PDA

View Full Version : Curious about D&D 4e at all? Ask questions here.



Sipex
2011-01-27, 11:51 AM
Caveat: If you're intending to bash any system or state that system X is better than system Y please click the little X button on your browser now. This is not a thread for edition wars.

I've noticed a rising curiosity in D&D 4th Edition across threads, people are starting to wonder what exactly is different about it compared to previous and how the regulars see the game and what we do about unique situations.

So here it is, if you're earnestly curious about the system but have never gotten a chance to play or the desire or would like to hear if the rumours are true (people do exaggerate quite often), then ask your questions here. I'll do my best to answer them and even post a FAQ in the spoilers as questions come in and are answered. Hopefully other 4e advocates will join and pipe their opinions in as well.

FAQ

Is it true 4e is perfect in every way and there's no way I should be playing any other edition?
This is mainly to address a mindset presumption that's going around. Those of us who play 4e find it FAR from perfect. Like any other system it has it's pros and cons.

Is it true that Wizards has pulled all support from the "Classic" 4e to focus on the new "essentials" 4e?
That depends highly on your definition of "pull all support".

Yes, in the sense that all future items will have a rarity level, and that all future feats won't have a tier, and any classes or builds not appearing in 4.4 books are not going to get significant new features.

No, in the sense that most 4.4 material can be used in 4.0 as well, and that where necessary the latter has been errata'ed to match the former. Note, however, that the big book to make 4.0 classes compatible with 4.4 has been cancelled.

What's the general opinion on the slayer's merit compared to other strikers?
In terms of damage per round, good. In terms of in-play versatility, poor.

Combat is too slow?
Yes? there are a couple of issues that can create experiences like this. Many of them are group dependant. If one considers what the players accomplish in a given round they often will have accomplished more than in previous editions, but getting through the round in real time may take longer.

The powers give players more options in combat (particularly melee PCs). As a result players should put more effort into deciding what they'll do. If they aren't thinking ahead it means their turns can take longer.
Unfamiliarity with the system. A group of new players to any system take longer deciding what they'll do on their turn. This is part of the learning process and will decline with time. It is compounded by issue 1.
Monster design. Some of the monster published early in the edition's run had more hit points and weaker damage out point than was conducive to rapid and exciting combats. This was particularly true of solo monsters. More recent publication have had adjusted statistics which speed combat. Similarly there are some simple methods of adjusting the monsters in earlier publications (such as halfing the hp and doubling the damage).


The feats have been gimped?
Yes and no. There is a new paradigm about feats. The powers a character gets from their class (and other sources) and skills provide the 'verbs' when you try and do something and feats usually provide that 'adverb.' In other words, most feats affect how well the PC does something. This means that characters don't need to work to get things like tactical feats in order to get interesting options in combat. Because of the difference in the skill system it is also important to keep in mind that improving ones non-combat ablities is also driven by feats.

All the classes play the same?
Because all classes are based on the same power structure they are all mechanically similar. However, in actual game play differences become more apparent.

The skill list is now too short?
This is somewhat subjective. It eliminates many of the similar skills in 3.x, which makes things a bit more efficient. What many people find missing are professions, crafts, and performances. These can be represented by backgrounds or simply via making up a skill. Some talents are represented by martial proficiencies (from Martial Powers 2).

Spell x is gone?
Maybe. The spells described in the powers section of a class's entry only really cover combat spells (and/or spells for over action oriented encounters). Many other spells have become 'rituals' which are cast differently (the cost reagents and time, but can be done as many times as one can afford). Some spells, however, have been totally eliminated. This may either be because they were too open to abuse or because R&D have yet to come up with a fair way to implement them.

Casting is no good?
This is rather subjective. It is less powerful than they used to be, if that's what you mean.
Casters are less versatile than they used to be, but rituals can allow them to cast nearly any spell they have any time (provided they have the resources and time) which gives them another form of versatility. There are several "fixes" to the rituals to give casters back some of their versatility.

Multiclassing and gestalt are gone?
"Multiclassing" in 4E means a feat tree a PC can follow to blend in aspects from another class. It's a great way to make a unique character, but it isn't open to all the strangeness that was possible in 3x.
Hybrids are sort of like multiclasses from 2E and gestalt in 3. One picks two classes at the start of the game and gets a blend of both classes throughout the game. This isn't any more powerful than playing a normal character, and can be weaker if not properly planned out.

One can only create a very limited range of characters?
There are a fair number of races available and each class has several different type within it. Throw in the options for feats and powers one a vast range of possible characters exists. However, templates and Level adjustments are not (yet) available so some variants of characters are not possible.
In addition, each player gets to apply template-like structures (Kind of like a template/prestige class mixture) at 11th level and 21st level. These structures allow you to customise your character even further.

Because of the powers one can't make up creative moves in combat?
Not true.
Page 42 in the DMG provides guidelines for a DM to use when a player has an idea outside the box. What a PC can do in combat is really only limited by the imagination of those at the table and the dice. That said, having good options in ones powers often prevents players from thinking outside the box.

It is unfair because the PC and monsters are created by different rules?
Sure? I'm truly not sure this is a relevant point. Because enemies usually only make a single appearance in a day while the PC are usually in all the encounters they have different considerations for how they allocate their resources. Giving they resources along the same lines can easily result in an imbalance in the encounters. If the DM's objective is to produce fun and unique encounters and stories than this freedom can be very useful. However, if the table wants an internally consistent world it isn't so good.

Addative: I find monsters are built seperately because of balance and fun. Monsters are made to provide a challenge to players while allowing the DM to customise them quickly and easily without affecting the balance too much.

It feels too much like a MMORPG?
This is something of a subjective statement. Yes, there are some elements of the game similar to computer RPGs. Why not, they're fun and people like playing them? The dynamic of people sitting around a table this a DM creating a world and adjudicating actions in it, however, is very different than a bunch of cartoons running around blinking lights.

Addative: I find that the power structure tricks people into thinking it's too similar to MMO's but this only affects you if you refuse to think outside the box (or have a DM who refuses this). You still retain all the control and RP ability which you had with any other version of D&D as well.

A one month subscription to DDI will get you all the goodies?
I'm afraid that this is no longer the case. You will still get more magazines than you'll need anytime soon. However, the Character Builder now is only available on-line. A previous edition of it was available for download, which would give you nearly all the content up to the date of download. Now you can only use the builder so long as you have a membership. (I'm not sure about the adventure tools aka monster builder)

Sorry for being incredibly ignorant, but what's this talk about "classic" 4e and "essentials" 4e and why are there compatibility issues?

Classic 4e consists of most of the original books. The Players Handbook 1-3, Monster Manual 1-3 and Dungeon Masters Guide 1-2 (plus various setting and splatbooks). Essentials is a rebuild of the 4e stuff re-released under new books which I can't care to name.

Classic 4e has classes built under a standard system. You level up, earn new abilities (Daily, Encounter, At-will, etc) and each class typically learns the same number of abilities.

Essentials 4e is simplified and goes back to the 3.5 formula in a way. Melee classes are still viable but have very few options beyond "I attack" and "I apply my class ability".

Some friends and I are interested in trying out 4e and are looking to purchase a couple books to get started. Which ones do you guys recommend buying first?

I'm partial to 'classic' 4e and would recommend you purchase the Players Handbook 1, a Monster Manual of your choice (1 has more iconic D&D creatures while 2 & 3 have better balanced yet more obscure creatures) and the Dungeon Masters Guide 1.

They actually sell a set of the PHB1, MM1 and DMG1 which might interest you.

Are monks more balanced in this edition?

From what I've observed, yes. Monks are capable of dealing out heavy amounts of damage, sometimes spread across multiple targets and are also capable of dashing around the field more easily than other classes.

Monks are in the Players Handbook 3.

What exactly does a DDI subscription buy me these days?
As long as the subscription remains valid, you get access to the full archives from the 4e Dungeon & Dragon magazines (2011 articles are not compiled into full magazine-style PDFs), as well as the online Character Builder (it's working a lot faster than it did at launch, and includes Essentials stuff) and Compendium. More stuff is on the way, but when it gets here (and with the cancellations in the last month, if they decide to finish it) is another matter.

What is included in the Compendium?
Let's make a list of what isn't. It'll be shorter. I am assuming you mean the online Compendium, and not the Rules Compendium, the latter of which is similar to its 3.5 counterpart, and the former a database for pretty much everything 4e.

-Tiamat Herself is missing. Her minions and deity overview (for both Points-of-Light and Forgotten Realms) are there, but you'll not find the most overpowered Brute in the game anywhere in the Compendium. Go buy Draconomicon 1: Chromatic Dragons, and revel in her majesty.
-Fluff is, in the most part, missing. There'll be a few blurbs here and there, but it's more or less up to the DM. Go buy the books, cheapskate.
-Encounter Balance and a lot of DM tips-and-tricks from the DMGs are missing. How to roll up new monsters, the damage-by-level tables, etc.
-Monster Manual 1 versions of the monsters updated with the Monster Vault are also missing. It's mostly math fixes and such, but the dragons in the book have entirely different powers.

