D&D 4E Who's still playing 4E

[Scrivener of Doom]

So how long do your combats run? I mentioned earlier that our sessions were about 3 hours, and it was commonplace for the entire session to be a single combat. Bigger fights could stretch across 2 sessions.

45 minutes is about right for us, with major encounters taking 60-90 minutes. (My longest single D&D battle remains the 15-round , 4-hour spectacular in 3.5E at level 15... where not a single player lost interest!) We normally do two small encounters and one major encounter per session. The rest of the time is taken up with "story" (including skill challenges).

(snip) Masterplan is excellent, don't get me wrong on that - but you missed out on the pre-C&D phase where you could import everything you needed with a single click, share everything you created easily, share your "templated"/"campaigned" settings and content in a single click (ok, two or three, but still!) A whole market/community could have been born from this!

I understand why all this had to be killed. But man... It was just so awesome! I guess I'm seeing it in a dimmer light for having been blinded by hope (wow... that was maudlin!)

And, can you imagine what that software could be with a decent UI designer? An API? ! So many things lost before they were even created...

I should probably play some Vampire: The Masquerade... I have so much angst right now, I'd be "killin' it"!
(snip)

I really did miss its halcyon days! I cannot help but think as I use Masterplan that this was what Adventures Tools could have/should have been. It also could have been the vehicle for delivering new campaign settings. Even now I am thinking of copying all the info from the two FR guides for 4E into a campaign file on Masterplan. WotC would be doing something similar now while they dither about whether or not to produce a 5E version of FR.

I'll see your angst, and raise you regret over lost opportunities....

(snip) Ex: A dragon's "claw/claw/bite" non-sense* becomes a single attack where if you target everything in range, on an even roll (or 16+, or whatever) you add ongoing elemental damage (i.e. that was a bite), on another you push/slide (that was a tail), etc. (snip)

That is a great idea!

I have been rethinking dragons, in particular, because I really don't like solo monsters. (I use them but I don't like them.) That might be a really elegant way of addressing some of the issues relating to creatures like dragons. Thanks: I will think about that some more.

(snip) For those kinds of foes, you can significantly reduce the number of "specific attacks" and those : "you use 1 of these and 2 these with a standard action" kind of powers that just take-up space on the stat-block (is it "block" or "bloc"?) (snip)

Block. A bloc is a group of people or nations.

I do like the elegance of reducing the size of stat blocks. I find the monsters/NPCs I enjoy using most are those where they have, roughly, one trait, two powers, and one triggered power or minor power. That's enough to give them some variety but not enough to make you enter the state of analysis-paralysis.

(snip) I do like the eIt also works great for those situations where "a telling blow" should have an added effect : rogu-ish types add a "debuff" on 16+, this demon poisons, etc. It's especially nice for abilities that used to be reserved for "on a crit" but really should happen more often. (snip) /quote]

I've expanded crit ranges on some of my monsters and then had those expanded crit ranges produce additional effects. The beauty of that is that it doesn't increase the number of powers but it does increase the variety.

 

[Scrivener of Doom]

Okay, now I want to figure out what on earth we were doing wrong, because a 60 minute or less combat was the rare exception.

Though in the 3e games I played in back in the day, combats would often take the full session as well...

The problem is almost always the players. Give them cheat sheets with their triggered powers clearly spelt out for them in TRIGGER/EFFECT format. If you have time, putting their character sheets in monster stat block format can really help teach them to use their characters effectively. Train them with that for a couple of levels and then hopefully they will be able to manage their character sheets without the overt hand-holding thereafter.

And be careful about using solos and even elites. Use lots of minions and standards and give the minions a power (or the leaders) that lets them save against dying at least once.

 

[Manbearcat]

That sounds about right. I tended to going for injecting more 'story' into my fights, which tended to mean they would rarely need to wrap up the hit points of all the opponents, which tends to take care of a lot of things, and makes the fights more interesting and engaging. In effect it amounts to what you're saying though, if the building is on fire, then everyone is taking damage and/or avoiding various fire-related hazards as they fight, there are areas of fire to push into, etc.

