Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
6 players, 5 hours, 4th edition
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Rodrigo Istalindir" data-source="post: 4079807" data-attributes="member: 2810"><p>Part 2</p><p></p><p>There was definitely a lot of '3e' hangover. For example, the differences in how reach works. Players kept forgetting that reach doesn't (usually) count for attacks of opportunity, which caused a little confusion and 'oh, then I would have moved here' moments. Lots of slips of the 'I take a five foot step' or counting out movement in 5' increments. </p><p></p><p>I will reiterate my dislike for the 'squares' vs 'feet' change. It's unnatural, it unnecessarily reinforces the boardgame aspects, it's bad for immersion, and I won't use it :grumpy: Similarly, the elimination of 1-2-1 movement (all squares cost 1) caused a lot of wonky stuff. For example, in room 4 when I teleported to the top of the wall, it was a purely diagonal move, and had it been old-school 1-2-1 it would have been well out of my range. And the more squares involved, the worse it gets. For normal movement it's barely tolerable, but for running and long range spells and archery, I find it ugly and gamey.</p><p></p><p>The change in Reach+AoOs, while it may streamline play somewhat, I don't care for. Now, Reach only counts for the creatures attacks; unless they have Threatening Reach, it doesn't come into play for AoOs. No one in the group had a reach weapon, so I don't know how it will effect their usefullness. But on the face of it it seems to nerf something where a better approach would have been to provide better ways of countering it.</p><p></p><p>The character that died had the worst run of luck I've seen in a while. With the healing checks, saves vs acid, saves vs dying, failed stabilization rolls, etc., I counted ten consecutive 50/50 rolls that came up short before the Grim Reaper claimed his victim. This, for first level characters vs a large black dragon! So, I'm still a little skeptical that combat in normal circumstances will carry the kind of risk that I like to see. Combine the removal of 'Fight Defensively' and the reduction of Total Defense, the rapid healing during and between encounters, and it seems like there is little point in not going toe-to-toe with the enemy and just bashing it out.</p><p></p><p>The change in attacks and saves might do something to reduce the dump-stat problem, but I'm not sure. Depending on the spread of abilities, I think it will still be entirely possible to min-max more than you can now. And it might actually make having a single uber-high stat even more effective than it is now.</p><p></p><p>Overall, we did 5 encounters in 5 hours, give or take. The relative lack of experience with the rules was offset by playing first level characters with a relatively small number of options at their disposal (althougjh as 1st level eladrin ranger, I had 7 abilities that could be expected to come up often, and two that would be used almost every single round. It will be interesting to see what 20th level characters have at their disposal. Based on my limited experience, I don't see combat running any faster, there were just as many (if not more) die rolls by both the party and the DM, and the level of complexity for 1st level was substantially higher than in 3e. Even if the power curve is flatter, I don't see any substantial improvement in speed or playability.</p><p></p><p>Some of the changes regarding cover, movement, and other fringe cases kinda bug me, as they really reduce the sense of the dreaded V-word. It's not any one thing, it's a cumulative death of a thousand cuts that at the end of the day makes me feel less like I played an RPG and more like I played a boardgame.</p><p></p><p>I also think the it's going to exacerbate the effectiveness differential (for lack of a better term) between the power-gamers and the more casual players. As it is now, the causal players that weren't interested in or experienced enough to know how to use all their special abilities to max effectiveness could still fall back on the 'I shoot my bow' or something, and still contribute. Now, though, with the explosion of at-will and per-encounter tricks, a player that doesn't understand them as well is going to be even less effective than before. For groups that play regularly, it won't be as big a deal, but for the once a month or less crowd it might be.</p><p></p><p>I also started to see some stuff I suspected would happen. Even in our relatively short session, the party's ability to optimize thier tactics started to show, and by the end, combat had already started to fall into a predictable pattern as they figured out what powers were more useful, etc. I also saw the kind of combat metagaming that drives me nuts, where the power-gamers basically plot everyones actions for the whole round before anyone does anything. Eg, Ok, the ranger goes before the paladin and the cleric, so he'll do X so that the paladin can do Y, setting up the cleric to do Z. I rather despise that when it becomes a matter of course, and the combination of at-will and per-encounter abilities, coupled with the synergy between them amongst different classes, and I think its going to get much, much worse.</p><p></p><p>There can be no doubt that the design has been heavily influenced by MMOs. The concept of beginning every encounter at full strength is long been a balancing staple for the online games, as they learned early on that most players are extremely risk averse and would rather spend 10 minutes sitting on their asses to heal up than go into battle at 75% and risk a slight chance of losing. Similarly, the way some of the 'call out' abilities and such are designed to increase the predictibility of a combat and tilt the balance of control away from the DM and towards the players is highly reminiscent of the static nature of MMO AI.</p><p></p><p>Overall, I had a very enjoyable time. The group was good, the DM did a great job of explaining things and keeping the combats moving. And to be honest, I'm always a sucker for learning a new game. Before playing, I was ambivalent, and afterward I'm still on the fence. There are some things I like, some I don't, and I suspect my embrace of 4e will largely be dependent on what third-party companies can do to tweak the flavor and style of the game more towards my predilictions. Some of the concepts I get really get into, but the execution seems a little overpowered for my tastes, and some of the fluff I don't care for at all. But if someone offered me the chance to play in a regular 4e game, I'd take it. At least until I saw how it played at high levels.