I think we're done with 4E

[Shroomy]

I think that rituals not being incorporated into the treasure system better is one of the few real flaws in the game. Then again, I think the whole treasure system is one of the few real flaws.

They should have given some ideas on the when and wheres for rituals, residuum, and reagents.

They all have set monetary values, so it shouldn't be too hard to incorporate into the treasure system. My DM has twice included ritual books into the treasures, though I'm not sure if he added up all the costs or not (he was studying the PHB for a bit and writing down something before he told us what we found).

 

[korjik]

My group is coming to the conclusion that 4e is not for us either. We like the encounter design philosophy, and it is much easier to DM than 3e, but we do have some problems with how the game is set up.

We dont feel that magic is any different than mundane. Or impressive at all, most of the time. Kinda lessens the game.

There are too many HP for monsters, and too many conditions/modifiers to keep track of. One of our players likes to 'I hit it with my sword' all the time. She dosent like to use her powers.

I personally dont agree that 4e gives more options than 3e. You must get a paragon path at 11th, you must have an epic destiny at 21th, as opposed to my never playing a prestige class in 3e. Picking one of 3-5 powers about every level, with a max of about 17 different powers at 30th as opposed to my wizard baving several hundred spells to choose from.

I do have to qualify this tho. I never came across the same problems that seemed to be common here. The 5 minute workday in my game would get the camp ambushed and the players killed, and my players new that. I dont have any power gamers, so min/maxing didnt happen.

Oddly enough, I think I like the game alot more as a DM than as a player. I love the monster design philosophy, where the stats underneath the hood are pretty generic but the differences in specials gives flavor. It gives the DM a good base to work from. I never liked 3e's philosophy of trying to make monsters more like PCs. 3e is a very hard game to run.

I think I might try to come back in a year or so after a couple expansions come out to see how the game works.

I am curious, have many played the game up into epic levels? It looks to me like it would be very grindy, and probably out of whack.

 

[Jack99]

I am curious, have many played the game up into epic levels? It looks to me like it would be very grindy, and probably out of whack.

Unless they started close to it, I doubt it. Unless they really play alot

 

[Felon]

I started a thread about the grindyness of 4e combat, and almost respondant shrugged like they had no idea what I was talking about. Glad to see that I continue to be ahead of my time, and gladder still to see others speaking out and prompting discussion.

I don't get these kind of complaints. There is nearly no system that gives you so many build in options in a fight than in 4E (most are simply hit, hit, hit).

Right, most systems are simply hit, hit, hit, dead. D&D is hit, hit, hit, hit, hit, hit, hit, hit, hit, hit, hit, hit, dead. Unless the guy's elite, in which case it's hit, hit, hit, hit.....well, I think most folks can get the point without going on for five minutes like it was a bit from Family Guy.

The other systems aren't trying to do what D&D does with powers. Of course, just because you don't have powers with little rider effects, that doesn't mean you don't have variety. Two battles can be very different based on factors that have nothing to do with mashing hotkeyed powers.

I think a lot of the repetitiveness stems from the presentation. 4e presents its game as a series of encounters. You set out all of the little pieces, you have your fight, and an hour or so later you mop up and take your little recharge break and then move on to the next encounter. Man, back when I was passionate about RPG's, I never ran or played in campaigns that presented the game as being boiled down into that little formula, even when that's what it was. You can't break something down and document its components without rendering it somewhat passe'.

I enjoy DM'ing 4e to some extent because it's fun to band monsters together and create devlish little synergies in their tactics. The problem is, the heroes are static in their synergies. You're going to see the same magic tricks from them over and over again. That's why 4e monsters lack immunities that they traditionally had before; zombies can now be charmed, ghosts now be hit any weapon, swarms can be knocked prone. You can't have characters mashing their hotkey and having the desired effect not occur on a successful hit. Of course, there's only so many times you can see the same magic trick before it loses its coolness.

EDIT--This was the thread I referened: http://www.enworld.org/forum/d-d-4t...ion-combat-anyone-tried-solo-monster-yet.html

 

[TheNovaLord]

i think a lot of people have hit the right nail on the head

for the DM, it is so much easier to run

unfortunately the player part of me is going off it quickly, and so alot of my group...this is reflected by number of 4th ed books bought

TBH i went back to GMing 3.5 last week, and it seemed such hard work so 3.5 isnt where i wanna go either

more savage worlds for me i think

 

[LostSoul]

I started a thread about the grindyness of 4e combat, and almost respondant shrugged like they had no idea what I was talking about. Glad to see that I continue to be ahead of my time, and gladder still to see others speaking out and prompting discussion.

I still don't see the hit point grind in my game.

Most encounters that are not very hard (4+ levels above the PCs) end in 5 rounds. Easy encounters are over in 1-3 rounds.

Even the last encounter I ran - 3 4th-level encounter groups coming in waves about 3 rounds apart vs. 5 slightly drained 5th- and 6th-level PCs - ended in about 12 rounds. It included 2 elites and only 1 minion.

 

[thecasualoblivion]

The hit point grind comes and goes. I've seen it happen, and I've also run several combats in succession without seeing it happen. Its usually difficult to predict. Having the enemies run away when they begin to lose helps a lot.

 

[Remathilis]

My group decided 4e is not their tea either. One player loves is, and I generally like it, but the others recount every typical 4e negative trait/bash there is. I won't bother recounting them.

We're going back to the 3.5 game we left before 4e. That group is between 9th & 11th level, and set in Eberron with most supplements. My groups not too power-gamey, so the game worked til now (even in Expedition to Castle Ravenloft) but this will be my first real test DMing HL 3.5 (I've played it from 16th-20th, at that was a pain).

Perhaps come PHB2, Arcane Power and Divine Power (plus whatever else filters down the pipe) we'll go back to it. Until then...

 

[Herremann the Wise]

I still don't see the hit point grind in my game.

I do. But just as 3.x had combats that fizzled (big bad guy getting KO'd too early), so does 4E where the result is known far earlier than when the curtain comes down. I think the fix for this is to turn the enemy into "minions" when the result is obvious to everyone. On the whole, I still enjoy combat in both editions.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

 

[thecasualoblivion]

I prefer the 4E hp grind to 3E's rocket tag.