D&D 4E Just played my first 4E game

[Raven Crowking]

Why would the henchman know the game rules - unless you want him to, and if that creates a problem for you, why would you want him to?

Again, the "reasonable person" standard.

If it is impossible to do the same stunt twice in the same encounter, a reasonable person is likely to have noticed this. If the PCs make decisions based upon a knowledge of how the world works, it is just as reasonable that the NPCs do.

Or would you argue that the PCs shouldn't know the game rules? "Sorry, Joe, but your fighter doesn't know that he can use his Kewl Powerz only once a day. Really, you should be trying to use your best ability this round. And next round. And next round......."

Really, if the NPCs (and PCs) know that they can only use their mundane abilities X times per Y, and they know that their friends can only use their mundane abilities X times per Y, and this is consistently true for all things in their experience, then they should reasonably know that the same holds true for the PCs (or NPCs) when they encounter them.

They should also suspect that these "mundane" abilities are in some way magical. After all, there is no consistently good game-world explaination for "X times per Y" except (cue Doug Henning) "It's maaaaaggggiiiiiiccccc."

You could argue that stats shift when you aren't looking -- Kobold Bob is a minion in this fight, but he wasn't in the last. But that's pretty much a part of the video game paradigm....stats are based on what is needed for a given "scene" in a lot of video games.

The whole thing leaves me cold.


RC

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

If all your PC's classes and prestige classes are not represented well or at all (Blade dancer, duelist/swashbuckler, weapon master, barbarian, sorcerer) then it's not so much about having unused options, it's about not having the options to run the game you like. I don't really care that much about tons of classes I'll never use, but it's kind of telling that with one expection, between two groups, I can only cover one PC concept with a 4E core class so far, and that's a cleric...

Well, I barely thought about converting my existing PCs... I wanted to play with the "new toys" of the game. Of course, if your group doesn't contain much of the core D&D classes (Rogue, Fighter, Cleric, Wizard), no surprise that converting between editions proves problematic. Though in the end, conversions always are difficult.

If we have a charater with perform in our group, then performances come up in almost every session, by NPCs and by PCs. They are key to get into places, impress and influence NPCs, and upstage rivals. Getting special training by noted performers or colleges or schools can be entire suplots or side quests - or even themain quest. And then there are, of course, competitions. And then there are monsters and NPCs with ties to performers or the art, ranging from fey to angels and even gods.
When I ran a bard as a player, it was the same - I'd not have played a game where such an importance aspect of my character, the core aspect even, would have been relegated to combat buffing.

You made quite a thing out of a single skill! You took a tiny thing and created something a lot bigger from it...

That's the point. I don't feel like reinventing all the stuff again. At this point, 4E looks really limited to me. Once we get all the missing classes (bard and sorcerer, monk and barbarian for starters) I'll take another look.

I can't wait for PHB 2...

 

[AtomicPope]

If all your PC's classes and prestige classes are not represented well or at all (Blade dancer, duelist/swashbuckler, weapon master, barbarian, sorcerer) then it0s not so much about having unused options, it's about not having the options to run the game you like. I don't really care that much about tons of classes I'll never use, but it's kind of telling that with one expection, between two groups, I can only cover one PC concept with a 4E core class so far, and that's a cleric...

The PrC's you named exist because of rule constraints in 3e. Sorcerer's only existed as an alternative to the wildly unpopular Vancian magic system. Duelists existed because AC is static. You don't need a prestige class to represent those character types in 4e. You can do that with base classes. Remember that rant about "roleplaying, plots, and intrigue?"

If we have a charater with perform in our group, then performances come up in almost every session, by NPCs and by PCs. They are key to get into places, impress and influence NPCs, and upstage rivals. Getting special training by noted performers or colleges or schools can be entire suplots or side quests - or even themain quest. And then there are, of course, competitions. And then there are monsters and NPCs with ties to performers or the art, ranging from fey to angels and even gods.
When I ran a bard as a player, it was the same - I'd not have played a game where such an importance aspect of my character, the core aspect even, would have been relegated to combat buffing.

I played a bard to epic levels. Played him two-and-a-half years in 3.5 before retiring him when the campaign came to a close. I know all about perform checks. Your example of a skill missing is a strawman. It doesn't address the fact that non-combat skills are actually representing better in 4e than in 3e. If you want a skill you just take the Skill Training feat. Poof! You've got all of the skill checks, experience totals, and challenges you'll need from 1st to 30th. You cannot do this with 1e, 2e, or 3e because it doesn't exist.

That's the point. I don't feel like reinventing all the stuff again. At this point, 4E looks really limited to me. Once we get all the missing classes (bard and sorcerer, monk and barbarian for starters) I'll take another look.