Blackfang108
2011-01-27, 12:17 PM
Is it true that Wizards has pulled all support from the "Classic" 4e to focus on the new "essentials" 4e?

(I feel we should get this one out of the way, too.)

Elfin
2011-01-27, 12:24 PM
What's the general opinion on the slayer's merit compared to other strikers?

Sipex
2011-01-27, 12:42 PM
Is it true that Wizards has pulled all support from the "Classic" 4e to focus on the new "essentials" 4e?

I don't know this 100% but I've heard that this is the case as Essentials is supposed to be backwards compatible with 4e.

What's the general opinion on the slayer's merit compared to other strikers?

Good question, but I don't have official stats (no access to Essentials and nobody has compared it in the tiered lists). That said, it shows a lot of promise damage-wise so I'd put it above the less damaging strikers (Warlocks, Assassins) at the very least, possibly a cut above Rogue as well.

Kurald Galain
2011-01-27, 12:53 PM
Is it true that Wizards has pulled all support from the "Classic" 4e to focus on the new "essentials" 4e?
That depends highly on your definition of "pull all support".

Yes, in the sense that all future items will have a rarity level, and that all future feats won't have a tier, and any classes or builds not appearing in 4.4 books are not going to get significant new features.

No, in the sense that most 4.4 material can be used in 4.0 as well, and that where necessary the latter has been errata'ed to match the former. Note, however, that the big book to make 4.0 classes compatible with 4.4 has been cancalled.


What's the general opinion on the slayer's merit compared to other strikers?
In terms of damage per round, good. In terms of in-play versatility, poor.

Sipex
2011-01-27, 12:56 PM
Kurald has better, more in-depth answers for those, I'll update the FAQ.

valadil
2011-01-27, 12:59 PM
What exactly does a DDI subscription buy me these days? What is included in the Compendium?

Dralnu
2011-01-27, 01:16 PM
Sorry for being incredibly ignorant, but what's this talk about "classic" 4e and "essentials" 4e and why are there compatibility issues?

Some friends and I are interested in trying out 4e and are looking to purchase a couple books to get started. Which ones do you guys recommend buying first?

Are monks more balanced in this edition?

Loren
2011-01-27, 01:23 PM
Here's some FAQs and my answers. Sipex please feel free to include in your FAQ and add on as you deem appropriate.

Combat is too slow?
Yes? there are a couple of issues that can create experiences like this. Many of them are group dependant. If one considers what the players accomplish in a given round they often will have accomplished more than in previous editions, but getting through the round in real time may take longer.
1. The powers give players more options in combat (particularly meelee PCs). As a result players should put more effort into deciding what they'll do. If they aren't thinking ahead it means their turns can take longer.
2. Unfamiliarity with the system. A group of new players to any system take longer deciding what they'll do on their turn. This is part of the learning process and will decline with time. It is compounded by issue 1.
3. Monster design. Some of the monster published early in the edition's run had more hit points and weaker damage out point than was conducive to rapid and exciting combats. This was particularly true of solo monsters. More recent publication have had adjusted statistics which speed combat. Similarly there are some simple methods of adjusting the monsters in earlier publications (such as halfing the hp and doubling the damage).

The feats have been gimped?
Yes and no. There is a new paradigm about feats. The powers a character gets from their class (and other sources) and skills provide the 'verbs' when you try and do something and feats usually provide that 'adverb.' In other words, most feats affect how well the PC does something. This means that characters don't need to work to get things like tactical feats in order to get interesting options in combat. Because of the difference in the skill system it is also important to keep in mind that improving ones non-combat ablities is also driven by feats.

All the classes play the same?
Because all classes are based on the same power structure they are all mechanically similar. However, in actual game play difference become more apparent.

They wrecked the FR setting?
(I'm not qualified to answer)

The skill list is now too short?
This is somewhat subjective. It eliminates many of the similar skills in 3.x, which makes things a bit more efficient. What many people find missing are professions, crafts, and performances. These can be represented by backgrounds or simply via making up a skill. Some talents are represented by martial proficiencies (from Martial Powers 2)

Spell x is gone?
Maybe. The spells described in the powers section of a class's entry only really cover combat spells (and/or spells for over action oriented encounters). Many other spells have become 'rituals' which are cast differently (the cost reagents and time, but can be done as many times as one can afford). Some spells, however, have been totally eliminated. This may either be because they were too open to abuse or because R&D have yet to come up with a fair way to implement them.

Casting is no good?
This is rather subjective. They are less powerful than they used to be, if that's what you mean. Casters are less versatile than they used to be, but rituals can allow them to cast nearly any spell they have any time (provided they have the resources) which gives them another form of versatility. There are several "fixes" to the rituals to give casters back some of their versatility.

Multiclassing and gestalt are gone?
"Multiclass" in 4E means a feat tree a PC can follow to blend in aspects from another class. It's a great way to make a unique character, but it isn't open to all the strangeness that was possible in 3x. Hybrids are sort of like multiclasses from 2E and gestalt in 3. One picks two classes at the start of the game and gets a blend of both classes throughout the game. This isn't any more powerful than playing a normal character, indeed it can easily be weaker.

One can only create a very limited range of characters?
Sorta. There are a fair number of races available and each class has several different type within it. Throw in the options for feats and powers one a vast range of possible characters exists. However, templates and Level adjustments are not (yet) available so some variants of characters are not possible. (an upcoming book on shadows will offer some material for creating undead characters)

Because of the powers one can't make up creative moves in combat?
NO. Page 42 in the DMG provides guidelines for a DM to use when a player has an idea outside the box. What a PC can do in combat is really only limited by the imagination of those at the table and the dice. That said, having good options in ones powers often prevents players from thinking outside the box.

It is unfair because the PC and monsters are created by different rules?
Sure? I'm truly not sure this is a relevant point. Because enemies usually only make a single appearance in a day while the PC are usually in all the encounters they have different considerations for how they allocate their resources. Giving they resources along the same lines can easily result in an imbalance in the encounters. If the DM's objective is to produce fun and unique encounters and stories than this freedom can be very useful. However, if the table wants an internally consistent world it isn't so good.

It feels too much like a MMORPG?
This is something of a subjective statement. Yes, there are some elements of the game similar to computer RPGs. Why not, they're fun and people like playing them? The dynamic of people sitting around a table this a DM creating a world and adjudicating actions in it, however, is very different than a bunch of cartoons running around blinking lights.

A one month subscription to DDI will get you all the goodies?
I'm afraid that this is no longer the case. You will still get more magazines than you'll need anytime soon. However, the Character Builder now is only available on-line. A previous edition of it was available for download, which would give you nearly all the content up to the date of download. Now you can only use the builder so long as you have a membership. (I'm not sure about the adventure tools aka monster builder)

Sipex
2011-01-27, 01:24 PM
I'm going to leave the question above Dralnu's for someone who can more accurately answer it.

Sorry for being incredibly ignorant, but what's this talk about "classic" 4e and "essentials" 4e and why are there compatibility issues?

Classic 4e consists of most of the original books. The Players Handbook 1-3, Monster Manual 1-3 and Dungeon Masters Guide 1-2 (plus various setting and splatbooks). Essentials is a rebuild of the 4e stuff re-released under new books which I can't care to name.

Classic 4e has classes built under a standard system. You level up, earn new abilities (Daily, Encounter, At-will, etc) and each class typically learns the same number of abilities.

Essentials 4e is simplified and goes back to the 3.5 formula in a way. Melee classes are still viable but have very few options beyond "I attack" and "I apply my class ability".

Some friends and I are interested in trying out 4e and are looking to purchase a couple books to get started. Which ones do you guys recommend buying first?

I'm partial to 'classic' 4e and would recommend you purchase the Players Handbook 1, a Monster Manual of your choice (1 has more iconic D&D creatures while 2 & 3 have better balanced yet more obscure creatures) and the Dungeon Masters Guide 1.

They actually sell a set of the PHB1, MM1 and DMG1 which might interest you.

Are monks more balanced in this edition?

From what I've observed, yes. Monks are capable of dealing out heavy amounts of damage, sometimes spread across multiple targets and are also capable of dashing around the field more easily than other classes.

Monks are in the Players Handbook 3.

Mando Knight
2011-01-27, 02:11 PM
What exactly does a DDI subscription buy me these days?
As long as the subscription remains valid, you get access to the full archives from the 4e Dungeon & Dragon magazines (2011 articles are not compiled into full magazine-style PDFs), as well as the online Character Builder (it's working a lot faster than it did at launch, and includes Essentials stuff) and Compendium. More stuff is on the way, but when it gets here (and with the cancellations in the last month, if they decide to finish it) is another matter.

What is included in the Compendium?
Let's make a list of what isn't. It'll be shorter. I am assuming you mean the online Compendium, and not the Rules Compendium, the latter of which is similar to its 3.5 counterpart, and the former a database for pretty much everything 4e.

