4th & Dragon : Dungeons and Dragons...and stuff

Gotcha, I misunderstood what you were saying.  I can definitely see how a solo monster would not feel that different from 3e in that respect.

I play-tested the initial combat in Keep on the Shadowfell (the kobold ambush) with my Monday night gaming group and the reaction was tepid. The players thought it was too simplistic and limiting. The consensus rating was a 4 on a scale of 1 to 10. They thought it would be allright if there was no 3e, but they like 3.5 better. 
Some points of criticism: The other DM in our group and I hate Healing Surges, both mechanically and asthetically (it make’s no sense, “I got stabbed, I’ll pause for a few seconds… ahhh, I feel better"). The player who is usually the party rogue chose the dwarf fighter pregen instead, because he thought the strike powers that cause opponents to slide was weak compared to sneak attack. The wizard didn’t like the spell casting mechanics and thought it looked more like a sorceror. I thought wizard looks more ogre mage-ish with spell-like abilities. Minions seem to be pointless at low levels and absurd at high levels (a 25th level storm giant with 1 hp?). The (nearly) static HPs weren’t appreciated and the skills considered too over-simplified. It had too much of a video-gamish feel to it (which I had already thought of but a player brought up independently).
There were only 4 of us playing (I ran the cleric), so I cut the encounter back to 1 slinger, 3 minions, and 1 dragon shield. I probably weakened the kobolds too much but it was ridiculously easy even though I rolled above average for them, and adding another dragon shield would have lengthened combat by 1 or 2 rounds and a minion likely no rounds at all. The high hit points ensured there was no sense of danger at all.
I think 4e has some good points I could cherry pick and adapt for 3e. I like Stealth and Perception, and we adapted 2nd wind to Eberron action points (though mechanically better, still makes no sense; but players like it and it allows for more high powered encounters for me to throw at them). I also can’t see why I couldn’t convert the adventure modules to 3.5.
WotC may have been better off marketing 4e as a beginner or alternate edition of 3e. I can see how it may appeal to younger, video-game oriented newbies (which is a good thing), but I don’t think it covers the requirements of more experienced gamers.

Just a few things I would like to point out.

1)Minions are pretty weak, they are there to a) make the PCs feel like heroes by killing 2-3 at a time, and b) help the “real” enemies.  I learned real quick you can not just drop 3-4 minions in a little groups so they can run up bc the wizard will fireblast and kill them all.  scatter them around and let them swarm up to the PCs individually.  Those minions should have given the dragonshield a +1 each to attack for a round or two before they were all dead. Minions do need to be run differently than we are used to to be effective.

2) Regarding the “no sense of danger at all”.  You were running the encounter at 75% of what it should have been (100% is considered a “safe” encounter that should challenge them, up to 150% is still ok, once you get past that you are pushing them, so you were at 50% of what the party should have been able to handle and have a reasonable chance of victory), another dragonsheild or maybe 2 slingers would have made it a much better encounter, but still easy. Also remember that this module -WAS- made for people that had never played DnD before so the 1st encounter was probably purposefully easy as they expect you to be learning to play.  I do not have KotS so I do not know exactly what it was originally.

3) Wizards.  Heh, yea lots of people have issues with wizards as well as with fighters getting as many abilities as wizards. I personally like it because it is one step closer to balancing the classes.  I also like that the wizard can cast a spell whenever he wants, no more 2-3 spells a day and you are done, time to shoot a crossbow.  If I wanted to sit back and shoot at the enemy I would have rolled a ranger.

4) I am wondering how long it has been since you played a level 1 3.5 character?  Lets compare a fighter:
3x: Attack, or Power Attack. 
4e: Attack, Cleave, Tide of Iron, Passing Attack, or Brutal Strike.
or a ranger:
3x: Ranged attack.
4e: Ranged attack, Careful Attack, Nimble Strike, Foxes cunning, or Split the Tree
Wizard:
3x: Acid Splash, Read Magic, Ray of Frost, Magic missile, Burning hands.
4e: Ghost Sound, Magic Missile, Light, Mage Hand, Scorching burst, Force Orb, or Sleep
In every case the 4e characters have more options, the only one that comes close is wizard and keep in mind that in 4e he gets 6/7 of his abilities every encounter while the 3e only gets his once a day. 

I just do not see 4e as limiting.  From everything I have experienced it is the exact opposite, your characters have more powers, more options, and running stuff on the fly is easier because the rules are simpler. In 3e I was constantly having to reference books to figure out how to do something, in 4e not so much, most things can be done on the fly.

5) Healing surges.  Heh yea HPs have always been problematic in DnD.  I choose to see them as a measure of your endurance, skill and luck until you get hit.  From 1-???HPs it is not “I got stabbed, I’ll pause for a few seconds… ahhh, I feel better” it is “I almost got stabbed and pulled a muscle getting out of the way, I’ll pause for a few seconds… ahhh, I feel better” then when you go below 0 HPs you actually take a wound, and you get dropped.  But everyone deals with HPs a different way, I am just telling you mine.

