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

[Reynard]

Originally Posted by D'karr

And to top it off it gives me advice on how to keep ALL my players involved and having fun.

Is this a feature? I mean, sure, everyone is there to have fun, and it is important that all the players be engaged in what's going on at the table. That isn't the same thing as saying all the characters need to be engaged in what's going on within the game at any moment.

BTW, I hadn't thought of usinga skill challenge for a wizardly duel. Excellent idea.

[Starbuck_II]

Originally Posted by D'karr

I'll have to disagree. I was sitting at the car shop this morning going for a state inspection and I brought my DMG with me. I started reading the book again to get more familiar with all the info it had.

Chapter 1 has a great section for identifying what type of players you have and what makes them tick. So that the DM can find good ground to provide a fun game for each type of player he might have.

Chapter 2 concentrates on running the game. It has a really good section on the modes of the game and how each one interacts. Exploration is one of those modes. The chapter also covers pacing and how to make the "environment" exciting. Also how to dispense information to keep suspense and give rewards for clever exploration. Improvisation, props, etc. This chapter is chock full of good advice to run exciting games, even without combat.

That's as far as I got with the reading this morning but other sections also include awesome tools for running games that have combat, little combat or no combat.

Your example about traveling from A to B trying to avoid starvation, etc. That is quite easily modeled with a Skill Challenge. A mage duel, can be a skill challenge or a combat encounter. Even just a skill check if you choose. I can see opposing mages trying to one-up each other with the use of rituals, arcana checks, history checks, religion checks, diplomacy and even intimidation.

So in short, I don't understand these comments about the game ditching all these elements in favor of combat because I can easily point in the book to where it either gives me a tool to do that, or advice on how to do that. And to top it off it gives me advice on how to keep ALL my players involved and having fun.

Most people do'nt read the DMG.
When they read 4.0; I feel they look at only at PHB and MM because they feel they read the previous DMG and don't feel they need to read another one.

[Celtavian]

I've been increasing the number of minions and/or completely eliminating minions from the games I was running. They were dying too quickly and serving no purpose.

My parties are smart because of the way I run D&D (all editions including 4E). They often draw combats into 10 foot wide hallways and hold the fight at a point with two main melees in front and the ranged in back. The Controller has been utterly destroying the minions with AoE before they even have a chance to be effective.

Smart parties in 4E can turn supposedly challenging encounters into cakewalks due to the lack of diversification of monster abilities. Some of this is due to poor module design such as putting solos by themselves without realizing that one attack per around with a roughly 50% chance to hit lowered by the defender's combat abilities while 5 or 6 people are beating on you isn't much of a challenge. My party one time held two ghouls with four zombies in the back in a hallway and annhilated the zombies with AoE before they even had a chance to attack. They beat a solo down without using one healing surge.

I've had to beef up just about every major encounter in every module I've run just to somewhat challenge my PCs. Even then they are only challenged when they play stupid. But I had to do this in 3E as well as modules are designed for an average player using average tactics. And as the years have shown that is not the case with my players or myself.

I find 4E far less challenging than 3E in terms of play. Monsters seem more challenging on paper. I look at them and go "Ooooh, that is tough". Then when it comes to actual play they turn out to be rather weak, which is surprising. Not too long ago I ran a few bugbear stranglers against the party. The bugbear strangler managed to get CA and grab the rogue, but the rogue esacped with their move action the next turn with utter ease. An Acrobatics or Athletics roll is easy for just about everyone but a caster. So you move action to get out and then strike the strangler. Died quick and was a total waste of time.

They really lowered the lethality of the game in 4E and instead decided that long battles with high hit point, low damage creatures would be more exciting. Maybe this is what most people wanted, I'm not sure. I find it kind of tedious and boring myself.

I had high hopes for 4E. I wish they had done things differently.

[Gothmog]

Originally Posted by Andor

Unfortunately my giant bugaboo with 4e remains it's abstractness. What the heck does Bolstering Stike do? What does it look like to someone next to that Paladin? I find it hard to immerse myself in character when I don't know what the world looks like through that character's eyes.

I can understand where you're coming from- at one point in time that would have bugged me too. But over the last 4 years, I've played tons of Savage Worlds, and the powers in that game are generic, with "trappings" (what the effect looks like in the game world) created by the players. Maybe I got "trained" to do this with SW, but I do the same thing with D&D 4e now, as do my players. Pretty much, it can look or act like ANYTHING you can conceive of that fits your character concept. Cool, huh?

[Celtavian]

I'll list some things I like about 4E just to show that I don't hate it all. I do still play the game since I compromised with my friends:

1. Easier Prep Time: DnD 4E is easy to run and prep for. So much is streamlined and handwaved that it makes it an easy game to run. It is also easier to make characters and get the game underway. It is easy to make decisions on characters, though I miss the customization of 3E.

2. More options for melee: It is nice that the melee classes have more options. They don't do as much damage as 3.5 melees, which can suck sometimes when feeling heroic such as not being able to one shot a lvl 3 hobgoblin soldier even at lvl 20 or 30. Kind of an odd feeling not to be able to one shot something that much weaker than you. But they do have more options and can add a neat little effect here and there which I imagine makes them as happy as coming up with unique spell uses made me in 3.5.

