Flawed opinions?

[Krazzman]

Hello fellow playgrounders,

I have a question about the 4th edition.

I don't know if there were any threads like this but I would like to get input on some matter concerning my experiences.

So far I tried 4th Edition twice. Both times with the same DM. But since some...let's say revelations I assume that my opinion on the 4th Edition could be flawed because of him.

So here's my story:
As far as my knowledge goes I tried the Striker Role twice. Once as a Ranger where it just felt like playing WoW... and the other time a Rogue that got knocked unconcios once or twice EVERY Combat. (The second try was the Keep of the Shadowfell adventure path). The problem I had with it was it felt like playing a MMO. As far as I can recollect I build the rogue with an 18 in Dex, medium Con and Int, and Strength and dumped wisdom and charisma. So far it went that there was a Ambush of Goblins which I could only hit on a roll of 15+ (which resultet in a 20+ for hitting). As far as I can tell I took the strike against AC and Strike against Reflex. Firtjer omtp tje Adventure there were one Goblin guard, which I was sure I could knock out in one a few rounds. But after I again wasn't able to hit that bugger I nearly died to him... the 8th time this session.

So my question now is, especially about the ones that know about the crunch...
Does this drag on? Is this a fault of the system? A fault of me making a character really weak? Or maybe even the DM's? (I think our group consisted of a Dwarf Cleric, Dragonborn Paladin, Dwarf(?) Paladin, me the Rogue and I think a Wizard and later a Warlock If I recollect correctly.)

I ask this because I somehow enjoyed a few things about Dungeons and Dragons: Daggerdale. (Haven't really played it though...) Hope you can help me sort my thoughts and help me in this matter.

[Badgerish]

Keep on the Shadowfell is not a great adventure. It's a strongly (but not totally) linear dungeon for the most part, with few people to interact with (except by stabbing).

It's certainly possible for a GM to lay out the game in a very MMO manner, looking closely at the combat sections and glossing over the talking/exploring sections, but it's not an automatic element of the game. If the GM just wants to run a linear combat adventure, then that's what you will get. Iff the GM wants to open things up and encourage player-buy-in and interaction with NPCs and the environment, then you can get a fully functional adventure experience!

re: Ranged Rangers (I'm presuming that your ranger was ranged, from your comments) are powerful but can get rather boring :( It's easy to become a turret and do little more than twin-strike all day long. I played one for an adventure and I kept looking at the various tactical options available to me and thinking "... or I could just twin-strike again".
Certainly playable, but it's best to work out a hook or twist to give the character more character (multiclass is a good start for that).

re: Rogues can be pretty fragile, but usually have a decent AC/reflex to help keep them from too much harm. Charging into the middle of battle can be a bad idea though. Know your options for getting CA and always keep a ranged weapon handy (daggers are perfectly fine for this). Rogues are usually one of the most accurate classes around, so only hitting on a 15+ is rare for a rogue.
You listed two Paladins in your party, where they using the mark (Divine Challenge/Sanction) to keep some control over the enemies? Working with your allies is an important part of the game and if the defenders are not defending you, they will effect your life expectancy.

[Ashdate]

I would posit this question for you:

What are you looking for in a roleplaying system?

4e is trying to deliver a particular experience. The "WoW" factor your experience is, to what i can figure, a result of the designers attempting to balance classes by giving everyone an equal share of abilities, instead of having a some classes with only a few (i.e. 3.5 Fighters and Ranger) and some classes with hundreds (i.e. 3.5 Clerics and Wizards). Some of these design choices did a lot to balance the relative power of classes, but some players don't care if imbalance exists, and these changes therefore feel wrong to them.

I'll leave it at that, but if you would like to describe your issues with the system more ("it's too much like WoW" says pretty much nothing without further clarification).

