PDA

View Full Version : Starting as a New DM for 4th



Volomon
2010-07-19, 11:26 AM
Seems like a lot of people are just really into 3rd Edition, and I was curious if it was a defect of 4th Edition that really has players holding on to 3rd or if it was just the fact that you have a lot of resources already in that edition.

Really I was just curious what the major differences are and what I should be looking out for as a DM. So far I've just picked up a level 1 adventure Keep on the Shadowfell. So far it hasn't left me with such a great impression. The quality of the adventure booklet itself makes me feel like I'm going to rip it on accident or sweat into the cover to where it will begin to smudge and such. On the flip side it did come with a pretty neat folder with some maps inside which were of a much higher quality. At the same time when you get into the adventure and start reading, I donno to me it seems like it doesn't match up again to the quality of 3.5 the lack of artwork is replaced by tactical maps and over elaborate tables/tactics section.

Anyway just giving my general impression so far of what material I have bought, it might be totally a different story when I get a hold of the rest of the books.

Any tips for transitioning from 3.0 to 4.0 would be appreciated.

Oracle_Hunter
2010-07-19, 11:32 AM
(1) It's a brand new game - assume nothing is the same.

That said, it's real easy to pick up and learn. Using the Character Builder will pre-calculate most (if not all) of the bonuses and such and the Power Cards are a handy reference for beginner players on what they can do.

(2) Purchase a DDI subscription for 1 month.

It costs $10 (http://www.wizards.com/DnD/Subscription.aspx) and will give you the following: full and up-to-date Character Builders for you and (likely) your entire party; full and up-to-date Monster Builder (AKA Adventure Tools) which has all the monsters ever published by WotC and can be used to easily modify/build ones yourself; access to the online Rules Comprehendium which includes every rule ever published by WotC. Note that you only need a live subscription to access the Rules Comprehendium and to get further updates - you'll be able to keep everything else listed above even if you never spend another cent on 4e products.

(3) Keep on the Shadowfell is widely regarded as a crappy module. I'd recommend using the DMG guidelines and building a one-shot yourself. Or maybe someone can recommend a better module.

Caphi
2010-07-19, 11:32 AM
It's just a very different game, with some very different priorities. Some people prefer the way D&D3 does things.

D&D3 has mix'n'match customization, D&D4 has strong protection of class bounds. D&D3 has utility lying all over the place, D&D4 is totally abstracted outside of combat. The power system has some quirks, there are some versimilitude bugs in the combat engine, open-ended abilities are out, well-defined statuses and keywords are in, and a lot of concepts that used to be possible just don't exist anymore because of the heavy outlines around every class.

potatocubed
2010-07-19, 11:41 AM
(3) Keep on the Shadowfell is widely regarded as a crappy module. I'd recommend using the DMG guidelines and building a one-shot yourself. Or maybe someone can recommend a better module.

Keep on the Shadowfell is pretty dismal. If you want a pregen for 1st-level characters I'm quite fond of Sellswords of Punjar, by Goodman Games, but you might need a bit of GM experience to run it to best effect.

Volomon
2010-07-19, 11:42 AM
(3) Keep on the Shadowfell is widely regarded as a crappy module. I'd recommend using the DMG guidelines and building a one-shot yourself. Or maybe someone can recommend a better module.

Ya if anyone can recommend anything that would be great, because I'm not to happy knowing I could have gotten Keep on the Shadowfell for free (http://www.wizards.com/dnd/files/H1.pdf), in fact quite pissed indeed.

Anyone who has gotten very far into 4th edition happen to know if they are all of similar quality? I don't quite have the time to write one up in full myself and the instant adventures really save me time.

valadil
2010-07-19, 11:49 AM
I can't comment on the pre written modules for 4th. Haven't read them and I don't intend to.

I find the game itself easier to run. Stuff is more modular. Power levels are more consistent. It's a lot easier for me to make an encounter at the exact power level I want.

The big difference for me was that there is more to keep track of on paper. In 3.5 I'd write out saves, AC, HP, and attacks. Spells if applicable. All I ever had to track was HP loss on each enemy. Now they all have unique abilities. Some are once/encounter. Some recharge between rounds. Others take effect when certain events trigger them. And they're unique for each enemy. Way more abilities than I can possibly memorize (as opposed to noting that an enemy has power attack or 5d6 sneak attack and applying those as needed). These things aren't a big deal to note, but I definitely go through more paper running 4e than 3.5.

