General RPG DiscussionDiscussion of all RPGs and non-system-specific topics. DM/GM/player issues, settings, etc. Rules discussion belongs in one the forums below.
Got a question. I play with some folks who don't seem very interested in any kind of adventure that requires a character over 6th or so level. My persaonl feeling is things don't really get interesting until you're at least 10th.
So my question is this: how is 4e for high-level adventuring?
I have been playing since the 70's and have never really had too much trouble with high-level things getting out of hand until 3.5 came along. My 22nd level fighter/sorcerer/arcane archer was doing up to 600 points of damage in a round, which got a little crazy. But my 17th level Magic-User from 2nd edition got in and out of more scrapes (barely) than I can shake a stick at.
__________________ That is not dead, which can eternal lie, yet with strange eons, even death may die
-H.P.L.
Well, my face to face group has been playing 4E since it came out and we have gone straight form 1st to 18th now. And 4E has been playable, even enjoyable the whole way. Some bumps in the road, including a couple TPKs, but overall good.
But tlaking about high paragon, yes, the newer abilities are interesting, but it is more that feats and magic items that have expanded. WE really don't have a ton more powers than we did at the end of heroic, but mroe magical items, and choices there. Add in a few paragon feats and we have some nice abilities, though at-wills are still pretty important.
The thing I have noticed is that the dice rolling is much the same. A 14 or above hits, an 18 always hits, but sometimes you can hit on a 8, or even a 3 or more against the right opponent with the right power. At low levels, you could not hit with a 3 or even an 8 much, but at higher levels the swing between hitting a hard defense and an easy defense is a lot bigger. It is nearly the same for opponents attacking us. Pick the 36 AC or the 22 reflex on our dwarf fighter. Which would you choose? And there is little he can do about it, unfortunately. Sure, take a feat for a +2, which means the monsters need a 8 instead of a 6 to hit him? Why bother, better to keep working on his core abilities.
But the game does work at higher levels, I have to say.
Got a question. I play with some folks who don't seem very interested in any kind of adventure that requires a character over 6th or so level. My persaonl feeling is things don't really get interesting until you're at least 10th.
Why? Our 4E game is at 6th level right now and we are having fun. One of the design goals of 4E was to give 1st level characters more to do mechanically speaking and it does that.
Why? Our 4E game is at 6th level right now and we are having fun. One of the design goals of 4E was to give 1st level characters more to do mechanically speaking and it does that.
I will echo the OP on this one actually.
While 4e gives you more powers, I don't feel I get more at low levels.
Caster types of course get the variety of 3e spells at low levels. And 3e feats generally add more new abilities than the 4e counterparts. Plus at low level you had the thrill of often one shotting monsters with your weapon.
My group felt that they didn't get enough "stuff" until right about paragon level to have some variety.
Why? Our 4E game is at 6th level right now and we are having fun. One of the design goals of 4E was to give 1st level characters more to do mechanically speaking and it does that.
Yes, but 6th level is another encounter, utility, daily and 3 feats. Considering a 1st level character has 2(3) at wills) 1 encounter and 1(2) feats (human) that is a 100% imporovement in options duiring combat. Not bad.
The innate +3 to all skills is nice too, as you feel you can actually succeed at non-trained rolls.
Yes, 4E is the best so far for 1st level play, hands down (IMHO), but I will like a few levels higher.
I haven't played at high levels, but I get the impression the game doesn't even start to break down until high epic.
That hasn't been our experience. We're in early Epic levels now (22nd), and a couple of things have become evident since about mid-Paragon (level 16+):
The gulf in difference between optimised and non-optimised PCs. Last session, our optimised characters were having an easy time of it, whereas our non-optimised ranger's night pretty much consisted of going down and being healed and hoping to roll natural 20s (to hit the opponents).
Just like 3e, there are a lot of "auto-win" buttons, especially for wizards. Spells like Evards Black Tentacles pretty much single-handedly win an encounter when used right.
Much like every other edition of D&D, 4e very much has a sweet spot. Admittedly, it seems to be between level 1 and level 15, which is much wider than previous editions.
Why? Our 4E game is at 6th level right now and we are having fun. One of the design goals of 4E was to give 1st level characters more to do mechanically speaking and it does that.
From my opinion, as a DM, the monsters don't really start getting badass until early paragon. The very cool, very nasty, very complex stuff.
As a player, the powers just get more meaty. For instance, the only wall a wizard's going to get at level 6 is a wall of fog.
