D&D 4E JamesonCourage Is Starting A 4e Game; Looking For Pointers

[Balesir]

The other guys here have done a fine job already, so "what they said"!

I'll just add that companion characters (in DMG2 but [MENTION=6696971]Manbearcat[/MENTION]'s thread gives clues - they're basically monsters with healing surges and benefits...) work well as henchmen, animal companions (a giant badger for the gnome? a dire wolf for the orc?) and the like. A good way to run them is for the players to control them in combat and the GM control them (using a very light touch) out of it. Minion 'companions' work as hirelings - I think there was a Dragon article on that a while back. They can scale to swarms if lots are hired, and work quite similarly to consumable magic items vis-a-vis cost and power.

Edit: I'll also give a slightly spoilery, slightly personal and slightly truncated view of the cosmology for 4E.

In the beginning, the Primordials made the multiverse. Not the gods - the Primordials. Then they decided to destroy it. You see, to them, the world(s) approximate plasticine, or Lego. You build something neat, then you want to break it all down to see what else you can build.

Problem was, by then the gods had decided they really liked what had been built - and had added to it (things like intelligent living beings and such). So they objected to the slate being wiped clean - and thus the Dawn War began.

When the dust had settled, the Primordials were all imprisoned or dead and the Primal spirits had formed a "cease fire line" that kept both gods and Primordials out of the Material plane. The gods weren't what you would call harmonious (the 'evil' ones and the devils fight the 'good' ones all the time), but the main conflict was finished - but for one thing. The surviving primordials (or rather, some of their creatures/juniors) had thrown a huge hissy fit, which became embodied (never mind how, for now) in a "shard of pure evil" that pierced the cosmos to its outer skin and, in doing so, formed the Abyss. So that's where demons come from.

So these are the "sides": the gods (with sub-sides within their own ranks), the devils (who hate the gods, but hate the demons/primordials more), the demons (who hate the cosmos, and want to see it ended just like daddy intended), the primal spirits (who, with druid and other allies try to protect the material plane from all these immortal lunatics) and the (few) remaining primordials that are not corrupted by the Thing that's at the heart of the abyss.

If you can't get some epic, four colour conflict out of that lot, then I suggest rewriting it in your own version - it's just one option, after all...

 

[JamesonCourage]

If in doubt, I'd give them out for free. Maybe use the PHB2 versions rather than the Essentials versions, which bring extra stuff with them on top of the maths - I'd say if a player wants the extra stuff (some of which is quite good), let them pay the feat slot.

Didn't know there were two versions. What you're saying here is likely what I'll go with.

I would say yes, in the same way that even a renegade drow is still connected to Lolth through that mythological racial history.

Interesting. I'll be reading over stuff soon, and keep this in mind.

I would try to gently discourage that - depending on the degree of sub-optimality, I guess. What I mean is that there is a certain sort of RPGer (I associate the type with 2nd ed AD&D) who takes a sort of pride in building a fighter with a 12 STR and a peg leg, and then roleplaying the hell out of it.

I think 4e will tend to suck for that sort of player taking that sort of approach. The game rewards individuality, and quirkiness, but you can get that via class, power, skill and feat selection without needing to mechanically hamstring yourself. It's such a mechanically driven game that it doesn't have quite the same space as AD&D 2nd ed for a "roleplaying instead of mechanics" approach to play.

I hope the above makes some sort of sense.

From what I understand, this player had lost his Assassin due to unfair circumstances (no save loss of character control upon stealing a dagger from what seemed to be a DMPC). He made a new character because his wife was playing, but purposely made a weak character that was stupid so he could zone out, since he had lost interest in the campaign. However, he ended up liking the character despite not like the campaign much anymore.

If he does play the same character (and I'm only about 50% sure he will), then I might try to convince him to go Ranger this time, to give his archer more mechanical weight. This guy doesn't seem like the "2e guy" you describe (though he loves White Wolf and Vampire!) in that sense.

It is very free form. Which relates somewhat to the above point about mechanics - the game expects you to use the mechanics rather than just RP (so is different from 2nd ed AD&D) but is very relaxed about precisely how the mechanics get deployed (which is the indie vibe that I feel very strongly in 4e - and which is also why GMing advice from a whole lot of "modern" games like Marvel Heroic RP and the like is useful for 4e GMs).