Your experience with a rogue is in some ways typical, and in some ways atypical from my experience. I can't comment on the specifics of the encounters you faced, but Rogues are generally going to hit as often as any other striker is (perhaps even more, given how important combat advantage is for them). If you need a 15+ to hit, then something in the design of the encounter (either the encounter itself, or the way the DM was running it) was off. Rogues tend to have mediocre defenses, and mediocre hit points. With a good defender and good positioning, they can deal lots of damage, but they can't do it alone.

[Giggling Ghast]

Something's off. Even if you were using a weapon you weren't proficient with or you were forgetting to add a weapon proficiency bonus, you shouldn't need a roll of at least 15 to hit a low-level goblin, not with a Dex Modifier of +3. Their defences ain't that high.

[Krazzman]

I get it that the Adventure wasn't the best, but the problem I got with thte Rogue was that nearly every encounter was a TPKO. With me getting Knocked out once or twice every encounter. Against Goblins. We fought only Goblins and if I recollect correctly 1 Gnoll.

The problem I had was, I tried scouting ahead: stupid idea. Tried to do flanking stuff to get my sneak attack: stupid Idea because I got focused.

Our Paladins mostly jumped over the battlefield and hold hands to heal themselves up, mind this was about 2 years ago.

To the Ranger part. I first wanted to try the new TWFing but since I got so smacked up in the 2 encounters we had I asked If I could retrain and was allowed to. But that was not really the boring part that I just needed Twin Strike it was more or less that the battles all seemed: minibosses, minibosses, boss with minibosses. There were no minions and the goblins were "supertough". It sort of feeled like being in a Raid or Instance Group where the Thrash was cleared already.

The occurences why we first thought this is WoW was because of the Dwarf Paladin using his shield ability to draw attention and his mark ability and our Wizard spamming his spells like he will never run out of mana.

Hope this clarifies it a bit.

EDIT:
Yeah, could be I only post this out of remembering it from about 2 years ago, probably more. But my attacks failed 70% of the time (and not because of bad dice luck). I was playing a Human Rogue fighting with Shurikens and a Shortsword.

[OracleofWuffing]

I get it that the Adventure wasn't the best, but the problem I got with thte Rogue was that nearly every encounter was a TPKO. With me getting Knocked out once or twice every encounter. Against Goblins. We fought only Goblins and if I recollect correctly 1 Gnoll.
:smallconfused: Do you know anything else about where you were in the adventure path itself? I don't think there are any Gnolls in Keep on the Shadowfell's encounters, and you don't actually encounter multiple goblins until about four encounters in. I'm not seeing anything "A bunch of goblins and a gnoll" in the sequel adventure books, either.

I mean, yeah, it's a DM's prerogative to change encounters as he sees fit, but the books don't quite have what you're talking about.

[Ashdate]

The occurences why we first thought this is WoW was because of the Dwarf Paladin using his shield ability to draw attention and his mark ability and our Wizard spamming his spells like he will never run out of mana.

Hope this clarifies it a bit.

EDIT:
Yeah, could be I only post this out of remembering it from about 2 years ago, probably more. But my attacks failed 70% of the time (and not because of bad dice luck). I was playing a Human Rogue fighting with Shurikens and a Shortsword.

As I said before, there were attempts made to balance the classes overall. You can head into the 3.5 board for more clarification, but the change from fighters from a class that did "one thing" (attack bonuses) and wizards who did "everything" (giant spell lists) was "solved" by simply giving all classes a fairly equal amount of abilities. Part of this was at-will and encounter spells for Wizards instead of strict numbers of spells/day. The whole "marking" mechanic I personally think was brilliant (and in fact, should have been saving your rogue a lot of grief).

As a system of ensuring that no class could simply "do everything", it had the unfortunate side effect of making classes seem "video gamey" (if I can use that term). I would argue that, compared to 3e, the change was a very positive one in terms of class balance, but that again, if you were a player that never saw (or cared) about class balance, then the change ended up seeming incredibly awkward. Some people can put the weird "power" structure aside and simply think of it as combat maneuvers, believing that their character is more than a simple list of powers. Others can't. If you're one of those players, then I can tell you that 4e is not the system for you, because even with the simplified Essentials classes, the power structure remains in place.

