PDA

View Full Version : DMing in 4e



OneFamiliarFace
2008-07-01, 09:25 AM
Now, I realize that most 4e threads out there are going to be about the players, player balance, etc., simply because we are outnumbered, but I'm looking for some love/hate from the DMs.

As one who DM'd ADnD and 3.5, and played 3.5, I have always (in any game), been a fan of roleplaying and story over abilities and tactics. And now that I have my 4e books, I am really excited about DMing my first session.

Surprised? I was too. I thought the class balance was going to take away from the fun. I thought the tactical increase was going to hurt suspension of disbelief. But now I'm thinking that monster creation is a snap, and round-time/player is down, so suspension of disbelief will actually be easier as players fight more varied bad dudes and move through combat more quickly. I've only ever used graph paper and pencils before, and I see no reason why that has to change.

I think it is partly just that a new edition and new books bring new ideas. It is partly that I don't have to tear through source books for that perfect representation of my idea (which is not a problem with 3e, just something that is very freeing for the time being). As a DM, I don't miss the druid or monk too much, as their classes, by nature (pun intended), could lead adventures down all to familiar roads (if one was not careful). Either way, my mind is full of possible new powers for bad guys and even just new ways to talk about the various ways in which players are hit, harangued, or harried in combat.

The reason I am actually liking the increase in tactical options and tightening and simplification of the rules is because I never wanted to make or work on the rules in old editions. I wanted to spend more time with my hair-lipped NPC or overwhelmingly complicated BBEG plot (most of which my players would never even need to know). And now, well, I pretty much can.

So, coming from a very serious DM who plays with less serious players, I am welcoming 4e with open arms, with all of its miniony goodness. And I've noticed that in a lot of the 3e vs 4e threads, various people have been saying what kinds of houserules we can or cannot do to help their edition. So I thought this would be just for us.

What say you other DMs? Dungeons and Dragons 4th Edition. Yea or nea?

[note: Players please note that we're talking about DMs here, so I'm trying to avoid "DMing or not, I can't seem to make the character I want." Heck, your class may already be brewing in our heads (or not for those who plan to stay 3.5 or gurps or whatevs. :smalltongue:]

Dan_Hemmens
2008-07-01, 09:33 AM
I'll be DMing 4E the moment I can get my act together to arrange an actual date (everybody I play games with is massively busy most of the time). There's nothing about it I don't prefer to the previous edition.

SamTheCleric
2008-07-01, 09:34 AM
I'm the chosen DM locally... my campaign starts after I move to my new (bigger) house.

This is the first time since 2e that I'm actually looking forward to DMing... I'm actually -excited- to do it!

Eldmor
2008-07-01, 09:46 AM
I just DMed my first session a week ago and it was wonderful. It feels much less of a chore to DM and I actually had as much fun as the PCs! I'll just need "status markers" since PCs were forgetting status effects they had.

Saph
2008-07-01, 09:49 AM
I'm kind of split . . . On the one hand, if I choose to run a 4e game, DMing will be a lot less work. It's very easy to set up combats, etc, and you don't need to do so much contingency planning as there's less the PCs can do.

On the other hand, after so long running 3.5 games, running a 4e game feels almost trivial. You can railroad the PCs so easily. Trying to guide the PCs in a certain direction feels like shooting fish in a barrel. :P

- Saph

OneFamiliarFace
2008-07-01, 09:52 AM
@Sam and Dan: I hope the sessions go swimmingly. And I feel your scheduling problems Dan. Good luck wrestling with Father Time.

@Eldmor: I bet simple notecards that have the status effects with a short description of the affliction would work great. (*jots that down*) Or are you a miniature person, so you can get little travel chess magnets or something?

@Saph: One of these days, I'm going to have a gurps game set in a steam punk setting, and the whole adventure will literally take place on a train. I assume my players will enjoy the irony enough that they won't care too much.

Totally Guy
2008-07-01, 10:04 AM
I've never DMed before but I'm designated DM for our first 4th Edition campaign.

I'm putting ritual casting solidly into the story with my antagonist design. I'm going for that multiple villain story where every villain has a Xanatos Gambit on everyone else. This way the adventurers can foil a plot every week and still have a villain succeed.

One villain has a nasty plot that uses
Hand of Fate, Leomund's Chest and that Lesser Portal Ritual

He poses as an oracle, leads people into a dangerous place using hand of fate and Lesser portal. The people stay alive enslaved and are even paid very well (in line with hand of fate) but the economy is screwed up with more money than services. The only way their pay has value is if they send it to their families. But Leomunds chest has been taken by the villian from the families

batsofchaos
2008-07-01, 10:06 AM
I was very cautious of 4e when I first started hearing about it, but as soon as it hit and I had a chance to get ahold of the books, I'm definitely excited for it. The biggest deterrent for me as a DM was the lack of Bard. Not because I particularly love bards or anything; my campaign was in the process of getting off the ground and one of my players was all set to play a bard.

I decided to switch direction with everything, and start planning over from scratch (not too daunting; I just had to come up with a new premise in my pre-existing setting). I'm in the end stages of planning and will happily start up a new game in 4e pretty quickly.

Indon
2008-07-01, 10:08 AM
Mostly 'meh'. At the moment, I'm running only one campaign - an Exalted campaign.

Exalted has much of the convenience of 4th edition design ("I need stats for a guard? Okay, he has four dice for everything relevant to his job and 3 dice for everything else) while still maintaining support for the intricacy one can find in 3'rd edition design ("Man, building this 500 XP Exalt was fun. Maybe I could throw him up against the PC's...").

Furthermore, since Exalted has no expectations of balance of any kind (if the players decide to go fight something bigger than them and get themselves killed, then they've decided to go and get themselves killed - simple as that), my players aren't expecting to be able to kill everything in a straight-up fight. This way, when something is certain death, they might actually run for it. I feel that sort of thing lends to a better overall adventure.

The big thing that 4'th edition offers me is a good way to run tactical combat (which 3'rd edition is pretty bad at and, well, Exalted is Exalted). I have one prospective campaign which would heavily use tactical combat that I've abstained from running with 3'rd edition, but the campaign also extensively features a number of elements which 4'th edition would be ultimately very poor at handling compared to other systems. So unless I stumble upon some good houserules, I'm unlikely to bother.

its_all_ogre
2008-07-01, 10:25 AM
(if the players decide to go fight something bigger than them and get themselves killed, then they've decided to go and get themselves killed - simple as that).

i fail to see how 4th ed stops you doing this?
i have always done this in my games and always will, is there a chapter stating that the dm cannot do this?

Indon
2008-07-01, 10:32 AM
i fail to see how 4th ed stops you doing this?

It doesn't, but you're working contrary to how the system has been built.

Really, game rules can't stop you from doing anything.

TheStagesmith
2008-07-01, 10:39 AM
In my humble opinion, 4e is much nicer for the DM. Whenever I DM for my RL group (to give our usual DM a break and to give the players a run for their money) I rely extensively on homebrewed material to give the adventure the flavor and crunch I want it to have. With the simplicity of the rules in 4e, homebrewing is easy as pie, and if I want the elite kobold to be able to run between the players' legs, stabbing as he goes, I can do that. In 4e, the only real limiting factor is your creativity.

its_all_ogre
2008-07-01, 11:14 AM
well to be honest i'm looking forward to playing! i have dm'd 3.5 for a few years non-stop as there is an awful lot to take in for a new person to dm, nobody was up for it.
however another player has said they are willing to dm 4th ed starting with the preview module, when we'll play is another matter as my 3.5 campaign has some way for a while. once they reach a certain point we're going to stop and start 4e, i'll either convert my campaign in one way or another or stop playing it or we'll go back to 3.5 for my game.

what i'm looking forward to is the means to do large scale fights with numerous enemies via the minion mechanic, 3.5 has too many hps for lower level enemies for this to be possible.
simpler mechanics will enable people to concentrate on roleplaying rather than worrying about how they do x mechanically.

drawingfreak
2008-07-01, 11:18 AM
While I would prefer to play, chances are I am going to end up DMing 4E in the future because I am one of two people I know that own it.

With that said, I am looking forward to it almost as much as I am looking forward to playing this kickass Tiefling Warlock I put together (I have the attitude and personality quirks all figured out before I evenhit the table, which is rare for my characters).

I have a semi-Stargate idea where the players' home world is relatively safe and the one on the other side of the gate is where all the ruins, dungeons, danger and evil is. But there is a twist............................which I won't say here. :smalltongue:

Anywho, yes sir I am ready to do this thing.