The single biggest weakeness in 4e, in my view, because it's not just a matter of taste but something that hits you when you try and play the game to its strengths, is the combat/non-combat interface. For instance, in a skill challenge an Athletics check is freeform and abstract like anything else; but in combat the rules for jumping and climbing are very tightly defined. A lot of the time this doesn't matter - but sometimes it does, and makes adjudication at the interface harder than it should be. I don't have any special tips for handling this other than be aware of it, and if it comes up try to take care that in resolving it you don't make the players feel like they got dudded.

That's interesting. Thanks for pointing it out; I will keep it in mind.

It's not a waste of my posting time to talk about how to get the most out of 4e! That's not quite 100% of why I'm posting here, but it's a good chunk of it!

It must be an odd discussion for you, since it's with me Thanks again, though (sent some XP your way).

 

[JamesonCourage]

Pemerton has already answered provided robust answers to most of your questions but I'll try to throw a few bits and bobs out there:

I appreciate the help.

1 - Have MM3 on a business card available for quick monster rendering.

I'm sort of naturally an improvisational GM, so this will help a lot. Thank you. I do plan to pull a lot of monster stats from my DDI account, but if I ever need something quick on the fly, this will help out.

2 - Better than that, have slyflourish's DM cheat sheet or at least the DCs and damage expressions for that level. Its extremely helpful to run the game generally and improv specifically. Drop down the damage expression to add a forced movement effect (like slide 1) or drop twice to add a larger one (slide 2). That is generally what my group uses it for; to manipulate opponents around the battlefield and into difficult or hindering terrain etc.

Oh, also very helpful. Thank you for this (XP sent your way!).

3 - On small groups: This is what my group has to deal with as they are only 3 (outside of the sweet spot for 4e). The metagamed Lazylord (fate, manifest destiny, etc) is one approach that I have used. Along with this technique, I have done 2 things to augment this play: (i) Give a rolling CA to each player for a full round until the LL initiative and then it goes to t he next person (we do this with a dice) and (ii) put two tokens on the table, players in charge of them, and let the players draw from the token pool when they want the metagamed Lazylord to "eat" an attack (done before the to-hit is rolled). I give them full narrative authority to justify the CA and the "eaten" attack in whatever way they wish to render the fiction. If they want you to do it, then that is fine too. Together, these two things simulate the tangibles of an actual physical presence of another character.

I'm not sure if I'd have the players narrate the "why" of it, but the "eat an attack" thing might work out for my group if there are only two of them. Thanks for the idea for that. I'm tempted to use the rolling CA, but it might be just a shy too fiddly, and I am trying not to change too many 4e rules.

Alternatively, you can just use the Companion (I did a thread on this not long ago) or Monster Building Rules and let 1 or 2 players run a low mental overhead, monster-like, character; eg a Huntsman's Hound, a Druid's Bear Protector, an Animated and Sentient Sword, etc. That rounds out a small group nicely and the low mental overhead removes the analysis paralysis potential. It also rounds out PC archetypes, nicely.

If you're running a game with only 2 characters and one of them is a squishy Psion (ranged controller), then what you may want to do is have the Psion player create a companion character that is riffed off of the Fighter that is, in essence, a tangible barrier that the Psion erects to interpose between itself and its foes; a "force" construct that is the physical embodiment of his/her extraordinary will. That would be thematically compelling, tactically fun and cover the stout, melee controller (Defender) role.

That's a good idea. I specifically didn't want them to have two characters each (so they could focus on RPing their one character), but having a sort of minion is a decent thought. The "force construct" idea is particularly good, as there's no new character there to RP, and it just enhances the Psion's abilities.

What does the potential roster look like outside of that Psion (with respect to class, combat role, and non-combat makeup)?

Potentially some sort of orc archer, but that's only about 50%. The other two potential players haven't played before, so I don't know. When we do make characters, it will be as a group, and I'll likely advise they have a well-rounded group, but I don't think I'll force it. Any thoughts on the 4-person group? I'll ask for more about a 2-person group if that turns out to be the case, and when I know what the other player will be using.

4 - I know you want to run pretty basic, but I would suggest Backgrounds and Themes. Low mental overhead but great thematic focus and rounds out the noncombat game nicely.