It's not all perfect of course (what system is?) but if you recognize the strengths of 4e, then you can work on the weaknesses. And if those weaknesses are not an obstacle you or your group can overcome, then it's probably not the right system for you guys. No harm in that! People still play Rifts and that baffles me. But they're not me, and if they can make that crazy game work for them, power to them!

If I was talking about your rogue issue two years ago, I would suggest soliciting advice from your other players to see if there were options available to discourage the enemies from attacking you. Marking enemies is the obvious one, as are powers that give temporary bonuses to defenses. Today, it's nearly impossible to honestly give you advice about what you should or should not have done.

Rogues are fine strikers, but unlike Rangers, they take a bit more TLC to make them combat monsters. I remember that in our group, our poor rogue was constantly taking risks and getting punished for them, but when he had the cooperation of our Warden defender and dwarf Invoker, he could crank out some serious damage in short order. 4e is a much more cooperative game than any previous editions of D&D; if the adventure path/DM was not at fault, I assure you that your experience with the rogue was either due to playing the class incorrectly, or not working with your teammates to maximize your inherent ability to sneak attack the heck out of enemies.

[LaZodiac]

It's the DM. Playing through Keep on the Shadowfell, there's no goblins untill the actuall keep, ignoring one particularly nasty one leading a bunch of kobolds. By all rights you should of been tearing the enemies apart, assuming you were using your at wills and the like.

So yha, I'd give it another chance with a different DM.

[georgie_leech]

So here's my story:
As far as my knowledge goes I tried the Striker Role twice. Once as a Ranger where it just felt like playing WoW... and the other time a Rogue that got knocked unconcios once or twice EVERY Combat. (The second try was the Keep of the Shadowfell adventure path). The problem I had with it was it felt like playing a MMO. As far as I can recollect I build the rogue with an 18 in Dex, medium Con and Int, and Strength and dumped wisdom and charisma. So far it went that there was a Ambush of Goblins which I could only hit on a roll of 15+ (which resultet in a 20+ for hitting). As far as I can tell I took the strike against AC and Strike against Reflex. Firtjer omtp tje Adventure there were one Goblin guard, which I was sure I could knock out in one a few rounds. But after I again wasn't able to hit that bugger I nearly died to him... the 8th time this session.



You're forgetting something in that rogue, though I can't imagine what specifically. Using a classic rogue weapon like a dagger, or your shortsword and shurikens, gives you a proficiency bonus. The minimum with the dex is a +7 to hit, not +5, and that's ignoring any feats, combat advantage, or a number of other things a character could be doing to add to your chance to hit.

Incidentally, given the selection of classes, I'm assuming you guys were core only. If that's the case, why have INT be higher than the other classes? Unless you're planning on multiclassing to wizard for rituals or the like, INT doesn't actually do anything for a rogue. WIS gets you a better Will Defence, more CON = more HP, and the other two are dependent on the class feature you chose; one lets you add STR mod to sneak attacks, while the other adds your CHA mod to AC against opportunity attacks. They both also let you add other miscellaneous bonuses to various powers, listed in the powers' descriptions.

[Krazzman]

So jeah, I remember now it were Kobolds...and lots of them. For where we broke up on this: We were inside the Keep, where one or two goblin guards had their duty. Afterwards followed a mine with super sniper goblin miners.
I think that was the point where we left, maybe advanced a bit further.



You're forgetting something in that rogue, though I can't imagine what specifically. Using a classic rogue weapon like a dagger, or your shortsword and shurikens, gives you a proficiency bonus. The minimum with the dex is a +7 to hit, not +5, and that's ignoring any feats, combat advantage, or a number of other things a character could be doing to add to your chance to hit.

Incidentally, given the selection of classes, I'm assuming you guys were core only. If that's the case, why have INT be higher than the other classes? Unless you're planning on multiclassing to wizard for rituals or the like, INT doesn't actually do anything for a rogue. WIS gets you a better Will Defence, more CON = more HP, and the other two are dependent on the class feature you chose; one lets you add STR mod to sneak attacks, while the other adds your CHA mod to AC against opportunity attacks. They both also let you add other miscellaneous bonuses to various powers, listed in the powers' descriptions.