The New Bruceski
2008-07-01, 11:29 AM
@Eldmor: I bet simple notecards that have the status effects with a short description of the affliction would work great. (*jots that down*) Or are you a miniature person, so you can get little travel chess magnets or something?



I've seen some cards for printing, designed to be placed in front of the player saying things like "I have been dazed" and the details. That (or smaller cards for the player to reference) could be handy until people get used to it. Speaking of which, I think I should go make some notes for Blast, Burst, Close Blast etc, because that was one of our major slowdowns last game (first time with the rules, I'm not faulting the system).

LoopyZebra
2008-07-01, 11:31 AM
In my humble opinion, 4e is much nicer for the DM. Whenever I DM for my RL group (to give our usual DM a break and to give the players a run for their money) I rely extensively on homebrewed material to give the adventure the flavor and crunch I want it to have. With the simplicity of the rules in 4e, homebrewing is easy as pie, and if I want the elite kobold to be able to run between the players' legs, stabbing as he goes, I can do that. In 4e, the only real limiting factor is your creativity.

I agree completely. Homebrewing is much easier than in third edition, which fits my style - most of the monsters in my first adventure were homebrew or modifications of existing monsters. Admittedly, they had mixed results, but they were easy and quick to make compared to 3.5.

Also, changing the fluff is really easy in 4th Ed. For example, there was a small argument back when it was announced that the Succubus was a devil, not a demon, in 4th Ed. The only mechanical difference between the two types is... nothing, as far as I can tell. It's therefore really easy to put the succubus as any type.

That said, I don't really like the spread of monsters in the monster manual, perhaps I'm used to having tons of splatbooks, or only having twenty levels, but the amount of choices for a given level seems barren. First level, for example, basically gives you the option of kobolds, goblins, or homebrew. To be fair, 3.5 may have been better in this respect; just slap a class on a monster and you can have it at any level.

There's also very few basic animals. While all the types of demonic panther and evil crocodiles are nice, so would have been the plain monsters.

4th Edition is also really easy to teach to newcomers. Moreover, it's fun - for the newcomers, who may have been overwhelmed by rules in the past, and for everyone else, cause its just fun.

Thinker
2008-07-01, 02:26 PM
Furthermore, since Exalted has no expectations of balance of any kind (if the players decide to go fight something bigger than them and get themselves killed, then they've decided to go and get themselves killed - simple as that), my players aren't expecting to be able to kill everything in a straight-up fight. This way, when something is certain death, they might actually run for it. I feel that sort of thing lends to a better overall adventure.

Have you met our group? We are not generally of the opinion that we cannot defeat something.

Stickforged
2008-07-01, 02:27 PM
I think 4ed DMG is a good book. I like both the new traps and skill challenges. The new monster format is easy to use and to modify, juicy monster powers too. I do not like the treasure parcels idea very much as i usually do not give treasure after encounters in my campaigns, random or not, but this is only a matter of DMming style.

However i cannot switch my two campaigns to 4ed, as all of my players use characters impossible to adapt to the new edition (save one, the changeling warlock...) and they have no desire to start anew...

We played KotSF just to try it and we were a bit thrown off by the "warhammerquest-ness" of the combat encounters... But as a DM i have nothing negative to say 'bout 4ed.

Trog
2008-07-01, 02:40 PM
So far:

I've read the rules and ran two combats. I can say that, at least at first, combat takes longer. Likely due to getting acquainted with the new rules and the character options. There has been lots of stop to question how the rules work.

Encounter creation? Easily much much faster. It took me longer to create the pre-generated characters than it did to make the adventure. Generally everyone was excited about their powers. Even if they did not always use them to their full advantage. I'm not sure I did either as a DM. You have to do a lot more tactical thinking.

I found it difficult to make characters keep track of their conditions so had to do a lot of reminding.

I like the rules for non-combat encounters but the DMG should have been filled with examples of this rather than the few they had in there. I have been trying to boost that through the Dungeon adventures they have been putting out online.

Blackfang108
2008-07-01, 02:47 PM
@Saph: One of these days, I'm going to have a gurps game set in a steam punk setting, and the whole adventure will literally take place on a train. I assume my players will enjoy the irony enough that they won't care too much.

I'd play it. It sounds like it'd be fun.

>.>
<.<

Or, since my friends can't get their collective tails in gear for a game of Scion, maybe I'll try something like that...

Mind if I borrow it for in-group purposes only?

EDIT: wait, I think I can get a pair of sessions on the train. I'll need to watch "Silver Streak" a few times first, though...

Human Paragon 3
2008-07-01, 03:03 PM
I'm DMing my first 4e session on Sunday. I really love the DMG and MM for the ease of encounter building. Although the range of monsters available at level 1 is annoying, I was able to fashion some encounters out of what they had, re-flavoring, adding templates, etc. I didn't home brew anything (except for a trap), and was able to spend a lot of my time thinking about the shape of the encounter instead of devoting my time to building creatures.

I'll let you guys know on Monday how it went.

AmberVael
2008-07-01, 04:18 PM
So far:

I've read the rules and ran two combats. I can say that, at least at first, combat takes longer. Likely due to getting acquainted with the new rules and the character options. There has been lots of stop to question how the rules work.

As I was there for the first combat and helping people figure things out...
Yes, getting acquainted to the rules and knowing what your character can do would speed things up a bit, but in the long run, from what I've seen so far, 4th edition combat is going to take quite a bit more time than combat in say, 3.5

There are all of the conditions, which Trog mentioned. Warlock's get to curse people, Fighters can mark them, you can bloody people and different creatures will get different bonuses/penalties from being/interacting with bloodied creatures.
Furthermore, creatures have LOADS of HP, and unlike in 3.5, your damage doesn't have the capability of scaling as fast- the few avenues of scaling you DO have can be used about once or twice per combat- and that's it. You're going to have more creatures to deal with, too.

Essentially combat hasn't so much become more complex as it has just gained tons of minor details that you're liable to forget.

Antacid
2008-07-01, 05:23 PM
There are all of the conditions, which Trog mentioned. Warlock's get to curse people, Fighters can mark them, you can bloody people and different creatures will get different bonuses/penalties from being/interacting with bloodied creatures.
Little cardboard counters are the answer. Ours have "dazed", "bloodied" and so on written on them. You can see the status of everything on the battlefield much more easily then, and players can't 'forget' when they've been blinded.

The only real slow-down in combat we've had is line-of-sight. Realistically the DM need to conceal where monsters are moving when the players can't see them, and the only way to do that is to take the miniature off the grid. Then he has to remember exactly where they are so he can reveal them if the players move or if they attack from a new direction. He currently uses a mini-map for encounters where that's likely to happen.

A problem I can see is when an encounter area has multiple layers. I'm planning an encounter where fanatical halfling cultists bunjee-jump through holes in the ceiling to attack the PCs from the floor above, that might be difficult to represent on a 2D grid. :smallwink:

OneFamiliarFace
2008-07-01, 10:33 PM
@Blackfang: As I said in another post, stealing (err...Borrowing) is one of a DM's greatest tools. Take away! Also, try to watch the train heist episode on Firefly and some westerns. Steam-run-horse riding bandits ftw. Actually...cripes, I do kind of want to run this now. :-p If only I had more than the GURPS PHB.

@3-D Combat: The part about multiple layers is a good point, I noticed other DMs in 3.5 always thinking in a very 2-D battlefield (even when we didn't use maps). And I think that trap is even easier to fall into in 4th. Though, there are always ways around it - break out old algebra books and hit up the Pythagorean theorem. My mom loved it when I told her I had to use that in a game.

The 2-D battlefield is a good issue. Any ideas on how to make sure our minds bust free of that?

Multiple maps is one way (my graph paper makes this easy, because it's smaller than dry erase or tiles). Or just some healthy DM guesswork? Ohh, I could use transparencies and dry erase markers along with my graph paper to represent that!

@Longer Combat: Just out of curiosity for the people with the longer combats, are people finding that combats are longer but rounds are still shorter? Is there a point when it gets bogged down and just feels like hack'n'slash? Maybe magic items that allow the regaining of encounter powers or something?

@Monster Manual: I tend to agree about the monster manual. The PHB, DMG and homebrew creation were more inspiring to me as a DM than most of the stuff in the MM. I think they simultaneously tried to fit in too much and too little (if that makes sense). It is kind of weird on the old sensibilities that the first orc as listed can't be fought until something like 4th level.

