4e Combat Playtest [FULL]

[Annalist]

Oops, nevermind. I guess counting diagonals doesn't cost 2 squares. I think I'm getting confused with movement, or a whole 'nother game.

 

[Atanatotatos]

Don't worry Annalist. Anyway, yeah, that was 3.x. 4e doesn't care about diagonal squares (except when turning corners)... And, yeah, I said it probably wasn't the best choice because it's an artillery piece
If I make mistakes, feel free to tell me. If you're right, I will correct the status, like before ^_^

 

[Leif]

Lief, you should specify which powers you're using, along with the bonuses and such that apply. If you want to make things easier for the DM, then it helps to specify what your character is doing as clearly as possible, with most of the applicable rules right there. You don't want him to guess what exactly you meant to do.

Yes, I know this. It all goes back to what I said before about not really having any idea about what's going on -- you see, I'm not sure which of my powers/attacks is best to use in the situation, and I'm still terrified that I'll use a daily power at the wrong time and then need it desperately later and not have it! Which reminds me--

THANKS, ATA for filling in the blanks for Sharm and choosing something that had a good result. If I had known that I would roll that nat 20, I surely would have used a daily power then.

Oh, and Victim, it's LEIF, not Lief, btw.

 

[Halford]

Hmm, I guess I am a lot more familiar with 3.5, I never have a problem running high level stuff and it seems far swifter. I actually enjoy the swingier 3.5 as being an evil little power gamer its usually me doing the shwinging .

 

[Annalist]

I can't wait to see how things look by Eiran's turn in the next round. I'm so ready to sling more spells! Though I'm a little worried about the Ash Disciple teleporting around when its blindness wears off. And I'd also like to see what Senara does next in case Eiran can compliment/reinforce whatever effects her spell uses.

 

[Leif]

Hmm, I guess I am a lot more familiar with 3.5, I never have a problem running high level stuff and it seems far swifter. I actually enjoy the swingier 3.5 as being an evil little power gamer its usually me doing the shwinging .

Halford, we're all necessarily more familiar with 3.5 I think. It seems to me that the learning curve with 4Ed is going to be learning/remembering the names of your favorite powers and what they do. I don't think that anyone is going to be able to master them all, but everyone should be able to pick out 4 or 5 favorites and learn them very well. That's what I need to do before the next round of this combat happens!

Like, my favorite fighter power so far is: CARVE INITIALS!! I don't know exaclty what it does, but I love the name!

 

[Atanatotatos]

Hmm, I guess I am a lot more familiar with 3.5, I never have a problem running high level stuff and it seems far swifter. I actually enjoy the swingier 3.5 as being an evil little power gamer its usually me doing the shwinging .

Uhm... I wonder what some monsters would do to 3.x powergamersif DMs really started to use them seriously...
Something I remember is the Efreet had polymorph as a spell-like ability. I don't remember how many HD it used to have, but an outsider could transform in any number of nasty critters...
Also, Dragons were awfully difficult to manage with all those abilities... but what if a DM actually made the Dragon plan ahead and make use of all those spells and treasure?
Also, I hear a lot that many DMs used to put single monsters against the party, as opposed to the current 4e filosophy; never understood that.
And what's up with those Npcs? They were horrible! If the pcs can play uber-druids and divine metamagic clerics, why shouldn't the DM send against them a monstruosly buffed druid with an army of awakened trees, hideously powered-up animals and summoned creatures?
Heh.

 

[Halford]

True, but I was just reading the thread below and I do agree with a lot of the comments, though I am far from ready to give up on 4th edition.

I was initially very anti 4th edition and only learned it because I wanted to participate in the beginning of L4W. I have enjoyed L4W immensly so far - if you are not signed up why not! - but my RL experiences have not been great. Thoroughly enjoying this so far btw .

http://www.enworld.org/forum/general-rpg-discussion/246131-i-think-were-done-d-d-4th-edition.html

 

[Halford]

Uhm... I wonder what some monsters would do to 3.x powergamersif DMs really started to use them seriously...
Something I remember is the Efreet had polymorph as a spell-like ability. I don't remember how many HD it used to have, but an outsider could transform in any number of nasty critters...
Also, Dragons were awfully difficult to manage with all those abilities... but what if a DM actually made the Dragon plan ahead and make use of all those spells and treasure?
Also, I hear a lot that many DMs used to put single monsters against the party, as opposed to the current 4e filosophy; never understood that.
And what's up with those Npcs? They were horrible! If the pcs can play uber-druids and divine metamagic clerics, why shouldn't the DM send against them a monstruosly buffed druid with an army of awakened trees, hideously powered-up animals and summoned creatures?
Heh.

Have you been spying on me Ata? I have done all of the above, with the exception of the Efreeti Polymorph as I - like the RPGA themselves - ban Polymorph. Any dragon worth his salt should have shimmering scales (think thats the name spell compendium 2nd level) prepared in order to change his natural armor bonus to a deflection bonus, dragons are smarter than PCs on average so they should be well prepared.

As for NPCs my players would rather face monsters of equal CR, that gives me a warm and fuzzy feeling. But then my group are all power gamers so turn about is fair play. Honestly I had to virtually double the encounter levels in Red Hand of Doom.

As to single monster fights they can be fantastic, 4th edition thankfully recognizes that with solo monsters.

 

[Atanatotatos]

True, but I was just reading the thread below and I do agree with a lot of the comments, though I am far from ready to give up on 4th edition.

I was initially very anti 4th edition and only learned it because I wanted to participate in the beginning of L4W. I have enjoyed L4W immensly so far - if you are not signed up why not! - but my RL experiences have not been great. Thoroughly enjoying this so far btw .

http://www.enworld.org/forum/general-rpg-discussion/246131-i-think-were-done-d-d-4th-edition.html

I read a bit through the thread, and I had seen these complaints expressed already.
Unfortunately, I don't have a RL group at the moment so I haven't enough direct experience to know how the system really works after some time (and this is part of the teason I'm running this).
I agree that 4e fights can drag a bit too long. For now, I see two solutions to the problem: one is the suggestion someone made in the thread, just cut out a finished fight, I have done that a bit already.
The other, but I'm still not sure if it really works, is to build either easy but interesting encounters (that should be over in a short time), or tough ones: the monsters may have used their most powerful powers, but if they still have the ability to kill you because they're powerful relatively to the players, they should still feel challenged. The Goristro is a good example. Go near it when it's bloodied and you'll see
Anyway, yeah, I understand these concerns, and I too miss something from 3.x. But I used to nerf and homebrew way too much back then, and I had to exercise considerable restraint even as a player.
We'll see. I'm looking forward to collecting your thoughts on the game. I'll probably ask you what you think at the end of each encounter.