PDA

View Full Version : Simplifying 4e or using Essentials



Erom
2010-09-20, 05:47 PM
Hey all - fishing for advice. My current gaming group has dried up, as happens from time to time, but another group has approached me and asked me to DM. They're all smart people, and a few of them have previous 4e experience, so I think I could run 4e at full complexity, and the group would be OK. However, at least half of them are total newbies and they've all mentioned at one point or another that they think a simpler ruleset would be more fun, none of them being typical "gamers". I'm very excited to see where this campaign for non-gamers takes me.

However, I'd like to honor the group's request of a simpler system. I'm constricted to 4e because no one wants to learn anything from scratch, otherwise I would probably use an earlier edition of DnD. 4e Essentials sounds perfect, but as I understand it many of the rulebooks haven't been published yet.

In a nutshell, for a campaign starting in a week or two, what would you do:
1) Run an essentials game despite being very short on books.
2) Modify normal 4e with some house rules

And if you chose (2), what are some suggestions? My players suggested making either your stats or your powers class dependent with no choice - that sounds like it might have a lot of unplanned consequences.

Input on either of these issues would be appreciated.

Kerrin
2010-09-20, 06:14 PM
The main stuff you'd need to start Essentials is due out this month and the rest in Oct and Nov.

Sept 27
- Rules Compendium
- Heroes of the Fallen Lands (cleric, fighter, ranger, rogue, and wizard classes)

I think this is all that's needed to get started.

Nov 22
- Monster Vault
- Heros of the Forgotten Kingdoms (druid, paladin, ranger, and warlock classes)

I don't know for sure but I'd think a lot of existing 4e things such as modules and monster manuals would be fairly easy to use with the Essentials materials.

mobdrazhar
2010-09-20, 06:16 PM
4E is generally easy for new players to pick up (the group i DM for is mostly people that have never player any RPG before (Fallout CRPG not counted) and they have found it fairly simple to learn the system.

however if you are looking at making it simpler for character creation (not sure general rule wise) then i would suggest Essentials

Oh and i'm not sure how well the 4E and 4EE characters meld if you ever wished to join them in the same game.

Kurald Galain
2010-09-20, 06:18 PM
However, I'd like to honor the group's request of a simpler system. I'm constricted to 4e because no one wants to learn anything from scratch,
That's rather paradoxical.

There are several systems out there that have between one and ten pages of rules total and that's it. If your players want a simple system, grab one of those and they don't have to learn anything. There are also several systems that are somewhat complex but where the DM is the only one who has to learn that.

Or, well, you could simply give them a 4E Ranger or Barbarian to play, that's pretty simple. 4.4 isn't actually simpler in terms of rules (it doesn't have less rules than 4.0) but simpler in terms of less powers to choose from, both in building your character and in playing your turn. This may or may not be what you want.

Erom
2010-09-20, 06:30 PM
That's rather paradoxical.
Guilty as charged. Sorry, I should have been more clear. The group is very excited about 4th edition combat and skill challenge rules, they just think the 4th edition character rules are unnecessarily complicated. You hit the nail on the head - mostly what they object to is character creation complexity, and choosing from such a large "menu" of powers every turn.

Fuzzie Fuzz
2010-09-20, 06:30 PM
For me and my group, 4e was very easy to learn. None of us had played any D&D except for one player who had some 3.5 experience. We downloaded KotS, bought some PHBs, and off we were! Premade characters from a crunch perspective might be helpful as well, since power selection can be the most difficult and confusing part of character creation. This would also solve the stat and power thing you mentioned, for until they get the hang of the game. Otherwise give them the character creator, which dramatically shortens creation time. Making stuff dependent on class would be too constrictive for your experienced players, I think, and also for your newbs after a level or so. One gripe about 4e is the lack of choice, so restricting it further seems like a bad idea. On the whole, though, I found the entire system very intuitive. YMMV, though.

Tl;dr: It's easy to learn even with no experienced players. Your newbies can learn very easily if they have some help from others.

EDIT: Ninja'd by the OP. I think forcing them into narrow paths would be rather dull. My players get a huge thrill out of selecting powers each level. I'm also not sure if you meant turn or level. If the former, messing with that would really screw up the mechanics if you tried to do it yourself, but Essentials claims to be balanced, so I guess you could try that once more books come out. Not to mention it seems like it would turn into a dull slugfest of At-Will spams. If you meant per level, 4 powers per level to choose from really isn't that bad. The WotC character generator really cuts down on time as well, I suggest using it.

Tl;dr: Tell them to suck it up and make their characters.

Mando Knight
2010-09-20, 06:32 PM
Oh and i'm not sure how well the 4E and 4EE characters meld if you ever wished to join them in the same game.

Judging only by the Essentials Assassin, they should mesh fairly well. The "class features" an Essentials class gains are pretty much just encounter/daily-level abilities gained at the exact same rate as the equivalent Powers from base 4E.
One gripe about 4e is the lack of choice, so restricting it further seems like a bad idea.That's no longer strictly true. Since it's starting its third year and had a fairly rigorous early printing schedule, it's caught up quite a bit. Of course, if you want "The Ultimate, Most-Super-Fantastic Character Ever" as according to the CharOp boards, your choices will be restricted heavily, but the same goes for anything CharOp suggests.

NMBLNG
2010-09-20, 06:34 PM
I more or less agree with Kurald. Trying to simplifying 4e is like trying to make pumpkin pie be more pumpkiny. Or some other simile / metaphor that applies.

If you want it to be easier for newer players, help them with some of the 'paperwork' that comes with making and playing a character. Some classes, such as the ranger and barbarian, don't have a lot of complicated class features. Or rather, class features that are easy to use. I would also add sorcerer and rogue to that list.

