.
> 
> d6 right back at ya , and one for everyone else, d6's for all , , , , , , , , , , , ,



That is kind of cool, I learn something new everyday.  Does that work for a d20 :20:?

Boo, that would have been cool though.  Anyway, carry on.  I was just testing.


----------



## Lord Xtheth (Aug 29, 2008)

Charwoman Gene said:


> Are my players just gods of combat or something? Fights seem pretty fast for us. Solos are a little boring once we all run out of encounter powers, but otherwise, were good.




Mine too... and my players stop and talk about tactics every single round. WHen I sit and think about how my 3.x Combats went, I NEVER want to go back.

As far as running out of encounter/daily powers... there WEREN'T any in 3.x at all, so it makes a HUGE difference especially when there's no more "I swing, ... , I swing, ... , I swing, ... "


----------



## D'karr (Aug 29, 2008)

DM-Rocco said:


> Are you referring to the chart on page 42 of the 4e DMG?  Just so I know what you are referring to.




Yep, that's the one.



> If so, it is helpful, but I have seen some people already make a mistake and begin to use that as a bible for creating when you can't use that alone.




Correct, which is why I said earlier that it was a good starting point in combination with the damages that each of the classes have per power.



> Here is another things I am on the fence about for 4e.  I like that they have roles, but I dislike them at the same time.  I think, as a DM, it rocks because it gives the DM a good idea of what they should be doing in combat under normal conditions.  As a player though, I think they made the roles too rigid.  A wizard shouldn't have to be forced into a controller role, he should have an option to be a striker without having to be a warlock.  I also don't really see the leader role or the defender role as being middle ground either.  In this regard, I feel 4e made too many restrictions on the PCs.




I see it in a slightly different way.  Before, I would choose a class and then tried to shoehorn it into what I really wanted for a character concept.  A lot of times that character concept had a specific way that I saw it performing in combat sometimes that class would fit and sometimes it was a very difficult fit.

Now I decide what my character role is in combat (the purpose for the role).  Based on that I have a few options of which way to go.  Then I choose the class that best fits how I see that concept.  That is why we've been able to repurpose classes based mostly on changing the flavor, with hardly any mechanical changes.

As for the Wizard, I've kind of always seen them as the controller role in combat anyway so I didn't have much problem with that.  In addition, rituals allow for so much more flexibility that I don't feel there is a limitation placed on them.  The only complaint is that I would've liked to have seen more rituals in the core.  But guess what, with very little work we are already using some of the other "utility" spells from previous editions and converting them to rituals.


----------



## Arashi Ravenblade (Aug 29, 2008)

I dont like anything about 4e. 
I really tried when I got the core set to like it, and try and find something with it that was redeemable.
Its a ok game in and of itself. It isnt D&D. It's Exalted d20 with the numbers filed off, and Exalted does it better.


----------



## Logos7 (Aug 29, 2008)

Or you know its DnD, 

It takes more than one person or one gaming group to decide something, and  I think that it is pretty clear that the gaming majority has embraced 4th edition as DnD (based on the reprints of the core and setting guides, etc, etc) 

What I like about 4th is how much frickin faster it is to prepare as a Dm, it is SOOOOOO much faster, I can get an entire session ready in an hour, absolutely to my satisfaction. I can create new monsters in 15 mins entirely to my satisfaction. This is not at all the way it was in 3.x (hours and hours and hours later...)

The game itself runs fast, sure things vary depending on you know actual play but the players are consulted quicker, turns come faster, and everyone seems involved and active at the table, completely unlike many a 3.x dnd snoozeathon that resulted in my playing 2 rounds for about a minute each out of an hour because I thought, hey why not a fighter, while the mages and the clerics are fidgeting with their spells ,and calculating their buffs, and consulting books. 

I think more or less all of the things in the op really hit the nail on the head, my only problem is really the lack of magic items and rituals and that's being fixed as we speak.


----------



## Jürgen Hubert (Aug 29, 2008)

Wonka said:


> Whether or not the OP wanted feedback/comments or not, they posted here and didnt blog it, so thats exactly what they are going to get.




Actually, I did both. And I specifically _invited_ debate.


----------



## Jürgen Hubert (Aug 29, 2008)

Arashi Ravenblade said:


> I dont like anything about 4e.
> I really tried when I got the core set to like it, and try and find something with it that was redeemable.
> Its a ok game in and of itself. It isnt D&D. It's Exalted d20 with the numbers filed off, and Exalted does it better.




I'm currently running an Exalted game, so I'd like to chime in on that.

First of all, Exalted (at least, _Solar_ Exalted) are much, _much_ more powerful). In Exalted, you can have a power as a _starting_ character that allows you to parry a _mountain_ thrown at you, and I've not seen anything like that in D&D 4E.

Furthermore, Solar Exalted aren't really that good at teamwork. Yes, each caste has its own specialty, but each of them is supposed to be a Glorious Leader in its own right, so they don't have that many powers that directly help with teamwork tactics within its own circle.

Finally, Exalted really does not have much of a concept of "Combat Balance". It's extremely hard to gauge just what kinds of enemies are appropriate for the player characters, as their combat abilities are all over the map.

I mean, I like Exalted. It's a fun game, and I've learned a lot about high-powered gaming, but I really cannot see much of a similarity between it and D&D 4E - D&D 4E remains D&D to the core, despite all the changes.


----------



## Gothmog (Aug 29, 2008)

Great thread Jurgen, and I agree with your 11 reasons 100%.  D&D 4e has brought me back to D&D, and I'm having a blast with it.  Its hands down the best version of D&D I've ever played or run.  A couple other things I really like about 4e:

* I can stat and prep a game in almost not time at all.  In fact, I don't really even need the books with me to prep a game now.  I haven't been able to do that since 1e/2e.

* Everytime I play 4e, I discover or find something I hadn't noticed before that makes me think "wow, that is awesome!"  On an emotional level, it reminds me of playing 1e as a kid, and discovering all sorts of cool new stuff.

* The new default cosmology is 100% pure win.  I really like the Feywild, Shadowfell, Astral Sea, Elemental Chaos, and FAR REALM.  God, I hope we get a book about the Far Realm.

* The tone of D&D has changed subtly from super-high fantasy, to a dark and dangerous high fantasy.  Again, good move.

* PCs are mortal now, at pretty much all levels.  There really isn't a point at which PCs become immune to harm, as there has been in previous editions.  Even with bumped up hit points, skills, powers, and being more capable, a 1st level adventure in 4e is far more lethal than a 3e game, and players have to play smarter, not more optomized to survive.

* 4e is MUCH more modular than 3e, and you can change, add, or remove stuff without having a cascade of unintended effects.

* I LOVE LOVE LOVE what they have done with diseases.  Great idea.  I hope they implement some similar rules for curses as well, and use the condition track for all sorts of goodness.


Now, a few things that bug me about 4e:

* I want more rituals, but thats being fixed.

* Same for magic items- but again, thats being addressed.

* I'm chomping at the bit for more monsters- MMII can't get here fast enough.  I'm especially interested in critters from the Feywild, Shadowfell, and Far Realm.

* I miss the druid and barbarian (not so much the bard), but we'll have Ari's APG and the PHBII soon to address this.

* PCs recovering to full health every day and no lasting injuries bugs me, so we houseruled in a system for this.  So far its working well, and has no impact on how well 4e plays.

* I'm still on the fence about minions.  I like they are in the game now, but having 1 hp kinda bugs me from a conceptual point of view.  I know why it was done (no bookkeeping), but its somewhat hard to have an internally consistent world with 1 hp minions.  My fix was to give minions 1/4 the hp of a normal critter for their type and level since they are also worth 1/4 the experience.  Most of the time, they still go down in one hit, but for the simulationist in me (yes, I'm a simulationist AND narrativist DM, and I LOVE 4e) it makes me happy. 

* I'd really like some guidelines for creating new powers.  Its not all that hard to do, but I really wish that had been included in the 4e DMG (which is the best DMG to date, both for veternan and new DMs).


----------



## Lanefan (Aug 29, 2008)

Some things about 4e design I like:

 - Increased use of terrain as a feature...which means more interesting set-piece encounters and having the terrain and surroundings actually play a part in said encounters
 - Points of light in the darkness
 - The "official" adventures so far; both very good (I haven't seen H3 yet)
 - The artwork and general look of it...big improvement over 3e
 - I haven't tried it yet, but if what others say is true then faster char-gen at all levels can only be a good thing. 

Some things that bother me at the design level:

 - Way too big a gap between commoners and 1st-level characters (ditto for minions and non-minions)
 - Too much realism sacrificed to efficiency e.g. 1-1-1-1 diagonals, firecubes, etc.
 - Too much blurring between the classes - caster classes can fight, and non-caster classes can do magic...wtf?
 - Overemphasis on balance again at cost of realism.  In reality, not everyone is going to be able to help much in every situation...so why force that into the game?

Lanefan


----------



## Korgoth (Aug 29, 2008)

To me, 4E just goes farther in the uninteresting direction that 3E went. It's like music I strongly dislike, turned up to 11.

Jurgen, several of your reasons mentioned ease of play. While it may play fast compared to 3.5... that's like saying "animal X is faster than a snail" - so are a lot of things.

I get immense ease of play with OD&D, and I get to play a game that challenges the players rather than challenging their characters (you know, those meaningless formulae scribbled on a piece of paper!). No skill points, feats or frikkin laser beams to fool with. Just swords, sorcery (and/or planets), dungeons and dragons. No mathematical trivialities!

On the other hand... I recall that you like Gurps, so mathematical trivialities are right up your alley I'm sure.


----------



## Gothmog (Aug 29, 2008)

Lanefan said:


> ]
> - Increased use of terrain as a feature...which means more interesting set-piece encounters and having the terrain and surroundings actually play a part in said encounters
> 
> ...
> ...




Oops, I forgot these two.  Terrain and dynamic combat in 4e is fun.  I've got several new gamers who really enjoy how chaotic combat feels.  One of those players tried 3e, and she hated the combats- she found them incredibly dull.

And the 4e art....light years better than 3e art, and it inspires me to make adventures, NPCs, and worlds again.  It really reflects the points of light theme well, and shows characters in the world rather than against a dull white background.  Big thumbs up there.  And WotC, if you're listening, I want LOTS more Lucio Parillo, and snag that chap Pat Loboyko- his stuff is perfect for D&D and has a great PoL feel.


----------



## Plissken (Aug 29, 2008)

> *Less-complex high-level spellcasters.* Once your player characters hit double digits, deciding which spells your high-level wizards, clerics, and druids choose every day became a real chore, and it frequently held up the game while the players of these characters made up their mind. No longer - even wizards, who still can make some choices in that regard, now spend much less time on figuring out their daily spell lists.




*The Operative*: It's not my place to ask. I believe in something greater than myself. A better world. A world without sin.  
*Capt. Malcolm Reynolds*: So me and mine gotta lay down and die... so you can live in your better world?


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Aug 29, 2008)

Korgoth said:


> I get immense ease of play with OD&D, and I get to play a game that challenges the players rather than challenging their characters (you know, those meaningless formulae scribbled on a piece of paper!). No skill points, feats or frikkin laser beams to fool with. Just swords, sorcery (and/or planets), dungeons and dragons. No mathematical trivialities!



The numbers mean something to me - If I play a RPG, I want to use the numbers that define my characters because they represent this character. If a session never requires me to use any of my character abilities, I feel a bit like I wasted my time, or at least didn't really play that character. It was just me, thinking about a fictional situation and reacting to it, and the person I was impersonating didn't matter.

But that's not enough, sure. I also want to feel challenged myself - by choosing which character abilities I use, and how. In combat, these are tactical decisions - which ally do I aid in his attacks, which enemy do I take out first (and how), which ally do I protect, how can I maneuver my opponents into a situation more favorable to me.



> Overemphasis on balance again at cost of realism. In reality, not everyone is going to be able to help much in every situation...so why force that into the game?



Well, "magic" is not realistic at all, and yet we want it in our fantasy games. My view on this is that a role-playing game is still a game. Imbalances are not a sign of a good game. In reality, someone trained in using a gun might be a lot more deadly and survive a lot longer than one with just some martial arts training. But in a game that includes both options, they should be equally valid (assuming equal cost, yada yada  ). 
This is not a simulationist perspective, I suppose, but I find the "validity" of all available roles in a role-playing game very important for my enjoyment of the game. 

There are other gameplay concerns for this - I like having the ability to make "fair" challenges for my PCs when I DM. I want the ability to predict how tough any situation (be it a combat encounter, or anything else that will resolved with dice) will be for them. A game that doesn't ensure balance across the board makes this very difficult. 
But I might be willing to compromise here - if an individual class or character is not good at certain situations, give me tools to handle this difference. If a Noble is inherently inferior in combat to a wizard or a fighter, give me a number that describes this difference so I can take it into account. If a Fighter is inherently inferior in a social situation then a Noble, again, tell me how much so, and I can take it into account. 
I still find this inferior to using balance across a board (to be expected by a compromise), because it still makes it likely that one or more players will not enjoy important parts of the game as others, simply due to their choice of character.


----------



## Monkey Boy (Aug 29, 2008)

vagabundo said:


> @Monkey Boy
> 
> Just out of curiousity how many PC's do you have in your group? I've got four and noticed the issue your having.
> 
> I have a funny feeling that combat time is inversely proportional to the number of PCs, even with adjusted XP budgets.




First session saw 5 players fighting 3 rooms worth of goblins. It took about an hour and a half. Second session 6 players fighting 3 rooms worth of hobgoblins and it took 3 hours. I threw minions into the mix but it didn't help much. An earlier poster mentioned the slowness of combat may be due to inexperienced players. I think there is some truth to this.


----------



## Dimitris (Aug 29, 2008)

Thanks for the d20 NPC Wiki. I liked it very much !! I am sticking with 3.5 / Pathfinder and I am going to use it.

After all, one of the main reasons that I decide to stay with the 3.5 / Pathfinder is the fact that is open due to the OGL.  

I believe that even if you wanted to, you can't support the community with a wiki like this in the 4e. The GSL is much more restrictive.

Dimitris


----------



## Samuel Leming (Aug 29, 2008)

Wow!

We've got people in this thread disagreeing with each other about 4e and they're actually being nice to each other! You guys impress me. 

I hope I didn't just jinx it... 

Sam


----------



## D'karr (Aug 29, 2008)

Samuel Leming said:


> Wow!
> 
> We've got people in this thread disagreeing with each other about 4e and they're actually being nice to each other! You guys impress me.
> 
> ...




Yep, it is possible to do so.

I do hope you did not jinx it too...


----------



## Imaro (Aug 29, 2008)

Arashi Ravenblade said:


> I dont like anything about 4e.
> I really tried when I got the core set to like it, and try and find something with it that was redeemable.
> Its a ok game in and of itself. It isnt D&D. It's Exalted d20 with the numbers filed off, and Exalted does it better.




You know Arashi, I'd actually say "It isnt D&D.  It's Earthdawn d20 with the numbers filed off, and Earthdawn does it better.".  Actually I think Earthdawn and Exalted do what D&D 4e tries to do (as far as powers, magic, rituals, etc.) better than D&D 4e.  Why?  Because they actually justify why powers (talents/charms) work the way they do within the realities of the gameworlds, and don't impose nonsensical restrictions on uses per..5min or days. 

 D&D 4e goes the route of not justifying why any of the powers work the way they do, and seeing many other games with similar mechanics where they are justiified and made consistent with the games reality...I can't help but feel it was a little lazy as far as design goes.



Jürgen Hubert said:


> I'm currently running an Exalted game, so I'd like to chime in on that.
> 
> First of all, Exalted (at least, _Solar_ Exalted) are much, _much_ more powerful). In Exalted, you can have a power as a _starting_ character that allows you to parry a _mountain_ thrown at you, and I've not seen anything like that in D&D 4E.
> 
> ...




As far as teamwork goes, well the Dragonblooded have that niche in the Exalted world and thus if you want a game that centers on teamwork you would play the DB instead of Solars.  Solars are lone badass heroes like  Riddick, Lancelot, Elric, Wolverine, etc.  They may have companions and a team but they definitely have the power where they can do things their way as opposed to the teams way.  It's never been a big deal to me when I've ran or played Solars.

I think both the charms and magic (not power level but concept) can be used to draw parallels to Exalted...however I think the biggest comparison can be drawn between the two games cosmologies, D&D 4e's cosmology seems to  be very similar to Exalted's (but toned down a few notches) upon first glance.  

I use XP to gauge enemies when I play Exalted... but I get what you're saying.  Exalted gives characters a chance to create characters who are powerful in whatever concept they create...I think it's imperative a GM know his players characters and personalize challenges in Exalted.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Aug 29, 2008)

Imaro said:


> You know Arashi, I'd actually say "It isnt D&D.  It's Earthdawn d20 with the numbers filed off, and Earthdawn does it better.".  Actually I think Earthdawn and Exalted do what D&D 4e tries to do (as far as powers, magic, rituals, etc.) better than D&D 4e.  Why?  Because they actually justify why powers (talents/charms) work the way they do within the realities of the gameworlds, and don't impose nonsensical restrictions on uses per..5min or days.
> 
> D&D 4e goes the route of not justifying why any of the powers work the way they do, and seeing many other games with similar mechanics where they are justiified and made consistent with the games reality...I can't help but feel it was a little lazy as far as design goes.



Well, I think - from my very limited experience in either games (Earthdawn or Exalted) that 4E does the mechanics better.  (But take that with a grain of salt - again, limited experiences).

I know that others brought up the Earthdawn comparison (especially in regards to healing surges). One view on "martial" abilities is that they _are_magic (just like in Earthdawn). The entire "moxie" thing of hit points, the ability of mortal man being able to engage a dragon or a humanoid 10 times your size in melee, they all don't describe something mundane occurring, and can you _really_ explain this with mundane skill? 

Martial Powers are like the wires used in movies like Matrix. They are invisible (in movies they are simply edited out), but they allow you to perform moves that normally wouldn't be possible. 

I am looking forward to Redbricks 4E Earthdawn. 



> I think both the charms and magic (not power level but concept) can be used to draw parallels to Exalted...however I think the biggest comparison can be drawn between the two games cosmologies, D&D 4e's cosmology seems to  be very similar to Exalted's (but toned down a few notches) upon first glance.



Did Exalted 1e have a different cosmology then Exalted 2e? Because I found the description in 2e not similar. But maybe we are looking at different parts?


----------



## DM-Rocco (Aug 29, 2008)

Lanefan said:


> Some things about 4e design I like:
> 
> - Increased use of terrain as a feature...which means more interesting set-piece encounters and having the terrain and surroundings actually play a part in said encounters
> - Points of light in the darkness
> ...




I love the use of terrain in 4e.  This is something we did a lot of on our own but it is nice to see it in maps and such.


----------



## DM-Rocco (Aug 29, 2008)

D'karr said:


> Yep, it is possible to do so.
> 
> I do hope you did not jinx it too...




Dang it.  I was going to say something clever and witty laced with sarcastic undertones, but I better not.


----------



## DM-Rocco (Aug 29, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> The numbers mean something to me - If I play a RPG, I want to use the numbers that define my characters because they represent this character. If a session never requires me to use any of my character abilities, I feel a bit like I wasted my time, or at least didn't really play that character. It was just me, thinking about a fictional situation and reacting to it, and the person I was impersonating didn't matter.
> 
> But that's not enough, sure. I also want to feel challenged myself - by choosing which character abilities I use, and how. In combat, these are tactical decisions - which ally do I aid in his attacks, which enemy do I take out first (and how), which ally do I protect, how can I maneuver my opponents into a situation more favorable to me.
> 
> ...




Well, of course magic is not "real" but that doesn't mean that "reality" can't fit into the realm of fantasy.

I think what he means, and what I prefer, is the suspension of disbelief.  I can watch just about any movie, but if the suspension of disbelief doesn’t ground itself in some for of reality or otherwise explain itself, I lose interest in the movie.  The same applies for Roleplaying.

I know that magic doesn’t exist in the real world, but the game comes up with things that make it possible, whether it is pacts with dark beings (warlock), the use of components and symbols to get a desired effect (wizards) or genetic abnormalities resulting in powers (sorcerers).  Things that aren’t grounded in reality are obscure rules that come into play and make no sense.  Attacks of opportunity, or opportunity in 4e, is a good example.  In 4e, you get an attack on everyone that comes close and provokes an attack.  So, if you were to stand in a doorway as 1 million goblins rushed through the door way that you were defending you would get 1 attack on each minion of the million.  

While the ability to cast a fireball isn’t “real” it could be reasonably explained in a fantasy setting.  I can’t find any reality in the breaking of physics that it would entail to attack each of the 1 million goblins coming through the door with a sword.  Not only would you not be able to swing the sword that much in one round because your arms would tire, or could you even get in that many blows in 6 seconds but the bodies would pile up very quickly.

So, at least for me, if it breaks the boundaries of physics, it disinterests me.

I like some realism in my games and dismiss things that don’t make sense in some form regarding suspension of disbelief.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Aug 29, 2008)

DM-Rocco said:


> Well, of course magic is not "real" but that doesn't mean that "reality" can't fit into the realm of fantasy.
> 
> I think what he means, and what I prefer, is the suspension of disbelief.  I can watch just about any movie, but if the suspension of disbelief doesn’t ground itself in some for of reality or otherwise explain itself, I lose interest in the movie.  The same applies for Roleplaying.
> 
> ...




If I wanted to get serious about this extreme example, here is my approach: 

1) 1 million goblins won't come through that door. A goblin has a speed of 6 squares, and using running, he could move up to 16 squares per round. This means the maximum number of goblins that could get through that door are the number of goblins that can be within 16 squares of it. Since you can have per RAW only 1 goblin per square, this leaves you with 16 x 16 = 256 goblins. (assuming they only get to the door and then disappear into thin air, not thinking about where they end up)
2) An attack does not describe a single "swing" of a sword, it presents a series of swings, feints, parries and moves that you can perform within 6 seconds in a 5 x 5 ft wide area and extending into a 15 x 15 ft wide area. Hence, if in these 6 seconds 144 goblins come through the area, why shouldn't your series of swings, feints, moves and parries be able to affect them? 
Imagine, 144 goblins entering through a single door - that looks pretty much like a constant stream of bodies, and if you swing your sword around, you're bound to hit a lot, and you certainly won't make one sword swing per enemy. It's a bit like cleave, except you don't need a feat or power to explain this happening. 

Well, lucky I didn't think seriously about this and wasted your and my time with coming up with a solution to explain the scenario, right?


----------



## DM-Rocco (Aug 29, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> If I wanted to get serious about this extreme example, here is my approach:
> 
> 1) 1 million goblins won't come through that door. A goblin has a speed of 6 squares, and using running, he could move up to 16 squares per round. This means the maximum number of goblins that could get through that door are the number of goblins that can be within 16 squares of it. Since you can have per RAW only 1 goblin per square, this leaves you with 16 x 16 = 256 goblins. (assuming they only get to the door and then disappear into thin air, not thinking about where they end up)
> 2) An attack does not describe a single "swing" of a sword, it presents a series of swings, feints, parries and moves that you can perform within 6 seconds in a 5 x 5 ft wide area and extending into a 15 x 15 ft wide area. Hence, if in these 6 seconds 144 goblins come through the area, why shouldn't your series of swings, feints, moves and parries be able to affect them?
> ...