I think I will use them. I tend to like what they add. I'm avoiding too much deviation from 4e RAW, and I don't want to make things too complex, but these seem worth adding.

5 - Combats need to be large open spaces with lots of interactive terrain features and hazards. Combat should be mobile, dynamic, and interactive. Make sure that the tangible, rules-effect of these items are transparent to the players. I use a lot of quickly scrawled, shorthand, flash-cards like: Burning Cauldron - LU (limited-use), SA (standard action), L+4 vs Ref, CBL2 (close blast 2), 15 fire + 5 OG (that is high damage expression at first level). Don't be afraid to (now and again) insert a thematic, encounter-wide hazard or event (Avalanche!), which changes the scope or dynamic of the battlefield, triggering on the third round or when the combatants ventures somewhere. Use mixed groups, with interesting and varied synergy, to both challenge the PCs weaknesses and play to their strengths. Most importantly, keep it fast and furious! Don't get bogged down. Just keep the action moving forward.

Hmm, I hadn't been planning on having the "stats" out there for leveraging the terrain; it seems like there are too many ways to do so to have them all covered without it taking up a ton of my time. It is something I'll think about, though. Regardless, whether or not I write it all down, I do plan to tell players what the effect will be if they plan to use something ("kicking the burning cauldron over can be done once, is a standard action, attacks at +5, hits this area if you kick it from here, and does this much damage").

The rest is all very helpful. I do like the idea of mid-combat hazards for everyone. That could be really fun is used sparingly.

6 - Regarding Skill Challenges: I know you do something similar in your own game and pemerton has talked much about this above. Two quick things I will add are (i) use flash-cards to set scene elements that players can use to riff off of (like Aspects in Fate or Distinctions in MHRP), adding more as the scene evolves and (ii) be prepared mentally (or physically, eg with flash-cards) with a robust list of complications for successes and failures. Skill Challenges are a tennis match wrapped inside of the story-board panels of a Comic Book. The GM is serving and the players are returning serve, putting him on the defensive, with each shot being the players own comic book panel until the scene resolves itself. Moving a closed scene forward within the confines of a mechanical framework and the pacing of dramatic structure (Stakes > Rising Action > Climax > Falling Action > Denouement) is an artform. I see way too many people (on boards) locked up over binary task resolution and not know "where to go from here." You've passed a Diplomacy check with the King but are still at the Rising Action stage (several success or failures from resolution)....

I likely won't keep the specifics above too much in mind, and try keeping to my usual skill challenge approach to start with (which is a combination of "no" for failures" and "yes, and" or "yes, but" on success, until the skill challenge is resolved).

well something new happens to complicate whatever you're trying to accomplish! The Court Mage interjects openly or whispers something sinister into his ear...the Queen doesn't trust you and voices it...the doors to the throne room explode in an assassination attempt...the jester is an assassin and makes his move now while folks are off their guard...the King, now interested, invokes something specific regarding his kingdom's past as a test of your understanding of the historical or political implications of the situation to test your mettle. Etc, etc. The options are limited only by your imagination and genre logic.

Yep, all of this I can see happening with my method. One way or another, I might end up similarly to where you do.

7 - The Feywild and the Far Realm are two of the best parts of 4e. Since you have DDI, I would suggest taking a look at A Rhyme Gone Wrong in this month's Dungeon. This is a perfect example of playing up the disturbing eeriness of the Feywild and its threats.

Okay, thanks for the heads up

That is all I have for now. I'll check back in later. I'm glad you're giving it a good ole college try. I hope you guys have fun. The only other thing I'd say is that DMG2 is almost too good not to have. If you don't have access to one I'd be perfectly willing to send one to you if you want to PM me a physical address.

I don't have one, and I appreciate the offer, but you don't need to do that! That's very generous of you, though. I'd feel a bit odd having you send me one when I haven't even started out yet. However, since it seems that important, I'll look into borrowing one (from somewhere, I'm not sure I know anyone with it) or buying one. Any suggested sections for it in particular that are that helpful?

Thanks again. I appreciate it.

 

[JamesonCourage]

I'd avoid Solos for a group of two pcs. Basically an Elite is already what a Solo would be for a normal-sized party. Once they've earned a few levels using a low-level Solo is an option but still inferior to using an Elite. Adding minions or environmental hazards/traps to such an encounter is also much less important for a party of two.