3. Healing: I like the healing system. I never liked the "carry massive numbers of wands, scrolls, and potions to survive dungeon" healing standard. I much prefer being to able to endure the day with just rest and recuperation. I plan to steal healing surges for my 3.5 game to reduce the dependence on magic items for healing.

4. Reduced dependence on magic items: I never liked carrying a magic item arsenal. I always thought the characters looked stupid carrying a ton of magic items. They looked like a magic item Christmas tree. I'm going to figure out a way to bring this over to my 3.5 campaign. I may use level bonuses like they do in 4E. I don't like the magic item Christmas tree.

5. Rituals: I like the idea of rituals. I don't like how many spells they made into rituals, but some are appropriate such as for raise dead and scrying. I very much miss the interplay of defensive spells versus offensive spells. It is very hard to conduct a wizard duel when neither side has much power for the day and they will eventually be reduced to slogging at wills at each other. And the lack of ability to prepare for a battle for a caster is a massive boor. It used to be such fun to come up with a plan with your spell list to help the party win, now it isn't even possible.

6. Skill Challenges: I like skill challenges for overland travel, tracking, and certain other non-social encounters that are better solved with a simple series of rolls that gives the player a chance to use their skills. I don't much like them for social encounters, but I allow them and work in the roleplaying as I go along. But I won't let my characters accomplish a social skill challenge without giving me some appropriate roleplaying same as I won't let them administer first aid without putting down their weapon and shield. That just isn't happening.

7. Disease Mechanic: Great idea. Makes diseases far more lethal and realistic. I am stealing this as well for my 3E games. Though I imagine it won't be as lethal with the ease of cure disease. But I still like the mechanic better and will use it if I feel like throwing a curve at my players.

I'd like to add a few additional things I don't like that I didn't list in the previous thread.

1. Nothing is permanent: I didn't notice this at first. But no damage is permanent except petrification and possibly disease.

For the most part no effect is permanent. Rest a day and you are all healed up for everything.

Ability damage gone. Negative level gone. Curses that lasted until removed are gone. Being turned into a small animal or ice cube is gone. All permanent effects that were a cool party of fantasy or that made certain creatures such as undead fearsome are gone.

I seriously miss when my players were frightened by a group of wraiths, spectres, or vampires because negative levels were more dangerous than hit point damage and often harder to recover from at low levels. Now spectres are weak and easily dispatched and about as frightening as a goblin, less so than some goblins.

I miss paralysis and hold person that used to last. If you were held or paralyzed, that made you sweat. I remember many times my players looking at the priest player and hoping that priest had a Remove Paralysis ready. That made certain creatures more frightening and allowed them to use some crowd control that worked and put the party on their toes. Not to mention the mage had fun working such spells on our enemies.

All the non-permanent, make a save every round effects make the game alot less lethal. I've yet to see a spell last more than four rounds. And most spells on average last two rounds and often just one round or don't take effect at all. the lack of dangerous, lasting effects has really lowered the lethality of the game and the terror that creatures inspire. Even grappling is incredibly weak now and easily escaped.

I'm not sure why they did this. I for one liked the lethality and game dynamic that such effects added to the overall roleplaying experience. It made a good priest worth their weight in gold.

2. Lack of Level based class features other than powers: I miss things like Immunity to Fear for the paladin. The ranger camouflage. Rogue evasion and Uncanny Dodge. All the nifty monk and bard abilities. Things that were permanent that made you feel like you were improving.

I was hoping they would turn more classes into the model of the Ranger with lots of permanent, interesting class abilities as they progressed. But it seems like you get what you are going to get at 1st level and a few extra things at Paragon Level and Epic. But none of those abilities are particularly interesting save for combat and some are far better than others (which is unavoidable I imagine since Prcs were the same way).

I somewhat understand since fear is not at all as lethal as it used to be. And everything for the most part is less lethal and long lasting, so you don't need such abilities in 4E as they won't stand out too much given the limited number of long lasting powers with fear or charm effects. Usuall they only last a round or two and saves are fairly easy to make.

3. Lethality: 4E is a less lethal, less challenging game. This is mainly a matter of personal taste. I truly liked the lethality of the previous editions.

3E was so lethal we had to think up a new rule subset just to survive it called hero points. We would have died many times without those points. But 4E is so dang cake easy that we're lucky to feel our lives threatened ever. We've had one death and that was because a player made a stupid error in judgment followed by a series of unlucky rolls. Otherwise, it has been a cakewalk even with me doubling and sometimes tripling encounters to get some of that old lethal, "you may die" fear back for my players.


4E is so much different than previous editions. Some of the changes were much needed. But some are head scratchers. As with every edition, it's a small group of people's view of D&D. I wish they hadn't thrown so much out that made playing a caster fun. That would have gone a long way to making the other changes more bearable. It wasn't just the power of the caster either, it was the versatility and the spell interplay that I miss as much as anything. And not just with the wizard, but with the priest as well.

