D&D 4E Forked Thread: Some Thoughts on 4e

[WalterKovacs]

I'm guessing, since the DM is new ...

Did the DM adjust the encounter down for it being for only 4 people?

4 Pcs, none of which are controllers ... that's going to make an encounter even harder, not to mention you are losing quite a bit of damage output each round. You already lose out on the area effects of the wizard, and you are doing about 4/5 of the normal damage. Again, not a fault of the game system, but one of your situation being slightly off for what was intended.

Also, on the "magical light crossbow" ... besides the fact that only magic missle is comparable to a crossbow [in that it attacks a single creature without any other other effects] ... it's an Int based crossbow, doesn't require reloading, purchasing a crossbow, purchasing amunition, can't benefit from a magic weapon. So ultimately it's just like a crossbow, except for anyway other than it's a ranged attack against a single target.

 

[James McMurray]

Keep in mind that Readying is costly for a Fighter, since Combat Challenge uses an Immediate action, and a Readied action is an Immediate action, so he can't use both in the same round.

Similarly, Rangers tend to have a few Immediate action powers... though they're usually Encounter powers rather than something they can use every round like Combat Challenge. So it's less costly for the Ranger to Ready.

If you figure the Fighter's Readied an action, though, you may as well Shift - he'll have to decide between taking the Combat Challenge attack (which will prevent him using the action he's Readied), or passing over the chance at the Combat Challenge attack in order to keep his Readied action in hand...

-Hyp.

I did say "perhaps."

The answer to your other question is called discourse. The reason I did not anwer your question is because it's irrelevant. So are the half dozen replies to this response. It's the Internet equivalent of gossip (i.e. stuff talked about and even used as "ammunition" for one side of a discussion, even though it really has nothing to do with the topic at hand"). In other words, you really did not need that question to be asked let alone answered. It's non-sequitor for you to understand me on the main topic. It's white noise. We both know it.

Ah. In that case, have fun in irrelevant land. I'll go pay attention to things that matter more than trollish discourse with no agenda. Like killing dsragons with my invisible elves.

If you ever feel like actually having a discourse, I'm here. But that tends to involve both people actually responding to the other, which you've just admitted that you don't want to do. Ta ta!

 

[DracoSuave]

The fact is that WotC gave every Wizard "a magical light crossbow" after declaring that they did not want Wizards to resort to using a crossbow after running out of spells. Mechanically, it's similar. Thematically, the only reason it is not similar is that one is called a ranged weapon and the other is called ranged magic. His point is still valid.

Unless it's a one die fireball, or a one turn motion slow effect, or a -2 to their attack rolls effect...

Some of them 'crossbows' bring a little bit more than 'You hit, roll damage.'

In fact, all of them do, except MM.

 

[jbear]

I've always loved dnd, been playing since Ad&d but never stayed in one place long enough to ever get a character past 7th level so I've never had the experience of a truly high level game.

Another difficulty i've had now that I'm older with a young child and my social group having changed to mums and dads of my son's friends at playcentre and kindergarten, is actually finding anyone with time or interest to learn and play dnd with me.

I've finally managed to generate the interest, now having established a 1 per month session with friends who have never played dnd before. Time is still a problem but with a lot of patience we get around the 'kids-chaos' factor.

I began the campaign in 3.5, and shortly after 4th ed was announced. We still ran the game and their characters managed to finish their first major quest and level up.
I held off levelling up til my new 4th ed books arrived and then convinced the players to reinvent their characters to fit the new system but beginning them at 2nd level, assuming that what they had achieved until then had still happened even though their characters were changed (for example a half orc barbarian was no longer possible). Everyone agreed and we've had 4 sessions of 4e and I'm pretty sure during the next session they will complete their next major quest and level to 3rd.

I give all this detail so you know which angle I'm coming from. Now I get to the point; the experience of the wizard has changed drammatically from 3.5 to 4th ed. I had tried to explain to him when he made his 3ed wizard that from level 1 to 5 was basically an exercise in survival. From 5th level he would be the one pulling the big punches... til then he was going to be the gimp. Which was how it was. He spent nearly every session firing off his one spell and then have nothing to do for the rest of that game day. He had a bow (elven wizard) and the one time he tried to use it (out of sheer bored frustration) he missed by just enough to nail the half-orc in the back. So he basically became the babysitter, appearing back at the table with little interest when it was his turn to say: I guess I defend myself in the corner again...

Since we've been playing 4e his entire attitude is changed. He's in the game, wiping crowds of minions with flaming hands, opening closed portcullis levers through the portcullis with mage hand, tossing lit coins out into the darkness and lighting his companions torches in an instant, teleporting to defensive high positions and nailing enemies from afar with a hail of magic missiles... thats not to mention having been able to take a feat for leather armour, defend himself with his staff, roast his enemies with a rolling sphere of fire, not die from one hit, and to have an ac comparable to the rest of his companions...