Tactical combat matters more in 4th. The effect of this is that I find it harder to improvise combat. In 3.5 I could throw down the map and draw some rocks and a river. For 4th ed combat to be satisfying I have to do a bit more prep to ensure that the terrain is interesting. It's actually gotten to the point where I'd consider using a book for terrain, if it was guaranteed to be interesting.

potatocubed
2010-07-19, 11:55 AM
Anyone who has gotten very far into 4th edition happen to know if they are all of similar quality? I don't quite have the time to write one up in full myself and the instant adventures really save me time.

Things really pick up in 4e once you hit the paragon tier (levels 11+) and this includes the prewritten modules. I've read Thingummy of the Trollhaunt Warrens and thought it was a lot better than the early stuff, anyway, but I haven't played it.

Oracle_Hunter
2010-07-19, 12:23 PM
The big difference for me was that there is more to keep track of on paper. In 3.5 I'd write out saves, AC, HP, and attacks. Spells if applicable. All I ever had to track was HP loss on each enemy. Now they all have unique abilities. Some are once/encounter. Some recharge between rounds. Others take effect when certain events trigger them. And they're unique for each enemy. Way more abilities than I can possibly memorize (as opposed to noting that an enemy has power attack or 5d6 sneak attack and applying those as needed). These things aren't a big deal to note, but I definitely go through more paper running 4e than 3.5.
This is why the Monster Builder is key.

Print out the monsters you're using for the session and it's plenty easy to keep track of what they're up to. There isn't really any reason to memorize monster stats in 4e anyhow.

Re: Modules
It's probably better to just write your own. The Encounter Level system in 4e is actually accurate, with the following to keep in mind:
- Minions & Brutes are less powerful than their listed XP suggests
- Soldiers are stronger than their listed XP suggests
- Solos aren't "solos;" be sure to throw some minions or brutes into their Encounters or the PCs will walk all over them

Skill Challenges are slightly tricky, but the DMG 2 had a good write up on them - which you should be able to access through the Rules Comprehendium.

EDIT: Oh, and feel free to use the KotS module as an outline for how a 4e one-shot should run. The problem with KotS is that the Encounter and trap designs were rubbish - they were poorly playtested.

Hrm. OK, here's some brief notes on building a one-shot of your own

Plan with this general order in mind

(1) A Minor Combat: something with brutes/minions and a single Artillery. This lets you and your PCs get used to tactical combat. Use EL or EL+1 as a baseline.

(2) Physical Skill Challenge: present a broad problem (e.g. escaping from guards through a marketplace) and let the PCs have at it. Encourage nonlinear thinking (knocking over stalls, blending into the crowd) to get people used to "thinking outside their powers."

(3) Complex Combat: do something similar to "a minor combat" but add in more terrain. Put "actionable items" (e.g. barrels to knock over, ropes to swing on) and have the enemies use them. This teaches the PCs to interact with their environment and lets you get used to using the DMG 42 table.

(4) Mental Skill Challenge: give the PCs a chance to mix knowledge and social skill checks (e.g. research in a library) so that they learn to use their skills while roleplaying. Social Skill Challenges can be very easy to run, so this will give you a chance to get used to arbitrating them on the fly.

(5) Boss Fight: throw in a EL+1 battle lead by an Elite Controller or Leader with a bunch of minions or brutes. This will teach you how to coordinate a battle from the DM's side, and teach the PCs to respect Controllers/Leaders.
Just a little something I wrote up off the top of my head. Don't be afraid to write your own one-shot - it's real easy to do.

valadil
2010-07-19, 12:33 PM
This is why the Monster Builder is key.

Print out the monsters you're using for the session and it's plenty easy to keep track of what they're up to. There isn't really any reason to memorize monster stats in 4e anyhow.


Absolutely. I have printout for each fight I run. At first I tried running fights out of the MM, but flipping pages slowed things down and I couldn't write in the MM anyway.

That said, I'm not a fan of the Monster Builder. It's terrible software. And I don't like having to boot windows every time I write a combat. Instead I cached all the pages in the compendium and copied out the text from them. I also wrote some scripts that format that text into purty pdfs for each of my combats. Yes, this is over engineered to hell and back but I was really bored at work a few months ago.