How I used to love playing the priest that was an expert at keeping the party alive. And not just with healing but having Rapid Spell with Restorations ready when that horde of spectres rushed us or death ward or any of the multitude of life saving spells that made the party love you as a cleric.

Now to turn the words of Henry Hill into my own feeling of remorse at being a 4E cleric, "Now I'm just like everyone else. A poor schlub that is more focused on attacking than healing. There are no more negative levels to remove, no more afflictions to heal, no more paralysis to remove. I fought a group of spectres the other day, and they struck softer than a kobold with a wooden club. I miss the days when being a cleric meant something. Now, my party could just as easily go with a warlord. Now I'm nothing."

[Aristotle]

Originally Posted by Reynard

Man, I remember some great sessions where there wasn't a bit of combat. Not because everyone was busy role-playing (though that happened too and it was great, but that's not edition dependent) but because the party was struggling to get from A to B on the way to defeat McBaddie McGuffineister without starving, getting lost or getting eaten by something nasty and horrible and thoroughly out of their league in the middle of the wilderness or the depths of the dungeon. I remember players statting up, naming and writing out backgrounds for all of their 9th level followers, satffing their keeps and trying to squeeze every last penny out of their won treasure just to make upkeep costs. I remember parties standing around a statue with a million gp ruby in its forhead, spending forever and a day trying to figure out whether they should go for it, and how, until one party finally broke and went for a straight on grab (soon followed by the clatter of 4d6 drop the lowest). I remember 4 out of 5 players sitting with rapt attention on me and the wizard player as a magical duel unfolded, never once feeling bored or useless in the process. All of these sessions were awesome fun, and they happened in every edition up till now. And every one of those things has been excised in favor of cool combat abilities and "balance".

See.... I just don't think most of that is missing. Some of it feels better supported actually. Some of it is likely waiting for additional supplements. Travel? Skill challenges, evironment mechanics, and maybe the disease mechanic (starvation as a disease?). Followers will hopefully be in a supplement, though I intend to give my group access to some minions for a few encounters. Monetary resource management? I assume we'll see more of that as things progress. I love traps and puzzles in this edition. I'm using them regularly for the first time ever.

I do agree that long combats might become an issue for me. My past two games were cut down to 4 hours of play (from 5), and we got through 2 combats each. I've left those sessions feeling less than fullfilled. I need to be able to run a 5 hour game with 4 combat encounters, and plenty of time between to play through the aftermath and the happenings at camp during the extended rest. I'm still unsure of the best fix. Cutting just the monsters HP will result in less dangerous encounters I think.

[Gothmog]

Originally Posted by Reynard

... This probably wouldn't be so bad if it was only the focus of the rules that was centered on combat. After all, 1e and 4E are very similar in this regard: the PHB consists mostly of how your character can kill things, while the DMG provides a bunch of material on all sorts of neat stuff. Unfortunately, 4E took that extra step where the focus of play is centered on combat as well. the idea, as laid out in the DMG adventure design section, is an hour per combat (too long!) and some time for kibbitzing before and after. i understand the reason -- combat is fun and D&D is supposed to be fun; 2+2=4 -- but all that other fun stuff (exploration, resource management, followers and strongholds, operational play, etc...) got cut because it was (and I am sure "is", I know my tastes aren't shared by many) not considered fun. Which leaves combat.

Man, I remember some great sessions where there wasn't a bit of combat. Not because everyone was busy role-playing (though that happened too and it was great, but that's not edition dependent) but because the party was struggling to get from A to B on the way to defeat McBaddie McGuffineister without starving, getting lost or getting eaten by something nasty and horrible and thoroughly out of their league in the middle of the wilderness or the depths of the dungeon. I remember players statting up, naming and writing out backgrounds for all of their 9th level followers, satffing their keeps and trying to squeeze every last penny out of their won treasure just to make upkeep costs. I remember parties standing around a statue with a million gp ruby in its forhead, spending forever and a day trying to figure out whether they should go for it, and how, until one party finally broke and went for a straight on grab (soon followed by the clatter of 4d6 drop the lowest). I remember 4 out of 5 players sitting with rapt attention on me and the wizard player as a magical duel unfolded, never once feeling bored or useless in the process. All of these sessions were awesome fun, and they happened in every edition up till now. And every one of those things has been excised in favor of cool combat abilities and "balance".

4E has some great ideas for keeping D&D combat interesting. Too bad it sacrificied nearly everything else to achieve that.

The thing is, 4e doesn't prevent you from doing any of that, or preclude that style of play. I'm with you on loving exploration, mysteries, building domains, getting followers, etc. True, the DMG doesn't list how much a keep costs or how much it costs to get hirelings- but thats easily added back in (which I have done in my games). We've spent several 4e sessions just roleplaying and solving mysteries, with not a single combat roll, and the game keeps chugging along nicely. We've also spent the better part of an hour trying to figure out how to circumnavigate/disarm a nasty trap involving curses, and the 4e rules didn't hinder us at all (if anything, they actually aided us more than any previous edition- I used the disease condition track for curses and various stages of the curse). And now that teleportation magic isn't nearly as common, I've used a lot more overland travel and wilderness exploration, which have branched out into some cool side plots (one involving an old tinker named Weyland and his creepily intelligent pet pig Hob who keep showing up at odd times). So I'm getting everything I did out of previous versions of D&D, AND the combat is a lot more fun and dynamic.

