D&D 4E What 5E needs to learn from 4E

[pemerton]

The difference is in the stunting. In how the terrain is used. In 3.X statting that room up is a largely wasted effort. In 4e it really isn't (although it is probably overkill).

Yesterday I ran a beholder encounter, inspired by this image (which is the cover art from Dungeonscape, I think):

[section][imagel]http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_yGmG2JxRet0/TDiKrRgy8qI/AAAAAAAAAHw/ysUN0_ATsjw/s1600/cov_19.jpg[/imagel]
[/section]

I'm not sure exactly what the artist intended, but to me it looks as if the central beholder is hovering over a chasm, with uneven rocky surfaces leading up to it (archer on one side, flaming sword guy on the other). I drew up my map similiarly, including with the side tunnel (behind the tiefling) which on my version ran down into the chasm, and the columns, stalactites, etc.

I didn't use four beholders, only 2 - an eye tyrant (MV version) and an eye of flame advanced to 17th level and MM3-ed for damage. And also a 15th level roper from MV, introduced on a whim when the player of the wizard asked, before taking cover behind a column, if it looked suspicious. (Response to result of 28 on the Perception check before adding the +2 bonus for knowing what he is looking for - "Yes, yes it does!")

Anyway, the terrain was pretty awesome. I managed to get both ranged strikers down the 200' drop into the stream below early in the encounter - the drow sorcerer made it back up (16th level At Will Dominant Winds) but the ranger, after getting about 120' back up on his flying carpet, got knocked back down to the bottom, but still ended up being pretty effective shooting up at long range with Twin Strike.

I failed in my attempt (as an eye tyrant) to use my TK ray to impale the dwarf fighter on a stalactite, and then the PC invoker did that to me instead - twice - using a slide effect from his zone of darkness and cold (Shadowdark Invocation; I resolved the stalactite as 2d8+8 and immoblised (SE), which seemed OK for a 17th level situational but multi-use option). But I did get to petrify one PC (the drow sorcerer) and at one stage had 3 or even 4 PCs taking ongoing 2d20 from my disintegrate ray (paladin, fighter, sorcerer and invoker - all very close together, but maybe only 3 overlapped at once).

Besides reinforcing my fondness for the tactical mobility that 4e generates, it also taught me that 4e beholders are pretty brutal (and play more like control than artillery - especially in combination with the terrain, a lot of action denial). The player of the fighter, in particular, got rather hosed in the fight - moving in close, and therefore vulnerable to the central eye, which is a vs Will attack that limits attacks to At Wills (his Will is not terrible, but his AC and Fort are both better). Which meant he didn't get to use some of his more funky immediate actions, and took a long time, and some effective use of cover while the beholder was trapped in the zone, to get off his close burst that also triggers AoE healing and thereby kept both himself and the invoker in the fight.

Anyway, I couldn't imagine running that fight to anything like the same effect in AD&D, 3E or any non-D&D fantasy system that I know.

 

[Manbearcat]

<snip>

The difference is in the stunting. In how the terrain is used. In 3.X statting that room up is a largely wasted effort. In 4e it really isn't (although it is probably overkill).

<snip>

Yesterday I ran a beholder encounter, inspired by this image (which is the cover art from Dungeonscape, I think):

<snip>

Anyway, I couldn't imagine running that fight to anything like the same effect in AD&D, 3E or any non-D&D fantasy system that I know.

The above posts by Neonchameleon and pemerton serve the ends of reposting my lost post perfectly. Both explain the comparative components (of 4e relative to prior editions) at play here and pemerton gives another strong example of those components put to good use toward the end of a mobile, dynamic combat. I would xp both if I were able.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Yesterday I ran a beholder encounter, inspired by this image (which is the cover art from Dungeonscape, I think):

[section][imagel]http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_yGmG2JxRet0/TDiKrRgy8qI/AAAAAAAAAHw/ysUN0_ATsjw/s1600/cov_19.jpg[/imagel]
[/section]

I'm not sure exactly what the artist intended, but to me it looks as if the central beholder is hovering over a chasm, with uneven rocky surfaces leading up to it (archer on one side, flaming sword guy on the other). I drew up my map similiarly, including with the side tunnel (behind the tiefling) which on my version ran down into the chasm, and the columns, stalactites, etc.

I didn't use four beholders, only 2 - an eye tyrant (MV version) and an eye of flame advanced to 17th level and MM3-ed for damage. And also a 15th level roper from MV, introduced on a whim when the player of the wizard asked, before taking cover behind a column, if it looked suspicious. (Response to result of 28 on the Perception check before adding the +2 bonus for knowing what he is looking for - "Yes, yes it does!")

