4e "getting back to D&D's roots" how?

[Remathilis]

EDIT: Also to be fair I always liked flat XP costs / values for monsters and I find the 3.5 CR / EL system cumbersome, but I still dont think it's the deal breaker that alot of people make it out to be.

If/When I return to 3.5 D&D, it will be with the non-scaling XP variant found in the back of Unearthed Arcana (the only one d20srd doesn't list in its variants) to recreate the feel of 4e's XP/monster level system. I cannot go back to the slide-scale method of doing XP multiple times because of level differences. (YUCK!).

 

[MerricB]

Ok, lets say you create an encounter with a troll (CR 5), two gargoyles (CR 4) and 5 goblin warriors (CR 1/3) Is it an appropriate encounter level (EL) challenge for a 6th level party. Grab your DMG, I'll wait.

Heh. My eyeballing of that says CR 2+CR5+CR6=EL7. Not even a minute of calculation. How close was I?

Cheers!

 

[Simon Atavax]

Well, if you go by that logic, you don't need CR. You could have the fight involve a titan, two very young black dragons, and 5 kobolds, since that's what the world designates.

I hear what you're saying, of course, but at the same time my DMs aren't completely unreasonable. It's easy enough to eyeball that a titan, two black dragons, and (what the heck) 5 kobolds would be too much for a 6th level party. But I've never been in a group that was really anal about calculating EL and CR and all that kind of thing. Just sayin'.

I have to say I find it somewhat funny (and more than a little doublethinkish) that the very things 3e used to be praised for are now seen as badwrongfun.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

If/When I return to 3.5 D&D, it will be with the non-scaling XP variant found in the back of Unearthed Arcana (the only one d20srd doesn't list in its variants) to recreate the feel of 4e's XP/monster level system. I cannot go back to the slide-scale method of doing XP multiple times because of level differences. (YUCK!).

I haven't tried it, but I would bet Wulf Ratbanes method works good.

I hear what you're saying, of course, but at the same time my DMs aren't completely unreasonable. It's easy enough to eyeball that a titan, two black dragons, and (what the heck) 5 kobolds would be too much for a 6th level party. But I've never been in a group that was really anal about calculating EL and CR and all that kind of thing. Just sayin'.

I have to say I find it somewhat funny (and more than a little doublethinkish) that the very things 3e used to be praised for are now seen as badwrongfun.

EL and CR calculation is not described as badwrongfun. At worst, it's just unfun because of certain vagaries in calculating EL of groups, or because CRs are totally off.
But I think fun or unfun or badwrongfun doesn't describe it. 3E CR/EL system was a good start, but 4E system works better. Ultimately, it's a refinement after 8 years of learning what worked and what didn't - and what would be desirable.

And more went into in this then just the "XP Budget" for encounters. For example, to have 5 PCs vs 5 equal level monsters work, you need to take certain considerations into account - how tough are the monsters compared to the PCs? How can the PCs be challenged in such an encounter without having to rest again?

 

[Treebore]

I have to admit that I have been surprised that we keep surviving encounters in the 4E game versus creatures with better saves then most of our PC's, better AC's, better to hit probabilities, and often just as many, if nor more HP's, we still manage to survive. It comes down to we have healing surges and they don't, or at least the DM has not allowed them to use any.

Personally I consider it bad game design when you have to do that. IE make the encounter so tough in order to keep second winds and such from being too powerful. I think its still obviously too powerful. Then again, thats my sense of
how game mechanics should balance out.

Not that it makes 4E a bad game, no RPG that I am aware of achieves a perfect balance. 4E simply does not replace my old standards.

I still can't say I feel any love for 4E at all. I will not miss 4E when our last session is over tonight, but I will miss the great group of players.

 

[Baumi]

Ummm . . . every 3e game I ever played in featured combat against multiple enemies. Guess we were doing it wrong.

I's surely not the only way and I have to agree that even official Adventures often use multiple Enemies (and it's certanly more fun), but it's neither the default nor does it go as far as 4E usually does.

This is the reason why I find that pre-3.x Adventures are usually easier to convert than 3.x ones.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

I have to admit that I have been surprised that we keep surviving encounters in the 4E game versus creatures with better saves then most of our PC's, better AC's, better to hit probabilities, and often just as many, if nor more HP's, we still manage to survive. It comes down to we have healing surges and they don't, or at least the DM has not allowed them to use any.

Personally I consider it bad game design when you have to do that. IE make the encounter so tough in order to keep second winds and such from being too powerful. I think its still obviously too powerful. Then again, thats my sense of
how game mechanics should balance out.

Most monsters don't have self-healing abilities, not even Second Wind. (though by RAW, they have 1-3 healing surges, depending on tier).

The way the game is set up, using the right powers and the healing at the right time is cruicial for the PCs. Careful use of your healing surges is what can decide success or failure in the game. Though note - if you don't have a Leader-type character in the party, healing will not be the cruicial part - dealing damage and restraining/limiting your enemies ability to attack/deal damage will be.

I think the reason why monsters don't have so much healing is also because it might make them more difficult to handle. You have to think about using healing powers, attack powers, and all that as a DM for multiple PCs, while the players can use their cooperating brainpower to handle this for their party.

 

[Hussar]

Agreed. Certainly the published adventures for 3e don't reflect that either. Yet this whole "Yay! We can fight multiple enemies now!" vibe seems to be emerging as a major anti-3e myth of sorts.

Umm, what?

I got Dungeon 139 right in front of me right now. I'm using it in my campaign. So, we'll take that one. Feel free to compare more if you like.

3 Adventures, There is No Honor (1-3), Requiem of the Shadow Serpent (9th) and Maure Castle The Greater Halls (17th). We'll say multiple enemies is anything more than 5. Let's count shall we?

TINH: 23 encounters, 3 with more than 5 opponents
Requiem of the Shadow Serpent: 10 encounters, 1 with more than 5 opponents
Maure Castle: 9 Encounters (not counting trap rooms) 2 with more than 5 opponents.

I've done this with other Dungeon adventures as well. Saying that multiple critter encounters was not the norm in 3e is not a "myth". It's a pretty clear observation. I suggest that you start combing Dungeon magazines, or look at the adventures on the WOTC boards to see why people think that you don't see a lot of multi-monster encounters in 3e.

Mouseferatu - I respect what you're saying. Honestly, I don't think we disagree that much, just coming from opposite ends. My point is that you always, always have to put game play as the highest priority. Whenever play takes a second place to anything, the game suffers. And, in my view, it's typically rules where flavour first is the priority that the game suffers the most. So long as game play is the primary concern, then everything is peachy.

 

[Halivar]

I've done this with other Dungeon adventures as well. Saying that multiple critter encounters was not the norm in 3e is not a "myth". It's a pretty clear observation. I suggest that you start combing Dungeon magazines, or look at the adventures on the WOTC boards to see why people think that you don't see a lot of multi-monster encounters in 3e.

This has been my observation, as well. When I adapt Dungeon Magazine adventures to 4th edition, I have to make every other fight a Solo Elite to keep the adventure "by the book."

 

[mhensley]

We'll say multiple enemies is anything more than 5. Let's count shall we?

Ummm.... my brain considers the word multiple to mean more than 1, not 5. What am I missing?