D&D 4E In Defense of 4E - a New Campaign Perspective

[The Crimson Binome]

The moment the minion rule was announced, I used it in my last hurrah 20th level 3.5E game. My players loved cutting through swaths of opponents and I loved that I could still challenge them because they could be hit. Clearly there were people who understood that HP are a game element.

Just because they didn't see a problem, that doesn't mean no problem existed. It just means that they didn't see it. Or maybe they did see it, but didn't care.

I don't presume that anyone else actually cares about the game, beyond the minimum investment of showing up and rolling dice. That doesn't excuse the designers introducing such a problem for those who do care, though. And if there was absolutely no alternative to such a mechanic, then they should have gone out of their way to explain the issue, instead of blaming the players for trying to make sense of it.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Well it is more complex when everything is relative. There is also the complication of how I think it was intended to be used and how it was actually implemented. The idea is that every 5 levels there is a 2x jump in power. This is roughly expressed by the change from minion - standard - elite - solo. So a level 8 Ogre Savage, would also work as level 13 Ogre Savage Minion, or a level 3 Ogre Savage Elite for a PC at those levels. However, the Ogre Savage is a brute (means a lot more HP), and there is no minion brute (so that doesn't scale correctly). In addition a problem that 4e had was that they inflated all of the monster levels when they stretched everything to 30 levels. This leaves you with strange situations (like the ogre) when you try to scale things up and down.

For example: The balor in 4e is a level 27 elite, an "epic" threat. However, balors are not "epic" threats and should have been levl 18 or so (like every other edition). If everything is about 2/3 the level it was at in the MM the whole system works better (and you need minion brutes too)

Not sure I agree with this analysis. First of all the delta between minion/standard/elite/solo is actually 8/4/5, so a level 1 solo has the same XP value as a level 6 elite, a level 10 standard, and a level 18 minion. So lets think about the level 3 solo white dragon. It has 200 hit points and an AC of 18. If you converted it to a level 8 elite it would have the same 200 hit points, an an ac of roughly 26 (the white dragon is pretty far over the standard DMG value for AC BTW, a normal level 3 brute is only AC 15). As a level 12 standard it would have 140 hit points, and AC 27. Obviously as a level 20 minion it would have 1 hit point, but its AC would presumably be around 35.

So, lets analyze this in terms of how we might use these different creatures. At level 1 the young white dragon is a terrifying single opponent which is hard for a party to beat as a single opponent. This is how it would be used, or possibly with some helpers against a party of maybe up to 5th level. Past that it wouldn't hit well and its defenses would be too weak. 200 hit points wouldn't even last 2 rounds against level 5 strikers (maybe not one round). However the level 8 elite version would be an interesting addition to an encounter, possibly representing the reprise of a dragon driven off in an earlier low level adventure. Its 200 hit points would make it modestly durable at its new AC. With reworked elite-appropriate damage output it would be pretty similar to the solo, just with more usable numbers.

As a level 12 standard it would simply be a front ranker in some boss monster's entourage, perhaps serving some more powerful dragons or something as a scout or something similar. At this point 140 hit points is barely enough to survive most strikers one round encounter power damage output, but with a team of monsters it could contribute. If you used the original level 1 solo stats it would be pretty awkward. The damage might be better, but it would be a tedious process of trying to get a hit.

As a minion the thing is going to obviously suck at level 20, but it is now just one of a SWARM of young white dragons arising as part of a paragon capstone encounter or something similar. It might get off an attack, but frankly even if you gave it 140, or even 200, hit points it would hardly matter, and with the AC of a level 1 creature it would be just as easy to splatter as a level 20 minion, but a lot harder for the DM to run.

Sure, you can argue that the AC of the young white dragon's scales 'means nothing', but AC isn't an in-game concept, and it doesn't even really map to any single specific in-game thing. That was true in AD&D as much as in 4e. There was always a sort of trade between AC and HP in terms of how tough things were.

As for AD&D Balors, if they weren't 'EPIC' nothing was! A type VI demon has an average of 44, and a maximum of 72 hit points. They have strong psionics, require magic weapons to hit them, are 75% magic resistant (and then save as a 10 HD monster). They fly at 15", are AC -2, and can quite easily pump out anywhere up to 28 points of damage with a whip/immolate attack (that is enough to toast your average name-level wizard). Of course this is not really TOO fearsome, a high-level fighter can deal with these stats no problem (level 12 fighter has average of 76 hit points and can probably dish out as much as 20+ damage on a hit and gets up to 3 attacks, vs AC -2 he'll probably hit 75% of the time too).