The gulf in difference between optimised and non-optimised PCs. Last session, our optimised characters were having an easy time of it, whereas our non-optimised ranger's night pretty much consisted of going down and being healed and hoping to roll natural 20s (to hit the opponents).
Was the character intentionally handicapped, only hitting on a 20 seems remarkable even for a very casual character.
__________________ Oni
"Each man, one way.
Each horse, one stance.
Each church, one buddha.
Each master to his own technique."
From my opinion, as a DM, the monsters don't really start getting badass until early paragon. The very cool, very nasty, very complex stuff.
As a player, the powers just get more meaty. For instance, the only wall a wizard's going to get at level 6 is a wall of fog.
I've only DMed and played in Heroic Tier games so far. Does the problem with 'grinds' get worse at higher level? I'm just asking for an average or general assessment, I'm familiar with several threads that advise DMs to mitigate grinds. I guess what I mean, would be if combat becomes more decisive (as in more proportionate damage being dealt)?
C.I.D.
__________________ Journey into the world of the Spire and the Abyss! A 4e Campaign based around airships and exploration of a recovering world.
Was the character intentionally handicapped, only hitting on a 20 seems remarkable even for a very casual character.
I guess it depend on your definition of handicapped, but no, he wasn't intentionally gimped. My observation of the character/encounter:
The PC is more RP focussed than combat focussed. For example: I think he is the only PC with the skill training feat, plus he had a much more "realistic" spread of stats than is typical/expected of 4e PCs (i.e.: I think his lowest stat was a 12 or 14, his primary stat was an 18 and he had 2 or 3 stats at 18).
He fell into a lot of the "traps" that the designers supposedly removed from 4e (not taking Weapon Expertise and/or Paragon/Robust defences, not having high enough stats to get the improved crit feat for his weapon, etc).
Being a TWF ranger, and therefore needing 2 magic weapons, his magic weapons were a little below the curve (+4 rather than +5).
Being a more well rounded character all his defences were good, but none were great. Seeing as the enemies were mostly targeting AC, he soaked up a lot more punishment than the other characters.
The encounter was a fairly tough one anyway - most of the PCs (without buffs) were needing 13 or so to hit the enemies, and there was little point in giving him the buffs to improve "needing a 20 to hit" to "needing a 17 to hit".
It seems that 4e, more than any other version of D&D, really rewards specialists over generalists.
Does the problem with 'grinds' get worse at higher level?
Yep, that's definitely been our experience. We typically get about 2 encounters (3 in a good session) in about a 3-4 hour gaming session.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cyronax
I guess what I mean, would be if combat becomes more decisive (as in more proportionate damage being dealt)?
Yes and no. As I said above, a lot of powers are "insta-win", as in, once they're used there's really only one way an encounter is going to go. However, unlike 3e, the opponents are still hanging around taking rounds to actually die rather than being instantly defeated.
Hmmm... hard to explain without an example. Take Evards Black Tenatcles. Once it goes down (pretty much every encounter at Epic Level), any enemies it catches who don't have teleportation, phasing or flight are pretty much out of the combat. But they continue to sit there making saves and taking 20-40 points of damage a round. Given that most epic level opponents have hundreds of HP, they hang around for a loooooong time... occasionally one will get out, have a round of action and then get thunderwaved (or something similar) back in. The fight is over - the monsters just don't know it...
He fell into a lot of the "traps" that the designers supposedly removed from 4e (not taking Weapon Expertise and/or Paragon/Robust defences, not having high enough stats to get the improved crit feat for his weapon, etc).
Except these options didn't exist until March. Are you saying that before then, everyone sucked?
Quote:
It seems that 4e, more than any other version of D&D, really rewards specialists over generalists.
Tell that to the monk or paladin of old. Or Bard, for that matter.
My group felt that they didn't get enough "stuff" until right about paragon level to have some variety.
I can understand the sentiment. I draw a "stuff" line myself, I just draw it a bit lower. For me, I don't feel like there is enough stuff until I get my second Daily - level 5. At that point, I feel like I can go a ways without shuffling back down to at-will, at-will, at-will.
Except these options didn't exist until March. Are you saying that before then, everyone sucked?
Who said anything about everyone sucking?
Before PHB2 was released we were all a lot lower level (around 13th - 14th from memory as we were just starting P2) and the difference was a lot less pronounced. Since then, we've gained a few levels and the difference between those with and without Weapon Expertise is +3 to hit, and those with and without Robust Defences is +2 to all non AC defences. Those aren't insignifican't differences, especially when those with are the characters who were already more optimised...
It's definitely a "trap" for those who don't game the system.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rechan
Tell that to the monk or paladin of old. Or Bard, for that matter.
I never said older versions didn't also reward specialists, just that it is a problem 4e certainly hasn't fixed. D&D has always been a game for specialists.
I never said older versions didn't also reward specialists, just that it is a problem 4e certainly hasn't fixed. D&D has always been a game for specialists.
You said 4e rewards specialists more than any previous edition. If D&D has always been a game for specialists...
I guess it depend on your definition of handicapped, but no, he wasn't intentionally gimped. My observation of the character/encounter:
The PC is more RP focussed than combat focussed. For example: I think he is the only PC with the skill training feat, plus he had a much more "realistic" spread of stats than is typical/expected of 4e PCs (i.e.: I think his lowest stat was a 12 or 14, his primary stat was an 18 and he had 2 or 3 stats at 18).
The character seems astonishingly bad. As in, you'd have to actually make an effort to create such a character. 4E gives two stat bonuses on levels 4, 8, 14 and 18, as well as the "all in" stats... and somehow this Ranger only has an 18 Strength? (Most of the rest of the party would have 24-26 in their primary stat, I take it?)
How do you get to cast Evard's Black Tentacles so often, btw?
Incidently, Weapon Expertise is still only a +2 bonus at level 22. It finally reaches +3 at level 25.
You said 4e rewards specialists more than any previous edition. If D&D has always been a game for specialists...
Both statements can be true. I don't dispute that 3e definitely rewarded specialists (certainly the "specialist" classes were usually better than the "generalist" ones and there was encouragement to take a high primary ability score for those specialist classes), but with 4e it certainly seems to be much more enshrined in the system.
E.g.:
The "standard array" IME is actually 18, 14, 11, 10, 10, 8 and not 16, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10.
Most characters have a Race that gives them +2 to their primary stat.
Most characters will take Weapon Expertise (certainly by 15th level), and Paragon/Robust Defences.
Most characters take powers that build on their secondary stat.
All choices that reward specialisation over generalisation, and all choices that you will see in 99%+ of "optimised" characters.
I suppose I was saying that while 3e certainly rewarded specialists over generalists, it was possible (or at least much easier) to make an effective generalist in 3e than it is in 4e.
So yes, I stand by both my statements. D&D has always been a game for specialists, and 4e rewards specialists more than any previous edition.
The character seems astonishingly bad. As in, you'd have to actually make an effort to create such a character.
Not necessary. The player fell into the trap of making a generalist in 4e. He decided he wanted to be good at both melee and ranged combat, therefore he started with 14s in both Str and Dex, and then treated them as his "primary" stats and split his primary level bumps between Str and Dex, and his secondary level bumps among his other stats (primarily Wisdom). I think he has 18 Str, Dex and Wis now, and everything else is 12+ (maybe even 14+).
Quote:
Originally Posted by MerricB
How do you get to cast Evard's Black Tentacles so often, btw?
1/day for the basic daily
1/day for Archmage Spell Recall
1/day plus 1/2 encounters for Arcane Mastery epic feat
So he can cast it once for each of the first 5 encounters of the day, and then every second encounter after that. Usually the fighter types are well out of healing surges and wanting to rest by the 5th encounter of the day at Epic levels.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MerricB
Incidently, Weapon Expertise is still only a +2 bonus at level 22. It finally reaches +3 at level 25.
Right, sorry, my bad. Still, a permanent +2 is certainly significant.
So yes, I stand by both my statements. D&D has always been a game for specialists, and 4e rewards specialists more than any previous edition.
I saw some pretty mad specialists in high (15th+) level D&D, and they left any generalists far, far behind. We were talking 40 AC vs 25 AC and things like that. I was putting in winter wolves that weren't much of a threat to the party just so the bard could hit something. With ability scores hitting levels of 30+, the gap just kept getting bigger and bigger.
That ability to just keep casting Evard's seems pretty impressive. We'll see if my group does so. (What am I typing? Of course they will!) We've just hit paragon levels, and it's been fun so far.
The Weapon Expertise is definitely significant.
I'm still astonished by that ranger. The starting stats are bad, and it just gets worse from there. Even at paragon levels, that ranger would have been significantly worse than everyone else. Are the higher non-core stats actually giving it any useful bonuses?
Linear Mode
And yet another word from our sponsors