-Tiamat Herself is missing. Her minions and deity overview (for both Points-of-Light and Forgotten Realms) are there, but you'll not find the most overpowered Brute in the game anywhere in the Compendium. Go buy Draconomicon 1: Chromatic Dragons, and revel in her majesty.
-Fluff is, in the most part, missing. There'll be a few blurbs here and there, but it's more or less up to the DM. Go buy the books, cheapskate.
-Encounter Balance and a lot of DM tips-and-tricks from the DMGs are missing. How to roll up new monsters, the damage-by-level tables, etc.
-Monster Manual 1 versions of the monsters updated with the Monster Vault are also missing. It's mostly math fixes and such, but the dragons in the book have entirely different powers.

jseah
2011-01-27, 02:48 PM
I've heard again and again that 4E is a heroic fantasy system. While it certainly does that, I'm curious if it can be made to run other types of games.

Has anyone pulled off another style of game in 4E? An eberron magitech campaign with an overall non-heroic feel? (tricky moral questions, ethical problems with say magical industrialization destroying the environment, that kind of thing)
Or maybe a horror or mystery game.

Or god forbid, slice of life? >.> To my knowledge, not even 3.5 does that well, so I'm not expecting much here.

Sipex
2011-01-27, 02:49 PM
I updated the FAQ, thanks for all your input guys.

Elfin
2011-01-27, 03:04 PM
Is it, in your opinion, worth buying a DDI subscription?

valadil
2011-01-27, 03:07 PM
I've heard again and again that 4E is a heroic fantasy system. While it certainly does that, I'm curious if it can be made to run other types of games.


I'm currently doing a game that's more about intrigue, mystery, and morality than it is about heroic fantasy. The game still behaves like heroic fantasy when fights happen, but the players are more interested in talking to people than in picking fights.

I think that the thing keeping me from going more gritty than realistic is the martial powers. Daily and encounter powers make sense when you've got a magical source. Not so much when it's just another kind of punch. I think that daily and encounter powers do a good job of emulating pro wrestling style fighting rather than realistic combat. As long as that type of combat exists, I have a hard time imagining fights as anything but cartoony. I've been led to believe that Essentials makes all martial powers at-will, but I haven't confirmed this yet or tried playing this way.

Mando Knight
2011-01-27, 03:16 PM
Has anyone pulled off another style of game in 4E? An eberron magitech campaign with an overall non-heroic feel? (tricky moral questions, ethical problems with say magical industrialization destroying the environment, that kind of thing)
Or maybe a horror or mystery game.

Or god forbid, slice of life? >.> To my knowledge, not even 3.5 does that well, so I'm not expecting much here.
It can do the first few things, but depends mostly on the DM figuring out what he wants and how to do it. Mystery games, like in all systems, depend almost entirely on the DM, since it's a story thing. Some rituals, like some Divination spells in 3.5, can mess it up, but unless you're going for a Scooby-Doo mystery, most of it will probably look like it's copied from Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's or Agatha Christie's works anyway.

4e isn't particularly magitech, but there is enough material there that if the DM looks, he's got a good starting point. I certainly won't stop you from basing your Warforged Artificer off of Alphonse Elric. As for the ethical/heroes-getting-dirty bit, that's mostly storyline again. Go ahead and crib off of FMA a little more if you need to, I won't blame you. Though unless it's supposed to be like Exalted-light, I wouldn't put this game in the Epic tier. Heroic up to mid-Paragon would work, but by Epic, they're supposed to be the heroes of the material plane, and that's how the stuff is written. Or the super-villains. Whichever floats your boat.

For Horror, again it depends on the DM. It can do survival horror pretty well, if you limit the PCs' access to resources. I'd keep them low-to-mid Heroic, with anything higher than that meant to break through the horror and defeat the villain behind it. Unless it's one of the Stars of the Far Realm or such, which would make great Epic-tier villains for a higher-level horror game.

Slice-of-life... will want to go Negima almost right out of the gate.

jseah
2011-01-27, 04:30 PM
Mando Knight:
While I do watch anime, I've recently gravitated towards the darker stuff. Negima, I watched in my early days, FMA I'm not familiar with (alphonse is that walking talking suit of armour right?).
Not quite sure what you mean by slice-of-life will want to go Negima right out the gate. Negima is NOT slice of life. In fact, you could almost model Negima in 4E since they're both heroic fantasy.

In any case, by magitech, I don't mean FMA style. More like, a totally different setting type.
Imagine say, Last Exile. A more famous example would be something like the Nanoha series (although the magic is so advanced that it edges into sci-fi)
A game where civilization is the strongest thing around, and the players are mostly just cogs in the giant machine.


Of course, I could try to pull it off. I've been looking around in the 4E books a bit and have been retrofitting metamagic feats into 4E. Building a magitech setting is not out of reach either, at least once it's the holidays.

I'm just curious if anyone's done it. Might have some interesting tips.

EDIT:
Ok, the thing about epic tier is that I'm just not seeing it. Even the epic tier rituals in the PHB (all I have) aren't that epic at all.

You could go to epic tier and with enough mooks, still grind the players down, if you wish to retain the "cogs in the machine" feel of the characters being part of something bigger and unstoppable.

I just don't see how an epic tier character could survive a few hundred policemen.
A few NPC wizards and fighters and rangers or whatever, could quite easily give alot of trouble for players even 5 levels higher. Epic tier just means you're worth about 20 heroic characters, and even then sheer action economy WILL grind you into the ground.
I've played one campaign (standard save the world thing) and from the numbers it appears that the automatic damage dailies are freaking deadly. And if you as DM bump sergeants to paragon tier, epic characters aren't too world breaking.

Basically, I think if 4E can run magitech at all, it can run it at any tier.

Mando Knight
2011-01-27, 05:32 PM
Not quite sure what you mean by slice-of-life will want to go Negima right out the gate. Negima is NOT slice of life. In fact, you could almost model Negima in 4E since they're both heroic fantasy.

Negima started as a fantasy/harem-comedy/slice-of-life mix. Then the author did what he had in mind from the beginning: a sudden genre shift out of anything close to Love Hina-style slice-of-life/harem-comedy into shonen fighting series.

You could go to epic tier and with enough mooks, still grind the players down, if you wish to retain the "cogs in the machine" feel of the characters being part of something bigger and unstoppable.

I just don't see how an epic tier character could survive a few hundred policemen.
A few NPC wizards and fighters and rangers or whatever, could quite easily give alot of trouble for players even 5 levels higher. Epic tier just means you're worth about 20 heroic characters, and even then sheer action economy WILL grind you into the ground.
I've played one campaign (standard save the world thing) and from the numbers it appears that the automatic damage dailies are freaking deadly. And if you as DM bump sergeants to paragon tier, epic characters aren't too world breaking.
That's only if you scale the basic guys up to where the heroes are. A well-equipped Epic-tier character is nearly invulnerable to opponents 10 levels lower (+5 flat bonus to defenses, +2 enchantment, against an opponent who used to maybe get a 50% to-hit before, means 15% hit chance, possibly lower) and can take on a large number of opponents 5 levels lower. If you're level 21, you should be about 15 levels higher than the random city guard/policemen on the Prime Material, at least 10 levels higher than any sergeant (if they're Paragon level, then they should be among the Best of the Best), and only Generals and their elite guard of the greater empires on the Prime should actually pose a threat (assuming the standard Authority Equals Asskicking). Add in the area attacks that even the melee characters should have by Epic tier, and they should be able to hold down an army unless swamped by sheer action economy.

Suedars
2011-01-27, 05:57 PM
That's only if you scale the basic guys up to where the heroes are. A well-equipped Epic-tier character is nearly invulnerable to opponents 10 levels lower (+5 flat bonus to defenses, +2 enchantment, against an opponent who used to maybe get a 50% to-hit before, means 15% hit chance, possibly lower) and can take on a large number of opponents 5 levels lower. If you're level 21, you should be about 15 levels higher than the random city guard/policemen on the Prime Material, at least 10 levels higher than any sergeant (if they're Paragon level, then they should be among the Best of the Best), and only Generals and their elite guard of the greater empires on the Prime should actually pose a threat (assuming the standard Authority Equals Asskicking). Add in the area attacks that even the melee characters should have by Epic tier, and they should be able to hold down an army unless swamped by sheer action economy.

What? There's no way your average town guard is level 6, with sergeants being level 11. Keep in mind that even beginning Paragon characters are pinnacles of humanity (or whatever other race) that most can only look up in awe at. I'd say level 1ish for town guards, 6ish for sergeants, and 11ish for world renowned generals is about right.

Kurald Galain
2011-01-27, 06:31 PM
Sorry for being incredibly ignorant, but what's this talk about "classic" 4e and "essentials" 4e and why are there compatibility issues?
There are compatibility issues because of the difference in design philosophy. The most obvious are (1) class design: a 4.0 fighter gets encounter and daily attacks, whereas a 4.4 fighter gets at-will stances; so neither can use these powers from the other. (2) feat design: 4.0 feats are more flexible, whereas 4.4 feats are more uniform but also more powerful. (3) item distribution: 4.0 assumes that PCs can get, buy, or make all the items they want, 4.4 assumes that nobody gets special items unless the DM says so.