Oracle_Hunter
2010-07-19, 12:36 PM
Absolutely. I have printout for each fight I run. At first I tried running fights out of the MM, but flipping pages slowed things down and I couldn't write in the MM anyway.

That said, I'm not a fan of the Monster Builder. It's terrible software. And I don't like having to boot windows every time I write a combat. Instead I cached all the pages in the compendium and copied out the text from them. I also wrote some scripts that format that text into purty pdfs for each of my combats. Yes, this is over engineered to hell and back but I was really bored at work a few months ago.
You could just use Cute PDF (http://www.cutepdf.com/) to do the conversion :smalltongue:

Works on Character Builder stuff too.

I like that the Monster Builder lets you cut-and-paste abilities and handles the "+/- level" adjustments on its own. The interface is annoying, but I just Cute PDF any monster I need after brewing it up.

valadil
2010-07-19, 01:06 PM
You could just use Cute PDF (http://www.cutepdf.com/) to do the conversion :smalltongue:

Works on Character Builder stuff too.

I like that the Monster Builder lets you cut-and-paste abilities and handles the "+/- level" adjustments on its own. The interface is annoying, but I just Cute PDF any monster I need after brewing it up.

If I used windows as a primary OS I probably would have done something like that. But I don't like having to reboot to windows just to make monsters.

Volomon
2010-07-19, 01:12 PM
Is there any online resource that shows how combat works? Like actively via flash or something. I assume it works similar to 3.0 d20 vs AC. What I don't get is it seems the stats seem so high for what is a level one adventure for instance a Spear attack +11 vs AC seems a bit high to me. Especially since AC seems to be around the same area of 3.0.

AtwasAwamps
2010-07-19, 01:36 PM
Is there any online resource that shows how combat works? Like actively via flash or something. I assume it works similar to 3.0 d20 vs AC. What I don't get is it seems the stats seem so high for what is a level one adventure for instance a Spear attack +11 vs AC seems a bit high to me. Especially since AC seems to be around the same area of 3.0.

Monster defenses tend to increase faster than monster offenses. Adventurer offense tends to increase faster than adventurer defense. At level one, it can feel a little wonky, but it actually works out fairly well. You hit just enough more often against your enemies to feel more awesome than them and unlike 3.5, a lucky swing from an orc with a greataxe won't force your wizard to roll a new character.

valadil
2010-07-19, 01:36 PM
Is there any online resource that shows how combat works? Like actively via flash or something. I assume it works similar to 3.0 d20 vs AC. What I don't get is it seems the stats seem so high for what is a level one adventure for instance a Spear attack +11 vs AC seems a bit high to me. Especially since AC seems to be around the same area of 3.0.

If there is an online resource, I haven't seen it yet. Yes, it's generally d20 + bonuses versus a defense. Usually that defense is AC. Your saves - fort, ref, and will - are treated like AC. The attacked makes a roll and if it's above the defense, it's a hit.

+11 at level 1 seems high to me too. I guess +5 from a stat, +3 from proficiency. Maybe Weapon Expertise (which now adds to hit, while focus adds damage) for another +1. So +9 seems like the highest you could get at level 1 unless there's other cheese I'm unaware of.

Stats don't raise as quickly in 4e. There are no attribute pumping items. In general characters are adding half their level to everything. So the bonuses don't increase as quickly. Nobody is getting +1 BAB each level and nobody is upgrading their strength items.

AtwasAwamps
2010-07-19, 01:38 PM
+11 at level 1 seems high to me too. I guess +5 from a stat, +3 from proficiency. Maybe Weapon Expertise (which now adds to hit, while focus adds damage) for another +1. So +9 seems like the highest you could get at level 1 unless there's other cheese I'm unaware of.


Meh, I'm sure there's a striker that can pull that off easily, or if not easily, come close. Or heck, there's a few powers that sacrifice damage for accuracy, which may be a part of it.

NecroRebel
2010-07-19, 01:42 PM
Is there any online resource that shows how combat works? Like actively via flash or something. I assume it works similar to 3.0 d20 vs AC. What I don't get is it seems the stats seem so high for what is a level one adventure for instance a Spear attack +11 vs AC seems a bit high to me. Especially since AC seems to be around the same area of 3.0.