What I've found and seen is that a lot of the people who say 4e is limiting their roleplaying or can't do anything other than combat are being limited by their own preconceptions. One guy in my group was strongly against 4e for the same reasons- but I convinced him to play for four sessions. After that, he really enjoyed 4e, and found that what was limiting him were his own beliefs, and not the game itself. Yes, the 4e classes are balanced around combat, but so were the 3e classes supposedly (but not very well). Because the structure of the game changed in regards to powers, more space is devoted to powers in the books, and its easy to have the perception that its all about combat. But its only all about combat if you let it be (or run pregen modules like KotS which basically plays like a series of small D&D Minis battles).

[Gothmog]

Originally Posted by Celtavian

1. Nothing is permanent: I didn't notice this at first. But no damage is permanent except petrification and possibly disease.

For the most part no effect is permanent. Rest a day and you are all healed up for everything.

Ability damage gone. Negative level gone. Curses that lasted until removed are gone. Being turned into a small animal or ice cube is gone. All permanent effects that were a cool party of fantasy or that made certain creatures such as undead fearsome are gone.

I seriously miss when my players were frightened by a group of wraiths, spectres, or vampires because negative levels were more dangerous than hit point damage and often harder to recover from at low levels. Now spectres are weak and easily dispatched and about as frightening as a goblin, less so than some goblins.

I miss paralysis and hold person that used to last. If you were held or paralyzed, that made you sweat. I remember many times my players looking at the priest player and hoping that priest had a Remove Paralysis ready. That made certain creatures more frightening and allowed them to use some crowd control that worked and put the party on their toes. Not to mention the mage had fun working such spells on our enemies.

All the non-permanent, make a save every round effects make the game alot less lethal. I've yet to see a spell last more than four rounds. And most spells on average last two rounds and often just one round or don't take effect at all. the lack of dangerous, lasting effects has really lowered the lethality of the game and the terror that creatures inspire. Even grappling is incredibly weak now and easily escaped.

I'm not sure why they did this. I for one liked the lethality and game dynamic that such effects added to the overall roleplaying experience. It made a good priest worth their weight in gold.

Good post, but this is one point I wanted to respond to since it bugged me too. PCs jumping back up with full hp every day bugged me, and there was no way in the rules to reflect long-term injury. Likewise, curses didn't have any way to have any real "teeth". I do admit I don't miss negative levels though or ability damage from 3e- those were a pain in the butt to recalculate all the abilities on a character. I do understand why paralysis and holds were reduced to save every round, but I think you could safely do a save every 2 rounds if you wanted a ghoul to be more fearsome.

However, 4e gave us something REALLY cool- the disease condition track. I modified the disease condition track to take into account long-term injuries and magical curses, and it could be modified for a number of other things I probably haven't considered yet. Injuries require an Endurance check to improve (or can worsen with a low check), and curses I handle with a Wisdom or Charisma check (the 1/2 level + mod roll) which can also improve or worsen. Here is an example:

When a character goes to 0 hp or below, they take an "attack" to Fortitude equal to the damage caused by the blow that sent them down. If the attack misses, they were assumed to have just been KO'd or have various contusions or flesh wounds. If the attack "hits" they suffer a long-term wound, and we roll randomly on a table for the wound and location. Let's say the character suffered a broken arm.

Broken Arm
Endurance: Improve DC 18, Maintain DC 12, Worsen DC 11 or less
Check 1/x per 3 days
Healed <- Initial effect: -4 to any activities with the arm (including attacks or skill checks) character max of 75% of hp <-> Infection/bleeding: as above, plus max hp are 50% of normal, -2 healing surges until improve, DC to improve or maintain +2 -> Gangrene: amputation necessary

So far, this is working really well for us. We've also added several healing rituals that help set bones, mend tissues, etc, and if a magical healing Power is used, it adds a bonus to the roll equal to its level and allows an immediate check (max of once per day). I'll admit, I'm more of a simulationist DM, and even then I love 4e- I can make it work for us with far fewer mods than I could 3.x.

[Sadrik]

Originally Posted by Monkey Boy

My group are playing 4e now and having fun but I am leaning more and more towards savage worlds after each session.

We did, and much happier to boot. All the fluff about how to make 3.5 better is actually accomplished in Savage Worlds.

[Jack99]

Originally Posted by Celtavian

Smart parties in 4E can turn supposedly challenging encounters into cakewalks due to the lack of diversification of monster abilities. Some of this is due to poor module design such as putting solos by themselves without realizing that one attack per around with a roughly 50% chance to hit lowered by the defender's combat abilities while 5 or 6 people are beating on you isn't much of a challenge. My party one time held two ghouls with four zombies in the back in a hallway and annhilated the zombies with AoE before they even had a chance to attack. They beat a solo down without using one healing surge.