For animals, it seems like all you'd really need is a proper amount of hp and one basic melee attack. Pouncers could get a double-attack charge ability. Ragers could get a bonus to damage when bloodied. Bears and gorillas could get grab as an ability when they hit with a claw. Rhinos and bulls would get a charge attack like the minotaurs. Vipers do ongoing poison damage. Etc. Etc. What do ya think?

Starsinger
2008-07-01, 10:56 PM
It doesn't, but you're working contrary to how the system has been built.

Just because the system was designed so a level 3 monster challenges level 3 parties, as opposed to having mis-CR'd monstrosities like That Damn Crab, means you can't put higher level than the party creatures out there? As Oscar Wilde would put it, you are corrupt without being charming.

Rockphed
2008-07-01, 11:04 PM
@3-D Combat: The part about multiple layers is a good point, I noticed other DMs in 3.5 always thinking in a very 2-D battlefield (even when we didn't use maps). And I think that trap is even easier to fall into in 4th. Though, there are always ways around it - break out old algebra books and hit up the Pythagorean theorem. My mom loved it when I told her I had to use that in a game.

The 2-D battlefield is a good issue. Any ideas on how to make sure our minds bust free of that?

Multiple maps is one way (my graph paper makes this easy, because it's smaller than dry erase or tiles). Or just some healthy DM guesswork? Ohh, I could use transparencies and dry erase markers along with my graph paper to represent that!

For what it is worth, although pythagorean theorum works, you really only need to know the elevation difference in squares and use the bigger of the vertical or horizontal distances. Not the most accurate thing ever, but, like the current 2D rules it works. I must say that your transparencies idea is a good one. I will have to look into that.

OneFamiliarFace
2008-07-01, 11:11 PM
For what it is worth, although pythagorean theorum works, you really only need to know the elevation difference in squares and use the bigger of the vertical or horizontal distances. Not the most accurate thing ever, but, like the current 2D rules it works. I must say that your transparencies idea is a good one. I will have to look into that.

Heh. Yeah, it was just funny to see a bunch of us spring into action with pad and paper trying to figure the distance from the cleric at the bottom of the pool to get to the dying body of their friend floating in the middle. It took away from combat excitement, but it was worth it when we all realized that we had just spent time doing algebra when summer had just started (this was back in high school).

Rockphed
2008-07-01, 11:16 PM
i fail to see how 4th ed stops you doing this?
i have always done this in my games and always will, is there a chapter stating that the dm cannot do this?

Quite the contrary. There is at least one place in the DMG where it says that you shouldn't continually rescue players from their stupid mistakes(actually, I think it says not to do it at all). On the other hand, it also says that you should give them a decent chance to make it out alive if they run into something much bigger than them.

For instance, if they sneak into the Red Dragon's lair and get caught, the dragon should probably let them go for an appropriate contribution to its hoard. If they choose to fight from stupidity or misplaced bravado, it should probably express its contempt for them by blowing one of them across the room(or smacking, or trapping one in the cage of its teeth, or whatever). If they don't get the message, then killing them should go on just long enough for you to almost stop finding it fun.

Morandir Nailo
2008-07-02, 03:02 AM
That said, I don't really like the spread of monsters in the monster manual, perhaps I'm used to having tons of splatbooks, or only having twenty levels, but the amount of choices for a given level seems barren. First level, for example, basically gives you the option of kobolds, goblins, or homebrew. To be fair, 3.5 may have been better in this respect; just slap a class on a monster and you can have it at any level.

This bugged me too, until I realized that I should be looking at monsters more or less by how much XP they're worth, not just level. This doesn't always work (11th level minions, f'rex, are not appropriate), but you can go several levels up and still find things that are an appropriate challenge. I would appreciate more low-level type monsters though; I miss my vermin! (particularly my Tauric scorpion/X combos...)

Mor

potatocubed
2008-07-02, 07:20 AM
The biggest challenge I've found so far with 4e GMing is the utter dearth of interesting opponents at low level. I've never liked the 'low-level adventurers fight beetles and scorpions' thing.

Oh well... there's always goblins.

Jarlax
2008-07-02, 07:37 AM
That said, I don't really like the spread of monsters in the monster manual, perhaps I'm used to having tons of splatbooks, or only having twenty levels, but the amount of choices for a given level seems barren. First level, for example, basically gives you the option of kobolds, goblins, or homebrew. To be fair, 3.5 may have been better in this respect; just slap a class on a monster and you can have it at any level.

the solution to this is always your DMs toolbox and the monster leveling rules. you can make any monster up to 5 levels higher or lower than the party into a encounter of their level using these rules.

for example my party are facing kobolds at the moment, but kobolds wont cut it forever, players are going to get tired of the same race over again. so when they reach level 2 their opponents are going up a step, to dragonborn. there is no level 2 dragonborn in the MM, but a dragonborn soldier decreased from level 5 to level 2 does the trick nicely. alterations through homebrew or templates and even that one dragonborn stat block might last me 4 or 5 encounters.

low levels does suffer, once you get to level 5 you can draw from the 5 level below you and the 5 levels above you. however lower than that there are no monsters to draw from because you hit level 1 and cannot go lower.

OneFamiliarFace
2008-07-02, 10:37 PM
I'm not sure, but isn't it the case that PCs can also fight things not of their level now. So level 2 creatures can still be fit into a level 1 encounter? I'm not sure, but in the example encounters, it seems to have some things like this. I'd have to look up more specifics first.

And there's always palette swapping!

RTGoodman
2008-07-02, 10:42 PM
I'm not sure, but isn't it the case that PCs can also fight things not of their level now. So level 2 creatures can still be fit into a level 1 encounter? I'm not sure, but in the example encounters, it seems to have some things like this. I'd have to look up more specifics first.

And there's always palette swapping!

Exactly. An EL 1 encounter doesn't have to be 5 Level 1 monsters (or whatever the equivalent is using mix-and-max Minions, Standards, Elites, and whatnot). You could have higher levels monsters, lower level monsters, or whatever you want. The only rule is to stick to your XP Budget (see DMG 56-59, I think) and try not to use creatures more than 3 or 4 levels higher than the party.

LoopyZebra
2008-07-02, 10:46 PM
Well, like you all said, monsters can be easily modified, or you can fit monsters of different level in a given encounter. I, personally, modified a snake into a level 1 challenge, for example. It's easy, and does help alleviate the problem. I mentioned earlier that was one of the strengths of 4E.

However, there does still seem to be a dearth of low-level enemies. Creatures such as orcs, bugbears, hobgoblins, troglodytes, various animals, etc. are no longer level 1, whereas they were level 1 in 3.5. I don't like comparing the editions like that, but still, for the DM who doesn't really want to modify anything, level 1 adventurers can basically have a coherent and interesting adventure against goblins or kobolds. If the adventure doesn't have to be coherent, you can definitely mix and match rats, scorpions, etc., but that's just silly. (On the surface, anyways. I'm sure someone can make an interesting level 1 adventure with no homebrew not using kobolds or goblins.)

OneFamiliarFace
2008-07-02, 11:34 PM
(On the surface, anyways. I'm sure someone can make an interesting level 1 adventure with no homebrew not using kobolds or goblins.)

Skizzard the wizard has been modifying creatures to horrifying proportions and been sending them out to the local tavern's basement!

Location:
Basement

Interesting features:
Barrels of foodstuffs
Ale caskets which can be attacked to make the muddy ground around them soggy and difficult terrain.

Encounter:
2 Giant rats w/ acid spit at-will
2 of the level 1 scorpos

New take on an old quest. No goblins allowed! Follow-up finds them in Skizzard's modestly sized laboratory tower, where they face all manner of strange rats, ending in the elite Skizzard and his rat-man retinue (palette swapped goblins? :-p). Explosive beakers abound!

RTGoodman
2008-07-03, 12:00 AM
I'm sure someone can make an interesting level 1 adventure with no homebrew not using kobolds or goblins.)

I could, but the real question is, why would I want to? :smalltongue: I mean, I just wrote up a whole 1st level adventure using JUST kobolds (and some of their minions, like guardian drakes and stuff).

Actually, looking at the charts at the back of the MM, you could probably do quite a bit with various insects (scorpions, spiders, etc.), rats, and lizards. So, basically, a whole adventure against "creepy-crawlies."