+11 vs AC is an extremely good attack bonus at level 1, and probably indicative of a mistake made someplace. With 20 in your attack attribute (+5), a +3 proficiency-bonus weapon (which doesn't include spears except the Greatspear from AV1), an Expertise feat for another +1 bonus, and the appropriate Fighter Weapon Talent or a very few other class features for a final +1, you can manage +10 at level 1. I'm not sure where the final +1 would come from in that instance, given that you've already spent 1 feat minimum or 2 if you're using a Greatspear.

I'm not aware of any combat-example Flash applications, but in general it is d20+bonuses to hit. Normally, enemies will have between 14-18+their level AC, with other defenses 2 lower, while PCs tend between +6-9+their level attack vs. AC with attacks vs. other defenses ~2 lower. This means that PCs will hit enemies roughly 55% of the time; high-attack-bonus characters, especially Fighters, Rogues, and Avengers (though the last for a different reason) will hit more.

Also, note that combat in 4E is not like combat in 3.x in that attacks are not likely to actually kill something right off. That is, in 3.x, PCs typically one-shot most enemies, or at least kill them in a single turn. That isn't the case in 4E, where it takes 3 or 4 hits to kill a regular enemy, and more for elites and solos. That's why there is a seemingly-high attack-bonus-to-defense ratio; even if you're hitting 80% of the time with flanking and such, you're still not going to avoid all attacks from that target since they will get a turn.

Natael
2010-07-19, 01:43 PM
4e has the same magic item issues that 3.x has, in that you have to have the new completely mundane +3 sword next level or else fall behind the curve. I very much miss 2e's take on magic items.

Volomon
2010-07-19, 01:46 PM
+11 vs AC is an extremely good attack bonus at level 1, and probably indicative of a mistake made someplace. With 20 in your attack attribute (+5), a +3 proficiency-bonus weapon (which doesn't include spears except the Greatspear from AV1), an Expertise feat for another +1 bonus, and the appropriate Fighter Weapon Talent or a very few other class features for a final +1, you can manage +10 at level 1. I'm not sure where the final +1 would come from in that instance, given that you've already spent 1 feat minimum or 2 if you're using a Greatspear.

Well I very well might have misread something, as I think in general the pluses are around 7. This adventure does span 3 levels so maybe I caught a glimpse of a level 2.


Also, note that combat in 4E is not like combat in 3.x in that attacks are not likely to actually kill something right off. That is, in 3.x, PCs typically one-shot most enemies, or at least kill them in a single turn. That isn't the case in 4E, where it takes 3 or 4 hits to kill a regular enemy, and more for elites and solos. That's why there is a seemingly-high attack-bonus-to-defense ratio; even if you're hitting 80% of the time with flanking and such, you're still not going to avoid all attacks from that target since they will get a turn.

I really don't like the sound of that, I thought the instant one hit kills really helped the pacing of 3.0. The mixture of combat and RP was fairly good as it was, if I were to extend the session out to include more combat I think it would be a little to much combat. I have noticed the ridiculous nature of the HP and seems "O-M-G" high to me, especially considering they are still using the same basic damage like 1d6. I can imagine there will be a few mistakes when subtracting damage by players or DM alike.

Oracle_Hunter
2010-07-19, 01:52 PM
4e has the same magic item issues that 3.x has, in that you have to have the new completely mundane +3 sword next level or else fall behind the curve. I very much miss 2e's take on magic items.
Or you use the Inherent Bonus option instead of using Magic Items :smalltongue:

Yes, it's an option you can turn on in Character Builder.

Re: Combat
Here's the skinny:

PCs get 1/2 LV + Stat + Proficiency when attacking with most powers

Monsters have AC dependent on their type, but it generally scales nonlinerally with level (e.g. a LV 1 monster might have an AC 18 while a LV 10 monster might have an AC 23)

Miscellanous bonus To Hit are rare; "Combat Advantage" now covers conditions ranging from being prone to flanking. So it is very hard to get an absurdly high To Hit bonus; likewise you are unlikely to run into "impossible to hit" or "trivial to hit" monsters.