Well this post ended up being waaaay longer than I meant it to be. I hope you do not think I am attacking you personally, just trying to explain why I hope you give 4e another shot, maybe run some of the fan made adventures out there if you are planning on converting KotS to 3e.

Also I am 33 years old and have been playing DnD since the late 80s, so I am definitely not a “younger, video-game oriented newbies”.

[Edit: I am also a huge 4e fanboi, so take everything I say with a grain od salt… or a cup of salt maybe.]

Well said SuperJosh.  I read the post by FeldsparHewerson and was like “no, it can’t be!  It doesn’t make sense based on everything I’ve read!”

I think you articulated some of my thoughts exactly.  Nice job reading my mind, eliminating the other voices, and transcribing into that post.

FeldsparHewerson - 22 May 2008 02:23 AM

Some points of criticism: The other DM in our group and I hate Healing Surges, both mechanically and asthetically (it make’s no sense, “I got stabbed, I’ll pause for a few seconds… ahhh, I feel better").

Repeat after me: “The rules of the game are NOT the physics of the game world.”

HP do not represent physical damage. They represent a combination of luck, fatigue, some physical damage, etc. Also, there is fundamentally no difference between the 3e cleric casting a bunch of cure light wound spells to top off the party’s HPs before going to sleep and then waking up with a fresh load of spells. Its just the 4e mechanic reduces the reliance on healbots to make the game more fun for everyone.

The player who is usually the party rogue chose the dwarf fighter pregen instead, because he thought the strike powers that cause opponents to slide was weak compared to sneak attack.

Sneak Attack in 4e is quite nice. It can be used against everything, unlike in 3.5 where many creatures are immune. Also situations which grant Combat Advantage (thus allowing Sneak Attack) are much more common in 4e.

The wizard didn’t like the spell casting mechanics and thought it looked more like a sorceror. I thought wizard looks more ogre mage-ish with spell-like abilities.

Of course it looks like a Sorcerer. Vancian style spell slot casting is dead. And good riddance.

Minions seem to be pointless at low levels and absurd at high levels (a 25th level storm giant with 1 hp?). The (nearly) static HPs weren’t appreciated and the skills considered too over-simplified. It had too much of a video-gamish feel to it (which I had already thought of but a player brought up independently).

Repeat after me again: “The rules of the game are NOT the physics of the game world.”

Minions exist to give the game a cinematic feel of the heroes whomping hordes of bad guys. But unlike in 3.5 where a level 1 warrior can’t even touch a high level PC, a high level minion is still actually threat because they have some decent bonuses and defenses.

There were only 4 of us playing (I ran the cleric), so I cut the encounter back to 1 slinger, 3 minions, and 1 dragon shield. I probably weakened the kobolds too much but it was ridiculously easy even though I rolled above average for them, and adding another dragon shield would have lengthened combat by 1 or 2 rounds and a minion likely no rounds at all. The high hit points ensured there was no sense of danger at all.

You cut back the encounter and then complain there is no sense of danger.... Hmm.... No comment needed on this one.

WotC may have been better off marketing 4e as a beginner or alternate edition of 3e. I can see how it may appeal to younger, video-game oriented newbies (which is a good thing), but I don’t think it covers the requirements of more experienced gamers.

I have been playing D&D for over 20 years. I have played almost every edition there is. BECMI, 1e, 2e, 3e, and 3.5. I would consider myself a more “experienced” gamer. But I have never been as excited about a new edition of D&D as I am about 4th edition.

3rd edition is just fundamentally flawed in my opinion. Level Drain, Scry-Buff-Teleport, Save or Die, Disjunction, all god-awful mechanics that should have been exorcised from the game years ago.

As soon as 4e comes out, I have no intention of ever touching it again either as a DM or as a player. But if you like 3rd edition more power to you.

Jim Goings - 22 May 2008 06:25 AM

I think you articulated some of my thoughts exactly.  Nice job reading my mind, eliminating the other voices, and transcribing into that post.

Heh, thanks Jim, now if I could just figure out how to use these powers on my wife...

Kyle: Wow!  And I was afraid I was being harsh. Now I feel like the “good cop”. Hopefully we did not scare Feldspar away!

SuperJosh - 22 May 2008 11:54 AM

Kyle: Wow!  And I was afraid I was being harsh. Now I feel like the “good cop”. Hopefully we did not scare Feldspar away!

Sorry, you are right. I spend too much time on EN World and yes sometimes even the Paizo forums. Sometimes, I carry some of the attitude back with me.

played once but it was an official preview back in april, played the wizard, second to last to die, right before the ranger, TPK IN 11 ROUNDS

I got KOTS last night, and we ran through some of it with four players.  This is my second time running 4th edition; I also ran the “Raiders of Oakhurst” demo. 

::very mild spoilers::

I suggest that if you decide to run KOTS, consider cutting the initial ambush, and replacing it with the second ambush.  No need to get ambushed twice like that, since the enemies you face in the first ambush will be well represented in the third encounter.

The maps included with the game are gorgeous, well designed, and really make the game for me. There are three double sided maps, giving you six beautiful locations that work both for the game, and for Dungeons & Dragons miniatures (which we’ve just started playing). Having the miniatures game and the rpg cross over like that is a great idea.  I’m far more likely to purchase the products because I know I can use in multiple ways.  While some have complained about ink smudging on the booklets (it will smudge if you get it wet), the maps are very high quality (same as other DDM maps).

