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

[Old Gumphrey]

Regarding the feats issue, I don't really see it as a problem. Yeah, you have to do some planning if you really want specific feats at specific times, but it simply doesn't matter as much anymore. Feats just aren't that powerful.

[LostSoul]

Originally Posted by Reynard

More seriously: I prefer "swingy" combat because uncertainty is fun. I'd rather play in a situation in which one die roll can send plans nd tactics down the flusher, for the good guys or the bad guys. Sometimes, the villain goes down like a punk. Sometimes,the PCs have to retreat and regroup. It is preferable by far, IMO, than knowing that, all thing being equal, I need to set aside two hours of game time for the "boss fight".

I think that uncertainty is great. I think it's great because it makes each decision point important. You don't know what effect the choice you make will have, and that's fun.

However, uncertainty that lowers the number of choices you can make - "Oh crap, I rolled a 1, I'm dead" - is not very cool. "Oh crap, the bodak hit me, if he has line of sight on me next time he goes I'm dead" changes the situation and opens up a whole other line of choices.

[Shroomy]

Originally Posted by Old Gumphrey

Regarding the feats issue, I don't really see it as a problem. Yeah, you have to do some planning if you really want specific feats at specific times, but it simply doesn't matter as much anymore. Feats just aren't that powerful.

I don't even think it is a measure of power, its that most feats are not dependent on having another feat, instead being dependent on ability score, race, and class. And as far as I can remember, no PPs are dependent (so far, and I don't see this changing) on having a certain feat.

[Hussar]

Originally Posted by Reynard

Right, but the number of die rolls performed by the DM and the players (total) is pretty much the same. Sometimes there's an equal number of enemies. Sometimes there's one nemy with a number of attacks. But the probability of one of the players critting or whatever and the DM doing it with one of the enemies is pretty much equal (barring "builds" made for crits, etc..).



This is true, but I think it's because the intent, traditionally, is to have more, weaker foes vs the party rather than a singular powerful foe. If every time the party enters a room there's a CR=party level monter in 3E, chances are you are going to lose a PC sooner rather than later, and once one is gone, the spiral starts.

That's certain not true in 3e. It might be true before. 3e assumes very small numbers of opponents, 5 at the absolute most, because beyond that, the opponents simply cannot hurt the PC's. Their attack rolls are too low and their saving throw DC's are too low to have much effect.

I find that 2-3 baddies tends to work best. But, even then, if you start going EL+, you run into the same problems - monsters can simply kill PC's with straight up damage in 1-2 rounds. Particularly if you gang up on one PC - like a fighter meatshield trying to protect the wizard.

This wasn't an issue in earlier editions because monsters did so little damage with their attacks.

[Reynard]

Originally Posted by LostSoul

However, uncertainty that lowers the number of choices you can make - "Oh crap, I rolled a 1, I'm dead" - is not very cool. "Oh crap, the bodak hit me, if he has line of sight on me next time he goes I'm dead" changes the situation and opens up a whole other line of choices.

It doesn't lower the number of choices, though: it' a different decision point. "Oh, crap, a bodak! If I fail a save when that thing gazes me, I'm dead!" Now the decision point is before or at the beginning of the encounter. Run? (Yes, fleeing is a viable option -- a fact that seems to get forgotten a lot.) Fight blind or eyes averted and take the penalty? Have the cleric burn their best healing spell to do as much damage to the thing as possible? It's the same thing with the great sword wielding fire giant, who can smear almost any character with a successful crit. How do you engage such an enemy while minimizing the chance that it'll be able to do so?

I honestly think part of the issue is a difference in general playstyle attitude. It seems to me that it's a relatively recent development that "schtick building" has become prominent among players and there's less room for players to adapt their play behavior to changing circumstances, plus an attitude that not being able to use their schtick is considered not fun. Perhaps it is due to the ability (in 3E) or the near-requirement (in 4E) to hyper-focus a character so they are good at one thing in particular and very poor at other things. Sure, your 1E and 2E fighter could specialize, but by and large tht specialization gave limited benefits. The long sword pecialized fighter still carried a mace (for skeletons), a bow or crossbow (for stuff he didn't want to get near) and a ten foot pole (to push rust monsters away with). There was an uncertainty in what was coming next, what kind of threat it would be and where it sat relative to the power/experience level of the characters. Latter 3.5 (I blame Mearls, mostly) fanned the flames of this attutude by make "official" statements about what was fun and what wasn't. And it was a short leap from "fun" to "fair".