I wish the standard usage of interesting Hazards as (1) a portion of the encounter budget of the xp and (2) key elements of the encounter (interacting with forced movement and inducing dynamic mobility) would have been SOP at the beginning of 4e (as several other things that weren't and should have been). It is trivial, it is intuitive, and it is paradigm-changing.

Instead we got people fighting in tiny rooms, without interesting hazards/terrain, not understanding the genre emulation of forced movement, all working together to produce static combat slogs (which apparently was the fault of crappy early modules...never read them or looked at them so no idea, personally). Not a good look (or correct representation) for early 4e.

 

[Scrivener of Doom]

I wish the standard usage of interesting Hazards as (1) a portion of the encounter budget of the xp and (2) key elements of the encounter (interacting with forced movement and inducing dynamic mobility) would have been SOP at the beginning of 4e (as several other things that weren't and should have been). It is trivial, it is intuitive, and it is paradigm-changing.

Instead we got people fighting in tiny rooms, without interesting hazards/terrain, not understanding the genre emulation of forced movement, all working together to produce static combat slogs (which apparently was the fault of crappy early modules...never read them or looked at them so no idea, personally). Not a good look (or correct representation) for early 4e.

What's even more annoying about that was that this wasn't suddenly something that needed to happen because of 4E: the emphasis on minis and grids in 3.xE also made terrain important to interesting encounters. I know that at least one of the major names behind 4E wasn't actually running a 4E campaign while 4E was "live" but maybe they also gave up on 3.xE in its latter days as well?

 

[tyrlaan]

I have been rethinking dragons, in particular, because I really don't like solo monsters. (I use them but I don't like them.) That might be a really elegant way of addressing some of the issues relating to creatures like dragons. Thanks: I will think about that some more.

Solos mostly feel like bag of hit point opponents to me, though they got better as the game matured. I found I became very quickly reluctant to use them after using one or two in play.

However, I had some fun encounters by swapping out solos for "boss fights" using this method laid out on the Angry DM blog - http://angrydm.com/2010/04/the-dd-boss-fight-part-1/

 

[pemerton]

Solos mostly feel like bag of hit point opponents to me

I can't give advice on quick combats - we're at the upper end of epic tier, with most combats at level+4 to level+8, and they can take a long time to resolve!

But for solos, my advice is - be judicious. I've run quite a few recent combats with solos: a white dragon, Lolth and Orcus. They were all pretty dramatic.

Of course, Orcus had friends: three elite demons (balor, marilith, and one I adapted from the blackroot treant); an elite lich and a standard lich; and a standard high priest with a sphere of annihilation. The throne room was 24 x 34 squares, adapted from E3 and the old H4 Bloodstone module.

That was a long combat to resolve, but had plenty of interest, and a big space to move around in.

 

[Oldtimer]

One solution I saw...somewhere...was to make an "aim" universal minor action: +1 to hit a particular target for your other attacks that turn. Simple, obviously effective, but clearly less good than a sustain or minor action attack, if available.

Well, one place you might have seen it is in this very thread (post #28). But I suppose more people than me have invented that same solution.
Though my version only allows +1 to one attack roll in that turn. Still very useful.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Well, one place you might have seen it is in this very thread (post #28). But I suppose more people than me have invented that same solution.
Though my version only allows +1 to one attack roll in that turn. Still very useful.

I'd thought it was said here on Enworld, but I have a memory like a sieve and could not be sure. Fortunately, as I had hoped, you came forward to remind me!

 

[dream66_]

I really wish I was still playing 4e but I can't find anyone to play it with me.

 

[Jessica]

We're starting up a game soon in my area and the choice right now is between a friend of a friend DMing 4e and me GMing 13th Age.