PDA

View Full Version : 4e Session Report (WWDDGD event) - Stealth and Stupidity



Saph
2008-06-06, 07:59 PM
So, just got back from the Worldwide D&D Game Day event at the London Dungeon and thought those who haven't played 4e (and those who have, and have played the adventure) might be interested in how it went.

Note that this report contains, obviously, spoilers for the WWDDGD adventure. So if your DM is planning to run it you shouldn't read it. Of course, the munchkins among you will no doubt read it anyway, because they'll want to beat the adventure. So I might as well not have bothered even putting in this warning, because you're not going to pay it any attention. Munchkin.

Anyway.

Level 1 adventure, five characters:

Human Cleric
Human Fighter
Dwarf Fighter (Super-Dwarf).
Eladrin Wizard (Trigger-Happy).
Half-Elf Rogue (Me).

The dwarf player decided that his dwarf was going to have a French accent, because all dwarves were French. He also referred to himself in the third person as 'Super-Dwarf', so that's what I'm going to call him. The eladrin wizard will be referred to as Trigger-Happy, for reasons that will become evident later.

We get the mission briefing; it's a standard Missing Kid Quest. (The Missing Kid Quest is a staple of RPGs. One or more kids from have gone missing in [INSERT NEARBY AREA HERE], which is filled with monsters. Go find them.) We ask around and head out. The spot they've been taken to turns out to be a local mausoleum. After solving the nonsensical entry puzzle, provided by a local ghost, we find the expected secret passage leading underground and get going.

First combat encounter. Two hobgoblins start shooting at us from behind cover, hitting with nearly every shot. Super-Dwarf, being French, attempts to surrender, then changes his mind and charges. The party follows suit, and even though the hobgoblins hit with nearly every shot they make, the party quickly swarms over them and beats them to death. This is where we discover something about 4e: damage that doesn't kill you is totally irrelevant as long as you have the opportunity for a rest. As long as you don't run out of healing surges (which I've never yet seen happen) the cleric can just wait a few minutes after combat and [I]healing word everyone back up, good as new. Which was what we did.

A corridor and two rooms later, we find the kids. They're in a magic circle in a room filled with statues. It's an obvious trap, so me, the cleric, and Super-Dwarf start examining the area, looking for what to do. Unfortunately, this is the point at which the human fighter and Trigger-Happy the wizard decide to leave us behind and wander onward into the main (and final) room of the adventure. Cue forehead-palms from the rest of the players (repeat after me, kids - You Do Not Split The Party).

The room contains an evil wizard standing on a ten-foot high pillar (no, I don't know why). He delivers a standard bad-guy monologue and creates a bunch of skeletons around his pillar. Roll initiative.

This is where it gets messy, so here's the sequence of events, in initiative order:

• Skeletons move forward and attack the human fighter, doing minor damage.
• Human fighter gets her turn and attacks the skeletons back.
• Super-Dwarf gets his turn and spends an action point (which gives you an extra standard action on your turn) to dash from the statue room into the pillar room and start attacking the skeletons as well.
• Trigger-Happy gets his turn and spends an action point to teleport into the room, Icy Terrain all four skeletons, and then Thunderwave all four skeletons, damaging them and pushing them around.
• I get my turn, move up to join the fight, and snipe a skeleton. Three left. Now the cleric is the only one at the statue room.
• The evil wizard gets his turn and takes an action. Two of the statues in the statue room come to life, go immediately, advance on the cleric, hit him, knock him to the ground, stomp on him, and take him from full HP to negatives in one turn.
• The cleric gets his turn and starts rolling stabilisation checks. Now the party is surrounded, is fighting the equivalent of two encounters at once, and the only PC who can heal (the cleric) is unconscious.

Things went downhill from there.

Fortunately, at this point, I remembered a useful discussion I'd been having with Yakk on these boards a day or so ago. Rogues need combat advantage (the equivalent of denied-your-dex-bonus in 3.5) to do their Sneak Attack damage. The normal way of getting Combat Advantage in 4e is to flank. However, you also get Combat Advantage if the enemy's unaware of you.

The Stealth skill has also had a boost in 4e. You can now use it as part of a move action any time you have cover or concealment. Having an ally between you and an enemy gives you cover from them - but doesn't give them cover from you.

So, each turn I would hide (behind a wall or an ally) to gain combat advantage, then shoot, breaking stealth but getting sneak attack damage. Next turn, move again, hide again, shoot again, repeat. Unfortunately, we were still being attacked from two sides, and the statues were hitting on every attack (and they had an ability that knocked the target prone and allowed them an extra hit against that PC, doing a total of 20ish damage.) The human fighter withdrew back out of the final room - the wizard didn't pursue her, but the skeletons did. Meanwhile, the statues kept beating everyone else to death. The PCs spread their damage out over both statues rather than focusing on one, with the result that although the cleric was healed up to conscious, he was taken down again shortly afterwards, at exactly the same time that the second statue KOed Trigger-Happy and the two remaining skeletons finished off the fighter. All three PCs then proceeded to fail all three of their stabilisation saves before we could get to them with a Heal check. Dead.

This left just me and Super-Dwarf, but at this point our luck finally turned. The statues were finished off by ongoing damage from the daily powers the wizard and cleric had hit them with before going down. The skeletons moved in to attack me and the dwarf, but all of a sudden kept missing the dwarf on every attack (who announced loudly after every miss, "YOU CANNOT HIT SUPER-DWARF!"). We finished the skeletons (though I was on 2 HP by the end), rested and healed up, then came back for the wizard. For some reason he was still standing on his pillar. Maybe his feet were stuck to it or something.

Super-Dwarf charged into the room and started trying and failing to climb the pillar. He did his job of distracting the mage, though, and while the mage was trying and failing to shoot the dwarf I stayed in the entrance to the room, used the Stealth-spamming trick, and sniped the mage to death. We then went back to town, roped in some help, came back, got past the traps, and rescued the kids. Kind of an anticlimactic finish, but oh well.

------------

Now that I've played two adventures, I can say definitely that 4e is more of a tactical wargame than 3.5 is. Classes are much more divided into their team roles. There are no real 'independent' classes, making it much harder to manage if you lose a team member - the second battle immediately became difficult to impossible once we lost our cleric, because no-one else could efficiently heal. You definitely don't want to play 4e if you don't like combat-centric games, and a grid map of some sort is essential - so many powers depend on exact square placement.

On the plus side, 4e is a very fun tactical wargame. The players picked up the rules fast, faster than they would for a 3.5 game, and combats were quick and entertaining. While levelling up gives you far less growth than it did in 3.5 (a 3rd-level 4e character is not all that much stronger than a 1st-level character) you do at least get something at every level, so you're not totally static. More importantly, 4e 1st-level characters are much stronger and more fun to play than 3.5 1st-level characters are.

While I haven't tried high-level combats in 4e yet, I get the feeling that they'd be almost as fast and easy to run as low-level ones - a bit step up from 3.5. That said, the reason they're almost as fast and easy is because high-level 4e characters play pretty much the same as low-level ones. (The numbers go up, but there's very little tactical or qualitative difference.) Whether this tradeoff is worth it or not will depend on what kind of D&D game you're looking for.

The adventure itself was fun, if short. I don't think it was supposed to be quite as difficult as we found it - the fact that the GM didn't roll a single miss with the statues' attacks and scored roughly one crit per round probably had something to do with it. Most other groups finished it with much less trouble than us, but there's still a kind of satisfaction in taking out the last boss with only two characters. :) With the kids rescued, me and Super-Dwarf split the reward and headed home.

