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

[JamesonCourage]

Okay, yes, it's me. For the regulars here, it might seem odd that I'm starting a 4e game. Shot explanation: I just moved in with some new folks at the beginning of this month, and after being jealous of my gaming habits over the course of this month, they convinced me to run a game for them. Since the last game they played was 4e, and they're providing the books / battle map, that's what I'll be running.

I'm still running my normal game, so my preferred gaming needs will be met. However, this means that I'll be going into this 4e game with a more relaxed, lighthearted take on things, and, hopefully, that means that I will be open-minded enough to run things in a way that's fair to everyone involved.

So, my plan as of this point is to use the PHB and DMG for basic rules, and I'll be running this game with as few house rules as possible (to give 4e a fair shot). I don't use pre-made adventures, so I don't need to worry about avoiding things like Keep on the Shadowfell. I think they have PHB 1-3, and DMG 1, so I'll be using DDI for things like monsters (where I plan to lean more on the Monster Vault stuff). I will be using a battle map for the first time in my GMing career (any tips?).

Also, I plan to approach things from a more... um... "cinematic" approach (is that the word I want?). Basically, less simulation that I'm used to (so, using minions as they're thematically appropriate, scaling DCs instead of static DCs, etc.). I want to attempt to play to what I perceive to be 4e's strengths, so that's why I'm leaning towards this at the moment. Like everything in this post, though, I'm open to feedback on what the strengths are, and how best to use the system.

I know to look up the updated Skill Challenge DCs, use later monster books, etc. Something that I do have a question about, however, is that I'll likely be running the game for only two PCs. I was thinking of adding an "invisible" Warlord as a buff behind the scenes (have a Warlord of the level of the PCs act on initiative, basically buffing or moving them rather than focusing on damage; this is a "Lazy Warlord", correct?), thus helping the 2-PC party deal with threats a little better than normal. I plan on using XP guidelines unless there's a reason not to.

On a related note, I've heard that Solos are best used when they're not alone (maybe splash some minions for a party with two PCs and an invisible Warlord?). However, most parties have more than two PCs. Is one Solo too much? What if I use that invisible Warlord (he won't be there to soak up damage, but he will be there to help heal, grant attacks, etc.)? Am I better off using Elites? Is all of this reliably covered if I just follow XP guidelines? Any tips on this stuff?

I plan on making a conscious effort to make the terrain interesting during conflicts (and that means if I have to break my standard simulation to do so, so be it). I plan on having a good setting / story, which means looking into the bit of 4e I'm least familiar with: the setting (the Far Realms, the Feywild, etc.). Any tips here?

I'm also planning on starting at level 1, so that I can get a grasp on the mechanical differences from 3.X (and it's been a wild since I've played 3.5). I might speed through levels 1-2, depending, too. Either way, I'll be hanging around in Heroic Tier for a while (at least, I plan to right now). Any thoughts?

Trying to think of anything else... Hmm... I wasn't planning on the "cut HP in half, double damage" guideline for monsters, for a couple of reasons. One, I want to play my first go at 4e pretty close to RAW (which means I'll be leaving Extended Rests at 6 hours [I think], and not making them long weekends somewhere safe or the like). Two, the 2-PC party also makes me a bit worried about doubling the damage. Will the Monster Vault monsters basically solve this for me, or should I change something?

Also, I was leaning towards doing Wish Lists (even though I never would in my normal game) for magic items, etc. Any thoughts one way or the other?

Anything I'm leaving out? Definitely open to feedback on things to look out for, sources to use for various things in DDI (which I will be paying for, and will have near-constant access to), ways to best utilize monsters (not too many Soldiers, 1 monster per PC, etc.), stuff to keep in mind, updates to look up (like the Skill Challenge corrections), and the like. Any positive feedback is welcome; please, if you don't like 4e, don't threadcrap.

Okay, I think that's it... Go in 3... 2... 1...

 

[JamesonCourage]

Update: We will have four players, from the looks of it. Still, there's the off-chance that we only have two, so any opinions on how to handle that issue are still appreciated.

 

[pemerton]

OK, this thread is a bit of a surreal experience, but putting that to one side!

my plan as of this point is to use the PHB and DMG for basic rules

<snip>

I think they have PHB 1-3, and DMG 1

<snip>

I know to look up the updated Skill Challenge DCs

For rules, if they have a copy of Rules Compendium use that; if they don't, see if they'll pitch in and buy one for the table! Otherwise, if you're using the DMG and PHB, be prepared to download and note the errata - some of it is pretty marginal, especially at low levels (eg changes to fly rules to make play smoother) but some is not (eg changes to hiding/invis rules to rectify balance problems). There are also things that aren't relevant to either smooth play or balance, but that make a difference depending how you play them, such as multiple damage types (in the PHB you split it half/half to each type for resistance purposes; post-errata you only get the lesser of your two resistances applied to the damage as a gestalt whole).