ROFL
Um, yeah.  Okay, even if you managed to fit 144 goblins within the squares needed to get in that area there is just no way for you to hit all of them in 6 seconds.  Well, okay, if all the goblins where in a giant canon and you held your sword/weapon at head height and the canon shot all the goblins through in a burst a speed then maybe, but I'm sure your own arms would be taken off too

Ohh, in 4e you don't run at 4 times your movement, you just get a +2.

And, maybe they are all entering the doorway with an extradimensional portal where you can fit 1 million people in tight quarters.


----------



## Aristotle (Aug 29, 2008)

I have to agree with the OP on all points. I've always had good ideas for characters that were fighters and rogues, but I've never played them because they felt boring to me after a few levels. 

I would add rule modularity to the list. It feels like some modules could easily be replaced with a few minutes work. (i.e. low magic setting: characters get +1 to attack, damage, and all defenses every 5 levels. No magic weapons, armor, or neck slot items exist.) Others might take more work. Similarly it feels like you could blur the distinctions between roles by making a generic class for each power source. I'm really hoping for an unearthed arcana type supplement at some point that features that kind of modularity.




Khuxan said:


> So that's why I ask - because as much as I like 4E, I cannot escape the feeling it's missing something.



I agree with this too though. I love the game, and have no intention of playing anything else right now, but sometimes it feels like something isn't right even when everything makes sense (to me) and everyone is having fun. I'm at a loss to explain it.


----------



## Jürgen Hubert (Aug 30, 2008)

I remembered two other things I don't like about 4E:

- There's no good way of playing creatures significantly more powerful than the human norm. I mean, it's not as if Level Adjustment in 3.5 worked very well, but at least you _could_ play a lich or vampire.

- There's no separate grouping of _non-combat_ powers - powers that are cool and useful, but provide no combat bonus at all. I'm thinking of things like feats of strength for fighters, powers of oratory for paladins and clerics, and so on - powers that you could use in skill challenges and other role-playing situations.

For all its mechanical problems, Exalted has tons of examples of those. Heck, they even had cool powers for the _Bureaucracy_ skill. While skill challenges in D&D 4E work well enough, they are missing the "wow" factor that many combat powers have.


----------



## Reynard (Aug 30, 2008)

Jürgen Hubert said:


> - There's no separate grouping of _non-combat_ powers - powers that are cool and useful, but provide no combat bonus at all. I'm thinking of things like feats of strength for fighters, powers of oratory for paladins and clerics, and so on - powers that you could use in skill challenges and other role-playing situations.




One of the things that turns me off most about 4E is it's almost monolithic focus on combat, particularly in regards to what the PCs are capable of and what monsters are like.  Now, I like the monster stat block for is clean, utilitarian qualities.  But the MM is truly uninspiring.  Same with the PHB.  I cannot for the life of me read through the PHB in preparation for a 4E game I will be playing in and get inspired or excited about an actual character.  All I see is a pair of very narrow combat capabilities per class.

This probably wouldn't be so bad if it was only the focus of the rules that was centered on combat.  After all, 1e and 4E are very similar in this regard: the PHB consists mostly of how your character can kill things, while the DMG provides a bunch of material on all sorts of neat stuff.  Unfortunately, 4E took that extra step where the focus of _*play*_ is centered on combat as well.  the idea, as laid out in the DMG adventure design section, is an hour per combat (too long!) and some time for kibbitzing before and after.  i understand the reason -- combat is fun and D&D is supposed to be fun; 2+2=4 -- but all that other fun stuff (exploration, resource management, followers and strongholds, operational play, etc...) got cut because it was (and I am sure "is", I know my tastes aren't shared by many) not considered fun.  Which leaves combat.

Man, I remember some great sessions where there wasn't a bit of combat.  Not because everyone was busy role-playing (though that happened too and it was great, but that's not edition dependent) but because the party was struggling to get from A to B on the way to defeat McBaddie McGuffineister without starving, getting lost or getting eaten by something nasty and horrible and thoroughly out of their league in the middle of the wilderness or the depths of the dungeon.  I remember players statting up, naming and writing out backgrounds for all of their 9th level followers, satffing their keeps and trying to squeeze every last penny out of their won treasure just to make upkeep costs.  I remember parties standing around a statue with a million gp ruby in its forhead, spending forever and a day trying to figure out whether they should go for it, and how, until one party finally broke and went for a straight on grab (soon followed by the clatter of 4d6 drop the lowest).  I remember 4 out of 5 players sitting with rapt attention on me and the wizard player as a magical duel unfolded, never once feeling bored or useless in the process.  All of these sessions were awesome fun, and they happened in every edition up till now.  And every one of those things has been excised in favor of cool combat abilities and "balance".

4E has some great ideas for keeping D&D combat interesting.  Too bad it sacrificied nearly everything else to achieve that.


----------



## Henry (Aug 30, 2008)

Reynard said:


> ...Unfortunately, 4E took that extra step where the focus of _*play*_ is centered on combat as well.  the idea, as laid out in the DMG adventure design section, is an hour per combat (too long!) and some time for kibbitzing before and after.  i understand the reason -- combat is fun and D&D is supposed to be fun; 2+2=4 -- but all that other fun stuff (exploration, resource management, followers and strongholds, operational play, etc...) got cut because it was (and I am sure "is", I know my tastes aren't shared by many) not considered fun.  Which leaves combat.
> 
> Man, I remember some great sessions where there wasn't a bit of combat...the party was struggling to get from A to B on the way to defeat McBaddie McGuffineister without starving, getting lost or getting eaten by something nasty and horrible and thoroughly out of their league in the middle of the wilderness or the depths of the dungeon.




However, none of that disappeared, from what I can tell - Chapter 2 is all about exploration, pacing, narration, how to keep suspense, etc., Chapter 5 is in part about keeping some dice action for players who love to roll their dice, without turning things into yet another combat for the players who don't like lots of combat. Chapter 9's all about making a cohesive world to adventure in, and, outside of the DMG, that Dungeoncraft series online has been pretty good in some of the stuff about making living, breathing worlds for DMs. For us long-experienced dungeon masters, it might not be enough talbe fare, but they do treat it with a significant page count for the novice DM to dig into.

In my opinion, this may have been the best book since the very first DMG for actually giving DMs good advice on how to do his thing. Goodness knows the second edition DMG didn't, and the 3e DMG really didn't do the job it needed to, either. The 1st DMG, followed by the 4th DMG, and then 3.5 edition's DMG2, are the three best ones in the series when it comes to giving DM's both good advice and lots of ideas for world-filler for their games. Heck, 4e sees the return of Dungeon Dressing for different rooms in a dungeon (p.110), and random dungeons (p.190) something missing since 1979!


----------



## Jürgen Hubert (Aug 30, 2008)

Dimitris said:


> Thanks for the d20 NPC Wiki. I liked it very much !! I am sticking with 3.5 / Pathfinder and I am going to use it.
> 
> After all, one of the main reasons that I decide to stay with the 3.5 / Pathfinder is the fact that is open due to the OGL.
> 
> I believe that even if you wanted to, you can't support the community with a wiki like this in the 4e. The GSL is much more restrictive.




Since the d20 Wiki doesn't run under the OGL/d20 License either (it uses all sorts of D&D supplements), this won't be an issue - it falls under the fan site policy.


----------



## FireLance (Aug 30, 2008)

Jonathan Moyer said:


> I'd like something halfway between minions and regular monsters.



Just a quick plug for something I've worked on: Adjuncts.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Aug 30, 2008)

DM-Rocco said:


> ROFL
> Um, yeah.  Okay, even if you managed to fit 144 goblins within the squares needed to get in that area there is just no way for you to hit all of them in 6 seconds.  Well, okay, if all the goblins where in a giant canon and you held your sword/weapon at head height and the canon shot all the goblins through in a burst a speed then maybe, but I'm sure your own arms would be taken off too
> 
> Ohh, in 4e you don't run at 4 times your movement, you just get a +2.
> ...




Speed: 6 + 2 = 8; two move actions = 16. 

Ah, I think there is some inconsistency in my "math" - I am pretty sure I had written down 16 x 16 somewhere, but apparently it got lost over editing or something... Silly me... I should really reread my posts before posting...


----------



## Ginnel (Aug 30, 2008)

Jürgen Hubert said:


> I remembered two other things I don't like about 4E:
> 
> - There's no good way of playing creatures significantly more powerful than the human norm. I mean, it's not as if Level Adjustment in 3.5 worked very well, but at least you _could_ play a lich or vampire.
> 
> - There's no separate grouping of _non-combat_ powers - powers that are cool and useful, but provide no combat bonus at all. I'm thinking of things like feats of strength for fighters, powers of oratory for paladins and clerics, and so on - powers that you could use in skill challenges and other role-playing situations.




Well I'm giving a one shot a try asking players what concepts they want to play then writing out the classes/races myself this will probably include the characters playing Monster Classes, where the powers given will be based on a made up Monster rather than a predefined class, I'm sure I'll fit in some feats of strength esque utility powers for use out of combat too.


----------



## Andor (Aug 30, 2008)

If by fighter you mean only the fighter class and the core feats then yes they were kinda limited. If you expand fighter to include 'guys who hit things with sword' and include CW and PHB II and (especially) Bo9S then there is plenty to do with them in 3e.

Likewise rituals are nice but the Invocation rules from 3e beat them hollow and were there first.

But this is a 'What do you like about 4e' thread so:

At will powers, for the options they present to the set of default actions. 

The concise flavorfullness present in the racial powers.

Unlocking monster HP from level.

Flattening the power growth curve.

Unfortunately my giant bugaboo with 4e remains it's abstractness. What the heck does Bolstering Stike _do?_ What does it look like to someone next to that Paladin? I find it hard to immerse myself in character when I don't know what the world looks like through that character's eyes.


----------



## D'karr (Aug 30, 2008)

Reynard said:


> 4E has some great ideas for keeping D&D combat interesting.  Too bad it sacrificied nearly everything else to achieve that.




I'll have to disagree.  I was sitting at the car shop this morning going for a state inspection and I brought my DMG with me.  I started reading the book again to get more familiar with all the info it had.

Chapter 1 has a great section for identifying what type of players you have and what makes them tick.  So that the DM can find good ground to provide a fun game for each type of player he might have.

Chapter 2 concentrates on running the game.  It has a really good section on the modes of the game and how each one interacts.  Exploration is one of those modes.  The chapter also covers pacing and how to make the "environment" exciting.  Also how to dispense information to keep suspense and give rewards for clever exploration.  Improvisation, props, etc.  This chapter is chock full of good advice to run exciting games, even without combat.

That's as far as I got with the reading this morning but other sections also include awesome tools for running games that have combat, little combat or no combat. 

Your example about traveling from A to B trying to avoid starvation, etc.  That is quite easily modeled with a Skill Challenge.  A mage duel, can be a skill challenge or a combat encounter.  Even just a skill check if you choose.  I can see opposing mages trying to one-up each other with the use of rituals, arcana checks, history checks, religion checks, diplomacy and even intimidation.  

So in short, I don't understand these comments about the game ditching all these elements in favor of combat because I can easily point in the book to where it either gives me a tool to do that, or advice on how to do that.  And to top it off it gives me advice on how to keep ALL my players involved and having fun.


----------



## Reynard (Aug 30, 2008)

D'karr said:


> And to top it off it gives me advice on how to keep ALL my players involved and having fun.




Is this a feature?  I mean, sure, everyone is there to have fun, and it is important that all the _players_ be engaged in what's going on at the table.  That isn't the same thing as saying all the _characters_ need to be engaged in what's going on within the game at any moment.

BTW, I hadn't thought of usinga  skill challenge for a wizardly duel.  Excellent idea.


----------



## Starbuck_II (Aug 30, 2008)

D'karr said:


> I'll have to disagree. I was sitting at the car shop this morning going for a state inspection and I brought my DMG with me. I started reading the book again to get more familiar with all the info it had.
> 
> Chapter 1 has a great section for identifying what type of players you have and what makes them tick. So that the DM can find good ground to provide a fun game for each type of player he might have.
> 
> ...



 Most people do'nt read the DMG. 
When they read 4.0; I feel they look at only at PHB and MM because they feel they read the previous DMG and don't feel they need to read another one.


----------



## Celtavian (Aug 30, 2008)

I've been increasing the number of minions and/or completely eliminating minions from the games I was running. They were dying too quickly and serving no purpose.

My parties are smart because of the way I run D&D (all editions including 4E). They often draw combats into 10 foot wide hallways and hold the fight at a point with two main melees in front and the ranged in back. The Controller has been utterly destroying the minions with AoE before they even have a chance to be effective.

 Smart parties in 4E can turn supposedly challenging encounters into cakewalks due to the lack of diversification of monster abilities. Some of this is due to poor module design such as putting solos by themselves without realizing that one attack per around with a roughly 50% chance to hit lowered by the defender's combat abilities while 5 or 6 people are beating on you isn't much of a challenge. My party one time held two ghouls with four zombies in the back in a hallway and annhilated the zombies with AoE before they even had a chance to attack. They beat a solo down without using one healing surge.

I've had to beef up just about every major encounter in every module I've run just to somewhat challenge my PCs. Even then they are only challenged when they play stupid. But I had to do this in 3E as well as modules are designed for an average player using average tactics. And as the years have shown that is not the case with my players or myself.

I find 4E far less challenging than 3E in terms of play. Monsters seem more challenging on paper. I look at them and go "Ooooh, that is tough". Then when it comes to actual play they turn out to be rather weak, which is surprising. Not too long ago I ran a few bugbear stranglers against the party. The bugbear strangler managed to get CA and grab the rogue, but the rogue esacped with their move action the next turn with utter ease. An Acrobatics or Athletics roll is easy for just about everyone but a caster. So you move action to get out and then strike the strangler. Died quick and was a total waste of time.

They really lowered the lethality of the game in 4E and instead decided that long battles with high hit point, low damage creatures would be more exciting. Maybe this is what most people wanted, I'm not sure. I find it kind of tedious and boring myself. 

I had high hopes for 4E. I wish they had done things differently.


----------



## Gothmog (Aug 30, 2008)

Andor said:


> Unfortunately my giant bugaboo with 4e remains it's abstractness. What the heck does Bolstering Stike _do?_ What does it look like to someone next to that Paladin? I find it hard to immerse myself in character when I don't know what the world looks like through that character's eyes.




I can understand where you're coming from- at one point in time that would have bugged me too.  But over the last 4 years, I've played tons of Savage Worlds, and the powers in that game are generic, with "trappings" (what the effect looks like in the game world) created by the players.  Maybe I got "trained" to do this with SW, but I do the same thing with D&D 4e now, as do my players.  Pretty much, it can look or act like ANYTHING you can conceive of that fits your character concept.  Cool, huh?


----------



## Celtavian (Aug 30, 2008)

*re*

I'll list some things I like about 4E just to show that I don't hate it all. I do still play the game since I compromised with my friends:

1. Easier Prep Time: DnD 4E is easy to run and prep for. So much is streamlined and handwaved that it makes it an easy game to run. It is also easier to make characters and get the game underway. It is easy to make decisions on characters, though I miss the customization of 3E.

2. More options for melee: It is nice that the melee classes have more options. They don't do as much damage as 3.5 melees, which can suck sometimes when feeling heroic such as not being able to one shot a lvl 3 hobgoblin soldier even at lvl 20 or 30. Kind of an odd feeling not to be able to one shot something that much weaker than you. But they do have more options and can add a neat little effect here and there which I imagine makes them as happy as coming up with unique spell uses made me in 3.5.

3. Healing: I like the healing system. I never liked the "carry massive numbers of wands, scrolls, and potions to survive dungeon" healing standard. I much prefer being to able to endure the day with just rest and recuperation. I plan to steal healing surges for my 3.5 game to reduce the dependence on magic items for healing.

4. Reduced dependence on magic items: I never liked carrying a magic item arsenal. I always thought the characters looked stupid carrying a ton of magic items. They looked like a magic item Christmas tree. I'm going to figure out a way to bring this over to my 3.5 campaign. I may use level bonuses like they do in 4E. I don't like the magic item Christmas tree.

5. Rituals: I like the idea of rituals. I don't like how many spells they made into rituals, but some are appropriate such as for raise dead and scrying. I very much miss the interplay of defensive spells versus offensive spells. It is very hard to conduct a wizard duel when neither side has much power for the day and they will eventually be reduced to slogging at wills at each other. And the lack of ability to prepare for a battle for a caster is a massive boor. It used to be such fun to come up with a plan with your spell list to help the party win, now it isn't even possible.

6. Skill Challenges: I like skill challenges for overland travel, tracking, and certain other non-social encounters that are better solved with a simple series of rolls that gives the player a chance to use their skills. I don't much like them for social encounters, but I allow them and work in the roleplaying as I go along. But I won't let my characters accomplish a social skill challenge without giving me some appropriate roleplaying same as I won't let them administer first aid without putting down their weapon and shield. That just isn't happening.

7. Disease Mechanic: Great idea. Makes diseases far more lethal and realistic. I am stealing this as well for my 3E games. Though I imagine it won't be as lethal with the ease of _cure disease_. But I still like the mechanic better and will use it if I feel like throwing a curve at my players.

I'd like to add a few additional things I don't like that I didn't list in the previous thread.

*1. Nothing is permanent*: I didn't notice this at first. But no damage is permanent except petrification and possibly disease. 

For the most part no effect is permanent. Rest a day and you are all healed up for everything. 

Ability damage gone. Negative level gone. Curses that lasted until removed are gone. Being turned into a small animal or ice cube is gone. All permanent effects that were a cool party of fantasy or that made certain creatures such as undead fearsome are gone.

I seriously miss when my players were frightened by a group of wraiths, spectres, or vampires because negative levels were more dangerous than hit point damage and often harder to recover from at low levels. Now spectres are weak and easily dispatched and about as frightening as a goblin, less so than some goblins. 

I miss paralysis and hold person that used to last. If you were held or paralyzed, that made you sweat. I remember many times my players looking at the priest player and hoping that priest had a _Remove Paralysis_ ready. That made certain creatures more frightening and allowed them to use some crowd control that worked and put the party on their toes. Not to mention the mage had fun working such spells on our enemies.

All the non-permanent, make a save every round effects make the game alot less lethal. I've yet to see a spell last more than four rounds. And most spells on average last two rounds and often just one round or don't take effect at all. the lack of dangerous, lasting effects has really lowered the lethality of the game and the terror that creatures inspire. Even grappling is incredibly weak now and easily escaped.

I'm not sure why they did this. I for one liked the lethality and game dynamic that such effects added to the overall roleplaying experience. It made a good priest worth their weight in gold. 

2. Lack of Level based class features other than powers: I miss things like Immunity to Fear for the paladin. The ranger camouflage. Rogue evasion and Uncanny Dodge. All the nifty monk and bard abilities. Things that were permanent that made you feel like you were improving. 

I was hoping they would turn more classes into the model of the Ranger with lots of permanent, interesting class abilities as they progressed. But it seems like you get what you are going to get at 1st level and a few extra things at Paragon Level and Epic. But none of those abilities are particularly interesting save for combat and some are far better than others (which is unavoidable I imagine since Prcs were the same way). 

I somewhat understand since fear is not at all as lethal as it used to be. And everything for the most part is less lethal and long lasting, so you don't need such abilities in 4E as they won't stand out too much given the limited number of long lasting powers with fear or charm effects. Usuall they only last a round or two and saves are fairly easy to make. 

3. Lethality: 4E is a less lethal, less challenging game. This is mainly a matter of personal taste. I truly liked the lethality of the previous editions.

3E was so lethal we had to think up a new rule subset just to survive it called hero points. We would have died many times without those points. But 4E is so dang cake easy that we're lucky to feel our lives threatened ever. We've had one death and that was because a player made a stupid error in judgment followed by a series of unlucky rolls. Otherwise, it has been a cakewalk even with me doubling and sometimes tripling encounters to get some of that old lethal, "you may die" fear back for my players.


4E is so much different than previous editions. Some of the changes were much needed. But some are head scratchers. As with every edition, it's a small group of people's view of D&D. I wish they hadn't thrown so much out that made playing a caster fun. That would have gone a long way to making the other changes more bearable. It wasn't just the power of the caster either, it was the versatility and the spell interplay that I miss as much as anything. And not just with the wizard, but with the priest as well.

How I used to love playing the priest that was an expert at keeping the party alive. And not just with healing but having _Rapid Spell_ with _Restorations_ ready when that horde of spectres rushed us or _death ward_ or any of the multitude of life saving spells that made the party love you as a cleric. 

Now to turn the words of Henry Hill into my own feeling of remorse at being a 4E cleric, "Now I'm just like everyone else. A poor schlub that is more focused on attacking than healing. There are no more negative levels to remove, no more afflictions to heal, no more paralysis to remove. I fought a group of spectres the other day, and they struck softer than a kobold with a wooden club. I miss the days when being a cleric meant something. Now, my party could just as easily go with a warlord. Now I'm nothing."


----------



## Aristotle (Aug 30, 2008)

Reynard said:


> Man, I remember some great sessions where there wasn't a bit of combat.  Not because everyone was busy role-playing (though that happened too and it was great, but that's not edition dependent) but because the party was struggling to get from A to B on the way to defeat McBaddie McGuffineister without starving, getting lost or getting eaten by something nasty and horrible and thoroughly out of their league in the middle of the wilderness or the depths of the dungeon.  I remember players statting up, naming and writing out backgrounds for all of their 9th level followers, satffing their keeps and trying to squeeze every last penny out of their won treasure just to make upkeep costs.  I remember parties standing around a statue with a million gp ruby in its forhead, spending forever and a day trying to figure out whether they should go for it, and how, until one party finally broke and went for a straight on grab (soon followed by the clatter of 4d6 drop the lowest).  I remember 4 out of 5 players sitting with rapt attention on me and the wizard player as a magical duel unfolded, never once feeling bored or useless in the process.  All of these sessions were awesome fun, and they happened in every edition up till now.  And every one of those things has been excised in favor of cool combat abilities and "balance".



See.... I just don't think most of that is missing. Some of it feels better supported actually. Some of it is likely waiting for additional supplements. Travel? Skill challenges, evironment mechanics, and maybe the disease mechanic (starvation as a disease?). Followers will hopefully be in a supplement, though I intend to give my group access to some minions for a few encounters. Monetary resource management? I assume we'll see more of that as things progress. I love traps and puzzles in this edition. I'm using them regularly for the first time ever.

I do agree that long combats might become an issue for me. My past two games were cut down to 4 hours of play (from 5), and we got through 2 combats each. I've left those sessions feeling less than fullfilled. I need to be able to run a 5 hour game with 4 combat encounters, and plenty of time between to play through the aftermath and the happenings at camp during the extended rest. I'm still unsure of the best fix. Cutting just the monsters HP will result in less dangerous encounters I think.