- Saph

Matthew
2008-06-06, 10:11 PM
Sounds like a good time was had by all. Thanks for reporting on this, Saph. I was a bit confused by the timing, what with WWD&DD being tomorrow. Was it some sort of midnight mass affair?

JaxGaret
2008-06-06, 10:18 PM
This is where we discover something about 4e: damage that doesn't kill you is totally irrelevant as long as you have the opportunity for a rest. As long as you don't run out of healing surges (which I've never yet seen happen) the cleric can just wait a few minutes after combat and healing word everyone back up, good as new. Which was what we did.

You also need the time and opportunity to heal up in between battles. That won't always be the case.


Now that I've played two adventures, I can say definitely that 4e is more of a tactical wargame than 3.5 is. Classes are much more divided into their team roles. There are no real 'independent' classes, making it much harder to manage if you lose a team member - the second battle immediately became difficult to impossible once we lost our cleric, because no-one else could efficiently heal.

There are magic items for healing; I don't know if you had any, since you were 1st level. Basic cure potions are 50 gp each for 10 HP healed.

Characters would be well behooved to carry some of those, in case of emergencies.

Also, in a 4-person party, it is a good idea to have a backup healer in the party, in case the main healer needs some help; Paladins or characters multiclassed into Warlord or Cleric do well for this role.

In a 5-person party, it's a very good idea to have at least one backup healer.


You definitely don't want to play 4e if you don't like combat-centric games, and a grid map of some sort is essential - so many powers depend on exact square placement.

If someone doesn't like tabletop combat, then it doesn't really matter what RPG combat system they use, sure, they can use any system.


On the plus side, 4e is a very fun tactical wargame. The players picked up the rules fast, faster than they would for a 3.5 game, and combats were quick and entertaining.

Glad you enjoyed it :smallsmile:


While levelling up gives you far less growth than it did in 3.5 (a 3rd-level 4e character is not all that much stronger than a 1st-level character) you do at least get something at every level, so you're not totally static. More importantly, 4e 1st-level characters are much stronger and more fun to play than 3.5 1st-level characters are.

Agreed. They basically took the sweet spot of 3e and expanded it to cover 30 levels. I like it.


While I haven't tried high-level combats in 4e yet, I get the feeling that they'd be almost as fast and easy to run as low-level ones - a bit step up from 3.5.

It sure seems like it. I have yet to try out any PCs higher than 6th level, though.


That said, the reason they're almost as fast and easy is because high-level 4e characters play pretty much the same as low-level ones. (The numbers go up, but there's very little tactical or qualitative difference.) Whether this tradeoff is worth it or not will depend on what kind of D&D game you're looking for.

I would disagree that there is little tactical difference. High-level character have options that lower-level characters simply do not have.


The adventure itself was fun, if short. I don't think it was supposed to be quite as difficult as we found it - the fact that the GM didn't roll a single miss with the statues' attacks and scored roughly one crit per round probably had something to do with it. Most other groups finished it with much less trouble than us, but there's still a kind of satisfaction in taking out the last boss with only two characters. :) With the kids rescued, me and Super-Dwarf split the reward and headed home.

Sounds like a job well done :smallwink:

AslanCross
2008-06-06, 10:53 PM
Hmm, so combat is quicker despite being geared toward fighting groups of enemies? If that's the case, this will definitely work well for a time-strapped DM like me. I rarely get more than 1 hour 30 minutes to run each session.

Saph
2008-06-07, 06:50 AM
Sounds like a good time was had by all. Thanks for reporting on this, Saph. I was a bit confused by the timing, what with WWD&DD being tomorrow. Was it some sort of midnight mass affair?

Yep, ran from 7pm to midnight at the London Dungeon. Fortunately they provided lights for the tables (the London Dungeon is damn near pitch black). As long as you didn't drop anything on the floor, you were okay.

Rob Heinsoo (one of the 4e designers) was there, so lots of people were queuing up to get their newly-bought PHBs signed by him. There was also a toast and snacks and stuff. It was a fun evening. :)


You also need the time and opportunity to heal up in between battles. That won't always be the case.

You only need 5 minutes. If you don't have that long, you can still use things like healing potions and second winds instead, it's just less efficient than waiting 5 minutes for the cleric to do it.


Also, in a 4-person party, it is a good idea to have a backup healer in the party, in case the main healer needs some help; Paladins or characters multiclassed into Warlord or Cleric do well for this role.

Yes, definitely. Clerics are very powerful, by the way - their healing word is very strong and they can do it as a minor action, and their at-will powers are pretty cool as well. I think pretty much every party is going to want one.


I would disagree that there is little tactical difference. High-level character have options that lower-level characters simply do not have.

Less than you'd think, honestly. The same sorts of things that a 20th-level character could do in combat, you can do at 1st-level as well. The numbers go up, but the playstyle is pretty similar.


Hmm, so combat is quicker despite being geared toward fighting groups of enemies? If that's the case, this will definitely work well for a time-strapped DM like me. I rarely get more than 1 hour 30 minutes to run each session.

Yeah, that was actually the one thing Rob Heinsoo picked out to talk about in his (very brief) speech - he said out of all the changes, he was most pleased with the fact that it only takes an hour or so for a 4e DM to prep a game. Haven't tried it for myself, but I think he's right, it is a lot faster (well, for combat encounters, at least, and that's what you're doing, I'm assuming).

- Saph

JaxGaret
2008-06-07, 10:41 AM
You only need 5 minutes. If you don't have that long, you can still use things like healing potions and second winds instead, it's just less efficient than waiting 5 minutes for the cleric to do it.

Remember that the Cleric's Healing Word ability is an encounter power, so they can only use it twice every 5 minutes out of combat.

I think that this quote from the PHB is relevant here:


SHORT REST
Duration: A short rest is about 5 minutes long.
No Limit per Day: You can take as many short rests per day as you want.
No Strenuous Activity: You have to rest during a short rest. You can stand guard, sit in place, ride on a wagon or other vehicle, or do other tasks that don’t require much exertion.
Renew Powers: After a short rest, you renew your encounter powers, so they are available for your next encounter.
Spend Healing Surges: After a short rest, you can spend as many healing surges as you want (see “Healing,” page 293). If you run out of healing surges, you must take an extended rest to regain them.
Using Powers while You Rest: If you use an encounter power (such as a healing power) during a short rest, you need another short rest to renew it so that you can use it again.
Interruptions: If your short rest is interrupted, you need to rest another 5 minutes to get the benefits of a short rest.

That's generally how you heal up in between battles, if you have the time and opportunity.


Less than you'd think, honestly. The same sorts of things that a 20th-level character could do in combat, you can do at 1st-level as well. The numbers go up, but the playstyle is pretty similar.

Oh, I agree that the playstyle is similar, but there is a noticeable difference.


Yeah, that was actually the one thing Rob Heinsoo picked out to talk about in his (very brief) speech - he said out of all the changes, he was most pleased with the fact that it only takes an hour or so for a 4e DM to prep a game. Haven't tried it for myself, but I think he's right, it is a lot faster (well, for combat encounters, at least, and that's what you're doing, I'm assuming).

I love, love, love this about 4e. 4e is love for DMs who want to keep prep time to a manageable minimum.

Pyroconstruct
2008-06-07, 11:24 AM
While I haven't tried high-level combats in 4e yet, I get the feeling that they'd be almost as fast and easy to run as low-level ones - a bit step up from 3.5. That said, the reason they're almost as fast and easy is because high-level 4e characters play pretty much the same as low-level ones. (The numbers go up, but there's very little tactical or qualitative difference.) Whether this tradeoff is worth it or not will depend on what kind of D&D game you're looking for.

