D&D is not a supers game.

[Obryn]

Just out of curiosity... how many PC's did you two have that died, and/or TPK's between levels 1 to 3? One thing my group noticed in earlier levels was one, maybe two of them went unconscious during a fight, but they were always healed before they were in any real danger of dying. Thus it felt scary the first few times, then it just felt like an illusion.

Also on another note, what exactly do you two consider a challenging fight in 4e? Do you follow the guidelines or do you tend to disregard them?

No TPKs. Every player but one lost a character. One of these lost two. These weren't newbies, and they had competent characters.

As for the guidelines, I think they work okay at lower levels, but tend to underrate the effectiveness of mid- to high-level parties - especially in a leader-heavy or control-heavy group.

Much like in 3.x, an at-level encounter isn't expected to be particularly hard. It'll drain some resources (dailies, healing surges, etc.) but shouldn't kill anyone. I go more for L+1 or L+2 encounters these days, but part of that is that a 6-character party is a lot more effective than a 5-character party - again, if they have lots of healing or control.

-O

 

[pemerton]

The 1e DMG actually does recommend starting at higher than 1st level if it's not the player's first character, and, in some situations, even if it is.

This is true. But I still think the game should be packaged with the default assumption being that play will begin at 1st level. (Where do you sesnsibly start, if not at 1?)

Gygax's approach to campaign design, integration of PCs into campaigns, etc, presupposed (as far as I can tell) a well developed play community that new players would be absorbed into - with regular sessions taking place (multiple times per week), rotating GMs, rotating PC rosters, etc. In this context, explaining to a new initiate that his/her PC will start at 2nd or 3rd level makes some sense. (Though I think still might be a bit weird for the initiate in question.)

But in the contemporary era, when presumably WotC is hoping that new players will pick up the rulebook and teach themseleves and their friends to play without being part of a Gygaxian community of hardcore players, I think a new-player-and-new-GM-friendly 1st level is pretty essential.

an orc can do a maximum of 8 points of damage with a single hit. That's enough to kill any magic-users and thieves (if you weren't using the death's door, unconscious at zero, dead at -10 option

Random AD&D factoid (at least as best I recall it): even if you're using the "death's door" option, a single hit will still kill you if it drops you below zero in a single blow (there is an option within an option to make the "single blow" threshold -3). I think it is 3E (may be 2nd ed?) that changed the threshold for unconsciousness rather than death being the same as the threshold for death (ie -10).

That very small window for unconsciousness obviously relies, for its practical viability, on AD&D damage numbers being a lot small than in later editions.

I've read plenty of stories in which people talk about rampant TPKs in 4E; I really have no way to relate to it because that has not been anywhere near my experience with the game

Likewise. I've had one TPK - at 2nd or 3rd level (I can't remember which) in an encounter that was not to bad from a level point of view but destroyed the PCs via action denial (I had a spectre with a daze aura, and I think some other action denial as well, and started with a surpirse attack).

Other than that, I've had two PC deaths - the PC wizard has died twice, once at 2nd and once at 15th, both times in over-level encounters (and the second time he probably wouldn't have died if he'd played better - he was stuck in a swarm, used a ranged spell to try and get out, and dropped from the oppy, but he could have used an ability to swap in a close burst that would have been just as effective and given him temporary hit points).

And I routinely use over-level encounters (with MM3 damage numbers), often in waves but by no means always. Level +1 and +2 very often. Level +3 to +5 less frequently. And my players are not particularly dedicated focus-firers either.

Im finding 4e to be quite deadly at all levels, my players just fought calastrix. Three headed dragon with a bite of 3d12+8 at 14th level!

