Combat issues: slayer + at-will magic missile.

[Lanefan]

That was no dig, that was an opinion that I saw people talking past each other.

I believe the term was used in the sense of "being good at what your class says you're supposed to be good at".

In the post by pneumatik that I was replying to I read "awesome" to mean better than required to deal with the challenges presented...in effect, able to swagger around like a tough guy.

To me, 1st level characters do not swagger. They're not tough enough and they haven't earned the right. Yet.

And in this case, I don't think you're using the term "earn" as Lanefan intended it. You're talking about things that a character gets in-game. It seems to me, and I may be wrong, that Lanefan was talking about a sense of real accomplishment.

Bit o' both. See below...

It's often said about 4E by its detractors that it's D&D on "easy mode", that you're "supposed to win" and so winning is not really an accomplishment. Even if that were true, it would still be a game of make-believe and thus not really subject to real accomplishment. It's a game, and not a competitive one. Rolling dice and pretending to kill imaginary goblins is not an accomplishment.

Maybe not in the here and now, but when you look at your character sheet after several years of playing (assuming you can still read it, after several years of amendments this is not guaranteed!) and see how far that character has come from its humble beginnings, yes you as its player have earned the right to feel - in context, of course - a sense of accomplishment.

Much like a hockey player who looks back at a 15-year career and says "yep, I can be proud of that".

Lan-"the guy swaggering, that's not me; the guy staggering, yeah, that's me"-efan

 

[Fifth Element]

In the post by pneumatik that I was replying to I read "awesome" to mean better than required to deal with the challenges presented...in effect, able to swagger around like a tough guy.

To me, 1st level characters do not swagger. They're not tough enough and they haven't earned the right. Yet.

I've always felt that veterans have earned the right to some respect. Veterans, as in 1st-level fighters.

Maybe not in the here and now, but when you look at your character sheet after several years of playing (assuming you can still read it, after several years of amendments this is not guaranteed!) and see how far that character has come from its humble beginnings, yes you as its player have earned the right to feel - in context, of course - a sense of accomplishment.

But the same could be said for a character who played on "easy mode". He's advanced just as far.

 

[pneumatik]

In the post by pneumatik that I was replying to I read "awesome" to mean better than required to deal with the challenges presented...in effect, able to swagger around like a tough guy.

By awesome I just meant able to do cool things. Beating up one monster every six seconds is cool; using magic to do things all the time, even mundane things, is cool. I can get beaten up by monsters and not use magic in real life by going to the zoo and jumping into the lion den. I play dnd to do things I can't do in real life.

I also think we may be getting into combat as a sport vs. combat as a war. Powers that automatically do damage every round appear to be balanced, and better than required, for DnD Next with combat as a sport. If you look at the Caves of Chaos broadly enough then any level one power is unnecessary.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Personally, I do think there's a bit of dissonance since things like Magic Missile can diffuse a lot of the tension in a brief encounter. I think it's fine, but I can see how others wouldn't.

Now, if the wizard could only use it once per day, that would be eliminated. There's tension even in the easy kill: it's using up one of your memorized spells.

I am impressed by how easy it would be to just ignore the cantrips rule. Since they're normal 1st level spells, you have a few options:

• 1. Those are additional spells in the spellbook, but they need to be prepared into slots like any other spell.
  2. Treat them like a cleric's channel divinity: You get, say INTBONUS free cantrips every day, chosen from the list of cantrips you know. Not at-will, but quite a few.
  3. Just let the wizard prepare cantrips in addition to his normal spells: he prepares them for free every day. Still only can use them once (unless he spends slots on them).
  
  A straight "At-Will Magic" doesn't jive with the wizard feel to me personally, but this seems like a dial that wouldn't be too hard to turn.

 

[IronWolf]

A straight "At-Will Magic" doesn't jive with the wizard feel to me personally, but this seems like a dial that wouldn't be too hard to turn.

Good point!

That is sort of the cool thing. So far, the things I don't like in the playtest would in most cases be easily fixed by a slight turn of the dial.

 

[pemerton]

So you play at the same level all the time? Don't take your share of treasure? Refuse more powerful weapons and spells?