I'm not saying they're not compatible, far from it. However, they are clearly less compatible than WOTC claims.



Some friends and I are interested in trying out 4e and are looking to purchase a couple books to get started. Which ones do you guys recommend buying first?
In my opinion, get the PHB1. It has eight classes, most of which are iconic; several builds for each; and enough feats and items to last you through epic tier. By contrast, HOFK/HOFL combined have less content for each class, much fewer feats, and almost no items.


Are monks more balanced in this edition?
Yes, although I get the impression they're still somewhat below average. Their shtick is doing a bit less damage but being more mobile; the problem is that most strikers are already very mobile. The monk does noticeably less damage than a ranger, barbarian, or errata'ed rogue, but is not noticeably more mobile than those.


I've heard again and again that 4E is a heroic fantasy system. While it certainly does that, I'm curious if it can be made to run other types of games.
That depends on what you want. In particular, 4E deals poorly with types of game where combat is supposed to be quick and deadly (such as Call of Cthulhu or Cyberpunk). Furthermore, a game that is primarily skill-based (such as doing investigation) may well run into issues with 4E's simplistic skill system. Of course it can be done, but there's several other systems that do it better and more elegantly.

This post by Saph (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10048103&postcount=22) is a pretty good description.

jseah
2011-01-27, 06:51 PM
Kurald:
Thanks for the link. That post was one of the contributors to my impression of 4E as a "Hero's" game. =P

Still, despite it's flaws in running various other styles of games, I'm still curious. Because if I ever run a 4E game, which I might in the next year or so to give it a go on the DM's side of the screen, it certainly will not be a heroic fantasy game. I never run heroic fantasy, can't get the "epic" right.

So, has anyone done it? Or at least tried to?
Intrigue type of game is almost there though. So I guess valadil managed it.

Mando Knight:
Well, if we go by the "no one is special" rule of the magi-tech civilization centric game, then even the NPCs are built using PC rules. Wizards royally screw up anyone's day, even high level characters. So do rangers actually, you just need 20 of them and and go crit fishing. (Twin strike is your friend, love it, take care of it, rely on it)

But this isn't really about how to kill high level PCs with low level NPCs. It's about whether the rules deviate too far from a particular type of game style to run it.

Reverent-One
2011-01-27, 07:09 PM
I'm not saying they're not compatible, far from it. However, they are clearly less compatible than WOTC claims.

Given that WoTC claims that they are compatible in that you can easily use both at the same table without issues and you can, I'd say they're exactly as compatible as WoTC claims.


Kurald:
Thanks for the link. That post was one of the contributors to my impression of 4E as a "Hero's" game. =P

Still, despite it's flaws in running various other styles of games, I'm still curious. Because if I ever run a 4E game, which I might in the next year or so to give it a go on the DM's side of the screen, it certainly will not be a heroic fantasy game. I never run heroic fantasy, can't get the "epic" right.

So, has anyone done it? Or at least tried to?
Intrigue type of game is almost there though. So I guess valadil managed it.

Done what exactly? I'm not sure exactly which style you're asking about at this point.

jseah
2011-01-27, 07:29 PM
Reverent-one:

I've heard again and again that 4E is a heroic fantasy system. While it certainly does that, I'm curious if it can be made to run other types of games.
That was the original question. Guess we got off topic.

Valadil says he's doing a game more about "intrigue, mystery, and morality". So it CAN be done.

While not exactly a completely different style, it is the only actual example I've gotten so far.
Know anyone who's done a non-heroic fantasy game in 4E? Partially for my curiousity, and partially to get encouragement (and get basic notes) that it is possible when I finally run a 4E game.

Reverent-One
2011-01-27, 07:43 PM
On these forums even, Deadly is running a horror-themed game, A Song of Death (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=134930).

Dornath
2011-01-27, 10:43 PM
I have a problem with the fluff I suppose.

I recognize the balancing effect of the Daily, Encounter and At-Will powers.

I get that wizards and other types of magical powers have limited uses. That carries over from 3.5.

But in 3.5, my my Fighter never ran out of stab'im in the neck.

If my Level 5 Fighter can use an attack that hits everything around him, why the heck can he only do that once a day? Y'know? Yeah sure, he can cleave right after, but it's not as good as doing the same thing.

I respect the need for balance, but have they justified that?

Beyond that.... Skill Encounters? A stroke of genius. Just sayin'.

chaos_redefined
2011-01-27, 10:53 PM
OK... My bad experiences probably come down to two myths, and one of them is already answered. The other one can come in two parts

1) Does a party need a leader, controller, defender and striker? Is a party of all or mostly one role viable?

2) If two people can play the same role (either due to 5 or more players, or question 1's answer being nice), is there enough difference between two people playing the same class that there won't be too much of a problem?

Overall, can I tell a bunch of players to go away and make characters, and even if they don't talk to each other, will it still work? Even if they all come back with strikers, or multiple people come back with wizards?

Blackfang108
2011-01-27, 10:56 PM
If my Level 5 Fighter can use an attack that hits everything around him, why the heck can he only do that once a day? Y'know? Yeah sure, he can cleave right after, but it's not as good as doing the same thing.

I respect the need for balance, but have they justified that?

Not officially, as far as I know. Thye tend to leave that stuff up to the players.

There was a thread with a few ways to justify non-magical Encounter and Daily powers a day or two ago.

My favorite is the "situational" power. The Daily power doesn't happen often because it relies on conditions being "just right." The enemy is open in a specific way, you're ready to swing from the right angle, and something diverts the enemy's attention at just the right moment.

Another explanation was that of "clutch" powers, which I can't explain well, so I won't try.

Another common idea is that the Daily and Encounter powers are unduly straining on the body and require varying amounts of rest before it is a good idea to try them again. (I'm not a huge fan of this one, but it has it's merits)


OK... My bad experiences probably come down to two myths, and one of them is already answered. The other one can come in two parts

1) Does a party need a leader, controller, defender and striker? Is a party of all or mostly one role viable?

2) If two people can play the same role (either due to 5 or more players, or question 1's answer being nice), is there enough difference between two people playing the same class that there won't be too much of a problem?

Overall, can I tell a bunch of players to go away and make characters, and even if they don't talk to each other, will it still work? Even if they all come back with strikers, or multiple people come back with wizards?

1.) I've found it HELPS to have the roles covered, but my main party has rarely had a defender. We do have a fairly high mortality rate, but in most of those have rarely had to do with the Defender or lack thereof. Having at least one leader is almost a must, if for no other reason than the party will uaually want at least a little bit of in-combat healing. But Leaders aren't just healbots. they're buff-bots, too.

But no, not having a role covered isn't a death-sentence. I just REALLY prefer having at least one leader.

2.) 2 people can play the same class and, if their power selection isn't extremely close, they can play very differently. My first two characters were Warlords, and played extremely differently. (Tactical and Bravura)

Wizards have an extremely large number of builds, so it is possible to have and entire 6-man party of differently built Wizards. I believe that all of the Martial Classes can do this, too.

Example: Wizard Builds
Staff (Defense)
Wand (Accuracy)
Orb of Imposition (Lockdown Control)
Tome of Binding (Summoner-Focused)
Tome of Readiness (Um...Bigger spellbook)
Other Orb (Illusion)

I think that's it.

tcrudisi
2011-01-27, 11:01 PM
1) Does a party need a leader, controller, defender and striker? Is a party of all or mostly one role viable?

2) If two people can play the same role (either due to 5 or more players, or question 1's answer being nice), is there enough difference between two people playing the same class that there won't be too much of a problem?

Overall, can I tell a bunch of players to go away and make characters, and even if they don't talk to each other, will it still work? Even if they all come back with strikers, or multiple people come back with wizards?

1.) Nope, it's not necessary. Just today I played in a group that had 3 controllers, 2 strikers and a defender. We did not have a leader.

2.) Absolutely! Each class plays very differently from other classes, even within the same role. My Wizard acts much differently than my fiancée's Druid, and they are both controllers. A Fighter acts very differently than a Swordmage, and they are both defenders. Now, if you have two wizards at the table, chances become better that they'll play similarly, but that's not always the case. A control wizard will play much differently than a blaster wizard, but two control wizards will probably have chosen the same powers and will play similarly (but there's a chance that even that won't be the case).

DeltaEmil
2011-01-27, 11:27 PM
If my Level 5 Fighter can use an attack that hits everything around him, why the heck can he only do that once a day? Y'know? Yeah sure, he can cleave right after, but it's not as good as doing the same thing.Same reason why a rogue can only roll defensively once per day, or a barbarian can only rage so often, or a cavalier is able to make his non-magical mount charge a foe really deadly once every blue moon. Some abilities are considered to be too strong to let them happen more often than they should at these lower levels of difficulty. In theory, higher levels also equal greater challenges in the form of stronger and perhaps more numerous opponents in an increasedly hostile environment, where the players are mentally tasked to find a solution to these problems by using the games-legal abilities that their characters get, and because of that increase in difficulty, it would be fair to allow more uses of the powerful abilities, and perhaps even with a slight boost in the prior edition. 4th edition goes by the idea that using the same trick again and again for the day is boring and not popular, which is why over the course of the game, several other of these daily abilities are aquired at higher level, to give more choices. These are the out-of-game reasons.