[Reynard]

Originally Posted by Hussar

That's certain not true in 3e. It might be true before. 3e assumes very small numbers of opponents, 5 at the absolute most, because beyond that, the opponents simply cannot hurt the PC's. Their attack rolls are too low and their saving throw DC's are too low to have much effect.

I think that's entirely dependent upon the level range we're talking about. A gang of 8 orcs is EL 5 (if I am remembering my EL math correctly). At that point, the orcs are swing with a +5, including flanking, against AC's that are not appreciably better than 1st level characters except for the tank fighters that pumped all their treasure into a suit of full plate (maybe everyoen else has a +1 or +2 increase from various gear and such). Are they are horrifying deadly threat? No. But they do represent a big enough threat that PCs have to expend some resources to ensure that no one gets seriously injured. that's okay. it isn't a boss fight, it is a "standard" fight. basic stats plus good tactics makes them a noticible threat. Now, as you start up the level ladder, things get a little wonkier, because PC defenses and capabilities grow exponentially as opposed to linearly.

I'll have to look up some specific examples and see if I can parcel out where the break is.

[LostSoul]

Originally Posted by Reynard

It doesn't lower the number of choices, though: it' a different decision point. "Oh, crap, a bodak! If I fail a save when that thing gazes me, I'm dead!"

What I'm saying is that the mechanics should increase the number of choices after we go to them. Using the bodak's death gaze doesn't create more decision points; either you're dead after your save, or you continue to do whatever you were doing prior to its gaze attack (i.e. trying to kill it/shut it down before it takes its turn).

4e's death gaze changes the situation after it hits you, opening up a whole new tree of decisions to be made that did not exist before.

A 4e example of mechanics limiting choices is the purple worm's swallow ability (under certain readings). If you're hit, the actions you can take - and the choices you can make - narrow down pretty fast.

[D'karr]

Originally Posted by Reynard

I think that's entirely dependent upon the level range we're talking about.

Exactly. In 3e the play experience remains fun without getting crazy for a short interval of levels. IME, from about level 4 to about level 12.

Now, as you start up the level ladder, things get a little wonkier, because PC defenses and capabilities grow exponentially as opposed to linearly.

You got it. 3e has a progression of power that breaks down at higher level, and a ramp up period that keeps the characters barely survivable.

So 4e flattened this curve so that power growth is now more linear. It also keeps the ramp up much more survivable and the higher level play still fun and relevant.

I much prefer that growth curve to the one in 3e.

[T-Bone JiuJitsu]

The Minion rules initially upset me. Now that I've used them in play, I think they are probably a good idea, and not as absurd as I originally thought.

I will probably continue to use them as is, but one solution came to mind. I may use this in the future if the need arises...

Elite Minions. If they are damaged they are considered Bloodied. If they are damaged a second time, Dead. The only thing to work out is what if that first hit is "high damage"? Say the fighter hits for like 19 hp damage in one blow, and I would expect that would outright kill this type of creature. DM judgement would have to be called in in that case. I'd say a critical hit would insta-kill an "elite minion".

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Originally Posted by Reynard

Right, but the number of die rolls performed by the DM and the players (total) is pretty much the same. Sometimes there's an equal number of enemies. Sometimes there's one nemy with a number of attacks. But the probability of one of the players critting or whatever and the DM doing it with one of the enemies is pretty much equal (barring "builds" made for crits, etc..)