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Rodrigo Istalindir, post: 4079807, member: 2810"] Part 2 There was definitely a lot of '3e' hangover. For example, the differences in how reach works. Players kept forgetting that reach doesn't (usually) count for attacks of opportunity, which caused a little confusion and 'oh, then I would have moved here' moments. Lots of slips of the 'I take a five foot step' or counting out movement in 5' increments. I will reiterate my dislike for the 'squares' vs 'feet' change. It's unnatural, it unnecessarily reinforces the boardgame aspects, it's bad for immersion, and I won't use it :grumpy: Similarly, the elimination of 1-2-1 movement (all squares cost 1) caused a lot of wonky stuff. For example, in room 4 when I teleported to the top of the wall, it was a purely diagonal move, and had it been old-school 1-2-1 it would have been well out of my range. And the more squares involved, the worse it gets. For normal movement it's barely tolerable, but for running and long range spells and archery, I find it ugly and gamey. The change in Reach+AoOs, while it may streamline play somewhat, I don't care for. Now, Reach only counts for the creatures attacks; unless they have Threatening Reach, it doesn't come into play for AoOs. No one in the group had a reach weapon, so I don't know how it will effect their usefullness. But on the face of it it seems to nerf something where a better approach would have been to provide better ways of countering it. The character that died had the worst run of luck I've seen in a while. With the healing checks, saves vs acid, saves vs dying, failed stabilization rolls, etc., I counted ten consecutive 50/50 rolls that came up short before the Grim Reaper claimed his victim. This, for first level characters vs a large black dragon! So, I'm still a little skeptical that combat in normal circumstances will carry the kind of risk that I like to see. Combine the removal of 'Fight Defensively' and the reduction of Total Defense, the rapid healing during and between encounters, and it seems like there is little point in not going toe-to-toe with the enemy and just bashing it out. The change in attacks and saves might do something to reduce the dump-stat problem, but I'm not sure. Depending on the spread of abilities, I think it will still be entirely possible to min-max more than you can now. And it might actually make having a single uber-high stat even more effective than it is now. Overall, we did 5 encounters in 5 hours, give or take. The relative lack of experience with the rules was offset by playing first level characters with a relatively small number of options at their disposal (althougjh as 1st level eladrin ranger, I had 7 abilities that could be expected to come up often, and two that would be used almost every single round. It will be interesting to see what 20th level characters have at their disposal. Based on my limited experience, I don't see combat running any faster, there were just as many (if not more) die rolls by both the party and the DM, and the level of complexity for 1st level was substantially higher than in 3e. Even if the power curve is flatter, I don't see any substantial improvement in speed or playability. Some of the changes regarding cover, movement, and other fringe cases kinda bug me, as they really reduce the sense of the dreaded V-word. It's not any one thing, it's a cumulative death of a thousand cuts that at the end of the day makes me feel less like I played an RPG and more like I played a boardgame. I also think the it's going to exacerbate the effectiveness differential (for lack of a better term) between the power-gamers and the more casual players. As it is now, the causal players that weren't interested in or experienced enough to know how to use all their special abilities to max effectiveness could still fall back on the 'I shoot my bow' or something, and still contribute. Now, though, with the explosion of at-will and per-encounter tricks, a player that doesn't understand them as well is going to be even less effective than before. For groups that play regularly, it won't be as big a deal, but for the once a month or less crowd it might be. I also started to see some stuff I suspected would happen. Even in our relatively short session, the party's ability to optimize thier tactics started to show, and by the end, combat had already started to fall into a predictable pattern as they figured out what powers were more useful, etc. I also saw the kind of combat metagaming that drives me nuts, where the power-gamers basically plot everyones actions for the whole round before anyone does anything. Eg, Ok, the ranger goes before the paladin and the cleric, so he'll do X so that the paladin can do Y, setting up the cleric to do Z. I rather despise that when it becomes a matter of course, and the combination of at-will and per-encounter abilities, coupled with the synergy between them amongst different classes, and I think its going to get much, much worse. There can be no doubt that the design has been heavily influenced by MMOs. The concept of beginning every encounter at full strength is long been a balancing staple for the online games, as they learned early on that most players are extremely risk averse and would rather spend 10 minutes sitting on their asses to heal up than go into battle at 75% and risk a slight chance of losing. Similarly, the way some of the 'call out' abilities and such are designed to increase the predictibility of a combat and tilt the balance of control away from the DM and towards the players is highly reminiscent of the static nature of MMO AI. Overall, I had a very enjoyable time. The group was good, the DM did a great job of explaining things and keeping the combats moving. And to be honest, I'm always a sucker for learning a new game. Before playing, I was ambivalent, and afterward I'm still on the fence. There are some things I like, some I don't, and I suspect my embrace of 4e will largely be dependent on what third-party companies can do to tweak the flavor and style of the game more towards my predilictions. Some of the concepts I get really get into, but the execution seems a little overpowered for my tastes, and some of the fluff I don't care for at all. But if someone offered me the chance to play in a regular 4e game, I'd take it. At least until I saw how it played at high levels. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
6 players, 5 hours, 4th edition
Top