Also, many powers in the PHB have been errata-ed - far more, and more fundamentally, than in later sources - and several feats have been eclipsed by Essentials feats - if your players are building PCs in DDI they will get the errata automatically, but if you're relying on the PHB you'll notice discrepancies from time to time.

For framing and running skill challenges, I strongly recommend any of the threads here over the past few years - the DMG advice is not bad content-wise but poorly presented and organised, and many of the examples are ill-conceived. On the other hand, the example in the Rules Compendium is good but has no good advice/commentary to support it. As a play technique, I suggest this one adapted from [MENTION=6696971]Manbearcat[/MENTION] - have 3 dice on the table in front of you, one for successes, one for failures, and one for "advantages" (in-built skill challenge buffs introduced in Essentials), so the players can track the challenge without the metagame intruding into the verbal back-and-forth. I've also attached my own skill challenge guidelines, which combine what I think is the best of the DMG, DMG2 and Essentials rules and advice, plus some stuff from other places/posters too.

I'm also planning on starting at level 1, so that I can get a grasp on the mechanical differences from 3.X (and it's been a wild since I've played 3.5). I might speed through levels 1-2, depending, too. Either way, I'll be hanging around in Heroic Tier for a while (at least, I plan to right now). Any thoughts?

First level PCs are fairly capable in 4e, and fairly mechanically rich, so you're probably OK starting there. If your players are experienced, you won't mind speeding through low levels - higher level monsters aren't significantly more challenging for the GM to play (whereas high level PCs are noticably more challenging for their players, with a lot of moving parts).

I would suggest ignoring the XP rules and doing the old "level when appropriate" thing. I use the XP rules in my own game (I'm a bit of an irrational stickler in that respect), but it is largely a waste of time, as it always turns out that the players earn enough XP for a level in around 8 to 12 hours of play. I don't think this is an accident, either - it is a design feature. XP in 4e aren't a reward despite the misleading chapter title in the DMG; rather, they are a device for increasing the narrative scope of and narrative stakes of the game, and also for increasing the mechanical complexity of PCs (which is somewhat linked to narrative scope and stakes, but not completely). So levelling faster or slower isn't "cheating" or "ripping off the players" - it's about how quickly your group wants to escalate things.

I plan to approach things from a more... um... "cinematic" approach (is that the word I want?). Basically, less simulation that I'm used to (so, using minions as they're thematically appropriate, scaling DCs instead of static DCs, etc.). I want to attempt to play to what I perceive to be 4e's strengths, so that's why I'm leaning towards this at the moment.

<snip>

I plan on having a good setting / story, which means looking into the bit of 4e I'm least familiar with: the setting (the Far Realms, the Feywild, etc.). Any tips here?

Read the DMG chapters on the gods, languages, and the default conceits of the points of light gameworld. If someone has a copy of the pre-release Worlds & Monsters, read that too - it's better than the DMG on this stuff.

A lot of mechanical elements in 4e bring their own plug-and-play story heft - dwarves, tieflings, warlocks, etc - but some don't, or don't as much - halflings, rangers, wizards. My advice would be to start with what your players give you and work from there.

I was leaning towards doing Wish Lists (even though I never would in my normal game) for magic items, etc.

Like XP, this approach to items makes them not really rewards, but rather PC build elements. The variation I use is one suggested in Adventurer's Vault - rather than new items I default to levelling up the PCs' existing items (unless a player expresses an interest in changing their implement, armour etc, or when I am leaving the item that will fill a new slot). This is a compromise between inherent bonuses and full-fledged items, and it helps reduce the ridiculous amounts of items and money that can otherwise end up floating around.

If you have a ritual caster, rituals and ritual components also make good treasure.

I will be using a battle map for the first time in my GMing career

<snip>

I plan on making a conscious effort to make the terrain interesting during conflicts

I never used battle maps until 4e. I draw them up on printed grid paper (my squares, drawn using a table in Word, are smaller than the offical ones, so as to get more stuff per sheet of paper) - set-pieces that I can see on the horizon I will draw up in advance; improvised stuff I draw up on the spot (or it it's very simple run gridless, either TotM or just with tokens on the table). You bascially can't go wrong with a bit of cover, a bit of difficult terrain, a pit or ledge, and a circular path: so combat encounters should mostly occur in ruins, or in woods, or on mountain plateaus, or in buildings with unreaslistically wide corridors and balconies, etc.

I use old board game tokens on the maps, not miniatures.

Don't let the map distract you from fictional positioning: the green swirl on your map might be difficult terrain that provides cover, but it is also a tree that can be climbed, burned etc. The blue isn't just difficult terrain or a hazard, it's also water that can be swum, frozen with an Icy Terrain spell, etc. I think a lot of the "boardgame" complaints result from forgetting about fictional positioning. Keywords - damage types and effect types - are central here, as they provide your anchor between mechanics-to-mechanics interface and mechanics-to-fiction interface.

