11 Reasons Why I Prefer D&D 4E

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

You saqy this like it's abad thing.

More seriously: I prefer "swingy" combat because uncertainty is fun. I'd rather play in a situation in which one die roll can send plans nd tactics down the flusher, for the good guys or the bad guys. Sometimes, the villain goes down like a punk. Sometimes,the PCs have to retreat and regroup. It is preferable by far, IMO, than knowing that, all thing being equal, I need to set aside two hours of game time for the "boss fight".

Sending tactics down is okay, but usually it ends with a sudden character death you couldn't avoid. Like "enemy wins initiative, fires off save or die effects, you roll bad" or "enemy surprises you, wins initiative, and standard action + full attack with critical kill you". Or "3 enemies of your level open up with fireball as spell-like ability, your wizard succeeds all three saving throws and is still dead". That's a degree of uncertainty I have found terrible and you can't avoid it if you keep damage that high.

But that's my point: I want the fights to be full of such powers, spectacular stunts, massive damage, and flashy moves and spells. I don't want many fights per day, I want few fights, but choke full of 10d6 damage moves and spells. I want player characters to use their best moves in every fight we actually play out.

4E's daily and encounter powers just feel less impressive to me, and that's exactly because they feel barely above the at-wills.

The raw damage is unimpressive, but the additional effects are usually pretty impressive - throwing enemies around the battlefield, knocking them prone, slowing, dazing, stunning, immobilizing, weakening, all this makes stuff different.

By comparison, 3E seems bland. It's way too often just "deal massive damage"* or "save or die" (or "save or suck"). By contrast, even if a 1st level wizard does nothing but use at-wills, he could still be able to push his enemies around the battlefield.


*) I had a lot of fun playing a Fighter that specializes in combat maneuvers. But if it hadn't been for the Bards Inspire Courage and (at higher levels) a more or less broken artifact, a weapon specialization guy would have been a lot more effective and useful. And my standard combat maneuver was just trip, most of the rest got barely used (I think Improved Grapple saw some use on the defense and against wizards
So in the end, it still comes down to massive damage.

 

[Staffan]

At level 4? Wasn't it usually beginning at 1st level? Including the "I have to take some suboptimal feats that I wouldn't take otherwise to get there".

Well, I was looking through Complete Warrior for the first PrC that had significant prerequisites, and the Cavalier was it. BAB +8, Weapon Focus (lance), and the three mounted feats. Four feat prereqs and level 8 translates to having to start working at level 4 for a fighter (feats at 4, 6, 6, and 8). There are definitely PrCs with even worse prereqs, but that's the one I used as an example.

 

[Reynard]

Sending tactics down is okay, but usually it ends with a sudden character death you couldn't avoid. Like "enemy wins initiative, fires off save or die effects, you roll bad" or "enemy surprises you, wins initiative, and standard action + full attack with critical kill you". Or "3 enemies of your level open up with fireball as spell-like ability, your wizard succeeds all three saving throws and is still dead". That's a degree of uncertainty I have found terrible and you can't avoid it if you keep damage that high.

I alwasy find it telling that the arguments rarely come from the other direction, talking about how PCs enjoy the same possibilities of obliterating their enemies due to a couple lucky die rolls. Equally important is that these arguments often rely on the most extreme of situations -- every enemy beats every PC in inititaive and/or surprises them all; ever PC fails every saving throw; every attack roll against the PCs is a critical. I think it's largely a player centric, close to being a strawman argument in many cases, based around the idea that if such a thing is possible, eventually it's going to happen and it's going to happen to me. The thing about probability is that it doesn't work that way -- just because there's a 10% chance of something occuring doesn't mean it happens 1 in 10 times. it might never happen, or might happen every time. I just think it's more fun and more interesting to allow for those extreme possibilities than to eliminate them wholesale.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

I alwasy find it telling that the arguments rarely come from the other direction, talking about how PCs enjoy the same possibilities of obliterating their enemies due to a couple lucky die rolls. Equally important is that these arguments often rely on the most extreme of situations -- every enemy beats every PC in inititaive and/or surprises them all; ever PC fails every saving throw; every attack roll against the PCs is a critical. I think it's largely a player centric, close to being a strawman argument in many cases, based around the idea that if such a thing is possible, eventually it's going to happen and it's going to happen to me. The thing about probability is that it doesn't work that way -- just because there's a 10% chance of something occuring doesn't mean it happens 1 in 10 times. it might never happen, or might happen every time. I just think it's more fun and more interesting to allow for those extreme possibilities than to eliminate them wholesale.