But a key difference is always the emotional investment. Most players are invested in their characters, and very often, even the DM cares about the individual PCs (because he might have plot-hooks for them to draw them into the next adventure, or just because he enjoys seeing them in action) and the party as a whole.
The emotional investment in most NPCs and monsters is pretty low. They are exchangeable, and aside from maybe a few recurring NPCs (allies, nemesis, family members of the PCs), you care little about them. And if the few ones that you care about are killed by some lucky roll, the scene usually is anti-climatic.
Like those "Scry-Buff-Teleport" encounters, or at least the "buff up before facing the BBEG" - the party is optimizing all its defenses, casting every buff spell at its disposal, uses potions, and gets to the BBEG (either by Teleport or just traveling the remaining distance) - and the first action of the PCs just kills him. Like a succesful Save or Die attack. All the suspense was build up in planning the encounter, but the pay-off is a 1-round fight with the BBEG being totally ineffective?

---

What I noticed about the above: The buffing part of 3E got easily out-of-hand and often created statistical nightmares - but it definitely helped building up suspense. The party looks at everything they know about the foe they are about to attack, and tries to optimize its spell selection, buff distribution and work out the battle tactic (usually which short-term buffs to cast, when to cast certain attack spells, which foes to engage first, and so on).
Maybe that will be something I'll miss in 4E. The entire buff selection part is gone. (But the up-side is - the buff recalculations are gone, too. And those really bogged down this type of encounters.)

[Fenes]

We don't have much buffs in our game. The odd Eagle's splendor for some critical performance, mage armor, inspire courage if we have a bard. That's about it.

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Originally Posted by Fenes

We don't have much buffs in our game. The odd Eagle's splendor for some critical performance, mage armor, inspire courage if we have a bard. That's about it.

Well, I suppose it depends on how combat intensive your campaign is (yours isn't IIRC ), and how much experience you have made using these buffs effectively, and how deadly the encounters you face usually are. The Dungeon Adventure Path are combat intensive, filled with lots of dangerous encounters, and we were often "understaffed" in the first place (We have ~4 PCs, and some of the adventure paths were planned for 6 PCs originally...)

[Fenes]

Originally Posted by Mustrum_Ridcully

Well, I suppose it depends on how combat intensive your campaign is (yours isn't IIRC ), and how much experience you have made using these buffs effectively, and how deadly the encounters you face usually are. The Dungeon Adventure Path are combat intensive, filled with lots of dangerous encounters, and we were often "understaffed" in the first place (We have ~4 PCs, and some of the adventure paths were planned for 6 PCs originally...)

I haven't found any adventure, much less an adventure path, that had not much too much combat scenes in it. The last time a player DMed a bought adventure in our group he said he had to cut out 90% of the combat scenes, and it still ended up a combat-heavy adventure.

[Ginnel]

Originally Posted by FireLance

I've also been toying with the idea of a once per encounter recharge mechanism, and I think I might tie it instead to second wind (which characters also normally can use only once per encounter). Basically, you spend a healing surge, but instead of regaining hit points, you get back an expended encounter power instead. This rewards players who were clever or lucky enough not to be hit.

Heh you say Clever or Lucky I say cowards, in my opinion all characters should soak up a percentage of their hits in an adventure, especially if they consistently have temporary hit points.

I find nothing Clever about the Infernal Warlock in our group who walks about avoiding hits round corners so enemys can concentrate more fire on the defenders/other party members.

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Originally Posted by Fenes

I haven't found any adventure, much less an adventure path, that had not much too much combat scenes in it. The last time a player DMed a bought adventure in our group he said he had to cut out 90% of the combat scenes, and it still ended up a combat-heavy adventure.

I like combat.
But I still feel interested in what you might be playing. Am I missing something out? (Probably, but is this a matter of "opportunity cost" or would it appeal so much more to me? I'll never know...)

[Hussar]

Reynard - the problem is, by the time you say, "Oh crap a Bodak", you're already making saving throws. Unless you somehow knew that the bodak was there before you met it, you are going to be making saving throws immedietely.

Which means a large chunk of the party dies.

Now, 5 orcs is not EL 5 actually. That's fair, you were working from memory. It's actually EL 3. But, a 3rd level party should have about 2000 gp each (IIRC, now I'm working from memory) in equipment. That means heavy armor. Full plate easily, or at least breastplate plus a Dex bonus. AC 20 for front line characters is certainly not out of line without any buffs.