2 Ghouls and 4 Zombies (normal i assume) sound like badly balanced encounter to me. Especially if you have spots where players can dig in, and let the tin cans take the hits. Unless you want them to be able to do just that. In which case you shouldn't complain, obviously. The solo is odd as well. Since by far most solos have at least two attacks, if not more. Often an immediate one as well. Could you tell me which solo that was, since it sounds like it needs some loving.

I've had to beef up just about every major encounter in every module I've run just to somewhat challenge my PCs. Even then they are only challenged when they play stupid. But I had to do this in 3E as well as modules are designed for an average player using average tactics. And as the years have shown that is not the case with my players or myself.

I do not think you are alone. Not since Tomb of Horrors, have I run a module without upgrades here and there, especially for the final battles. This isn't a design flaw, it is because modules are made for the average party.

Also, I am curious. Which modules have you run? It sounds from your posts as if you have run a lot, which is intriguing. Most of us are only finishing up KoTS by now (or at least, that is my impression)

I find 4E far less challenging than 3E in terms of play. Monsters seem more challenging on paper. I look at them and go "Ooooh, that is tough". Then when it comes to actual play they turn out to be rather weak, which is surprising. Not too long ago I ran a few bugbear stranglers against the party. The bugbear strangler managed to get CA and grab the rogue, but the rogue esacped with their move action the next turn with utter ease. An Acrobatics or Athletics roll is easy for just about everyone but a caster. So you move action to get out and then strike the strangler. Died quick and was a total waste of time.

They really lowered the lethality of the game in 4E and instead decided that long battles with high hit point, low damage creatures would be more exciting. Maybe this is what most people wanted, I'm not sure. I find it kind of tedious and boring myself.

I had high hopes for 4E. I wish they had done things differently.

I have the opposite experience of you. Maybe the fault lies not in the system, but elsewhere. Maybe your players are just that good. /shrug

Cheers

[Ginnel]

Just a few comments

Originally Posted by Celtavian

I'll list some things I like about 4E just to show that I don't hate it all. I do still play the game since I compromised with my friends:

1. Easier Prep Time: DnD 4E is easy to run and prep for. So much is streamlined and handwaved that it makes it an easy game to run. It is also easier to make characters and get the game underway. It is easy to make decisions on characters, though I miss the customization of 3E.

2. More options for melee: It is nice that the melee classes have more options. They don't do as much damage as 3.5 melees, which can suck sometimes when feeling heroic such as not being able to one shot a lvl 3 hobgoblin soldier even at lvl 20 or 30. Kind of an odd feeling not to be able to one shot something that much weaker than you. But they do have more options and can add a neat little effect here and there which I imagine makes them as happy as coming up with unique spell uses made me in 3.5.

If your running level 3 hobgoblins versus level 20 characters somethings gone wrong i'd either hand wave it or say 1 hit kills the hob gobs, try convert the hobs level 3 150xp into level 11 minion ogre thugs 150xp change a few moves and your golden, someone else on the boards suggested this and I think its a great idea, it can also show what happens when a high level minion meets a low level party find an equivelent xp value solo/elite/monster and you're sorted.

Originally Posted by Celtavian

5. Rituals: I like the idea of rituals. I don't like how many spells they made into rituals, but some are appropriate such as for raise dead and scrying. I very much miss the interplay of defensive spells versus offensive spells. It is very hard to conduct a wizard duel when neither side has much power for the day and they will eventually be reduced to slogging at wills at each other. And the lack of ability to prepare for a battle for a caster is a massive boor. It used to be such fun to come up with a plan with your spell list to help the party win, now it isn't even possible.

I'm going to have to disagree that it was fun watching the caster come with ideas to use their spells, now the fun comes from mixing your abilities with the rest of your party's.

Originally Posted by Celtavian

6. Skill Challenges: I like skill challenges for overland travel, tracking, and certain other non-social encounters that are better solved with a simple series of rolls that gives the player a chance to use their skills. I don't much like them for social encounters, but I allow them and work in the roleplaying as I go along. But I won't let my characters accomplish a social skill challenge without giving me some appropriate roleplaying same as I won't let them administer first aid without putting down their weapon and shield. That just isn't happening.

Good good thats how I do it as well, just as in 3.5 a diplomacy check didn't make a talky encounter just go.

Originally Posted by Celtavian

I'd like to add a few additional things I don't like that I didn't list in the previous thread.

1. Nothing is permanent: I didn't notice this at first. But no damage is permanent except petrification and possibly disease.

For the most part no effect is permanent. Rest a day and you are all healed up for everything.

Ability damage gone. Negative level gone. Curses that lasted until removed are gone. Being turned into a small animal or ice cube is gone. All permanent effects that were a cool party of fantasy or that made certain creatures such as undead fearsome are gone.

I seriously miss when my players were frightened by a group of wraiths, spectres, or vampires because negative levels were more dangerous than hit point damage and often harder to recover from at low levels. Now spectres are weak and easily dispatched and about as frightening as a goblin, less so than some goblins.