Not reinventing the game is not the same as being incomplete. Sorcerers only role in 3e was to give players an alternative to Vancian magic. The lack of monks is understandable. When 1e switched to 2e monks, barbarians, cavaliers, thief acrobats, and assassins where dropped until WotC bought TSR. We did what any hardcore gamer would do - we converted them over.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Again, the "reasonable person" standard.

If it is impossible to do the same stunt twice in the same encounter, a reasonable person is likely to have noticed this. If the PCs make decisions based upon a knowledge of how the world works, it is just as reasonable that the NPCs do.

Or would you argue that the PCs shouldn't know the game rules? "Sorry, Joe, but your fighter doesn't know that he can use his Kewl Powerz only once a day. Really, you should be trying to use your best ability this round. And next round. And next round......."

Really, if the NPCs (and PCs) know that they can only use their mundane abilities X times per Y, and they know that their friends can only use their mundane abilities X times per Y, and this is consistently true for all things in their experience, then they should reasonably know that the same holds true for the PCs (or NPCs) when they encounter them.

YoU're assuming they know that they can't do it more often then once per encounter or per day. But that doesn't have to be true. The rules tell us game effects that happen. They give us an example how to narrate them in the fluff text. But this example isn't exclusive in any way - if you want, you're allowed to change the narration of a power to better suite your style. And you can choose to use the narration for one power for some other ability (or a regular attack). As long as you don't change the game effects, that is perfectly fine and can be expected. And this means that I can describe my at-will attack as knocking someone down, but while I narrate it this way, my enemy is still a little quicker to stand up then if I had used the "real" knock-down power. But once you do this, no out-side looker can really tell whether you used a power or not.

It's still "non-simulationist", because there is no 1:1 mapping between rule event and game event, but it definitely creates a consistent world.

You could argue that stats shift when you aren't looking -- Kobold Bob is a minion in this fight, but he wasn't in the last. But that's pretty much a part of the video game paradigm....stats are based on what is needed for a given "scene" in a lot of video games.

That really happens in video games? I know games that don't let you kill somenone, but that's it. Switching between something like Minion/Regular state seems unusual, except maybe in cut scenes (where stats really don't matter any thing).

Not that the game system actually says this is possible, anyway. It's just what you can feel to do. If I wanted, I could do the same in 3E - Make up a monster with two stats, one for level 5 and one for level 15.

 

[Psion]

I still dispute that wizards outclassing everybody, or anybody, was ever a problem. Someone suggested this is because they 'weren't being played right', which I take exception to. In my experience, wizards simply weren't that powerful under 3.5. There was a wizard is almost every game I ever played in 3.5, and in not one of them did the wizard outclass the other PCs or unduly dominate the game (well, once, but only because of the player).

Yeah, that's my experience too. As I have stated elsewhere, in my last campaign, I spent more time compensating for the fighter than the wizard when it came to encounter design. IME, wizards are very versatile, but fairly easy to catch with the wrong spell prepared and very flimsy (when grappled, etc.)

Where I have seen wizards be too good, it's been a case that the spell (from a supplement, especially SpC) is what is actually a little too good.

 

[Fenes]

Yeah, that's my experience too. As I have stated elsewhere, in my last campaign, I spent more time compensating for the fighter than the wizard when it came to encounter design. IME, wizards are very versatile, but fairly easy to catch with the wrong spell prepared and very flimsy (when grappled, etc.)

Where I have seen wizards be too good, it's been a case that the spell (from a supplement, especially SpC) is what is actually a little too good.

Tome of Battle. Everyone gets to throw spectacular specials around, and everyone has tons of options.

 

[Psion]

Tome of Battle. Everyone gets to throw spectacular specials around, and everyone has tons of options.

Er, why did you quote me to offer this? This has nothing to do with what I was saying. I didn't mention having any problems that I need ToB to fix.

 

[Fenes]

Er, why did you quote me to offer this? This has nothing to do with what I was saying. I didn't mention having any problems that I need ToB to fix.

Not a problem, but encounter design gets easier, in my opinion, when all PCs have specials, and "charge full attack full attack full attack" is not as needed by the fighters to keep up. And of course, a number of the powers can counter a few of the "too good" spells as well.

 

[Psion]

Not a problem, but encounter design gets easier, in my opinion,

The only thing I mentioned about the encounter design was having to compensate for fighters more than wizards. ToB sounds like an anti-help here, as it boosts the fighter types even more.

And of course, a number of the powers can counter a few of the "too good" spells as well.

Maybe. I'd rather just nerf the too-good spells than engage in RIFTS style power escalation at all points. (Edit: not saying this to be snarky, just saying ToB as a solution doesn't work for me. If it works for you, have fun with it.)

 

[Fenes]

The only thing I mentioned about the encounter design was having to compensate for fighters more than wizards. ToB sounds like an anti-help here, as it boosts the fighter types even more.

Well, it is a good foil for fighter PCs when used by NPCs as well, or so I'd say.