Of course, this being D&D (any edition past, current and future), the martial heroes that we simulate are far more proficient and capable of extraordinary feats of prowess that no real-world person could replicate that fast again after only resting for 6 hours.

I respect the need for balance, but have they justified that?Yes. They saw that people wanted ressource management, make crucial choices (but not too many that would bog down gameplay too much) one way or the other, and they recognized how spellcasters were the most popular classes in 3.x.

Or at least more fun and mentally gratifying than fighters who couldn't even fight well, unless they focused on a single trick and repeat it over and over (like the trip-spiked-chain-fighter and later the shocktrooper).

Also, having the grup be more interdependent and the game become more group-oriented was also one of the main goals.

MeeposFire
2011-01-28, 12:38 AM
I am incredibly disappointed that you are using a term like 4.4 in a thread trying to talk about 4e and answering questions faithfully. If you are going to do a thread about this sort of subject you should not use loaded terms like 4.4. 4.e would be more acceptable as that is what it is while 4.4 is highly contentions and in my opinion a misguided designation considering that most of the changes in the game are brought on by updates not essentials itself.

Reluctance
2011-01-28, 02:07 AM
Overall, can I tell a bunch of players to go away and make characters, and even if they don't talk to each other, will it still work? Even if they all come back with strikers, or multiple people come back with wizards?

This is a bad idea in general. You have the chance of nonsynergistic parties (a melee leader in an all-ranged group will not be having a good time), of multiple players deciding to play the exact same build/archetype and stepping on each others toes, and of course the trickiness of getting five complete strangers with possibly conflicting goals to work with each other. It's not a 4e bad idea so much as an overall gaming bad idea.

MeeposFire
2011-01-28, 02:31 AM
In 4e you can have a party with all the same role, possibly even the same class (though that would be exceedingly rare) and it can work, but you be very vulnerable in certain situations. Here is one common example. A party of all strikers will be be devastating in an encounter but if they are unable to kill a large number of targets quickly they can be quickly overwhelmed if they get unlucky. Varied parties are better able to handle bad situations and bad rolls. Single role parties can work but they require more skill, luck, and they have less versatility.

kyoryu
2011-01-28, 02:47 AM
Missing a role will impact the party depending heavily on what role is missing, and what everyone else is playing. If you're missing a striker, but have two Fighters (which are defenders with a striker secondary aspect), you'll probably be fine. Same if you don't have a Defender but have two Strikers or Leaders that have a Defender secondary (Barbarian, etc.).

The thing to remember is that most classes have a primary role, as well as a secondary role. So a Fighter (Defender/Striker) will impact a party differently than a Paladin (typically Defender/Leader) will. And a Fighter (Defender/Striker) can have similar impact to a Barbarian (Striker/Defender).

The biggest problem that I could see is if you have too little damage output. A group of Leaders and Controllers will have a tough time. It'll take a long time for them to fall down, but they won't be able to take out enemies very quickly, either.

Above all, 4e is a game where tactics *matter*. You can't just stand in the middle of a field and rely on your awesome build to win the battle for you. A party that knows what they can and can't do, and adjusts their tactics accordingly, will do better in just about any situation than a "perfectly balanced" party that plays like idjits.


This is a bad idea in general. You have the chance of nonsynergistic parties (a melee leader in an all-ranged group will not be having a good time), of multiple players deciding to play the exact same build/archetype and stepping on each others toes, and of course the trickiness of getting five complete strangers with possibly conflicting goals to work with each other. It's not a 4e bad idea so much as an overall gaming bad idea.

For a campaign we just started, we had everyone make three characters up before the game, and then decide which they wanted to play. That worked pretty well. It also set people up in case there's some mortality involved :D

The New Bruceski
2011-01-28, 02:59 AM
The idea of encounter/daily powers definitely falls into the realm of opinion as opposed to a clear universal answer. I personally see it as giving the players a bit of narrative control (let's not get into GNS, just let the word do its job) over the NPCs. Come and Get It, for example, isn't just a melee AoE attack, but a *successful* bluff to draw the foe into range. A player may describe a lot of his attacks as trying to get an ally maneuvered around the foe, but when they use Leaf on the Wind they succeed in doing so.

stainboy
2011-01-28, 08:31 AM
Does 4e assume that whenever fluff implies an exception to RAW, you ignore the fluff? I've seen players argue that monsters can't voluntarily drop their weapons and hobgoblin brutes can't pick up bows, because mechanically monsters aren't wielding weapons. I can see how this RAW-or-nothing playstyle "feels" like the intent of the writers, but I've never seen anything in the books confirming it.

To put it another way, Hacky McPokestick the fighter has a power that slides an enemy toward him. The fluff describes the power as verbally taunting or challenging the target. He uses the power on a gelatinous cube. In the opinion of Wizards of the Coast, what should the DM do?

A. The DM is within the intent of the rules to declare that the power doesn't work. It's a giant square amoeba and it doesn't know or care that you called its badness into question.

B. The DM should allow the power to work. The power never states that it works only on certain types of creatures and nerfing it in the middle of combat would be unfair.

Kurald Galain
2011-01-28, 08:49 AM
Is it, in your opinion, worth buying a DDI subscription?
Personally, I don't like "leasing" information, i.e. the notion that your information is no longer accessible once you stop paying.


I've been led to believe that Essentials makes all martial powers at-will,
That is correct, for attack powers at least. They still get powers like "1/encounter, add +1W to an attack".


It can do the first few things, but depends mostly on the DM figuring out what he wants and how to do it.
I think magitech would work fine in 4E. I have my doubts about survival horror. It seems to me that slice-of-life in 4E would consist mostly of ignoring the rules and winging the rest; nothing wrong with that, but then you're not really using the strengths of 4E. I think that's the point: the strength of 4E lies in fighting skirmishes against small groups of enemies. If you don't want to focus your campaign on that, there is probably another system that does it better.

Aside from that, I agree with jseah that epic tier in 4E is not very epic by the standards of e.g. fantasy fiction, Amber DRP, or Exalted.


What? There's no way your average town guard is level 6, with sergeants being level 11.
In some official WOTC adventures, that is precisely what happens: the town guard are the same level as whatever the PCs are at the time.


1) Does a party need a leader, controller, defender and striker?
Absolutely not. I've played in parties of any composition, and it works out just fine. Also, many classes are a combination of two roles anyway. 4E does play very differently if you don't have a leader, though.


2) If two people can play the same role (either due to 5 or more players, or question 1's answer being nice), is there enough difference between two people playing the same class that there won't be too much of a problem?
Two characters of the same "build" or sub-class will generally (but not always) highly resemble one another. Also, in some classes, the "builds" are rather different (e.g. warlock) whereas in others they are not (e.g. fighter).
For example, it is pretty clear that Rain Of Steel and Come And Get It are the best fighter powers of their respective levels; so most fighters tend to pick these up. Likewise, a staff wizard does not play noticeably different than a wand wizard, although a blaster wizard does play differently from an illusionist.


Overall, can I tell a bunch of players to go away and make characters, and even if they don't talk to each other, will it still work?
Usually, yes. The odds of them all picking the same class/build are pretty small. If two characters are the same class, you should nudge them towards picking different powers, although this fails at the levels where one power is clearly superior.


they recognized how spellcasters were the most popular classes in 3.x.
I do not believe this is the case; forum discussion seems to indicate otherwise.

Kurald Galain
2011-01-28, 08:57 AM
Does 4e assume that whenever fluff implies an exception to RAW, you ignore the fluff?
Yes, and that is a deliberate design decision. Because otherwise, abilities wouldn't always be effective, and that is not considered fair.

For example, sneak attack is generally considered to be a strike to a creature's vital organs; but if the creature doesn't have vital organs (or if it does, but you can't see them or reach them), then it is still a strike that does more damage, for whatever reason. Likewise, oozes can be prone'd, skeletons can be hit by sleep, and fire elementals are damaged by fire attacks. The Martial Power splatbook attempts to list a few justifications, but generally it is just handwaved with the MST3K Mantra.

So the answer to your question is clearly "B". However, mechanically, most monsters are in fact wielding weapons (if they have the prerequisite limbs).

stainboy
2011-01-28, 09:24 AM
fire elementals are damaged by fire attacks

Really? I know I saw monsters with elemental resistances in MM1. Is that new, or is it just that they have Fire Resistance 10 or whatever instead of Fire Immunity?

Kerrin
2011-01-28, 10:32 AM
Does 4e assume that whenever fluff implies an exception to RAW, you ignore the fluff?.

To put it another way, Hacky McPokestick the fighter has a power that slides an enemy toward him. The fluff describes the power as verbally taunting or challenging the target. He uses the power on a gelatinous cube. In the opinion of Wizards of the Coast, what should the DM do?
In these instances I generally ignore the fluff. I generally view the fluff as an example or the most common way the power's roleplaying is explained, but not necessarily the only way it could be dramatized.