I'll be using DDI for things like monsters (where I plan to lean more on the Monster Vault stuff).

<snip>

I wasn't planning on the "cut HP in half, double damage" guideline for monsters

<snip>

Will the Monster Vault monsters basically solve this for me, or should I change something?

MV monsters do level+8 hp damage on a hit, more-or-less. 2 to 3 hits will drop a squishy. 4 hits will drop, or come close to dropping, a defender. I wouldn't double damage.

A monster with normal hit points takes around 3 to 4 level-appropriate hits to drop it. So combat will normally last 4 to 6 rounds. If you halve hp you'll get quicker combats, but they will have less "progression/drama" than is inherent in the RAW setup. I'd suggest starting with RAW and see how it goes.

I'll likely be running the game for only two PCs. I was thinking of adding an "invisible" Warlord as a buff behind the scenes (have a Warlord of the level of the PCs act on initiative, basically buffing or moving them rather than focusing on damage; this is a "Lazy Warlord", correct?), thus helping the 2-PC party deal with threats a little better than normal. I plan on using XP guidelines unless there's a reason not to.

<snip>

I've heard that Solos are best used when they're not alone (maybe splash some minions for a party with two PCs and an invisible Warlord?). However, most parties have more than two PCs. Is one Solo too much? What if I use that invisible Warlord (he won't be there to soak up damage, but he will be there to help heal, grant attacks, etc.)? Am I better off using Elites? Is all of this reliably covered if I just follow XP guidelines?

I've always had a 5-PC party, and even with absence the smallest they've ever been at in combat is 3 PCs. So I can't give expert advice here. (On terminology, though, your "lazy warlord" would be a fully meta-warlord; "lazylord" refers to a real PC who only ever uses action-granting powers, and so in the fiction is a "princess", or similar non-combatant, who is being helped out by the derring- do of her warrior companions.)

But I would suggest avoiding solos, especially at 1st and 2nd level. Once you get to 3rd level a single 1st level solo would be a 6th level challenge for 2 PCs, or a 4th level challenge for 3 - tough but viable.

And you are correct that solos are often more fun with hangers on.

At 1st level with 2 PCs I'd start with an elite and minions if you want a "boss plus goons" vibe, and see how that goes.

View attachment Skills and skill challenges.doc

 

[JamesonCourage]

OK, this thread is a bit of a surreal experience, but putting that to one side!

I thought it might be (and thus my name in the title). But, I'm planning on giving 4e a fair shot, so all tips appreciated.

For rules, if they have a copy of Rules Compendium use that; if they don't, see if they'll pitch in and buy one for the table!

I doubt they'll be buying it, and I don't really want to ask them when they're providing everything but the DDI account for me. But, I'll likely reference a lot of stuff online, and/or bring questions to EN World.

Otherwise, if you're using the DMG and PHB, be prepared to download and note the errata - some of it is pretty marginal, especially at low levels (eg changes to fly rules to make play smoother) but some is not (eg changes to hiding/invis rules to rectify balance problems). There are also things that aren't relevant to either smooth play or balance, but that make a difference depending how you play them, such as multiple damage types (in the PHB you split it half/half to each type for resistance purposes; post-errata you only get the lesser of your two resistances applied to the damage as a gestalt whole).

Good stuff, and noted so far.

Also, many powers in the PHB have been errata-ed - far more, and more fundamentally, than in later sources - and several feats have been eclipsed by Essentials feats - if your players are building PCs in DDI they will get the errata automatically, but if you're relying on the PHB you'll notice discrepancies from time to time.

I plan on letting them use my DDI account to make / print the characters, so the errata should be automatically applied. However, I know that some of them prefer books, so I might need to make sure they're okay with any changes between the old text and the DDI errata. I do plan on using the errata, though.

Also, since I didn't mention it, I know one player wants to be a gnome psion or something, and I think another player would like to be some sort of orc archer (but not Ranger). I'm not sure on the specifics, but I think they'll be recreating characters that they've used before (though their past will likely be based on the last campaign they played in, with modifications).

For framing and running skill challenges, I strongly recommend any of the threads here over the past few years - the DMG advice is not bad content-wise but poorly presented and organised, and many of the examples are ill-conceived. On the other hand, the example in the Rules Compendium is good but has no good advice/commentary to support it. As a play technique, I suggest this one adapted from @Manbearcat - have 3 dice on the table in front of you, one for successes, one for failures, and one for "advantages" (in-built skill challenge buffs introduced in Essentials), so the players can track the challenge without the metagame intruding into the verbal back-and-forth. I've also attached my own skill challenge guidelines, which combine what I think is the best of the DMG, DMG2 and Essentials rules and advice, plus some stuff from other places/posters too.

