D&D 4.5E (Not Essentials)

[herrozerro]

Unless the DM essentials book was vastly different than the rules compendium (I never looked at that one), don't take this the wrong way but it would seem that you may have never actually read the books, just parroted what everyone else says about it.

RC p126
The skill entries in this chapter give sample DCs for common uses of the skills. Some DCs are fixed, whereas others scale with level. A fixed DC represents a task that gets easier as an adventurer gais levels. By the time an adventurer reaches the epic tier, certain tasks become trivial. In contrasta DC that scales with level represents a task that remains at least a little challenging throughout an adventurer's career.

Hop on over to p175

DC table to force open doors, wooden door at 13, adamantine portcullis at 35. DC Table to break objects, all static.

Going on to p177

Object properties, Defenses, HP and examples.

So what are the issues with essentials again? Granted one I can think of is the removal of rituals, but only be omission, there is no actual invalidation of them.

It's been a while, but is there any answer to what besides some class differences that essentials destroyed from classic 4e?

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

It's been a while, but is there any answer to what besides some class differences that essentials destroyed from classic 4e?

It did introduce an idea of 'scaling DCs' which was totally absent in the original system. They seemed to sort of semi-arbitrarily apply them to some types of skill checks and not to others, but you could always just safely ignore the whole (IMHO ill-conceived) concept. Essentials didn't list DCs for a lot of the 'environmental' stuff that the DMG did, so its not entirely clear if they meant things like breaking down a door to fall into the 'scaling' type of checks or not.

Otherwise the main thing you could complain about is that Essentials trod heavily on the class power structure of 4e, many of the 'e-classes' have things like fixed powers or somewhat different types of powers, which can create issues when integrating with older classes. MCing and such things work rather poorly in Essentials for the most part. They also left out ritual magic and instead grafted in a few class features like Ressurection for the Warpriest to cover a few of the most vital missing features (since Enchant Item is missing in Essentials it is technically impossible to make a magic item too, except by DM fiat). Most of that is omission though.

I think a lot of the complaints about it being a 'different game' were pretty overblown altogether, but if you play "Essentials Only" and play it by the book it is a lot more restricted game. There are effectively no PPs or EDs, just a default one for each class that you always take. The inventory of items is pretty limited, I don't think they even mention artifacts at all, obviously no rituals, etc. It fits with their goals though, which were a simpler and cleaner system that requires less game mastery to play. In that they sort of half-succeeded at least.

 

[herrozerro]

It did introduce an idea of 'scaling DCs' which was totally absent in the original system. They seemed to sort of semi-arbitrarily apply them to some types of skill checks and not to others, but you could always just safely ignore the whole (IMHO ill-conceived) concept. Essentials didn't list DCs for a lot of the 'environmental' stuff that the DMG did, so its not entirely clear if they meant things like breaking down a door to fall into the 'scaling' type of checks or not.

Otherwise the main thing you could complain about is that Essentials trod heavily on the class power structure of 4e, many of the 'e-classes' have things like fixed powers or somewhat different types of powers, which can create issues when integrating with older classes. MCing and such things work rather poorly in Essentials for the most part. They also left out ritual magic and instead grafted in a few class features like Ressurection for the Warpriest to cover a few of the most vital missing features (since Enchant Item is missing in Essentials it is technically impossible to make a magic item too, except by DM fiat). Most of that is omission though.

I think a lot of the complaints about it being a 'different game' were pretty overblown altogether, but if you play "Essentials Only" and play it by the book it is a lot more restricted game. There are effectively no PPs or EDs, just a default one for each class that you always take. The inventory of items is pretty limited, I don't think they even mention artifacts at all, obviously no rituals, etc. It fits with their goals though, which were a simpler and cleaner system that requires less game mastery to play. In that they sort of half-succeeded at least.

Are you sure scaling DCs were not in the original 4e? I seem to remember pg.42 practically being all about it.