Here's a link to my Calaystryx encounter - the PCs were 15th level, but had already faced a lot of encounters until Calastryx turned up! No one died, but it went to the wire:

*Comp 2 L14 skill challenge (as a result of which each PC lost one encounter power until their next extended rest);

*L17 combat;

*L15 combat;

*L7 combat;

*L13 combat;

*L15 combat (PCs advance from 14th to 15th level);

*Comp 1 L14 skill challenge;

*L16 combat;

*L14 combat (Calastryx);

*L13 combat;

*Comp 1 L15 skill challenge;

*L16 combat (the L15 solo was defeated by being pushed over a bridge down a waterfall);

*L15 combat (the solo returned later in the night, having survived the fall and climbed back up).​

I very rarely took my 4E antagonists and opponents seriously. I used to find metagame ways to challenge myself so I'd stay interested.

I haven't found this at all. My players don't let their PCs die, but that's because they play well. As the story about the wizard above shows, if they do slip then PCs can die. That need to focus on the play is part of what keeps the game interesting, for us at least.

 

[pemerton]

Very few stories have a hero one-shot monsters like ogres, demons, etc.

"A Paladin in Hell" is one of the best-known of all D&D images. And if that paladin is not one-shotting at least some of those devils, than he(?) is in a world of hurt . . .

The difference is Gilgamesh and Beowulf (Super-heroic even though they are both still fantasy) as compared to Fafhrd and the Grey Mouser, Jon Snow or Conan (borderline action heroes of fantasy).

Now that I think about, killing 4-8 guys in a round may simply not be that super heroic.

Conan one-shots nearly everything he fights - soldiers, assassins, pirates, were-hyenas, etc. You can't emulate Conan in a game without one-shotting 4 to 8 guys a round!

 

[nogray]

Just out of curiosity... how many PC's did you two have that died, and/or TPK's between levels 1 to 3? One thing my group noticed in earlier levels was one, maybe two of them went unconscious during a fight, but they were always healed before they were in any real danger of dying. Thus it felt scary the first few times, then it just felt like an illusion.

Also on another note, what exactly do you two consider a challenging fight in 4e? Do you follow the guidelines or do you tend to disregard them?

I've lost or seen another player lose about five or six low-ish level characters as a player in 4e. At first or second level, I personally lost two in one encounter. (Most of the time, our group has three players, so we often have one or two players that run an additional character to more fully round out the party.) That encounter was probably a little over-leveled, but it killed my Monk and my Bard. One died due to death saves, and the other due to hitting negative-bloodied, I think. The rest of the party survived.

Not part of your requested data, but as a DM, I recently killed off one player's level 13 Invoker in a level 16 encounter that was a re-flavored and math-updated version of the final encounter from the level 13 delve (from the Dungeon Delve product). He went from just above bloodied to dead at negative bloodied in a surprisingly short time (between his turn and the leader's). Area attacks were the main culprit, as I didn't target him specifically once he had fallen.

I haven't, as a DM, had any TPKs. I don't think I've experienced any as a player either, though there might have been one that the DM retconned out of existence, as he was trying some off-the-wall things, but I could be misremembering.

 

[Imaro]

"A Paladin in Hell" is one of the best-known of all D&D images. And if that paladin is not one-shotting at least some of those devils, than he(?) is in a world of hurt . . .

If that's how you choose to interpret that picture cool... I've always thought the "Paladin in Hell" pic was more of a cautionary tale about taking on more that one can handle or a depiction of a lone figure sacrificing himself for his beliefs... or it could just represent him killing minions, without speaking to the artist we'll never know.

Conan one-shots nearly everything he fights - soldiers, assassins, pirates, were-hyenas, etc. You can't emulate Conan in a game without one-shotting 4 to 8 guys a round!

D&D =/= Conan... That said, Conan commonly one-shots humanoids, brigands, etc. Not demons, devils and cthulthoid horrors... those are usually the big fights. I would also argue that there is no way to prove or disprove that Conan at that point is or isn't a begining adventurer.

EDIT: A better way to state my thoughts in the last paragraph is... Not everyone believes that PC's, at first level, should start at the level of capabiltiy that Conan is commonly depicted as having. In fact, insofar as 4e goes I would think Conan would be an example of a high heroic level adventurer... not 1st level.

