4e / GSL 11 Reasons Why I Prefer D&D 4E

[LostSoul]

Originally Posted by Imaro

This. After my players said they didn't like 4e we sat down and talked and this post above touches on their two main issues at low level play. They felt the fights took too long...and certain things were too tough for what they were...mainly kobolds and goblins.

Try making all future goblins and kobolds minions. That'll get the old feeling back.

Originally Posted by Imaro

I think that 4e fights, especially against opponents you know are ultimately unimportant do drag on.

Try making the fights important.

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

I think one thing that 4E is changing - there are no unimportant combats.

Where you might have considered running one encounter against two, one encounter against one, and one encounter against three monsters in earlier editions, each of them draining a few resources but none of them relevant overall, you have to re-think in 4E. These 6 monsters are actually one encounter. They do not necessarily cooperate in that encounter, but for example - one of them might be some kind of Lurker monster (maybe a Darkmantle?) stalking the PCs, looking for a moment of weakness. The two monsters might be some Goblins chatting about the recent raid while standing watch. If the PCs encounter them, they shout for help, alerting a Hobgoblin and his two goblin guards to their aid. The Lurker will use this moment to lash out at the party, looking for the most isolated foe (probably the Wizard or an Archer standing in the back).

The Keep on the Shadowfell encounters in the Kobold Cave is an interesting example. It it is a very difficult encounter that covers a wide area. The enemies are expected to arrive in two waves - the foes at the entrance behind the waterfall, and Irontooh and the Wyrmpriest as a second wave.

In 3E, you might have expanded the cave a little bit, and made the first wave one encounter, and would possibly have split the second wave into two encounters. (You certainly wouldn't be able to run 10 Kobolds against a 1st level party).

If you really want an unimportant combat in 4E, don't pick a full selection of enemies that make up an encounter of their level. Don't use 4 regular Goblins for an inconsequential encounter - use 4 Minions. No, you won't achieve tapping out the expected encounter budgets this ways, but if you were doing that, you're no longer talking about an inconsequential encounter.

[Zustiur]

Originally Posted by Old Gumphrey

Use more minions, guys. Seriously. =)

Yeah... that's a great idea... except we're running bought modules from the company that makes the game. This isn't a case of the DM assigning the wrong creatures to a combat. It's KotS played straight as it is written.
And in the battles where we have had minions (mostly in the kobold lair adventure) they were a complete let down from my perspective.

While this isn't how the conversation went, this is how it felt.
Player: I rolled a 19 to hit
DM: Ok, It's dead
Player: But I haven't worked out the damage
DM: It's dead
Player: But... I didn't get to roll my dice?!
DM: I don't care, it's dead. It's the next person's turn now.
Player: What happened to my turn?
DM: You had your turn, you killed a minion.
Player: But I didn't actually DO anything!

What's the point of having all these wonderful powers if the creature is just dead regardless? Why bother having 2W or 3W if you don't know how much damage you actually dealt, or in many cases, how much of an overkill the attack was. Determining how tough the mooks are is an important part of combat. Knowing in advance that all of the mooks have 1 HP is a serious let down. No longer do we need to wear down the first couple to determine how much power to expend on the remaining creatures.

Originally Posted by Mustrum_Ridcully

I think one thing that 4E is changing - there are no unimportant combats.

This to me is a fault in the game. There needs to be some unimportant combats. How else does the party get to test out combinations or learn to work together prior to the really dangerous combats? How else does the DM wear down the party's resources little by little instead of lot by lot? Where are the niggling little combats that take away a few hit points and make you wonder if it's worth a cure spell or not?

So far from what I've seen the characters are getting mashed to a pulp in every encounter. This doesn't sit right with me.

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Originally Posted by Zustiur

Yeah... that's a great idea... except we're running bought modules from the company that makes the game. This isn't a case of the DM assigning the wrong creatures to a combat. It's KotS played straight as it is written.
And in the battles where we have had minions (mostly in the kobold lair adventure) they were a complete let down from my perspective.

While this isn't how the conversation went, this is how it felt.
Player: I rolled a 19 to hit
DM: Ok, It's dead
Player: But I haven't worked out the damage
DM: It's dead
Player: But... I didn't get to roll my dice?!
DM: I don't care, it's dead. It's the next person's turn now.
Player: What happened to my turn?
DM: You had your turn, you killed a minion.
Player: But I didn't actually DO anything!

What's the point of having all these wonderful powers if the creature is just dead regardless? Why bother having 2W or 3W if you don't know how much damage you actually dealt, or in many cases, how much of an overkill the attack was. Determining how tough the mooks are is an important part of combat. Knowing in advance that all of the mooks have 1 HP is a serious let down. No longer do we need to wear down the first couple to determine how much power to expend on the remaining creatures.