I might look into this a little bit, but my RPG has a system very similar to skill challenges (X successes before 3 failures to resolve a scene). I'll likely read over the rules so I can get a feel for the nuances of 4e (like the advantage stuff you've mentioned here), but overall I think I can run scenes using the skill challenge system more than adequately (my players like my skill challenge system for my RPG).

First level PCs are fairly capable in 4e, and fairly mechanically rich, so you're probably OK starting there. If your players are experienced, you won't mind speeding through low levels - higher level monsters aren't significantly more challenging for the GM to play (whereas high level PCs are noticably more challenging for their players, with a lot of moving parts).

Good to note. I think I might speed through levels 1-2 then. Maybe 1 level per session to begin with.

I would suggest ignoring the XP rules and doing the old "level when appropriate" thing. I use the XP rules in my own game (I'm a bit of an irrational stickler in that respect), but it is largely a waste of time, as it always turns out that the players earn enough XP for a level in around 8 to 12 hours of play. I don't think this is an accident, either - it is a design feature. XP in 4e aren't a reward despite the misleading chapter title in the DMG; rather, they are a device for increasing the narrative scope of and narrative stakes of the game, and also for increasing the mechanical complexity of PCs (which is somewhat linked to narrative scope and stakes, but not completely). So levelling faster or slower isn't "cheating" or "ripping off the players" - it's about how quickly your group wants to escalate things.

Yeah, I see XP as primarily a pacing mechanism, so I might keep an eye on the book's recommendations for XP (something I stayed vehemently away from in my 3.X games), but keep that behind the curtain and level them based on what feels right for this group (which will undoubtedly be different than my normal group). I'm not sure my 8-12 hours would be equal to yours, as I tend to have less fights in my games, but since combat seems to be a strength of 4e, I'll likely increase the rate at which they happen.

Read the DMG chapters on the gods, languages, and the default conceits of the points of light gameworld. If someone has a copy of the pre-release Worlds & Monsters, read that too - it's better than the DMG on this stuff.

A lot of mechanical elements in 4e bring their own plug-and-play story heft - dwarves, tieflings, warlocks, etc - but some don't, or don't as much - halflings, rangers, wizards. My advice would be to start with what your players give you and work from there.

Gnome psion (noble, I think?) with some sort of connection to the Feywild, and a dumb orc archer of some type (I think). I don't know much, but your advice of run with their hooks is natural for me. I might run some specifics by you as I know more, but the advice here is good in general for this game, I think.

Like XP, this approach to items makes them not really rewards, but rather PC build elements. The variation I use is one suggested in Adventurer's Vault - rather than new items I default to levelling up the PCs' existing items (unless a player expresses an interest in changing their implement, armour etc, or when I am leaving the item that will fill a new slot). This is a compromise between inherent bonuses and full-fledged items, and it helps reduce the ridiculous amounts of items and money that can otherwise end up floating around.

If you have a ritual caster, rituals and ritual components also make good treasure.

Oh, I like that. I remember you using a skill challenge with your chaos Sorcerer to upgrade an item at one point after a combat, too. I could definitely go about some sort of upgrade system with skill challenges along the way. I think I like that conceptually better than Wish Lists, and I like that it came from a 4e source (since I'm trying to stick close to 4e rules, rather than house rule a lot). Thanks for bringing that up.

I never used battle maps until 4e. I draw them up on printed grid paper (my squares, drawn using a table in Word, are smaller than the offical ones, so as to get more stuff per sheet of paper) - set-pieces that I can see on the horizon I will draw up in advance; improvised stuff I draw up on the spot (or it it's very simple run gridless, either TotM or just with tokens on the table). You bascially can't go wrong with a bit of cover, a bit of difficult terrain, a pit or ledge, and a circular path: so combat encounters should mostly occur in ruins, or in woods, or on mountain plateaus, or in buildings with unreaslistically wide corridors and balconies, etc.

I use old board game tokens on the maps, not miniatures.

My players have a battle map that you can use markers on, so I'll be trying that. However, the specifics (for combat dynamics) given above are helpful; thanks. I think that I, too, will use game tokens, not miniatures (as none of us own any). I might print off small head shots and put them on cardboard disks for the players, that way they can easily see the party on the map, if nothing else.

Don't let the map distract you from fictional positioning: the green swirl on your map might be difficult terrain that provides cover, but it is also a tree that can be climbed, burned etc. The blue isn't just difficult terrain or a hazard, it's also water that can be swum, frozen with an Icy Terrain spell, etc. I think a lot of the "boardgame" complaints result from forgetting about fictional positioning. Keywords - damage types and effect types - are central here, as they provide your anchor between mechanics-to-mechanics interface and mechanics-to-fiction interface.

I'm pretty aware of your take on keywords, so I think I'll try to keep that in mind. I will do my best to not forget what's what on the map, and make sure to convey as much to the players. I'll also attempt a more "do fun stuff" approach with Page 42 and stunts as appropriate to the strong 4e characters and the more cinematic, less simulation style that I plan to aim for.