For the gelatinous cube example... Maybe the fighter didn't insult it, but rather took some other roleplaying action that drew its attention. It's an opportunity for the player to get into roleplaying what his fighter's doing as the dramatic action hero he/she is!

Kurald Galain
2011-01-28, 10:39 AM
It's an opportunity for the player to get into roleplaying what his fighter's doing as the dramatic action hero he/she is!
Can you give an example of that actually happening? Because in my experience, this simply causes players to say "I use <power> on <creature> so it's now <condition>." I don't think most players consider it an RP opportunity to explain during combat why their "taunt" power in this case doesn't actually taunt but just happens to have the exact same effect as a taunt anyway.

DeltaEmil
2011-01-28, 11:49 AM
I do not believe this is the case; forum discussion seems to indicate otherwise.The optimization boards are not the only source to look for the popularity of the classes. Official WotC-sponsored and/or sanctioned games like those under the RPGA or Living Greyhawk and Forgotten Realms as well as positive feedback to supplements with an abundance of options for spellcasters also indicate the prevalence of magic-ressource-using classes amongst a really big segment of the gaming population. Of course, the popularity of spellcasters becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy when the abundance of options that make spellcasters stronger makes them more popular because of the choices, and increases the demands for more options and different ways of playing spellcasters.

I don't think most players consider it an RP opportunity to explain during combat why their "taunt" power in this case doesn't actually taunt but just happens to have the exact same effect as a taunt anyway. That is absolutely normal, because doing this for every monster takes away valuable gaming time for everybody else.
After the first three or four times describing how the effect works, people will forego the verboose explanation the sake of faster gameplay, as they ought to know by then what the justification text is.

Sipex
2011-01-28, 12:01 PM
Really? I know I saw monsters with elemental resistances in MM1. Is that new, or is it just that they have Fire Resistance 10 or whatever instead of Fire Immunity?

They just have Fire Resistance. It's to represent that, with the right circumstances, you can beat fire with fire. This also helps if you somehow have a character who has only fire based attacks. They can still feel like they're contributing, even minutely.

I'm unsure how much Fire Resistance a Fire Elemental has though but I'd wager it's enough that a character of the same level would have a hard time dealing significant damage with any one fire based attack.

tcrudisi
2011-01-28, 12:11 PM
Can you give an example of that actually happening? Because in my experience, this simply causes players to say "I use <power> on <creature> so it's now <condition>." I don't think most players consider it an RP opportunity to explain during combat why their "taunt" power in this case doesn't actually taunt but just happens to have the exact same effect as a taunt anyway.

I can provide examples from personal experience. In one group I DM for, they started off as you describe. However, after a few sessions, I convinced one of the players to start describing his powers rather than just telling me what he was casting. It was a rousing success. After he did it a couple of times, the other players said, "Wow, that's really cool!" and started doing it themselves. Now I have a group of players who always describe their powers out rather than saying the name of the power. Occasionally I'll ask for a name if they are being very descriptive and it's almost always a daily or encounter power.

In the example above, I can't think of any specific examples off-hand, but I'm betting they would instead describe it as hooking their weapon into the monster and pulling it towards them, then swinging their weapon in front of their allies in an obvious protective motion to help deflect any attacks their way.

Suedars
2011-01-28, 12:13 PM
To put it another way, Hacky McPokestick the fighter has a power that slides an enemy toward him. The fluff describes the power as verbally taunting or challenging the target. He uses the power on a gelatinous cube. In the opinion of Wizards of the Coast, what should the DM do?

A. The DM is within the intent of the rules to declare that the power doesn't work. It's a giant square amoeba and it doesn't know or care that you called its badness into question.

B. The DM should allow the power to work. The power never states that it works only on certain types of creatures and nerfing it in the middle of combat would be unfair.

I would disagree with A here (well, I suppose the GM does have that prerogative, but it would not be in the spirit of the rules to do so). Remember that fluff for powers is just a suggestion, and players are free to refluff them within reason. Instead of taunting the slime to pull it towards me, I could simply lower my guard momentarily, making it look like I'm an easier target to get it to go for me.


Can you give an example of that actually happening? Because in my experience, this simply causes players to say "I use <power> on <creature> so it's now <condition>." I don't think most players consider it an RP opportunity to explain during combat why their "taunt" power in this case doesn't actually taunt but just happens to have the exact same effect as a taunt anyway.

Usually in our group dailies will get a decent amount of narration from the player, and encounters sometimes will too, especially if they're being used for something key or are part of an action pointed turn.


In some official WOTC adventures, that is precisely what happens: the town guard are the same level as whatever the PCs are at the time.

That's probably just an instance of bad adventure writing, given that it contradicts both the game's tone and general plausibility.

Tyndmyr
2011-01-28, 12:14 PM
Does 4e have meta alternate combat resolution mechanics? For instance, mass combat or naval combat?

kyoryu
2011-01-28, 12:22 PM
For example, sneak attack is generally considered to be a strike to a creature's vital organs; but if the creature doesn't have vital organs (or if it does, but you can't see them or reach them), then it is still a strike that does more damage, for whatever reason. Likewise, oozes can be prone'd, skeletons can be hit by sleep, and fire elementals are damaged by fire attacks. The Martial Power splatbook attempts to list a few justifications, but generally it is just handwaved with the MST3K Mantra.


I look at even the name of the condition as, to a certain extent, fluff. Let's look at Prone as an example.

Prone is a condition where the afflicted creature cannot attack (or has a penalty? I forget), and cannot move. The Prone status can be removed by the expenditure of a Move action.

Can I come up with a way to apply that to an ooze? Sure thing! The blow splatters the ooze out too far for it to effectively work as a single organism, and it needs to take time to ooze back together before it can do anything else.

Suedars
2011-01-28, 12:41 PM
Does 4e have meta alternate combat resolution mechanics? For instance, mass combat or naval combat?

It doesn't have specific rules for how the two of those would work, but they'd both clearly be skill challenges.

It'd basically consist of "Which side will win if the PCs don't act?" (Presumably the opposing side), then you look at how outgunned the PCs are and use that to set the complexity of the challenge. Higher difficulty means you need more successful checks before X failures.

Then you determine applicable skills. In mass combat Diplomacy/Bluff could be used to boost morale (with extra penalties on a Bluff failure). Intimidate to demoralize enemy troops. Nature to use terrain advantageously. History for tactics. Stealth to conduct commando raids. Perception to spot weaknesses in the enemy ranks. You could also add in the opportunity to make attack rolls to represent fighting at the front (and losing a couple healing surges on a failure). Maybe Heal for triage if it's a prolonged combat.

From there, people go around the table briefly narrating what they're doing and making the appropriate checks until the party either reaches the requisite number of successes, winning the challenge (and presumably winning the battle), or they rack up enough failures that they fail (and probably lose the battle or in some other way have their plans complicated).

kyoryu
2011-01-28, 02:34 PM
Does 4e have meta alternate combat resolution mechanics? For instance, mass combat or naval combat?

I'll have to check the DMG when I get home, but I believe that the suggestion is to "zoom in" on the part that the PCs are doing, and how that impacts the battle as a whole.

If the PCs manage to breach the gate, that makes it more likely that the attacking army will win - that kind of thing.

Sipex
2011-01-28, 02:42 PM
Yeah, short answer: No.

Long answer: No, but you can work it in or approach it from a different angle.

Kerrin
2011-01-28, 03:20 PM
Can you give an example of that actually happening? Because in my experience, this simply causes players to say "I use <power> on <creature> so it's now <condition>." I don't think most players consider it an RP opportunity to explain during combat why their "taunt" power in this case doesn't actually taunt but just happens to have the exact same effect as a taunt anyway.
It's up to the gaming group how much and how often they want colorful narration bits in their combats.

For the cube scenario, a previous poster suggested that the character may have lowered their guard to lure in the cube. Or, perhaps the fighter banged his sword and shield together a bunch of times so loudly that the sound waves enraged the cube so it came after the fighter. (I was a big cube of jello I wouldn't like jarring sounds!)

I'm not saying that everyone must explain why their power works in every instance. It's just an opportunity to do so if the player wants to. Combat especially can be played out only stating rules mechanics, dramatizing every single action, or anything in between.

Kurald Galain
2011-01-28, 03:29 PM
I'm not saying that everyone must explain why their power works in every instance. It's just an opportunity to do so if the player wants to.
Yes, I get that, but I'm curious to learn how many people actually do so. Because at least in my area, people do it all the time when playing a more rules-light system, but when playing 4E they are instead focused on the multitude of powers, conditions, and modifiers that change every turn in combat. So I appreciate hearing that tcrudisi's group has a different experience.

MeeposFire
2011-01-28, 03:29 PM
I look at even the name of the condition as, to a certain extent, fluff. Let's look at Prone as an example.

Prone is a condition where the afflicted creature cannot attack (or has a penalty? I forget), and cannot move. The Prone status can be removed by the expenditure of a Move action.

Can I come up with a way to apply that to an ooze? Sure thing! The blow splatters the ooze out too far for it to effectively work as a single organism, and it needs to take time to ooze back together before it can do anything else.