I have actually tried high-level combats. This is not the case; high level combat is slow. Monster and player hp scales linearly, monster and player damage scales sublinearly, and stunning/disabling (but have very little effect on defenses-ing) powers get more common. Meanwhile, Encounter (and Daily) powers, because of the slower damage scaling, account for less of a monster's hp, and At-Will powers account for more. The end result is combats that take forever, because everything has tons and tons and tons of hp, but does fairly little damage, and also stunning and such gets thrown around much more frequently.

Yakk
2008-06-07, 11:44 AM
Stealth-cheese for the win. :)

Didn't realize that allies grant cover. That's.. sick! And as you only need to be Stealthed from one critter in order to deal sneak attack damage that round, it isn't that hard.

If high level combat ends up being screwed up due to too-many-HP and not-enough-damage, the easy fix is, well, easy -- simply add more per-encounter and per-day powers.

But are you sure that isn't more of a problem with solo monsters? Crunching the numbers at low levels, it is almost always a better idea to kill minions, then normal monsters, then elite monsters. I never tried solo monsters. The main issue is that when you do X rounds of damage against a minion or standard monster, you might have killed half of them, reducing their damage output: while you just bloodied the elite, which tends to boost the power of the elite monster.

wodan46
2008-06-07, 11:45 AM
While they might take more rounds, as you state, they would be using At-Wills more reliably, which don't take as much time to manage as a bunch of high level 3.5e spell/attacks that make you roll 10 billion die a turn and have a million different effects to keep track of. The rounds will probably play pretty quickly with only moderate slowdown compared to low level battles.

Also like that if anything, high level 4e combat sounds even more strategic than low level combat, as you will need to focus on hitting enemies with disables and the like to reduce their attack power and get more out of your relatively weak at-wills.

Rutee
2008-06-07, 11:49 AM
I have actually tried high-level combats. This is not the case; high level combat is slow. Monster and player hp scales linearly, monster and player damage scales sublinearly, and stunning/disabling (but have very little effect on defenses-ing) powers get more common. Meanwhile, Encounter (and Daily) powers, because of the slower damage scaling, account for less of a monster's hp, and At-Will powers account for more. The end result is combats that take forever, because everything has tons and tons and tons of hp, but does fairly little damage, and also stunning and such gets thrown around much more frequently.

Hm. Worrisome. Particularly with the extra stuns. I'll need to see it to figure out how I feel about it, but it's not a good portent.

Pyroconstruct
2008-06-07, 12:46 PM
If high level combat ends up being screwed up due to too-many-HP and not-enough-damage, the easy fix is, well, easy -- simply add more per-encounter and per-day powers.

But are you sure that isn't more of a problem with solo monsters? Crunching the numbers at low levels, it is almost always a better idea to kill minions, then normal monsters, then elite monsters. I never tried solo monsters. The main issue is that when you do X rounds of damage against a minion or standard monster, you might have killed half of them, reducing their damage output: while you just bloodied the elite, which tends to boost the power of the elite monster.

Well, yes, you can tinker with the system to fix it. But it's not that simple. First, we also discovered that level 30 encounters for a level 30 party are easy. Monster damage scaling sublinearly means that a party can just suck up hits, and the prevalence of incapacitation effects in high level encounter/dailies means that monster damage gets even lower.

If you try to fix it by adding more encounters/dailies to PCs, you do speed things up somewhat, but you also make it even easier and make more stunning.

Our conclusions for what needs to change with solos is that their HP needs to go down, significantly, at higher levels, and their damage needs to go up. Also, solos need to be far more resistant to crowd control effects than they are, but the best idea we could come up with is a WoW-style diminishing returns system, where monsters build up resistance to status conditions that they've been hit with multiple times.

Next question: the problem isn't just with solos. Minions have their own problem - high level minions are worthless. At level 1, 4 minions vs. one normal monster is fine; you can probably finish the normal monster off faster, but until it dies, it does more damage. Minions are slower to kill, but they do less damage as you kill more of them.

At high levels? This falls apart. Regular monsters have hundreds of hp, minions have 1. AE is prevalent. All the minions probably go splat on round one.

Now, as for what happens with elite/regular monsters, it's actually back to the same problem. Except for minions (as mentioned above) they have too much HP at high levels to kill with purely AE effects. It does go a little bit faster (especially if the monsters are dumb enough to bunch themselves up) but it still winds up taking a while. Sorrowsworn Reapers, for example, are a level 27 that packs 254 hp, solid defenses across the board, and in fact extra defense from its Bleak Visage. They aren't easy to hit, and their Mark makes it even slower. You probably can't do enough damage to take them down with AE, and you wind up having to chip through their hp with single-target attacks. They also probably shouldn't be caught bunched up anyways, what with their 8 speed, although since they can't fly the "creates difficult terrain" spells can be used to kite them.

So, you wind up having to do most of the damage to them with single-target effects. An encounter with them, at level 27, is 5 of them. An Ancient Green Dragon (a solo of the same level), has 1250 hp, so they actually have the same total hp amount. However, Reavers have better defenses and since there's 5 of them, require more time to be spent crowd-controlling and healing.

It's still faster. On the other hand, more time is going to be spent playing cleanup; after killing off enough of the monsters in a large group encounter, they really can't do enough damage to kill you, but it's still going to take a while to mop up the rest (especially since you don't want to use dailies or AP on an already-won fight).

Anyways, I encourage anyone who isn't sure if they believe me to do some playtesting of high-level 4e themselves. I found it pretty illuminating; in particular, I was expecting solo fights to be harder than they were (in fact, they're pretty much trivial, as it comes down to "stunlock it and whack away for a while"), and normal fights to be easier, whereas you'll actually take damage from a large amount of regular monsters, who can't all be easily CCd at once, and do enough damage for you to care about. It's still slow though.

Incidentally, the basic "kill the regulars, then the elites" strategy still seems the way to go at high levels, except that "CC the elites" is the first step. There's quite a few effects that can take an elite out of the fight for a while, as you clear the field of regular monsters.

Pyroconstruct
2008-06-07, 01:19 PM
Hm. Worrisome. Particularly with the extra stuns. I'll need to see it to figure out how I feel about it, but it's not a good portent.

The conclusion we came to is that 4e looks to be a pretty fun dungeon-crawl-with-RPG-dressing game at Heroic levels (1-10), but that the epic tier just has too many flaws in the basic assumptions it sets up about game play to really be worth fixing. Paragon tier isn't as bad as epic, but it's really where the problems start appearing; in particular, a lot of not-so-well made monsters like the Purple Worm show up in this tier, and CC starts to become more dominant, at the same time as damage is reaching a low point (because at-will damage doesn't improve until 21st).

We decided the way to go was to just trash everything after 10th level for players (which effectively means ignoring monsters past level 15 for regulars and 13 for elites and solos). Since 3.5 broke itself by then anyways, it's not really a massive loss. Also, Aboleth's, Chimaeras, Purple Worms, and Ropers are the only "iconic" monsters that aren't represented in that range, and frankly the Purple Worm is so poorly done that I don't care about losing it. There are some broken things at this level (like Righteous Brand) but not a lot, and within our ability to fix and playtest pretty fast.

SCPRedMage
2008-06-07, 01:42 PM
Didn't realize that allies grant cover. That's.. sick! And as you only need to be Stealthed from one critter in order to deal sneak attack damage that round, it isn't that hard.
Actually, bodies provide "soft" cover in 3.5, too. In fact, you can even Hide when you have cover in 3.5, too... But not with "soft" cover.