Well, all these stories happened. I don't know why I fail to remember so the awesome scenes working for the PCs (though I remember a scene in my 4E campaign that was pretty sweet for the PCs).
Maybe I tend to memorize bad experience that took the fun out of the game better then the ones that advanced the game. But I remember that we had lots of bad experience during Age of Worms (though none of the incidents mentioned above are from that campaign), which led us to abandoning it eventually.

But I remember a cool scene in my Keep on the Shadowfell campaign where the PCs mixed up a large group of Goblins that was well remembered by the party... But of course I also remember the scene with Irontooth that went... less smooth.

What I would like to see more in regards to "failures" of the PCs would be actual retreats, not character or party kills. I haven't seen that happening much in 3E, and it was also hard to facilitate - to much damage per round. If you knew you were in trouble you didn't have the time to run anymore. You were probably already dead. I suppose that wasn't true at all levels (levels 1-3 and 11+ certainly...)

Edit:

I think the real reason why I don't remember this much from the other side of the screen is - Villains die all the time. There are _very_ few encounters with recurring villains. Villains come and go. And I don't hang my hard that much on villains that I didn't expect them to die soon. Though I remember that a little too many NPCs died ineffectual while being grappled by the parties Giant (Diamond Throne campaign). (But I also remember him being a little frustrated when - more by accident then intent - the party faced a lot more large size creatures, like Chorrim...)

But if my character died the third time in 3 sessions, I am bound to remember.

 

[D'karr]

I alwasy find it telling that the arguments rarely come from the other direction, talking about how PCs enjoy the same possibilities of obliterating their enemies due to a couple lucky die rolls. Equally important is that these arguments often rely on the most extreme of situations -- every enemy beats every PC in inititaive and/or surprises them all; ever PC fails every saving throw; every attack roll against the PCs is a critical. I think it's largely a player centric, close to being a strawman argument in many cases, based around the idea that if such a thing is possible, eventually it's going to happen and it's going to happen to me. The thing about probability is that it doesn't work that way -- just because there's a 10% chance of something occuring doesn't mean it happens 1 in 10 times. it might never happen, or might happen every time. I just think it's more fun and more interesting to allow for those extreme possibilities than to eliminate them wholesale.

Well from the 4e perspective I can say that the creatures in my campaign have routinely had higher initiative than the PCs. And sometimes a heck of a lot higher. While the PCs are at the +3-5 modifier the creatures have +6-7. When the PCs are at the +6-7 the creatures are at +9-11. It doesn't always work like that but it has happened often enough to be a decided advantage for the monsters.

In addition with the increased amounts of monsters against PCs you also run into higher chances to start rolling critical hits. When the players are each rolling one attack I'm rolling 7-10 attacks and the probabilities really start stacking against the PCs.

Yes, with more swingy damage the players have a chance to NOVA against one creature and it's memorable. Creature dead, nobody loses anything, the PCs feel heroic. When a creature NOVAs against a PC and outright kills them without them even having a chance to act, not so much excitement on that side.

I prefer to have combats that keep the PCs on their toes and from which they can retreat if they choose to. A lucky killing hit pretty much eliminates that possibility.

 

[Reynard]

In addition with the increased amounts of monsters against PCs you also run into higher chances to start rolling critical hits. When the players are each rolling one attack I'm rolling 7-10 attacks and the probabilities really start stacking against the PCs.

Remember, though, from a 3E perspective (and even more so in earlier editions, I think) if the PCs are significantly outnumbered, those enemies are also likely significantly weaker than them. This translates to lower chance of confirming crits and lower damage thresholds in general. So while the number of dice increase, the probability that any of those dice reult in an insta-kill is pretty low (unless the DM likes to make sure all of his enemies are crit machines, but thats a different sort of issue). In the opposite situation, in which the PCs outnumber the enmy, they are probably "outgunned" as well -- which is where tatics and pulling out the stops becomes even more important and, yes, where a lucky strike could result in a smeared PC -- but I think this is a feature rather than a bug of the occassional boss battle. again, though, if the DM is constantly throwing powerful, singular, even if "level appropriate", enemies at the party, that's something that needs to be addressed (assuming the players don't like it).