 

[Neonchameleon]

I understand this, what I'm saying is we aren't disregarding 1 hp monsters in other editions when comparing...

Because a 1hp monster in other editions isn't any sort of threat. A 1hp monster in 4e is outclassed but can still do damage.

Again, and this is why my argument may seem like rambling, I don't believe one mechanical aspect (in isolation) is the cause for the "super-heroic" feel many get with 4e compared to older editions. This is just one of the things I think contributes to it though. Some of the things I think contribute to it when taken as a whole...

1.) Increased hit points and durability...

2.) Minions, even with relatively high level monsters (which, the high level monster part is, contrary to your assertion above, not in line with how most fantasy literature is written.). Very few stories have a hero one-shot monsters like ogres, demons, etc. Yet they (along with the more genre common tropes of Orcs, goblins, etc.) are minions in 4e and IMO, the higher level monsters can make it feel a little over the top)

1: This has been rebutted with "A Paladin In Hell".
2: "One Shotting" isn't just one attack.
3: I guess you should excise 2e from canon. A 2e L9 fighter with weapon mastery, a +3 greatsword, and gauntlets of ogre power is one-shotting ogres roughly one attack in two as I demonstrated to Lanefan earlier.

In 3e a basic ogre gets 29hp. A strength 22 greatsword fighter (again not unreasonable by level 9) with a +1 shocking flaming weapon (for +3 equivalent - not unreasonable if I remember my WBL) does 4d6+10 damage on a basic hit. Put in a three point power attack and the fighter is doing 4d6+16 damage per hit (I'm not even trying for optimisation here) and hitting with his first attack on a three without buffs. The 4e level 9 fighter is not just routinely one-shotting ogres, he's cleaving them. So I guess that 3.X is out as well. Come join us with 4e where your level 9 fighters don't one-shot ogres?

And orcs are not minions. Orc drudges are minions. The word drudge literally means "A person who does tedious, menial, or unpleasant work"; orc drudges in 3.X would be commoners. And outlevelled orcs take one hit - but then they do in 3.X as well. 4e is just honest about it. "Battletested Orcs" have hit points.

So in both 2e and 3.X with very little optimisation a fighter can easily and regularly one-shot ogres at level 9 without buffs. This is apparently not a problem when one-shotting ogres at level 15 is for 4e fighters? Please explain what changed between the editions other than that 4e makes it explicit that you are expected to one-shot things you have a good chance of one-shotting?

3.)The ability to rest for 8 hours and heal all hit points and healing surges

For once I agree. I can house rule this in one line - and do.

4.) Short rests and the ability to expend healing surges

You mean ability to remain damaged but recover your breath? I've said before that 4e would be much better received if they'd called hit points "shock value" and healing surges "hit points".

These are mis-characterizations of the argument. The argument isn't that "4e is a super hero game" it's that "4e feels more super-heroic than previous editions" (and I would go so far as to add the caveat that this is mainly at lower levels.)

I disagree. 4e to me feels like an action movie not a superhero movie. Yes, some sit on the borderline like Batman. If I want Superman or Green Lantern I'm using a 3.X spellcaster.

The difference is Gilgamesh and Beowulf (Super-heroic even though they are both still fantasy) as compared to Fafhrd and the Grey Mouser, Jon Snow or Conan (borderline action heroes of fantasy).

EDIT: Or using a roleplaying game analogy... Exalted and Earthdawn are super heroic fantasy... Dragon Age and A Song of Ice and Fire are not, and each game has mechanics that promote a particular feel when playing it.

And 4e is on the action side. Exalted is on the supers side. Fafhrd and the Grey Mouser are excellent 4e PCs. But if I want ASoIaF, I'm going to ignore D&D entirely and reach for WFRP or even GURPS. Keep your hit points out of my gritty games.