EDIT:

I really don't like the sound of that, I thought the instant one hit kills really helped the pacing of 3.0. The mixture of combat and RP was fairly good as it was, if I were to extend the session out to include more combat I think it would be a little to much combat. I have noticed the ridiculous nature of the HP and seems "O-M-G" high to me, especially considering they are still using the same basic damage like 1d6. I can imagine there will be a few mistakes when subtracting damage by players or DM alike.
Note that removing OHKOs means you have fewer random PC deaths.

Combat pacing can be problematic, but there are a few tips to dealing with that:

(1) Keep around tokens for common conditions (e.g. marked, dazed, immobilize)

(2) Plan for 1 significant combat (EL+2 or 3) per 3 hours. It won't take 3 hours to run a significant combat, but it's not a bad idea as a general rule of thumb.

(3) Use a good mix of monster types per encounter. Don't just go all-brutes or all-artillery for any significant encounter - it's boring. Always include a mix of ranged & melee, and at least one controller or leader.
Note that each player's turn goes much faster in 4e; you don't have summoners taking an hour to resolve all their minions' actions. You also don't have a lot of "dead turns" - SoD/S are non-existent and few status effects actually prevent a PC from doing anything on their turn. This, combined with more "fun" options to do on everyone's turn (i.e. no more "I full attack") means that combat feels less like a drag than you might expect.

Also - non-combat encounters (i.e. Skill Challenges) are fully implemented, so you can still have an "RP session" while letting people roll dice and use powers. Plus, Skill Challenges grant XP along the lines of Combat Encounters, so you can treat them as a normal part of a campaign's progression rather than awarding ad hoc XP periodically.

valadil
2010-07-19, 02:00 PM
I really don't like the sound of that, I thought the instant one hit kills really helped the pacing of 3.0.

So use minions. They die (or run away) in one hit. Take two or three real enemies and surround them with minions.

It can be a little tricky to make your minions effective. The most effective use I found for them is archers. Just put them far away from the main fight and make sure they hit hard enough that they're a threat. I especially like doing this with interesting terrain. Put a half dozen archers on top of a building while the PCs fight in the alley below.

NecroRebel
2010-07-19, 02:09 PM
Well I very well might have misread something, as I think in general the pluses are around 7. This adventure does span 3 levels so maybe I caught a glimpse of a level 2.

Of course, that +11 was for monster stats! How foolish of me; the numbers I (and a couple others, I see) gave were for PCs.

Still, I went through the writeup for Keep on the Shadowfell and looked at monster stats really quickly. Nothing with a +11 vs. AC is at below level 5, and that's roughly where those monsters' attack bonus should be. Players, after all, usually have around 16+their level AC, with Defenders somewhat higher, and monsters also tend to hit roughly 55% of the time.


I really don't like the sound of that, I thought the instant one hit kills really helped the pacing of 3.0. The mixture of combat and RP was fairly good as it was, if I were to extend the session out to include more combat I think it would be a little to much combat. I have noticed the ridiculous nature of the HP and seems "O-M-G" high to me, especially considering they are still using the same basic damage like 1d6. I can imagine there will be a few mistakes when subtracting damage by players or DM alike.

What helps the pacing of one game hurts the pacing of another. Combat in 4E is very different from 3.x, but the pacing and structure of it is quite good. Killing everything instantly would make battles too short in 4E. Except for when you run up against battles with a solo and elite creatures, combat in 4E is a good length, not too long and not too short.

Still, you shouldn't take my word for that. Try it and see how it feels to you; you might be among those who simply prefers the feel of 3.x to that of 4E. It doesn't mean either is better or worse, it simply means that they're different and you prefer one to the other.

Oracle_Hunter
2010-07-19, 02:18 PM
So use minions. They die (or run away) in one hit. Take two or three real enemies and surround them with minions.

It can be a little tricky to make your minions effective. The most effective use I found for them is archers. Just put them far away from the main fight and make sure they hit hard enough that they're a threat. I especially like doing this with interesting terrain. Put a half dozen archers on top of a building while the PCs fight in the alley below.
This, unfortunately, makes Minions feel "cheap;" they're doing substantial damage but several of the PCs can't reach them.

Minions work best, IMHO, in waves. At the start of the fight, use a bunch of minions to tangle up the PCs - possibly supported by an Artillery with a Brute bodyguard or two. This lets the PCs carve into them and get a sense for how they work. Midway through the battle, have a "boss" (Leader or Controller) step in so that the "real" fight begins. Leaders and Controllers can really juice up minions, so their introduction after most of the minions are down prevents minions from feeling "overpowered" but also gives the PCs a sense for how Leaders & Controllers work.