----------



## Gothmog (Aug 30, 2008)

Reynard said:


> ... This probably wouldn't be so bad if it was only the focus of the rules that was centered on combat.  After all, 1e and 4E are very similar in this regard: the PHB consists mostly of how your character can kill things, while the DMG provides a bunch of material on all sorts of neat stuff.  Unfortunately, 4E took that extra step where the focus of _*play*_ is centered on combat as well.  the idea, as laid out in the DMG adventure design section, is an hour per combat (too long!) and some time for kibbitzing before and after.  i understand the reason -- combat is fun and D&D is supposed to be fun; 2+2=4 -- but all that other fun stuff (exploration, resource management, followers and strongholds, operational play, etc...) got cut because it was (and I am sure "is", I know my tastes aren't shared by many) not considered fun.  Which leaves combat.
> 
> Man, I remember some great sessions where there wasn't a bit of combat.  Not because everyone was busy role-playing (though that happened too and it was great, but that's not edition dependent) but because the party was struggling to get from A to B on the way to defeat McBaddie McGuffineister without starving, getting lost or getting eaten by something nasty and horrible and thoroughly out of their league in the middle of the wilderness or the depths of the dungeon.  I remember players statting up, naming and writing out backgrounds for all of their 9th level followers, satffing their keeps and trying to squeeze every last penny out of their won treasure just to make upkeep costs.  I remember parties standing around a statue with a million gp ruby in its forhead, spending forever and a day trying to figure out whether they should go for it, and how, until one party finally broke and went for a straight on grab (soon followed by the clatter of 4d6 drop the lowest).  I remember 4 out of 5 players sitting with rapt attention on me and the wizard player as a magical duel unfolded, never once feeling bored or useless in the process.  All of these sessions were awesome fun, and they happened in every edition up till now.  And every one of those things has been excised in favor of cool combat abilities and "balance".
> 
> 4E has some great ideas for keeping D&D combat interesting.  Too bad it sacrificied nearly everything else to achieve that.




The thing is, 4e doesn't prevent you from doing any of that, or preclude that style of play.  I'm with you on loving exploration, mysteries, building domains, getting followers, etc.  True, the DMG doesn't list how much a keep costs or how much it costs to get hirelings- but thats easily added back in (which I have done in my games).  We've spent several 4e sessions just roleplaying and solving mysteries, with not a single combat roll, and the game keeps chugging along nicely.  We've also spent the better part of an hour trying to figure out how to circumnavigate/disarm a nasty trap involving curses, and the 4e rules didn't hinder us at all (if anything, they actually aided us more than any previous edition- I used the disease condition track for curses and various stages of the curse).  And now that teleportation magic isn't nearly as common, I've used a lot more overland travel and wilderness exploration, which have branched out into some cool side plots (one involving an old tinker named Weyland and his creepily intelligent pet pig Hob who keep showing up at odd times).  So I'm getting everything I did out of previous versions of D&D, AND the combat is a lot more fun and dynamic.  

What I've found and seen is that a lot of the people who say 4e is limiting their roleplaying or can't do anything other than combat are being limited by their own preconceptions.  One guy in my group was strongly against 4e for the same reasons- but I convinced him to play for four sessions.  After that, he really enjoyed 4e, and found that what was limiting him were his own beliefs, and not the game itself.  Yes, the 4e classes are balanced around combat, but so were the 3e classes supposedly (but not very well).  Because the structure of the game changed in regards to powers, more space is devoted to powers in the books, and its easy to have the perception that its all about combat.  But its only all about combat if you let it be (or run pregen modules like KotS which basically plays like a series of small D&D Minis battles).


----------



## Gothmog (Aug 30, 2008)

Celtavian said:


> *1. Nothing is permanent*: I didn't notice this at first. But no damage is permanent except petrification and possibly disease.
> 
> For the most part no effect is permanent. Rest a day and you are all healed up for everything.
> 
> ...




Good post, but this is one point I wanted to respond to since it bugged me too.  PCs jumping back up with full hp every day bugged me, and there was no way in the rules to reflect long-term injury.  Likewise, curses didn't have any way to have any real "teeth".  I do admit I don't miss negative levels though or ability damage from 3e- those were a pain in the butt to recalculate all the abilities on a character.  I do understand why paralysis and holds were reduced to save every round, but I think you could safely do a save every 2 rounds if you wanted a ghoul to be more fearsome.

However, 4e gave us something REALLY cool- the disease condition track.  I modified the disease condition track to take into account long-term injuries and magical curses, and it could be modified for a number of other things I probably haven't considered yet.  Injuries require an Endurance check to improve (or can worsen with a low check), and curses I handle with a Wisdom or Charisma check (the 1/2 level + mod roll) which can also improve or worsen.  Here is an example:

When a character goes to 0 hp or below, they take an "attack" to Fortitude equal to the damage caused by the blow that sent them down.  If the attack misses, they were assumed to have just been KO'd or have various contusions or flesh wounds.  If the attack "hits" they suffer a long-term wound, and we roll randomly on a table for the wound and location.  Let's say the character suffered a broken arm.  

Broken Arm
Endurance: Improve DC 18, Maintain DC 12, Worsen DC 11 or less
Check 1/x per 3 days
Healed <- Initial effect: -4 to any activities with the arm (including attacks or skill checks) character max of 75% of hp <-> Infection/bleeding: as above, plus max hp are 50% of normal, -2 healing surges until improve, DC to improve or maintain +2 -> Gangrene: amputation necessary

So far, this is working really well for us.  We've also added several healing rituals that help set bones, mend tissues, etc, and if a magical healing Power is used, it adds a bonus to the roll equal to its level and allows an immediate check (max of once per day).  I'll admit, I'm more of a simulationist DM, and even then I love 4e- I can make it work for us with far fewer mods than I could 3.x.


----------



## Sadrik (Aug 30, 2008)

Monkey Boy said:


> My group are playing 4e now and having fun but I am leaning more and more towards savage worlds after each session.



We did, and much happier to boot. All the fluff about how to make 3.5 better is actually accomplished in Savage Worlds.


----------



## Jack99 (Aug 30, 2008)

Celtavian said:


> Smart parties in 4E can turn supposedly challenging encounters into cakewalks due to the lack of diversification of monster abilities. Some of this is due to poor module design such as putting solos by themselves without realizing that one attack per around with a roughly 50% chance to hit lowered by the defender's combat abilities while 5 or 6 people are beating on you isn't much of a challenge. My party one time held two ghouls with four zombies in the back in a hallway and annhilated the zombies with AoE before they even had a chance to attack. They beat a solo down without using one healing surge.



 2 Ghouls and 4 Zombies (normal i assume) sound like badly balanced encounter to me. Especially if you have spots where players can dig in, and let the tin cans take the hits. Unless you want them to be able to do just that. In which case you shouldn't complain, obviously. The solo is odd as well. Since by far most solos have at least two attacks, if not more. Often an immediate one as well. Could you tell me which solo that was, since it sounds like it needs some loving.


> I've had to beef up just about every major encounter in every module I've run just to somewhat challenge my PCs. Even then they are only challenged when they play stupid. But I had to do this in 3E as well as modules are designed for an average player using average tactics. And as the years have shown that is not the case with my players or myself.



 I do not think you are alone. Not since Tomb of Horrors, have I run a module without upgrades here and there, especially for the final battles. This isn't a design flaw, it is because modules are made for the average party. 

Also, I am curious. Which modules have you run? It sounds from your posts as if you have run a lot, which is intriguing. Most of us are only finishing up KoTS by now (or at least, that is my impression)


> I find 4E far less challenging than 3E in terms of play. Monsters seem more challenging on paper. I look at them and go "Ooooh, that is tough". Then when it comes to actual play they turn out to be rather weak, which is surprising. Not too long ago I ran a few bugbear stranglers against the party. The bugbear strangler managed to get CA and grab the rogue, but the rogue esacped with their move action the next turn with utter ease. An Acrobatics or Athletics roll is easy for just about everyone but a caster. So you move action to get out and then strike the strangler. Died quick and was a total waste of time.
> 
> They really lowered the lethality of the game in 4E and instead decided that long battles with high hit point, low damage creatures would be more exciting. Maybe this is what most people wanted, I'm not sure. I find it kind of tedious and boring myself.
> 
> I had high hopes for 4E. I wish they had done things differently.



I have the opposite experience of you. Maybe the fault lies not in the system, but elsewhere. Maybe your players are just that good. /shrug

Cheers


----------



## Ginnel (Aug 30, 2008)

Just a few comments



Celtavian said:


> I'll list some things I like about 4E just to show that I don't hate it all. I do still play the game since I compromised with my friends:
> 
> 1. Easier Prep Time: DnD 4E is easy to run and prep for. So much is streamlined and handwaved that it makes it an easy game to run. It is also easier to make characters and get the game underway. It is easy to make decisions on characters, though I miss the customization of 3E.
> 
> 2. More options for melee: It is nice that the melee classes have more options. They don't do as much damage as 3.5 melees, which can suck sometimes when feeling heroic such as not being able to one shot a lvl 3 hobgoblin soldier even at lvl 20 or 30. Kind of an odd feeling not to be able to one shot something that much weaker than you. But they do have more options and can add a neat little effect here and there which I imagine makes them as happy as coming up with unique spell uses made me in 3.5.




If your running level 3 hobgoblins versus level 20 characters somethings gone wrong i'd either hand wave it or say 1 hit kills the hob gobs, try convert the hobs level 3 150xp into level 11 minion ogre thugs 150xp change a few moves and your golden, someone else on the boards suggested this and I think its a great idea, it can also show what happens when a high level minion meets a low level party find an equivelent xp value solo/elite/monster and you're sorted.


Celtavian said:


> 5. Rituals: I like the idea of rituals. I don't like how many spells they made into rituals, but some are appropriate such as for raise dead and scrying. I very much miss the interplay of defensive spells versus offensive spells. It is very hard to conduct a wizard duel when neither side has much power for the day and they will eventually be reduced to slogging at wills at each other. And the lack of ability to prepare for a battle for a caster is a massive boor. It used to be such fun to come up with a plan with your spell list to help the party win, now it isn't even possible.



I'm going to have to disagree that it was fun watching the caster come with ideas to use their spells, now the fun comes from mixing your abilities with the rest of your party's.


Celtavian said:


> 6. Skill Challenges: I like skill challenges for overland travel, tracking, and certain other non-social encounters that are better solved with a simple series of rolls that gives the player a chance to use their skills. I don't much like them for social encounters, but I allow them and work in the roleplaying as I go along. But I won't let my characters accomplish a social skill challenge without giving me some appropriate roleplaying same as I won't let them administer first aid without putting down their weapon and shield. That just isn't happening.



Good good thats how I do it as well, just as in 3.5 a diplomacy check didn't make a talky encounter just go.


Celtavian said:


> I'd like to add a few additional things I don't like that I didn't list in the previous thread.
> 
> *1. Nothing is permanent*: I didn't notice this at first. But no damage is permanent except petrification and possibly disease.
> 
> ...



Not too hard to invent/implement a permenent wound system that does wounds that can't be healed with healing surges or combat magic and would need a ritual to cure, you could use this for level drain, curses and the rest though I'd be tempted to keep these semi permenent penalties to hp, certain skills physical or social for example, and damage, bonuses like to-hit and AC are pretty fine tuned nowadays and fiddling with these will have a greater effect.

Me and the people I played with never feared wraiths or spectres it was just a case of drat now how are we going to get all this damage repaired? erm how much of a penalty do I take?


Celtavian said:


> I miss paralysis and hold person that used to last. If you were held or paralyzed, that made you sweat. I remember many times my players looking at the priest player and hoping that priest had a _Remove Paralysis_ ready. That made certain creatures more frightening and allowed them to use some crowd control that worked and put the party on their toes. Not to mention the mage had fun working such spells on our enemies.
> 
> All the non-permanent, make a save every round effects make the game alot less lethal. I've yet to see a spell last more than four rounds. And most spells on average last two rounds and often just one round or don't take effect at all. the lack of dangerous, lasting effects has really lowered the lethality of the game and the terror that creatures inspire. Even grappling is incredibly weak now and easily escaped.



Yet again you say Terror I say boredom and unfairness, the only terror was that your precious free time was about to be changed from playing an RPG into sitting in a room full of people playing an RPG


Celtavian said:


> I'm not sure why they did this. I for one liked the lethality and game dynamic that such effects added to the overall roleplaying experience. It made a good priest worth their weight in gold.



The game doesn't lack lethality from my 11 sessions of playtime we've had 5 players unconcious and dying, in the last 48 sessions of 3.5 we've had no one die and no one drop unconcious, of my years before that in different groups I can think of 3 deaths all for roleplaying reasons, 1st character killed a character, another a paladin stayed behind to allow us time to escape a, 3rd 3 characters went into a temple after having their resources depleted, that was supposed to be for the whole party of 5 and we got massacred.


Celtavian said:


> 2. Lack of Level based class features other than powers: I miss things like Immunity to Fear for the paladin. The ranger camouflage. Rogue evasion and Uncanny Dodge. All the nifty monk and bard abilities. Things that were permanent that made you feel like you were improving.



They could have added these in but it doesn't bug me that much really most of the 3rd edition things were combat applications, now players get these at 1st (class features) and 11th (paragon path features) and every gets them


Celtavian said:


> 3. Lethality: 4E is a less lethal, less challenging game. This is mainly a matter of personal taste. I truly liked the lethality of the previous editions.



thats quite an insulting (as well as false) statement saying you like less challenging games is like sullying someones intellect.



Celtavian said:


> 3E was so lethal we had to think up a new rule subset just to survive it called hero points. We would have died many times without those points. But 4E is so dang cake easy that we're lucky to feel our lives threatened ever. We've had one death and that was because a player made a stupid error in judgment followed by a series of unlucky rolls. Otherwise, it has been a cakewalk even with me doubling and sometimes tripling encounters to get some of that old lethal, "you may die" fear back for my players.



I think the DM needs a bit of a hand if you're not fearing death, my suggestion is if you want to challenge a party and have death on the line use a level appropriate encounter of level + 3-4



Celtavian said:


> 4E is so much different than previous editions. Some of the changes were much needed. But some are head scratchers. As with every edition, it's a small group of people's view of D&D. I wish they hadn't thrown so much out that made playing a caster fun. That would have gone a long way to making the other changes more bearable. It wasn't just the power of the caster either, it was the versatility and the spell interplay that I miss as much as anything. And not just with the wizard, but with the priest as well.



Which is why they did it instead of having an imbalance, they leveled the playing field so just because someone has a character concept for a non spellcaster it doesn't mean they're resigned to 5ft step full attack or tumble sneak attack.


Celtavian said:


> How I used to love playing the priest that was an expert at keeping the party alive. And not just with healing but having _Rapid Spell_ with _Restorations_ ready when that horde of spectres rushed us or _death ward_ or any of the multitude of life saving spells that made the party love you as a cleric.
> 
> Now to turn the words of Henry Hill into my own feeling of remorse at being a 4E cleric, "Now I'm just like everyone else. A poor schlub that is more focused on attacking than healing. There are no more negative levels to remove, no more afflictions to heal, no more paralysis to remove. I fought a group of spectres the other day, and they struck softer than a kobold with a wooden club. I miss the days when being a cleric meant something. Now, my party could just as easily go with a warlord. Now I'm nothing."




"Now we aren't nothing without a Cleric"


----------



## Reynard (Aug 30, 2008)

Ginnel said:


> If your running level 3 hobgoblins versus level 20 characters somethings gone wrong i'd either hand wave it or say 1 hit kills the hob gobs, try convert the hobs level 3 150xp into level 11 minion ogre thugs 150xp change a few moves and your golden




Here's the thing though: maybe it was the players who, at level 20, decided to finally have words with that hobgoblin chieftan who gave them so much trouble at 5th level.  Should the stats change suddenly just because the party doesn't wrap up their unfinished business at the "level appropriate" time?  i don't think so.  A D&D world needs consistency and plausibility.  In 3.x terms, if the draon that lives in the lake is CR 18, it is CR if the PCs try and take it out at 5th level and when they try to take it out at 20th level.  It is CR 18 if the party camps and rests and scry-buffs-teleports in with full guns blazing, or if they wander in when they are down to their last low level spells and handful of hit points.  Anything else, altering the dragon to fit the party at the moment they encounter it, beaks suspension of disbelief and weakens the overall sense of playing in a "real" world.


----------



## Jack99 (Aug 30, 2008)

Reynard said:


> Here's the thing though: maybe it was the players who, at level 20, decided to finally have words with that hobgoblin chieftan who gave them so much trouble at 5th level.  Should the stats change suddenly just because the party doesn't wrap up their unfinished business at the "level appropriate" time?  i don't think so.  A D&D world needs consistency and plausibility.  In 3.x terms, if the draon that lives in the lake is CR 18, it is CR if the PCs try and take it out at 5th level and when they try to take it out at 20th level.  It is CR 18 if the party camps and rests and scry-buffs-teleports in with full guns blazing, or if they wander in when they are down to their last low level spells and handful of hit points.  Anything else, altering the dragon to fit the party at the moment they encounter it, beaks suspension of disbelief and weakens the overall sense of playing in a "real" world.




I agree 100%. However, something I do once in a while, when my players return to do stuff that they should/could have done many levels ago, is that I change things. Going by your example, I would never dream of changing the hobgoblins. However, I might rule/decide that a nearby (if possible) CR18ish dragon (or whatever) has recently subjugated the hobgoblins and use them to accomplish certain goals. So when the players arrive and lay down their high-level smack on the "poor" hobgoblins, they suddenly get a little dragon-surprise. 

This should of course be used sparingly, in order to keep them on their toes.


----------



## Aristotle (Aug 30, 2008)

Reynard said:


> Anything else, altering the dragon to fit the party at the moment they encounter it, beaks suspension of disbelief and weakens the overall sense of playing in a "real" world.



This is really a GNS argument and not a 4e vs. 3e concern, in my opinion.

Here is my question for the simulationist. Why is it that the simulation allows for characters to grow more powerful or suffer the ultimate defeat of death, but the rest of your meticulously crafted simulation isn't affected by random chance or the passing of time?
The party travels 200 years forward in time. Is it still a CR18 dragon? Has nothing changed? If so, why can't things change over a shorter period of time? When the party encounters the dragon way too soon, why can't it be disfigured/hurt from a recent territory dispute with another dragon? If the epic level characters who just took out a demigod stumble into the lake and encounter the dragon... why can't he have recently recovered  an artifact for his treasure that has warped him and given him unspeakable power?

Why does simulation require stasis in all aspects other than the characters themselves? Why must I endure an encounter that will end my story prematurely because the characters got to it too soon, or one that is anticlimactic and meaningless because they didn't get to it soon enough?

I'm a simulationist away from the table. I build worlds. I've gone so far as to pick out regional recipes for areas of my worlds (and cook them for the group when the party goes there) or detail the traits of a bunch of breeds of dogs and horses unique to my setting. But my players don't play for the detailed setting. They want the epic story... so when an encounter goes in a direction other than the way I expected. I adapt. I use it as an opportunity to revisit a piece of my simulation, or to partake in some off-the-cuff DM improv. The simulation supports the narrative. At least at my table. I don't understand why the simulation can't remain believable, and the story remain relevant.


----------



## Ginnel (Aug 30, 2008)

Reynard said:


> Here's the thing though: maybe it was the players who, at level 20, decided to finally have words with that hobgoblin chieftan who gave them so much trouble at 5th level. Should the stats change suddenly just because the party doesn't wrap up their unfinished business at the "level appropriate" time? i don't think so. A D&D world needs consistency and plausibility. In 3.x terms, if the draon that lives in the lake is CR 18, it is CR if the PCs try and take it out at 5th level and when they try to take it out at 20th level. It is CR 18 if the party camps and rests and scry-buffs-teleports in with full guns blazing, or if they wander in when they are down to their last low level spells and handful of hit points. Anything else, altering the dragon to fit the party at the moment they encounter it, beaks suspension of disbelief and weakens the overall sense of playing in a "real" world.



You say a D&D world needs consistency and plausibility? Well yeah some is handy, but can you change Levels and monsters stats to make fights interesting and relevent sure as hell you can.

So you'd run through a 30minute or longer fight for a party of 20th level characters versus 3rd-5th Hobgoblins, hmm gimmie either a bit of a challenge from the hobgoblins from their increase in power over the months/years or make it into a description of a fight.


----------



## DM-Rocco (Aug 30, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> Speed: 6 + 2 = 8; two move actions = 16.
> 
> Ah, I think there is some inconsistency in my "math" - I am pretty sure I had written down 16 x 16 somewhere, but apparently it got lost over editing or something... Silly me... I should really reread my posts before posting...



I feel that way all the time


----------



## jeffh (Aug 30, 2008)

Jonathan Moyer said:


> [*]No mention of how PCs might remove a condition (such as being on fire) by themselves instead of waiting to make a save.



The way I see it, saving throws _are_ the PCs removing a condition by themselves. It's just _assumed _that you're making the best effort you can to get rid of stuff like that.


----------



## jeffh (Aug 30, 2008)

vagabundo said:


> I've seen this as a problem initially, but it seems to have gone away. My players are becoming more tactically aware and are doing a lot more damage per round.
> 
> I think in the long term, once the skill-set of players increases, the current HPs will be challenging but not over the top.




Yes, this. Most of the "too long" complaints seem to come from groups with no strikers and/or poor teamwork and coordination. (That or they center around solos, which _can_ be a bit anticlimactic after they're about 3/4 of the way out of hit points and essentially out of tricks).


----------



## Celtavian (Aug 31, 2008)

*re*



Gothmog said:


> Good post, but this is one point I wanted to respond to since it bugged me too.  PCs jumping back up with full hp every day bugged me, and there was no way in the rules to reflect long-term injury.  Likewise, curses didn't have any way to have any real "teeth".  I do admit I don't miss negative levels though or ability damage from 3e- those were a pain in the butt to recalculate all the abilities on a character.  I do understand why paralysis and holds were reduced to save every round, but I think you could safely do a save every 2 rounds if you wanted a ghoul to be more fearsome.
> 
> However, 4e gave us something REALLY cool- the disease condition track.  I modified the disease condition track to take into account long-term injuries and magical curses, and it could be modified for a number of other things I probably haven't considered yet.  Injuries require an Endurance check to improve (or can worsen with a low check), and curses I handle with a Wisdom or Charisma check (the 1/2 level + mod roll) which can also improve or worsen.  Here is an example:
> 
> ...




Interesting Gothmog. I might try some house rules for 4E myself when I get more comfortable with the system. Right now I don't want to break anything. But down the line I might do something of the same to show long-term injuries. Not sure what I can do to make undead fearsome again save alter their abilities, but that injury track is interesting.

I can understand the recalculation of abilities and negative levels being a pain. I like what Pathfinder did eliminating the permanence of negative levels without elminating their effect. That will make it somewhat easier. 

I do like that those negative levels and ability damage were a nice way to show the long-term effects of poison or being touched by a horrible undead creature. Never much liked it for the vampire as it didn't fit the archetype, but it was very cool for Spectres and Wraiths. 

We already are planning to update our fumble house rules and possibly crit rules. We are finding the CA to everyone on a 1 is a bit too painful, especially for AoE casters. I might work in some injury chances with the crit table. I kind of like what they did way back in 2E with critical hits in the _Combat and Tactics_.


----------



## Reynard (Aug 31, 2008)

Aristotle said:


> Here is my question for the simulationist. Why is it that the simulation allows for characters to grow more powerful or suffer the ultimate defeat of death, but the rest of your meticulously crafted simulation isn't affected by random chance or the passing of time?




It doesn't.  Simulation suggests that if there's a plausible reason for change, then change should occur. If there's not though -- that dragons been there for 10 years and will be for 100 more -- change, in the mechanical sense, doesn't need to occur, and only does for versimilitude breaking gamist reasons.



> Why does simulation require stasis in all aspects other than the characters themselves?




It doesn't. See above.



> Why must I endure an encounter that will end my story prematurely because the characters got to it too soon, or one that is anticlimactic and meaningless because they didn't get to it soon enough?