Anyway, the terrain was pretty awesome. I managed to get both ranged strikers down the 200' drop into the stream below early in the encounter - the drow sorcerer made it back up (16th level At Will Dominant Winds) but the ranger, after getting about 120' back up on his flying carpet, got knocked back down to the bottom, but still ended up being pretty effective shooting up at long range with Twin Strike.

I failed in my attempt (as an eye tyrant) to use my TK ray to impale the dwarf fighter on a stalactite, and then the PC invoker did that to me instead - twice - using a slide effect from his zone of darkness and cold (Shadowdark Invocation; I resolved the stalactite as 2d8+8 and immoblised (SE), which seemed OK for a 17th level situational but multi-use option). But I did get to petrify one PC (the drow sorcerer) and at one stage had 3 or even 4 PCs taking ongoing 2d20 from my disintegrate ray (paladin, fighter, sorcerer and invoker - all very close together, but maybe only 3 overlapped at once).

Besides reinforcing my fondness for the tactical mobility that 4e generates, it also taught me that 4e beholders are pretty brutal (and play more like control than artillery - especially in combination with the terrain, a lot of action denial). The player of the fighter, in particular, got rather hosed in the fight - moving in close, and therefore vulnerable to the central eye, which is a vs Will attack that limits attacks to At Wills (his Will is not terrible, but his AC and Fort are both better). Which meant he didn't get to use some of his more funky immediate actions, and took a long time, and some effective use of cover while the beholder was trapped in the zone, to get off his close burst that also triggers AoE healing and thereby kept both himself and the invoker in the fight.

Anyway, I couldn't imagine running that fight to anything like the same effect in AD&D, 3E or any non-D&D fantasy system that I know.

Sounds awesome.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Anyway, I couldn't imagine running that fight to anything like the same effect in AD&D, 3E or any non-D&D fantasy system that I know.

I could manage something similar in Legends of Anglerre (Spirit of the Century: Fantasy Edition), something based on WFRP 3e*, or one of the recent Cortex system games (Leverage or Marvel Superheroes spring to mind; Firefly wouldn't work).

* Which means I think the Fantasy Flight Star Wars will be able to handle it without any hacking - and I consider Star Wars to be fantasy.

 

[pemerton]

I could manage something similar in Legends of Anglerre (Spirit of the Century: Fantasy Edition), something based on WFRP 3e*, or one of the recent Cortex system games (Leverage or Marvel Superheroes spring to mind; Firefly wouldn't work).

* Which means I think the Fantasy Flight Star Wars will be able to handle it without any hacking - and I consider Star Wars to be fantasy.

I know of these systems, but don't know them (if that makes sense). How do they handle the tactical dimension? (I especially had the impression that Marvel Superheroes is quite abstract, but that may be a mistaken impression.)

EDIT: Also, yes, Star Wars is fantasy.

 

[Neonchameleon]

I know of these systems, but don't know them (if that makes sense). How do they handle the tactical dimension? (I especially had the impression that Marvel Superheroes is quite abstract, but that may be a mistaken impression.)

EDIT: Also, yes, Star Wars is fantasy.

WFRP 3e is a cross between a gridless (although not locationless - you have distances of Engaged/Short/Medium/Long/Extreme) 4e using power cards and an absolutely awesome customisable dice pool for a resolution mechanic (with the Conservative/Reckless attribute dice being my favourite part). It clunks in places by trying to be several games at once (something I think SW may avoid) - but I'd seriously recommend getting the PDF rulebook and a couple of sets of dice. I wouldn't recommend getting much more than that however (except possibly Moar Dice).

... And now I want to hack WFRP 3e dice into something not far from Wushu.

Leverage and Marvel it's a mix of opportunities, plot points, and feats (and Legends likewise); the tactics aren't anything like as intricate as 4e or WFRP 3e.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I don't thing the 3x sales trend teaches anything like that. Its pure buyer population...
Everyone interested in playing with the 'new' rule set will by the Core books.
Some players will immediately stop, satisfied to avoid splat books and develop their own world.
Some will stick to a campaign setting {I bought almost all the Eberron material, including adventures} while shying away from others.
Some will grab every new rule but, others will be picky.
Everyone will look at new offering and ask 'is this of use to me?' Eventually there are more folks answering 'no' to that simply because they have all they want or need.

Then throw in the question of money on top of want and your buying population dwindles faster.