MV monsters do level+8 hp damage on a hit, more-or-less. 2 to 3 hits will drop a squishy. 4 hits will drop, or come close to dropping, a defender. I wouldn't double damage.

Awesome input. Thanks.

A monster with normal hit points takes around 3 to 4 level-appropriate hits to drop it. So combat will normally last 4 to 6 rounds. If you halve hp you'll get quicker combats, but they will have less "progression/drama" than is inherent in the RAW setup. I'd suggest starting with RAW and see how it goes.

Okay, I'll aim for RAW. Side question: does "RAW" in your reply include only going for what the XP budgets give me to work with?

I've always had a 5-PC party, and even with absence the smallest they've ever been at in combat is 3 PCs. So I can't give expert advice here. (On terminology, though, your "lazy warlord" would be a fully meta-warlord; "lazylord" refers to a real PC who only ever uses action-granting powers, and so in the fiction is a "princess", or similar non-combatant, who is being helped out by the derring- do of her warrior companions.)

Right, but if I were to build a Warlord, the character can't attack (as it's fully meta), and thus I'd want to make it a "lazylord" build in order to get maximum effect for just 2 PCs, wouldn't I?

But I would suggest avoiding solos, especially at 1st and 2nd level. Once you get to 3rd level a single 1st level solo would be a 6th level challenge for 2 PCs, or a 4th level challenge for 3 - tough but viable.

And you are correct that solos are often more fun with hangers on.

At 1st level with 2 PCs I'd start with an elite and minions if you want a "boss plus goons" vibe, and see how that goes.

Good things to note; thanks again.

View attachment 58755

Downloaded. I'll look it over tonight, most likely. Thanks for the reply, pemerton. I appreciate it. I might ping you if I have more questions, if that's okay with you. And, of course, if anyone else wants to kick in, I'm open to tips.

 

[pemerton]

I know one player wants to be a gnome psion or something, and I think another player would like to be some sort of orc archer (but not Ranger). I'm not sure on the specifics, but I think they'll be recreating characters that they've used before (though their past will likely be based on the last campaign they played in, with modifications).

<snip>

Gnome psion (noble, I think?) with some sort of connection to the Feywild, and a dumb orc archer of some type (I think).

The archer builds I can think of that are not rangers are slayers (an Essentials fighter), certain cleric builds (using powers from Heroes of the Feywild, plus I think there is a paragon path for it) and seekers (a much-derided PHB3 class). All but a fighter will be pretty squishy in melee. At earlier levels in my game the ranger was notorious for finishing the day with many surges left over, because the other PCs took the hits whle the archer avoided melee - the dynamics of that sort of approach will be more complex in a two-person party, although the psion is ranged also and so perhaps their whole schtick will be to avoid melee.

Psions are known to be potentially wonky, because they depart from the encounter power format, instead having PPs as an encounter resource to buff their at-wills. So be prepared for spamming of said at-wills!

As far as story/theme goes, you might start with the fact that the Feywild is beloved by Corellon, orcs are warriors of Gruumsh, and Corellon and Gruumsh are enemies. So what is this odd couple doing together? And how will they respond to those who want to break them up?

I'm not sure my 8-12 hours would be equal to yours, as I tend to have less fights in my games, but since combat seems to be a strength of 4e, I'll likely increase the rate at which they happen.

By the book skill challenges earn XP too (per Essentials, even if failed); and per DMG2 each quarter-hour of solid RP that drives the story forward without action resolution being engaged also earns a level-appropriate creature's worth of XP. This all contributes to the "about an encounter's worth per hour of play" pace.

But I really don't think you can go wrong just going with your gut and the signals from your players. Because of the non-sim tendencies, you can relax a lot of stuff around levelling without deteriment (eg when level is more about pacing and stakes than inworld details, it doesn't matter so much if guards were 1st level NPCs at 1st level, and are now 8th level minions at upper Heroic).

Money, which does have ingame manifestations, can undermine this metagame stuff, which is why the upgrade approach to items is better for me, as it makes a lot of the money a metagame rather than ingame thing too.

Side question: does "RAW" in your reply include only going for what the XP budgets give me to work with?

When I started I would choose an encounter difficulty first, then build within my budget. Now that (i) I'm more familiar, and (ii) the PCs are epic and hence near-unkillable, I'm much more relaxed about building my encounter first, then seeing what the budget advice tells me about it's level, and then tweaking to taste. These days I rarely run an encounter of less than 3 levels budget above the PCs' level, but typically with mulitple creatures of around their level rather than too many higher-level creatures. At 1st and 2nd level most creatures of course will be at or above PC level, which is fine, but I'd start with encounters at or around level to level+2 just to get everyone warmed up. TPKing at low levels is quite possible, and a small group makes it easier. (I only had one, myself, at 3rd level, but others report much higher rates than that. My players play pretty tightly as a group.)

