D&D 4E A 4E Combat Encounter - Round by Round Descritpion


log in or register to remove this ad


Delgar

First Post
Thanks,

I was trying to give my old gaming group a feel of how the game would run. We'll probably try to reconnect using DDI once it launches as we all live in different parts of the country now.

See, they saw some of the preview stuff and I tried to fill in the gaps for them. But I think actually seeing how each players/monsters action plays out you finally get a feel for it.

I don't think I could do the same with a 3.5 encounter, it would be rather boring. Not that the above was all that exciting.

Stalker0 said:
Delgar, let me compliment you on the level of detail you put in your post. You clearly described each move and how all the numbers were obtained, which I'm sure will be a big help to those reading who haven't gotten to try the game yet.
 

Delgar

First Post
I was just going on what we know at this point. As far as I know the warlock can curse multiple opponents. Technically he could curse an opponent, with a minor action. Use his move action to move, and spend his standard to curse another. I highly doubt we'll see many warlocks wasting a standard action to throw out a second curse. Except in the case where your going to throw down an area effect spell with your action point. :)

srn said:
Good point, I just reread the description. I'd been assuming it was a one-target-at-a-time deal.

It seems odd that a mobile warlock could have most of the monsters on the battlefield cursed after a few rounds, though.
 

Spinachcat said:
I run OD&D at cons and I get lots of people who feel 3e is too complicated for them to remember and play. 4e appears somewhat less complicated, but I am quite sure its is too much for them. 4e is a very tactically exciting board focussed game that is going to require a level of focus and attention that demands too much from the beers and pretzels set.
For "beer and pretzels" game - does it _really_ matter if you forget something? If that's the only way you play, I suppose a simple system is enough, but if you alternate between "D&D - serious business" and "beer and pretzels" games, a system probably should be able to provide both.

Just be sure you don't accidentally play a meat grinder adventure where every hit point and +1 bonus counts when it's the turn for "beer & pretzel". ;)
 

med stud

First Post
srn said:
Good point, I just reread the description. I'd been assuming it was a one-target-at-a-time deal.

It seems odd that a mobile warlock could have most of the monsters on the battlefield cursed after a few rounds, though.
What's so odd about that?
 



Delgar

First Post
Wow, thank you all for all your kind words. I didn't think that it would be all that exciting. Now all I need is for some WotC guy to show up and tell me what I ran incorrectly. :)

So do you guys want another example then?
 

Gargazon

First Post
Delgar said:
Wow, thank you all for all your kind words. I didn't think that it would be all that exciting. Now all I need is for some WotC guy to show up and tell me what I ran incorrectly. :)

So do you guys want another example then?

If it's not too much bother :D

Just one gripe I had was that the Fighter seemed to have two enemies marked at once at one point (I think the Dragonshield and Skirmisher). I can't remember exactly, but wasn't it said you can only have one target marked? Or was it that one target can only have one mark? :confused:

This also reminds me of how horrible my first 4E game was in terms of constantly forgetting the Paladin was stink-potted and that there was ongoing damage and conditions in effect. But we do that in our 3.5 games, so it's not that surprising.
 

Delgar

First Post
As far as we know the fighter is not limited to just one mark. So, as it stands the fighter is better at marking multiple enemies and the paladin is better at marking just one. I think you're thinking that a target can only have one mark.

Gargazon said:
If it's not too much bother :D

Just one gripe I had was that the Fighter seemed to have two enemies marked at once at one point (I think the Dragonshield and Skirmisher). I can't remember exactly, but wasn't it said you can only have one target marked? Or was it that one target can only have one mark? :confused:

This also reminds me of how horrible my first 4E game was in terms of constantly forgetting the Paladin was stink-potted and that there was ongoing damage and conditions in effect. But we do that in our 3.5 games, so it's not that surprising.
 

Xorn

First Post
This is bandwagony, but I could post the round by round of the Nightscale fight in Raiders of Oakhurst when they got the dragon down to 18 hit points...