Not too hard to invent/implement a permenent wound system that does wounds that can't be healed with healing surges or combat magic and would need a ritual to cure, you could use this for level drain, curses and the rest though I'd be tempted to keep these semi permenent penalties to hp, certain skills physical or social for example, and damage, bonuses like to-hit and AC are pretty fine tuned nowadays and fiddling with these will have a greater effect.

Me and the people I played with never feared wraiths or spectres it was just a case of drat now how are we going to get all this damage repaired? erm how much of a penalty do I take?

Originally Posted by Celtavian

I miss paralysis and hold person that used to last. If you were held or paralyzed, that made you sweat. I remember many times my players looking at the priest player and hoping that priest had a Remove Paralysis ready. That made certain creatures more frightening and allowed them to use some crowd control that worked and put the party on their toes. Not to mention the mage had fun working such spells on our enemies.

All the non-permanent, make a save every round effects make the game alot less lethal. I've yet to see a spell last more than four rounds. And most spells on average last two rounds and often just one round or don't take effect at all. the lack of dangerous, lasting effects has really lowered the lethality of the game and the terror that creatures inspire. Even grappling is incredibly weak now and easily escaped.

Yet again you say Terror I say boredom and unfairness, the only terror was that your precious free time was about to be changed from playing an RPG into sitting in a room full of people playing an RPG

Originally Posted by Celtavian

I'm not sure why they did this. I for one liked the lethality and game dynamic that such effects added to the overall roleplaying experience. It made a good priest worth their weight in gold.

The game doesn't lack lethality from my 11 sessions of playtime we've had 5 players unconcious and dying, in the last 48 sessions of 3.5 we've had no one die and no one drop unconcious, of my years before that in different groups I can think of 3 deaths all for roleplaying reasons, 1st character killed a character, another a paladin stayed behind to allow us time to escape a, 3rd 3 characters went into a temple after having their resources depleted, that was supposed to be for the whole party of 5 and we got massacred.

Originally Posted by Celtavian

2. Lack of Level based class features other than powers: I miss things like Immunity to Fear for the paladin. The ranger camouflage. Rogue evasion and Uncanny Dodge. All the nifty monk and bard abilities. Things that were permanent that made you feel like you were improving.

They could have added these in but it doesn't bug me that much really most of the 3rd edition things were combat applications, now players get these at 1st (class features) and 11th (paragon path features) and every gets them

Originally Posted by Celtavian

3. Lethality: 4E is a less lethal, less challenging game. This is mainly a matter of personal taste. I truly liked the lethality of the previous editions.

thats quite an insulting (as well as false) statement saying you like less challenging games is like sullying someones intellect.

Originally Posted by Celtavian

3E was so lethal we had to think up a new rule subset just to survive it called hero points. We would have died many times without those points. But 4E is so dang cake easy that we're lucky to feel our lives threatened ever. We've had one death and that was because a player made a stupid error in judgment followed by a series of unlucky rolls. Otherwise, it has been a cakewalk even with me doubling and sometimes tripling encounters to get some of that old lethal, "you may die" fear back for my players.

I think the DM needs a bit of a hand if you're not fearing death, my suggestion is if you want to challenge a party and have death on the line use a level appropriate encounter of level + 3-4

Originally Posted by Celtavian

4E is so much different than previous editions. Some of the changes were much needed. But some are head scratchers. As with every edition, it's a small group of people's view of D&D. I wish they hadn't thrown so much out that made playing a caster fun. That would have gone a long way to making the other changes more bearable. It wasn't just the power of the caster either, it was the versatility and the spell interplay that I miss as much as anything. And not just with the wizard, but with the priest as well.

Which is why they did it instead of having an imbalance, they leveled the playing field so just because someone has a character concept for a non spellcaster it doesn't mean they're resigned to 5ft step full attack or tumble sneak attack.

Originally Posted by Celtavian

How I used to love playing the priest that was an expert at keeping the party alive. And not just with healing but having Rapid Spell with Restorations ready when that horde of spectres rushed us or death ward or any of the multitude of life saving spells that made the party love you as a cleric.

Now to turn the words of Henry Hill into my own feeling of remorse at being a 4E cleric, "Now I'm just like everyone else. A poor schlub that is more focused on attacking than healing. There are no more negative levels to remove, no more afflictions to heal, no more paralysis to remove. I fought a group of spectres the other day, and they struck softer than a kobold with a wooden club. I miss the days when being a cleric meant something. Now, my party could just as easily go with a warlord. Now I'm nothing."

"Now we aren't nothing without a Cleric"

[Reynard]

Originally Posted by Ginnel

If your running level 3 hobgoblins versus level 20 characters somethings gone wrong i'd either hand wave it or say 1 hit kills the hob gobs, try convert the hobs level 3 150xp into level 11 minion ogre thugs 150xp change a few moves and your golden

Here's the thing though: maybe it was the players who, at level 20, decided to finally have words with that hobgoblin chieftan who gave them so much trouble at 5th level. Should the stats change suddenly just because the party doesn't wrap up their unfinished business at the "level appropriate" time? i don't think so. A D&D world needs consistency and plausibility. In 3.x terms, if the draon that lives in the lake is CR 18, it is CR if the PCs try and take it out at 5th level and when they try to take it out at 20th level. It is CR 18 if the party camps and rests and scry-buffs-teleports in with full guns blazing, or if they wander in when they are down to their last low level spells and handful of hit points. Anything else, altering the dragon to fit the party at the moment they encounter it, beaks suspension of disbelief and weakens the overall sense of playing in a "real" world.