I should also add - my group doesn't use Expertise feats - so to-hit bonuses are down by 1 per tier - but they are fairly good at optimising for combat advantage, plus have to hit bonuses from paragon path features and the like. If you are using the Expertise feats your players will find it a bit easier to hit higher-level opponents.

Right, but if I were to build a Warlord, the character can't attack (as it's fully meta), and thus I'd want to make it a "lazylord" build in order to get maximum effect for just 2 PCs, wouldn't I?

Yes. If you wanted to bring it into the game, you could have it be a ghost or "daemon" or even a Feywild or primal spirit that helps the PCs. That could also provide a link into their backstory, future destinies etc.

Thanks for the reply, pemerton. I appreciate it.

No worries. And a final comment for this post.

4e's a system that's pretty resilient, and that at least for me doesn't push back when I push it - it goes in the direction that is advertised. And it's a lot more forgiving than classic D&D, I think - for instance, in classic D&D it would hurt quite a bit for a psion to take damaeg as "psychic backlash" when inspecting strange crystals, as hp are a scarce resource and low level casters are very squishy. But in 4e roll on your page 42 chart (1d6+3 psychic damage is a good amount of psychic backlash for 1st level)! The player can spend a surge to be ready for the next combat/trap, so there isn't an immediate attrition issue, and by inflicting damaeg you let the players see the fiction expressed mechanically, and also get them engaged with the whole page 42 idea that they can try stuff (like divining info from strange crystals by using Arcana and/or Dungeoneering) in a freewheeling way, but you'll be freewheeling too. For me, that's the paradox of 4e - a mechanically very tight system has for me at least produced some of my most freewheeling and open-ended RP experiences.

 

[JamesonCourage]

The archer builds I can think of that are not rangers are slayers (an Essentials fighter), certain cleric builds (using powers from Heroes of the Feywild, plus I think there is a paragon path for it) and seekers (a much-derided PHB3 class). All but a fighter will be pretty squishy in melee. At earlier levels in my game the ranger was notorious for finishing the day with many surges left over, because the other PCs took the hits whle the archer avoided melee - the dynamics of that sort of approach will be more complex in a two-person party, although the psion is ranged also and so perhaps their whole schtick will be to avoid melee.

Okay, I'll try to find out more. I had the sense he had a sub-optimal character (he didn't like the campaign after he felt the DM had shafted his previous character), but I might have the details wrong. For all I know, he'll make something completely new.

Psions are known to be potentially wonky, because they depart from the encounter power format, instead having PPs as an encounter resource to buff their at-wills. So be prepared for spamming of said at-wills!

Yeah, I've heard a little about psionic stuff, and it looks interesting. I'm looking forward to seeing it in action.

As far as story/theme goes, you might start with the fact that the Feywild is beloved by Corellon, orcs are warriors of Gruumsh, and Corellon and Gruumsh are enemies. So what is this odd couple doing together? And how will they respond to those who want to break them up?

Oh, interesting stuff. So a gnome will be tied to Corellon because of the tie to the Feywild?

By the book skill challenges earn XP too (per Essentials, even if failed); and per DMG2 each quarter-hour of solid RP that drives the story forward without action resolution being engaged also earns a level-appropriate creature's worth of XP. This all contributes to the "about an encounter's worth per hour of play" pace.

I knew that skill challenges added to XP (though didn't know about the Essentials tweak), but I did not know about the RP XP, per RAW. That's interesting. (Side note: I also read your skill challenge doc, and it should be handy once I condense it into a more note-like version. Thank you.)

But I really don't think you can go wrong just going with your gut and the signals from your players. Because of the non-sim tendencies, you can relax a lot of stuff around levelling without deteriment (eg when level is more about pacing and stakes than inworld details, it doesn't matter so much if guards were 1st level NPCs at 1st level, and are now 8th level minions at upper Heroic).

Money, which does have ingame manifestations, can undermine this metagame stuff, which is why the upgrade approach to items is better for me, as it makes a lot of the money a metagame rather than ingame thing too.

Yeah, the guard thing is basically what I have in mind (with conversions to swarms if they ever get high enough), and I think I like the upgrade change, too.

When I started I would choose an encounter difficulty first, then build within my budget. Now that (i) I'm more familiar, and (ii) the PCs are epic and hence near-unkillable, I'm much more relaxed about building my encounter first, then seeing what the budget advice tells me about it's level, and then tweaking to taste. These days I rarely run an encounter of less than 3 levels budget above the PCs' level, but typically with mulitple creatures of around their level rather than too many higher-level creatures. At 1st and 2nd level most creatures of course will be at or above PC level, which is fine, but I'd start with encounters at or around level to level+2 just to get everyone warmed up. TPKing at low levels is quite possible, and a small group makes it easier. (I only had one, myself, at 3rd level, but others report much higher rates than that. My players play pretty tightly as a group.)