I liked that the game came in two booklets, one for players, and one for the DM.  It was very nice having a copy of the combat rules for me, and for the players to pass around.  The character sheets are easy to use, easy to understand, and look great (we scanned them and printed copies).

As for the system itself… this is D&D the way it was meant to be played.  At level 1 every character (even the fighter) had 8+ options to choose from each round during combat, yet nobody ever felt overwhelmed or unsure of what to do.  Having powers like magic missile and sleep actually spelled out in boxes on the character sheets meant that someone who had never played D&D before (we had two) could play a wizard, and play it well.  There is an underlying consistency to the rules, and there was hardly any doubt over how rule worked (something I could never say about 3.5).  The use of keywords and “terms of art” mean that it’s easy to see how the powers work and interact with each other.

Minions are awesome.  Sometimes you just want to confront your adventurers with an army of kobolds, and these rules let you do it without slowing the game down or overpowering the players.  These rules let you do it.  Kobold minions are really fun to play… double shifting + mobbing bonuses + 1 hp = for both DM and players.

Combat is really mobile in 4th edition.  In 3.5, once characters get next to each other, they hardly ever move because movement means giving up extra attacks.  In 4th, expect characters to move virtually every time.  You lose nothing by moving, and you can gain a lot.  In our combat, the characters constantly danced around each other gaining and losing combat advantage.

Because the rules are so consistent, it was easy to adjudicate unusual actions that the players wanted to take.  The underlying consistency of the system meant that it was hardly ever necessary to look up how to do something… it’s easy to guess how the designers would expect such an action to work.  One player was particularly anti 4th edition, and took every opportunity to try to “break” the game… yet there was never a moment of doubt as to how to resolve the unusual actions he proposed, and the game never slowed down.

In my opinion, the preview rules of 4th edition stand head and shoulders above 3.5.  I don’t hesitate to call it the best game system I’ve ever played, and I’m more excited than ever to get the core rule books.

Patriarch917 - 24 May 2008 07:19 AM

Combat is really mobile in 4th edition. ... In our combat, the characters constantly danced around each other gaining and losing combat advantage.

In my opinion, the preview rules of 4th edition stand head and shoulders above 3.5.  I don’t hesitate to call it the best game system I’ve ever played, and I’m more excited than ever to get the core rule books.

I love what I’m hearing there.  The consistent options (move, minor action, attack) make it easier for new gamers to understand (as well as the ones that don’t like reading the rules like Rebecca).  A good change to the rules, imo.

While I don’t know enough to say if it’s the best system I’ve played, I am hoping that turns out to be the case.  2 more weeks and we should know!

I am looking forward to playing 4e once I get the books.

For those that know more about it, I have a few questions.

My friends are very 3.5 oriented (mechanics wise, powergamers) and seem sceptic to switch systems. I guess they are worried their old tricks don’t work anymore.

This is the least of my concerns though.

Few things I am worried about.

Variety. Seems like there is variety of power choices, but do you guys see certain powers more powerful than others within a given class? I am worried about cookie cutter builds, meaning that every wizard for example would be quite similar (this is, if a power player picks it up and chooses the powers/feats).

Old game worlds, particularly FR. This is my major concern as we, as a group, liked FR very much and played a few really long lasting FR campaigns. Can the general feel of the FR world be maintained within the new ruleset? I fear that the new magic system is going to make magic into something more generic that does not leave so much room for the arcane/divine trickery that is so commonplace in the 3.x FR game. I do expect that magic/martial classes are more balanced, but can the system recreate the high powered mages of FR?

Will anything stop munchkins from deciding that a certain build is “best”?  Have you ever seen a 5th level Wizard not take fireball?

Of course, the books haven’t come out yet, so we don’t know the selection of feats, spells, etc.  However, I expect there will be plenty to choose from. Those powers that we have seen (from the pre-release character sheets) seem well balanced against each other (there is no “right” or “wrong” choice between Magic Missile and Ray of Frost) We do know that the paragon paths and epic destinies are supposed to offer very different paths for characters of the same class to follow.

From the little I have seen I do no not know if “best” is an accurate discription of how powers differ with in a class so much as different would be.

Take the fighter for instance.  Some of his abilities are geared towards tanking and some are geared towards dealing damage.  Obviously you have to choose which abilities are best according to what role you want your fighter to play.

As far as the FR question.  I do not know.  I know a lot of people are upset by the new FR fluff that is coming out to support 4e, but as far as maintaining the flavor of FR I think that we might have to wait for the FR books to come out later this year.

I am not worried about fluff. The problem is can the 4e “crunch” the powerful magics of Faerun.
FR in 3.5 has a lot of metamagic effects that might be ruined if the system is simplified too much.

Ahhh, gotcha.  I guess there is really no way to answer that until 4e is actually out so we can see how the higher level stuff is handled… unless you know a playtester.  I have heard nothing of metamagic feats one way or the other, but keep in mind FR was around in 2e without metamagic feats.