Because it isn't _your_ story.  It is _their_ story and how they go about it, how they interact with it, and how it finally unfolds is their to determine, not yours.  Adjusting setting elements like this on the fly makes the players' choices irrelevent in much the same way that fudging dice rolls does: the DM has decided that what the players have chosen to do doesn't matter as much as what he wants to have happen, so he manipulates things in ordr to get a result he likes better.  It's railroading in a more subtle framework.  The DM already has a thousand tools at his disposal, not least of which is creation and adjudication of the world in which the PCs adventure.  If he changes it willy nilly during the course of play, he undoes his own work and undermines the efforts of the players to engage the world.



> At least at my table. I don't understand why the simulation can't remain believable, and the story remain relevant.




Story is something that happens through play and is related after play.  It is determined beforehand.  Whether Gognard the Warrior's story ends with him becominga  demigod or dying in a pit of kobold spikes isn't up to the DM -- that's not his job.  His job is to adjudicate the world and allow the PCs to explore it at their leisure and peril.

EDIT: Just to be clear, i am not making any pronouncements as to how the game should be played.  i am merely relating my own opinions regarding what makes for good, rewarding gaming.  YMMV, of course.


----------



## Jürgen Hubert (Aug 31, 2008)

Andor said:


> If by fighter you mean only the fighter class and the core feats then yes they were kinda limited. If you expand fighter to include 'guys who hit things with sword' and include CW and PHB II and (especially) Bo9S then there is plenty to do with them in 3e.
> 
> Likewise rituals are nice but the Invocation rules from 3e beat them hollow and were there first.




But in all of these cases, you have to buy a bunch of supplements to use them.

And in any comparison between 3.5 and 4E, comparing the core rules is the only thing that makes sense IMO - because the core rules are the only thing that's even _available_ for 4E.

And I dislike having to buy up to three supplements to make a class "interesting" - especially since these books drastically increase the complexity of the game and require the DM to understand and keep track of even more rules.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Aug 31, 2008)

Reynard said:


> Here's the thing though: maybe it was the players who, at level 20, decided to finally have words with that hobgoblin chieftan who gave them so much trouble at 5th level.  Should the stats change suddenly just because the party doesn't wrap up their unfinished business at the "level appropriate" time?




There are two parts of change you have to think about
1) Story change. Did this chieftain do something in the mean-time? If the PCs haven't killed him, it stands to reason that he might have amassed more power and gained more experience. This new experience might have changed him on a world level.

2) "Model" change. The game system represents an attempt to model a (fictional) world. I am not sure if I posted it in this thread or in another one, but basically, sometimes you need to use different parts of the model, because the model (being always imperfect) doesn't give you good results at certain scales. Level of PCs can be seen as such a scale in game systems. If the PCs have moved up 1 or even two tiers (from Heroic to Paragon, Paragon to Epic, or straight from Heroic to Epic), it stands to reason that you are acting on a different scale and use a different modelling team. Specifically, the Elite Hobgoblin Soldier 6 the PCs fought at 6th level might be better described as a Hobgoblin Soldier 16 at level 16, or as Hobgoblin Minion 16 at level 26. It is still he same creature in the fictional world, but we use a different model since we're operating at a different scale. It is not a scale of size, but it is a scale of power. 
The numbers I used are probably not that perfect, but if you want a guideline that you could turn into a (house or optional) rule, you might use this: 
- Is the monster still in the same tier? Don't change the statistics.
- Is the monster on a different tier? Downsize it (Solo to Elite, Elite to Regular, Regular to Minion, 1 step per tier difference). Calculate its new level so that the XP still is equal (or close to equal) to its original level. 

This is just a change of the model you use. It doesn't imply that the creature actually changed. Applying such change is part of the first point.


----------



## Celtavian (Aug 31, 2008)

Jack99 said:


> 2 Ghouls and 4 Zombies (normal i assume) sound like badly balanced encounter to me. Especially if you have spots where players can dig in, and let the tin cans take the hits. Unless you want them to be able to do just that. In which case you shouldn't complain, obviously. The solo is odd as well. Since by far most solos have at least two attacks, if not more. Often an immediate one as well. Could you tell me which solo that was, since it sounds like it needs some loving.




The zombies and ghouls were part of a preset encounter. Just about any dungeon allows players to dig in. You can't force them not to use hallways and such to their advantage. The same thing was done in 3E save that caster mobs had more options to handle that than controller mobs do in 4E. I often hear the wizard complained about by players, but an enemy wizard was just as potent against the players in 3E.

The solo was Sinruth from the Rivenroar adventure from Dungeon magazine. I have heard it is poorly designed, but most solos I've seen are designed in a similar fashion.

Even with an extra attack, five people beating on you with encounter powers and action points makes a rather lopsided fight. Remember that a party has one second wind per character, usually two minor healings, and many utility powers provide a healing surge or some kind of temporary hit points.

Solos are often outgunned. Maybe your players don't use everything at their disposal, but mine do and make shrewd power choices that often give extra healing surges or temporary hit points. That leaves a solo often outgunned in hit points with all the healing the party has. On top of that five attacks per round is vicious and when the party spend an action point, that is double their normal number of attacks and that is really vicious.

I'll wait and see how the next solo fares against my party. If that solo goes down easy, then 4E truly is pathetically easy.



> I do not think you are alone. Not since Tomb of Horrors, have I run a module without upgrades here and there, especially for the final battles. This isn't a design flaw, it is because modules are made for the average party.




Yep. Every edition I've had to do the same.



> Also, I am curious. Which modules have you run? It sounds from your posts as if you have run a lot, which is intriguing. Most of us are only finishing up KoTS by now (or at least, that is my impression)




I've run Rescue at Rivenroar, an orc horde encounter I made up, and Heathen. Two from Dungeon and one I have made up. We are also going to _Keep on the Shadowfell_ and so far we are crushing it. My friend had to modify all the encounters to give us somewhat of a challenge.



> I have the opposite experience of you. Maybe the fault lies not in the system, but elsewhere. Maybe your players are just that good. /shrug
> 
> Cheers




Well, to be honest we have had years of experience creating challenging encounters for 3E. So that is a big part of it.

The 4E system is fairly new to us. And all the editions of D&D out of the box our players have crushed. I have to admit they are a fairly clever lot of players. They know how to synergize abilities with the best of them and love to pour over the books looking for cool combinations and ways to use their power.

And we're all very picky and superstitious about our dice. Every single one of us buys dice until we find a set that gives us good rolls (and no they are not loaded). We just wait until we find our "lucky" dice. I hope I am not alone with that insanity. I know statisticians and the very practical minded don't believe in the hocus pocus of lucky or hot dice, but my friends swear by it. One guy has a set of dice he has been using for over twenty years. Another guy has five or six d20s sitting by his character and he rolls them until he finds the hot one. Another guy and myself bought a bunch of dice sets until we found the proper color to fit our character as well as a rolling nice average rolls with occasional high rolls. Maybe we go to far, but the extra time taken to find those perfect dice makes us feel better.

But it's probably a combination of good tactics and a lack of familiarity with the system combined with a lowered level of lethality that make 4E feel less challenging than 3E. Once we learn to buff creatures, we can beef encounters up though I am already doubling just about every encounter (except for shadow hounds, never double the number of shadow hounds...they are too tough). 

I'm sure we'll get the hang of it.

The thing that bothers me even more than the lack of challenge though is that with me doubling the encounters as I used to do in 3E, the combats take a huge amount of time even at low level. The mobs have so many hit points and you do so little damage that though you aren't in peril, it still takes you forever to kill things. 

But I'm sure my DM will get the hang of things as far as encounter design goes. He is starting to design his own monsters and play with the system. So far he is keeping it light so as not to kill us. This particular DM has killed multiple (Four I can count off the top of my head) campaigns with excessive encounters he thought we could handle. So I think he is being careful this time around. 

This is just a prefered style of play for our group, but we like the game to be lethal and feel like we are in backs to the wall, you are dead and so is the world if you lose types of encounters that leave us exhausted, spent, and near dead. It takes a while to get that kind of a feel with a system. Took us a bit in 3E, I'm sure we'll get it down for 4E. But 4E definitely isn't that way out of the box. Out of the box the advantage is strongly with the players. I guess that is how they wanted it.


----------



## Greg K (Aug 31, 2008)

Jürgen Hubert said:


> And in any comparison between 3.5 and 4E, comparing the core rules is the only thing that makes sense IMO - because the core rules are the only thing that's even _available_ for 4E.




I am going to disagree. In the instance of comparing 4e rituals  and Unearthed Arcana incantions (or any other d20/OGL open content material to an approach taken in 4e) , I do think comparisons are fair.  WOTC had the opportunity to stay with the OGL and d20STL and draw upon the vast material released under the OGL and d20STL  in a creating a  new edition (as was one of the intents of the those licenses). That WOTC chose not to do so invites comparisons between how 4e does things and alternative approaches that were available in both their own d20products and 3pp material released as open content.


----------



## Kunimatyu (Aug 31, 2008)

Aristotle said:


> I've gone so far as to pick out regional recipes for areas of my worlds (and cook them for the group when the party goes there) or detail the traits of a bunch of breeds of dogs and horses unique to my setting.




0_o

Your experience...may not be typical of most groups.


----------



## UngainlyTitan (Aug 31, 2008)

Celtavian said:


> Interesting Gothmog. I might try some house rules for 4E myself when I get more comfortable with the system. Right now I don't want to break anything. But down the line I might do something of the same to show long-term injuries. Not sure what I can do to make undead fearsome again save alter their abilities, but that injury track is interesting.
> 
> I can understand the recalculation of abilities and negative levels being a pain. I like what Pathfinder did eliminating the permanence of negative levels without elminating their effect. That will make it somewhat easier.
> 
> ...



I have not completely read the thread, so some one else might have made a suggestion but for spectres and wraiths I would suggest that they steal healing surges. You might want them to make an attack against fortitude but that would be plenty scary.


----------



## Derren (Aug 31, 2008)

Jürgen Hubert said:


> Crossposted from my blog.
> 
> 
> *No long-term advance planning for PC character development.* No longer do players have to worry how _precisely_ to build their characters at first level when they want to take a specific prestige class twelve levels later. Now they can take character advancement one level at a time.
> ...




See the quote


----------



## D'karr (Sep 1, 2008)

Derren said:


> At low and mid level fighters could do more than just full attack if the player is creative. And if that is not enough, there were alternatives (Bo9s)




It is interesting that Book of Nine Swords keeps coming up as an alternative to make 3e melee fighters more interesting.  Specially because a lot of the innovations of 4e (encounter powers) were put out there in this book as a playtest.  



> That entirely depends on the player. A good 3E player didn't need much time to decide on a spell in 3E too. Also the downside of this simplification is that magic = melee in 4E which means flavour loss




Well now in 4e you don't necessarily have to be a "good player" to benefit from these.  I haven't seen much flavor loss, mostly because there are still many things the wizard can do outside of combat (rituals).  I agree that I wish they had included more of them, but I'm willing to give it time.  Since additional sourcebooks are in the works.



> That still happens in 4E, for example when the enemy is flying and has no intention to land. A good thing that the fighter has so many ranged powers he could use as backup, isn't it?
> 4E also does have less alternative combat actions someone could use when normal attacks don't do it (trip, etc.)




Yep, that could be an issue, if the DM wants it to be that way.  You make a good point in that in 4e unless the DM makes a concerted effort to keep particular players uninvolved in combat, all the players can be involved and have something useful to do.  

Talking about combat options there are a lot more now than 3e ever had.  Almost every class has powers at varying levels that will knock opponents prone (trip).  So unlike before where you really had to have quite a bit of investment in feats and attributes to perform these combat actions effectively, now your normal class powers allow you to do this as part of your selection.  Attacking unarmed is no longer a penalty.  Using improvised weapons is now an option without becoming a penalty.  In other words you don't have to have all these feats invested in x, y or z maneuver to be able to do it.  In addition the combat stunts section covers those eventualities when a player wants to do something not explicitly covered by the rules.  So I think that 4e does a really good job of opening up options to ALL the classes, which my players and I prefer.




> At the expense of minions being completely illogical (more than most other things). Some people don't care, but some do.




Completely illogical is also an exaggerated argument.  If you use the minion for it's intended purpose it makes perfect sense within the context of the rules.



> If only there would be the same support for using actual classed NPCs and not only NPCs using the simplified build....




If you wish to stat an NPC to the same degree as a PC, the player's handbook is pretty explicit on how to create a PC, what additional level of support is required?   What else do you need?

These arguments have been used over and over but the more that people have been *playing the game* the more we've started to see that they are not based on how the game actually plays.


----------



## Staffan (Sep 1, 2008)

Derren said:


> If only most feats and some powers wouldn't be so picky about required abilities and weapons. You still have to plan in advance.



That's more along the lines of "I like using swords, so Heavy Blade Opportunist sounds like a good feat" than "I want to be a Cavalier after level 8, so I have to start taking the right feats at level 4."


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Sep 1, 2008)

D'karr said:


> It is interesting that Book of Nine Swords keeps coming up as an alternative to make 3e melee fighters more interesting.  Specially because a lot of the innovations of 4e (encounter powers) were put out there in this book as a playtest.



Indeed, I am always a little surprised by that. It seems dishonest at first, but well, it is true - you could introduce this into D&D 3E. It very much changed the entire game and most non-spellcaster core (and base) classes are invalidated if you want to "fix" 3e with these 3 classes, but it's probably possible. 

I suppose it particularly appeals to those as a solution that like different sub-systems for different classes. I am not so much a fan of them, because I pray to the evil demon overlord of game balance and know that he disapproves of such sub-systems on account of them being hardly balanceable. 



Staffan said:


> That's more along the lines of "I like using swords, so Heavy Blade Opportunist sounds like a good feat" than "I want to be a Cavalier after level 8, so I have to start taking the right feats at level 4."



At level 4? Wasn't it usually beginning at 1st level? Including the "I have to take some suboptimal feats that I wouldn't take otherwise to get there".

There are still prerequisites for feats (beyond levels). The biggest problem is that they are (with very few exceptions) all are based on race or ability scores, the hardest thing to change. But on the other hand, it is pretty easy by glancing at the feat selection which ability scores you need. It's not the same degree of pre-planning as optimizing ability score selection, feat selection and class selection. (In some rare cases, spell selection is added on top of that.)


----------



## Khuxan (Sep 1, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> I suppose it particularly appeals to those as a solution that like different sub-systems for different classes. I am not so much a fan of them, because I pray to the evil demon overlord of game balance and know that he disapproves of such sub-systems on account of them being hardly balanceable.




Were I to run a 3.5 game again I would definitely emphasise the subsystems - reserve feat spellcasters, maneuver combatants, power point psionicists, pact binders - because that variety and difference in playstyle is one I miss in 4E. It's still there, and in some ways emphasised by the roles, but even so.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Sep 1, 2008)

Khuxan said:


> Were I to run a 3.5 game again I would definitely emphasise the subsystems - reserve feat spellcasters, maneuver combatants, power point psionicists, pact binders - because that variety and difference in playstyle is one I miss in 4E. It's still there, and in some ways emphasised by the roles, but even so.




Well, there is some fun to be had with it. But also a lot of headache. Maybe in a few years, I will want that kind of fun again, even if it comes with the headache.  As for now, I revel in the joy of stream-lining mixed with exception-based design.


----------



## Jack99 (Sep 1, 2008)

Celtavian said:


> This is just a prefered style of play for our group, but we like the game to be lethal and feel like we are in backs to the wall, you are dead and so is the world if you lose types of encounters that leave us exhausted, spent, and near dead. It takes a while to get that kind of a feel with a system. Took us a bit in 3E, I'm sure we'll get it down for 4E. But 4E definitely isn't that way out of the box. Out of the box the advantage is strongly with the players. I guess that is how they wanted it.




But 3e wasn't like that out of the box either - In fact, if you compare that way, 4e is much much harder than 3e.

No doubt, if you want combats that pushes players to their outmost limit, you need to pile on the xp (around +50-100% IME). But this was the same before. In order to challenge and push them until the breaking point in 3.5, I would run EL +4 or +5 encounters. I fail to see how this makes 4e easier. The only difference is, that if you burned all you had in 3.5, the party had no choice but to rest. In 4e, it is usually possible to continue, since they always have encounter powers and at-will powers.

And one more thing. A solo level 5 vs a level 5 party is not supposed to be a hard encounter. That is a normal encounter. If you want the solo's to be nasty mo-fo's add some trash mobs to complement it. Using a higher level solo can be dangerous. (Just some advice in case you didn't know. You probably do).

Cheers


----------



## D'karr (Sep 1, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> Indeed, I am always a little surprised by that. It seems dishonest at first, but well, it is true - you could introduce this into D&D 3E. It very much changed the entire game and most non-spellcaster core (and base) classes are invalidated if you want to "fix" 3e with these 3 classes, but it's probably possible.




Well, I'm not saying or even implying that it is dishonest, just interesting.  Because the argument seems to be that the way to make 3e more interesting for melee combatants is to shift those classes closer to what 4e does.  At that point some of the complaints about the limitations 4e imposes on encounter powers seem a little weird.



> I suppose it particularly appeals to those as a solution that like different sub-systems for different classes. I am not so much a fan of them, because I pray to the evil demon overlord of game balance and know that he disapproves of such sub-systems on account of them being hardly balanceable.




I don't worry too much about balance in that manner.  I prefer 4e because it took care of balancing combat by making sure that the available actions "cost" the same in combat for each class.  But it also leaves the door open for the DM to handle a lot of things that are not spelled out in the rules.  That part is what I like the most.  Instead of feeling constrained because there is a "rule" about something, I'm mostly thankful that there are no rules about certain things.



> At level 4? Wasn't it usually beginning at 1st level? Including the "I have to take some suboptimal feats that I wouldn't take otherwise to get there".




This was something frustrating at several different junctions.  If you knew you wanted to take a certain Prestige Class you usually started planning for it at 1st level.  Like you mentioned some of the classes had some pretty stupid requirements (Toughness??).  Then there was the case of a new sourcebook coming out that had a particularly interesting class.  At that point your character either, rather serendipitously, met most of the requirements and within a level or two could get there, or you really needed to start a new character to ever have a chance of playing that class.  Until PHB2 there were no retraining guidelines so your choices were limited unless your DM decided to waive the requirements or make the requirements roleplay based, which is what I did several times.

In 4e the feat requirements also impose a certain level of pre-planning.  Though I don't think it is as harsh as the pre-requisites for prestige classes.  If you use one of the point buy methods for assigning attributes you are not going to be far off the mark for most feats, except racial ones.  In addition, I've noticed that most feats seem to follow a "theme" that makes them more appropriate for certain classes.  Because of this, most of the pre-requisites are easily met by being a member of that class.  Because as you build that class you would have mostly concentrated on the same attributes that the feat has.

The advantage of 4e right now is that the list of feat requirements is short and appears all in one place.  That will change as more sourcebooks get published, but if they continue to "theme" the feats the problem should not get much worse.

In addition, like in 3e using the PHB2 guidelines, you still have the option to retrain some of the prerequisites or let the DM hand wave requirements as needed.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Sep 1, 2008)

D'karr said:


> Well, I'm not saying or even implying that it is dishonest, just interesting.  Because the argument seems to be that the way to make 3e more interesting for melee combatants is to shift those classes closer to what 4e does.  At that point some of the complaints about the limitations 4e imposes on encounter powers seem a little weird.



I think the focus is more on the "daily" martial powers. Encounter powers are still relatively easy to grog, but you can "explain" dailies only using either the narrative approach or saying that martial is still magic. (I am fine with both...  ) You have to leave some of your normal preferences or preconceptions.


----------



## D'karr (Sep 1, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> I think the focus is more on the "daily" martial powers. Encounter powers are still relatively easy to grog, but you can "explain" dailies only using either the narrative approach or saying that martial is still magic. (I am fine with both...  ) You have to leave some of your normal preferences or preconceptions.




Well I have seen complaints about Dailies but the ones that most resemble the Bo9s are the encounter powers.  I don't recall any of the Bo9S powers being dailies, though I might be wrong.

In 4e, I've seen a lot of complaints about the reset time for encounter powers.  "So, why can't I use that again in the same encounter?"  The answer of course is for game balance purposes but that can be unsatisfying if you're not understanding, or agreeing with, the 4e design concepts.

One interesting thing in Bo9S that I might try for 4e is to allow a character to use a full round action to "meditate" and get back one encounter power.  Similar to how a SwordSage gets encounter powers back during an encounter.

I'm still toying with the idea.  I'm thinking about limiting it to once per encounter similar to how Action Points work.  I might even just add that as an additional use for action points.  Spend an Action Point and recover one Encounter power.  Since the use of Action Points is already self limiting (once per encounter) then it might work well.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Sep 1, 2008)

D'karr said:


> Well I have seen complaints about Dailies but the ones that most resemble the Bo9s are the encounter powers.  I don't recall any of the Bo9S powers being dailies, though I might be wrong.
> 
> In 4e, I've seen a lot of complaints about the reset time for encounter powers.  "So, why can't I use that again in the same encounter?"  The answer of course is for game balance purposes but that can be unsatisfying if you're not understanding, or agreeing with, the 4e design concepts.



What I meant to say: I think that the encounter powers cause less headache then the daily powers, and so even if you don't like the 4E system, Bo9S might still work.



> One interesting thing in Bo9S that I might try for 4e is to allow a character to use a full round action to "meditate" and get back one encounter power.  Similar to how a SwordSage gets encounter powers back during an encounter.
> 
> I'm still toying with the idea.  I'm thinking about limiting it to once per encounter similar to how Action Points work.  I might even just add that as an additional use for action points.  Spend an Action Point and recover one Encounter power.  Since the use of Action Points is already self limiting (once per encounter) then it might work well.



Action Points for this use is a good idea, but notice that some paragon classes already allow this. And you don't really get that many action points, either.

How about this approach: 
ou regain one (randomly determined?) encounter power if you are bloodied the first time, and if you are dropped to 0 hit points the first time. Or is this to much like a "fail-safe" mechanism and mostly a reward for "bad play"?


----------



## Fenes (Sep 1, 2008)

One thing I don't like with 4E is that instead of ramping the martial powers up to the spell power, like Bo9S did, they toned the spells down to melee level. Even the dailies do not really look or feel impressive to me, not compared to spells of 3E, and powers from Bo9S.


----------



## D'karr (Sep 1, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> What I meant to say: I think that the encounter powers cause less headache then the daily powers, and so even if you don't like the 4E system, Bo9S might still work.




I see.  Yeah, encounter powers are more palatable than dailies for that.



> Action Points for this use is a good idea, but notice that some paragon classes already allow this. And you don't really get that many action points, either.




Yes, *some* paragon paths have additional mechanics that allow that but if you don't have access to the specific paragon path you're hosed.  So I'm thinking that providing a mechanic that any class can use is helpful and if you happen to have that paragon class you also have the benefit it provides in addition to what all the other classes can do.

I think that Action points work well because they are part of the "economy of actions" currency.  To get an encounter power back you are "paying" a cost.  My initial thought was to use a full round action but those don't "exist" in the core so I did not want to add more complexity.



> How about this approach:
> You regain one (randomly determined?) encounter power if you are bloodied the first time, and if you are dropped to 0 hit points the first time. Or is this to much like a "fail-safe" mechanism and mostly a reward for "bad play"?




I think that this provides too much of a "safety net."  What if you play tactically "smart" and avoid getting hit?  Should you be penalized because you were not bloodied or dropped to negatives?