One of the reasons I think the minion rules in 4E are so amusing is that in 3E minion rules were super simple: multiply the "plot importance" of the enemy by the number of hit dice the creature has = hit points. Example: so you want some viable orc soldiers for a 9th level party, at least insofar as they might actually hit the PCs. But they are just mooks. Make them 5th level warriors and give them 2 hit points per hit die (10 hit points). Viola, instant minions.

 

[D'karr]

Remember, though, from a 3E perspective (and even more so in earlier editions, I think) if the PCs are significantly outnumbered, those enemies are also likely significantly weaker than them. This translates to lower chance of confirming crits and lower damage thresholds in general. So while the number of dice increase, the probability that any of those dice result in an insta-kill is pretty low (unless the DM likes to make sure all of his enemies are crit machines, but thats a different sort of issue).

Since the thread is about 4e and the few previous posts to the one I made had been about increasing damage to, in essence, make 4e combat more swingy, I limited my comments to that.

However, you are correct. In 3e in most situations in which the PCs were significantly outnumbered the enemies were significantly weaker. In my experience those enemies were, in most cases, completely ineffective in presenting any threat at all in a combat. You are correct they were not going to insta-kill, as a matter of fact the great majority of them were not even going to hit. When the possibility of hitting is only a natural 20 the effectiveness of the opposition is clearly diminished. This was not so easily experienced in earlier editions of the game because the PCs did not usually have ways to scale their AC into the unhittable range.

So if a DM wanted to even begin to challenge a party he had to use encounters that were EL+2, +3 or even +4. This causes a disconnect because if you use the CR system you can't add that many lower level opponents to a combat to make it interesting. If I recall correctly the CR calculation table even stated that adding more than 12 creatures to an encounter could pose problems.

So I agree in 3e there is the possibility of having many lower level creatures attack the characters but overall they were not a challenge at all.

So in order to challenge the party a DM had to swing the pendulum in the opposite direction. Fewer creatures that were more powerful.

In the opposite situation, in which the PCs outnumber the enemy, they are probably "outgunned" as well -- which is where tactics and pulling out the stops becomes even more important and, yes, where a lucky strike could result in a smeared PC -- but I think this is a feature rather than a bug of the occasional boss battle.

And this is where we disagree the most. I don't believe that a lucky strike that smears a PC is a feature. Even when it comes to a boss battle. What fun does a player have if his carefully played PC gets smeared on the first strike by a swingy combat system. He'll be, more than likely, sitting out the rest of the combat, if not the adventure. How is that a feature?

Again, though, if the DM is constantly throwing powerful, singular, even if "level appropriate", enemies at the party, that's something that needs to be addressed (assuming the players don't like it).

I completely agree with you here. But how many players honestly like to sit out combats or entire adventures?

One of the reasons I think the minion rules in 4E are so amusing is that in 3E minion rules were super simple: multiply the "plot importance" of the enemy by the number of hit dice the creature has = hit points. Example: so you want some viable orc soldiers for a 9th level party, at least insofar as they might actually hit the PCs. But they are just mooks. Make them 5th level warriors and give them 2 hit points per hit die (10 hit points). Viola, instant minions.

Yes, that works, in theory, until you have players that hit those orcs for minimum damage. Then you have one or several "minions" that require book-keeping. When you start to add that up the DM soon finds out why the binary state of 4e minions works so well. Specially when they are used within the proper context.

In addition, that might have been your way of doing minions but if you attempt to show that "rule" to a new DM you can't. Simply because it doesn't exist in any sourcebook that they would have access to. I used to hand wave minions in 3e too but I've had decades of experience to know what works and what doesn't. The game should not present that impediment to a new DM that has just bought the 3 core books.

In 4e I've already run combats with 20+ creatures against the PCs. These combats took me no additional effort to run than combats between the PCs and 4-6 opponents. When you start adding traps, and enviromental hazards the combats become much more exciting. Not only that, now because I don't have to worry about the lucky one hit kill, the combatants can go all out. In addition, the PCs now have a chance to decide whether they stick around to fight, if the combat is going their way. Or they can decide they are going to flee, because they are getting their asses handed to them.