This all makes perfect sense. But, it does ignore one thing: new players. You assume there are none. It may well be that the hobby (or at least D&D) has (long since?) plateaued and new players are not a meaningful factor. It would explain the rapid rev rolls to flog revenue out of existing fans inclined to re-buying core rules. I suspect that number shrinks with each iteration, too, though...

... which means really in order to continue being a viable RPG publisher they need to have a new edition in 5 to 7 years.... or develop an ongoing income stream better than the DDI that suffices to shore up what is lost by being an RPG publisher. {piracy, duplication, no royalties on use, etc..}

I do not wish to be in their shoes!

Sounds like a death spiral to me. Not a formula for viability, but for a long, slow, painful decline. No prospects for growth, and the only way to flog revenue out of existing customers is to roll a rev, which shrinks the fan base each time.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

This all makes perfect sense. But, it does ignore one thing: new players. You assume there are none. It may well be that the hobby (or at least D&D) has (long since?) plateaued and new players are not a meaningful factor. It would explain the rapid rev rolls to flog revenue out of existing fans inclined to re-buying core rules. I suspect that number shrinks with each iteration, too, though...

Sounds like a death spiral to me. Not a formula for viability, but for a long, slow, painful decline. No prospects for growth, and the only way to flog revenue out of existing customers is to roll a rev, which shrinks the fan base each time.

Yes, well, you've basically recapitulated what Ryan Dancy has been saying for how long? That was why he was so gung-ho for OGL when he was at WotC... I think basically he was creating the "permanent 3e" sort of situation, and at the very least insuring that some version of 'D&D' (albeit called whatever) would be around regardless of business considerations as long as anyone is interested in playing it.

WotC clearly saw the same thing. 4e was in some measure an answer to that too. Make a version of the game that can simply be incrementally errated forever and live permanently in an evergreen fashion as a digital online service.

The best laid plans often don't work out... Mike Mearls appears to have less lofty goals. lol.

 

[LostSoul]

Too assist with your bafflement, here's that room in 3e. (and much, much, simpler then all that 4e gobblygook I might add)

2 large firepits, 2d6 damage, reflex save DC15 or catch on fire. If on fire DC 15 reflex save and a move action to put out.

Where did you get the 2d6 damage from? Or the Reflex save? (Ah, I see, it's under the Environment section. That's where the catching on fire stuff is too.)

Large heavy object falling 10 ft. 1D8 damage. 2 or 3 D8's if its truly, absurdly massive. Affects a 5x5 or 10x10 square. Again depending on your massive-ity. After it falls difficult terrain. Double cost to move through or tumble DC 15 to move as normal.

I forget exactly where the table is that determines how much damage something does based on its weight and how far it falls. How much do you estimate the chandelier to be? If I remember correctly, it must be at least 200 pounds to deal 1d6 damage falling 10'. (Is the attack roll/save DC there as well? Ah, no, it just hits or something. Odd.)

*

I'm not sure that's simpler than either giving the fires a level or using the PC's level and basing damage/attacks off of that. I know 3E well but I'd still be flipping through books to figure out how it's supposed to work. (Or just ignore the rules and then wonder why I don't play a game where the rules are set up so you don't have to ignore them.)

I was playing 3.5 last Thursday and one player - playing his third RPG session ever - decided to take off his breastplate and hit a ghoul in the face to stun him. I was really tired of telling him "No, you can't do that," so I let it happen even though he didn't have the feats for it. In 4E I'd just say "Okay, STR vs. Fort, on a hit you deal low regular damage plus he's Dazed."

 

[S'mon]

T
I saw a poster mention reciently that in the time span of two 4E combats they were able to run a dozen encounters using some sort of pathfinder beginner box.

It was actually just one 4e combat.

Running Koptila the Undead Ogre King and his zombies & time-travelling ogres (from Dungeon Delve #7 ) vs the PCs took approximately the same amount of time as running my Pathfinder Beginner Box party through ca 1/2 to 2/3 of B7's Castle Caldwell, about a dozen encounters.

BTW I'd say the fun level was roughly equivalent in both. Koptila was a pretty well designed 'Boss Monster' Solo with an engaging back story, there was a giant Necro-Monolith for terrain, and I always halve all monster hp to avoid grind (and raise damage expressions to post-MM3 standard, of course).

As you say, the problem with 4e comes in with the non-boss fights. Running the 11 fights in "Orcs of Stonefang Pass" took us 6 3-hour sessions, plus an initial no-fighting session; in 1e that would have been 2 sessions at most, which would have been a better pace.