EDIT: Basically, the difference here is that by dropping the "soft" cover distinction, they allow for some silly, but useful, tactics like this.

Bearonet
2008-06-07, 01:49 PM
The conclusion we came to is that 4e looks to be a pretty fun dungeon-crawl-with-RPG-dressing game at Heroic levels (1-10), but that the epic tier just has too many flaws in the basic assumptions it sets up about game play to really be worth fixing. Paragon tier isn't as bad as epic, but it's really where the problems start appearing; in particular, a lot of not-so-well made monsters like the Purple Worm show up in this tier, and CC starts to become more dominant, at the same time as damage is reaching a low point (because at-will damage doesn't improve until 21st).

We decided the way to go was to just trash everything after 10th level for players (which effectively means ignoring monsters past level 15 for regulars and 13 for elites and solos). Since 3.5 broke itself by then anyways, it's not really a massive loss. Also, Aboleth's, Chimaeras, Purple Worms, and Ropers are the only "iconic" monsters that aren't represented in that range, and frankly the Purple Worm is so poorly done that I don't care about losing it. There are some broken things at this level (like Righteous Brand) but not a lot, and within our ability to fix and playtest pretty fast.

Wow, what were you *doing*? Our high-level combats didn't go much slower than the low-level ons. A little, yes, because damage slows down a little, but not that much! Ditching everything the game has after 10th level is ridiculous!

Minions do get thinned out a too fast at high levels, but you can account for that with waves of them, with tactical deployment (don't clump them together in big groups!), and so on.

For what it's worth, when my group tried high level combats we didn't have the problems Pyro's having. It was a blast. Flying enemies are tough, though.

JaxGaret
2008-06-07, 01:53 PM
Anyways, I encourage anyone who isn't sure if they believe me to do some playtesting of high-level 4e themselves. I found it pretty illuminating; in particular, I was expecting solo fights to be harder than they were (in fact, they're pretty much trivial, as it comes down to "stunlock it and whack away for a while"), and normal fights to be easier, whereas you'll actually take damage from a large amount of regular monsters, who can't all be easily CCd at once, and do enough damage for you to care about. It's still slow though.

This is caused by a simple fact: economy of actions affects battles. Big bad boss monsters have one action to the party's multiple, which favors the party.

If a Solo monster is fighting the party all by itself, of course the tactic is to lock it down and kill it. Why would you do anything else?

The real question is: why are you restricting yourself in how your encounters are constructed?

For instance, instead of having a single level 30 Solo monster fight the party who is going to get stunlocked and beat down, you could have two level 26 Solo monsters instead.

Or you could just up the difficulty of the fight, if you find it to be too easy.

Alternatively, BBEGs should know that enemies will probably be trying to stun them or otherwise lock them down, and bring their own NPC Leaders and Controllers to the fight to combat such effects.


Incidentally, the basic "kill the regulars, then the elites" strategy still seems the way to go at high levels, except that "CC the elites" is the first step.

Good tactics is good tactics. No game system is going to change that.

Yakk
2008-06-07, 03:01 PM
Solo monsters where supposed to be designed to fight a party.

If solo encounters devolve to stunlocking them (and dealing with Elites in standard encounters the same rules), then ... something is off.

Bearonet
2008-06-07, 03:05 PM
I'm not sure how "stunlocking" them could be easy given the scarcity of effects that actually *stun*, rather than impose a condition that they can still use their powers with, and given that you have to hit and they have +5 to saving throws.

Pyroconstruct
2008-06-07, 03:22 PM
The real question is: why are you restricting yourself in how your encounters are constructed?


2 26 solos is an even longer and less interesting fight than 1 level 30 solo, for a level 30 party. There's actually only one 26 solo, the Ancient Black Dragon, so lets look at that.

First, you can't really do much with AE on 2 Ancient Black Dragons. Although they're easier to hit, they have 1200 hp each for a total of 2400; about 170% that of a level 30 solo such as the Ancient Red. This is going to be a LONG fight.

Now, Black Dragons have fairly low damage output. The best they can do is alternate bite (for the DoT) and Double Attack, aside from their encounter powers and a breath weapon about every third round. But since they're underleveled, they likely only have about a 50/50 chance of hitting with their attacks, so they're dishing out - to be generous - 20 damage a round each. This isn't capable of killing a 30th level character any time soon; heals are doing 80ish at this level.

They do have the very irritatting Acid Gloom ability, which drops a temporary Zone of Darkness over the dragon. They can't do it all the time; it has a 50-50 recharge chance. It blocks LOS and hence makes attacking the dragon take a -5.

Now, weaknesses: Will Defense 35. What does this mean? It means that a 30th level party can CC these guys VERY effectively. How they do it depends on the party; the one I was running against the ancient red would probably want to use Curse of the Dark Delirium on one dragon for as long as possible, and then make it chomp on the other dragon for pitiful damage, but there's lots of other ways to do it. Now just root and nuke the other dragon; it might take a while, but you're in no real danger since it has such low damage output. Once one dragon is dead, you're fine; the other dragon really has no chance on its own and without a party member having to keep the other one CCd.

Also, I discussed non-solo encounters. "Waves of minions" does not work. 5 regular monsters is a fight. 20 minions is also supposed to be a fight, but it's actually a joke. There's several ways to get AoE attacks with a radius of 20 or more, so unless the minions are so spread out that they can't even focus fire and the PCs get to heal between waves, they're just going to get cooked. Seriously, 4 minions != 1 regular at high levels.

Xyk
2008-06-07, 03:23 PM
After reading this, I feel like 4e isn't going to be nearly as bad as so many people predicted. I am pretty excited. I have my books but probably won't switch for a while, because I am the DM and don't understand the rules well enough to create my own campaign.

Pyroconstruct
2008-06-07, 03:27 PM
Wow, what were you *doing*? Our high-level combats didn't go much slower than the low-level ons. A little, yes, because damage slows down a little, but not that much!

What "high" level are you talking, for reference? It's not a "as soon as you hit 15th level, everything takes forever," its a slow climb.

If you want to see why, just look at a Ancient Red Dragon's 1400 hp (and comparatively high defenses due to Inferno Aura giving it perma-concealment against ranged attacks and Tail Strike hindering melee getting into melee) to a Young White Dragon's 200 hp. Yeah, damage goes up, but you aren't doing 7x as much damage at 30th as at 3rd; more like twice as much. Maybe 2.5 times.

JaxGaret
2008-06-07, 03:31 PM
2 26 solos is an even longer and less interesting fight than 1 level 30 solo, for a level 30 party. There's actually only one 26 solo, the Ancient Black Dragon, so lets look at that.

Supporting evidence *snip*

Okay, I'll cede to your analysis in that case. Perhaps there are other solutions at hand? How about comparing Solo vs. Elite vs. Standard monsters a the same XP level? For example: a level 20 Solo vs. level 25 Elite vs. level 29 Standard. How do each of those stack up in terms of how the party will deal with them?

I know people will cry "But that's now how it's supposed to work!", but if you are serious about creating good encounters, perhaps you have to chuck out the mindset that Solos have to be BBEGs, Elites Lieutenants, and Standard Monsters regular guys.

If at high levels you find that standard encounter breaking down, try and use each of the types to however would best suit your battle instead.

Does that make sense?


Also, I discussed non-solo encounters. "Waves of minions" does not work. 5 regular monsters is a fight. 20 minions is also supposed to be a fight, but it's actually a joke. There's several ways to get AoE attacks with a radius of 20 or more, so unless the minions are so spread out that they can't even focus fire and the PCs get to heal between waves, they're just going to get cooked. Seriously, 4 minions != 1 regular at high levels.