I'll keep all of this in mind; thank you.

Unless you want to 'play' the 'lazy warlord' yourself, I'd suggest designing it as a companion character that can be controlled by one of the players.

I considered playing it myself, but I think I'll let them do so, to give them the tactical options they want. I was specifically trying to avoid it being an NPC traveling with them, but there are some interesting options available to me. Having it be a sort of ghost or demon (or fairy?) could work, or it could be a type of familiar, or even some sort of automaton / magical item (intelligent?). Alternatively, I could skip it, and go for something like one companion character per PC, like a force construct "Fighter" for the Psion that she manifests, and another companion (maybe a leader-type?) for the (possibly) archer PC.

I'll think about it. Why do you suggest companion characters instead of letting them run the meta Warlord, out of curiosity?

Regarding the wish-list: I wouldn't ask them for concrete items. Instead, ask them to describe in more general terms what kind of items they'd like to have, then choose them yourself. Give them access to the 'Transfer Enchantment' ritual in some way to have more freedom in picking items and placing them in a way that makes sense thematically. I also have a strong preference for using inherent bonuses, so you and the players can concentrate on the 'fun' aspects of magic items rather than using them as a mathematical crutch.

I think I plan on using the "upgrade item" option that pemerton mentioned, along with inherent bonuses. I'll likely keep their general wants in mind by asking, like you suggest. Thanks for the input; I hadn't explicitly said I was using inherent bonuses yet, but I do want to.

Apart from that, I wish you good luck and most importantly: Have fun!

Thank you! (Can someone cover some XP for me?)

 

[JamesonCourage]

Welcome aboard! The more the merrier, and I hope you enjoy things.

Thanks I plan to have fun, and since I have my normal group going regularly, hopefully I can give 4e an honest shot.

Basic rules of running 4e:
1: Don't sweat the small stuff. And you don't actually need to know what the PCs can do. They'll surprise you a little, but you don't have to write your plots round their abilities.

2: Combat is like a chocolate layer cake covered by cream. It's delicious, enticing, but is best used as desert than a whole meal. Run too many "incidental fights" and everyone will just be sick, but as the final course on a meal it's wonderful.

Good stuff. I'll swap over to vanilla cake instead, though; I dislike chocolate. But yeah, I doubt I will have all their abilities in mind right away, but I'll learn them for sure over time (I just pick that stuff up naturally). And I'm used to not having "just because" combats, so I'll stick with that trend, and make each combat matter.

3: The PCs will often look as if they are stuffed early on in fair combats. This is working as planned and they are normally in a better state than they appear to be.

I'll try to keep this in mind, as it's not what I'm used to. Thanks.

4: Skill challenges are a very nice DM tool in the right hands (both @pemerton and I love them). But if you don't see what they are good for, just don't use them. This is no more a house rule than not having the bad guys know a certain spell you don't like is.

I do plan on using them. I think they'll be fine.

5: Rests are fairly important. If you ever want to scare the PCs or run 4e "Survival Horror" style, harry them and prevent them taking short rests - attack them every couple of minutes. And if you're using extended rests as written, unless you run about four fights per day you're really going to notice them overpowering encounters when they get the second daily attack power at 5th level.

I likely will plan on running extended rests as written, so that's good to keep in mind. I'm not used to four combats per day, but I'll likely try to get it to be the case, especially as of 5th, apparently. Thanks for the tip (XP sent!).

How much the battle map is needed for 4e is distinctly overrated. Take a quick look at the PCs character sheets. If they have no abilities that cause forced movement (push, pull, slide) then the battle map adds no more to 4e than it does to any other edition and can be cut. If they like forced movement then every time you have a fight make sure that it's somewhere with something for the PCs to push/pull/slide the NPCs into/onto/over/off. (A fight on a waterfront or a pier is perfect - and for bonus marks taking on overwhelming odds on a narrow mountain pass where the PCs give the NPCs flying lessons (most fail) is great fun). And remember some NPCs can do this right back.

Also we find it handy to have a collection of paperclips to put on the models, although others use cards to track conditions. This depends a lot on your group.

I do plan on using the battle map regardless of forced movement, as the group has expressed an interest in it. I like your ideas on where to fight, though. Both sound fun.