Problem is, this monstrosity has a LOT of magic! First problem is 15" fly speed, so the fighter is SOL most likely. Next is teleport without error (no limits on use, AD&D doesn't really have 'action economy' so its unclear if they can kite with this). There are the symbols it can use (fear, discord, sleep, or stunning), suggestion, and a 600lb telekinesis (no range is given, I'd go by the spell, this can be NASTY). They can cause fear, and there's about 10 other less instantly lethal but highly useful abilities. All of these are ABILITIES, not spells, so there's no interruptions or limits on when or how they can be used, they simply work instantly. Plus they can gate...

So yeah, a Balor is pretty epic. I mean, lets say that 1e tops out at level 20 (it actually doesn't say you can advance beyond that, though its implied, all the charts end at 20). That's the equivalent of level 30 in 4e. A 1e balor is AT LEAST on a par with level 12 PCs, and is certainly the equal of a single PC of up to level 15, making it roughly equivalent of a 4e level 23 standard monster. I'd pretty much argue that its a top-tier creature, as Juiblex and Yeenoghu, at 88 and 100 hit points, are not THAT much stronger, and those are certainly 'epic' monsters. Truthfully I think creatures of this ilk kind of just work a bit differently in AD&D, so once you hit the sort of 'epic levels' (beyond name level) its hard to exactly set equivalences. Fighting these nasties is tough anyway because its a lot easier to die in AD&D from some small bad luck.

 

[pemerton]

So you were referring to who they chose to attack first?

From the first of the two linked posts (with bolding for emphasis):

Because of the division among the PCs I made the players write down initial action declarations - or at least general approaches to the situation - blind, before rolling initiative.

The result of that was that the drow sorcerer and elf ranger-cleric launched their attacks upon the flying Jenna, while the dwarf fighter found himself solo-ing Kas, and then the death knight and the two hordes as they closed the distance.

Some unity then emerged as the PCs' focus turned to Kas, and Jenna - after getting in a few good blasts against the PCs who had attacked here - held her fire.

I've bolded the bits that refer to the players making choices that reflect the preferences/goals of their PCs, produce recognisably social responses from NPCs, and at the table involve players (playing their PCs) and the GM (playing the NPCs) expressing and debating those preferences, goals and responses.

 

[Jacob Lewis]

Just because they didn't see a problem, that doesn't mean no problem existed. It just means that they didn't see it. Or maybe they did see it, but didn't care.

So the problem isn't the problem? The problem is that other people don't see a problem where *you* see a problem, even though other people here clearly don't have any problems with not seeing a problem and therefore nullifying the problem. But is that really a problem? No problem! Its just *your* problem, and anyone else who thinks or wants it to be a problem. For the rest of the world, its not a problem. Do you have a problem with that? It seems you do, but that's not my problem. Problem solved!

Honestly, can we just stick with original theme of the thread now? This was supposed to be a celebration of good 4e experiences and bringing that joy to new players who may have missed out. And eventually, I may get around to more interesting skill challenges I did with my games. Cheers!

 

[dave2008]

So yeah, a Balor is pretty epic. I mean, lets say that 1e tops out at level 20 (it actually doesn't say you can advance beyond that, though its implied, all the charts end at 20). That's the equivalent of level 30 in 4e. A 1e balor is AT LEAST on a par with level 12 PCs, and is certainly the equal of a single PC of up to level 15, making it roughly equivalent of a 4e level 23 standard monster. I'd pretty much argue that its a top-tier creature, as Juiblex and Yeenoghu, at 88 and 100 hit points, are not THAT much stronger, and those are certainly 'epic' monsters. Truthfully I think creatures of this ilk kind of just work a bit differently in AD&D, so once you hit the sort of 'epic levels' (beyond name level) its hard to exactly set equivalences. Fighting these nasties is tough anyway because its a lot easier to die in AD&D from some small bad luck.

4e made the point that it was supporting "epic" adventuring beyond level 20. However, as your example illustrates, they didn't do that - they simply stretched 20 levels out to 30 levels. If a balor in 1e was a level 15 threat, that is what it should have been (IMO) in 4e (I actually made them level 18 elite threat). The clearest example are the spells: Meteor swarm is a level 29 daily spell in 4e. When do you get 9th level spells (meteor swarm) in 1e again? They didn't add epic - they just stretched standard D&D out to 30 levels.