By making it a standard cost of one action point you make sure that it only happens once per encounter and the player has the option to take it or to use the action point for additional actions as normal.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Sep 1, 2008)

Fenes said:


> One thing I don't like with 4E is that instead of ramping the martial powers up to the spell power, like Bo9S did, they toned the spells down to melee level. Even the dailies do not really look or feel impressive to me, not compared to spells of 3E, and powers from Bo9S.




 You dirty old powergamer!  

I think there are a few disadvantages to the "more power" approach.
One problem: You can give martial/non-spellcasting characters tons of combat power, but do you also want to give them the powerful utility power of mage? What's the martial equivalent to Teleport, Raise Dead, Scry? 

Another:
The _n_d6 points of damage per level and the "Save or Die" effects of "traditional" spells just makes hit points irrelevant, since they scale at the same rate. You could go with a "wound point" system. Everyone can take Constitution Score (+class bonus) boxes of damage, and a fireball deals 1d6+INT boxes of damage in a 20 ft burst, while a longsword deals 1d8+STR damage to a single creature. 
Sure, you lose out the relative power difference between 1st level and 10th level in hit points, but you could still keep the to-hit and defenses changing with level, so the difference will still be very strong. The system might get swingier against lower level opponents then using traditional HD (two lucky rolls can kill a high level PC), but the real problem is that the system is always swingy against equal level opponents. (Two average rolls can kill an equal level PC)

If you don't do this, you will begin comparing 1d8+STR longswords (or magic missile) at-wills with 10d6 fireball dailies (or "Brutal Strike" fighter daily). And you will notice that the fireballs and brutal strikes will over-shadow the rest, and they are still too precious to not recover at first opportunity. 

Just having to chose between 1d8+INT vs 2d8+INT vs 3d8+INT powers makes dailies (and encounters) less critical. They are important, but you don't want to use them every time.


----------



## D'karr (Sep 1, 2008)

Fenes said:


> One thing I don't like with 4E is that instead of ramping the martial powers up to the spell power, like Bo9S did, they toned the spells down to melee level. Even the dailies do not really look or feel impressive to me, not compared to spells of 3E, and powers from Bo9S.




I can agree to a certain point but I see it more as a balancing act to enable the game to keep the "sweet spot" for a lot longer period.  Going from levels 1-20 in 3e was excruciatingly painful after the mid-high levels and it was hard to survive at the lower levels.

In 4e, the powers had to scale from 1-30 and stay in synch between the classes.  So now you are adding 10 more levels and you still want to keep the "feel" of the game as when you were playing in the "sweet spot" of 3e.  Invariably something had to give.  Fortunately I'm okay with that, though I understand that it is not the same for others.  Since my players are having a blast, I'm not too worried about it.


----------



## Fenes (Sep 1, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> If you don't do this, you will begin comparing 1d8+STR longswords (or magic missile) at-wills with 10d6 fireball dailies (or "Brutal Strike" fighter daily). And you will notice that the fireballs and brutal strikes will over-shadow the rest, and they are still too precious to not recover at first opportunity.
> 
> Just having to chose between 1d8+INT vs 2d8+INT vs 3d8+INT powers makes dailies (and encounters) less critical. They are important, but you don't want to use them every time.




But that's my point: I want the fights to be full of such powers, spectacular stunts, massive damage, and flashy moves and spells. I don't want many fights per day, I want few fights, but choke full of 10d6 damage moves and spells. I want player characters to use their best moves in every fight we actually play out.

4E's daily and encounter powers just feel less impressive to me, and that's exactly because they feel barely above the at-wills.


----------



## D'karr (Sep 1, 2008)

Fenes said:


> But that's my point: I want the fights to be full of such powers, spectacular stunts, massive damage, and flashy moves and spells. I don't want many fights per day, I want few fights, but choke full of 10d6 damage moves and spells. I want player characters to use their best moves in every fight we actually play out.
> 
> 4E's daily and encounter powers just feel less impressive to me, and that's exactly because they feel barely above the at-wills.




Well then vanilla 4e will not do that for you.

However, this is actually easily fixable.  The math is so simple that if you wanted to scale everything upwards it is mostly trivial to do so.  For PCs, add one more die to the encounter powers and add 2 more die to the Daily Powers.  For creatures add one more die to the rechargable powers and add 2-3 die to the encounter powers.

This is going to swing the level of damage very disproportionately so you might want to increase the amount of Healing Surges available or at least make them more easily used by players.


----------



## Kitirat (Sep 1, 2008)

Fenes, a friend of mine said the exact same thing, he wanted more bang for the buck in 4th so he did a simple thing.

At-Wills stay the same
Encounter powers double their damage dice.
Dailies triple their damage dice and add +1 to their AoE if they have it per tier.

So it is 1W+Ability, 4W+Ability, and 9W+ability for most standard abilities at heroic level.

He also changed minutes to round for casting rituals for clerics and wizards.

Makes for a bloodthirsty game with lots of bang.


----------



## Hussar (Sep 1, 2008)

Fenes said:


> But that's my point: I want the fights to be full of such powers, spectacular stunts, massive damage, and flashy moves and spells. I don't want many fights per day, I want few fights, but choke full of 10d6 damage moves and spells. I want player characters to use their best moves in every fight we actually play out.
> 
> 4E's daily and encounter powers just feel less impressive to me, and that's exactly because they feel barely above the at-wills.




The problem with that though is the "massive damage" part.  

It makes combat extremely swingy.  This was exactly what you saw in epic level 3.5 play.  Yes, the characters (whether PC's or bad guys) could do immense amount of damage.  Do fantastic feats.  But, the combats lasted two rounds for exactly that reason.  

The whole point of smoothing off the power curve is that you don't have these massive spikes which are virtually impossible to plan around.  

I get what you're saying, and to some degree I agree.  But, 3e shows what happens when you can do this sort of thing.  The clerics and the wizards at high levels were doing this regularly. And, fights would degrade into whoever won initiative won the fight.


----------



## Henry (Sep 1, 2008)

D'karr said:


> One interesting thing in Bo9S that I might try for 4e is to allow a character to use a full round action to "meditate" and get back one encounter power.  Similar to how a SwordSage gets encounter powers back during an encounter.




I'm using your quote specifically to point this out because it's a good jumping point: For anyone adding "encounter or daily recharge" to 4e,. keep in mind that many of the Paragon Paths and Epic Destinies feature encounter or Daily recharge abilities into their special class features. If you introduce a recharge in Heroic levels available to anyone, it devalues the usefulness of those special paragon and epic features at later levels. If you don't plan to go above Heroic, this works great, but it's worth thinking about for a game you plan to run into higher levels.


----------



## Fenes (Sep 1, 2008)

D'karr said:


> Well then vanilla 4e will not do that for you.
> 
> However, this is actually easily fixable.  The math is so simple that if you wanted to scale everything upwards it is mostly trivial to do so.  For PCs, add one more die to the encounter powers and add 2 more die to the Daily Powers.  For creatures add one more die to the rechargable powers and add 2-3 die to the encounter powers.
> 
> This is going to swing the level of damage very disproportionately so you might want to increase the amount of Healing Surges available or at least make them more easily used by players.




Or I could just keep playing 3E with Bo9S.


----------



## Reynard (Sep 1, 2008)

Hussar said:


> The problem with that though is the "massive damage" part.
> 
> It makes combat extremely swingy.  This was exactly what you saw in epic level 3.5 play.  Yes, the characters (whether PC's or bad guys) could do immense amount of damage.  Do fantastic feats.  But, the combats lasted two rounds for exactly that reason.
> 
> ...




You saqy this like it's abad thing. 

More seriously: I prefer "swingy" combat because uncertainty is fun. I'd rather play in a situation in which one die roll can send plans nd tactics down the flusher, for the good guys or the bad guys.  Sometimes, the villain goes down like a punk.  Sometimes,the PCs have to retreat and regroup.  It is preferable by far, IMO, than knowing that, all thing being equal, I need to set aside two hours of game time for the "boss fight".


----------



## D'karr (Sep 1, 2008)

Henry said:


> I'm using your quote specifically to point this out because it's a good jumping point: For anyone adding "encounter or daily recharge" to 4e,. keep in mind that many of the Paragon Paths and Epic Destinies feature encounter or Daily recharge abilities into their special class features. If you introduce a recharge in Heroic levels available to anyone, it devalues the usefulness of those special paragon and epic features at later levels. If you don't plan to go above Heroic, this works great, but it's worth thinking about for a game you plan to run into higher levels.




Yes, I think I mentioned it several posts below.  I'm actually not too worried about the devaluation because it will apply across the board.

So if I institute the Action Point to recover one encounter power, everyone will have access to it whether they decide to follow the specific paragon paths or epic destinies that grant them.  Since this is a "house rule" I don't mind allowing those classes that have the ability anyway, a way to gain the power from the Action Point and the power from their class ability.

I'm actually also playing with additional At-Will powers at higher levels.  I have not decided where exactly yet, but the initial thought is that they'll get one additional At-Will for their class at 5th or 8th level and an additional one at 15th level.  I just don't see a great balance shift by doing that and I'd prefer each character to have more options during combat instead of having to rely on the limited amount (2) of At-Will powers.


----------



## D'karr (Sep 1, 2008)

Fenes said:


> Or I could just keep playing 3E with Bo9S.




You sure could.  You take the good with the bad and since you have a choice then it should work for you.



Reynard said:


> It is preferable by far, IMO, than knowing that, all thing being equal, I need to set aside two hours of game time for the "boss fight".




See this I've never run into.  In 3e most Boss Fights would either be over before they started (2 - 3 rounds) or became a slugfest that took multiple hours.  In 4e, a good boss fight, even when the players were inexperienced, took us about one hour.  Now that they know what they are doing I've never seen a fight go that long.  In addition they get to do a lot more in that hour than before.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Sep 1, 2008)

Reynard said:


> You saqy this like it's abad thing.
> 
> More seriously: I prefer "swingy" combat because uncertainty is fun. I'd rather play in a situation in which one die roll can send plans nd tactics down the flusher, for the good guys or the bad guys.  Sometimes, the villain goes down like a punk.  Sometimes,the PCs have to retreat and regroup.  It is preferable by far, IMO, than knowing that, all thing being equal, I need to set aside two hours of game time for the "boss fight".




Sending tactics down is okay, but usually it ends with a sudden character death you couldn't avoid. Like "enemy wins initiative, fires off save or die effects, you roll bad" or "enemy surprises you, wins initiative, and standard action + full attack with critical kill you". Or "3 enemies of your level open up with fireball as spell-like ability, your wizard succeeds all three saving throws and is still dead". That's a degree of uncertainty I have found terrible and you can't avoid it if you keep damage that high.




> But that's my point: I want the fights to be full of such powers, spectacular stunts, massive damage, and flashy moves and spells. I don't want many fights per day, I want few fights, but choke full of 10d6 damage moves and spells. I want player characters to use their best moves in every fight we actually play out.
> 
> 4E's daily and encounter powers just feel less impressive to me, and that's exactly because they feel barely above the at-wills.



The raw damage is unimpressive, but the additional effects are usually pretty impressive - throwing enemies around the battlefield, knocking them prone, slowing, dazing, stunning, immobilizing, weakening, all this makes stuff different.

By comparison, 3E seems bland. It's way too often just "deal massive damage"* or "save or die" (or "save or suck"). By contrast, even if a 1st level wizard does nothing but use at-wills, he could still be able to push his enemies around the battlefield. 


*) I had a lot of fun playing a Fighter that specializes in combat maneuvers. But if it hadn't been for the Bards Inspire Courage and (at higher levels) a more or less broken artifact, a weapon specialization guy would have been a lot more effective and useful. And my standard combat maneuver was just trip, most of the rest got barely used (I think Improved Grapple saw some use on the defense and against wizards
So in the end, it still comes down to massive damage.


----------



## Staffan (Sep 1, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> At level 4? Wasn't it usually beginning at 1st level? Including the "I have to take some suboptimal feats that I wouldn't take otherwise to get there".



Well, I was looking through Complete Warrior for the first PrC that had significant prerequisites, and the Cavalier was it. BAB +8, Weapon Focus (lance), and the three mounted feats. Four feat prereqs and level 8 translates to having to start working at level 4 for a fighter (feats at 4, 6, 6, and 8). There are definitely PrCs with even worse prereqs, but that's the one I used as an example.


----------



## Reynard (Sep 1, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> Sending tactics down is okay, but usually it ends with a sudden character death you couldn't avoid. Like "enemy wins initiative, fires off save or die effects, you roll bad" or "enemy surprises you, wins initiative, and standard action + full attack with critical kill you". Or "3 enemies of your level open up with fireball as spell-like ability, your wizard succeeds all three saving throws and is still dead". That's a degree of uncertainty I have found terrible and you can't avoid it if you keep damage that high.




I alwasy find it telling that the arguments rarely come from the other direction, talking about how PCs enjoy the same possibilities of obliterating their enemies due to a couple lucky die rolls.  Equally important is that these arguments often rely on the most extreme of situations -- every enemy beats every PC in inititaive and/or surprises them all; ever PC fails every saving throw; every attack roll against the PCs is a critical.  I think it's largely a player centric, close to being a strawman argument in many cases, based around the idea that if such a thing is possible, eventually it's going to happen and it's going to happen to me.  The thing about probability is that it doesn't work that way -- just because there's a 10% chance of something occuring doesn't mean it happens 1 in 10 times.  it might never happen, or might happen every time.  I just think it's more fun and more interesting to allow for those extreme possibilities than to eliminate them wholesale.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Sep 1, 2008)

Reynard said:


> I alwasy find it telling that the arguments rarely come from the other direction, talking about how PCs enjoy the same possibilities of obliterating their enemies due to a couple lucky die rolls.  Equally important is that these arguments often rely on the most extreme of situations -- every enemy beats every PC in inititaive and/or surprises them all; ever PC fails every saving throw; every attack roll against the PCs is a critical.  I think it's largely a player centric, close to being a strawman argument in many cases, based around the idea that if such a thing is possible, eventually it's going to happen and it's going to happen to me.  The thing about probability is that it doesn't work that way -- just because there's a 10% chance of something occuring doesn't mean it happens 1 in 10 times.  it might never happen, or might happen every time.  I just think it's more fun and more interesting to allow for those extreme possibilities than to eliminate them wholesale.




Well, all these stories happened. I don't know why I fail to remember so the awesome scenes working for the PCs (though I remember a scene in my 4E campaign that was pretty sweet for the PCs). 
Maybe I tend to memorize bad experience that took the fun out of the game better then the ones that advanced the game. But I remember that we had lots of bad experience during Age of Worms (though none of the incidents mentioned above are from that campaign), which led us to abandoning it eventually. 

But I remember a cool scene in my Keep on the Shadowfell campaign where the PCs mixed up a large group of Goblins that was well remembered by the party... But of course I also remember the scene with Irontooth that went... less smooth. 

What I would like to see more in regards to "failures" of the PCs would be actual retreats, not character or party kills. I haven't seen that happening much in 3E, and it was also hard to facilitate - to much damage per round. If you knew you were in trouble you didn't have the time to run anymore. You were probably already dead. I suppose that wasn't true at all levels (levels 1-3 and 11+ certainly...)

Edit: 

I think the real reason why I don't remember this much from the other side of the screen is - Villains die all the time. There are _very_ few encounters with recurring villains. Villains come and go. And I don't hang my hard that much on villains that I didn't expect them to die soon. Though I remember that a little too many NPCs died ineffectual while being grappled by the parties Giant (Diamond Throne campaign). (But I also remember him being a little frustrated when - more by accident then intent - the party faced a lot more large size creatures, like Chorrim...)

But if my character died the third time in 3 sessions, I am bound to remember.


----------



## D'karr (Sep 1, 2008)

Reynard said:


> I alwasy find it telling that the arguments rarely come from the other direction, talking about how PCs enjoy the same possibilities of obliterating their enemies due to a couple lucky die rolls.  Equally important is that these arguments often rely on the most extreme of situations -- every enemy beats every PC in inititaive and/or surprises them all; ever PC fails every saving throw; every attack roll against the PCs is a critical.  I think it's largely a player centric, close to being a strawman argument in many cases, based around the idea that if such a thing is possible, eventually it's going to happen and it's going to happen to me.  The thing about probability is that it doesn't work that way -- just because there's a 10% chance of something occuring doesn't mean it happens 1 in 10 times.  it might never happen, or might happen every time.  I just think it's more fun and more interesting to allow for those extreme possibilities than to eliminate them wholesale.




Well from the 4e perspective I can say that the creatures in my campaign have routinely had higher initiative than the PCs.  And sometimes a heck of a lot higher.  While the PCs are at the +3-5 modifier the creatures have +6-7.  When the PCs are at the +6-7 the creatures are at +9-11.  It doesn't always work like that but it has happened often enough to be a decided advantage for the monsters.

In addition with the increased amounts of monsters against PCs you also run into higher chances to start rolling critical hits.  When the players are each rolling one attack I'm rolling 7-10 attacks and the probabilities really start stacking against the PCs.

Yes, with more swingy damage the players have a chance to NOVA against one creature and it's memorable.  Creature dead, nobody loses anything, the PCs feel heroic.  When a creature NOVAs against a PC and outright kills them without them even having a chance to act, not so much excitement on that side.

I prefer to have combats that keep the PCs on their toes and from which they can retreat if they choose to.  A lucky killing hit pretty much eliminates that possibility.


----------



## Reynard (Sep 1, 2008)

D'karr said:


> In addition with the increased amounts of monsters against PCs you also run into higher chances to start rolling critical hits.  When the players are each rolling one attack I'm rolling 7-10 attacks and the probabilities really start stacking against the PCs.




Remember, though, from a 3E perspective (and even more so in earlier editions, I think) if the PCs are significantly outnumbered, those enemies are also likely significantly weaker than them.  This translates to lower chance of confirming crits and lower damage thresholds in general.  So while the number of dice increase, the probability that any of those dice reult in an insta-kill is pretty low (unless the DM likes to make sure all of his enemies are crit machines, but thats a different sort of issue).  In the opposite situation, in which the PCs outnumber the enmy, they are probably "outgunned" as well -- which is where tatics and pulling out the stops becomes even more important and, yes, where a lucky strike could result in a smeared PC -- but I think this is a feature rather than a bug of the occassional boss battle.  again, though, if the DM is constantly throwing powerful, singular, even if "level appropriate", enemies at the party, that's something that needs to be addressed (assuming the players don't like it).

One of the reasons I think the minion rules in 4E are so amusing is that in 3E minion rules were super simple: multiply the "plot importance" of the enemy by the number of hit dice the creature has = hit points.  Example: so you want some viable orc soldiers for a 9th level party, at least insofar as they might actually hit the PCs.  But they are just mooks. Make them 5th level warriors and give them 2 hit points per hit die (10 hit points). Viola, instant minions.


----------



## D'karr (Sep 1, 2008)

Reynard said:


> Remember, though, from a 3E perspective (and even more so in earlier editions, I think) if the PCs are significantly outnumbered, those enemies are also likely significantly weaker than them.  This translates to lower chance of confirming crits and lower damage thresholds in general.  So while the number of dice increase, the probability that any of those dice result in an insta-kill is pretty low (unless the DM likes to make sure all of his enemies are crit machines, but thats a different sort of issue).




Since the thread is about 4e and the few previous posts to the one I made had been about increasing damage to, in essence, make 4e combat more swingy, I limited my comments to that.

However, you are correct.  In 3e in most situations in which the PCs were significantly outnumbered the enemies were significantly weaker.  In my experience those enemies were, in most cases, completely ineffective in presenting any threat at all in a combat.  You are correct they were not going to insta-kill, as a matter of fact the great majority of them were not even going to hit.  When the possibility of hitting is only a natural 20 the effectiveness of the opposition is clearly diminished.  This was not so easily experienced in earlier editions of the game because the PCs did not usually have ways to scale their AC into the unhittable range.

So if a DM wanted to even begin to challenge a party he had to use encounters that were EL+2, +3 or even +4.  This causes a disconnect because if you use the CR system you can't add that many lower level opponents to a combat to make it interesting.  If I recall correctly the CR calculation table even stated that adding more than 12 creatures to an encounter could pose problems.

So I agree in 3e there is the possibility of having many lower level creatures attack the characters but overall they were not a challenge at all.

So in order to challenge the party a DM had to swing the pendulum in the opposite direction.  Fewer creatures that were more powerful.



> In the opposite situation, in which the PCs outnumber the enemy, they are probably "outgunned" as well -- which is where tactics and pulling out the stops becomes even more important and, yes, where a lucky strike could result in a smeared PC -- but I think this is a feature rather than a bug of the occasional boss battle.




And this is where we disagree the most.  I don't believe that a lucky strike that smears a PC is a feature.  Even when it comes to a boss battle.  What fun does a player have if his carefully played PC gets smeared on the first strike by a swingy combat system.  He'll be, more than likely, sitting out the rest of the combat, if not the adventure.  How is that a feature?



> Again, though, if the DM is constantly throwing powerful, singular, even if "level appropriate", enemies at the party, that's something that needs to be addressed (assuming the players don't like it).




I completely agree with you here.  But how many players honestly like to sit out combats or entire adventures?



> One of the reasons I think the minion rules in 4E are so amusing is that in 3E minion rules were super simple: multiply the "plot importance" of the enemy by the number of hit dice the creature has = hit points.  Example: so you want some viable orc soldiers for a 9th level party, at least insofar as they might actually hit the PCs.  But they are just mooks. Make them 5th level warriors and give them 2 hit points per hit die (10 hit points). Viola, instant minions.




Yes, that works, in theory, until you have players that hit those orcs for minimum damage.  Then you have one or several "minions" that require book-keeping.  When you start to add that up the DM soon finds out why the binary state of 4e minions works so well.  Specially when they are used within the proper context.

In addition, that might have been your way of doing minions but if you attempt to show that "rule" to a new DM you can't.  Simply because it doesn't exist in any sourcebook that they would have access to.  I used to hand wave minions in 3e too but I've had decades of experience to know what works and what doesn't.  The game should not present that impediment to a new DM that has just bought the 3 core books.

In 4e I've already run combats with 20+ creatures against the PCs.  These combats took me no additional effort to run than combats between the PCs and 4-6 opponents.  When you start adding traps, and enviromental hazards the combats become much more exciting.  Not only that, now because I don't have to worry about the lucky one hit kill, the combatants can go all out.  In addition, the PCs now have a chance to decide whether they stick around to fight, if the combat is going their way.  Or they can decide they are going to flee, because they are getting their asses handed to them.

Some will say that because damage is on average lower than in 3e that 4e combat is not deadly enough.  I can honestly say, not so.  Characters are more survivable than in 3e, but PC deaths are mostly due to bad decisions on the part of the players than to random chance.  4e combat can be quite deadly, and the stack of dead PC sheets piled up at my table alone is testament to that.


----------



## FireLance (Sep 2, 2008)

D'karr said:


> I think that this provides too much of a "safety net."  What if you play tactically "smart" and avoid getting hit?  Should you be penalized because you were not bloodied or dropped to negatives?
> 
> By making it a standard cost of one action point you make sure that it only happens once per encounter and the player has the option to take it or to use the action point for additional actions as normal.



I've also been toying with the idea of a once per encounter recharge mechanism, and I think I might tie it instead to second wind (which characters also normally can use only once per encounter). Basically, you spend a healing surge, but instead of regaining hit points, you get back an expended encounter power instead. This rewards players who were clever or lucky enough not to be hit.