I don't think we'll be using actual miniatures (probably cardboard disks with pictures on them), but having markers for conditions might be up on the whiteboard I own. I might leave a marker on the map just to help us remember, but I'm not sure yet. Thanks again.

The way I use scaling DCs (and most 4e DMs I know do much the same) is that the DCs scale to the level of the environment not to the level of the PCs. So for example you set the farm the PCs grew up on as level 1 - and the local goblin camp is level 2. And then call most things in that environment "trivial" (no roll), "easy", "medium", "hard", and "Don't bother" (no roll). They are level 9 and dealing with the local city's mayor and cronies (a level 9 environment) but when they go home to see their parents, that farm is still a level 1 area. Which means that the fighter has a fair chance of picking the fine lock to dad's strongbox the thief taught himself lockpicking on, and the wizard can climb the fighter's favourite tree without much trouble. The default assumption is that the level of the area the PCs are in will be about equal to their level, and that's why the world seems to scale around them.

I agree, this does seem to be the way most people run it. I think I'm going to scale things more directly to PC power, however, rather than scale up the challenges, since I'll be leaving the game kinda sandbox-y (though not completely). I also think scaling works to the strength of 4e, and just doing so as a general rule (while letting the PCs interact with anywhere) might be a lot easier than trying to force them into "level appropriate" setting stuff.

Early 4e solos did not live up to their promise. But for two PCs, don't use solos most of the time as they are meant to be a match for a party of five. Elites are meant to be a match for a couple of PCs together.

Noted; I'll steer clear of solos and use elites unless I do have four players.

Why would you? All you need is for there to be something there that makes some terrain better to be in than others. A fight along a waterfront would be more than enough (anyone with forced movement is going to gleefully be making others go splash!)

And I'll likely make an attempt to make fights happen here, rather than a more simple "there are bushes around" or "there are pillars, and one throne" type of fight.

4e Cosmology 101. [SNIP]

Wow, thanks for all that effort. It'll give me a basic outline while I read through stuff, which will really help. I also copy-pasted it for later reference (though I'll be checking in this thread, still). Thank you, man. That was very cool of you.

Given that level 1 is about the equivalent of level 3 that sounds good.

Okay, cool.

That's going to get ... interesting. A mage (unless he means a battlemind) and an archer are both squishy and really don't like taking orcs to the face. Instead of a warlord you might want to give them a knight as third PC.

I might go with pemerton's suggestion for a companion "Fighter" force construct for the psion, and let the archer (if that's the direction he goes) wind up with a magic item Warlord or something. Haven't decided yet (I will know more about whether it's a 2-4 person party in the days to come, but it looks like it's more likely 4 than 2).

The XP budgets are DM advice rather than mandatory. What they say is "If you do things like this it will probably work out well. If you do otherwise, on your own head be it".

I'll keep the guidelines in mind, unless there's a reason not to. Does it work well for the standard 4-PC or 5-PC party?

They don't need handing out for free - especially not after the Essentials upgrades to them. (The original versions were handed out for free largely because they were boring).

I think I'll hand out the PHB2 versions for free, and let them upgrade to the Essentials versions if they spend a feat, as pemerton suggested.

Again, glad to see you joining us, and have fun!

Thanks man! I almost tagged you in my original post, but you seem rare on these boards these days. But I'll tag you if I have more questions, and I plan on updating everyone when I play / as I need stuff answered. Thanks again for all your help.

 

[JamesonCourage]

The other guys here have done a fine job already, so "what they said"!

I know, everyone is so helpful

I'll just add that companion characters (in DMG2 but @Manbearcat's thread gives clues - they're basically monsters with healing surges and benefits...) work well as henchmen, animal companions (a giant badger for the gnome? a dire wolf for the orc?) and the like. A good way to run them is for the players to control them in combat and the GM control them (using a very light touch) out of it. Minion 'companions' work as hirelings - I think there was a Dragon article on that a while back. They can scale to swarms if lots are hired, and work quite similarly to consumable magic items vis-a-vis cost and power.

Stuff I will keep in mind while I think about party dynamics, then.

Edit: I'll also give a slightly spoilery, slightly personal and slightly truncated view of the cosmology for 4E. [SNIP]

Wow, I quite like what you've described. Thank you for taking the trouble to post it. I'm glad you did, though, because it sounds cool (for what I had in mind for 4e), and it'll give me a basic idea while I read over stuff and then leverage it in my campaign. I really appreciate you helping me out.