[Jack99]

Originally Posted by Reynard

Here's the thing though: maybe it was the players who, at level 20, decided to finally have words with that hobgoblin chieftan who gave them so much trouble at 5th level. Should the stats change suddenly just because the party doesn't wrap up their unfinished business at the "level appropriate" time? i don't think so. A D&D world needs consistency and plausibility. In 3.x terms, if the draon that lives in the lake is CR 18, it is CR if the PCs try and take it out at 5th level and when they try to take it out at 20th level. It is CR 18 if the party camps and rests and scry-buffs-teleports in with full guns blazing, or if they wander in when they are down to their last low level spells and handful of hit points. Anything else, altering the dragon to fit the party at the moment they encounter it, beaks suspension of disbelief and weakens the overall sense of playing in a "real" world.

I agree 100%. However, something I do once in a while, when my players return to do stuff that they should/could have done many levels ago, is that I change things. Going by your example, I would never dream of changing the hobgoblins. However, I might rule/decide that a nearby (if possible) CR18ish dragon (or whatever) has recently subjugated the hobgoblins and use them to accomplish certain goals. So when the players arrive and lay down their high-level smack on the "poor" hobgoblins, they suddenly get a little dragon-surprise.

This should of course be used sparingly, in order to keep them on their toes.

[Aristotle]

Originally Posted by Reynard

Anything else, altering the dragon to fit the party at the moment they encounter it, beaks suspension of disbelief and weakens the overall sense of playing in a "real" world.

This is really a GNS argument and not a 4e vs. 3e concern, in my opinion.

Here is my question for the simulationist. Why is it that the simulation allows for characters to grow more powerful or suffer the ultimate defeat of death, but the rest of your meticulously crafted simulation isn't affected by random chance or the passing of time?
The party travels 200 years forward in time. Is it still a CR18 dragon? Has nothing changed? If so, why can't things change over a shorter period of time? When the party encounters the dragon way too soon, why can't it be disfigured/hurt from a recent territory dispute with another dragon? If the epic level characters who just took out a demigod stumble into the lake and encounter the dragon... why can't he have recently recovered an artifact for his treasure that has warped him and given him unspeakable power?

Why does simulation require stasis in all aspects other than the characters themselves? Why must I endure an encounter that will end my story prematurely because the characters got to it too soon, or one that is anticlimactic and meaningless because they didn't get to it soon enough?

I'm a simulationist away from the table. I build worlds. I've gone so far as to pick out regional recipes for areas of my worlds (and cook them for the group when the party goes there) or detail the traits of a bunch of breeds of dogs and horses unique to my setting. But my players don't play for the detailed setting. They want the epic story... so when an encounter goes in a direction other than the way I expected. I adapt. I use it as an opportunity to revisit a piece of my simulation, or to partake in some off-the-cuff DM improv. The simulation supports the narrative. At least at my table. I don't understand why the simulation can't remain believable, and the story remain relevant.

[Ginnel]

Originally Posted by Reynard

Here's the thing though: maybe it was the players who, at level 20, decided to finally have words with that hobgoblin chieftan who gave them so much trouble at 5th level. Should the stats change suddenly just because the party doesn't wrap up their unfinished business at the "level appropriate" time? i don't think so. A D&D world needs consistency and plausibility. In 3.x terms, if the draon that lives in the lake is CR 18, it is CR if the PCs try and take it out at 5th level and when they try to take it out at 20th level. It is CR 18 if the party camps and rests and scry-buffs-teleports in with full guns blazing, or if they wander in when they are down to their last low level spells and handful of hit points. Anything else, altering the dragon to fit the party at the moment they encounter it, beaks suspension of disbelief and weakens the overall sense of playing in a "real" world.

You say a D&D world needs consistency and plausibility? Well yeah some is handy, but can you change Levels and monsters stats to make fights interesting and relevent sure as hell you can.

So you'd run through a 30minute or longer fight for a party of 20th level characters versus 3rd-5th Hobgoblins, hmm gimmie either a bit of a challenge from the hobgoblins from their increase in power over the months/years or make it into a description of a fight.

[DM-Rocco]

Originally Posted by Mustrum_Ridcully

Speed: 6 + 2 = 8; two move actions = 16.

Ah, I think there is some inconsistency in my "math" - I am pretty sure I had written down 16 x 16 somewhere, but apparently it got lost over editing or something... Silly me... I should really reread my posts before posting...

I feel that way all the time

[jeffh]

Originally Posted by Jonathan Moyer

[*]No mention of how PCs might remove a condition (such as being on fire) by themselves instead of waiting to make a save.

The way I see it, saving throws are the PCs removing a condition by themselves. It's just assumed that you're making the best effort you can to get rid of stuff like that.

[jeffh]

Originally Posted by vagabundo

I've seen this as a problem initially, but it seems to have gone away. My players are becoming more tactically aware and are doing a lot more damage per round.

