Easilly assembled encounters, more character driven adventures?

[Patlin]

Perhaps some of those things will be handled by exploits. I'll be interested to see some more martial utility powers, I don't really have a grasp on the intended scope. Swing from Chandelier (or something more generic that can be flavored that way in context) or bash open door, perhaps?

 

[Lizard]

Ah, so your players will apparently care that you must run the game in a manner to which they are unaccustomed. That clears so much up.

Can't parse this at all...

If I ran a vampire game where no one got to use their disciplines to show how cool they were, it would be a bad use of the system.

If I ran a 3x game without prestige classes, wacky templated monsters, and freeform multiclassing, it would be a bad use of the system.

If i ran a 4e game without combats designed to take advantage of all the shift/push/pull powers, it would be a bad use of the system.

 

[ObsidianCrane]

I notice Lizrd you didn't answer the "Have you tried playing 4E yet?" question.

No one in my group complained about the Raiders of Oakhurst (Reloaded) module, and its elements. Few encounters have more than - here are some critters fight them. Those few have not unreasonable logic to how those traps get there etc. PCs got to use a range of their abilities across the encounters, and there was a little bit of resource management.

We just used the D&DExp pre-gens and two of the players were happy enough with the characters that they would have played them further. That bodes well based on a "test run" and without me really investing into the game at all.

I'm looking forward to 4E even more now, as it even more clearly than before meets up with my needs for DnD than 3X did, it brings back the stuff I liked about 2E and BECM, while adding the design concepts learnt from 3E. Yup having DM'd the game now I'm very much looking forward to having the complete rules and getting back to really off the cuff DMing.

 

[hong]

Can't parse this at all...

It is very simple, my boy. You have presumably run your game in a way that your players are used to, and provides them with entertainment. Now you are complaining that 4E will make you run things in a different way. It can be inferred that this different way is one that your players will not be used to. Exactly why they should be so unhappy that you decide to continue running the game in a way that they were used to, and provided them with entertainment, is a matter that is clearly only explicable to those who view the world through brown-coloured glasses.

If I ran a vampire game where no one got to use their disciplines to show how cool they were, it would be a bad use of the system.

If I ran a 3x game without prestige classes, wacky templated monsters, and freeform multiclassing, it would be a bad use of the system.

If i ran a 4e game without combats designed to take advantage of all the shift/push/pull powers, it would be a bad use of the system.

Spot the hidden assumption.

 

[Lizard]

I notice Lizrd you didn't answer the "Have you tried playing 4E yet?" question.

Nope. I don't have nearly enough rules yet to do any kind of worldbuilding, and I'm not going to work from partial/speculative rules.

I'm looking forward to 4E even more now, as it even more clearly than before meets up with my needs for DnD than 3X did, it brings back the stuff I liked about 2E and BECM, while adding the design concepts learnt from 3E. Yup having DM'd the game now I'm very much looking forward to having the complete rules and getting back to really off the cuff DMing.

Of course, I never liked 2e/BECM, so that's not a selling point for me... I liked 1e, but I was young and didn't know any better. Actually, looking back at High School, we really only played 1e for about a year and a half..then it was mostly Traveller, Aftermath, V&V, and of course Champions when it came out. So, really, out of my ~30 years of gaming, the only version of D&D that's sustained my interest in the long term has been 3e.

Interesting.

 

[hong]

Nope. I don't have nearly enough rules yet to do any kind of worldbuilding,

Psst. "Playing", not "worldbuilding".

 

[ObsidianCrane]

Can't parse this at all...

Probably because you are approaching the games from the perspective of;

If X is in the rules X must be used.

Which is not actually a true statement for all situations.

If i ran a 4e game without combats designed to take advantage of all the shift/push/pull powers, it would be a bad use of the system.

Malarky I say.

You are imposing an artificial construct over the mechanics of the game, for the purpose of creating an argumentive position.

In reality you set up a situation and the Players make their choices according to the situation. Not every situation will be optimal for every thing, I mean Fortitude, Celerity and Potence don't exactly help you hook up with that hot chick at the bar now do they?

And your Fighter with an 8 Charisma and no Social skills is going to have the same problem as the prior Vampire.

The encounter doesn't have a cliff you can push the monsters over, who cares? The point to the power is to be able to gain tactical advantage - not to push monsters into hazardous terrain. Getting the ability to push the monster off the cliff every once in a while just makes it more fun when you can, makes it a little more exciting.

You've probably been providing players with opportunities to use these powers for years, they just didn't have them to use because they didn't have them, and you can bet once they do have them they will.

 

[Lizard]

Psst. "Playing", not "worldbuilding".

No one here wants to DM a demo 4e game.

 

[catsclaw]

Adding a few fighter or rogue levels in 3x doesn't make things very complicated. In 4e, adding a fighter level is the same as adding a wizard level -- you get a LOT of options. Great for PCs. Not so much for monsters if you want more than one of them on the field.

But in that case, you can just look over the 5th level fighter or rogue abilities and add a couple of them to your monsters. Or have a generic "5th level fighter" sitting around and just copy and paste those abilities when you want a monster with fighter levels.

4e makes it easier to create balanced monsters with unique abilities by adding ad-hoc abilities. You don't like that, because ... actually, I'm still not entirely sure what your objection is. You don't want to create a new monster "type", but you're fine adding class levels to an existing monster? Isn't that fundamentally the same thing? Would it make you feel better if they just called all the Hobgoblins in the Monster Manual "Hobgoblin" without differentiating them further?

I'm going off tangent. You don't like adding ad-hoc abilities, but you're fine with adding class levels. When people point out you can still add class levels to 4e monsters, you say it's too difficult. When people point out you can just take shortcuts by adding the relevant abilities to monsters, you object to creating new monster "types" and say 3.5 is better because you can add class levels ...

 

[Lizard]

4e makes it easier to create balanced monsters with unique abilities by adding ad-hoc abilities. You don't like that, because ... actually, I'm still not entirely sure what your objection is. You don't want to create a new monster "type", but you're fine adding class levels to an existing monster? Isn't that fundamentally the same thing?

Not really. There's a difference between "This is a hobgoblin fighter with weapon focus (Axe),Improved Critical (Axe), and the feat 'Hurt People With An Axe, A Lot' from some random supplement" and "This is a hobgoblin axe-waver, who has two Very Cool Axe Waving Powers that no human fighter -- or, for that matter, a PC Hobgoblin fighter -- can ever learn."

It may be that absolutely no one but me cares, but I like my foolish consistencies, even though they are the (heh heh) hobgoblins of little minds.

I'm going off tangent. You don't like adding ad-hoc abilities, but you're fine with adding class levels. When people point out you can still add class levels to 4e monsters, you say it's too difficult.

Not difficult, just not 'in paradigm'. The design of 3x was: There's no difference between a PC and an NPC. The design of 4e is:NPCs live for five rounds of combat, and that's how their abilities are balanced.

Without the actual monster building rules, though, it's hard to say how it will work. "Just make some stuff up" is almost certainly NOT how the system will go. I'm going to guess there's a means of assigning XP value to special abilities and limits on how far you can 'push' a monster before it becomes higher level. This might even allow finer/more granular control over monster building, a plus. If it's relatively simple to turn Special Monster Powers into things other creatures can learn/use, that will answer one of my main objections.