The "toughness" of Minions is determined by their defenses, attacks and the damage they deal. If you see you hit a Minion with a roll of an 8, it's not that tough, if you need a 14, it is.

Wearing down is reserved for regular monsters.

This to me is a fault in the game. There needs to be some unimportant combats. How else does the party get to test out combinations or learn to work together prior to the really dangerous combats? How else does the DM wear down the party's resources little by little instead of lot by lot? Where are the niggling little combats that take away a few hit points and make you wonder if it's worth a cure spell or not?

So far from what I've seen the characters are getting mashed to a pulp in every encounter. This doesn't sit right with me.

The encounters of the parties level should not be encounters that mash them to a pulp. Assuming they still survive them, they should figure out what was going wrong. Sometimes you have to learn stuff in important combats.

Important doesn't have to mean "deadly". It mostly means that it should deserve the time spent on it, because it brings people one tenth to their next level.

[D'karr]

Originally Posted by Zustiur

And in the battles where we have had minions (mostly in the kobold lair adventure) they were a complete let down from my perspective.

If I had been introduced to the "Minion Mechanic" in that fashion I probably would be disappointed too. I see your point and it makes great sense. However, I think that DMs do a great disservice to the players with poor presentation. IMO the example you provide is simply a DM giving a poor presentation.

The minions are there to make the bookkeeping easier on the DM and make the combat more exciting. So it is the DMs job to use the tool (minion) to make the combat more exciting. If the DM presents it as a run of the mill, "it doesn't matter what your great tactics were, you splat him." Of course the encounter with minions is going to be unexciting.

I think the DM's guide or the Monster Manual should include a section on running combats with minions. It should include the pros and cons of letting the players know ahead of time which combatants are minions. It should probably include a section on the "philosophy" of minions. And it should definitely include a section on how to describe an exciting combat with minions.

If the DMs descriptions of combat devolve to "you hit it, it dies" then no matter what you are fighting, minion or solo, those combats are going to be crappy and unexciting. Is that a fault of the system? Not really, but I think that a little more guidance should be included so that DMs know what to avoid in their combats, and boring descriptions would top my list.

[Jack99]

Originally Posted by Zustiur

While this isn't how the conversation went, this is how it felt.
Player: I rolled a 19 to hit
DM: Ok, It's dead
Player: But I haven't worked out the damage
DM: It's dead
Player: But... I didn't get to roll my dice?!
DM: I don't care, it's dead. It's the next person's turn now.
Player: What happened to my turn?
DM: You had your turn, you killed a minion.
Player: But I didn't actually DO anything!

One trick I have learned as a DM of 4e, is to always let players roll damage, and then announce afterwards if the monster died. Try it.

[Ginnel]

Don't know what other peoples experiences are, but from playing through KotS we've had around 5-6 really challenging fights out of 20 encounters and are now 4th level, we've had the chance to try out all our moves and its taken 12 sessions so far, one thing which I will express is that it doesn't do 10ft corridor fights very well they come off as boring and I can't wait to get another open fight again.

Minions are fine and I think used quite well in the adventure, I think the problem with people saying the monsters are tough is that your thinking in old edition terms if it helps make all the kobolds with hit points into orcs and hobgoblins and have minions as actual kobolds or just pretend that these kobolds have class levels.
The way 4th edition works is that it balances each fight against a party that has all it's encounter powers and full hit points and a healing surge or two to spend, to really make it life or death pump up the challenge rating to party level + 3 or 4.

Another thing is our group's defenders regularly run out of healing surges which I've seen loads of people saying doesn't happen, we keep going until theres either an in character plot reason for us to, if someone goes down to 0 hit points they retreat to the back and start with the ranged basics, if someone goes unconcious or a fight is overwhelming or its night time then we'll retreat or rest.

[Fifth Element]

Originally Posted by BryonD

I've never been one to let the CR/EL rules control me.

The post you were attempting to refute referred to what the rules assume. The rules assume you use CR/EL as intended. You may not use them, but the rules assume you do. Your choice to ignore them is irrelevant to the point.

[Fifth Element]

Originally Posted by Zustiur

While this isn't how the conversation went, this is how it felt.
Player: I rolled a 19 to hit
DM: Ok, It's dead
Player: But I haven't worked out the damage
DM: It's dead
Player: But... I didn't get to roll my dice?!
DM: I don't care, it's dead. It's the next person's turn now.
Player: What happened to my turn?
DM: You had your turn, you killed a minion.
Player: But I didn't actually DO anything!

I haven't DMed 4E yet, but I have used minions in 3E. It should be bloody obvious me that you don't tell the players which monsters are the minions. You should be rolling damage with each hit...in fact, isn't there advice to players to roll damage dice at the same time as the attack?