 

[Klaus]

Some quick clarifications:

Feywild: it houses both the Seelie *and* the Unseelie Fey. The good and the bad. The eladrins and the hags. The Feywild's Underdark (Feydark) houses the kingdoms of the misshapen fomorians, and there is a goblin kingdom there, too.

Shadowfell: this is the realm of the dead, at least until they reach a more final destination (which may be a god's dominion, or reincarnation, no one knows for sure). It has its own Underdark (Shadowdark). Unlike the Feywild, there is little "good" here.

The Abyss: this cancer at the bottom of existence was created by Tharizdum, the mad god, who planted there the Heart of the Abyss, a shard of pure evil. The Heart corrupted the Elemental Chaos around it, creating a "funnel" that is draining away existence into oblivion (some say the entire Elemental Chaos is slowly rotating into this maelstrom). The elementals caught within the influence zone of the Heart became demons, and the Primordials there became Demon Lords, and they want nothing better than to see the universe burn.

Now, on to more general 4e advice. You can populate your game with creatures in the same manner D&D has been done for decades, but keep one important bit: if the fight isn't meant to be important, make them all minions. The guards walking down the corridor? Minions. The orc cultists they chance upon? Minions. Only when the fight has some consequence for the story do you pull out the brutes, soldiers, skirmishers, lurkers, elites and solos. Will the characters dispatch the minions quickly? Yes. But they will slowly learn their powers, will probably spend some resources, and if you pace the encounter correctly, they might even burn an encounter/daily/surge.

 

[JamesonCourage]

Some quick clarifications: [SNIP]

Thanks for the clarifications (XP sent your way). Stuff to keep in mind

Now, on to more general 4e advice. You can populate your game with creatures in the same manner D&D has been done for decades, but keep one important bit: if the fight isn't meant to be important, make them all minions. The guards walking down the corridor? Minions. The orc cultists they chance upon? Minions. Only when the fight has some consequence for the story do you pull out the brutes, soldiers, skirmishers, lurkers, elites and solos. Will the characters dispatch the minions quickly? Yes. But they will slowly learn their powers, will probably spend some resources, and if you pace the encounter correctly, they might even burn an encounter/daily/surge.

I was planning on using a lot of minions, if for no other reason than to keep stuff moving. Should I explicitly tell them they're minions? It seems like it might hurt immersion on one hand, but on the other hand, spending a daily on a minion might also hurt immersion (as disappointment overtakes immersion). Should I just emphasize the one guy who looks different if they're intermixed (the giant orc in black armor surrounded by normal orc skirmishers)?

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

I have some advice here, although it probably overlaps with what you've already been told. Anyway: http://www.enworld.org/forum/showth...4e-Plunge-Helpful-hints&p=6111319#post6111319

You should tell PCs when they're confronting minions. The brain mole monster (okay, it's an April Fool's joke, but still from WotC) isn't a minion but makes itself look like one.

You don't want PCs wasting daily abilities on a minion. (But killing seven minions with one AoE daily spell is perfectly alright.)

 

[Klaus]

Thanks for the clarifications (XP sent your way). Stuff to keep in mind

I was planning on using a lot of minions, if for no other reason than to keep stuff moving. Should I explicitly tell them they're minions? It seems like it might hurt immersion on one hand, but on the other hand, spending a daily on a minion might also hurt immersion (as disappointment overtakes immersion). Should I just emphasize the one guy who looks different if they're intermixed (the giant orc in black armor surrounded by normal orc skirmishers)?

No need to bring up the metagame. If the equipment is different, sure ("one of the orcs is clad in black plate armor covered in nicks and dents, and the others seem to shy away from him"), but otherwise let them sort out who's a minion and who's not. If they blow a daily to take care of three or four minions, it's okay (4e is forgiving enough when it comes to recovering resources). Let them roll damage, and then annouce the targets are dead (as if they died from the damage dealt, not from their 1 hp).

Another thing: lots of DMs fall into the trap of making only balanced encounters, with foes of the PCs' level. Don't be afraid to mix it up. Throw a few normal creatures that are five levels below the PCs for that "quasi-minion" feel, and throw an elite that is three levels higher to make them sweat. 4e PCs are very capable, so don't be afraid of putting them to the test.