Yeah, I think I want to go easier, rather than harder. I want to play hard once the enemies hit the board, but my framing might be easier. Only one player (of the 2-4 that might be playing) is experienced; one has played 4e for a couple of months before the game was cancelled, and the 2 other potential players haven't RPed at all that I know of (though they've played games like M:TG, etc., and so should be aware of "building" a deck/character mechanically, tactics, etc.). So I'll probably start low and ramp stuff up to challenge them as I see the need to. The player of the gnome constantly brags about how powerful her gnome was, so I'll be keeping a close eye on it either way.

I should also add - my group doesn't use Expertise feats - so to-hit bonuses are down by 1 per tier - but they are fairly good at optimising for combat advantage, plus have to hit bonuses from paragon path features and the like. If you are using the Expertise feats your players will find it a bit easier to hit higher-level opponents.

I was going to ask about this, but forgot. I commonly see these feats given for free. Any advice? I know that your group has gotten along fine with them completely omitted (instead of given for free), but how do you think a group of mostly inexperienced players will do? Will a free expertise feat help pull less tactical-savvy players up?

Yes. If you wanted to bring it into the game, you could have it be a ghost or "daemon" or even a Feywild or primal spirit that helps the PCs. That could also provide a link into their backstory, future destinies etc.

I was planning on making it fully meta, and hadn't even considered it actually manifesting in any way (as I didn't want to thrust an unwanted NPC on them). I'll run it by them (if there's only two of them) and see what they like. I could see it being fully meta, or a curse / blessing of some type, or a spirit / ghost / demon, or something. Maybe even a familiar. Lots of options that I hadn't thought of now that you brought it up. Thanks again

No worries. And a final comment for this post.

4e's a system that's pretty resilient, and that at least for me doesn't push back when I push it - it goes in the direction that is advertised. And it's a lot more forgiving than classic D&D, I think - for instance, in classic D&D it would hurt quite a bit for a psion to take damaeg as "psychic backlash" when inspecting strange crystals, as hp are a scarce resource and low level casters are very squishy. But in 4e roll on your page 42 chart (1d6+3 psychic damage is a good amount of psychic backlash for 1st level)! The player can spend a surge to be ready for the next combat/trap, so there isn't an immediate attrition issue, and by inflicting damaeg you let the players see the fiction expressed mechanically, and also get them engaged with the whole page 42 idea that they can try stuff (like divining info from strange crystals by using Arcana and/or Dungeoneering) in a freewheeling way, but you'll be freewheeling too. For me, that's the paradox of 4e - a mechanically very tight system has for me at least produced some of my most freewheeling and open-ended RP experiences.

I'll likely attempt to exploit this. This is one of my biggest disconnects with 4e; I like the concrete rules in many ways (although they often seem quite artificially constraining from the outside), but the skill system seems nearly free-form. However, I plan to play to 4e's strengths, like I've said, so I'll be trying to do stuff like what you've outlined here (including encouraging use of page 42). I'm used to rules covering basically all situations from my RPG, but I'm naturally an improvisational GM; I'll just wing it while relying on Easy / Moderate / Hard (and maybe your Extreme) DCs, and trying to let players guide the scene by saying "I'll do this" and me saying "then roll this."

At any rate, thanks again for the tips. I don't want to tie up a lot of your posting time, but if you feel like any more tips are appropriate, keep 'em coming.

 

[pemerton]

I commonly see these feats given for free. Any advice? I know that your group has gotten along fine with them completely omitted (instead of given for free), but how do you think a group of mostly inexperienced players will do? Will a free expertise feat help pull less tactical-savvy players up?

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.

So a gnome will be tied to Corellon because of the tie to the Feywild?

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

I had the sense he had a sub-optimal character

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.

This is one of my biggest disconnects with 4e; I like the concrete rules in many ways (although they often seem quite artificially constraining from the outside), but the skill system seems nearly free-form.

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.

I don't want to tie up a lot of your posting time, but if you feel like any more tips are appropriate, keep 'em coming.

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!

 

[Manbearcat]

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:

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

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.

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.

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.


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


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.

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.

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)....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.

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.

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.

 

[Jhaelen]

Two comments:

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.
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.

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.

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

 

[Neonchameleon]

Okay, yes, it's me. For the regulars here, it might seem odd that I'm starting a 4e game. Shot explanation: I just moved in with some new folks at the beginning of this month, and after being jealous of my gaming habits over the course of this month, they convinced me to run a game for them. Since the last game they played was 4e, and they're providing the books / battle map, that's what I'll be running.

I'm still running my normal game, so my preferred gaming needs will be met. However, this means that I'll be going into this 4e game with a more relaxed, lighthearted take on things, and, hopefully, that means that I will be open-minded enough to run things in a way that's fair to everyone involved.

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

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.