I played rogues a lot in 3.5 and we were more the we don't care for class balance, Blaster Wizard ALL the way. (Except for our DM for the 4th ed. He was a Powergamer). I assumed Int was still important for a Rogue due to being the skill monkey.
If I recollect it correctly I took Riposte Strike, Powerful Blow as at wills and my daily and encounter one...I don't really know anymore. Feats were the one that gave you d8's for Sneak Attack (don't even know if I had a second one...).

As I said I don't really know anymore what I had to roll to hit the Kobolds but I know I couldn't contribute in battle because I always got K.O.ed, often times couldn't always get my Sneak Attack off (although I always tried to move in flanking position) and could barely hit the broad side of a barn.

The last thing I want to add is: I only play with the DM for our 3.5 group and my GF. The rest of the group is not going to play with me or my GF anymore because of... certain matters.

[WickerNipple]

It sounds like your bad experience with 4e is largely about mechanical/party/DM error. It's hard to say exactly where the problem might lie, but something was wrong somewhere.

Rogues don't miss. That's part of their whole appeal. They are by far one of the most accurate of Strikers and shouldn't have any problems hitting anything in Keep of the Shadowfell. They can be pretty frail depending on build, but that sounds like an inordinate amount of dirtnapping to me.

At level 1 with no feat choices or anything fancy it should look something like:

4 (Dex) + 3 (Weapon Proficiency) + 1 (Rogue Dagger bonus) + 2 (Combat Advantage) = +10 to hit. Assuming you took Piercing Strike, you have the choice to attack either AC or Reflex.

You should do about 2.5 (1d4 dagger) + 4 (Dex) + 7 (2d6 Sneak Attack) + 2? (Strength bonus to sneak attack ~ you mentioned medium Str and dumping Cha, so I'm assuming a Brutal Scoundrel Rogue) = 15.5 damage per hit.

Your AC should be 10 + 4 (Dex) + 2 (Leather) = 16, and hopefully 18 when it matters thanks to your Defender's Mark.

Your choice of feat at lvl 1 will generally adjust one of those numbers by +1 depending on what you want to be better at. (+1 to hit, +1ish to damage, +1 to AC)

Looking at the early part of the adventure, the Kobold minions and skirmishers have an AC of 15 and a Reflex of 13 or 14, which means you should be attacking their Reflex and hitting them on a roll of 3 or 4. Even if you didn't choose Piercing Strike you only need a 5. The skirmishers have 27 hp, so you (or someone(s) else) only have to hit them twice. They are +5 or +6 to hit, so require 10s and 11s when unmarked to hit you back for pitiful damage. The minions only have 1hp - but getting rid of them should be the Wizard's job, not yours.

The Kobold Dragonshields are decent opponents one level above you with an AC of 18 (8 to hit), but for you they’re easy prey with only a Reflex of 13 (3 to hit). The Dragonshields require 3 hits from you to kill. They hit you back on a 9 (11 marked) for about 1/4th of your HP.

The Goblin Irontooth "boss" at the end of the first kobold part has an AC of 18 (8 to hit), but again a Reflex of only 16 (6 to hit). He has a lot of HP for level 1 characters to beat down (7 of your hits). He hits you back on an 8 (10 when marked, which should be always) for about 1/3rd of your hp, and once bloodied he hits you for about half your hp, but his Blood Crazed rule lets you control who he attacks. He can be a tough opponent for some level one parties, but hitting him shouldn't be the issue.

Rogues do have a big target on their heads, and often mediocre defenses (dumping both Cha and Wis doesn't help - it gives you a terrible Will defense and should be avoided, though it doesn't matter at all in the encounters above.), but your Paladin should be marking enemies like crazy which brings all those opponents to 50% to hit or below. And of course every time they swing at you they take damage from the Paladin's mark - making them die even faster. It's always a risk the guy you're stabbing in the back will return fire, but good positioning should keep you from getting too many attacks from other melee opponents. Also remember a rogue with a dagger is just as dangerous at range as melee - so there's often no reason to get into melee at all as long as you get combat advantage some other way.