 

[sabrinathecat]

I'd call what you're talking about just basic tactics, its hardly colorable as 'planning' at all, though it often does involve a bit of basic "I'll do X this round so I can do Y next round". The planning I'm talking about is a whole other thing. Lets imagine you are playing 1e and your party has decided to go beard the dragon in his lair. Would you just march in, expecting to duke it out and prevail? You'd be rudely toasted in round one if you did that. No, instead the party will go look for some sort of fire protection magic (potions or whatnot, maybe even brewing some if the DM doesn't make it TOO onerous). They'll probably scout out the area, looking for the best ground to fight on, research spells that would be handy to use in the upcoming fight, etc. They might even hire some mercenaries or possibly dream up any of a dozen other tactics designed to get them in striking distance of said dragon without taking the horrific and usually fatal levels of damage dragon breath would usually dish out. A 4e party wouldn't bother. They MIGHT, if they thought the challenge level was extreme, pick up some consumables, change the wizard's spell load-out a bit, etc, but the game is oriented towards simply being able to march into a situation and meet the challenge without elaborate pre-planning. Furthermore you won't really gain a huge advantage by planning ahead. Protective magic is temporary and marginal, surprise has modest advantages, terrain likewise, and no one attack or spell is overwhelmingly effective.

There is absolutely no reason why any of this could not be part of a 4e game. It is a flaw in the DM, the writing, or the players. In fact, I'd make it an elaborate skill challenge. In order to get the dragon to the point where the as-statted dragon is in condition for the party to fight it, they Must complete the skill challenge for the basic fighting chance against an adult or older dragon. If the party fails the skill challenge, the dragon is not where expected, but rather destroys a nearby village or town, and the few survivors blame the party, and word of their failure and the suffering that resulted will spread across the land (until they redeem their reputations at the next tier--if ever). Sure, you can soften it a bit, but that's the argument that failing a skill challenge should have actual consequences--something most modules did not write in properly. I would reward a party that puts together a creative strategy, regardless of the edition.
You are correct about bearding a dragon in its lair. I refer once again to the classic dragon magazine article from the 80s (I really must look up the specific issue again) which made the case that "if your party can just walk in and kill the dragon because it is nothing more than a sack of HP, you are playing it wrong." Or you can look up "white dragon rude awakening" on youtube. (cough, cough)
Those "basic tactics" get quite elaborate come epic. The rogue and ranger in the party have very complicated 1st round combos in the party (I play the somewhat less complicated fighter). It takes a while to resolve it all, and sometimes they don't have a perfect set-up, but they usually find a way to make it work, with the extra movement that their epic destinies or paragon paths and action points give them. Whenever possible, these two scout ahead for a glimpse of the next encounter so that we can pick targets and go in with a plan (no plan survives first contact with the dice, however).

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Are you sure scaling DCs were not in the original 4e? I seem to remember pg.42 practically being all about it.

Not really. The DMG/DMG2 never say that. They say that appropriate DCs for characters of specific given levels are certain numbers. The DMG then also talks about how more challenging things are described, such as when it talks about the materials that doors are made out of. The understanding I got out of that was that for a level 1 PC when they're going to go do some stunt off page 42 that the environment they are in is "low level" and thus the chasm is only so wide, the rushing torrent so strong, the monster so tough, etc. Nothing in the rules ever suggests that a level 1 PC in 4e should be able to pass a Heal check to heal a terrible disease on a 15 just because he's 1st level and some high level guy needs a 30 to do the same thing. You will just run into a level 1 disease as a level 1 pc (or maybe you'll run into a level 5 disease and be in almost over your head). If the level 30 guy happens to run into said level 1 disease, he's going to just find it trivial and no DM will waste time on that.

Now, I have heard people claim 4e was written otherwise, but reading the actual DMG in particular and the skill section of PHB1 I don't see any suggestion this was meant to be the case.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

There is absolutely no reason why any of this could not be part of a 4e game. It is a flaw in the DM, the writing, or the players. In fact, I'd make it an elaborate skill challenge. In order to get the dragon to the point where the as-statted dragon is in condition for the party to fight it, they Must complete the skill challenge for the basic fighting chance against an adult or older dragon. If the party fails the skill challenge, the dragon is not where expected, but rather destroys a nearby village or town, and the few survivors blame the party, and word of their failure and the suffering that resulted will spread across the land (until they redeem their reputations at the next tier--if ever). Sure, you can soften it a bit, but that's the argument that failing a skill challenge should have actual consequences--something most modules did not write in properly. I would reward a party that puts together a creative strategy, regardless of the edition.
You are correct about bearding a dragon in its lair. I refer once again to the classic dragon magazine article from the 80s (I really must look up the specific issue again) which made the case that "if your party can just walk in and kill the dragon because it is nothing more than a sack of HP, you are playing it wrong." Or you can look up "white dragon rude awakening" on youtube. (cough, cough)
Those "basic tactics" get quite elaborate come epic. The rogue and ranger in the party have very complicated 1st round combos in the party (I play the somewhat less complicated fighter). It takes a while to resolve it all, and sometimes they don't have a perfect set-up, but they usually find a way to make it work, with the extra movement that their epic destinies or paragon paths and action points give them. Whenever possible, these two scout ahead for a glimpse of the next encounter so that we can pick targets and go in with a plan (no plan survives first contact with the dice, however).