I realise that this is the point of view from someone who is new to the game, but in my opinion all points of views should be taken into account, and certainly a new player's point of view is just as valid as a veteran's. It's through new players that the game will continue to grow after all.

The rest of the group (also all new players with no other roleplaying experience) are all very happy with the changes in 4e. Individually they have each confirmed they prefer it to 3.5. I'm sure one of the reasons has been a change in my attitude as a DM from: 'no, you can't do that, you're just a first level weakling... try at but at you're own risk, this is going to be very hard and if you fail you will suffer the consequences' to the 'say yes to your players and let them have fun' which is what I get from 4e. I feel a lot of freedom with the new system, and whatever its flaws or seeming limitations, well I can fill them in with my imagination and creativity, and keeping the 'say yes philosophy' I know that my players have appreciated the change. They percieve there characters as mighty heroes now, not 2nd level weaklings. I'm sure thats a philosophy I could and definitely would take if I run another 3e game in the future, nevertheless where I found that 'freedom to have fun' was with 4e.

 

[Benimoto]

If you're flanked and you move, the fighter will hit you and stop you from moving. The ranger might also hit you.

Just to point out here, that if it's an equivalent-level enemy, and particularly if the enemy is a soldier, the fighter may have to roll an 11+ to hit. The ranger will also take an OA, but his damage on an OA is typically low, with a one-handed weapon and no striker bonus dice. Plus, even if the fighter does hit, the enemy can use a second move action to get away.

It's not always the best move for a flanked enemy to move and provoke, but it's not a bad one either. If either the fighter or ranger is engaged by another monster, they may not want to follow a mobile enemy. It depends on monster role. A brute, or some soldiers may not want to take the gamble (although they easily have the HP to do so) but every other type of monster can be better off taking the OAs than spending the combat flanked by a defender and a striker.

 

[KarinsDad]

Ah. In that case, have fun in irrelevant land. I'll go pay attention to things that matter more than trollish discourse with no agenda. Like killing dsragons with my invisible elves.

If you ever feel like actually having a discourse, I'm here. But that tends to involve both people actually responding to the other, which you've just admitted that you don't want to do. Ta ta!

And this is precisely why I did not answer your moronic question which I knew would lead to this type of moronic response.

shrug

 

[KarinsDad]

Unless it's a one die fireball, or a one turn motion slow effect, or a -2 to their attack rolls effect...

Some of them 'crossbows' bring a little bit more than 'You hit, roll damage.'

In fact, all of them do, except MM.

Actually, Cloud of Daggers is basically just damage as well. With the wide open encounter spaces in 4E, it brings very little to the terrain equation.

And you are right. It is slightly more than just roll damage. Just not a lot more as per the other poster. Typically, pushing someone a few squares or slowing them is not a real lot of variety. Especially when you only have 2 or 3 choices when the good stuff runs out.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Ah. In that case, have fun in irrelevant land. I'll go pay attention to things that matter more than trollish discourse with no agenda. Like killing dsragons with my invisible elves.

If you ever feel like actually having a discourse, I'm here. But that tends to involve both people actually responding to the other, which you've just admitted that you don't want to do. Ta ta!

And this is precisely why I did not answer your moronic question which I knew would lead to this type of moronic response.

James, KarinsDad, stop that.

-Hyp.
(Moderator

 

[James McMurray]

James, KarinsDad, stop that.

-Hyp.
(Moderator

I'd already said I was done with his part in this thread, but thanks for the redundant reminder.

 

[James McMurray]

Just to point out here, that if it's an equivalent-level enemy, and particularly if the enemy is a soldier, the fighter may have to roll an 11+ to hit. The ranger will also take an OA, but his damage on an OA is typically low, with a one-handed weapon and no striker bonus dice. Plus, even if the fighter does hit, the enemy can use a second move action to get away.

He's flanked, so it's a 9+ if the math works out perfectly. But maybe we've got more min-maxing at our table, because it's almost never a straight 11+ roll to hit an equally-leveled opponent (especially if you've got combat advantage on them).

And perhaps that min-maxing shows in damage as well. The one guy in our group that consistently plays fighters is always ahead of the curve on damage dealing, making free attacks even less palatable.

It's not always the best move for a flanked enemy to move and provoke, but it's not a bad one either. If either the fighter or ranger is engaged by another monster, they may not want to follow a mobile enemy. It depends on monster role. A brute, or some soldiers may not want to take the gamble (although they easily have the HP to do so) but every other type of monster can be better off taking the OAs than spending the combat flanked by a defender and a striker.

True, but it takes a special situation to make "I'll give them free shots" a good idea. It's not the default that seems to happen in some games, or at least that it's been presented as.