I pretty much assumed this would be the case as soon as I heard about the Minion mechanic.

High-level Minions are going to need a fix.

Pyroconstruct
2008-06-07, 03:34 PM
I'm not sure how "stunlocking" them could be easy given the scarcity of effects that actually *stun*, rather than impose a condition that they can still use their powers with, and given that you have to hit and they have +5 to saving throws.

At low levels, no, you can't really stunlock. At high levels, you sure can. My favorite trick from the playtest I did was Legion's Hold to stun, using the Orb wizard power to impose a -8 penalty to saves, and then using Demigod to cycle Curse of the Fey King for d20 stealing, along with Divine Trickster to make him blow a roll. Doesn't work forever, but when the dragon needs to roll 2 13-or-betters in a row, twice, in order to get out of stun, it hurts.

What CC works best depends on the monster. We didn't want to spend time doing a Tarrasque fight, but on Ancient Red Dragon, it has low will, lowish ref, high AC, and high fort. Hurl through Hell is a stun (and you can heal during the banish portion, too, although I never even cast a single healing spell the entire fight), Curse of the Dark Delirium is better than a stun, Curse of the Golden mist isn't actually a stun but no standard action = no attack, Thirteen Baleful Stars is a stun, Long Fall into Darkness is a stun...there's quite a lot at high levels. I just went through one class there.

Bearonet
2008-06-07, 03:44 PM
What "high" level are you talking, for reference? It's not a "as soon as you hit 15th level, everything takes forever," its a slow climb.

If you want to see why, just look at a Ancient Red Dragon's 1400 hp (and comparatively high defenses due to Inferno Aura giving it perma-concealment against ranged attacks and Tail Strike hindering melee getting into melee) to a Young White Dragon's 200 hp. Yeah, damage goes up, but you aren't doing 7x as much damage at 30th as at 3rd; more like twice as much. Maybe 2.5 times.

Twice as much damage? Are you serious? In my group we tried out the Tarrasque and some friends at level 30, and my Brutal Scoundrel rogue would do somewhere between 100-120 average damage with his Assassin's Point (I actually critted with it the first for Massive Damage, which was awesome), and could get it and the rest of his daily powers back thanks to the epic destiny. I'd say encounters were doing four or five times as much damage as at third, maybe? And with Deadly Control from my epic destiny, plus reroll abilities, I even got two encounter powers and a daily power back.

Bearonet
2008-06-07, 03:53 PM
At low levels, no, you can't really stunlock. At high levels, you sure can. My favorite trick from the playtest I did was Legion's Hold to stun, using the Orb wizard power to impose a -8 penalty to saves, and then using Demigod to cycle Curse of the Fey King for d20 stealing, along with Divine Trickster to make him blow a roll. Doesn't work forever, but when the dragon needs to roll 2 13-or-betters in a row, twice, in order to get out of stun, it hurts.
Legion's Hold is really really good, yeah, and the Orb gets a bit too good at high levels... to use Demigod to cycle Curse of the Fey King you'd have to spend all the rest of your encounter powers first, though, and Legion's Hold is the wizard's level 29 daily to boot. That SHOULD be effective!

Hmm. Wow, I seriously underestimated Demigod. Coupled with a damage encounter power, that'd be a pretty huge increase in average damage. I think that might be what our Fighter was doing, actually; he was doing a lot of damage...


What CC works best depends on the monster. We didn't want to spend time doing a Tarrasque fight, but on Ancient Red Dragon, it has low will, lowish ref, high AC, and high fort. Hurl through Hell is a stun (and you can heal during the banish portion, too, although I never even cast a single healing spell the entire fight), Curse of the Dark Delirium is better than a stun, Curse of the Golden mist isn't actually a stun but no standard action = no attack, Thirteen Baleful Stars is a stun, Long Fall into Darkness is a stun...there's quite a lot at high levels. I just went through one class there.
We didn't have a Warlock, so I guess I didn't see those. Makes me reevaluate warlocks; I went with Rogue for the massive stabby damage. I don't think you should be able to consistently land those and have saves failed, really, although you'll land like 60-70%... Of course, multiclassing cleric and taking Divine Oracle might change that... hmm, maybe I should play a Warlock /Divine Oracle when we start a real campaign. A party with a Warlock and a Wizard is certainly heavy on the control; my party all wanted to do a lot of damage. I guess that's why your fights were safer but slower and mine were faster but less... controlled.

Leader monsters make things particularily challenging, I think--even lower-level Leaders.

JaxGaret
2008-06-07, 03:55 PM
I'd say encounters were doing four or five times as much damage as at third, maybe?

From multiple calculations that I've seen, this sounds about right.

Bearonet
2008-06-07, 04:04 PM
It definitely seems right to me. And what's more, you have more of them! Not only that, but you can get them back, force rerolls to make sure they hit...

Wow, I can't get over the Demigod capstone, that's amazing. That must have been what our Fighter was doing. He used the level 29 stance to get +1[W] with each hit and a free at-will power use at the start of each round, and then he kept using encounter powers.

A Flail fighter could make every attack "Cage of Chains" (Encounter 23) for 4[w]+STR vs. Reflex... or Chains of Sorrow to inflict massive defense penalties over and over... or Skullcrusher to daze... I think he was using Adamantine Strike to hit it for 4[W]+STR on an attack against Reflex and giving it an AC penalty every hit...

Wow, I hate to say it, but that Demigod capstone is... kind of way too good. I guess at 30th, with all the epic destny stuff, "solo" really doesn't mean "solo" anymore. Well, that's OK, it's level 30, the fights should be pretty epic.
And of course, comparing that to level 30 or even 20 in 3E...

Oslecamo
2008-06-07, 04:26 PM
Wait, you're saying that 4e has troubles at high levels with the monsters department?

Sounds awfully familiar, doesn't it?

Anyway, I would say that the only true way to make a solo a true challenge is either giving him insane saves so only a few debuffs manage to affect him, or just plain make him imune to effects that restringe his movement, so the party has to finish him the "fair" way.

Most games agree with this. The big bad boss is just too big and bad to be affected by the puny stuns and other tricks tricks of the party, and will only go down by plain old damage, at the same time that it jumps into the middle of the party unleashing a myriad of bad evil powers and attacks.

As for minions, well, the whole idea was doomed from the start. It works well at low levels. Only at low levels.

Sugestion, make the minions share HP. A minion team has 1 HP for each member. Every time it takes a nonmiss hit it the damage is reduced to 1 and one of the minions on the group(player's choice) dies. No player may damage a minion group more than once per round.

Pyroconstruct
2008-06-07, 04:32 PM
You realize I was underusing Legion's Hold, right? It's a massive AE stun. I used it on one target.

I really wasn't seeing the 4-5 times as much damage as 3rd. It's possible that there's a bit of a bias here because I went for the CC effects over the damage where I could when selecting the abilities. However, even at that, 4.5 times the damage and 7 times the hp means about 160% the fighting time.

Can you point me towards the calculations supporting 4-5 times as much damage? I'm still not noticing it being that much going through the numbers. Looking at Rogue, 3rd level at-wills are going to be 1W + STR + DEX + 2d8 SA, about 20ish damage. 30th level encounter powers - and this is assuming demigod here - taking the best one is 5[W]+Str+Dex+5d8 SA for about 60 damage. Of course, that's base; you can get some more from feats and magic items.