I think in the long term, once the skill-set of players increases, the current HPs will be challenging but not over the top.

Yes, this. Most of the "too long" complaints seem to come from groups with no strikers and/or poor teamwork and coordination. (That or they center around solos, which can be a bit anticlimactic after they're about 3/4 of the way out of hit points and essentially out of tricks).

[Celtavian]

Originally Posted by Gothmog

Good post, but this is one point I wanted to respond to since it bugged me too. PCs jumping back up with full hp every day bugged me, and there was no way in the rules to reflect long-term injury. Likewise, curses didn't have any way to have any real "teeth". I do admit I don't miss negative levels though or ability damage from 3e- those were a pain in the butt to recalculate all the abilities on a character. I do understand why paralysis and holds were reduced to save every round, but I think you could safely do a save every 2 rounds if you wanted a ghoul to be more fearsome.

However, 4e gave us something REALLY cool- the disease condition track. I modified the disease condition track to take into account long-term injuries and magical curses, and it could be modified for a number of other things I probably haven't considered yet. Injuries require an Endurance check to improve (or can worsen with a low check), and curses I handle with a Wisdom or Charisma check (the 1/2 level + mod roll) which can also improve or worsen. Here is an example:

When a character goes to 0 hp or below, they take an "attack" to Fortitude equal to the damage caused by the blow that sent them down. If the attack misses, they were assumed to have just been KO'd or have various contusions or flesh wounds. If the attack "hits" they suffer a long-term wound, and we roll randomly on a table for the wound and location. Let's say the character suffered a broken arm.

Broken Arm
Endurance: Improve DC 18, Maintain DC 12, Worsen DC 11 or less
Check 1/x per 3 days
Healed <- Initial effect: -4 to any activities with the arm (including attacks or skill checks) character max of 75% of hp <-> Infection/bleeding: as above, plus max hp are 50% of normal, -2 healing surges until improve, DC to improve or maintain +2 -> Gangrene: amputation necessary

So far, this is working really well for us. We've also added several healing rituals that help set bones, mend tissues, etc, and if a magical healing Power is used, it adds a bonus to the roll equal to its level and allows an immediate check (max of once per day). I'll admit, I'm more of a simulationist DM, and even then I love 4e- I can make it work for us with far fewer mods than I could 3.x.

Interesting Gothmog. I might try some house rules for 4E myself when I get more comfortable with the system. Right now I don't want to break anything. But down the line I might do something of the same to show long-term injuries. Not sure what I can do to make undead fearsome again save alter their abilities, but that injury track is interesting.

I can understand the recalculation of abilities and negative levels being a pain. I like what Pathfinder did eliminating the permanence of negative levels without elminating their effect. That will make it somewhat easier.

I do like that those negative levels and ability damage were a nice way to show the long-term effects of poison or being touched by a horrible undead creature. Never much liked it for the vampire as it didn't fit the archetype, but it was very cool for Spectres and Wraiths.

We already are planning to update our fumble house rules and possibly crit rules. We are finding the CA to everyone on a 1 is a bit too painful, especially for AoE casters. I might work in some injury chances with the crit table. I kind of like what they did way back in 2E with critical hits in the Combat and Tactics.

[Reynard]

Originally Posted by Aristotle

Here is my question for the simulationist. Why is it that the simulation allows for characters to grow more powerful or suffer the ultimate defeat of death, but the rest of your meticulously crafted simulation isn't affected by random chance or the passing of time?

It doesn't. Simulation suggests that if there's a plausible reason for change, then change should occur. If there's not though -- that dragons been there for 10 years and will be for 100 more -- change, in the mechanical sense, doesn't need to occur, and only does for versimilitude breaking gamist reasons.

Why does simulation require stasis in all aspects other than the characters themselves?

It doesn't. See above.

Why must I endure an encounter that will end my story prematurely because the characters got to it too soon, or one that is anticlimactic and meaningless because they didn't get to it soon enough?

Because it isn't your story. It is their story and how they go about it, how they interact with it, and how it finally unfolds is their to determine, not yours. Adjusting setting elements like this on the fly makes the players' choices irrelevent in much the same way that fudging dice rolls does: the DM has decided that what the players have chosen to do doesn't matter as much as what he wants to have happen, so he manipulates things in ordr to get a result he likes better. It's railroading in a more subtle framework. The DM already has a thousand tools at his disposal, not least of which is creation and adjudication of the world in which the PCs adventure. If he changes it willy nilly during the course of play, he undoes his own work and undermines the efforts of the players to engage the world.

At least at my table. I don't understand why the simulation can't remain believable, and the story remain relevant.

Story is something that happens through play and is related after play. It is determined beforehand. Whether Gognard the Warrior's story ends with him becominga demigod or dying in a pit of kobold spikes isn't up to the DM -- that's not his job. His job is to adjudicate the world and allow the PCs to explore it at their leisure and peril.

EDIT: Just to be clear, i am not making any pronouncements as to how the game should be played. i am merely relating my own opinions regarding what makes for good, rewarding gaming. YMMV, of course.