Starsinger
2008-07-03, 09:00 AM
However, there does still seem to be a dearth of low-level enemies. Creatures such as orcs, bugbears, hobgoblins, troglodytes, various animals, etc. are no longer level 1, whereas they were level 1 in 3.5. I don't like comparing the editions like that, but still, for the DM who doesn't really want to modify anything, level 1 adventurers can basically have a coherent and interesting adventure against goblins or kobolds. If the adventure doesn't have to be coherent, you can definitely mix and match rats, scorpions, etc., but that's just silly. (On the surface, anyways. I'm sure someone can make an interesting level 1 adventure with no homebrew not using kobolds or goblins.)

Whereas, in 3.5 creatures like rats, kobolds, goblins, and the like weren't even worth an entire CR by themselves. So you had to fight more of them to equal a pack of orcs. Same as using level 2 orcs to model a level 1 encounter, if you ask me.

Dan_Hemmens
2008-07-03, 09:37 AM
However, there does still seem to be a dearth of low-level enemies. Creatures such as orcs, bugbears, hobgoblins, troglodytes, various animals, etc. are no longer level 1, whereas they were level 1 in 3.5. I don't like comparing the editions like that, but still, for the DM who doesn't really want to modify anything, level 1 adventurers can basically have a coherent and interesting adventure against goblins or kobolds. If the adventure doesn't have to be coherent, you can definitely mix and match rats, scorpions, etc., but that's just silly. (On the surface, anyways. I'm sure someone can make an interesting level 1 adventure with no homebrew not using kobolds or goblins.)

Don't forget that "level 1" means something very different in 4E to 3.X.

In 3.X a "CR1" creature was supposed to be enough to challenge a level 1 party all by itself. In 4E a "Level 1" creature is only supposed to be able to threaten a low level party in large numbers.

Plus the rules are fairly clear that a "level 1" encounter should basically mean "500XP worth of monsters" rather than necessarily "five level one creatures". A dozen Zombie Rotters or Human Rabble is a perfectly acceptable encounter. A couple of wolves is fine. You probably don't want to take on a cave bear yet, but there's plenty of options that aren't Kobolds.

Swordguy
2008-07-03, 09:56 AM
@Longer Combat: Just out of curiosity for the people with the longer combats, are people finding that combats are longer but rounds are still shorter? Is there a point when it gets bogged down and just feels like hack'n'slash? Maybe magic items that allow the regaining of encounter powers or something?


In my 2 sessions worth of 4e experience, this seems to be correct. The side bonus is that we're no longer sitting and waiting for the fighter to roll 4 attacks at a time, or the wizard to pick which spell to cast. It's certainly kept the players far more engaged during the time in which they aren't acting so far. I can get through a single character's action in about 15 seconds, tops, unless we need to look up a rule. So counting in NPCs, we're looking at (given the size of combats we've had so far in KotS) 2-minute top-to-bottom combat rounds.

That beats the pants off of any previous edition of D&D I've played.

Indon
2008-07-03, 10:21 AM
Have you met our group? We are not generally of the opinion that we cannot defeat something.

You've disengaged from combat a few times before. Remember Chakra-chick and her other Wyld Hunt friends?


Just because the system was designed so a level 3 monster challenges level 3 parties, as opposed to having mis-CR'd monstrosities like That Damn Crab, means you can't put higher level than the party creatures out there? As Oscar Wilde would put it, you are corrupt without being charming.

Sure you can - but you get to explain to all your players that you aren't running 4'th edition the way the book tells you to run 4'th edition, or they're likely to complain after they die (or, for that matter, complain that you aren't following the rules when you explain).

Alternately, you could just play Exalted.

Dan_Hemmens
2008-07-03, 10:29 AM
Sure you can - but you get to explain to all your players that you aren't running 4'th edition the way the book tells you to run 4'th edition, or they're likely to complain after they die (or, for that matter, complain that you aren't following the rules when you explain).

I think that you're unfairly representing 4E here. The book never says "Nothing the PCs fight must ever be above their level" it only says "encounters of this level make good encounters for PCs of this level".

Are you honestly telling me that you think that if a bunch of first level PCs tried to attack - say Orcus or Elminster, and got their asses handed to them, that they would insist that you were somehow "cheating"?

4E "Levels" are exactly the same as 3.X "Challenge Rating" except that they might actually work.

Indon
2008-07-03, 11:14 AM
4E "Levels" are exactly the same as 3.X "Challenge Rating" except that they might actually work.

Well, that's just it - as far as I can tell, they do work. So people expect them to work. Which means that people who know how the 4'th edition CR system works will be expecting just that - combats normalized to them.

The book does say, "These are good encounters." What's unwritten, but a natural extension of that, is that going outside of the book's recommendations is considered making bad encounters. And you can either deal with your party's reaction to that, or play something else.

Dan_Hemmens
2008-07-03, 11:20 AM
Well, that's just it - as far as I can tell, they do work. So people expect them to work. Which means that people who know how the 4'th edition CR system works will be expecting just that - combats normalized to them.

The book does say, "These are good encounters." What's unwritten, but a natural extension of that, is that going outside of the book's recommendations is considered making bad encounters. And you can either deal with your party's reaction to that, or play something else.

On the other hand, the book also gives you concrete, defined stats for specific monsters.

The players have the right to complain about being ambushed by an Ancient Black Dragon in their local tavern at level 1, I might even argue that they have the right to complain if the local Kobold tribe turns out to work for an honest to god pit fiend.

People constantly act like the 4E rules force the DM to adjust the NPC stats to match the PCs. They don't. They don't even suggest it as an option. The entry for Orcus in the MM doesn't say "these are the stats for Orcus if your PCs meet him at level 30, but obviously he should only ever be a couple of levels above your party."

Indon
2008-07-03, 11:32 AM
The players have the right to complain about being ambushed by an Ancient Black Dragon in their local tavern at level 1, I might even argue that they have the right to complain if the local Kobold tribe turns out to work for an honest to god pit fiend.

Of course they have the right to argue in a system that's built to keep players from facing up against things they can't beat. That's my point.

Not all systems are built that way - they lack specific features and the expectations that accompany them.

drawingfreak
2008-07-03, 11:40 AM
I believe this was stated before, but also keep in mind that when you de-level a monster, you can only go as far as 5 levels.

So to even make an Ancient Black Dragon beatable you would have to de-level it to a Level 21 as a Hard difficulty encounter against a level 18 party of five.

Friv
2008-07-03, 11:50 AM
Furthermore, since Exalted has no expectations of balance of any kind (if the players decide to go fight something bigger than them and get themselves killed, then they've decided to go and get themselves killed - simple as that), my players aren't expecting to be able to kill everything in a straight-up fight.

Man, I wish one of my players would learn that lesson.

"What, this guy's a rogue elder Sidereal who's been avoiding the Bureau of Destiny for over seven hundred years? I bet I can kill him with one sneak attack."

:smallannoyed:

Dan_Hemmens
2008-07-03, 11:51 AM
Of course they have the right to argue in a system that's built to keep players from facing up against things they can't beat. That's my point.

If that's your point then it's utterly non-controversial.

You seem to be claiming more, though, you seem to be claiming that the PCs have a right to complain if they deliberately seek out an Ancient Black Dragon, and it winds up being too strong for them.


Not all systems are built that way - they lack specific features and the expectations that accompany them.

Not all systems work that way, but the two most recent editions of D&D do.

The point, however, is that there is an enormous difference between "the DM is not expected to push the players into fights they can't handle" and "the DM is not allowed to give the players a fight they can't handle regardless of circumstances".

To put it another way: 4E scales like Morrowind or Diablo. You start out at a low level in a safe location fighting weak monsters. You gradually progress to more dangerous places where you fight more dangerous monsters. A lot of people, however, seem to be claiming that it scales like Oblivion, with monsters auto-levelled so that they're a "challenge" no matter when you encounter them. That simply isn't true.

Indon
2008-07-03, 12:23 PM
The point, however, is that there is an enormous difference between "the DM is not expected to push the players into fights they can't handle" and "the DM is not allowed to give the players a fight they can't handle regardless of circumstances".
I'm not talking about being allowed or not being allowed. I'm talking about how the rules as written guide a players' expectations.


To put it another way: 4E scales like Morrowind or Diablo. You start out at a low level in a safe location fighting weak monsters. You gradually progress to more dangerous places where you fight more dangerous monsters. A lot of people, however, seem to be claiming that it scales like Oblivion, with monsters auto-levelled so that they're a "challenge" no matter when you encounter them. That simply isn't true.