Based on the story and complaints expressed I would suggest you probably haven't experienced a real game of 4th played how it should be. I'm not at all suggesting this is your fault - but in answer to your original question I think yes, your opinion is probably flawed due to this.

The combat portion of the game is very much team play unlike previous editions, and that can contribute to the problem as well if the party isn't aware of how much they need to rely on each other. (oo oooo) For example: you having combat advantage 95% of the time is a team problem for which there are tons of solutions. One of the first things a party had to learn in early 4 was how to make things like that happen (first turn for rogues, flanking, status effects - you have good access to prone/daze/blind at level one just on your own). These days it's ridiculously easy to have combat advantage all the time and mostly a non-issue.

[WitchSlayer]

Only hitting on a 15+? Even with the forgetting to calculate in the accuracy bonus with the weapon that doesn't seem right.

That along with punishing you for using tactics like scouting ahead and flanking makes me think that your DM just might not be very good at all.

[OracleofWuffing]

Kobolds, yeah, more understandable... But what WickerNipple said, you should have been able to hit them with less than what was required.

I don't know if having everyone contribute to their role better actually increases the wow-y-ness (I haven't played Warcraft), but another thing that comes to mind is that low-level Paladins aren't quite as hot without Divine Power, so it's possible you were running with lesser defenders than most are familiar with today if you didn't have access to that sourcebook.

[tcrudisi]

Only hitting on a 15+? Even with the forgetting to calculate in the accuracy bonus with the weapon that doesn't seem right.

That along with punishing you for using tactics like scouting ahead and flanking makes me think that your DM just might not be very good at all.

If you need to roll a 15+ on the dice, then the only reason I can think of is that you weren't adding any of your bonuses to the roll.

It's sort of like playing 3.5 but not adding in your BAB, str bonus, or magic enhancement bonus when making an attack. Level 12 fighter with str 20 and +3 weapon has +20 to hit. Run across an enemy with AC 17. You can only miss on a 1, but instead of adding that +20, you are just rolling and taking the number on the dice.

Really - that's all I can think of. Or, the DM was just making the monsters have AC 30 or something ridiculous that you don't see until level 11+.

[Krazzman]

If you need to roll a 15+ on the dice, then the only reason I can think of is that you weren't adding any of your bonuses to the roll.
-snip-

Yeah that could be. I think I just added my Dex to my to hit....and as I said I had a Shortsword and a not really cooperative team.
Also is there a chance to strike your allies in Ranged Combat (whilst they engaged an enemy in melee) if you don't have Precise strike?

Don't know anymore if this was a Houserule or actual ruling...haven't played a ranged combatant in a while.

[MeeposFire]

As I said before, there were attempts made to balance the classes overall. You can head into the 3.5 board for more clarification, but the change from fighters from a class that did "one thing" (attack bonuses) and wizards who did "everything" (giant spell lists) was "solved" by simply giving all classes a fairly equal amount of abilities. Part of this was at-will and encounter spells for Wizards instead of strict numbers of spells/day. The whole "marking" mechanic I personally think was brilliant (and in fact, should have been saving your rogue a lot of grief).

As a system of ensuring that no class could simply "do everything", it had the unfortunate side effect of making classes seem "video gamey" (if I can use that term). I would argue that, compared to 3e, the change was a very positive one in terms of class balance, but that again, if you were a player that never saw (or cared) about class balance, then the change ended up seeming incredibly awkward. Some people can put the weird "power" structure aside and simply think of it as combat maneuvers, believing that their character is more than a simple list of powers. Others can't. If you're one of those players, then I can tell you that 4e is not the system for you, because even with the simplified Essentials classes, the power structure remains in place.