Prone gives a penalty to attack rolls, makes you grant combat advantage, and you cannot move without provoking opportunity attacks unless you spend an action to "get up" (crawling). I have heard many variants for the prone cube including destabilizing the cube. You hit the cube so hard that it destabilizes and goes splat on the ground. This leaves it vulnerable and so it must take a move action to bring itself back together fully.

RandomAction
2011-01-29, 01:06 AM
I'll be honest, I am a fan of 3.5e and more than likely will turn to it for my D&D gaming needs. Even though it is flawed in it's own way, but anyways....

As for 4e, I have borrowed books from my fellow players and, at first, I was upset about the new system. After looking through a few of the books, I will agree that the skill system set-up is better in many ways. Even though I have yet to play a 4e game, which I am still tempted to try it. I still get the We made this because we needed to compete with WoW and to make PC game making easier for the big companies feel everytime I crack open one of the books. No offense or insult intended.

I haven't been to the Wizards site in a long time and with reading about 4.4e earlier in this thread, I am left wondering if this is just a way for them to make it even easier for new players to get started. Is it?

My questions are (other than where can I find a copy of 4e or 4.4e for dummies):

What are the major differences between the 4e and the 4.4e?

As a new player to the system, would it be better to start with 4e? or the 4.4e?

Where can I find a good 'primer' to the system that would help lessen the confusion that can come from being new to the system?

MeeposFire
2011-01-29, 01:26 AM
I'll be honest, I am a fan of 3.5e and more than likely will turn to it for my D&D gaming needs. Even though it is flawed in it's own way, but anyways....

As for 4e, I have borrowed books from my fellow players and, at first, I was upset about the new system. After looking through a few of the books, I will agree that the skill system set-up is better in many ways. Even though I have yet to play a 4e game, which I am still tempted to try it. I still get the We made this because we needed to compete with WoW and to make PC game making easier for the big companies feel everytime I crack open one of the books. No offense or insult intended.

I haven't been to the Wizards site in a long time and with reading about 4.4e earlier in this thread, I am left wondering if this is just a way for them to make it even easier for new players to get started. Is it?

My questions are (other than where can I find a copy of 4e or 4.4e for dummies):

What are the major differences between the 4e and the 4.4e?

As a new player to the system, would it be better to start with 4e? or the 4.4e?

Where can I find a good 'primer' to the system that would help lessen the confusion that can come from being new to the system?

Technically Essentials is not different from the rest of the game. It is an "ever green" set of products designed to be sold at larger chain stores such as target. The game works the same and is actually a part of the same system including rules.

Now what you are thinking of are the tendencies of the class design found within. The class design is made to be faster to start with slightly less choices with an emphasis on older style mechanics. For instance fighters in the essentials books are designed to use Melee basic attacks which are like normal attacks in previous editions, rather than choosing and using more standard style 4e at will powers. The martial classes tend to also lack daily powers. The essentials classes do tend to be very well built and have things to compensate for any losses.

An essentials class can still use the rest of 4e and vice versa. A standard fighter can pick up a knight utility since a knight is a type of fighter (knights are a type of essential fighter). A knight can also take the standard fighter utilities.

Essentials books tend to include more fluff as well.

What is better to start with is situational though since you really like 3.5 I recommend essentials as it will be less of a change (though not much less). Also the DM kit, monster vault, and rules compendium are all worth it either way you really only want to decide between the original 4e PHB and the Heroes of X books from essentials.

A good primer is to grab a premade character of the type you usually like (or ask somebody to help like me) and bring it to an encounters game or similar venue. Learning by doing is better since you are less likely to miss something than reading where you might unconsciously skip over something you think you know.

RandomAction
2011-01-29, 01:49 AM
Thanks for clearing a lot of my confusion up for me.

I normally play as a rogue character, I guess striker is the correct 4e term, and asking for help in creating one will be my first priority.

As I said, I do have access to almost all the 4e books through friends, though they are off to college at this present time and will not be back until the end of spring semester. But they have left me the books to look over while they are gone, so bonus points there I guess.

The closest available venue/encounters set-up is a good distance from where I live in VA and with my work schedule is close to impossible to be able to attend one. This leave me with the only option: Online.

So for now, I will put up a request in the recruiting thread and hope that I can find some-one willing to help break me into 4e.

Again thanks for the help.,
~RA~

BarroomBard
2011-01-29, 01:52 AM
It should be noted that the book making regular 4e and essentials compatible has not been canceled. They canceled the last essentials only book, which was to focus on the Shadow power source. Instead, the next book to come out will be the one that pushes compatibility.

MeeposFire
2011-01-29, 02:25 AM
It should be noted that the book making regular 4e and essentials compatible has not been canceled. They canceled the last essentials only book, which was to focus on the Shadow power source. Instead, the next book to come out will be the one that pushes compatibility.

The shadow book is still being created it is being delayed, not cancelled. The book you are thinking of was canceled though it is being released on another format, probably DDI. Though you do not need that book to play essentials with the rest of 4e anyway.

RandomAction

If you like rogues thief would be the obvious choice. It is very effective and straightforward. It is also the best at skills ever.

Scout would work well if you want to dual wield and if you want roguish with magic hexblade would work.

EDIT: IN terms of mechanics thieves get bonus damage for having combat advantage (analogous to flat footed, denied dex mod, and flanking in 3.5), scouts deal extra damage by virtue of extra off hand attacks (does not sound like much but it adds up fast), and hexblade by having a damage bonus on their powers based on their secondary stat (they also use a blade made of magic to attack enemies so its powers are ranged and melee).

Kurald Galain
2011-01-29, 05:48 AM
I haven't been to the Wizards site in a long time and with reading about 4.4e earlier in this thread, I am left wondering if this is just a way for them to make it even easier for new players to get started. Is it?
Kind of. The main point is that they're focusing on different playstyles. Although many forum threads state their dislike for e.g. fighters who can do nothing but normal attacks every turn, it seems (according to WOTC market research) that many players enjoy this style.


What are the major differences between the 4e and the 4.4e?
(1) most classes either have no per-encounter attacks, or no per-day attacks, or neither. (2) items are common, uncommon, or rare. (3) treasure is handed out randomly, instead of the PCs making "wishlists" and finding/making/buying those items. (4) feats are more narrow in scope, somewhat more powerful, and no longer have a "tier" prerequisite. (5) every power has two flavor text blocks that tend to repeat one another, instead of just one.


As a new player to the system, would it be better to start with 4e? or the 4.4e?
In my opinion the PHB1 has more to offer than both equivaleng 4.4 books (Heroes Of The Fallen Lands / Forgotten Kingdoms) combined.


Where can I find a good 'primer' to the system that would help lessen the confusion that can come from being new to the system?
Join a play-by-post game, or a convention, or one of those in-store Encounters games.


It should be noted that the book making regular 4e and essentials compatible has not been canceled. They canceled the last essentials only book, which was to focus on the Shadow power source. Instead, the next book to come out will be the one that pushes compatibility.
You are incorrect. Heroes of Shadow is coming out in spring (that's the book that uses the shadow power source for new builds for 4.4 characters), and Heroes of Sword and Spell has been cancelled (that's the book that would give a 4.4 version of PHB1 builds, as well as of the warlord).

The other two cancelled books are Mordenkainen's Emporium (basically the Adventurer's Vault 3, that would give us substantially more common and rare items) and Champions of the Heroic Tier (a book with themes, backgrounds, and options for crafting). It is possible that some of this content will find its way to the (steadily declining) Dragon Magazine, but WOTC has never stated that this will happen.

Reverent-One
2011-01-29, 10:18 AM
The other two cancelled books are Mordenkainen's Emporium (basically the Adventurer's Vault 3, that would give us substantially more common and rare items) and Champions of the Heroic Tier (a book with themes, backgrounds, and options for crafting). It is possible that some of this content will find its way to the (steadily declining) Dragon Magazine, but WOTC has never stated that this will happen.

Actually, they have stated the material from the canceled books will probably make it out somewhere, since they already have a lot of the content done.



Talking about doing research on how we use their content. They say these 3 didn’t fit into their master plan, and not putting out a book for its own sake. “We could put out Arcane Power II and you might only use 2% of it. We’re challenging our own plans. Is this good for the players, will it actually be used by the players in this format?” Books have been pulled off the schedule. They have the content, now how do they use it? So at least they’ll probably make it in eventually (especially the magic items, Mike Mearls says).

MeeposFire
2011-01-31, 12:45 AM
Kind of. The main point is that they're focusing on different playstyles. Although many forum threads state their dislike for e.g. fighters who can do nothing but normal attacks every turn, it seems (according to WOTC market research) that many players enjoy this style.


(1) most classes either have no per-encounter attacks, or no per-day attacks, or neither. (2) items are common, uncommon, or rare. (3) treasure is handed out randomly, instead of the PCs making "wishlists" and finding/making/buying those items. (4) feats are more narrow in scope, somewhat more powerful, and no longer have a "tier" prerequisite. (5) every power has two flavor text blocks that tend to repeat one another, instead of just one.