I would say that 4'th edition, not being a video game, scales like both of them in various respects.

Games that have areas with set monsters with set strengths introduce a strong 'sandbox' element to a game that a tabletop game would honestly have difficulty replicating (without extensive supplimentary material or work on the DM's part, at least).

Meanwhile, games that have scaling monsters have a strong control element that most tabletop games don't have (they can, but I know very few DM's who would).

4'th edition uses elements of both. Obviously, if you travel to the Plane of So-and-so, the players are likely to plop down in a level-appropriate area of the plane (the control element), but if they say, "Hey, lets go find and kill the boss of the place!" then all bets are off (the sandbox element).

Exalted has fewer control elements than 4'th edition does (mostly because Exalted has next to no such elements), so it takes better to a sandbox-style game because it lacks expectations about things like relative power levels.

Antacid
2008-07-03, 01:30 PM
Obviously, if you travel to the Plane of So-and-so, the players are likely to plop down in a level-appropriate area of the plane
Assuming the DM wants them to.


but if they say, "Hey, lets go find and kill the boss of the place!" then all bets are off (the sandbox element).

Assuming the DM... oh, I've done this bit.

I think you're doing an amazing job of making lemonade into lemons here. In practise, you can put the players up against any level of monster you like. You can make Orcus a level 1 minion if you want, and really confuse them. The only difference is that because the challenge system has been balanced and standardised across all levels, the DM can have a reasonable chance of creating an encounter with the difficulty level he intends, instead of leaving it pretty much up to fate and PC optimization.

MartinHarper
2008-07-03, 06:10 PM
Sure you can - but you get to explain to all your players that you aren't running 4'th edition the way the book tells you to run 4'th edition, or they're likely to complain after they die (or, for that matter, complain that you aren't following the rules when you explain).

The DMG encourages the DM to give PCs some challenges that are under-levelled and some challenges that are over-levelled. It also suggests making sure that PCs should have a way to run away from over-levelled challenges.

OneFamiliarFace
2008-07-03, 08:29 PM
The DMG encourages the DM to give PCs some challenges that are under-levelled and some challenges that are over-levelled. It also suggests making sure that PCs should have a way to run away from over-levelled challenges.

Martin's right here. I'm confused as to how what is 'not explicity stated' is being used as part of core rules. Many people have said this but: it needs to be restated that the Monster Manual (a book to which 'players' in theory do not need to have access) never says you have to pit the players against things their level. It suggests you do not pit them against minions not of the proper level (as that is not their point) and that if you pit them against something too hard, they should be able to run away.

And, the fact that the DMG has one of the absolute best systems for balanced and innovative monster creation in DnD goes a long way towards ensuring that the players face any encounter you want them to. So, actually, the core rules now heavily favor new ways to build encounters and monsters.

If the players, at level one, stumble upon a level 20 dragon, then that is simply not a combat encounter, in any edition of DnD. It is the PCs being a meal for a dragon. They have no chance for overcoming it, so it just is not an encounter. Likewise, if level 20 PCs pick their teeth with the bones of level 1 goblins, it is again not an encounter, unless the goblins were afforded some ridiculous advantage (making it something other than a level 1 encounter really).

For some reason, all of this level 1 guy, level 20 dragon talk is making me want to read The Hobbit again. Bilbo vs Smaug. You'll note they didn't fight. :-p

wodan46
2008-07-03, 10:52 PM
Its important to realize that for both players and monsters, there is much more initial toughness, meaning that there isn't as much difference between a level 1 PC and a level 2 PC. Only 20% HP, and that's the biggest between level change percentage wise.

Anything from levels 1-5 can be incorporated into a level 1 encounter as is and not break the system, or you can use the already provided rules to scale them down until they are a level 1 standard monster rather than a level 5 standard monster moonlighting as a boss. In fact, if you apply both the scaling down and the use of higher than player level monsters (both of which are quite balanced), you could have anything in the monster manual from 1-10 fight a level 1 party. And it would be balanced and not deviate from Core rules.

Furthermore, overleveled and underleveled encounters are common in KotS, reflecting the need for varied challenges. One encounter pits you against a level 3 elite, his level 2 soldiers, and a level 1 caster. Your party is level 1 at the time. Its tough but winnable.

JaxGaret
2008-07-04, 02:56 AM
ITT: A single poster showing their very obvious vehemently anti-4e stripes, even against all logic.

I can't stand stuff like that. It's okay if you don't like 4e, but don't spread misinformation about it, for pete's sake.

Dan_Hemmens
2008-07-04, 04:24 AM
I'm not talking about being allowed or not being allowed. I'm talking about how the rules as written guide a players' expectations.

That's fair. I don't think it's unreasonable to say that in 4E the players can expect not to be asked to fight an overwhelmingly powerful enemy, but that's not the same as saying they can't expect to fight enemies that are more powerful than they are, or than expecting anybody they randomly attack to be autolevelled to a beatable level.


I would say that 4'th edition, not being a video game, scales like both of them in various respects.

Games that have areas with set monsters with set strengths introduce a strong 'sandbox' element to a game that a tabletop game would honestly have difficulty replicating (without extensive supplimentary material or work on the DM's part, at least).

Meanwhile, games that have scaling monsters have a strong control element that most tabletop games don't have (they can, but I know very few DM's who would).

4'th edition uses elements of both. Obviously, if you travel to the Plane of So-and-so, the players are likely to plop down in a level-appropriate area of the plane (the control element), but if they say, "Hey, lets go find and kill the boss of the place!" then all bets are off (the sandbox element).

That's pretty much what I mean by "scales like Morrowind", as opposed to scaling like Oblivion, in which if you said "Hey, lets go find and kill the boss of the place" he'd still be auto-matched to your level (and where, on the flip side, once you got powerful enough, bandits started carrying Daedric weapons for no clear reason).


Exalted has fewer control elements than 4'th edition does (mostly because Exalted has next to no such elements), so it takes better to a sandbox-style game because it lacks expectations about things like relative power levels.

True, but Exalted has assumptions all of its own. While players don't expect to be able to face nothing but "fair challenges" they do expect to be allowed to be cool. If your Solars are trudging from ingnominious defeat to ignominious defeat then you're doing something wrong.

d-dave
2008-07-04, 06:17 AM
From my recent one off DMing game (with a test group of my old gamers) they loved it. I loved it because I used to take so much time creating combats that were interesting instead of simply rolling dice. Combat went fairly quickly as people had the choice of their individual powers and the different types of enemies. It was fun in the first couple of combat rounds as people got used to the ideas of the movement squares and what not.

I love 4e because it allows the encounter creation system to be streamlined. No more what monsters do I need to use here. I really like that they have all these higher level incarnations at hand. I hated when I would stat out things like a 4th level Troglodyte adept only to have it killed by that damn ranger PCs outrageous bow crit.

I do miss all the variety of 3/3.5 because of all the thousands of pages worth of stuff I've accumulated over the years with it. But at the same time, I think the new system has merit as a game on its own. I will still run 3/3.5 games from time to time because of the flavor of it. It was still fun! I think in time once I've run 4e for a while, then I'll really be able to tell if its "better" than 3.5.

Right now, 4e is the brand new toy that shiney and new. Let the dust settle in about a year and we'll get a good idea of the real quality of the system.

OneFamiliarFace
2008-07-05, 05:20 AM
Yeah, and that's the experience I've been hearing from most DMs.

This wasn't really about 3.5 or 4e being better. I just wanted to hear some DM's chiming in, because it seemed like any complaint threads were centered around player choices and minor rules mechanics (and how those applied to players) rather than what's new in the DM toolbox.

There are more players than DMs, so their complaints do have merit, because if every DM loved the game and every player didn't, then that would only be netting about 1/5 of the people or so :-p.

But I'm a firm believer of the fact that if the (non-sadist) DM is having fun, chances are good that everyone else is too!

drawingfreak
2008-07-05, 08:23 AM
But I'm a firm believer of the fact that if the (non-sadist) DM is having fun, chances are good that everyone else is too!
NON-sadist Dms? Those exist? There are people out there that don't want to see their players squirm and cry? I find this hard to believe.

Rockphed
2008-07-05, 08:48 AM
NON-sadist Dms? Those exist? There are people out there that don't want to see their players squirm and cry? I find this hard to believe.