Say +1 weapon at 3rd, +6 at 30th, that makes it 21 vs. 66. For 4x damage he needs to be getting another 18 damage out of feats. I'm not sure where it's going to come from. +3 from weapon focus, +2 from light blade precision (only against large targets, but that's most everything at high levels), that makes it 21 vs. 71. Alright, it's looking like about 3.5 times damage, but that's also
a) assuming Demigod; Uncanny Trickster is more defensive in nature but very good too.
b) ignoring the level 3 rogue's encounter powers. He and his party can kill a young white dragon in about, say, 5-6 rounds, I'd expect? So even though he doesn't have much per-encounter or per-day stuff, it will make up a more significant amount of combat.

Also, this is 30 only where Demigod skews things. At, say, 26, you'd need x6 the damage of a level 3 character to keep things the same, and I don't see how you're going to get too much without Demigod being accessible to you.

Pyroconstruct
2008-06-07, 04:36 PM
Wow, I hate to say it, but that Demigod capstone is... kind of way too good. I guess at 30th, with all the epic destny stuff, "solo" really doesn't mean "solo" anymore. Well, that's OK, it's level 30, the fights should be pretty epic.
And of course, comparing that to level 30 or even 20 in 3E...

Well, the chart says an Ancient Red Dragon is an appropriate challenge for a level 30 party. My experience says it isn't; it's more or less a joke that takes 2 hours to tell. Sure, you can ignore the guidelines and toss in more stuff, but how much stuff? Not only that, but if the one guy takes that long to kill, throwing in more mooks just makes it even more time-consuming. I'm just not seeing an incentive not to stick to the 1-10 range where stuff appears to be better playtested.

Also, yeah, demigod is broken. I resisted the temptation and tried out stuff like Archmage and Deadly Trickster. Demigod owns everyone for raw power.

EDIT: 4e does level 30 better than 3e or 2e, for sure. But it seems to do it significantly worse than it does 3rd level, and I just can't see the motivation to play at high levels in 4e.

SCPRedMage
2008-06-07, 04:49 PM
Sugestion, make the minions share HP. A minion team has 1 HP for each member. Every time it takes a nonmiss hit it the damage is reduced to 1 and one of the minions on the group(player's choice) dies. No player may damage a minion group more than once per round.
The only way this differs from the standard 4e rules is that a fighter can attack minion #1, and minion #5 sudden expires on the opposite side of the battlefield.

Which is downright silly.

Minions work fine at ALL levels. The point is that they're supposed to be enemies with bonuses and defenses appropriate for the party's level, and yet are easy enough to take down that it only takes ONE solid hit to bring them down. They're easy enough to dispatch, but if ignored, CAN and DO pose a threat. That works as well at 20th level as it does at 1st.

Oslecamo
2008-06-07, 04:54 PM
Minions work fine at ALL levels. The point is that they're supposed to be enemies with bonuses and defenses appropriate for the party's level, and yet are easy enough to take down that it only takes ONE solid hit to bring them down. They're easy enough to dispatch, but if ignored, CAN and DO pose a threat. That works as well at 20th level as it does at 1st.

No, because as the party levels up it starts to be ridiculously simple to attack multiple enemies at once, and so minions will be wiped out simply too quickly for them to do any damage, at the same time that the party is still damaging the nonminion enemies.

SCPRedMage
2008-06-07, 05:06 PM
No, because as the party levels up it starts to be ridiculously simple to attack multiple enemies at once, and so minions will be wiped out simply too quickly for them to do any damage, at the same time that the party is still damaging the nonminion enemies.
Sure, you get plenty of AoE, but you DO still have to hit the minion's defenses, which are on par with non-minion monsters of the the same level. And considering you don't do ANY damage on a miss vs. a minion, that's an important issue. So long as a minion's defenses keep pace with the player's bonuses, it shouldn't be any easier to take out a minion with an AoE effect at 20th level than it is at first level.

Pyroconstruct
2008-06-07, 05:34 PM
Sure, you get plenty of AoE, but you DO still have to hit the minion's defenses, which are on par with non-minion monsters of the the same level. And considering you don't do ANY damage on a miss vs. a minion, that's an important issue. So long as a minion's defenses keep pace with the player's bonuses, it shouldn't be any easier to take out a minion with an AoE effect at 20th level than it is at first level.

That's not actually the issue. Here it is.

1) AoE becomes rapidly more prevalent at high levels than at low levels, and gets wider. Wizards get several 20-foot-radius AEs. Rangers can get a 40 foot radius AE if they so desire. This devalues minions.

2) Regular monsters scale in hp faster than player damage. You'll need more hits to kill a regular monster at 30th than 1st. This isn't true of minions; they're still one-shotted.

Saph
2008-06-07, 06:03 PM
Going back to the original report (though Pyroconstruct's reports are interesting - I'm unlikely to get to try it out for myself since no-one in my neighborhood wants to run high-level 4e games):

I had a chat with 2 out of the 4 other players from last night's game today - the two who played the human fighter and the human cleric.

General feedback was not entirely positive. The player of the human fighter's verdict was, quote, that she'd "rather eat her own finger than play 4e again". The cleric player wasn't much happier. I haven't heard back from the other two, but I get the feeling that I was the only one who completely enjoyed the session.

I'm starting to get the feeling that you have to really enjoy combat tactics to enjoy 4e. I had fun because I was working out the most effective way to kill the monsters as fast and safely as possible. The other players weren't that interested in tactics, and so weren't that interested in the fights, and so weren't that interested in the game, period.

After hearing the feedback, the two members of my regular group who didn't attend last night were left with a negative impression of 4e as well. One player only plays Druids, and lost interest immediately once I explained that you couldn't get shapeshifting or animal companions anymore. The other just couldn't be bothered to take the time off work to learn a new system.

So it looks like yesterday was the last time I'll be playing 4e for a while. I'm not really that unhappy. While 4e is fun, it's fun in the same way Descent is fun - it's really cool to begin with, but it doesn't take long to hit the top of the learning curve, and once you do the coolness fades a bit. I think I'll keep it as a system to use for one-offs and fillers.

- Saph

Pyroconstruct
2008-06-07, 06:09 PM
Well, going back to the original conversation again (sorry for derailing):

To be honest, what I'm looking for in 4e is "Descent plus" (I'm not a big fan of Descent). I don't know any good hack-and-slash RPGs that you can set up and run quickly, then kick in doors and massacre monsters for a while. I think 4e Heroic has a lot of potential for this slot.

If I want to run an in-depth long term campaign with serious roleplaying and whatnot, I'll use a system that's better at it (my favorite being HERO), and if I want to run a mini-campaign of unnecessary violence and tactical combat, right now I use 3.5 but it has issues with that (in particular - takes too damn long to build adventures for).

Oslecamo
2008-06-07, 06:09 PM
So it looks like yesterday was the last time I'll be playing 4e for a while. I'm not really that unhappy. While 4e is fun, it's fun in the same way Descent is fun - it's really cool to begin with, but it doesn't take long to hit the top of the learning curve, and once you do the coolness fades a bit. I think I'll keep it as a system to use for one-offs and fillers.

- Saph

This would explain why 3.X has been so popular over the years. There's always some crazy combo to try out.

But fear not! Once they get their feedback, WOTC will surely start poping out books with lots of new options to fuel the combo needs of the players(and make more money).

Rutee
2008-06-07, 06:54 PM
On Damage vs. HP:
I'm finding it's dropping a bit. There is, however, one major flaw int he methodology I'm using for this. Namely, *I'm not building full characters* >.<
I'm losing out on a lot of stacking minor bonuses to damage from things like implements, feats, and the like, because I'm not willing to do the work necessary for more. Bah.