In the alternative, have the "real fight" go first and then have the boss call in minions to cover his retreat. Or do a split, with half the minions around at the start of the battle and the second half coming in to cover the retreat.

valadil
2010-07-19, 02:33 PM
This, unfortunately, makes Minions feel "cheap;" they're doing substantial damage but several of the PCs can't reach them.


I'm okay with cheap. My PCs are equally cheap. If I don't use dirty tactics they accuse me of holding back. I wouldn't do this with any party, but with this group it's necessary. They're also an AoE heavy party so minions have less longevity than usual.

Oracle_Hunter
2010-07-19, 02:39 PM
I'm okay with cheap. My PCs are equally cheap. If I don't use dirty tactics they accuse me of holding back. I wouldn't do this with any party, but with this group it's necessary. They're also an AoE heavy party so minions have less longevity than usual.
This is why you break up the minion waves - once your PCs get scrapperlock on the BBEG they're much less likely to "waste their time" taking care of minions efficiently :smallamused:

The reason I recommend against "inaccessible archer minions" is that they're just less fun to fight. Minions are fun because they "pop" and can be used to combo-up PC attacks. If most people can't attack them while they're attacking you, they're just an annoyance to deal with.

Apropos this discussion, one of my favorite 4E Maxims:
"The goal of DMing isn't to kill the PCs, it's to show the Players a good time."

This is why the DMG 42 DCs seem so low - they're low enough that even an unskilled PC has a chance to succeed and they allow characters who specialize in a given skill to shine. Just remember that single skills do not a Skill Challenge make - even a 4E Diplomancer should have to put-up on occasion :smallbiggrin:

valadil
2010-07-19, 02:46 PM
This is why you break up the minion waves - once your PCs get scrapperlock on the BBEG they're much less likely to "waste their time" taking care of minions efficiently :smallamused:


Easier said than done. I've done a few fights where reinforcements come in, but the way they've worked out so far it seems like two weak fights instead of one strong fight. I think the problem is that the PCs get too much done on any one turn. Maybe I need to try having the reinforcements run in as soon as the second NPC gets bloodied, rather than at a specific point in the initiative.



The reason I recommend against "inaccessible archer minions" is that they're just less fun to fight. Minions are fun because they "pop" and can be used to combo-up PC attacks. If most people can't attack them while they're attacking you, they're just an annoyance to deal with.


Fun depends on the group. My group likes a challenge more than they like beating up mooks. I'm trying to give them what they want. If I gave them archers on the ground next to a building, they'd complain that the archers were idiots for being on the ground in the first place.

Oracle_Hunter
2010-07-19, 02:52 PM
Fun depends on the group. My group likes a challenge more than they like beating up mooks. I'm trying to give them what they want. If I gave them archers on the ground next to a building, they'd complain that the archers were idiots for being on the ground in the first place.
But why use minions then? Wouldn't it be better to add in a few Artilleries?

Of course, if the PCs are doing a frontal assault on a fortified location then Missile Minions make fine sense - but I wouldn't bother using Minions at all unless this sort of situation came up a lot.

As for "minion waves" - this is why you might not want to have minions (or all of them anyways) in the initial encounter. Roll up a EL+1 Encounter and then keep another +1's worth in reserve. Once the Boss gets bloodied (or at some suitable point) have the reserves come in to choke the battlefield. It's much harder to AoE minions when your PCs have already moved into the center of the melee.

N.B. these are just suggestions for making minions "worth your time." They can be tricky to work with, but after extensive experience with an optimized party, these are the lessons I've learned. YMMV

NowhereMan583
2010-07-19, 03:43 PM
Regarding 4e combat:

I was in a 4e campaign a couple years ago (a couple months after the edition came out - this was our test run), and we found that combat really, really dragged. A random encounter with a group of bandits in 4e took longer than storming a castle did in 3e. Maybe it's just because we weren't familiar with the system, but it was pretty frustrating.