Well, the squirming and crying are just icing on the cake. The real fun comes from them screaming and collapsing on the floor.

OneFamiliarFace
2008-07-05, 08:55 AM
Well, the squirming and crying are just icing on the cake. The real fun comes from them screaming and collapsing on the floor.

Though you really should try the squirming and crying. There is a subtle art to getting players to call you "messed up," just before they start wearing the varnish off their seats. And if you can manipulate them to tears, then they taste delicious.

This, of course, can be done regardless of the edition one is playing (though for best results, mix PCs with a 3.5 Rust Monster and shake, the crumbled weapons really accent the sweet-bitterness of the tears).

EagleWiz
2008-07-05, 09:06 AM
My only major problem dming in 4.0 is that you have to homebrew spells and rituals for the BBEG. Other then that it is far easyer.

Indon
2008-07-05, 10:05 AM
The DMG encourages the DM to give PCs some challenges that are under-levelled and some challenges that are over-levelled. It also suggests making sure that PCs should have a way to run away from over-levelled challenges.

That section isn't talking about giving them challenges over 3-4 levels above them (which is where the "Hard" challenge category ends) - they're talking about using monsters over 8 levels above the players in an encounter - it's a warning against, say, using a level 11 creature in lieu of a level 2 Solo creature (even though the level 11 creature costs less XP), because high levels like that significantly increase their lethality.

But it would have been a help had the system talked about that.


One encounter pits you against a level 3 elite, his level 2 soldiers, and a level 1 caster. Your party is level 1 at the time. Its tough but winnable.

If that encounter had 3 soldiers, then it's 25 xp over a level 3 encounter; if it had 4 soldiers, then it's 25 xp over a level 4 encounter - it's following the encounter level system perfectly fine (and a demonstration of the system's effectiveness, I might add). Though I may be wrong, if there were 6 or more soldiers involved.


True, but Exalted has assumptions all of its own. While players don't expect to be able to face nothing but "fair challenges" they do expect to be allowed to be cool. If your Solars are trudging from ingnominious defeat to ignominious defeat then you're doing something wrong.

That's certainly a good point - but in Exalted, running away or dying a certain death can look awesome, too. :P

Eldmor
2008-07-05, 11:33 AM
@Eldmor: I bet simple notecards that have the status effects with a short description of the affliction would work great. (*jots that down*) Or are you a miniature person, so you can get little travel chess magnets or something?

I use plastic minis for PCs and notable NPCs, dice or tokens for the rest. People in my group like to memorize their sheet and keep it to the side, which hinders temporary status a lot. I'm thinking of using little snippets of Post-It with only the sticky side. I'll also take WizO's advice and use poker chips as bases for marking/cursing/quarrying(?).
On another note, I do use a "random encounter" mechanic if the PCs stay somewhere dangerous. I'll roll a d20 for each hour they rest and a 20 indicates baddies knocking on their tent or in the next encounter. Expand the number as needed for security. (Like, the PCs built a fire inside the lair of a white dragon and his icy kobold/drakes. This turned into a 18-20.)

I've already come up with some particularly nasty abilities for some BBEGs. My favorite is a 6-Recharge summoning ability that can be stored/stacked. Store up two uses to summon an Elite, or really ^$%# with them by manging to get five and summon a Solo. Obviously, creatures summoned will be of a lower level.

EDIT: Also, does anyone have advice for playing 4e on hexes? Oftentimes our group uses Heroscape tiles so I can easily make terrain instead of my usual dry-erase board.

Starsinger
2008-07-05, 11:50 AM
EDIT: Also, does anyone have advice for playing 4e on hexes? Oftentimes our group uses Heroscape tiles so I can easily make terrain instead of my usual dry-erase board.

I recommend taking the word Square, whenever you encounter it, and replacing it with hex.

Eldmor
2008-07-05, 12:16 PM
I recommend taking the word Square, whenever you encounter it, and replacing it with hex.

Really that simple? Does hexing not interfere with flanking in any major way? (Aside from there being only 6 adjacent squares instead of nine.)

Gwain
2008-07-05, 12:25 PM
Really that simple? Does hexing not interfere with flanking in any major way? (Aside from there being only 6 adjacent squares instead of nine.)

the only problem i can see it's with AOE powers, and that's not like a real problem, to be honest.

Talking about DM'ing in 4th edition.,

i stopped DMing when the 3rd edition came out (i still think that 2nd edition + Player's option books are better than 3.x), and went back to 4th, started DMing and running a campaign for a couple of weeks now.

Actually, we have tried 2/3 campaigns in 3rd edition, but noone liked it, for different reasons (mine being that i should've choosed beetween studying/working for a week, or building an encounter).

I think that should explain how i feel ;)

Starsinger
2008-07-05, 12:31 PM
Really that simple? Does hexing not interfere with flanking in any major way? (Aside from there being only 6 adjacent squares instead of nine.)

It cuts down the number of creatures that can be flanking to 3 pairs instead of 4, but other than that it doesn't change much.

Vortling
2008-07-05, 12:32 PM
I haven't DM'd 4e yet and probably won't. Here's why. 4e fills a different gaming niche than 3e. I does do tactical combat well, but my group isn't really into that. Since 4e has moved itself out of D&D's previous gaming niche and into the "fast, streamlined, heroic" niche, I have to compare it to the systems I already have that fill that niche. 4e just doesn't measure up compared to them.

To get into more specifics, I haven't used a straight up monster from the monster manual in a long time. Most of the things my players fight are humanoids with class levels. The way 4e does it just doesn't jive with me so I'll be passing on the DMing.

OneFamiliarFace
2008-07-05, 09:26 PM
Really that simple? Does hexing not interfere with flanking in any major way? (Aside from there being only 6 adjacent squares instead of nine.)

Yeah, it shouldn't hurt too much. A few more or less creatures might be caught in a blast here or there. And flanking can be done the ol' 3e way: if you can draw a line solidly between the players, across the monster's base, then they are flanking.

@Vortling: That's cool. I guess I always saw 3e as heroic fantasy as well. (Same as 2e). Every class in all editions gains the ability to do some pretty spectacular and weird stuff. I think 4e did itself a disservice by naming its abilities the way it did. Because they don't really have to be heroic fantasy in nature. Just because a weapon swing is dealing a lot of damage doesn't make it unrealistic or super-human. In fact, that's probably more realistic, as swords hurt.

And even for 'gritty' or horror campaigns, I don't see the players getting abilities such as they do disrupting it. 3e had all the same problems to me as a DM (not the least of which was 2 of the common races having darkvision). And spellcasting eventually overpowered any non-heroic fantasy elements in the game. From a DM's perspective, I kind of like the idea of ritual casting being the only way to incorporate really powerful, area influencing spells.

But it really does just come down to a personal choice.

JaxGaret
2008-07-05, 09:48 PM
To get into more specifics, I haven't used a straight up monster from the monster manual in a long time. Most of the things my players fight are humanoids with class levels. The way 4e does it just doesn't jive with me so I'll be passing on the DMing.

It's actually fairly reasonable to create an NPC that resembles a PC pretty closely, but since I know that you have an inherent dislike for 4e (without even really giving it a try or a chance), I'm not going to push you about it.

SoulCatcher78
2008-07-07, 08:19 AM
4e from a DM standpoint looks to be easier to run (both in combat and out of it). It reminds me of AD&D and 2e quite a bit since it's removed (or truncated) the (IMO)absurd number of obscure rules that had to be known for any given situation and replaced them with "guidelines".

While this may lead to (heavan forbid) differences in each individual game, I think it allows the DM and Players to craft the experience that they desire. You can make it as complicated/easy as you desire, just use you imagination (which iirc, is the point).

Encounters are now simplified (this does not mean dumbed down) and the ability to generate monsters that fit your encounter is fantastic (for those of you concerned about no Orcs to fight at level 1, reskin some goblins and it's all good...they're the sickly cousins of the MM Orcs).

Minions...oh the joy of minions, I wish we had used something like this (omg I feel old) back in the day for large scale combats. You can now have your threat level and your squishy (read:blow'emup) goodness too.

I understand why so many of the older (edition) DMs are interested in 4e, it gives us back a feeling of control to our games that we didn't have in the last edition.

OneFamiliarFace
2008-07-07, 08:52 AM
I can definitely see that. And even as I am finding some minor problems with 4e, I continue to enjoy the fact that it has taken a lot of that freedom of ADnD and combined it with a clear and succinct rules system for those who desire that to make sense of what is going on. That's why I like the new edition so much:

I got what I wanted, and the players still have what they want.