Also, I'm disappointed by some monsters, like the Hydra. It's not that I think they suck as challenges, but they can be somewhat boring..

Illiterate Scribe
2008-06-07, 06:55 PM
Also, I'm disappointed by some monsters, like the Hydra. It's not that I think they suck as challenges, but they can be somewhat boring..

So our subversion is working, Rutee ... come join the dark side. :smallwink:

Rutee
2008-06-07, 06:58 PM
So our subversion is working, Rutee ... come join the dark side. :smallwink:

Hydras are exactly as interesting as they were before. That's why they're boring :smallannoyed:

The Tarrasque, for instance, is much, much better then before (Though with a different irritation. You physically can not kill it unless you can do about 700 damage in one strike)

Illiterate Scribe
2008-06-07, 07:02 PM
Also, big ol' T has its random Aura of Earthbinding - I'm aware as to why it's in, but ... it just seems like a huge sign saying 'BALANCING FACTOR', with no real background reason.

Pyroconstruct
2008-06-07, 07:06 PM
Purple Worm was my least favorite monster so far. It pops out of the ground. It grabs the someone in its jaws. Then nothing happens, while the party heals that guy every few rounds and slowly whacks the worm to death while it sits there. If you're feeling really creative (you don't need to be) you get that guy out of the grapple and see if you can sucker it into picking up the rogue so its damage output gets even crappier.

Rutee
2008-06-07, 07:07 PM
Yup. Don't see a problem with that. The only reason flight is so big in DnD is, well, itself. It's usually something your mount does in heroic (Or even epic) fantasy. Flight for anyone should have gotten a "ZOMG DnD = Anime" sign long before anything else.. :smallamused:

@^ Uh, I'll grant that it's /boring/... but why would the worm stand there instead of burrowing down?

Pyroconstruct
2008-06-07, 07:16 PM
@^ Uh, I'll grant that it's /boring/... but why would the worm stand there instead of burrowing down?

It's movement is Speed 6; Burrow 3 (tunneling). Tunneling means when it burrows, it leaves tunnels behind that any creature smaller than it (read: anyone) can follow it through. So while it can burrow down, the PCs just follow it whacking away. And everytime it runs, it gets opportunity attacks from the melee. If it wants to try and run, it's better off doing it aboveground with its 6 speed.

[see the MM glossary for how burrowing/tunneling works]

Illiterate Scribe
2008-06-07, 07:21 PM
It's movement is Speed 6; Burrow 3 (tunneling). Tunneling means when it burrows, it leaves tunnels behind that any creature smaller than it (read: anyone) can follow it through. So while it can burrow down, the PCs just follow it whacking away. And everytime it runs, it gets opportunity attacks from the melee. If it wants to try and run, it's better off doing it aboveground with its 6 speed.

[see the MM glossary for how burrowing/tunneling works]

It's whackamole time!

http://i233.photobucket.com/albums/ee50/manicpanicd/Pixels/whackamole.gif

shadow_archmagi
2008-06-07, 07:26 PM
Am I the only one wondering why people keep saying "4e is a tactical combat game"? What sort of combat did 3e have?

Is there something about 4e that makes social encounters harder? I would've thought the looser social rules would be blessing for roleplayers.

Azerian Kelimon
2008-06-07, 07:29 PM
Am I the only one wondering why people keep saying "4e is a tactical combat game"? What sort of combat did 3e have?

Is there something about 4e that makes social encounters harder? I would've thought the looser social rules would be blessing for roleplayers.

If by "Harder" you mean, harder to succeed at, yes, because you're s'posed to use skill challenges with social skills. If you mean harder to roleplay, no way. It's easier.

Waffles
2008-06-07, 07:31 PM
That sounds exactly like something that would happen in NWN2.

shadow_archmagi
2008-06-07, 07:37 PM
If by "Harder" you mean, harder to succeed at, yes, because you're s'posed to use skill challenges with social skills. If you mean harder to roleplay, no way. It's easier.


So, if the combat is more fun, and roleplaying is easier...

3e's sole advantage is its 2000 gb worth of splatbooks?

Illiterate Scribe
2008-06-07, 07:39 PM
So, if the combat is more fun, and roleplaying is easier...

3e's sole advantage is its 2000 gb worth of splatbooks?

2.8 gb, actually. Don't ask how I know.

No, 3e's advantage is the ability to use what you have in new and innovative ways without the DM just saying 'it works'/'it fails' based on fiat.

Rutee
2008-06-07, 07:40 PM
I'm not sure I buy Roleplaying being easier (Or harder), but it does make skill use more interesting and less binary. But yeah, that's pretty much it.



No, 3e's advantage is the ability to use what you have in new and innovative ways without the DM just saying 'it works'/'it fails' based on fiat.
20 pages of bad rules < no rules. Good rules > no rules, but 3.5 doesn't /have/ that, now does it?

Saph
2008-06-07, 07:43 PM
Am I the only one wondering why people keep saying "4e is a tactical combat game"?

*shrug* I'm describing the game's feel, and that is how the game feels. It's in the mould of Heroquest or Warhammer Quest or Descent.

If you disliked 3.5 because you felt there was an over-emphasis on combat and too much of the game was focused around dungeon encounters, then you probably aren't going to like 4e. On the other hand, if you enjoyed the tactical combat element of 3.5 and want more of it, with more balanced classes, then 4e is going to suit you perfectly.

- Saph

Azerian Kelimon
2008-06-07, 07:45 PM
2.8 gb, actually. Don't ask how I know.

No, 3e's advantage is the ability to use what you have in new and innovative ways without the DM just saying 'it works'/'it fails' based on fiat.

Page 42. That plus the DC tables means you NEVER have to use fiat again. EVER.

Illiterate Scribe
2008-06-07, 07:45 PM
20 pages of bad rules < no rules. Good rules > no rules, but 3.5 doesn't /have/ that, now does it?

I'd disagree. As I've said before, I'd rather have an esoteric, strange, and incomprehensible system than just 'it's up to the DM'.


Page 42. That plus the DC tables means you NEVER have to use fiat again. EVER.

Right, a table of arbitrary values. Sure, no fiat, but again - I might as well play 'roll some dice to try to get a high number'. In fact, why not have an even more streamlined system; bring back profession skills, and have the one roll be 'make a profession:adventurer check' vs. DC 19; wow, you got a 19, that means you gained a level, and selection of items that collectively grant you a +2 on future checks'; oh no, you got a 2, you die.

Azerian Kelimon
2008-06-07, 07:46 PM
I'd disagree. As I've said before, I'd rather have an esoteric, strange, and incomprehensible system than just 'it's up to the DM'.

Look up. Quoting the musician:


Say No More.

Illiterate Scribe
2008-06-07, 07:49 PM
Look up. Quoting the musician:

Remarkably enough, I do indeed read what people post.

Look up yerself.

Azerian Kelimon
2008-06-07, 07:51 PM
Remarkably enough, I do indeed read what people post.

Look up yerself.

Meh, don't take it so harshly. Just a joke, pal. :smallwink:

Illiterate Scribe
2008-06-07, 07:56 PM
http://images.encyclopediadramatica.com/images/thumb/f/f0/Awesomeweb20.png/120px-Awesomeweb20.png

wumpus
2008-06-07, 07:59 PM
Page 42. That plus the DC tables means you NEVER have to use fiat again. EVER.