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.

4: Skill challenges are a very nice DM tool in the right hands (both [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] 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.

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 will be using a battle map for the first time in my GMing career (any tips?).

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.

Also, I plan to approach things from a more... um... "cinematic" approach (is that the word I want?). Basically, less simulation that I'm used to (so, using minions as they're thematically appropriate, scaling DCs instead of static DCs, etc.). I want to attempt to play to what I perceive to be 4e's strengths, so that's why I'm leaning towards this at the moment. Like everything in this post, though, I'm open to feedback on what the strengths are, and how best to use the system.

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.

On a related note, I've heard that Solos are best used when they're not alone

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.

I plan on making a conscious effort to make the terrain interesting during conflicts (and that means if I have to break my standard simulation to do so, so be it).

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!)

I plan on having a good setting / story, which means looking into the bit of 4e I'm least familiar with: the setting (the Far Realms, the Feywild, etc.). Any tips here?

4e Cosmology 101.

The PCs generally start off in the normal world/Prime Material Plane - which is the way you'd expect it to be.

The easiest realm to access from there is the Feywild - otherwise known as Faerie, the land of the Seelie, or the land of the Bright Court. Larger than life, brighter than life, more dangerous than life. Going through a fairy ring can be very dangerous. (The branch of Elves that live in the Feywild are known as Eladrin, and the small tricksters who are heavily outgunned are gnomes).

As well as the Faewild being the bright and slightly hard edged reflection, there's the Shadowfell - otherwise known as Unseelie, the land of the Dark Court or the Winter Court. Most plots that worked in the Underdark in previous editions have decamped to the Shadowfell in 4e, but it's more eldritch and spooky.

For both, play up the eldritch aspects and how they are simmilar to the real world but not quite like it. (One thing to do is if someone fails three death saves on the Shadowfell, have them keep playing - until they try to leave).

4e also has an Underdark. Most people ignore it. And they definitely ignore the Shadowfell's reflection of the Underdark known as the Shadedark. Narratively the Shadowfell works better for most of this.

There's also the Astral Sea, the Elemental Chaos, Sigil, and various other places when you want to go further afield.

The Far Realm can come up or not as the case may be. It isn't part of the universe so much as outside it - and the home of Cthulu and other Old Ones. (OK, so Cthulu isn't actually namechecked.) A number of the older, wierder monsters like Beholders and Aboleths come from the Far Realm; Ilithids came from there so long ago they're basically naturalised.

Then there are Demons and Devils. In 4e there's a concrete difference between the two. Devils main problem with the world is that they aren't running things. They are inside the system and seduce and tempt - the archetypal devils are succubi and people who offer you contracts for your soul. Demons, on the other hand, just want to watch the world burn and had to be kicked out into the abyss (which means that when all else fails devils will hold the line against demons - they are normally no keener on the end of the world than anyone else is). The archetypal Demon is the Maw Demon - a mouth on legs that chomps everyone indiscriminately. (And Angels are servitors loyal to their god; evil gods still have Angels).

Primordials - I don't know how well you know your Greek Myth, but Primordials are to 4e what the Titans are to the Greek Gods - the previous, cruel pantheon that they needed to throw out. And because a fully manifested Primordial is stronger than a God the Gods originally banded together like adventuring parties to do this. (And when they were done, the Primal Spirits locked them out of the Prime Material Plane because they might not have made as much of a mess as the Primordials, but still made quite a mess).

I'm also planning on starting at level 1, so that I can get a grasp on the mechanical differences from 3.X (and it's been a wild since I've played 3.5). I might speed through levels 1-2, depending, too. Either way, I'll be hanging around in Heroic Tier for a while (at least, I plan to right now). Any thoughts?

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

Also, I was leaning towards doing Wish Lists (even though I never would in my normal game) for magic items, etc. Any thoughts one way or the other?

Up to you. Wish lists, like Skill Challenges, are a DM guideline.

Also, since I didn't mention it, I know one player wants to be a gnome psion or something, and I think another player would like to be some sort of orc archer (but not Ranger).

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 look into this a little bit, but my RPG has a system very similar to skill challenges (X successes before 3 failures to resolve a scene). I'll likely read over the rules so I can get a feel for the nuances of 4e (like the advantage stuff you've mentioned here), but overall I think I can run scenes using the skill challenge system more than adequately (my players like my skill challenge system for my RPG).

Then enjoy them

Okay, I'll aim for RAW. Side question: does "RAW" in your reply include only going for what the XP budgets give me to work with?

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".

So I'll probably start low and ramp stuff up to challenge them as I see the need to. The player of the gnome constantly brags about how powerful her gnome was, so I'll be keeping a close eye on it either way.

Always wise Compared to other editions of D&D 4e can be tougher on new players although it's easier on new DMs.

I was going to ask about this, but forgot. I commonly see these feats given for free. Any advice?

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).

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