The RPG environment is full of examples of characters earning imaginary things to increase their character's power as time goes on.

In 4e, at least, treasure and XP aren't a reward as such (despite the misleading label in the rulebooks) because of the scaling, and the expectation that items will be part of PC building. And they are "earned" simply by playing the game (the XP rules for combat, skill challenges, quests and free roleplaying establish a pace of about 1 level for every 8 to 10 hours of play).

So in 4e, I don't think it really makes sense to talk about "earning" your PC's awesomeness.

But 4e is just one way of playing D&D.

It's often said about 4E by its detractors that it's D&D on "easy mode", that you're "supposed to win" and so winning is not really an accomplishment. Even if that were true, it would still be a game of make-believe and thus not really subject to real accomplishment. It's a game, and not a competitive one.

[MENTION=29398]Lanefan[/MENTION] can correct me if I'm wrong, but from his posts I get the impression that the way his group plays D&D is at least semi-competitive: both among the PCs, and among the players who play those PCs, it seems that there is something of a struggle for survival, for treasure and for glory.

Within the context of that sort of "step on up" play, I think it can make sense to talk about earning a PC's awesomeness.

 

[n00bdragon]

@Lanefan can correct me if I'm wrong, but from his posts I get the impression that the way his group plays D&D is at least semi-competitive: both among the PCs, and among the players who play those PCs, it seems that there is something of a struggle for survival, for treasure and for glory.

Within the context of that sort of "step on up" play, I think it can make sense to talk about earning a PC's awesomeness.

4e as suggested by the encounter building guidelines is easy, as it should be. The game would be absurd to suggest highly difficult encounters as the norm. This would frustrate new players and baffle new DMs to no end as they struggle to maintain a fun game. That said there's absolutely nothing in 4e preventing you from making a game as challenging as you like and indeed there are tools to help you to that end. Monsters have predictable power levels so you can easily gauge how difficult an encounter will be. Players to can be counted on to keep being useful in a fight even if they botch a roll or two.

The problem with making difficult fights in older editions is it comes down less and less to skill and more to luck. You either save against the effect and win the fight or you fail the save and are rendered useless. You either have the power/item that wins the fight or solves the puzzle or you just die. Compound that with the more static nature of combat and you can watch the skill drain right out the game.

Players rarely lose fights in 4e because the dice just hate them. Perhaps that's why so many people dislike it. I for one find that a virtue, not a flaw.

 

[LostSoul]

4e as suggested by the encounter building guidelines is easy, as it should be. The game would be absurd to suggest highly difficult encounters as the norm. This would frustrate new players and baffle new DMs to no end as they struggle to maintain a fun game. That said there's absolutely nothing in 4e preventing you from making a game as challenging as you like and indeed there are tools to help you to that end. Monsters have predictable power levels so you can easily gauge how difficult an encounter will be. Players to can be counted on to keep being useful in a fight even if they botch a roll or two.

I agree that encounters in 4E are supposed to be "easy" - that is, that they are not supposed to TPK the group from a few poor choices.

Some people suggest that running difficult encounters - over-levelled opponents - doesn't work in 4E; that's contrary to my experience. I've had really engaging encounters with very high-level opponents in 4E. (I run a hack now, but I'm talking about my experience with regular 4E.)

The problem with making difficult fights in older editions is it comes down less and less to skill and more to luck. You either save against the effect and win the fight or you fail the save and are rendered useless. You either have the power/item that wins the fight or solves the puzzle or you just die. Compound that with the more static nature of combat and you can watch the skill drain right out the game.

I'm not sure that's true - I think there's a lot you can do in earlier editions to swing a battle in your favour. I do think it comes down to less and less character skill though, at least for the first few levels.

(As an aside - DMing the playtest now, I wonder how we were ever able to survive B2 using standard B/X characters. Was there fudging going on? It's hard to say, looking back 20 years or so. The only death on our last campaign into the Caves - though all the players had all run and DMed it - was from a poison needle trap.)