[Jürgen Hubert]

Originally Posted by Zustiur

While this isn't how the conversation went, this is how it felt.
Player: I rolled a 19 to hit
DM: Ok, It's dead
Player: But I haven't worked out the damage
DM: It's dead
Player: But... I didn't get to roll my dice?!
DM: I don't care, it's dead. It's the next person's turn now.
Player: What happened to my turn?
DM: You had your turn, you killed a minion.
Player: But I didn't actually DO anything!

In my test one-shots, I made clear which enemies the minions were from the start. And the PCs really enjoyed cutting them down. And it wasn't unimportant - after all, every minion increased the odds of the enemies being able to flank the PCs, increased their changes of dealing attacks of opportunities, and so on.

It also allowed the PCs to do something important without wasting their daily and encounter powers. Perhaps that's where all the complaints about "slugfests" come from - if there are no minions in a fight, then it's understandable why the PCs use up these powers much quicker.

[Obryn]

With few exceptions, my group's fights in 4e have started going much, much faster.

I'm really disappointed that the first few fights in KotS were against Kobolds... Really, Kobolds are a pain both to fight and to run. Goblins are about half as tough, when it comes down to it.

I think the speed improvement is both due to players knowing their characters' capabilities better, and better implementing tactics. Our fights are usually as long as, or shorter than, 3e fights. (Except when we get hobgoblins in the mix...)

-O

[LostSoul]

Originally Posted by Zustiur

Player: What happened to my turn?
DM: You had your turn, you killed a minion.
Player: But I didn't actually DO anything!

Why do you feel like killing minions isn't worth it? Minions do suck, but the damage they do adds up over time. If you ignore them, they will take you down.

[cignus_pfaccari]

Originally Posted by Obryn

I think the speed improvement is both due to players knowing their characters' capabilities better, and better implementing tactics. Our fights are usually as long as, or shorter than, 3e fights. (Except when we get hobgoblins in the mix...)

Yep. Once people figure out what their powers do, and how to implement them effectively, things go a lot faster.

There's also the usual "keep an eye on the fight and think a move or two ahead" and "don't take forever figuring out what you're going to do" that speed things up as well.

Brad

[Zustiur]

Originally Posted by Jack99

One trick I have learned as a DM of 4e, is to always let players roll damage, and then announce afterwards if the monster died. Try it.

This would be fine... for about 5 battles. It soon devolves into the same thing though. Why bother rolling?
It used to be that even against some of the lowliest critters you had to roll for damage because *gasp* you might roll a 1 for damage.
There is no pleasure in the kill when there is no chance of failure. Who cares if I did 400 damage, if 1 would have done?
I'm very tempted to be disruptive in the game as follows:
Player: Hmm I recognize that monster token, it's a minion... "I drop my mace and punch the demon on the arm. I got a 24 to hit. It is dead."
DM: "You didn't roll damage."
Player: "I don't need to. It's 1d3 damage for a punch, and it only has one hit point".
DM: "But how do you know you hit?"
Player: "The last 15 of these have all had 20 AC. I got 24. I hit. It's dead"

Seriously. Why bother having exciting weapons when a pointy stick will do the same job? In previous editions this came up. You wore a creature down, or it was way below your level. You couldn't fail to kill it if you scored the hit. But that was few and far between. This is pretty frequent.

As a DM I've created situations where the players roll dice for absolutely no reason. They hate it. I hate it too. I've learned that it is a bad thing, and so your solution is not a worthy one long term. It might fill the gap for a while, but soon it will just be a waste of my time as a player, and as a person in general.

Originally Posted by Fifth Element

I haven't DMed 4E yet, but I have used minions in 3E. It should be bloody obvious me that you don't tell the players which monsters are the minions. You should be rolling damage with each hit...in fact, isn't there advice to players to roll damage dice at the same time as the attack?

Actually I believe you're right. If the DM didn't blatently state that they were minions I might be less disenchanted with them. On the other hand, as I was saying above, knowing the minion mechanic exists, it won't take long to figure out which ones are which. Minions are the ones that die in one hit while all the others take 4 or 6 hits to kill. That's pretty obvious.
Strangely I've always frowned on rolling damage and attack dice together. I'm not sure why. I'll check with the others on their opinion. We've certainly never done it that way.

Originally Posted by LostSoul

Why do you feel like killing minions isn't worth it? Minions do suck, but the damage they do adds up over time. If you ignore them, they will take you down.

As above, there is little satisfaction in completing a task that had little or no chance of failure. I'm much happier knowing that I did 5 damage more than I needed, than knowing it doesn't matter what I roll.

Yes, from a tactical stand point it was good to kill the minion. But it doesn't feel like an achievement, because the challenge of doing so was drastically reduced.

I'm sad to say that I would be happier if kobold minions had 10 hit points, and each other kobold creature had their hit points reduced by 9 to compensate.