----------



## Hussar (Sep 2, 2008)

Reynard said:


> You saqy this like it's abad thing.
> 
> More seriously: I prefer "swingy" combat because uncertainty is fun. I'd rather play in a situation in which one die roll can send plans nd tactics down the flusher, for the good guys or the bad guys.  Sometimes, the villain goes down like a punk.  Sometimes,the PCs have to retreat and regroup.  It is preferable by far, IMO, than knowing that, all thing being equal, I need to set aside two hours of game time for the "boss fight".




Again, that's fair.  Your playstyle and all.  But, to me, the idea that single die rolls can change the fight from "Regular" to "Extra Lethal" is bad.  I found 3e combat FAR too lethal.  I was killing PC's, using standard EL=Party Level encounters most of the time, about 1 time every three sessions.  That's WAY too much.  80 sessions, 27 PC deaths.  It really sucked the fun out of the campaign.



Reynard said:


> I alwasy find it telling that the arguments rarely come from the other direction, talking about how PCs enjoy the same possibilities of obliterating their enemies due to a couple lucky die rolls.  Equally important is that these arguments often rely on the most extreme of situations -- every enemy beats every PC in inititaive and/or surprises them all; ever PC fails every saving throw; every attack roll against the PCs is a critical.  I think it's largely a player centric, close to being a strawman argument in many cases, based around the idea that if such a thing is possible, eventually it's going to happen and it's going to happen to me.  The thing about probability is that it doesn't work that way -- just because there's a 10% chance of something occuring doesn't mean it happens 1 in 10 times.  it might never happen, or might happen every time.  I just think it's more fun and more interesting to allow for those extreme possibilities than to eliminate them wholesale.




Not really when you think about it.  PC's will fight hundreds of fights before the end of a campaign.  Most baddies fight one.  The very rare one gets to fight a couple.  So, when the baddie goes down to a lucky crit, great.  But, the PC's have to get luck EVERY SINGLE TIME.  Or they die.

And, let's not forget, an equal CR creature can most likely kill a PC with a single full attack.  Never mind crits or other effects.  Many, many creatures can simply down you with straight up damage.  Two rounds MAX.  

Like I said, I found 3e combat far and away too lethal.  I put in Action Points in my next campaign specifically to limit this.  I know in the last campaign we played in, we would have seen at least 3 PC deaths in 5 sessions, all against level appropriate encounters, if it hadn't been for Action Points saving them.  

I agree that combat should be uncertain.  I disagree that the level of uncertainty should be THAT great.


----------



## Reynard (Sep 2, 2008)

Hussar said:


> Not really when you think about it.  PC's will fight hundreds of fights before the end of a campaign.  Most baddies fight one.  The very rare one gets to fight a couple.  So, when the baddie goes down to a lucky crit, great.  But, the PC's have to get luck EVERY SINGLE TIME.  Or they die.




Right, but the number of die rolls performed by the DM and the players (total) is pretty much the same. Sometimes there's an equal number of enemies. Sometimes there's one nemy with a number of attacks.  But the probability of one of the players critting or whatever and the DM doing it with one of the enemies is pretty much equal (barring "builds" made for crits, etc..).



> And, let's not forget, an equal CR creature can most likely kill a PC with a single full attack.  Never mind crits or other effects.  Many, many creatures can simply down you with straight up damage.  Two rounds MAX.




This is true, but I think it's because the intent, traditionally, is to have more, weaker foes vs the party rather than a singular powerful foe.  If every time the party enters a room there's a CR=party level monter in 3E, chances are you are going to lose a PC sooner rather than later, and once one is gone, the spiral starts.


----------



## Old Gumphrey (Sep 2, 2008)

Regarding the feats issue, I don't really see it as a problem. Yeah, you have to do some planning if you really want specific feats at specific times, but it simply doesn't matter as much anymore. Feats just aren't that powerful.


----------



## LostSoul (Sep 2, 2008)

Reynard said:


> More seriously: I prefer "swingy" combat because uncertainty is fun. I'd rather play in a situation in which one die roll can send plans nd tactics down the flusher, for the good guys or the bad guys.  Sometimes, the villain goes down like a punk.  Sometimes,the PCs have to retreat and regroup.  It is preferable by far, IMO, than knowing that, all thing being equal, I need to set aside two hours of game time for the "boss fight".




I think that uncertainty is great.  I think it's great because it makes each decision point important.  You don't know what effect the choice you make will have, and that's fun.

However, uncertainty that lowers the number of choices you can make - "Oh crap, I rolled a 1, I'm dead" - is not very cool.  "Oh crap, the bodak hit me, if he has line of sight on me next time he goes I'm dead" changes the situation and opens up a whole other line of choices.


----------



## Shroomy (Sep 2, 2008)

Old Gumphrey said:


> Regarding the feats issue, I don't really see it as a problem. Yeah, you have to do some planning if you really want specific feats at specific times, but it simply doesn't matter as much anymore. Feats just aren't that powerful.




I don't even think it is a measure of power, its that most feats are not dependent on having another feat, instead being dependent on ability score, race, and class.  And as far as I can remember, no PPs are dependent (so far, and I don't see this changing) on having a certain feat.


----------



## Hussar (Sep 2, 2008)

Reynard said:


> Right, but the number of die rolls performed by the DM and the players (total) is pretty much the same. Sometimes there's an equal number of enemies. Sometimes there's one nemy with a number of attacks.  But the probability of one of the players critting or whatever and the DM doing it with one of the enemies is pretty much equal (barring "builds" made for crits, etc..).
> 
> 
> 
> This is true, but I think it's because the intent, traditionally, is to have more, weaker foes vs the party rather than a singular powerful foe.  If every time the party enters a room there's a CR=party level monter in 3E, chances are you are going to lose a PC sooner rather than later, and once one is gone, the spiral starts.




That's certain not true in 3e.  It might be true before.  3e assumes very small numbers of opponents, 5 at the absolute most, because beyond that, the opponents simply cannot hurt the PC's.  Their attack rolls are too low and their saving throw DC's are too low to have much effect.

I find that 2-3 baddies tends to work best.  But, even then, if you start going EL+, you run into the same problems - monsters can simply kill PC's with straight up damage in 1-2 rounds.  Particularly if you gang up on one PC - like a fighter meatshield trying to protect the wizard.

This wasn't an issue in earlier editions because monsters did so little damage with their attacks.


----------



## Reynard (Sep 2, 2008)

LostSoul said:


> However, uncertainty that lowers the number of choices you can make - "Oh crap, I rolled a 1, I'm dead" - is not very cool.  "Oh crap, the bodak hit me, if he has line of sight on me next time he goes I'm dead" changes the situation and opens up a whole other line of choices.




It doesn't lower the number of choices, though: it' a different decision point.  "Oh, crap, a bodak! If I fail a save when that thing gazes me, I'm dead!" Now the decision point is before or at the beginning of the encounter. Run? (Yes, fleeing is a viable option -- a fact that seems to get forgotten a lot.) Fight blind or eyes averted and take the penalty? Have the cleric burn their best healing spell to do as much damage to the thing as possible? It's the same thing with the great sword wielding fire giant, who can smear almost any character with a successful crit.  How do you engage such an enemy while minimizing the chance that it'll be able to do so?

I honestly think part of the issue is a difference in general playstyle attitude. It seems to me that it's a relatively recent development that "schtick building" has become prominent among players and there's less room for players to adapt their play behavior to changing circumstances, plus an attitude that not being able to use their schtick is considered not fun.  Perhaps it is due to the ability (in 3E) or the near-requirement (in 4E) to hyper-focus a character so they are good at one thing in particular and very poor at other things.  Sure, your 1E and 2E fighter could specialize, but by and large tht specialization gave limited benefits.  The long sword pecialized fighter still carried a mace (for skeletons), a bow or crossbow (for stuff he didn't want to get near) and a ten foot pole (to push rust monsters away with). There was an uncertainty in what was coming next, what kind of threat it would be and where it sat relative to the power/experience level of the characters.  Latter 3.5 (I blame Mearls, mostly) fanned the flames of this attutude by make "official" statements about what was fun and what wasn't.  And it was a short leap from "fun" to "fair".


----------



## Reynard (Sep 2, 2008)

Hussar said:


> That's certain not true in 3e.  It might be true before.  3e assumes very small numbers of opponents, 5 at the absolute most, because beyond that, the opponents simply cannot hurt the PC's.  Their attack rolls are too low and their saving throw DC's are too low to have much effect.




I think that's entirely dependent upon the level range we're talking about. A gang of 8 orcs is EL 5 (if I am remembering my EL math correctly).  At that point, the orcs are swing with a +5, including flanking, against AC's that are not appreciably better than 1st level characters except for the tank fighters that pumped all their treasure into a suit of full plate (maybe everyoen else has a +1 or +2 increase from various gear and such).  Are they are horrifying deadly threat? No.  But they do represent a big enough threat that PCs have to expend some resources to ensure that no one gets seriously injured.  that's okay.  it isn't a boss fight, it is a "standard" fight.  basic stats plus good tactics makes them a noticible threat.  Now, as you start up the level ladder, things get a little wonkier, because PC defenses and capabilities grow exponentially as opposed to linearly.

I'll have to look up some specific examples and see if I can parcel out where the break is.


----------



## LostSoul (Sep 2, 2008)

Reynard said:


> It doesn't lower the number of choices, though: it' a different decision point.  "Oh, crap, a bodak! If I fail a save when that thing gazes me, I'm dead!"




What I'm saying is that the mechanics should increase the number of choices after we go to them.  Using the bodak's death gaze doesn't create more decision points; either you're dead after your save, or you continue to do whatever you were doing prior to its gaze attack (i.e. trying to kill it/shut it down before it takes its turn).

4e's death gaze changes the situation after it hits you, opening up a whole new tree of decisions to be made that did not exist before.

A 4e example of mechanics limiting choices is the purple worm's swallow ability (under certain readings).  If you're hit, the actions you can take - and the choices you can make - narrow down pretty fast.


----------



## D'karr (Sep 2, 2008)

Reynard said:


> I think that's entirely dependent upon the level range we're talking about.



Exactly.  In 3e the play experience remains fun without getting crazy for a short interval of levels.  IME, from about level 4 to about level 12.



> Now, as you start up the level ladder, things get a little wonkier, because PC defenses and capabilities grow exponentially as opposed to linearly.




You got it.  3e has a progression of power that breaks down at higher level, and a ramp up period that keeps the characters barely survivable.

So 4e flattened this curve so that power growth is now more linear.  It also keeps the ramp up much more survivable and the higher level play still fun and relevant.

I much prefer that growth curve to the one in 3e.


----------



## T-Bone JiuJitsu (Sep 2, 2008)

The Minion rules initially upset me. Now that I've used them in play, I think they are probably a good idea, and not as absurd as I originally thought.

I will probably continue to use them as is, but one solution came to mind. I may use this in the future if the need arises...

Elite Minions. If they are damaged they are considered Bloodied. If they are damaged a second time, Dead. The only thing to work out is what if that first hit is "high damage"? Say the fighter hits for like 19 hp damage in one blow, and I would expect that would outright kill this type of creature. DM judgement would have to be called in in that case. I'd say a critical hit would insta-kill an "elite minion".


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Sep 2, 2008)

Reynard said:


> Right, but the number of die rolls performed by the DM and the players (total) is pretty much the same. Sometimes there's an equal number of enemies. Sometimes there's one nemy with a number of attacks.  But the probability of one of the players critting or whatever and the DM doing it with one of the enemies is pretty much equal (barring "builds" made for crits, etc..)



But a key difference is always the emotional investment. Most players are invested in their characters, and very often, even the DM cares about the individual PCs (because he might have plot-hooks for them to draw them into the next adventure, or just because he enjoys seeing them in action) and the party as a whole.
The emotional investment in most NPCs and monsters is pretty low. They are exchangeable, and aside from maybe a few recurring NPCs (allies, nemesis, family members of the PCs), you care little about them. And if the few ones that you care about are killed by some lucky roll, the scene usually is anti-climatic. 
Like those "Scry-Buff-Teleport" encounters, or at least the "buff up before facing the BBEG" - the party is optimizing all its defenses, casting every buff spell at its disposal, uses potions, and gets to the BBEG (either by Teleport or just traveling the remaining distance) - and the first action of the PCs just kills him. Like a succesful Save or Die attack. All the suspense was build up in planning the encounter, but the pay-off is a 1-round fight with the BBEG being totally ineffective? 

---

What I noticed about the above: The buffing part of 3E got easily out-of-hand and often created statistical nightmares - but it definitely helped building up suspense. The party looks at everything they know about the foe they are about to attack, and tries to optimize its spell selection, buff distribution and work out the battle tactic (usually which short-term buffs to cast, when to cast certain attack spells, which foes to engage first, and so on). 
Maybe that will be something I'll miss in 4E. The entire buff selection part is gone. (But the up-side is - the buff recalculations are gone, too. And those really bogged down this type of encounters.)


----------



## Fenes (Sep 2, 2008)

We don't have much buffs in our game. The odd Eagle's splendor for some critical performance, mage armor, inspire courage if we have a bard. That's about it.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Sep 2, 2008)

Fenes said:


> We don't have much buffs in our game. The odd Eagle's splendor for some critical performance, mage armor, inspire courage if we have a bard. That's about it.




Well, I suppose it depends on how combat intensive your campaign is (yours isn't IIRC  ), and how much experience you have made using these buffs effectively, and how deadly the encounters you face usually are. The Dungeon Adventure Path are combat intensive, filled with lots of dangerous encounters, and we were often "understaffed" in the first place (We have ~4 PCs, and some of the adventure paths were planned for 6 PCs originally...)


----------



## Fenes (Sep 2, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> Well, I suppose it depends on how combat intensive your campaign is (yours isn't IIRC  ), and how much experience you have made using these buffs effectively, and how deadly the encounters you face usually are. The Dungeon Adventure Path are combat intensive, filled with lots of dangerous encounters, and we were often "understaffed" in the first place (We have ~4 PCs, and some of the adventure paths were planned for 6 PCs originally...)




I haven't found any adventure, much less an adventure path, that had not much too much combat scenes in it. The last time a player DMed a bought adventure in our group he said he had to cut out 90% of the combat scenes, and it still ended up a combat-heavy adventure.


----------



## Ginnel (Sep 2, 2008)

FireLance said:


> I've also been toying with the idea of a once per encounter recharge mechanism, and I think I might tie it instead to second wind (which characters also normally can use only once per encounter). Basically, you spend a healing surge, but instead of regaining hit points, you get back an expended encounter power instead. This rewards players who were clever or lucky enough not to be hit.



Heh you say Clever or Lucky I say cowards, in my opinion all characters should soak up a percentage of their hits in an adventure, especially if they consistently have temporary hit points.

I find nothing Clever about the Infernal Warlock in our group who walks about avoiding hits round corners so enemys can concentrate more fire on the defenders/other party members.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Sep 2, 2008)

Fenes said:


> I haven't found any adventure, much less an adventure path, that had not much too much combat scenes in it. The last time a player DMed a bought adventure in our group he said he had to cut out 90% of the combat scenes, and it still ended up a combat-heavy adventure.



I like combat.  
But I still feel interested in what you might be playing. Am I missing something out? (Probably, but is this a matter of "opportunity cost" or would it appeal so much more to me? I'll never know...)


----------



## Hussar (Sep 2, 2008)

Reynard - the problem is, by the time you say, "Oh crap a Bodak", you're already making saving throws.  Unless you somehow knew that the bodak was there before you met it, you are going to be making saving throws immedietely.

Which means a large chunk of the party dies.

Now, 5 orcs is not EL 5 actually.  That's fair, you were working from memory.  It's actually EL 3.  But, a 3rd level party should have about 2000 gp each (IIRC, now I'm working from memory) in equipment.  That means heavy armor.  Full plate easily, or at least breastplate plus a Dex bonus.  AC 20 for front line characters is certainly not out of line without any buffs.

Our orcs BEST chances of hitting are only 25%.  That's with flanking.  So, one orc per round gets to hit (plus a bit).  He's doing d8+3 damage or so.  So, about 7 points /round.  That's not even close to a threat to a 3rd level fighter.  But, if it swings the other way and 4 of those orcs hit, your fighter dies in one round.

That's the problem.


----------



## Reynard (Sep 2, 2008)

Hussar said:


> Reynard - the problem is, by the time you say, "Oh crap a Bodak", you're already making saving throws.  Unless you somehow knew that the bodak was there before you met it, you are going to be making saving throws immedietely.
> 
> Which means a large chunk of the party dies.




Only if the party is in the habit of stumbling blindly from one encounter to the next, without concern as to what's around the corner.  in which case a few surprise rounds with Bodaks would probably do them good.


----------



## Jürgen Hubert (Sep 2, 2008)

Reynard said:


> Only if the party is in the habit of stumbling blindly from one encounter to the next, without concern as to what's around the corner.  in which case a few surprise rounds with Bodaks would probably do them good.




That kind of stance can have its own downsides, however. While I want my players to be paranoid, I want them to be paranoid about plot developments and twists, not about dangers to their lives at every second of their existence. Taken too far, this could lead to the famous case of the party rogue testing every 10x10 square of every corridor the party passes through for traps just so that they are not taken unawares.

Surprising the party with an unexpected fight now and then is fine, but while I'm all for giving them a bloody nose, using instant-killer monsters for this is just too extreme for my tastes.


----------



## Fenes (Sep 2, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> I like combat.
> But I still feel interested in what you might be playing. Am I missing something out? (Probably, but is this a matter of "opportunity cost" or would it appeal so much more to me? I'll never know...)




The party's currently (since the start of the year or so) in the City of Brass, serching for a relic stolen from their church. 

Last session the knight in the party made a deal with the envoy of a prince to prevent the princess (and heir to the throne of some country on a prime) from returning to her home. He also promised the princess, who wants the enovy killed for high treason, to protect her. He had the envoy followed by street urchins he hired, and found out about the envoy meeting with a devil before meeting with him. 
While he was investigating where that devil may be staying in the city, someone looking like him went to the priestess of the party. As it turned out this was the devil in disguise, trying to get the priestess to transfer the debt an adventurer owed her to him so he could force the friend of the adventurer to get him a sword the two had just recovered and have to return to their country to save the original thief, a friend of theirs, from getting executed.
The knight went back to the inn the party is staying in during this, and hired some lady of the evening, which turned out to be the disguised half-sister and mortal enemy of the half-dragon the priestess saved from slavery two sessions ago.
The barbarian, which had been instrumental in getting the notes of a dead mage to the rebel faction, which needs them to restore the body and memories of the heir of the dead sultan, was getting ready to knock the "possessed" knight unconscious when the knight arrived at the scene in the company of the disguised "lady". The priestess managed to avoid bloodshed, much to the barbarian's chagrin, but the devil is staying nearby, waiting for the moment the adventuerer's debt is paid and she leaves the party's protection. He passes the time ramping the barbarian's paranoia up by making him think he could be anyone in disguise. The barbarian meanwhile is planning to "save" the efreeti prince the rebels want to restore from becoming an evil firedevil again, and may rat them out to the usurper on the sultan's throne, which the party strongly suspects of having stolen the relic.
Meanwhile, the founder of the city of brass, which the party freed, needs his powers back, which the vizier may have taken, which may or may not want to topple the current sultan, and may or may not make a deal with the party. The priestess, fueled both by vanity as well as the idea this might lead to the relic, also prepares for a big dance competition at the Sultan's palace, the first prize of which is a place in his harem - where a jinni princess is waiting who has made the priestess promise to get her out.

There are a few more subplots, but that's the gist of the main plot. I think they will finish this arc aroudn the end of this year, playing weekly.


----------



## Fenes (Sep 2, 2008)

So, the focus really is not on combat, or ungeon crawling.


----------



## Reynard (Sep 2, 2008)

Jürgen Hubert said:


> That kind of stance can have its own downsides, however. While I want my players to be paranoid, I want them to be paranoid about plot developments and twists, not about dangers to their lives at every second of their existence. Taken too far, this could lead to the famous case of the party rogue testing every 10x10 square of every corridor the party passes through for traps just so that they are not taken unawares.
> 
> Surprising the party with an unexpected fight now and then is fine, but while I'm all for giving them a bloody nose, using instant-killer monsters for this is just too extreme for my tastes.




There's certainly a fine line between caution and paranoia, and it's the DM's job to provide clue to the players, through actual play, of where that line is and how fuzzy it may be.


----------



## Hussar (Sep 2, 2008)

Reynard said:


> Only if the party is in the habit of stumbling blindly from one encounter to the next, without concern as to what's around the corner.  in which case a few surprise rounds with Bodaks would probably do them good.




Unless your party is using Clairvoyance at EVERY door, they are going to enter combats without knowing the enemies sometimes.  I've seen this argument on these boards more than a few times and I never really understand it.

Unless your players know the makeup of every encounter every time, they are going to fight "blind" sometimes.  It's not about stumbling, it's about not having perfect information.  I've yet to see a group have perfect information in any adventure and, quite frankly, I hope I never do.  Sounds intensely boring.  

"Oh there's fifteen orcs in the room to the left and seven in the room to the right.  Down the hall there's this and that.  What do you want to do first?"

I highly, highly doubt that this happens in any game.

So, eventually, your party is going to go into encounters blind.  I'd hazard a guess that they go into encounters blind more often than not actually.

As far as running away goes, well, considering how slow most PC's are, any small PC is moving 20, anyone in heavy armor is moving 20, and the vast majority of monsters move 40+.  Running really isn't an option.


----------



## Jürgen Hubert (Sep 2, 2008)

Reynard said:


> There's certainly a fine line between caution and paranoia, and it's the DM's job to provide clue to the players, through actual play, of where that line is and how fuzzy it may be.




My guideline for DMs springing nasty surprises on the PCs is:

You want to induce terror in the PCs for your own entertainment. If you just kill them off, their terror - and thus, your entertainment - is over too quickly, so you want them bloody, but alive.


----------



## Shazman (Sep 2, 2008)

Monkey Boy said:


> This is my hang up as well and is almost a deal breaker. The fights have taken too long and are boring the hell out of me. Fighting goblins shouldn't take this long! I will be implementing half HP for monsters in my current game, hopefully that will fix things for my group.





This has been my experience as well.  When 1st level combats take as long as two hours, and one of the goals of the game was faster combats, somone has really messed up somewhere.  Monsters have absurdly high hitpoints and defenses, except for minions (an overly gamist concept) which I have yet to encounter.


----------



## Obryn (Sep 2, 2008)

Shazman said:


> This has been my experience as well.  When 1st level combats take as long as two hours, and one of the goals of the game was faster combats, somone has really messed up somewhere.  Monsters have absurdly high hitpoints and defenses, except for minions (an overly gamist concept) which I have yet to encounter.



For the first 2 or 3 sessions, this was my group's experience.  (Though never 2 hours at a stretch... that's completely outside my experience for 4e, though it happened several times in my mid-high level 3e game.)

After a few sessions, encounters fly.

-O


----------



## BryonD (Sep 2, 2008)

Hussar said:


> It might be true before.  3e assumes very small numbers of opponents, 5 at the absolute most, because beyond that, the opponents simply cannot hurt the PC's.




Start with "5 at the absolute most..." this statement is simply not remotely accurate.  I run combats with large numbers of monsters all the time.  And yes, some specific attacks are minimally effective against certain PCs.  But the overall effect can be quite real.  

I certainly agree that the default system assumes small numbers.  But "absolute" and "cannot" are flat wrong.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Sep 2, 2008)

Obryn said:


> For the first 2 or 3 sessions, this was my group's experience.  (Though never 2 hours at a stretch... that's completely outside my experience for 4e, though it happened several times in my mid-high level 3e game.)
> 
> After a few sessions, encounters fly.
> 
> -O




I'll have to check the precise numbers, but we ran through an amazing number of encounters last saturday. I can't remember any 4e or 3e game where it went so fast. I don't know if it is the level range (level 3-4) or if it was us that made this possible. 