Some will say that because damage is on average lower than in 3e that 4e combat is not deadly enough. I can honestly say, not so. Characters are more survivable than in 3e, but PC deaths are mostly due to bad decisions on the part of the players than to random chance. 4e combat can be quite deadly, and the stack of dead PC sheets piled up at my table alone is testament to that.

 

[FireLance]

I think that this provides too much of a "safety net." What if you play tactically "smart" and avoid getting hit? Should you be penalized because you were not bloodied or dropped to negatives?

By making it a standard cost of one action point you make sure that it only happens once per encounter and the player has the option to take it or to use the action point for additional actions as normal.

I've also been toying with the idea of a once per encounter recharge mechanism, and I think I might tie it instead to second wind (which characters also normally can use only once per encounter). Basically, you spend a healing surge, but instead of regaining hit points, you get back an expended encounter power instead. This rewards players who were clever or lucky enough not to be hit.

 

[Hussar]

You saqy this like it's abad thing.

More seriously: I prefer "swingy" combat because uncertainty is fun. I'd rather play in a situation in which one die roll can send plans nd tactics down the flusher, for the good guys or the bad guys. Sometimes, the villain goes down like a punk. Sometimes,the PCs have to retreat and regroup. It is preferable by far, IMO, than knowing that, all thing being equal, I need to set aside two hours of game time for the "boss fight".

Again, that's fair. Your playstyle and all. But, to me, the idea that single die rolls can change the fight from "Regular" to "Extra Lethal" is bad. I found 3e combat FAR too lethal. I was killing PC's, using standard EL=Party Level encounters most of the time, about 1 time every three sessions. That's WAY too much. 80 sessions, 27 PC deaths. It really sucked the fun out of the campaign.

I alwasy find it telling that the arguments rarely come from the other direction, talking about how PCs enjoy the same possibilities of obliterating their enemies due to a couple lucky die rolls. Equally important is that these arguments often rely on the most extreme of situations -- every enemy beats every PC in inititaive and/or surprises them all; ever PC fails every saving throw; every attack roll against the PCs is a critical. I think it's largely a player centric, close to being a strawman argument in many cases, based around the idea that if such a thing is possible, eventually it's going to happen and it's going to happen to me. The thing about probability is that it doesn't work that way -- just because there's a 10% chance of something occuring doesn't mean it happens 1 in 10 times. it might never happen, or might happen every time. I just think it's more fun and more interesting to allow for those extreme possibilities than to eliminate them wholesale.

Not really when you think about it. PC's will fight hundreds of fights before the end of a campaign. Most baddies fight one. The very rare one gets to fight a couple. So, when the baddie goes down to a lucky crit, great. But, the PC's have to get luck EVERY SINGLE TIME. Or they die.

And, let's not forget, an equal CR creature can most likely kill a PC with a single full attack. Never mind crits or other effects. Many, many creatures can simply down you with straight up damage. Two rounds MAX.

Like I said, I found 3e combat far and away too lethal. I put in Action Points in my next campaign specifically to limit this. I know in the last campaign we played in, we would have seen at least 3 PC deaths in 5 sessions, all against level appropriate encounters, if it hadn't been for Action Points saving them.

I agree that combat should be uncertain. I disagree that the level of uncertainty should be THAT great.

 

[Reynard]

Not really when you think about it. PC's will fight hundreds of fights before the end of a campaign. Most baddies fight one. The very rare one gets to fight a couple. So, when the baddie goes down to a lucky crit, great. But, the PC's have to get luck EVERY SINGLE TIME. Or they die.

Right, but the number of die rolls performed by the DM and the players (total) is pretty much the same. Sometimes there's an equal number of enemies. Sometimes there's one nemy with a number of attacks. But the probability of one of the players critting or whatever and the DM doing it with one of the enemies is pretty much equal (barring "builds" made for crits, etc..).

And, let's not forget, an equal CR creature can most likely kill a PC with a single full attack. Never mind crits or other effects. Many, many creatures can simply down you with straight up damage. Two rounds MAX.

This is true, but I think it's because the intent, traditionally, is to have more, weaker foes vs the party rather than a singular powerful foe. If every time the party enters a room there's a CR=party level monter in 3E, chances are you are going to lose a PC sooner rather than later, and once one is gone, the spiral starts.