On the other hand, it's much easier to work out ECL in 4e, in my opinion, so it definitely has its good points.

kieza
2010-07-19, 08:13 PM
I'll second that minions are a great idea--I just wrapped up a 2-year long campaign, and I figure I used minions in at least half of my encounters: soldiers, street thugs, summoned sprites, etc. And I will also point out that yes, they do take some getting used to. The first two fights I used them in, I clumped them up like I would have put monsters in 3.5, and they got slaughtered. I eventually worked out that the best use was to use them as annoyances: either I kept bringing in more over the course of a fight, or they held back where they weren't a threat and ran in when they saw an opportunity. I also had a couple interesting uses for them that I wouldn't want to use every fight: one boss I wrote up had a dozen minions when the fight started, and every time one died, he got temp HP. Another one that I made could have minions intercept attacks against AC and Reflex. They died, he lived. It was useful. And another entertaining thing to give minions is something that lets them overwhelm by sheer numbers: I remember a bunch of zombies that got +1 to attacks for every other zombie adjacent to a target. When the fighter had six of them on him, that was +5...and they just grabbed him, dragged him to the ground and started pulling him apart. Very cinematic.

Other advice: Always have a gimmick of some sort for a combat encounter. Not just a cool move that one or two monsters have, but something that makes the players think: Put a monster that dazes or knocks prone with others that have Sneak Attack. Add in terrain that both sides can use, like rickety pillars to knock down or chandeliers to swing on, and if the players don't use it, have the monsters. Make monsters which can do more than one thing per round, or which fight in ways that make certain tactics useless, or which have to be defeated in interesting ways (one of my favorites is an angel or demon that keeps fighting once it's below 0 HP and has to be shackled or bound or banished). And try not to get repetitive: you may have some cool monsters or traps or whatever, but if all that a group fights for 5 encounters is a different combination of them, it gets boring. The best fights I've run are ones that 1) the players never saw anything like before or since, 2) changed the rules in entertaining ways, and 3) challenged them (another favorite: a necromantic enemy which, when someone is reduced to below 0 HP, makes an attack as a free action to drain their soul...and gets an action point if it works). One of the easiest ways to do this, though, is to add in lots of terrain which gets used and/or destroyed in the fight. I ran a really good fight against a steamjack (steam-powered robot) in a blacksmith's shop, in which the steamjack knocked down half the walls, the party knocked down others, the forge was used as an improvised weapon, people got thrown through walls, and near the end, the roof caved in from all the damage.

Try not to get caught up in 4th edition's stricter rules: if a player wants to use a power or ritual or something of that nature for something that it's not strictly meant to do, but seems appropriate (like a wizard Thunderwaving a door open, or a Warlord giving a rousing speech to boost the morale of some soldiers before a battle) let them. If you feel you must, ask for a skill check.

Another thing I've found that helps: only ask for a skill check in 2 circumstances: 1) You're in the middle of combat or otherwise pressed for time, and you need to know whether something succeeds at one particular moment. 2) It isn't something that can be retried (for example, an Arcana check to disarm a bomb, which will go off it it fails). 3) There are consequences other than "it doesn't work," such as a failed Strength check to break down a door alerting the creatures on the other side. Don't ask for an Athletics check to climb a DC 5 wall when they have lots of time, or an Arcana check when they can probably succeed on the second or third tries. Just say "okay, it works" or "no, you can't" as appropriate.

EDIT: Boy, that's a longer reply than I thought.

Hzurr
2010-07-19, 10:27 PM
Seems like a lot of people are just really into 3rd Edition, and I was curious if it was a defect of 4th Edition that really has players holding on to 3rd or if it was just the fact that you have a lot of resources already in that edition.


Part of that is just these forums. The d&d forums over on RPG.net, for example, tend to have more focus on 4E than 3.5 (just like these boards tend to focus on 3.5).


One thing to remember about 4E is that while the rules for combat are very outlined and grid-based and balanced in terms of math; 4E out-of-combat is one of the most flexible and hands-off that you'll find. This is one of the things I like about 4E, but since it's so open, it's caused some people to assume that it isn't there or isn't important (and then they just refer to 4E as a board game or WoW).


In terms of combat, everything that kieza said is dead-on. Combat is much more about teamwork (both on the part of the PC and the part of the monsters), and having combat take place in "interesting" locations is highly encouraged, and made very simple with the settings.

If you are looking at a pre-published adventure, I've heard very good things about HS1: The Slaying Stone. It's supposed to be a fantastic intro level module, that does everything right that H1: Keep on the Shadowfell did wrong.