Originally Posted by Ginnel

Minions are fine and I think used quite well in the adventure, I think the problem with people saying the monsters are tough is that your thinking in old edition terms if it helps make all the kobolds with hit points into orcs and hobgoblins and have minions as actual kobolds or just pretend that these kobolds have class levels.

Absolutely. Of course I'm thinking in old edition terms. For 4 or more editions (depending on how you count the iterations of 0ed and 3.5) DnD monsters have been standard, with a few classed exceptions to make things interesting. Now classed is normal, and 'standard' is rare and it's value greatly diminished. I don't understand why this had to change, but forgive me for thinking in old edition terms when the situation has been reversed after 4 editions of being the same. Forgive me for thinking that some concepts are fundamental to what makes and RPG 'D&D', and that the changes in a new edition don't feel right or need to be questioned.

Originally Posted by cignus_pfaccari

Yep. Once people figure out what their powers do, and how to implement them effectively, things go a lot faster.

I sure hope so. An hour and a half to fight 3 dragonshield kobolds and a wyrmpriest is just not cool. Admittedly about 10 minutes of that was spent explaining to the DM that the kobolds 'shifty' at will power does not mean my move action terminates after the first square.

Ooo look, you get to move around the battlefield so much more in this edition. How tactical it has become... Umm. No, actually it's just freaking annoying because the way the DM was trying to run it (at first) is that the players need to be paranoid about their wording or lose their turn.

Player: "I walk one square towards the kobold"
DM: "Each of the kobolds reacts by shifting one square away from you. You cannot reach them now"
Player: "I said WALK! I did not say SHIFT. I have NOT completed my move action."

He got it for a while. Then he caught out another player with the same trick and the player fell for it. Losing his action needlessly.

Do you get the feeling my DM isn't helping me to like this new edition I am not fond of to begin with? He's looking for us to slip up so that his monsters can get the upper hand. Well I'm fine with that, except that he assumes we've slipped up when we actually haven't, and he tries to respond accordingly, by interrupting what we're saying.

Now feel free to suggest that I find an alternate DM. But the simple fact is, his behaviour did not have this effect on me prior to starting 4E. I have enough gripes with the rules without having them exaggerate such oportunities. Then again, that may just be kobolds. I've yet to fight anything else. Maybe they're the only excruciatingly annoying ones?

[/whine] I know I get whiney on topics like this. I apologize, but ultimately, that's what this thread is about - venting bad feelings brought about by the new system and finding compatriots that feel the same way, in order to share and lessen the burden.

[Fifth Element]

Originally Posted by Zustiur

On the other hand, as I was saying above, knowing the minion mechanic exists, it won't take long to figure out which ones are which. Minions are the ones that die in one hit while all the others take 4 or 6 hits to kill. That's pretty obvious.

Yes, knowing the minion rules you can figure out that the monster you just killed was a minion. You could certainly then infer that there are probably more minions involved in the encounter. But why would you automatically know which opponents they were? Unless you're only fighting minions, there should be uncertainty as to whether the next opponent is one or not.

[D'karr]

Originally Posted by Zustiur

[/whine] I know I get whiney on topics like this. I apologize, but ultimately, that's what this thread is about - venting bad feelings brought about by the new system and finding compatriots that feel the same way, in order to share and lessen the burden.

Sorry but I think you mistook this for the Whiney thread. That is two threads over...

[Fifth Element]

Originally Posted by Zustiur

For 4 or more editions (depending on how you count the iterations of 0ed and 3.5) DnD monsters have been standard, with a few classed exceptions to make things interesting. Now classed is normal, and 'standard' is rare and it's value greatly diminished.

Interesting how you stated that. You said that in older editions, most monsters were standard, but there were a few classed ones to "make things interesting".

Which, of course, implies that having most monsters be standard is not interesting. Which I'm sure many people would agree with.

I'm not sure what's wrong with having monsters be more interesting in general.

[Fifth Element]

Originally Posted by Zustiur

I apologize, but ultimately, that's what this thread is about - venting bad feelings brought about by the new system and finding compatriots that feel the same way, in order to share and lessen the burden.

I think you need to re-read the thread title.

[Zustiur]

Originally Posted by Fifth Element

Yes, knowing the minion rules you can figure out that the monster you just killed was a minion. You could certainly then infer that there are probably more minions involved in the encounter. But why would you automatically know which opponents they were? Unless you're only fighting minions, there should be uncertainty as to whether the next opponent is one or not.

Easy. Each type of creature has the same counter associated with it.
From a character perspective - the ones that are armed like fighters are the fighters, the ones that are armed like fodder are the minions. The charact can tell them apart by appearance, and funnily enough, so can I.

[Zustiur]

Originally Posted by Fifth Element

I think you need to re-read the thread title.

Whoops. Got my threads mixed up. Thought this was 'Farewell to thee D&D'.
Apologies to all!