It's not all perfect of course (what system is?) but if you recognize the strengths of 4e, then you can work on the weaknesses. And if those weaknesses are not an obstacle you or your group can overcome, then it's probably not the right system for you guys. No harm in that! People still play Rifts and that baffles me. But they're not me, and if they can make that crazy game work for them, power to them!

If I was talking about your rogue issue two years ago, I would suggest soliciting advice from your other players to see if there were options available to discourage the enemies from attacking you. Marking enemies is the obvious one, as are powers that give temporary bonuses to defenses. Today, it's nearly impossible to honestly give you advice about what you should or should not have done.

Rogues are fine strikers, but unlike Rangers, they take a bit more TLC to make them combat monsters. I remember that in our group, our poor rogue was constantly taking risks and getting punished for them, but when he had the cooperation of our Warden defender and dwarf Invoker, he could crank out some serious damage in short order. 4e is a much more cooperative game than any previous editions of D&D; if the adventure path/DM was not at fault, I assure you that your experience with the rogue was either due to playing the class incorrectly, or not working with your teammates to maximize your inherent ability to sneak attack the heck out of enemies.

I would say that the change to what a character is allowed to do was far more important than the number of powers. People ted to think the number of powers to be important but it isn't really for balance. For a 3.5 example a warmage has just as many spells as a sorc but is far less powerful. The reason is that the sorc has powers tat can do more while the warmage is mostly blasting. It was the removal of things like wish, old style summoning (action advantage), and other spells that can change how the game works that really changed the balance of the game.

[WitchSlayer]

Yeah that could be. I think I just added my Dex to my to hit....and as I said I had a Shortsword and a not really cooperative team.
Also is there a chance to strike your allies in Ranged Combat (whilst they engaged an enemy in melee) if you don't have Precise strike?

Don't know anymore if this was a Houserule or actual ruling...haven't played a ranged combatant in a while.

No, there is no chance of hitting your ally with a ranged attack when they're in melee

What level were you? 2 or above? Or were you level 1? Because with a shortsword you'd STILL have to roll above a 12, which is still pretty up there considering the average roll needed is 10ish or less.

I still say your DM is bad.

[OracleofWuffing]

What level were you? 2 or above? Or were you level 1? Because with a shortsword you'd STILL have to roll above a 12, which is still pretty up there considering the average roll needed is 10ish or less.
Since he was fighting Kobolds in Keep on the Shadowfell, he was at level one and possibly just levelled up to 2 at the end. All the Kobold fights feature soldiers that mark, and I'm guessing the Warlock stayed at ranged combat, so I'm also guessing Krazzman was target number 1 for marks. Funny thing is, if the DM was using the book format on that one, there's a sample PC Rogue that has +8 to hit.

Here's what the encounters he's facing look like in the book.
AC|Ref|Qty|Notes
|||Encounter 1
13|14|1|Artillery
15|13|5|Minion
18|13|2|Soldier
|||Encounter 2
15|14|1|Skirmisher
18|14|3|Soldier
17|15|1|Artillery
|||Encounter 3
15|13|10|Minion
15|14|1|Skirmisher
18|13|1|Soldier
13|14|1|Artillery
|||Encounter 4, Wave 1*
15|13|10|Minion
15|14|3|Skirmisher
|||Encounter 4, Wave 2*
18|13|2|Soldier
17|15|1|Artillery
18|16|1|Brute

*Wave 2 attacks 3 rounds after wave 1 starts.
If he was getting marked, then all those 15s become 17s, which isn't too far off if he was just rolling d20+Dex mod. A 14 would have been required to hit them, but there might have also been a misunderstanding and the DM possibly could have been interpreting defenses as a number to exceed, not meet. In which case, you'd be requiring a 15 to hit.


Also is there a chance to strike your allies in Ranged Combat (whilst they engaged an enemy in melee) if you don't have Precise strike?
Like everyone else said, no. The only thing Precise Strike does is give your allies a +1 bonus to attack a target that you critically hit with a ranged attack until the start of your next turn.