My campaign is the only 4e campaign that started at 1st level (the other 3 all were conversions from existing campaigns, 2 starting at level 6 and one at level 15), and maybe the fact that the players played these characters "up"  from level 1 figured into it. On the other hand, one player had to run two characters, as one of our players can't come as often as he used to be, but we really don't want to reduce character numbers further. This usually tends to slow down game-play, since you have to get into the mind- and skillset of the second character.


----------



## Hussar (Sep 2, 2008)

Bryond - As soon as you go to 6 opponents, assuming you're playing by the book and not fudging, you are so far down the EL/CR scale that it's not even funny.  

Look at an EL 10 encounter with 6 opponents:  6xCR 5 opponents.  Now, assuming for a second that we're going to go EL par, so this should be a standard fight.  Not too easy, but, no one should die either.  

6 CR 5's.  Let's see, that gives us a choice of:  basilisks (with the lovely save or die mechanics involved - 6 saves per PC per round=instant TPK, from an encounter that should be non-lethal), but, let's use manticores.  One of my favorite critters.

Let's see, we've got two claws at +10 and a bite at +8 or spikes at +8.  10th level PC's are going to be running in mid-twenties AC, very easily.  The melee types are likely hitting 30 with a buff or two.  Even the rogue is well into the twenties.  So, our critters have about a 25% chance of hitting.  At best.  Likely, it's closer to 10%, particularly if the party has, in Reynard's view, ample warning of what's coming.

Best option here is 36 tail spikes.  About 3 hit doing 3d8+6 damage total.

The wizard isn't even feeling that.

Can it be done?  Oh probably.  I'm sure most things can be done if you massage the numbers enough.  Can it be done easily?  Not a chance.  I watched far too many combats go this way - lots of baddies, the PC's basically ignore them as they mow their way through.  The baddies just can't hit, and, even when they do, don't do enough damage.

Note, that's with 6 baddies.  Pump the numbers up to 10+ and watch what happens.  

About the only way large groups work is if they have special attacks, like our basilisks above.  If they are straight up melee monsters?  Not a chance.  

What blows my mind is that people still remain convinced that 3.5 did this well.  Look at pretty much every module out there.  You will see almost no encounters with more than 5 baddies.  There's the odd one, usually when the baddies have some sort of mount, but, by and large, 5's the max.  The math just fails beyond that.  It fails because the power increase per level is not flat, it's exponential.  Going from 2nd to 3rd level is NOT the same amount of relative power increase as going from 10th to 11th.  Maybe for the non-casters, but, the casters?  They are getting new levels of spells, plus gaining more slots of their existing levels.  Plus the rapid increase in PC wealth.  Plus the feat synergies.  Plus, plus plus.

Are the absolutes wrong?  Maybe.  Fine. I'll concede that.  But, at the end of the day, pretty much every D&D designer backs me up on this.  Module after module reflects this understanding.  Whether it's Goodman Games, Paizo, WOTC or Bleeding Edge - they all follow the same paradigm.  5 or less.


----------



## Hussar (Sep 2, 2008)

Bryond - As soon as you go to 6 opponents, assuming you're playing by the book and not fudging, you are so far down the EL/CR scale that it's not even funny.  

Look at an EL 10 encounter with 6 opponents:  6xCR 5 opponents.  Now, assuming for a second that we're going to go EL par, so this should be a standard fight.  Not too easy, but, no one should die either.  

6 CR 5's.  Let's see, that gives us a choice of:  basilisks (with the lovely save or die mechanics involved - 6 saves per PC per round=instant TPK, from an encounter that should be non-lethal), but, let's use manticores.  One of my favorite critters.

Let's see, we've got two claws at +10 and a bite at +8 or spikes at +8.  10th level PC's are going to be running in mid-twenties AC, very easily.  The melee types are likely hitting 30 with a buff or two.  Even the rogue is well into the twenties.  So, our critters have about a 25% chance of hitting.  At best.  Likely, it's closer to 10%, particularly if the party has, in Reynard's view, ample warning of what's coming.

Best option here is 36 tail spikes.  About 3 hit doing 3d8+6 damage total.

The wizard isn't even feeling that.

Can it be done?  Oh probably.  I'm sure most things can be done if you massage the numbers enough.  Can it be done easily?  Not a chance.  I watched far too many combats go this way - lots of baddies, the PC's basically ignore them as they mow their way through.  The baddies just can't hit, and, even when they do, don't do enough damage.

Note, that's with 6 baddies.  Pump the numbers up to 10+ and watch what happens.  

About the only way large groups work is if they have special attacks, like our basilisks above.  If they are straight up melee monsters?  Not a chance.  

What blows my mind is that people still remain convinced that 3.5 did this well.  Look at pretty much every module out there.  You will see almost no encounters with more than 5 baddies.  There's the odd one, usually when the baddies have some sort of mount, but, by and large, 5's the max.  The math just fails beyond that.  It fails because the power increase per level is not flat, it's exponential.  Going from 2nd to 3rd level is NOT the same amount of relative power increase as going from 10th to 11th.  Maybe for the non-casters, but, the casters?  They are getting new levels of spells, plus gaining more slots of their existing levels.  Plus the rapid increase in PC wealth.  Plus the feat synergies.  Plus, plus plus.

Are the absolutes wrong?  Maybe.  Fine. I'll concede that.  But, at the end of the day, pretty much every D&D designer backs me up on this.  Module after module reflects this understanding.  Whether it's Goodman Games, Paizo, WOTC or Bleeding Edge - they all follow the same paradigm.  5 or less.


----------



## BryonD (Sep 2, 2008)

Hussar said:


> Bryond - As soon as you go to 6 opponents, assuming you're playing by the book and not fudging, you are so far down the EL/CR scale that it's not even funny.



I've never been one to let the CR/EL rules control me.
This is one of the places I was looking forward to more freedom when 4E was first announced.

I run encounters with 20+ foes.  Not every session.  Not even every other session.  But it has happened many times in the past 8+ years.  
I can easily run these fights in ways that are good and fun challenges for the party.  

(I have also been known to throw the rare cakewalk through the horde of mooks fight at the party just to let them flex their awesomeness.  But that is a different matter)


----------



## Hussar (Sep 2, 2008)

It's not a case of letting the CR/EL rules handcuff you.  It's a case of simple math.

If you through 20 CR=Par creatures at the party, the party will die.  End of story.

If you go down to EL=+2 or less, the party cakewalks the encounter.  

How did you do it?  I'm not saying you didn't.  Not at all.  It's just that, regardless of how many encounters i've run or played, I've never seen it done.  I just don't see how.


----------



## Hussar (Sep 2, 2008)

It's not a case of letting the CR/EL rules handcuff you.  It's a case of simple math.

If you through 20 CR=Par creatures at the party, the party will die.  End of story.

If you go down to EL=+2 or less, the party cakewalks the encounter.  

How did you do it?  I'm not saying you didn't.  Not at all.  It's just that, regardless of how many encounters i've run or played, I've never seen it done.  I just don't see how.


----------



## Scribble (Sep 2, 2008)

Shazman said:


> This has been my experience as well.  When 1st level combats take as long as two hours, and one of the goals of the game was faster combats, somone has really messed up somewhere.  Monsters have absurdly high hitpoints and defenses, except for minions (an overly gamist concept) which I have yet to encounter.




Yeah as other have said I think this is largely due to inexperience with the system, as 2 hours seems a bit much.

Last Friday I ran 3 combat encounters in a span of about 3 hours. This included:

1. A fight/escape through a city with about 20 2nd level minions (coming in waves) and 2 real 3rd level guards.

2. Ambushed on the edge of a river with 2 3rd level mercs 1 4th level mage 5 1st level goblin minions 1 7th level cave troll. 

3. Chased down the river by 4 canoes holding: 1 5th level hobgoblin warcaster 3 3rd level Hobgoblin Archers 4 3rd level Hobgoblin soldiers.

In addition to the fights there was a good amount of role playing, as they had just saved the lord of the town from being executed, met up with one of his loyal men, and then watched for trouble as the lord went to the graveyard to bid fairwell to his late wife.

I wouldn't call combats in 4e "quick" but they are faster then a similar fight in 3e would be (although not as fast as 2e) but one thing I;ve noticed is that the movement and action happening in the fights holds my interest a lot more. Combats are more fun to me, so I don't mind if they linger a bit.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Sep 2, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> I'll have to check the precise numbers, but we ran through an amazing number of encounters last Saturday.




I checked the numbers: 8 encounters, one of them a skill challenge, in KotS. 
We played from around half past seven in the evening to half past one in the morning, so around 6 hours for 8 encounters. Sounds like a fair time to me, and I can't say that any of the encounters felt boring or repetitive so far. 

I suppose we _will_ finish Keep on the Shadowfell the next time I run. Finally. I am eagerly awaiting to get to the next adventure!


----------



## Zustiur (Sep 9, 2008)

Shazman said:


> This has been my experience as well.  When 1st level combats take as long as two hours, and one of the goals of the game was faster combats, somone has really messed up somewhere.  Monsters have absurdly high hitpoints and defenses, except for minions (an overly gamist concept) which I have yet to encounter.




This is my major complaint also. In our last game (second game of 4e) our 1st level party fought about 5 kobolds. And it took us an hour and a half.
Now forgive me for being old fashioned, but my memory of kobolds is that they are 'weak' and come in hordes.
5 kobolds should not take that long to finish, and more importantly they should not have more hit points than the party's defender!
There were no minions in this combat, and it got me thinking - if you took a 3e or earlier module and moved it across to 4e, virtually all the kobolds (or goblins etc) that you encounter should be minions.

This seems to be a major rethink on how modules are created. No longer do we see a number of weaklings with one or two leaders at the end (the bbegs), now they're ALL tough. Essentially WotC have re-arranged the system here altogether. We used to fight 'monsters' and a few of those monsters would have classes to make them special. Now *EVERY* monster has a class and a number of levels. We're not fighting monsters any more, we're fighting characters. And I for one am not enjoying the difference.

Where are the 1st level critters that get blatted in a single hit? I know this is what minions are for, but they just seem too few and far between. The standard has been reversed - we used to get lots of critters and a few toughies. Now we get lots of toughies and a few critters.

Strangely it puts me in mind of Dawn of War (computer game). That game has 3 difficulty settings. The difference between the settings is simply how tough each creature is. The game doesn't really get any harder. It just gets more boring as you have to stand there shooting at a single monster for 3 hours.


----------



## MichaelSomething (Sep 9, 2008)

Hussar said:


> Are the absolutes wrong? Maybe. Fine. I'll concede that. But, at the end of the day, pretty much every D&D designer backs me up on this. Module after module reflects this understanding. Whether it's Goodman Games, Paizo, WOTC or Bleeding Edge - they all follow the same paradigm. 5 or less.




I'm guessing you never did Red Hand of Doom then?

The end fight of chapter 1 has 8-10 level 4thish Hobgoblins, 2 Hell hounds (CR3) and a "CR5" green dragon.  

The PC party is suppose to be at level 5 or 6 at that point. 

The encounter level of that battle is 10 however.  

I don't have the book on me so my data isn't perfect.


----------



## Imaro (Sep 9, 2008)

Zustiur said:


> This is my major complaint also. In our last game (second game of 4e) our 1st level party fought about 5 kobolds. And it took us an hour and a half.
> Now forgive me for being old fashioned, but my memory of kobolds is that they are 'weak' and come in hordes.
> 5 kobolds should not take that long to finish, and more importantly they should not have more hit points than the party's defender!
> There were no minions in this combat, and it got me thinking - if you took a 3e or earlier module and moved it across to 4e, virtually all the kobolds (or goblins etc) that you encounter should be minions.
> ...




This.  After my players said they didn't like 4e we sat down and talked and this post above touches on their two main issues at low level play.  They felt the fights took too long...and certain things were too tough for what they were...mainly kobolds and goblins.  

I mean I could only agree when one of my players said it was more comical than heroic in any way to be fighting a 3 foot tall goblin or kobold and it's doing a pretty decent job of beating the tar out of a 6'2 220lb trained warrior.  I couldn't do anything but agree.  

I think that 4e fights, especially against opponents you know are ultimately unimportant do drag on.  I'm sorry but every fight doesn't need to be an epic battle that takes an hour.  Just like every monster doesn't have to be as tough or tougher than the PC's.  Now I know some will argue that's what minions are for...but that's exactly the problem, minions are the other extreme, paper tigers that don't give the players any real sense of accomplishment or challenge (unless you run tons of them, and then we're back to the long combat problem and the Wizard being all powerful in combat as it's the only controller in the core books).  I'm thinking about implementing the half hit point rule and trying to get my players to play 4e again...if not then it's 3.5 and Pathfinder for me.


----------



## Old Gumphrey (Sep 9, 2008)

Use more minions, guys. Seriously. =)

It doesn't have to be 5 regular monsters, or 5 minions, or 50 minions. You can have a couple regulars and 8-10 minions. It really works. Honest.

I think part of it is the learning curve, and also people just hashing and hemming and hawing over every possible tactic. Our fights get quicker, but they can drag out seemingly endlessly when players just refuse to make decisions. 

I still think it's quicker than 3e ever was.


----------



## Hussar (Sep 9, 2008)

MichaelSomething said:


> I'm guessing you never did Red Hand of Doom then?
> 
> The end fight of chapter 1 has 8-10 level 4thish Hobgoblins, 2 Hell hounds (CR3) and a "CR5" green dragon.
> 
> ...




Yes, because one single encounter changes my point.  I'll concede the "always" part, and exchange it for, pretty much most of the time.  I checked out a Dungeon magazine the other day.  First adventure, no encounters with more than 5, second adventure, 5 of the 20 encounters had more than five, but, three of those had six opponents, third adventure, no encounters with more than five.  Dungeon 136.  Just a random issue I pulled off the shelf.


----------



## MerricB (Sep 9, 2008)

MichaelSomething said:


> I'm guessing you never did Red Hand of Doom then?
> 
> The end fight of chapter 1 has 8-10 level 4thish Hobgoblins, 2 Hell hounds (CR3) and a "CR5" green dragon.
> 
> ...




D&D 3e does have combats against a lot of enemies, but for the monsters to be a challenge they generally end up being "TPK" encounters. APL+4 or APL+5 are at the very limit of what a party can handle... and often can't. If they've had an encounter or two previously, these ones often end very badly for the party.

For encounters against 8+ opponents that end up at APL or APL+1, the opponents are generally too wimpy to work.

Cheers!


----------



## LostSoul (Sep 9, 2008)

Imaro said:


> This.  After my players said they didn't like 4e we sat down and talked and this post above touches on their two main issues at low level play.  They felt the fights took too long...and certain things were too tough for what they were...mainly kobolds and goblins.




Try making all future goblins and kobolds minions.  That'll get the old feeling back.



Imaro said:


> I think that 4e fights, especially against opponents you know are ultimately unimportant do drag on.




Try making the fights important.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Sep 9, 2008)

I think one thing that 4E is changing - there are no unimportant combats. 

Where you might have considered running one encounter against two, one encounter against one, and one encounter against three monsters in earlier editions, each of them draining a few resources but none of them relevant overall, you have to re-think in 4E. These 6 monsters are actually one encounter. They do not necessarily cooperate in that encounter, but for example - one of them might be some kind of Lurker monster (maybe a Darkmantle?) stalking the PCs, looking for a moment of weakness. The two monsters might be some Goblins chatting about the recent raid while standing watch. If the PCs encounter them, they shout for help, alerting a Hobgoblin and his two goblin guards to their aid. The Lurker will use this moment to lash out at the party, looking for the most isolated foe (probably the Wizard or an Archer standing in the back). 

The Keep on the Shadowfell encounters in the Kobold Cave is an interesting example. It it is a very difficult encounter that covers a wide area. The enemies are expected to arrive in two waves - the foes at the entrance behind the waterfall, and Irontooh and the Wyrmpriest as a second wave.

In 3E, you might have expanded the cave a little bit, and made the first wave one encounter, and would possibly have split the second wave into two encounters. (You certainly wouldn't be able to run 10 Kobolds against a 1st level party). 

If you really want an unimportant combat in 4E, don't pick a full selection of enemies that make up an encounter of their level. Don't use 4 regular Goblins for an inconsequential encounter - use 4 Minions. No, you won't achieve tapping out the expected encounter budgets this ways, but if you were doing that, you're no longer talking about an inconsequential encounter.


----------



## Zustiur (Sep 9, 2008)

Old Gumphrey said:


> Use more minions, guys. Seriously. =)




Yeah... that's a great idea... except we're running bought modules from the company that makes the game. This isn't a case of the DM assigning the wrong creatures to a combat. It's KotS played straight as it is written. 
And in the battles where we have had minions (mostly in the kobold lair adventure) they were a complete let down from my perspective.

While this isn't how the conversation went, this is how it felt.
Player: I rolled a 19 to hit
DM: Ok, It's dead
Player: But I haven't worked out the damage
DM: It's dead
Player: But... I didn't get to roll my dice?!
DM: I don't care, it's dead. It's the next person's turn now.
Player: What happened to my turn?
DM: You had your turn, you killed a minion.
Player: But I didn't actually DO anything!

What's the point of having all these wonderful powers if the creature is just dead regardless? Why bother having 2W or 3W if you don't know how much damage you actually dealt, or in many cases, how much of an overkill the attack was. Determining how tough the mooks are is an important part of combat. Knowing in advance that all of the mooks have 1 HP is a serious let down. No longer do we need to wear down the first couple to determine how much power to expend on the remaining creatures.



			
				Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> I think one thing that 4E is changing - there are no unimportant combats.



This to me is a fault in the game. There needs to be _some_ unimportant combats. How else does the party get to test out combinations or learn to work together prior to the really dangerous combats? How else does the DM wear down the party's resources little by little instead of lot by lot? Where are the niggling little combats that take away a few hit points and make you wonder if it's worth a cure spell or not?

So far from what I've seen the characters are getting mashed to a pulp in every encounter. This doesn't sit right with me.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Sep 9, 2008)

Zustiur said:


> Yeah... that's a great idea... except we're running bought modules from the company that makes the game. This isn't a case of the DM assigning the wrong creatures to a combat. It's KotS played straight as it is written.
> And in the battles where we have had minions (mostly in the kobold lair adventure) they were a complete let down from my perspective.
> 
> While this isn't how the conversation went, this is how it felt.
> ...



The "toughness" of Minions is determined by their defenses, attacks and the damage they deal. If you see you hit a Minion with a roll of an 8, it's not that tough, if you need a 14, it is.

Wearing down is reserved for regular monsters. 



> This to me is a fault in the game. There needs to be _some_ unimportant combats. How else does the party get to test out combinations or learn to work together prior to the really dangerous combats? How else does the DM wear down the party's resources little by little instead of lot by lot? Where are the niggling little combats that take away a few hit points and make you wonder if it's worth a cure spell or not?
> 
> So far from what I've seen the characters are getting mashed to a pulp in every encounter. This doesn't sit right with me.



The encounters of the parties level should not be encounters that mash them to a pulp. Assuming they still survive them, they should figure out what was going wrong. Sometimes you have to learn stuff in important combats. 

Important doesn't have to mean "deadly". It mostly means that it should deserve the time spent on it, because it brings people one tenth to their next level.


----------



## D'karr (Sep 9, 2008)

Zustiur said:


> And in the battles where we have had minions (mostly in the kobold lair adventure) they were a complete let down from my perspective.




If I had been introduced to the "Minion Mechanic" in that fashion I probably would be disappointed too.  I see your point and it makes great sense.  However, I think that DMs do a great disservice to the players with poor presentation.  IMO the example you provide is simply a DM giving a poor presentation.

The minions are there to make the bookkeeping easier on the DM and make the combat more exciting.  So it is the DMs job to use the tool (minion) to make the combat more exciting.  If the DM presents it as a run of the mill, "it doesn't matter what your great tactics were, you splat him."  Of course the encounter with minions is going to be unexciting.

I think the DM's guide or the Monster Manual should include a section on running combats with minions.  It should include the pros and cons of letting the players know ahead of time which combatants are minions.  It should probably include a section on the "philosophy" of minions.  And it should definitely include a section on how to describe an exciting combat with minions.

If the DMs descriptions of combat devolve to "you hit it, it dies" then no matter what you are fighting, minion or solo, those combats are going to be crappy and unexciting.  Is that a fault of the system?  Not really, but I think that a little more guidance should be included so that DMs know what to avoid in their combats, and boring descriptions would top my list.


----------



## Jack99 (Sep 9, 2008)

Zustiur said:


> While this isn't how the conversation went, this is how it felt.
> Player: I rolled a 19 to hit
> DM: Ok, It's dead
> Player: But I haven't worked out the damage
> ...




One trick I have learned as a DM of 4e, is to always let players roll damage, and then announce afterwards if the monster died. Try it.


----------



## Ginnel (Sep 9, 2008)

Don't know what other peoples experiences are, but from playing through KotS we've had around 5-6 really challenging fights out of 20 encounters and are now 4th level, we've had the chance to try out all our moves and its taken 12 sessions so far, one thing which I will express is that it doesn't do 10ft corridor fights very well they come off as boring and I can't wait to get another open fight again.

Minions are fine and I think used quite well in the adventure, I think the problem with people saying the monsters are tough is that your thinking in old edition terms if it helps make all the kobolds with hit points into orcs and hobgoblins and have minions as actual kobolds or just pretend that these kobolds have class levels.
The way 4th edition works is that it balances each fight against a party that has all it's encounter powers and full hit points and a healing surge or two to spend, to really make it life or death pump up the challenge rating to party level + 3 or 4.

Another thing is our group's defenders regularly run out of healing surges which I've seen loads of people saying doesn't happen, we keep going until theres either an in character plot reason for us to, if someone goes down to 0 hit points they retreat to the back and start with the ranged basics, if someone goes unconcious or a fight is overwhelming or its night time then we'll retreat or rest.


----------



## Fifth Element (Sep 9, 2008)

BryonD said:


> I've never been one to let the CR/EL rules control me.



The post you were attempting to refute referred to what the rules assume. The rules assume you use CR/EL as intended. You may not use them, but the rules assume you do. Your choice to ignore them is irrelevant to the point.


----------



## Fifth Element (Sep 9, 2008)

Zustiur said:


> While this isn't how the conversation went, this is how it felt.
> Player: I rolled a 19 to hit
> DM: Ok, It's dead
> Player: But I haven't worked out the damage
> ...



I haven't DMed 4E yet, but I have used minions in 3E. It should be bloody obvious me that you don't tell the players which monsters are the minions. You should be rolling damage with each hit...in fact, isn't there advice to players to roll damage dice at the same time as the attack?


----------



## Jürgen Hubert (Sep 9, 2008)

Zustiur said:


> While this isn't how the conversation went, this is how it felt.
> Player: I rolled a 19 to hit
> DM: Ok, It's dead
> Player: But I haven't worked out the damage
> ...




In my test one-shots, I made clear which enemies the minions were from the start. And the PCs really _enjoyed_ cutting them down. And it wasn't unimportant - after all, every minion increased the odds of the enemies being able to flank the PCs, increased their changes of dealing attacks of opportunities, and so on.

It also allowed the PCs to do something important without wasting their daily and encounter powers. Perhaps that's where all the complaints about "slugfests" come from - if there are no minions in a fight, then it's understandable why the PCs use up these powers much quicker.