Our orcs BEST chances of hitting are only 25%. That's with flanking. So, one orc per round gets to hit (plus a bit). He's doing d8+3 damage or so. So, about 7 points /round. That's not even close to a threat to a 3rd level fighter. But, if it swings the other way and 4 of those orcs hit, your fighter dies in one round.

That's the problem.

[Reynard]

Originally Posted by Hussar

Reynard - the problem is, by the time you say, "Oh crap a Bodak", you're already making saving throws. Unless you somehow knew that the bodak was there before you met it, you are going to be making saving throws immedietely.

Which means a large chunk of the party dies.

Only if the party is in the habit of stumbling blindly from one encounter to the next, without concern as to what's around the corner. in which case a few surprise rounds with Bodaks would probably do them good.

[Jürgen Hubert]

Originally Posted by Reynard

Only if the party is in the habit of stumbling blindly from one encounter to the next, without concern as to what's around the corner. in which case a few surprise rounds with Bodaks would probably do them good.

That kind of stance can have its own downsides, however. While I want my players to be paranoid, I want them to be paranoid about plot developments and twists, not about dangers to their lives at every second of their existence. Taken too far, this could lead to the famous case of the party rogue testing every 10x10 square of every corridor the party passes through for traps just so that they are not taken unawares.

Surprising the party with an unexpected fight now and then is fine, but while I'm all for giving them a bloody nose, using instant-killer monsters for this is just too extreme for my tastes.

[Fenes]

Originally Posted by Mustrum_Ridcully

I like combat.
But I still feel interested in what you might be playing. Am I missing something out? (Probably, but is this a matter of "opportunity cost" or would it appeal so much more to me? I'll never know...)

The party's currently (since the start of the year or so) in the City of Brass, serching for a relic stolen from their church.

Last session the knight in the party made a deal with the envoy of a prince to prevent the princess (and heir to the throne of some country on a prime) from returning to her home. He also promised the princess, who wants the enovy killed for high treason, to protect her. He had the envoy followed by street urchins he hired, and found out about the envoy meeting with a devil before meeting with him.
While he was investigating where that devil may be staying in the city, someone looking like him went to the priestess of the party. As it turned out this was the devil in disguise, trying to get the priestess to transfer the debt an adventurer owed her to him so he could force the friend of the adventurer to get him a sword the two had just recovered and have to return to their country to save the original thief, a friend of theirs, from getting executed.
The knight went back to the inn the party is staying in during this, and hired some lady of the evening, which turned out to be the disguised half-sister and mortal enemy of the half-dragon the priestess saved from slavery two sessions ago.
The barbarian, which had been instrumental in getting the notes of a dead mage to the rebel faction, which needs them to restore the body and memories of the heir of the dead sultan, was getting ready to knock the "possessed" knight unconscious when the knight arrived at the scene in the company of the disguised "lady". The priestess managed to avoid bloodshed, much to the barbarian's chagrin, but the devil is staying nearby, waiting for the moment the adventuerer's debt is paid and she leaves the party's protection. He passes the time ramping the barbarian's paranoia up by making him think he could be anyone in disguise. The barbarian meanwhile is planning to "save" the efreeti prince the rebels want to restore from becoming an evil firedevil again, and may rat them out to the usurper on the sultan's throne, which the party strongly suspects of having stolen the relic.
Meanwhile, the founder of the city of brass, which the party freed, needs his powers back, which the vizier may have taken, which may or may not want to topple the current sultan, and may or may not make a deal with the party. The priestess, fueled both by vanity as well as the idea this might lead to the relic, also prepares for a big dance competition at the Sultan's palace, the first prize of which is a place in his harem - where a jinni princess is waiting who has made the priestess promise to get her out.

There are a few more subplots, but that's the gist of the main plot. I think they will finish this arc aroudn the end of this year, playing weekly.

[Fenes]

So, the focus really is not on combat, or ungeon crawling.