Other ideas:
Limit them to as few books as possible. The fewer books you have to go looking around in, the easier it will be for them to keep track of things.

Use power cards. Have the + to hit, + to damage, and all the othe reffects spelled out on a nice index card.

Start at level one. No magic items, just 100gp of mundane stuff. The fewer options they have, the less complexity.

Let them know that they WILL need to learn more. All of the classes require a bit of tactical knowledge to play well. Even the twin strike ranger needs to know ways to improve his static damage bonus. Some classes just start out more simple than others.

edit: Almost ninja'd?

I understand the problem with having too many options. What I've found to be the best solution is to reduce the starting options. Some new players can educate themselves. Help them build their first character, using only 1 of the books. Then let them explore the others.

Other players may need more time to absorb information.

Fuzzie Fuzz
2010-09-20, 06:52 PM
That's no longer strictly true. Since it's starting its third year and had a fairly rigorous early printing schedule, it's caught up quite a bit. Of course, if you want "The Ultimate, Most-Super-Fantastic Character Ever" as according to the CharOp boards, your choices will be restricted heavily, but the same goes for anything CharOp suggests.

Yeah, but my understanding is that you can't do nearly as many strange combinations as in 3.5. For instance, just one multiclass feat, or you can start as a hybrid, limiting you to two classes and dabbling in a third. Nowhere near as much variety as 3.5 offered.

Still, limiting their book choices might be a good idea as well.

Mando Knight
2010-09-20, 06:54 PM
Yeah, but my understanding is that you can't do nearly as many strange combinations as in 3.5. For instance, just one multiclass feat, or you can start as a hybrid, limiting you to two classes and dabbling in a third. Nowhere near as much variety as 3.5 offered.

That's not necessarily a bad thing. Very few characters can justify dabbling in every class in the game, and most of them are Bards anyway. (Oh! Look! That's one of the Bard's class features in 4e! :smalltongue:)

Fuzzie Fuzz
2010-09-20, 06:56 PM
That's not necessarily a bad thing. Very few characters can justify dabbling in every class in the game, and most of them are Bards anyway. (Oh! Look! That's one of the Bard's class features in 4e! :smalltongue:)

Very true. I wasn't claiming it was a bad thing, as I love 4e. Just saying, 3.5 did offer more options.

DeltaEmil
2010-09-20, 08:38 PM
More options, of which many were worthless, or even badly done on purpose to reward a few players for their higher grade of system mastery, or made prior options obsolete.
The more options there will be for 4th edition, the higher the possibility for worthless stuff to appear just like it did in 3.X.

If Essential is meant to be the beginner's 4th edition D&D, I'd say one should try that first. If everybody gets the hang out of it, then you can still "upgrade" to normal 4th edition.

Go for 1), then, if everybody's okay with it and wants more, go for 2) (because every game is going to have its own subset of houserules anyway).

arrowhen
2010-09-21, 02:05 AM
I'd go with Essentials because I'm very hesitant to use houserules in games with newbies. I feel that a new player deserves a chance to experience the game as written -- plus, teaching someone a houseruled game is going to make it really confusing for them if they ever try to play with another group.

I figure if I can't stand to play a game by its RAW even for an introductory campaign, I'd be better off choosing a different game in the first place.

kieza
2010-09-21, 02:53 AM
A cut-down rules system I've used when running oneshots for newbies goes like this:

-HP, defenses, and attack bonuses are figured as normal.
-You get the class features of your class as normal.
-Everybody gets 3 at-wills, no encounters or dailies. 3 times per fight, you can tack on a "boost" to an at-will. Depending on what the at-will does, a boost could be an extra die/[W] of damage, some ongoing damage, knock prone, a -2 penalty to attack or defense, some forced movement, etc. It's pretty much up to the DM what the limits are, but those are some good guidelines. You can add multiple boosts to one power, but they have to be different. If you use all 3 at once, you only get one boost per encounter until you rest.
-Everybody gets a utility "Schtick." This could be something like "Tough," "Agile," "Healer," "Force Manipulation," etc. Once per encounter, you can do something related to your schtick: a Tough character could get some temp HP, end a daze or slow condition, or get damage reduction, whereas a Healer could give someone a healing surge or let his group make saving throws. You can also do something big related to your schtick, but you can't use your schtick again after that until you rest: Tough characters might gain regeneration, or a Healer might give his entire group a healing surge.
-Drop monster HP slightly, since player damage is a little lower: Soldiers and Brutes by 2/level, Skirmishers and controllers by 3/level, and Artillery and Lurkers by 2/level.

It's not a perfect system (One of the reasons I'm willing to use it is that I'm good with homebrew and ruling on the fly), but it's produced pretty good results when I've used it.

Kurald Galain
2010-09-21, 02:53 AM
badly done on purpose to reward a few players for their higher grade of system mastery
Not really. One designer said that once in an obvious CYA document, that really shouldn't be taken at face value.

Every sufficiently complex system has bad options.

Loren
2010-09-21, 07:08 AM
It seems to me that a reasonably smart group would be able to learn the system from PHB1, plenty of other people have done it. If there is a strong desire for training wheel I'd just get the Red Book (which is already out) after a game or two, once they have some confidence, I'd switch them other to PHB1 and/or the Character Builder. Personally, I think the Character Builder is better, however it does offer the entire system all at once. On the plus side it does divy up the feats and if you pick a build it will make recommendations. And if you really don't want to be responsible for creating your character you can pick a build and it will autobuild a character it takes like ten seconds to have a character that comes close to what you want.

Actually, the auto bulid might be a good option. They can have a character close to what they want and when they are ready to take control they can go in and start tweaking it.