D&D 4E 4E DM's - what have you learned?

I'm not convinced that's true. [...] I'd be interested to hear what other 4e DMs think about this point.

I think it largely depends on where you're coming from--what your baseline is. For someone who is used to just a character sheet, suddenly having power cards is probably less immersive. If you're introduced to RPGs via a game that uses props like that, I don't think it changes anything.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Actually, we make skill challenges explicit with fantastic success.

My learnings:

- reduce monster hit points by a third to a half
- roughly double monster damage
- minimize status conditions that effectively remove PCs from the fight (stun being the big one)

That is why I believe we should make conditions difficult to inflict on the player characters. Imagine having an encounter where everyone is blinded.
 

I have two characters that are optimized out the wazzoo, that easily do 70+ per round. A crit is often a kill. Halve the damage and it is a kill, without the crit.

What kind of build are these? I've been actively encouraging my PCs to maximize damage to speed up fights. I thought 35-50 per round at 14th was good (Avalanche charge build, Genasi Nuker, Battlemind Brutal Barrager).
 

What kind of build are these? I've been actively encouraging my PCs to maximize damage to speed up fights. I thought 35-50 per round at 14th was good (Avalanche charge build, Genasi Nuker, Battlemind Brutal Barrager).

Both are cold cheese users. One is an Eladrin Essentials Thief, who spends the entire encounter hidden in plain sight via stealth. The other is an Archer Ranger (the race escapes me at the moment, but not Elf), that doesn't invoke OAs at point blank. They're currently 19th.
 

That is why I believe we should make conditions difficult to inflict on the player characters. Imagine having an encounter where everyone is blinded.
Oh man, we had that happen in my buddy's 4e Mystara game at Nelwyn's Shrine; the cultists gave out blindness (save ends) in a close burst. At one point literally everyone in the group was blind. It was really funny at the time, but I wouldn't want to do it again.

What kind of build are these? I've been actively encouraging my PCs to maximize damage to speed up fights. I thought 35-50 per round at 14th was good (Avalanche charge build, Genasi Nuker, Battlemind Brutal Barrager).
Oh man, head over to the CharOp boards on Wizard's site and you will find some obscene DPR builds. The hardest hitters seems to be multi-attackers from what I've observed. We had a DPR optimized Paladin who did 35-50 per round at 9th/10th level, so I wouldn't be surprised if there are 14th level builds doing twice that.
 

Oh man, we had that happen in my buddy's 4e Mystara game at Nelwyn's Shrine; the cultists gave out blindness (save ends) in a close burst. At one point literally everyone in the group was blind. It was really funny at the time, but I wouldn't want to do it again.

Ours was an attack by Drow, that the DM misplayed as being immune to each others darkness. As a teleporter I was effectively nullified. The rest of the party couldn't find anyone to hit. I think the fight went on for 12 rounds.
 

If we're just talking about the way things have shifted from 3e to 4e, I think the change is largely the result of the heavy focus on the encounter as a set piece. AS a DM, the game encourages me to prepare in terms of encounters, rather than overarching story. As a player, because the overarching story tends to get less attention, and encounters are so much more complex and interesting, that's where my focus goes, and I pay a smaller amount of my attention to the story.
So for you the biggest change happens at the DM's level, not the players?

For me, it's the opposite. For example, I encourage players to improvise, but it almost never happens because when combat comes around players looks to their sheets & cards to decide what they'll do. The biggest changes I've seen happen on the player's side. To be fair, the groups I'm with now I played 3e with but never older editions where I recall improv being strongest.

I think it largely depends on where you're coming from--what your baseline is. For someone who is used to just a character sheet, suddenly having power cards is probably less immersive. If you're introduced to RPGs via a game that uses props like that, I don't think it changes anything.
Good point. I didnt think spell lists and power cards were that different, but after 3 years of playing 4e I notice people spending more time deciphering power cards than they did 3e spells. I'm at a loss for * why * that is, I just observe it for our group. For one player I know it's a language barrier (their native language is Chinese), and it greatly improved when they found translated books and resources online. For two others who played casters in 3e I can only assume it has to do with system mastery, that we're just now getting to the point where they were with 3e years ago.
 

[MENTION=20323]Quickleaf[/MENTION] - One of the things that I did was curse whoever I could see then I cut loose with Cursegrind and Cursebite, using an AP. The problem was nailing them down. That dropped the majority of the minions, but it just took too damned long to set up. There was a lot of "swing and a miss" for everyone.
 

So for you the biggest change happens at the DM's level, not the players?

No, but it starts there, IMO. I think 4e encourages the DM to think in terms of a series of encounters, which teaches the players to think in the same terms.

I've been involved, for example, in conversations recently about random encounters. In 4e, an encounter is a big enough investment that you rarely actually put your players through truly random encounters -- they might have encounters that "appear" random, but they're probably prepared encounters placed on the path the PCs will be traveling.

And that's a natural consequence of the encounter-as-setpiece shift in the game, but this (along with a bunch of other factors) tends to create game situations where we play through encounters, quickly narrate a bit of connective tissue, then play the next encounter.

Now, you've also shifted gears a bit -- roleplaying and improvisation are related, but they're not the same thing. Having a lot of pre-defined powers may very well lock players into a place where they see those powers as their only choices in an encounter, but I don't see that as the same issue/challenge as immersion, story, and roleplaying. Perhaps related, but not really the same thing at all.

-rg
 

I've been involved, for example, in conversations recently about random encounters. In 4e, an encounter is a big enough investment that you rarely actually put your players through truly random encounters -- they might have encounters that "appear" random, but they're probably prepared encounters placed on the path the PCs will be traveling.
Yeah that's true fights in 4e can take too long. I actually do use random encounter tables in my current 4e game but the encounters tend to only half be fights, and those that are fights I tweak to make run quickly. It works fine but it definitely requires some outside of the box thinking and is not a all how the 4e combat rules work by default.

And that's a natural consequence of the encounter-as-setpiece shift in the game, but this (along with a bunch of other factors) tends to create game situations where we play through encounters, quickly narrate a bit of connective tissue, then play the next encounter.
I certainly can see that. I wonder why with my group that effect is minimal. I mean last session we had no real encounters and it was great fun.

Now, you've also shifted gears a bit -- roleplaying and improvisation are related, but they're not the same thing. Having a lot of pre-defined powers may very well lock players into a place where they see those powers as their only choices in an encounter, but I don't see that as the same issue/challenge as immersion, story, and roleplaying. Perhaps related, but not really the same thing at all.
Nope I haven't shifted, that's something I stated in my original post. Instead of arguing semantics, I've got another example...though YMMV and probably does :)

I created a 3D setpiece for the PCs' fight with a cranium rat hive mind; it was a fairly complex setup but made for a very dynamic fight. During the fight I role-played the hive mind extensively, but there was little to no roleplaying from the players. I even had some captured pixies for the pixie cavalier to free and hardly any roleplaying from him. Instead they focused on combat tactics, how to interact with the 3D terrain, asking questions about vertical movement minis in hand, taking cranium rat tokens off the map, scrambling to find any advantage thy could on their power cards/character sheets, rolling damage dice in glee, etc.

The game aspect totally swallowed any roleplaying coming from their end. It was fun, but the shift was very apparent.

Once combat was over the players shifted back into roleplaying again.

I intend to run a combat without map and minis next session to see if they'll be more engaged on the role-playing level, or whether it's just their preferred style to become like Sun Tzu when initiative is rolled.
 
Last edited:

Remove ads

Top