We did it over Fantasy Grounds, so I've still got the chatlog.
 

D'karr

Adventurer
Delgar said:
As far as we know the fighter is not limited to just one mark. So, as it stands the fighter is better at marking multiple enemies and the paladin is better at marking just one. I think you're thinking that a target can only have one mark.

The mark is one mark per opponent but everytime you mark a new opponent the old opponent is not marked. There are multiple powers that mark and you may mark multiple opponents if you have multiple powers that can be used to mark.

The Divine Challenge from the paladin has the most comprehensive explanation on marking. If you mark with the same power, the old marked opponent is no longer marked. If you use different powers to mark, you may mark multiple opponents. Only one mark per opponent.
 

WampusCat43

Explorer
Xorn said:
This is bandwagony, but I could post the round by round of the Nightscale fight in Raiders of Oakhurst when they got the dragon down to 18 hit points...

We did it over Fantasy Grounds, so I've still got the chatlog.

I'd like to see this. We actually beat the dragon, but only because the DM turned off his darkness.

Maybe you could attach the transcript as a file?
 

Delgar

First Post
Are you sure about that?

The divine challenge mark is clear that the old mark is lost if you mark someone else.

In the case of the fighters mark it's not a power just an ability to mark when he attacks. By a strict reading of the rule he could do it when he takes immediate attacks and opportunity attacks. I of course can be totally mistaken.

D'karr said:
The mark is one mark per opponent but everytime you mark a new opponent the old opponent is not marked. There are multiple powers that mark and you may mark multiple opponents if you have multiple powers that can be used to mark.

The Divine Challenge from the paladin has the most comprehensive explanation on marking. If you mark with the same power, the old marked opponent is no longer marked. If you use different powers to mark, you may mark multiple opponents. Only one mark per opponent.
 

Knight Otu

First Post
How marking works, and any extra effects beyond the attack penalty from marks, differs between the classes. The paladin loses his old mark when he issues a new Divine Challenge. The fighter can mark multiple enemies, however, from what has been released. For example, from the Marking Marked article:
Stephen Radney-MacFarland said:
Ignoring the paladin (and taking a healthy dose of radiant damage), the formerly right-hand ghost moves adjacent to the fighter. The fighter retorts with a thicket of blades attack, marking both of the ghosts. When the dwarf paladin's turn in the initiative comes up, he'll no doubt challenge the same ghosts with a minor action. It's doubtful the ghost can afford to ignore his challenge 2 rounds in a row.
 

D'karr

Adventurer
Knight Otu said:
How marking works, and any extra effects beyond the attack penalty from marks, differs between the classes. The paladin loses his old mark when he issues a new Divine Challenge. The fighter can mark multiple enemies, however, from what has been released. For example, from the Marking Marked article:

All that tells you is that Thicket of Blades might be a power that allows you to mark more than one opponent. We don't know for sure.
 

Trainz

Explorer
Round 4: Combat Slinger. You say "He also uses his standard action to shift an additional square.". I'm sure you meant minor action instead. I'm surprised I'm the first to notice this. Did you guys actually read the damn thing? :p

It was a very nice read. I was sure I was reading an excerpt from a developper's blog until it was made clear to me you're just one of us lowly nerds.

Congrats.
 

LowSpine

First Post
I like the way you had the Kobolds eating a kid. Even a bleeding heart liberal would have a hard time not killing a kid eater. (Bloody Hippies.)

Gets rid of the Roleplay dilemas of alignment.
 

Delgar

First Post
You are correct. It has been fixed.

Thanks, yah I'm just some smuck. I wish I was a playtester or a developer. :)

Trainz said:
Round 4: Combat Slinger. You say "He also uses his standard action to shift an additional square.". I'm sure you meant minor action instead. I'm surprised I'm the first to notice this. Did you guys actually read the damn thing? :p

It was a very nice read. I was sure I was reading an excerpt from a developper's blog until it was made clear to me you're just one of us lowly nerds.

Congrats.
 

An Advertisement

Advertisement4

Top