IMO, Balors should have be level 18 elites and demon lords would be mostly level 18-25 solos and princes level 26-30+ solos.

 

[Imaro]

I've bolded the bits that refer to the players making choices that reflect the preferences/goals of their PCs, produce recognisably social responses from NPCs, and at the table involve players (playing their PCs) and the GM (playing the NPCs) expressing and debating those preferences, goals and responses.

Ok... well far be it from me to claim what is and isn't roleplaying but I don't think this (choices in combat) are what most people are talking about or thinking of when they say roleplaying seemed lacking in 4e. I understand for you that was a way to roleplay but for me at least it feels thin and could easily be subsumed by a desire to make the best tactical choices in combat as opposed to actions based around other concerns. YMMV of course.

On another note and in line with my earlier post... I'm not sure this in any way would be a satisfactory kind of roleplay for people who already aren't enamored with the intricate and long combat system of 4e. Which again seems to point to my earlier conclusion, mainly that in order to enjoy 4e you have to really enjoy intricate grid-based tactical combat... and judging by the preponderance of TotM play that seems to have arisen with 5e... I don't think that was an assumption the designers of 4e should of made about the player base as a whole.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Honestly, can we just stick with original theme of the thread now? This was supposed to be a celebration of good 4e experiences and bringing that joy to new players who may have missed out. And eventually, I may get around to more interesting skill challenges I did with my games. Cheers!

I'll be happy to move on now. No need to continue beating that dead horse. But, one of the original questions of this thread was, why can't you roleplay in 4E? And that's a very specific question, to which I had a very specific answer.

Moving on, the good things about 4E: Fighters had interesting things to do, the classes were balanced while remaining differentiated within their niches, and players were empowered to actually interact with the magic item creation system without slowing the game to a crawl. Also, the original version of multi-classing in 4E (via feats) allowed for some very interesting combinations, and it never felt like you were shooting yourself in the foot, unlike so many multi-class combinations in previous editions. The unified power structure really made power-swapping abilities painless.

 

[pemerton]

Ok... well far be it from me to claim what is and isn't roleplaying but I don't think this (choices in combat) are what most people are talking about or thinking of when they say roleplaying seemed lacking in 4e.

Deciding who to ally with, whom to fight, talking that through with your friends at the table: I'm not sure why that's not roleplaying.

for me at least it feels thin and could easily be subsumed by a desire to make the best tactical choices in combat as opposed to actions based around other concerns.

Presumably, having a discussion with an NPC about helping him/her rescue a lost child from the goblins could easily be subsumed by a desire to kill the NPC and take his/her stuff. I'm not sure that means the discussion isn't roleplaying.

To me, it seems that one of the bigger obstacles to roleplaying combat is an assumption that the PCs must (collectively) be a gestalt/hivemind, and hence have nothing to talk about with one another when engaged in a fight other than calling for medics or airstrikes.

 

[Sadras]

To me, it seems that one of the bigger obstacles to roleplaying combat is an assumption that the PCs must (collectively) be a gestalt/hivemind, and hence have nothing to talk about with one another when engaged in a fight other than calling for medics or airstrikes.

I do not think I'm too far off the mark here, but it is a thing to view combat as predominantly the roll-playing part of the game. So when people ask for examples of role-playing, one usually doesn't shine the spotlight on combat negotiation and tactical conversation, and particularly more so within the context of D&D, any edition.

 

[Imaro]

I do not think I'm too far off the mark here, but it is a thing to view combat as predominantly the roll-playing part of the game. So when people ask for examples of role-playing, one usually doesn't shine the spotlight on combat negotiation and tactical conversation, and particularly more so within the context of D&D, any edition.

Yeah IMO it's akin to claiming combat is also exploration because your players might make a check or two for athletics, perception or whatever. Again I'm not going to get into a debate about what is or isn't roleplaying but I also believe @pemerton is smart enough to know that most people would not consider his "combat roleplaying" an atypical example of what most people mean when speaking to roleplaying in D&D.

4e has plenty of roleplaying...as long as it takes place in and is centered around combat... just doesn't seem to be addressing the actual issue... even moreso if you don't enjoy 4e's combat.