Could I really be the only one who found low-level 4e at least as deadly as low-level 3e?

No.

Fantasy Viet Nam? Really? You never played 2e did you? I can make a 1st level 2e fighter, straight from the PHB, that kills ogres in 2 rounds by himself. (longsword specs - 14 points/hit, 3/2 attacks = 42 points of damage in 2 rounds without a strength bonus - kills anything less than 6 hit dice automatically).

And remember the greatsword was doing 3d6 damage vs large foes...

After about 3rd, it took ridiculous numbers to kill PC's. There's a reason that a 5th level party is expected to gank an ancient black dragon in AD&D. (First Dragonlance module)

I didn't realise it was quite that bad.

As a DM running a 4e game (at level 5 right now) I am experiencing this. Danger in 4e, as far as my players are concerned, is pretty much a joke.... especially if I stick to the guidelines given in the 4e DMG. I mean the fights take long but there's very little tension during the battles which is making the game less and less fun for all of us.

Which monster manuals are you using? And what sort of terrain and tactics? Because when I stick to level appropriate I scare the life out of my PCs. When I don't it gets worse. But then I don't use anything pre MM3.

 

[Campbell]

Minions and solos were meant to be solutions to the tyranny of scaling accuracy and defenses in D&D. Minions were there so that creatures of a "lower level" in the fiction could still be relevant as PCs leveled and solos were there to have satisfying fights against "higher level" creatures without the game turning into praying for 20s. They're meta game mechanics meant to portray the advantage of numbers. Now I can understand why this might be unsatisfying to some. Hopefully bounded accuracy and extending the hp metaphor works better for those who had issues with minions and solos.

 

[Imaro]

Because a 1hp monster in other editions isn't any sort of threat. A 1hp monster in 4e is outclassed but can still do damage.

At low levels (1-3), which I have reiterated numerous times within the thread that I am speaking about, they very much are a threat.

1: This has been rebutted with "A Paladin In Hell".
2: "One Shotting" isn't just one attack.
3: I guess you should excise 2e from canon. A 2e L9 fighter with weapon mastery, a +3 greatsword, and gauntlets of ogre power is one-shotting ogres roughly one attack in two as I demonstrated to Lanefan earlier.

1. Uhm, that picture doesn't objectively rebutt anything.
2. This is tangental and pendantic at best to the point. have I even claimed it was specifically one attack? Or have I said one-shotting as in one attack roll?? I honestly don't remember.
3. Level 9 is not low level.

In 3e a basic ogre gets 29hp. A strength 22 greatsword fighter (again not unreasonable by level 9) with a +1 shocking flaming weapon (for +3 equivalent - not unreasonable if I remember my WBL) does 4d6+10 damage on a basic hit. Put in a three point power attack and the fighter is doing 4d6+16 damage per hit (I'm not even trying for optimisation here) and hitting with his first attack on a three without buffs. The 4e level 9 fighter is not just routinely one-shotting ogres, he's cleaving them. So I guess that 3.X is out as well. Come join us with 4e where your level 9 fighters don't one-shot ogres?

First, this is high level which I have stated before in every edition amounts to super-heroic fantasy... Yet, and this is key... in 3.x he can still roll low enough, damage wise that he may not kill the ogre with one attack roll (I'll try to carefully word this now so as to avoid the distracting pendantic arguments on verbiage.)... A minion on the other hand will always be killed with one successful attack roll.

And orcs are not minions. Orc drudges are minions. The word drudge literally means "A person who does tedious, menial, or unpleasant work"; orc drudges in 3.X would be commoners. And outlevelled orcs take one hit - but then they do in 3.X as well. 4e is just honest about it. "Battletested Orcs" have hit points.

Did I ever claim all orcs were minions? Nope, I claimed some level 4 Orcs were miniions... which they are. See this is what I mean about stating an argument I didn't make and then attributing it to me... don't. as to the name... in 4e that fluff/fiction doesn't mean anything so why are you now trying to use it in some way to strengthen your own categorization of the monsters?