 

[Lanefan]

[MENTION=29398]Lanefan[/MENTION] can correct me if I'm wrong, but from his posts I get the impression that the way his group plays D&D is at least semi-competitive: both among the PCs, and among the players who play those PCs, it seems that there is something of a struggle for survival, for treasure and for glory.

Survival is a struggle, absolutely; but (in most cases) that struggle is against the various non-party elements in the world that for whatever reason want to kill you. That said, I've no rules against party infighting...

There's certainly some competition for treasure - in general I think I'm safe in saying we're a greedy bunch; myself included, when I'm a player.

Glory? Not so much competition there, I don't think.

Within the context of that sort of "step on up" play, I think it can make sense to talk about earning a PC's awesomeness.

We have a Hall of Heroes (see website in .sig) that a character gets in by surviving 10 adventures. We all see getting in the Hall as an accomplishment.

(As an aside - DMing the playtest now, I wonder how we were ever able to survive B2 using standard B/X characters. Was there fudging going on? It's hard to say, looking back 20 years or so. The only death on our last campaign into the Caves - though all the players had all run and DMed it - was from a poison needle trap.)

We-ell, I used the Keep as the first adventure in my current campaign. For an awful lot of characters it was also their last adventure...

Yet the players loved it!

Lan-"an adventuring party is an example of the most resilient thing in the universe; an individual character, not so much..."-efan

 

[pemerton]

there's absolutely nothing in 4e preventing you from making a game as challenging as you like and indeed there are tools to help you to that end.

<snip>

Players rarely lose fights in 4e because the dice just hate them.

Some people suggest that running difficult encounters - over-levelled opponents - doesn't work in 4E; that's contrary to my experience

At low levels, due to the lack of under-level opponents I ran plenty of encounters with over-level opponents.

Now, at mid-paragon, I run a lot of level +3, level +4 and level +5 encounters, but mostly with NPCs/monsters at levels no higher than 1 or 2 above the PCs, and many opponents. And using a lot of waves, sections, mobility etc - all the stuff that I find 4e supports so nicely!

As an example, the last combat I ran was for 3 level 16 PCs and was a level 19 (7600 XP) encounter - 2 15th level artillery (gargoyles), a 15th level skirmisher swarm (dire rats), and a 13th level solo (a troll). (The context: the PCs had been successful in a lawsuit to get the wererats evicted from the building, but the wererats didn't take all their hangers on with them when they left.)

Another recent combat for 5 PCs at 15th level involved 4 17th level gargantuan soldier swarms (hobgoblin phalanxes), 30 or 40 minions of around 14th level (hobgoblin archers and Bane-ite rabble), and a 15th level skirmisher (angel of battle). The total XP value was 17600 - 21st level for 5 PCs. The PCs went into the encounter with only a handful of dailies left, and limited healing surges, and pulled through - though there was the first PC death since 3rd level, as the wizard made a bad call and used a ranged rather than a close attack, taking an oppy and then, after that knocked him unconscious, got caught in the angel of battle's storm of blades.

So I agree with both of you, that 4e can be used to run mechanically challenging fights, and that player skill rather than luck of the dice becomes an important factor.

But for me, at least, the goal of those hard fights isn't so much to see whether or not the players "win" - the one time they did TPK, at 3rd level, I consulted with the players to see who wanted to change characters and who not, and then set up an appropriate capture scenario as the starting point for the next session - but to generate the appropriate experience and frame the ingame situation with appropriate gravity.

In the first of the fights I mentioned, the players knew it was serious when, just as they're thinking "What's going on with these gargoyles and that swarm of dire rats", a troll climbs out of the cellar and tries to grab the wizard/invoker. He used his daily interrupt that lets him take a standard action, and teleported away - straight away a certain sense of pressure and "they're not just mucking around" is created.

Likewise in the other fight. The PCs encountered the first two phalanxes moving down a ravine, and it was only when they came out of it into more open ground that they saw there were two more phalanxes moving up, plus a handful of Bane-ites summoning an angel. At which point the players start looking a bit anxious, start discussing strategy like it really matters, and look over their character sheets again to see what combos they might have missed first time around.

As I said, it's not about competing. It's about feeling the pressure. A type of immersion, I guess.