----------



## Obryn (Sep 9, 2008)

With few exceptions, my group's fights in 4e have started going much, much faster.

I'm really disappointed that the first few fights in KotS were against Kobolds...  Really, Kobolds are a pain both to fight and to run.  Goblins are about half as tough, when it comes down to it.

I think the speed improvement is both due to players knowing their characters' capabilities better, and better implementing tactics.  Our fights are usually as long as, or shorter than, 3e fights.  (Except when we get hobgoblins in the mix...)

-O


----------



## LostSoul (Sep 9, 2008)

Zustiur said:


> Player: What happened to my turn?
> DM: You had your turn, you killed a minion.
> Player: But I didn't actually DO anything!




Why do you feel like killing minions isn't worth it?  Minions do suck, but the damage they do adds up over time.  If you ignore them, they will take you down.


----------



## cignus_pfaccari (Sep 9, 2008)

Obryn said:


> I think the speed improvement is both due to players knowing their characters' capabilities better, and better implementing tactics.  Our fights are usually as long as, or shorter than, 3e fights.  (Except when we get hobgoblins in the mix...)




Yep.  Once people figure out what their powers do, and how to implement them effectively, things go a lot faster.

There's also the usual "keep an eye on the fight and think a move or two ahead" and "don't take forever figuring out what you're going to do" that speed things up as well.

Brad


----------



## Zustiur (Sep 9, 2008)

Jack99 said:


> One trick I have learned as a DM of 4e, is to always let players roll damage, and then announce afterwards if the monster died. Try it.




This would be fine... for about 5 battles. It soon devolves into the same thing though. Why bother rolling?
It used to be that even against some of the lowliest critters you had to roll for damage because *gasp* you might roll a 1 for damage. 
There is no pleasure in the kill when there is no chance of failure. Who cares if I did 400 damage, if 1 would have done?
I'm very tempted to be disruptive in the game as follows:
Player: Hmm I recognize that monster token, it's a minion... "I drop my mace and punch the demon on the arm. I got a 24 to hit. It is dead."
DM: "You didn't roll damage."
Player: "I don't need to. It's 1d3 damage for a punch, and it only has one hit point".
DM: "But how do you know you hit?" 
Player: "The last 15 of these have all had 20 AC. I got 24. I hit. It's dead"

Seriously. Why bother having exciting weapons when a pointy stick will do the same job? In previous editions this came up. You wore a creature down, or it was way below your level. You couldn't fail to kill it if you scored the hit. But that was few and far between. This is pretty frequent.

As a DM I've created situations where the players roll dice for absolutely no reason. They hate it. I hate it too. I've learned that it is a bad thing, and so your solution is not a worthy one long term. It might fill the gap for a while, but soon it will just be a waste of my time as a player, and as a person in general.



			
				Fifth Element said:
			
		

> I haven't DMed 4E yet, but I have used minions in 3E. It should be bloody obvious me that you don't tell the players which monsters are the minions. You should be rolling damage with each hit...in fact, isn't there advice to players to roll damage dice at the same time as the attack?



Actually I believe you're right. If the DM didn't blatently state that they were minions I might be less disenchanted with them. On the other hand, as I was saying above, knowing the minion mechanic exists, it won't take long to figure out which ones are which. Minions are the ones that die in one hit while all the others take 4 or 6 hits to kill. That's pretty obvious.
Strangely I've always frowned on rolling damage and attack dice together. I'm not sure why. I'll check with the others on their opinion. We've certainly never done it that way.



			
				LostSoul said:
			
		

> Why do you feel like killing minions isn't worth it? Minions do suck, but the damage they do adds up over time. If you ignore them, they will take you down.



 As above, there is little satisfaction in completing a task that had little or no chance of failure. I'm much happier knowing that I did 5 damage more than I needed, than knowing it doesn't matter what I roll.

Yes, from a tactical stand point it was good to kill the minion. But it doesn't feel like an achievement, because the challenge of doing so was drastically reduced.

I'm sad to say that I would be happier if kobold minions had 10 hit points, and each other kobold creature had their hit points reduced by 9 to compensate.



			
				Ginnel said:
			
		

> Minions are fine and I think used quite well in the adventure, I think the problem with people saying the monsters are tough is that your thinking in old edition terms if it helps make all the kobolds with hit points into orcs and hobgoblins and have minions as actual kobolds or just pretend that these kobolds have class levels.



Absolutely. Of course I'm thinking in old edition terms. For 4 or more editions (depending on how you count the iterations of 0ed and 3.5) DnD monsters have been standard, with a few classed exceptions to make things interesting. Now classed is normal, and 'standard' is rare and it's value greatly diminished. I don't understand why this had to change, but forgive me for thinking in old edition terms when the situation has been reversed after 4 editions of being the same. Forgive me for thinking that some concepts are fundamental to what makes and RPG 'D&D', and that the changes in a new edition don't feel right or need to be questioned.



			
				cignus_pfaccari said:
			
		

> Yep. Once people figure out what their powers do, and how to implement them effectively, things go a lot faster.



I sure hope so. An hour and a half to fight 3 dragonshield kobolds and a wyrmpriest is just not cool. Admittedly about 10 minutes of that was spent explaining to the DM that the kobolds 'shifty' at will power does not mean my move action terminates after the first square.

Ooo look, you get to move around the battlefield so much more in this edition. How tactical it has become... Umm. No, actually it's just freaking annoying because the way the DM was trying to run it (at first) is that the players need to be paranoid about their wording or lose their turn.

Player: "I _walk_ one square towards the kobold"
DM: "Each of the kobolds reacts by shifting one square away from you. You cannot reach them now"
Player: "I said WALK! I did not say SHIFT. I have NOT completed my move action."

He got it for a while. Then he caught out another player with the same trick and the player fell for it. Losing his action needlessly.

Do you get the feeling my DM isn't helping me to like this new edition I am not fond of to begin with? He's looking for us to slip up so that his monsters can get the upper hand. Well I'm fine with that, except that he assumes we've slipped up when we actually haven't, and he tries to respond accordingly, by interrupting what we're saying.

Now feel free to suggest that I find an alternate DM. But the simple fact is, his behaviour did not have this effect on me prior to starting 4E. I have enough gripes with the rules without having them exaggerate such oportunities. Then again, that may just be kobolds. I've yet to fight anything else. Maybe they're the only excruciatingly annoying ones?

[/whine] I know I get whiney on topics like this. I apologize, but ultimately, that's what this thread is about - venting bad feelings brought about by the new system and finding compatriots that feel the same way, in order to share and lessen the burden.


----------



## Fifth Element (Sep 9, 2008)

Zustiur said:


> On the other hand, as I was saying above, knowing the minion mechanic exists, it won't take long to figure out which ones are which. Minions are the ones that die in one hit while all the others take 4 or 6 hits to kill. That's pretty obvious.



Yes, knowing the minion rules you can figure out that the monster you just killed was a minion. You could certainly then infer that there are probably more minions involved in the encounter. But why would you automatically know which opponents they were? Unless you're only fighting minions, there should be uncertainty as to whether the next opponent is one or not.


----------



## D'karr (Sep 9, 2008)

Zustiur said:


> [/whine] I know I get whiney on topics like this. I apologize, but ultimately, that's what this thread is about - venting bad feelings brought about by the new system and finding compatriots that feel the same way, in order to share and lessen the burden.




Sorry but I think you mistook this for the Whiney thread.  That is two threads over...


----------



## Fifth Element (Sep 9, 2008)

Zustiur said:


> For 4 or more editions (depending on how you count the iterations of 0ed and 3.5) DnD monsters have been standard, with a few classed exceptions to make things interesting. Now classed is normal, and 'standard' is rare and it's value greatly diminished.



Interesting how you stated that. You said that in older editions, most monsters were standard, but there were a few classed ones to "make things interesting".

Which, of course, implies that having most monsters be standard is not interesting. Which I'm sure many people would agree with.

I'm not sure what's wrong with having monsters be more interesting in general.


----------



## Fifth Element (Sep 9, 2008)

Zustiur said:


> I apologize, but ultimately, that's what this thread is about - venting bad feelings brought about by the new system and finding compatriots that feel the same way, in order to share and lessen the burden.



I think you need to re-read the thread title.


----------



## Zustiur (Sep 9, 2008)

Fifth Element said:


> Yes, knowing the minion rules you can figure out that the monster you just killed was a minion. You could certainly then infer that there are probably more minions involved in the encounter. But why would you automatically know which opponents they were? Unless you're only fighting minions, there should be uncertainty as to whether the next opponent is one or not.



Easy. Each type of creature has the same counter associated with it.
From a character perspective - the ones that are armed like fighters are the fighters, the ones that are armed like fodder are the minions. The charact can tell them apart by appearance, and funnily enough, so can I.


----------



## Zustiur (Sep 9, 2008)

Fifth Element said:


> I think you need to re-read the thread title.



Whoops. Got my threads mixed up. Thought this was 'Farewell to thee D&D'.
Apologies to all!


----------



## D'karr (Sep 9, 2008)

Zustiur said:


> Whoops. Got my threads mixed up. Thought this was 'Farewell to thee D&D'.
> Apologies to all!





 No problem.  I've had those days too.


----------



## Fifth Element (Sep 9, 2008)

Zustiur said:


> Easy. Each type of creature has the same counter associated with it.



That's in the rules, is it?

As a DM who uses minis, the first thing I thought when I was reading the minion rules is "I can no longer use the same mini to represent the various types of monsters, because it would be too obvious which ones are the minions." You have to mix it up a bit.

That's not a rules problem, that's a DMing problem.


----------



## D'karr (Sep 9, 2008)

Fifth Element said:


> That's not a rules problem, that's a DMing problem.




I've noticed, and I might be completely wrong, that the majority of discussions in which complaints surface about minions, that the overarching problem seems to boil down to one of DM presentation and execution more than one of mechanics.


----------



## Fifth Element (Sep 9, 2008)

Zustiur said:


> Whoops. Got my threads mixed up. Thought this was 'Farewell to thee D&D'.
> Apologies to all!



No worries. It seems you're not the only one to have made that mistake.


----------



## LostSoul (Sep 9, 2008)

Zustiur said:


> As above, there is little satisfaction in completing a task that had little or no chance of failure. I'm much happier knowing that I did 5 damage more than I needed, than knowing it doesn't matter what I roll.
> 
> Yes, from a tactical stand point it was good to kill the minion. But it doesn't feel like an achievement, because the challenge of doing so was drastically reduced.




I really don't understand.  Let me try.

In order for something to feel challenging, you need to have to make a damage roll that might fail.  The challenge/tactical situation of the encounter doesn't matter; it's only the individual attack + damage roll that matters.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Sep 9, 2008)

Zustiur said:


> As above, there is little satisfaction in completing a task that had little or no chance of failure. I'm much happier knowing that I did 5 damage more than I needed, than knowing it doesn't matter what I roll.



I am not sure I should still answer to this, since you apparently posted in the wrong thread, but what the heck:

I think you are making a leap of thought here I can't entirely follow - just because it doesn't matter how much damage you do doesn't mean the task is meaningless or has no chance of failure. You might be right for the "mini-task" of dealing enough damage, but you're not right for the bigger tasks "taking down a minion" or the next bigger task "surviving the encounter". 

If you brought down a Dragon to 1 hit points, that doesn't mean that you have no chance of failure. You haven't succeeded until the Dragon is dead and can no longer endanger you (an important qualifier - some monsters do crazy stuff when dying  ).


----------



## Fifth Element (Sep 9, 2008)

LostSoul said:


> I really don't understand.  Let me try.
> 
> In order for something to feel challenging, you need to have to make a damage roll that might fail.  The challenge/tactical situation of the encounter doesn't matter; it's only the individual attack + damage roll that matters.



Also, apparently the fact that the attack roll might miss is ignored as well. Even though with 4E minion rules, you have have a creature with a high AC that you can drop in one hit. In previous editions, if a monster was weak enough to drop in one hit, it generally had a low AC as well. And a low attack roll.

The minion rules allow one-hit monsters that are otherwise credible threats.


----------



## Atreides (Sep 10, 2008)

However, 4e gave us something REALLY cool- the disease condition track.  I modified the disease condition track to take into account long-term injuries and magical curses, and it could be modified for a number of other things I probably haven't considered yet.  Injuries require an Endurance check to improve (or can worsen with a low check), and curses I handle with a Wisdom or Charisma check (the 1/2 level + mod roll) which can also improve or worsen.  Here is an example:

When a character goes to 0 hp or below, they take an "attack" to Fortitude equal to the damage caused by the blow that sent them down.  If the attack misses, they were assumed to have just been KO'd or have various contusions or flesh wounds.  If the attack "hits" they suffer a long-term wound, and we roll randomly on a table for the wound and location.  Let's say the character suffered a broken arm.  

Broken Arm
Endurance: Improve DC 18, Maintain DC 12, Worsen DC 11 or less
Check 1/x per 3 days
Healed <- Initial effect: -4 to any activities with the arm (including attacks or skill checks) character max of 75% of hp <-> Infection/bleeding: as above, plus max hp are 50% of normal, -2 healing surges until improve, DC to improve or maintain +2 -> Gangrene: amputation necessary

So far, this is working really well for us.  We've also added several healing rituals that help set bones, mend tissues, etc, and if a magical healing Power is used, it adds a bonus to the roll equal to its level and allows an immediate check (max of once per day).  I'll admit, I'm more of a simulationist DM, and even then I love 4e- I can make it work for us with far fewer mods than I could 3.x.[/quote]



By any chance are these rules typed up?   Are they  available for public  consumption?

I would really love to see them as this sounds very much like something I would like to add to my Campaign - Thanks!


----------



## Jürgen Hubert (Sep 10, 2008)

Zustiur said:


> Seriously. Why bother having exciting weapons when a pointy stick will do the same job? In previous editions this came up. You wore a creature down, or it was way below your level. You couldn't fail to kill it if you scored the hit. But that was few and far between. This is pretty frequent.




Higher to-hit bonuses? If you are unable to hit them, you won't be able to kill them. And the weapon proficiency and enchantment boni do make a difference...


----------



## Zustiur (Sep 10, 2008)

LostSoul said:


> In order for something to feel challenging, you need to have to make a damage roll that might fail.  The challenge/tactical situation of the encounter doesn't matter; it's only the individual attack + damage roll that matters.





Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> I think you are making a leap of thought here I can't entirely follow - just because it doesn't matter how much damage you do doesn't mean the task is meaningless or has no chance of failure. You might be right for the "mini-task" of dealing enough damage, but you're not right for the bigger tasks "taking down a minion" or the next bigger task "surviving the encounter".





Fifth Element said:


> Also, apparently the fact that the attack roll might miss is ignored as well. Even though with 4E minion rules, you have have a creature with a high AC that you can drop in one hit. In previous editions, if a monster was weak enough to drop in one hit, it generally had a low AC as well. And a low attack roll.





Jürgen Hubert said:


> Higher to-hit bonuses? If you are unable to hit them, you won't be able to kill them. And the weapon proficiency and enchantment boni do make a difference...




All of the above are valid points that I agree with. My issue is with the perceived achievement of killing a minion. AC and tactical advantage aside, killing a monster with lots of hit points has a great deal more kudos than killing a monster with one hit point. I do not find killing minions satisfying.

But, as it has been pointed out to me, this is not the whining thread, so in an attempt to return to the actual topic, here's what I like about 4E.


Ability scores are handled by standard array or points buy as the default methods.
Fixed starting money – not random like 3E
Saves became defences like AC – rolling remains on the attacker’s side, rather than the defender’s side.
Similar skills have been combined (although I feel they may have gone too far with this)
Basic spells (cantrips/orisons) are not limited use per day.
Natural armour is no longer a consideration for character sheets
Passive senses are written straight into the rules
Flat footed and touch AC are gone.
Weapons are grouped by type (unfortunately proficiency is not)
Monsters each have more than one example
Weapon size has returned to the 3.0 system.
Weight/carry system is simpler particularly in terms of how it affects movement.
The disease system
The concept behind skill challenges
Fewer classes know how to wear plate mail straight off
There are currently no splat books to consider
Paladins are not restricted to lawful good.
Critical/fumbled skill checks are +/- 5 instead of +/- 10.
Low level wizards do not run out of spells too quickly.


----------



## vagabundo (Sep 10, 2008)

Zustiur said:


> All of the above are valid points that I agree with. My issue is with the perceived achievement of killing a minion. AC and tactical advantage aside, killing a monster with lots of hit points has a great deal more kudos than killing a monster with one hit point. I do not find killing minions satisfying.




The simple solution is not to use them. They are a tool for the DM and you should ask yours not to include them or up their HPs to something like 3*level. 

You can replace every four minions with a non-minion monster of the same level.


----------



## Gort (Sep 10, 2008)

vagabundo said:


> The simple solution is not to use them. They are a tool for the DM and you should ask yours not to include them or up their HPs to something like 3*level.
> 
> You can replace every four minions with a non-minion monster of the same level.




Seriously. I have no idea why minions are such a supposed sticking point for so many people when they're entirely optional.


----------



## Zustiur (Sep 11, 2008)

Gort said:


> Seriously. I have no idea why minions are such a supposed sticking point for so many people when they're entirely optional.




Wizards are entirely optional. Fighters are entirely optional. Heck, even monsters are optional. That doesn't mean they're not going to get used. Pre-written modules assume you're using minions in the same way that they assume you're using wizards and fighters.


----------



## D'karr (Sep 11, 2008)

Zustiur said:


> Wizards are entirely optional. Fighters are entirely optional. Heck, even monsters are optional. That doesn't mean they're not going to get used. Pre-written modules assume you're using minions in the same way that they assume you're using wizards and fighters.




I think you are missing the point the previous poster was trying to make.  

If minions bother your group so much that the DM or players can't work with them then there is a "conversion path" and it is quite simple, replace every 4 minions for one regular creature.  

A DM should know his group, and if minions are causing such a fuss for his group he should adjust, even if he is reading from a pre-written module.

Replacing wizards & fighters from a pre-written adventure might not be so simple, but replacing minions is a no-brainer.

Minions are a "tool" for the DM to use for a specific effect, to increase the number of opponents in a combat to make it more exciting.  If he can't use them in that manner or they are not producing that effect for his specific group then he should refrain from using them.  But that decision is left up to each individual DM.


----------



## qstor (Aug 25, 2009)

Celtavian said:


> 1. Easier Prep Time: DnD 4E is easy to run and prep for. So much is streamlined and handwaved that it makes it an easy game to run. It is also easier to make characters and get the game underway. It is easy to make decisions on characters, though I miss the customization of 3E.




I don't know if this is a thread jack  But I've run 4e twice, two Living Forgotten Realms mods. So I can't comment on 4e 'home games'. That 4e is easy to run and Prep for is is most common 4e benefit mentioned for DMs that I've seen. but after skimming through the 4e DMG, I don't agree. I think skill challenges are "artificial" and at times you need a specific reason to create one. I mean if you're running  a wilderness encounter, what's a wizard to do except make a nature check? 

Also it wasn't clear about the rules for creating minions. It seems that 4e takes as long as or longer than 3e to prep games for.

Mike


----------



## ferratus (Aug 26, 2009)

qstor said:


> Also it wasn't clear about the rules for creating minions. It seems that 4e takes as long as or longer than 3e to prep games for.
> Mike




It really, really, really doesn't.   Then the monster builder came out this month and even that time was cut.  Being able to create 20 new monsters in under an hour is soooo good.


----------



## Scribble (Aug 26, 2009)

qstor said:


> I don't know if this is a thread jack  But I've run 4e twice, two Living Forgotten Realms mods. So I can't comment on 4e 'home games'. That 4e is easy to run and Prep for is is most common 4e benefit mentioned for DMs that I've seen. but after skimming through the 4e DMG, I don't agree. I think skill challenges are "artificial" and at times you need a specific reason to create one. I mean if you're running  a wilderness encounter, what's a wizard to do except make a nature check?
> 
> Also it wasn't clear about the rules for creating minions. It seems that 4e takes as long as or longer than 3e to prep games for.
> 
> Mike




I spend roughly the same amount of time prepping for my games in 4e as I did in 3e.

The difference is I'm no longer spending 90-100% of that time just figuring out the stats. Now I spend a lot of time working on the smaller details, that make the encounter more fun, and the flavor of the whole thing.

It also doesn't hurt as much to see an encounter not get used.


----------



## Obryn (Aug 26, 2009)

Arise, vile thread, from thy eternal slumber!

-o


----------



## Amphimir Míriel (Aug 26, 2009)

Obryn said:


> Arise, vile thread, from thy eternal slumber!
> 
> -o




BRAAAAIIINS!! Tasty, edition-warring braaaaaainss!!


----------



## Agamon (Aug 26, 2009)

This was a thread that needed to stay dead...threads based solely on edition wars are so 2008.


----------



## Henry (Aug 26, 2009)

Agamon said:


> This was a thread that needed to stay dead...threads based solely on edition wars are so 2008.




_"I'm so 3 Thousand and 8, you're so 2 Thousand and late"_ - S. Ferguson, discussing her "Boom Boom Pow"



			
				Qstor said:
			
		

> I mean if you're running a wilderness encounter, what's a wizard to do except make a nature check?




Give you an example of a skill check I came up with for an Eberron adventure I ran:

The party needed to search in hostile wilderness for a rock outcropping in the shape of a beholder. There were several checks that could help:

Nature - obvious, navigating in the wilderness, saving time with finding trails that allowed more panoramic views of the surrounding wilderness, the high ground, etc.

History - a successful check meant that someone could remember that in an old Goblin text was mentioned a "monument to the shunned ones", the old Goblin term for the aberrations of the Daelkyr they once fought.

Religion - The rock outcropping was the marker for a cave sacred to the Devourer, one of the Dark Six Gods, and some outlying geographic features were mentioned in the text.

Athletics - some agile little monkey like the Rogue or Fighter could climb the tallest trees periodically and look for any of the markers their trail and historical knowledge tell them should be present near the site. This was a "helper" skill check, one that gave a +2 to one of the other three.

If they failed to get four successes before two failures, they stumbled into a goblin ambush -- but one with clues that lead them closer to the rock outcropping they sought. If they succeeded, they made it to the outcropping without a hitch, and get the XP as if they fought the encounter and won.


----------



## darjr (Aug 26, 2009)

Oh no... the poor wizard. If only he could light fires, or cast some 'thing' so that party members could endure the elements. WotC! The wizards, they do nothing!


----------



## vagabundo (Aug 26, 2009)

qstor said:


> I don't know if this is a thread jack  But I've run 4e twice, two Living Forgotten Realms mods. So I can't comment on 4e 'home games'. That 4e is easy to run and Prep for is is most common 4e benefit mentioned for DMs that I've seen. but after skimming through the 4e DMG, I don't agree. I think skill challenges are "artificial" and at times you need a specific reason to create one. I mean if you're running  a wilderness encounter, what's a wizard to do except make a nature check?
> 
> Also it wasn't clear about the rules for creating minions. It seems that 4e takes as long as or longer than 3e to prep games for.
> 
> Mike




It is a lot easier to prep for, trust me on this point. And the electronic tools from DDI make it ridiculous; almost a parody of my previous prep nightmares.

I cannot stress this point enough.

Skill challenges can be a challenge (hehe) to run, but they definitely add to the game in many ways. I think we're all still getting a handle on this set of mechanics  - because they are so new it is very easy to run a bad skill challenge.


----------