Well, I don't disagree with you that this is what you have to do in 4e, but it isn't EMERGENT like it was in 1e. You can't play 1e like 4e, its just not even possible. The issue is that it doesn't seem to emerge in most 4e games. I'm old school and I can make whatever I want happen in my 4e game like you say, but most games, and most WotC material for 4e, totally misses that chance, and it doesn't have to be that way.

 

[sabrinathecat]

OK, I can see your point now.
Yes, in theory, 5 PCs can walk up to an at-level or even level+3 dragon, and take it out.
OK.
But, that they encounter such a beast in such a way, without having to worry about terrain, hirelings, tactics, etc is a flaw in either the writing or the DM. Make the skill challenge. Raise the army. Find the right spot. Prepare the defenses. Bait the dragon to showing up when you want. Get it while it's groggy. Role-play it out.

Yes, the games are very different. Yes, there are some draw-backs.
But I enjoy 4e way more than I ever did 1st or 3rd. Probably even more than 2nd (my hay-day college campaign). 4e is fun to play and fun to run. I've never thought that of any previous edition (it was one or t'other).

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

OK, I can see your point now.
Yes, in theory, 5 PCs can walk up to an at-level or even level+3 dragon, and take it out.
OK.
But, that they encounter such a beast in such a way, without having to worry about terrain, hirelings, tactics, etc is a flaw in either the writing or the DM. Make the skill challenge. Raise the army. Find the right spot. Prepare the defenses. Bait the dragon to showing up when you want. Get it while it's groggy. Role-play it out.

Yes, the games are very different. Yes, there are some draw-backs.
But I enjoy 4e way more than I ever did 1st or 3rd. Probably even more than 2nd (my hay-day college campaign). 4e is fun to play and fun to run. I've never thought that of any previous edition (it was one or t'other).

Yeah, well, 4e works great for me too, BUT, I can see why it causes problems for some people, and I THINK it could have pleased us and been more amenable to the sort of play that others wanted. I think they COULD get it with 4e, but there are a LOT of people out there that don't want to, or maybe can't wrassle with a game system and bend it to their will. They kinda need or want it to "just do it" the way they want. We could say "but 4e is more flexible" but the odd thing about that is, nobody actually appreciates flexibility, they just want it to do what they want. Everyone else can buy a different game. I just think 4e pushed too far in a certain direction and didn't naturally cater to some play styles. It can work, but you have to know to make it work.

 

[sabrinathecat]

Yes, 4e is a different beast from previous iterations.
Some people were upset by this.
I heard numerous rants about how the system didn't let them do what they wanted (mainly rebuild their characters from previous editions).
Rants about the lack of flexibility made me laugh. (really, people were saying the rules weren't flexible enough!)
Unfortunately, these people's collective bitching won the attention of WotC more than the people praising the new system. oh well...

One piece of news: WotC has said that they are going to leave all of the 4E materials and such up on the site, even though they will not be producing any more 4e articles. I think they're also leaving the character builder up.

 

[pemerton]

Are you sure scaling DCs were not in the original 4e? I seem to remember pg.42 practically being all about it.

The core books have conflicting indications. The DMG suggests scaling DCs on p 42, as you note. The PHB suggests "objective" DCs. The charts of DCs for doors and environmental hazards can go either way, because they can be read as "objective" DCs, or alternatively as guides for how to narrate scaling DCs.

Essentials essentially settled the question in favour of scaling DCs, which I think fits overall better with 4e's design. The one exception is jumping in combat, which still uses "objective" DCs. I think this is one of the particular manifestations of the broader phenomenon of 4e being wonky in its intersection of combat and non-combat resolution.