I never DM'd any thrice-templated multi-classers, so I don't know how they will fare, but I'm sure that an innovative person can come up with something to match the flavor. Still, I haven't felt like any of my players have been unable to play something at least near what they want (necromancers and druids aside for right now at least). And a few people who didn't have the money for supplements can now play the warlock they always wanted or, (for the players less logistically minded) a wizard that the DM doesn't have to help them build.

And, in a strange reversal of fate, I think I actually can pull my friends away from WoW now with some of the new options. (And I'm not making a WoW comparison...it's just the new system is friendlier to people used to getting more bang for their buck when they level. People can start playing that card when WoW gets a DM who can tailor the game to his players. Let's be honest here, WoW copied DnD which copied Tolkien who combined ancient European folklore and copied that.)

Anyway, now that I'm done with that. I've said my piece. Minions 4 Ever.

Tormsskull
2008-07-07, 09:33 AM
The best thing about 4e so far is that it reinvigorated my players. Before it was difficult to get the group to sit down for a session of 3.5. When I introduced 4e, everyone in the group immediately signed up to play 4e on a regular basis.

A few tips for DMs out there:


Create ability cards that tell the player exactly what they can do. I did this for KotS and it was hugely popular. I made them look identical to the abilities as presented in the book, and it was very helpful to the players to know that they had to turn over their red cards when they used them in an encounter (and could turn them back to face up after the encounter), and that they had to turn over their gray cards for the entire day once they used them.
Use pre-created battle maps or dry-erase boards and make sure to add detail to them. Just as in prior versions of D&D, a boring battlefield often leads to a boring battle.
Terrain!!! Terrain is hugely important now that PCs and enemies have ways of pushing/pulling/sliding enemies around.
If you can have a laptop at the table, pre-program an initiative calculator and a Perception calculator. I did this in Excel and it saved a HUGE amount of time.


And of course, have fun.

SoulCatcher78
2008-07-07, 07:45 PM
The best thing about 4e so far is that it reinvigorated my players. Before it was difficult to get the group to sit down for a session of 3.5. When I introduced 4e, everyone in the group immediately signed up to play 4e on a regular basis.

A few tips for DMs out there:


Create ability cards that tell the player exactly what they can do. I did this for KotS and it was hugely popular. I made them look identical to the abilities as presented in the book, and it was very helpful to the players to know that they had to turn over their red cards when they used them in an encounter (and could turn them back to face up after the encounter), and that they had to turn over their gray cards for the entire day once they used them.

Good idea, just a couple of quick questions on how you did it:
1.What size did you print them
2.Did you use something as backing (old playing cards, etc) so they don't curl.
3.After watching the video podcast of the play session and seeing them marking them off in a binder, I like this idea much better.


*snip*
If you can have a laptop at the table, pre-program an initiative calculator and a Perception calculator. I did this in Excel and it saved a HUGE amount of time.


Share? or is it something as simple as a quick sheet that you can drag the character's name around on along with monster designators?

LoopyZebra
2008-07-07, 08:24 PM
The power cards here (http://groups.google.com/group/tools-for-dms/files) should the trick. Supposedly, there's something similar in the Character Sheet packs released later this month.

Tormsskull
2008-07-08, 06:41 AM
Good idea, just a couple of quick questions on how you did it:
1.What size did you print them
2.Did you use something as backing (old playing cards, etc) so they don't curl.
3.After watching the video podcast of the play session and seeing them marking them off in a binder, I like this idea much better.


I actually made them using cardstock, specifically Avery 5392. Of course, after I spent a few hours making the ones I knew I would need for the upcoming adventure, one of my players discovered that someone else had already created ALL of the cards.

Here's a link that player found: http://www.mediafire.com/?9yigxywq1zc



Share? or is it something as simple as a quick sheet that you can drag the character's name around on along with monster designators?

Here's a link to a thread I started regarding the Initiative Calculator. Take a look at it and if you are interested in it I can e-mail it to you (it is built in Excel 2007).

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=84239

SoulCatcher78
2008-07-08, 07:57 AM
Looks like a great way to save paper, PM sent.

Spreeth
2008-07-08, 03:40 PM
I just finished DM'ing KotS for my group, and I have a few things that I have implemented which seem to work fairly well for 4th Edition:

1) In 3rd Edition, I always kept track of initiative order. With fewer monsters in a combat, I found that this tight reign was not only generally accepted (at conventions as well as in my personal sessions), but that it was expected. In 4th Edition, I have experimented with allowing one of my players keep track of the initiative order and it is working extra-ordinarily well.

2) I have many different-sized cut-outs that I place under the miniatures. I have made cardboard cut-outs with numbers to keep track of multiple monsters that are NOT minions (Minions really don't need numbers, they die at the drop of a die). I have cut-outs of red felt for bloodied characters. And multi-colored cut-outs for marking. I have assigned another PC to keep track of placing all of the cut-outs as they occur in a combat.

What does this leave for me to do during a combat? I keep track of the various monsters' HP, their conditions (like blinded etc.), and most importantly tactics.

In general, this makes the combats much more stream-lined (Solo monsters generally last longer than other battles I have found).

I also have found that Dungeon Tiles are a HUGE asset as most of the sessions were centered around dungeon crawling. I will be purchasing the 2nd module simply because of the fact that there seems to be such a greater emphasis on terrain in 4th Edition and having pre-made maps makes my job easier.

Trog
2008-07-08, 03:57 PM
okay, I have run a couple of more combats since the last time I posted, and, honestly, these ran much faster than the previous encounters I had run at the Southwest GitP Meetup. But these combats were also for 4 first level characters instead of 6 8th level ones. There's really only a couple more powers and feats to differentiate between the levels but any extra can make it difficult. Also it seems there were many people who did not game together and some who had not gamed in quite some time at the table at the meetup. The combats with guys I have played with for 20+ years went fairly smooth, actually. As far as figuring out the rules and such. And when I say all of this I guess I mean smooth from the player's side.

Generally things went smooth "behind the screens" in all ways except that I often mess up my tactics. Running a practice battle with monsters or making a battle plan ahead of time that utilizes the bad guys tactical advantages is definitely something I will need to do as DM. Proper tactics really can shift up the difficulty of an encounter. I also anticipate difficulty trying to keep track of conditions. Though I have been figuring out ways to do that as well.

Gwain
2008-07-08, 04:00 PM
4e from a DM standpoint looks to be easier to run (both in combat and out of it). It reminds me of AD&D and 2e quite a bit since it's removed (or truncated) the (IMO)absurd number of obscure rules that had to be known for any given situation and replaced them with "guidelines".

[...]

I understand why so many of the older (edition) DMs are interested in 4e, it gives us back a feeling of control to our games that we didn't have in the last edition.

I should quote you whenever someone asks me why i started DMing again after 10 years!

SoulCatcher78
2008-07-08, 08:59 PM
I should quote you whenever someone asks me why i started DMing again after 10 years!

:smallredface:

Now that we can all see why we would prefer to DM 4e, why does there seem to be a lack of 4e PBP games recruiting? I'm sure there's all sorts of time issues, writing up a new campaign, familiarizing ourselves with the rules, etc type of problems but it makes me want to start one if for no other reason then to work out the kinks in the system.

Living in the middle of nowhere and working 50+ hours a week means that this is the best opportunity for me to get back into DMing but I'm afraid that I'll run into the typical PBP problem...dropping it due to RL issues.

As an aside (fork?) to the OP, what about 4e will make it easier to run as a PBP game.

LoopyZebra
2008-07-09, 01:44 AM
I doubt it will be easier to run as a PbP, in fact, I see it being much, much harder. Combat is what slows down PbP, and 3.5's combat over 4th's seems to work better for the medium (though, in my opinion, 4e combat is much better). There are various ways to reduce the time (such as having players post simultaneously, or roll all the dice at the same time, etc.), but because of the focus on tactical combat, it may be unfair to players to "streamline" things like this.

On the other hand, 4e is good for virtual tabletops (programs like MapTools), just like it's good for real tabletops. I'd recommend that a 4e Desk DM run a virtual table game over PbP, due to how the game's structured.

Charity
2008-07-09, 02:00 AM
Trog I use coloured counters for tracking conditions.
Each player that can mark has thier own colour, and then we use other colours for other effects.

http://i21.ebayimg.com/07/i/000/b5/31/c19e_1_b.JPG as long as they don't have more than about 8 effects going at once they are fine to stand the figures on.