So in both 2e and 3.X with very little optimisation a fighter can easily and regularly one-shot ogres at level 9 without buffs. This is apparently not a problem when one-shotting ogres at level 15 is for 4e fighters? Please explain what changed between the editions other than that 4e makes it explicit that you are expected to one-shot things you have a good chance of one-shotting?

Again level 9 is not low level. They can one-shot, but are not guaranteed, upon a successful attack, of one-shotting like they are in 4e with minions. There's a different feel there.

For once I agree. I can house rule this in one line - and do.

Ok, cool... does the fact that you can houserule it change the fact that it is the official rule of the game and adds to a super-heroic feel? If not, I'm uncertain as to why you're telling me this? Oh, I get it again... I'm attacking 4e so you're trying to help me fix my problems... only that's not what I'm doing and I'm not trying to "fix" anything.

You mean ability to remain damaged but recover your breath? I've said before that 4e would be much better received if they'd called hit points "shock value" and healing surges "hit points".

I mean the action of bringing your ability to stay in the fight up to the max it can be in an encounter by taking a 5 minute rest.

I disagree. 4e to me feels like an action movie not a superhero movie. Yes, some sit on the borderline like Batman. If I want Superman or Green Lantern I'm using a 3.X spellcaster.

Then I guess I'm not trying to present your PoV to others. The thing I'm wondering is if you can see why the mechanics of 4e can make some (let me clarify that in saying "some" I am not referenceing you) people feel like the game is drifting into the realm, of super heroics. If you're not even willing to entertain the fact that some people could honestly (and without any malice toward the game) feel that way, well then we can agree to disagree at this point because this discussion won't go anywhere prodiuctive.

And 4e is on the action side. Exalted is on the supers side. Fafhrd and the Grey Mouser are excellent 4e PCs. But if I want ASoIaF, I'm going to ignore D&D entirely and reach for WFRP or even GURPS. Keep your hit points out of my gritty games.

And yet until 4e it was possible to have a gritty low-level game, for those who wanted it. So you can choose to ignore D&D but for some/many it worked fine for that until recently.

Which monster manuals are you using? And what sort of terrain and tactics? Because when I stick to level appropriate I scare the life out of my PCs. When I don't it gets worse. But then I don't use anything pre MM3.

So you're saying for the game to work correctly I need to purchase more books... and disregard the books I initially bought. That sucks. To answer your question I was, until recently, using any monster in the online Adventure Tools... are they updated to the new specs? If not I don't see why I would have to go out and buy more books to get the game to the corrected point for combats.

 

[pemerton]

D&D =/= Conan

<snip>

Not everyone believes that PC's, at first level, should start at the level of capabiltiy that Conan is commonly depicted as having.

You're the one who brought up Conan, not me.

That said, Conan commonly one-shots humanoids, brigands, etc. Not demons, devils and cthulthoid horrors...

In Tower of the Elephant he one-shots a lion, doesn't he? In Queen of the Black Coast he one-shots were-hyenas.

Anyway, turning to another fantasy protagonist - who may or may not be D&D-ish, depending on the individual making that judgement - Ged in A Wizard of Earthsea one-shots several young dragons.

 

[Imaro]

You're the one who brought up Conan, not me.

In Tower of the Elephant he one-shots a lion, doesn't he? In Queen of the Black Coast he one-shots were-hyenas.

Anyway, turning to another fantasy protagonist - who may or may not be D&D-ish, depending on the individual making that judgement - Ged in A Wizard of Earthsea one-shots several young dragons.

If I remember correctly (and it has been awhile), not in the beginning (low-level) of the books he doesn't. Ged in the beginning isn't all that powerful, knowledgeable or wise at all, and barely survives a few times because of luck... Now at high levels, that's a different story... but I've already stated numeroous times high level D&D is a super-heroic fantasy game in every edition.