I think I figured out 4th ed

[Imaro]

I agree that 4e combat plays differently from earlier editions, but I don't think you can make the comparison just in terms of hit points/abilities.

4e combat is specifically designed to have a certain pacing/rhythm - the monsters, with their generally greater hit points and more straightforward damage-dealing abilities start out on top, but then the PCs, with their deeper resources to draw on (healing surges able to be accessed in various ways, action points, encounter/daily powers etc) turn the tables and eventually win the fight. In the course of drawing on these deeper resources, the players typically have to engage in a more complex way with the game's action economy (complex triggered actions, subtle options for movement and minors, etc) and work together as a team.

At least in my experience, just playing AD&D or 3E at 5th level won't deliver these particular features of 4e play and a 4e PC.

Personally, I think this has way more to do with how an encounter is designed by the DM... rather than anything inherent in the game system. Perhaps, for you, it's just easier to accomplish good encounter design with 4e as opposed to previous editions... for others that may not be true.

 

[TheAuldGrump]

we play on monday nights, so last night we were wrapping up and just discussing the variety of hatred for 4th Ed on this and other message boards.

One of our group made the perfect, crystal clear point which I will now steal and/or butcher:

in early editions of D&D it was difficult to have exciting adventures at the beginning levels (1-4). So much so, often games would start at level 5. Not only in our game, but when we merged onto the information superhighway we found a lot of folk that shared our theories.

4th Ed - basically eliminates the first 4 levels. I pan to do this later in life, but make a 2nd ED 5th level character, and a 4th ED character 1st level of the same class and compare them....strikingly similar.


all that said, this may be extremely old news for all you smart people, but i found it to be a startling revelation/epiphany

Given that my favorite levels for all editions of D&D through Pathfinder, 4e excluded, both as player and as GM, are 1-5, I must respectfully disagree - it is indeed very possible to run an exciting and enjoyable adventure for low level games.

It may be a personal revelation, based upon your own experiences, but it is far from a universal coda.

The Auld Grump

 

[Stormonu]

It's a bookkeeping simplification effort. If these minions had say 6 hp each, you'd have to track their hp in case one takes 4 points of damage from an attack.

4E minions are either up or down; you don't have to track the hp of a dozen minions.

I know its a bookkeeping trick; its just a very odd side effect of every monster (of the same type) having average hit points, with no variation, whereas previous editions often had the monsters with hit points all across the range. Gone are the days of "6 goblins (hp 1,1,2,4,5,6)".

 

[Fifth Element]

I know its a bookkeeping trick; its just a very odd side effect of every monster (of the same type) having average hit points, with no variation, whereas previous editions often had the monsters with hit points all across the range. Gone are the days of "6 goblins (hp 1,1,2,4,5,6)".

I don't think it's accurate to call it a side effect of that; it was a deliberate design decision. There's no reason why you couldn't have variable hp for regular monsters and still have minions. Of course, a level 1 goblin would have say 15 to 40 hit points instead of 1 to 8 or what have you.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

Personally, I think this has way more to do with how an encounter is designed by the DM... rather than anything inherent in the game system. Perhaps, for you, it's just easier to accomplish good encounter design with 4e as opposed to previous editions... for others that may not be true.

It is easier to do in 4E because it was inherent in the design. Now whether or not one wants to equate this kind of pacing with good encounter design, I don't know. I can see some compelling alternatives. It is a kind of pacing that I generally prefer, and have always managed to get at least some of the time with most any fantasy system I care to use. Because of the design, 4E works with me instead of against me, in this particular respect, though.

You can readily see this if you try to design a 4E encounter that will not be paced in that manner. You can do it, but you will have to fight the system to make it happen.

 

[Imaro]

It is easier to do in 4E because it was inherent in the design. Now whether or not one wants to equate this kind of pacing with good encounter design, I don't know. I can see some compelling alternatives. It is a kind of pacing that I generally prefer, and have always managed to get at least some of the time with most any fantasy system I care to use. Because of the design, 4E works with me instead of against me, in this particular respect, though.

You can readily see this if you try to design a 4E encounter that will not be paced in that manner. You can do it, but you will have to fight the system to make it happen.

First, not exactly sure what you are saying is "easier" to do... Second, I don't buy that 4e has a particular pacing/rhythm that it creates objectively for all who play the game...

Honestly, in my experience the "pacing" of 4e combat is still heavily variable, depending upon such things as party make-up (there's a big difference in pacing between a party of mostly strikers vs. a party of mostly leaders), monster choice (again I've noticed choosing to include or not include soldiers can totally change the pacing of a battle as can minions), terrain (a battle with a stop gap will not have the same pacing as a battle on a mostly open field), and so on. I'm glad 4e makes it so that you can more easily create the type of pacing you want, but I don't think 4e has an objective way it paces combat that is independent to how the DM chooses to design an encounter.

 

[TheUltramark]

Given that my favorite levels for all editions of D&D through Pathfinder, 4e excluded, both as player and as GM, are 1-5, I must respectfully disagree - it is indeed very possible to run an exciting and enjoyable adventure for low level games.

It may be a personal revelation, based upon your own experiences, but it is far from a universal coda.

The Auld Grump

do you find it easier to run low level 3e or lower games?
because I simply said it was more difficult, not impossible. From a DM point of view I found that you have to pull your punches so to speak in the early levels, mostly ( but not entirely) due to a lack of hp.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I don't pull my punches. I just make sure my challenges are level appropriate.

OTOH, I don't have a problem killing PCs. Of any level.

 

[pemerton]

It is easier to do in 4E because it was inherent in the design.

<snip>

It is a kind of pacing that I generally prefer, and have always managed to get at least some of the time with most any fantasy system I care to use.

It's not something that I've found easy to achieve in Rolemaster, because of the "death spiral" effect - when it has happened it's tended to be a result of a lucky high open-ended roll late in the combat, than mechanical design of the encounter.

 

[Beginning of the End]

I think I figured out the sky.

It's blue.

...

4E chopped off the low-end of the power stick and the high-end of the power stick and then spread the designers' "sweet spot" out over 30 levels. If it was your sweet spot; you're golden. If it wasn't, then the game lost something. (It may have even lost the type of game you enjoyed most.)