Some guy (http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/500-x-22mm-Opaque-Plastic-Counters-Teaching-Resources_W0QQitemZ280229240369QQcmdZViewItem?hash =item280229240369&_trksid=p3286.m14.l1318#ebayphotohosting) sells them on ebay, but I imagine they are pretty easy to get hold of.

Erk
2008-07-09, 02:04 AM
I am *loving* the ability and status ailment cards. Checking out those files posted here; big kudos to the people who posted the links. Here in my last few days of working at a school is a good time to start printing up piles of frivolous d&d stuff :elan:

Thamir
2008-07-09, 02:40 AM
I ran the same adventure (tomb of horrors) twice, once in 3.5 and once in 4th just to see how it would go. The result of my experiment is that my players hate 4th and so do I so we are houseruleing 3

The New Bruceski
2008-07-09, 03:47 AM
I ran the same adventure (tomb of horrors) twice, once in 3.5 and once in 4th just to see how it would go. The result of my experiment is that my players hate 4th and so do I so we are houseruleing 3

You adapted ToH to 4th this quickly? I'm impressed.

SoulCatcher78
2008-07-09, 08:31 AM
I ran the same adventure (tomb of horrors) twice, once in 3.5 and once in 4th just to see how it would go. The result of my experiment is that my players hate 4th and so do I so we are houseruleing 3

If you can get people to play in TOH more than once, you're doing something right (I couldn't get players to agree to go back after the first time :evilgrin: ). Sorry to hear that it didn't work out well in 4e though.

OneFamiliarFace
2008-07-10, 09:07 PM
As an aside (fork?) to the OP, what about 4e will make it easier to run as a PBP game.

Yeah, I think overall, we're going to have to see some kind of electronic map editors pop-up in order to play 4th. It won't be too difficult with a number and letter grid though. Your ooc stuff would just include both rolls AND (I move to A4 and slide him to C4). I think people will have to take more liberties with describing what they do in combat too, which will be nice.

Alternatively, I guess people could just describe what they are trying to do, and the DM notes it. "I maneuver the goblin around, harrying him with my blade, until he stands between me and Hrothgar. [ooc: slide to be flanking] And the DM would then decide how it goes down.

Starbuck_II
2008-07-10, 09:47 PM
I ran the same adventure (tomb of horrors) twice, once in 3.5 and once in 4th just to see how it would go. The result of my experiment is that my players hate 4th and so do I so we are houseruleing 3

What did you change to update it to 4th?

What happened on 4th edition game that the players disliked it?

Maybe you adapted the module badly: after all, it isn't an official 4th adventure.

Vortling
2008-07-10, 09:59 PM
It's actually fairly reasonable to create an NPC that resembles a PC pretty closely, but since I know that you have an inherent dislike for 4e (without even really giving it a try or a chance), I'm not going to push you about it.

I didn't see your post until just now so I apologize for bring it up. However I believe your facts are incorrect. I've played Keep on the Shadowfell up to the Irontooth encounter where the entire party was TPK'd (If you wish to hear a third party account of my attitude towards 4e during the game, please pm SamtheCleric. He was the DM of that game). I've played 3 or 4 single shot level 11 encounters. I'm considering joining another game of 4e with people on these boards and if someone starts a game in irc I'm willing to play unless I have real life time commitments.

Thus I object to your statement that I haven't given it a try or a chance.

JaxGaret
2008-07-10, 10:03 PM
I didn't see your post until just now so I apologize for bring it up. However I believe your facts are incorrect. I've played Keep on the Shadowfell up to the Irontooth encounter where the entire party was TPK'd (If you wish to hear a third party account of my attitude towards 4e during the game, please pm SamtheCleric. He was the DM of that game). I've played 3 or 4 single shot level 11 encounters. I'm considering joining another game of 4e with people on these boards and if someone starts a game in irc I'm willing to play unless I have real life time commitments.

Thus I object to your statement that I haven't given it a try or a chance.

Fair enough. I could have sworn that I had read your saying that you hadn't actually played it yet.

Vortling
2008-07-10, 10:47 PM
Fair enough. I could have sworn that I had read your saying that you hadn't actually played it yet.
I'm sure I did make a post saying that I hadn't played 4e yet. Then I went and played it. :smallbiggrin:

JaxGaret
2008-07-10, 10:50 PM
I'm sure I did make a post saying that I hadn't played 4e yet. Then I went and played it. :smallbiggrin:

Ah, okay, so I'm not nuts!

How did playing it match up with your preconceptions of it?

Aron Times
2008-07-10, 11:00 PM
I'm currently DMing for five fellow forum members, and I must say that 4E makes life a lot easier for the DM. I don't have to stat everything, and monsters don't need to strictly follow player rules.

3E encouraged DMs to stat out everything, and since I started playing D&D in 3E, I thought that this was the way to go. I basically spent too much time on the little details that didn't matter just to run a level 1 adventure.

Of course, it helps that my players aren't disruptive at all. Without any railroading on my part, they managed to follow the main adventure path without straying too far.

OneFamiliarFace
2008-07-11, 12:14 AM
Of course, it helps that my players aren't disruptive at all. Without any railroading on my part, they managed to follow the main adventure path without straying too far.

Haha, this is true, there isn't a role-playing edition alive that can solve the problem of problem players. That one, you have to do on your own!

Though, I imagine they could just make a game that plays to their strengths. The classes would be something like:

-Minmaxer
-Deliberately Unoptimized Roleplayer
-(PrC: The Ye Olde Englishe Speaker)
-PCKiller
-Thief
-Batman
-Rules Lawyer

And alignments would range from Chaotic Stupid to Chaotic Disruptive. The DMG would recommend railroading, TPKs, and solving out-of-game problems with in-game actions. I actually like my new RPG. I think I'll call it "Schmungeons and Schmragons."

Indon
2008-07-11, 12:31 AM
I particularly like how the one class is just, "Thief".

drawingfreak
2008-07-11, 01:07 AM
Haha, this is true, there isn't a role-playing edition alive that can solve the problem of problem players. That one, you have to do on your own!

Though, I imagine they could just make a game that plays to their strengths. The classes would be something like:

-Minmaxer
-Deliberately Unoptimized Roleplayer
-(PrC: The Ye Olde Englishe Speaker)
-PCKiller
-Thief
-Batman
-Rules Lawyer

And alignments would range from Chaotic Stupid to Chaotic Disruptive. The DMG would recommend railroading, TPKs, and solving out-of-game problems with in-game actions. I actually like my new RPG. I think I'll call it "Schmungeons and Schmragons."

I would totally play that. I move that we set this up in the Homebrew section. All in favor?

tyckspoon
2008-07-11, 01:50 AM
-Minmaxer
-Deliberately Unoptimized Roleplayer
-(PrC: The Ye Olde Englishe Speaker)
-PCKiller
-Thief
-Batman
-Rules Lawyer

And alignments would range from Chaotic Stupid to Chaotic Disruptive. The DMG would recommend railroading, TPKs, and solving out-of-game problems with in-game actions. I actually like my new RPG. I think I'll call it "Schmungeons and Schmragons."

... Munchkin?

OneFamiliarFace
2008-07-11, 04:04 AM
And so it begins!

Schmungeons and Schmragons: The Game! (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=4563076#post4563076)

Draco Dracul
2008-07-22, 01:42 PM
Haha, this is true, there isn't a role-playing edition alive that can solve the problem of problem players. That one, you have to do on your own!

Though, I imagine they could just make a game that plays to their strengths. The classes would be something like:

-Minmaxer
-Deliberately Unoptimized Roleplayer
-(PrC: The Ye Olde Englishe Speaker)
-PCKiller
-Thief
-Batman
-Rules Lawyer

And alignments would range from Chaotic Stupid to Chaotic Disruptive. The DMG would recommend railroading, TPKs, and solving out-of-game problems with in-game actions. I actually like my new RPG. I think I'll call it "Schmungeons and Schmragons."

Out of curiostity what does Batman mean in this case?

AKA_Bait
2008-07-22, 02:01 PM
I think 4ed DMG is a good book. I like both the new traps and skill challenges.

Including the very signifigant update to skill challenges and the lack of any explicit instructions on how to homebrew traps? Personally, those struck me as two of the worst sections of the 4e DMG.