In my opinion the PHB1 has more to offer than both equivaleng 4.4 books (Heroes Of The Fallen Lands / Forgotten Kingdoms) combined.


Join a play-by-post game, or a convention, or one of those in-store Encounters games.


You are incorrect. Heroes of Shadow is coming out in spring (that's the book that uses the shadow power source for new builds for 4.4 characters), and Heroes of Sword and Spell has been cancelled (that's the book that would give a 4.4 version of PHB1 builds, as well as of the warlord).

The other two cancelled books are Mordenkainen's Emporium (basically the Adventurer's Vault 3, that would give us substantially more common and rare items) and Champions of the Heroic Tier (a book with themes, backgrounds, and options for crafting). It is possible that some of this content will find its way to the (steadily declining) Dragon Magazine, but WOTC has never stated that this will happen.

Some corrections

1) All essentials classes have encounter powers. Some like slayers cannot choose what they are in general but they do have encounter powers.

2) Items are not as random as you make it sound. The random element is to determine what level of rarity and the like. It is not an absolutely random system. In fact it is the same as the previous system except it will not be as exact. Players can still make wish lists if they like and DMs still have the choice of whether or not to fulfill their wishes. Items can still be made though you are restricted on uncommons and rares. You can still upgrade items using rituals though (so my uncommon fire sword +1 can be made +2 with a ritual just lie before I just cannot make that sword).

And I still hate the term 4.4:smallyuk:.

Leolo
2011-01-31, 02:53 AM
Yes, I get that, but I'm curious to learn how many people actually do so. Because at least in my area, people do it all the time when playing a more rules-light system, but when playing 4E they are instead focused on the multitude of powers, conditions, and modifiers that change every turn in combat. So I appreciate hearing that tcrudisi's group has a different experience.

I can not talk about tcrudisi's group, but in fact i have a similar opinion, and players that describe their actions.

So yes - this can lead to more in-combat role playing. But to be fair this has to be defined more specific. Instead of saying: I use power "xyz" that does condition "ABC" the player still only say a single sentence to describe his action.

Like "i throw a magic missile to those skeleton" or "i swing my sword and hit him, before i use my shield to push him back"

That works even if a description of this action is ambiguous, because of the character sheets with power card like information that can be given to the DM if questions arose.

DeltaEmil
2011-01-31, 05:48 AM
And I still hate the term 4.4:smallyuk:.One popular abbreviation that I'm reading on RPGnet would be 4EE.

Eorran
2011-01-31, 11:20 AM
As far as describing actions in combat, I find our group generally sticks to mechanics, unless there's something exciting/unusual about the action.

The oddest ability to describe IMO has to be the Bard's Vicious Mockery at-will. We had one encounter where a bard used vicious mockery to kill a Gelatinous Cube. I'm still not quite sure how to describe that.

The best I can think of is from the end of the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy (the latest movie), when Marvin shoots the Vogons with the Point-of-View gun.

Anybody else have this problem?

tcrudisi
2011-01-31, 11:28 AM
The oddest ability to describe IMO has to be the Bard's Vicious Mockery at-will. We had one encounter where a bard used vicious mockery to kill a Gelatinous Cube. I'm still not quite sure how to describe that.


Yo mama's so skinny that adventurer's walk right past her in a 5'x5' hallway.

DeltaEmil
2011-01-31, 11:37 AM
If you have the power to mock somebody to death, then I'm not going to blink an eye if you're going to do that to an acidic cube of jellow.

It is of course hilarious.

Asklepian
2011-01-31, 11:45 AM
The oddest ability to describe IMO has to be the Bard's Vicious Mockery at-will. We had one encounter where a bard used vicious mockery to kill a Gelatinous Cube. I'm still not quite sure how to describe that.

Well, given that they're not actually mindless any more, just very... simple-minded, I'd say the psychic attack inherent in the spell just broke down the simplistic bundle of instincts that drives it. So it's a brain-dead, inert blob of jello instead of a really hungry, mobile one.

Though honestly, now that I'm examining it, I'm having a hard time imagining a fight with a gelatinous cube that doesn't look kind of ridiculous no matter what tools you're using to do the job. Stabbing acidic jello to death is still fairly silly. :smalltongue:

Kurald Galain
2011-01-31, 11:53 AM
Though honestly, now that I'm examining it, I'm having a hard time imagining a fight with a gelatinous cube that doesn't look kind of ridiculous no matter what tools you're using to do the job. Stabbing acidic jello to death is still fairly silly. :smalltongue:
It's basically the same rule as in Toon RPG, where if you make a succesful stealth check, you are hidden. It doesn't matter if you're an elephant standing in the middle of the desert (and indeed, there's an illustration showing one behind a cactus, iirc), the point is that you're hidden.

(of course, this is the same game that allows you an intelligence check to see if you fail to notice gravity... it is Toon, after all)

Sine
2011-01-31, 12:53 PM
Though honestly, now that I'm examining it, I'm having a hard time imagining a fight with a gelatinous cube that doesn't look kind of ridiculous no matter what tools you're using to do the job. Stabbing acidic jello to death is still fairly silly. :smalltongue:
But what about D&D's long history of highly realistic combat (http://www.shamusyoung.com/twentysidedtale/?p=1235)? :smallbiggrin:

MeeposFire
2011-01-31, 03:28 PM
One popular abbreviation that I'm reading on RPGnet would be 4EE.

Indeed and I do find that better as it is more of a direct abbreviation of fourth editions essentials.

DeltaEmil
2011-01-31, 03:40 PM
Well, in that case, let's use 4EE (Foree). :smalltongue:

Kurald Galain
2011-01-31, 04:32 PM
Well, in that case, let's use 4EE (Foree). :smalltongue:

There's one problem with that: 4EE is defined by WOTC as a series of ten products, no more, no less. Of those ten products, four have a new design philosophy; the rest are simply accessories. There are also other planned books (most of which have unfortunately been cancelled) that follow this design philosophy.

So the series of ten products is called 4EE, and the series of books following the new design philosophy is called 4.4. For example, the Official D&D Dice are a 4EE product, but not 4.4; whereas the Heroes Of Shadow book is a 4.4 product, but not 4EE. If this sounds confusing, well, WOTC probably could have thought this through a little better.

MeeposFire
2011-01-31, 08:23 PM
There's one problem with that: 4EE is defined by WOTC as a series of ten products, no more, no less. Of those ten products, four have a new design philosophy; the rest are simply accessories. There are also other planned books (most of which have unfortunately been cancelled) that follow this design philosophy.

So the series of ten products is called 4EE, and the series of books following the new design philosophy is called 4.4. For example, the Official D&D Dice are a 4EE product, but not 4.4; whereas the Heroes Of Shadow book is a 4.4 product, but not 4EE. If this sounds confusing, well, WOTC probably could have thought this through a little better.

Are you using 4.4 to discuss 4e in its entirety or just for essentials.

If it is for the entirety it seems a little unnecessary since there are not multiple official editions and thus having a distinction of 4.4 is just superfluous outside of describing to somebody that there has been consistent updates on the rules.

If it is for just essentials then 4.4 is just inaccurate. Most of the rules changes are found in the updates not in essentials. Essentials adds mostly new material. The fact that it piggybacks off of older material does not change that it does not replace the older material.

I would also only use 4ee or similar on just the essentials products themselves (the ten products) not on the future products (though I tend to use essentials not an abbreviation). Just because they have options for classes published in an essentials book does not make it a non 4e book.

Reverent-One
2011-01-31, 08:35 PM
So the series of ten products is called 4EE, and the series of books following the new design philosophy is called 4.4. For example, the Official D&D Dice are a 4EE product, but not 4.4; whereas the Heroes Of Shadow book is a 4.4 product, but not 4EE. If this sounds confusing, well, WOTC probably could have thought this through a little better.

Or we should simply rethink using your confusing 4.4 terminology. Heck, by your standards (since PHB II was 4.1 and PHB 3 was 4.2), Heroes of Shadow very well might need to be called 4.5, given with what we've seen of it so far. If your going to give numerical designations to different parts of the game, you need to be consistent about it.

DeltaEmil
2011-01-31, 08:35 PM
We could combine 4EE and the numbers of errata into a new super-abbreviation.

5.3EE (Faifreeee). Next errata will change this to 5.4EE (Faiforee).

MeeposFire
2011-02-01, 03:10 AM
Considering that 4e treats everything as core it is just easier, more natural, and more accurate to just use 4e (no need to differentiate in most situations). However using 4ee, 4.e, essentials, or whatever might be appropriate in certain situations where distinguishing between books is important. For instance I might say essentials martial classes because they do have a theme for melee basic attacks and that can be helpful in a discussion. However when I talk about my personal groups game I would say I play a slayer in a 4e game as the fact that I include essentials classes with the older material is not important to that conversation (unless somebody makes it important somehow).

TakeABow
2011-02-01, 03:25 AM
But what about D&D's long history of highly realistic combat (http://www.shamusyoung.com/twentysidedtale/?p=1235)? :smallbiggrin:

I have been reading this and can't stop reading it.