I didn't think 4e had the same "track orcs across a plain during night, after snow had fallen: DC 60 - autofail for everybody except Aragon son of Arathorn.". What really screamed "RULE 0 OVERRULES ALL OTHER RULES" to this old school 1e player was when people pointed out that Haley (in the OOTS discussion) couldn't shoot the whip of a mook without the "ranged sunder feat".

I doubt there are any rules that say "you can do cool things when the plot isn't in danger, but the rules tend to be more brittle during a boss fight", but I haven't played Exaulted, though.

Azerian Kelimon
2008-06-07, 08:03 PM
I didn't think 4e had the same "track orcs across a plain during night, after snow had fallen: DC 60 - autofail for everybody except Aragon son of Arathorn.". What really screamed "RULE 0 OVERRULES ALL OTHER RULES" to this old school 1e player was when people pointed out that Haley (in the OOTS discussion) couldn't shoot the whip of a mook without the "ranged sunder feat".

I doubt there are any rules that say "you can do cool things when the plot isn't in danger, but the rules tend to be more brittle during a boss fight", but I haven't played Exaulted, though.

Nah, even the hardest DC's are doable. They're just going to be, y'know, HARD. You have 20% less of a chance of nailing the DC.

Rutee
2008-06-07, 08:23 PM
I'd disagree. As I've said before, I'd rather have an esoteric, strange, and incomprehensible system than just 'it's up to the DM'.
So you want a bad system pretty much every sane DM is going to overturn and fiat anyway, over just fiat. You're a strange one.




I doubt there are any rules that say "you can do cool things when the plot isn't in danger, but the rules tend to be more brittle during a boss fight", but I haven't played Exaulted, though.

Exalted is pretty much "You always do cool things if you can", but there's nothing for or against doing cool things in 4e, I s'pose.

Illiterate Scribe
2008-06-07, 08:36 PM
So you want a bad system pretty much every sane DM is going to overturn and fiat anyway, over just fiat. You're a strange one.

Thanks.

Isn't it a given that something - some existing structure - is better than nothing at all? I mean, that's why we have rules for RPGs.

Azerian Kelimon
2008-06-07, 08:39 PM
Thanks.

Isn't it a given that something - some existing structure - is better than nothing at all? I mean, that's why we have rules for RPGs.

Yeah, but problem is, 4th HAS rules. Good ones at that. So it's not a question about Bad Rules ==/=>/=< No rules, but rather if Bad Rules ==/=>/=< Good rules.

Illiterate Scribe
2008-06-07, 08:42 PM
Yeah, but problem is, 4th HAS rules. Good ones at that. So it's not a question about Bad Rules ==/=>/=< No rules, but rather if Bad Rules ==/=>/=< Good rules.

But bad rules - if we aren't just told to make them up - for creative use of spells. Which is what we (or, at least, I) am discussing here.

Rutee
2008-06-07, 08:45 PM
Thanks.

Isn't it a given that something - some existing structure - is better than nothing at all? I mean, that's why we have rules for RPGs.

You would play FATAL over going Freeform?

Azerian Kelimon
2008-06-07, 08:48 PM
You would play FATAL over going Freeform?

http://epilepticgaming.ggl.com/images/criticalhit2.png

Overlard
2008-06-07, 08:52 PM
On a sidenote, I played this scenario today with Rob Heinsoo DMing at a game store in Reading. Kind of a surprise to have the lead designer introducing you to the game.

Leon
2008-06-07, 11:12 PM
Am I the only one wondering why people keep saying "4e is a tactical combat game"? What sort of combat did 3e have?


3e didn't have a very close reliance on a tactical battle map

tyckspoon
2008-06-07, 11:36 PM
3e didn't have a very close reliance on a tactical battle map

Does the phrase 'attack of opportunity' mean anything to you?

Illiterate Scribe
2008-06-08, 05:27 AM
You would play FATAL over going Freeform?

Nothing justifies FATAL.

FATAL (http://suptg.thisisnotatrueending.com/archive/765406/images/592.jpg), however (http://suptg.thisisnotatrueending.com/archive/765406/images/925.png), is (http://suptg.thisisnotatrueending.com/archive/765406/images/436.jpg) wrong (http://suptg.thisisnotatrueending.com/archive/765406/images/872.png) for (http://suptg.thisisnotatrueending.com/archive/765406/images/678.jpg) a (http://suptg.thisisnotatrueending.com/archive/765406/images/279.jpg) whole (http://suptg.thisisnotatrueending.com/archive/765406/images/209.jpg) host (http://suptg.thisisnotatrueending.com/archive/765406/images/468.jpg) of (http://suptg.thisisnotatrueending.com/archive/765913/images/767.jpg) different reasons.

Seriously (http://suptg.thisisnotatrueending.com/archive/765913/images/613.png) awful. (http://suptg.thisisnotatrueending.com/archive/765913/images/293.jpg)

This is why FATAL is such an awful game. (http://img262.imageshack.us/img262/9845/picture2it4.png)

Jarlax
2008-06-08, 06:51 AM
played the adventure today and was quite surprised. i ended up not DMing but instead i was playing the cleric.

let me tell you how awesome being a cleric is. my turn undead attacks everything in a 5x5 square that is undead, then if it hits they get pushed 5 squares back and proceeds to immobilize them until my next turn, and cop 1d10+wisdom on a monster that often had weakness to radiant damage.

and even if i miss its still half that damage.

i wasn't spending every round healing. i spent most of the time shooting off lance of faith to grant an attack bonus to my rouge and that was pretty fun. and my party was happy to just pop their own healing surges once i expended my healing word.

i like warlord, but after actually playing a cleric i would jump at the chance to play one again. we got our butts handed to us in the last fight, leading to a TPK even though we had 6 people playing. my only gripe with the adventure would be it was too hard it was, especially for people with no clue how 4e worked.

we triggered the boss encounter before entering the prison door, one of the party members split off and triggered the necromancer while the rest were inspecting the doorway, bringing half the dungeons monsters down on us just for exploring the open tunnel before the locked door.

there was a lot of plowing through our copies of the PHB for certain effects and attacks, but i did notice it was faster than 3.5, thats right it took us less time to find effects in books we just got than in a system i have played weekly for years.

Bearonet
2008-06-08, 06:58 AM
3e didn't have a very close reliance on a tactical battle map

Attacks of opportunity (which almost any good Fighter type relied on, pre Tome of Battle).
Spells like Haste! Haste's targets must all be within 30 feet of each other. "Is he 25 feet away or less?" is something you can approximate; "which of these six guys won't be caught by haste"...

Kurald Galain
2008-06-08, 07:13 AM
This is why FATAL is such an awful game. (http://img262.imageshack.us/img262/9845/picture2it4.png)

:smallyuk::smallsigh::smallfrown: Is this for real? I almost find myself agreeing with Jack Chick on this one...

Illiterate Scribe
2008-06-08, 07:37 AM
:smallyuk::smallsigh::smallfrown: Is this for real? I almost find myself agreeing with Jack Chick on this one...

Oh yes, it's for real; one of the co-authors got it removed, but it's something that Hall still thinks should have been included.

These were their thoughts on the subject, that they included in their rebuttal of the review that RPGnet gave them (http://wiki.rpg.net/index.php/FRRpart4):


Hall:Personally, I'm not racist, though this may be going too far with humor. As far as no dark-skinned humans in FATAL, that was covered above, when I mentioned extracting or minimizing influences originating outside of Europe.



Burnout: I personally don’t think it’s going too far with humor. <racism redacted; follow the link>


For the record, I enjoy controversial humor.


Actually, I may consider adding an armor that makes fun of my own race, or replacing this little section. Who knows? Time will tell.

:smallsigh: