Poll: What is a Level 1 PC?

[Imaro]

This is far afield. But it's the same game because it's the same game, and monster math is the only fundamental part of the game that was substantially updated - and that wasn't even in Essentials, it was back around MM3.

Otherwise, it's both a supplement and a separate starting point. You can run an E-only game, or incorporate them. It's not like you can't use a PHB1 Fighter and a Slayer seamlessly at the same table.

-O

I thought neonchameleon also stated that skill challenge rules were also changed...

[Obryn]

I thought neonchameleon also stated that skill challenge rules were also changed...

The skill challenge system itself - number of successes vs. number of failures - was revised in one of the very first waves of errata. Because, again, it needed more playtesting. (Stalker0 was, I think, one of the folks who figured out how awful the math was.) The DCs were also changed with that errata, and further changed in 2010. The Rules Compendium reflected these changes. So the DCs have been changed 3 times, and the structure changed once (or more, if you count both success/failure and general advice for running them as two different things). And only part of that coincided with Essentials, which is another reason why it confuses me that everyone always points to it as a new edition.

DMG2 and a few Dragon articles were the primary places where the skill challenge system itself was changed. Notably, not even Keep on the Shadowfell used the (awful, ridiculous) structure from DMG1.

-O

[S'mon]

In fact I'd be curious to hear from some 4e fans on why they consider the 4e encounter guidelines to work so well. In other words what criteria are they judging them by?

I find that they do create challenges of about the level the DMG suggests, at least in my campaigns (I use post-MM3 damage, halve monster hp, and limit PC sources, typically to PHB 1&2 + Essentials, plus maybe a flavour book). I find that EL+0 encounters are tough enough to feel interesting, but are beatable, EL+1 to +2 are tough, EL+3 are very tough and sometimes the PCs lose, EL+4 is a 50-50 tossup whether the PCs win or lose.
I'm aware that with other GMs and groups the threat level is left-shifted, eg they may find EL+2 is only moderately challenging.

[S'mon]

I find it strange that in many of these discussions you tend to go to Monster Vault as the default Monster Manual. It's the 4th monster book created for 4e. I'm not sure I would expect people to be using it as their default monster book... especially since one would have to be willing to spend more money, invest in what was labelled as an essentials product (as well as pay for a ton of tokens you may or may not want) and have waited years after release of the core books in order to get it. I'm not saying you're wrong for bringing it up... but I also feel like you tend to gloss over those factors.

The original 4e Monster Manual was a huge screw up by WoTC. As written, most of the monster stats just don't work. It needs heavy editing for the game to work.

[Neonchameleon]

I thought neonchameleon also stated that skill challenge rules were also changed...

Skill challenge rules in the DMG 1 were clearly, obviously flawed. Any skill challenge needed twice as many successes to succeed as failures to fail. What this meant was that if passing the skill challenge was at all likely, complex skill challenges were much less likely to be failed due to dice perversity than simple ones. This was errata'd pretty fast to a "three strikes" model. This was a hideous failure of both playtesting and conceptual design.

[Obryn]

Skill challenge rules in the DMG 1 were clearly, obviously flawed. ... This was a hideous failure of both playtesting and conceptual design.

Not to mention the whole "roll initiative and everyone takes a turn" bit, which was completely out of place in a non-combat situation. And the advice to allow any skill whatsoever, no matter the circumstances. And, and, and... Really, I could go on and on about how bad the pre-errata DMG1 system is.

I give the designers credit for trying, and I think the broad, overall idea is fine - being able to assign a level and an XP value to a skill challenge is pretty helpful (in theory). It was just not done right.

-O

[Hussar]

As far as using the encounter guidelines, something that the DMG 1 DID do right was in their "monster packets" (I think that's what they were called). You were never, really, supposed to use 5 of the same creatures of the same level. The DMG actually strongly advises against this. By and large it was one or two creatures a level or two above the party and the bulk of creatures a level or two behind.

If you follow that advice and then add in the bulk of baddies as skirmishers, grind goes away and you get really interesting encounters.

Now, the initial WOTC modules were pretty bad. Naw, that's not strong enough. They were outright crap. Far too many soldiers, and encounters with not enough diversity. You have to mix it up. Heck, compare the WOTC modules to the Robot Chicken live play adventure that was used - miles apart. And, pretty telling that ...whatsisface... didn't use any pre-packaged adventures for the live play broadcasts.

Look, compare initial release 3e with even the second release PHB. There are huge differences. People gloss over them because the first release PHB's weren't in circulation that long. The second and subsequent releases were only months later and we went to 3.5 very soon after that.

The 4e PHB (and core books) sold extremely well and were never changed. So all those revisions and whatnot get buried. It's a shame that WOTC didn't spend another year developing 4e.

[Mattachine]

So, how 'bout them 1st level PCs?

[Hussar]

heh, we did get a bit sidetracked.

[shidaku]

So, how 'bout them 1st level PCs?

Delicious with a side of fava beans and a light Chianti.