First Impressions from the D&D 4E "Test Drive"

[S'mon]

I'm only worried about the small group issue; would, say, 2-3 PCs be enough if I use my own tailored encounters?

Yes, I think so. I had great fun running a 2-PC online game a while back. That used 2 5th level PCs (Fighter & Warlock) in a pretty much '1st level' dungeon, ie most of the foes were 1st-5th level. The highlight for me was the battle between the PCs and 12 goblins - 1st level Goblin Blackblades; the PCs tore apart both these 'elite' goblins and (via the Warlock's powers) much of the dungeon they were in too!

I don't see any reason why it shouldn't work with 1st level PCs, and there's little chance of the 'grind' problem that can afflict large groups. You do want to err on the side of caution when encounter building - eg for 2 1st level PCs I would treat the standard 200 XP of an EL 1 encounter as a mid-point, not a 'floor'. Many encounters could be lower (50-199), and few much higher, I wouldn't go above about 250 XP at least to start with, and don't have more than 1 monster of level 3+ - 2 3rd level Orc Raiders (150x2=300) could easily kill 2 1st level PCs, whereas 3 1st level Goblin Blackblades (100x3=300) probably would not.

 

[Jack99]

I'm only worried about the small group issue; would, say, 2-3 PCs be enough if I use my own tailored encounters?

More than enough. While I vastly prefer larger groups due to the RP dynamics, 4e works fine combat-wise for smaller groups. I have been in a group with just one other player and we played quite a few levels like that. Then we switched to running two characters per person, which worked just fine as well.

As DM, use more minions than you would normally do, drop the solos and instead stick to elites if you want a really hard monster. Also be aware of monsters that negate actions (stun, daze, dominate), since a 2-man party will suffer a lot more than bigger parties, if hit by those effects.

Also worth noting that in the two-man party, we tried many combinations, and while the paladin-cleric duo certainly had a lot of durability, the fighter-rogue duo plowed through monsters and thus did equally well. My point is simply that I wouldn't worry too much about which classes my players pick.

 

[Rechan]

and some minis

Don't feel like you have to BUY minis. One thing I love to do is use anything available that looks good. Pennies and aquarium stones for enemies, and everything from little bunnies to lego men and green armymen for PC minis. Be creative and thrifty!

As far as a grid is concerned, I highly recommend gaming paper. VERY durable, reusable claypaper 1" squares. They even have tons of demos. For a 12 feet roll it's $4.

My point is simply that I wouldn't worry too much about which classes my players pick.

If they choose the wrong combo, then hey, they die quicker!

No seriously, don't worry about it. Like I said before, I had ran a 2 person adventure with two high damage, weak HP weak AC guys. It was fine (but a hint tense).

 

[awesomeocalypse]

3 PCs is Definitely enough. A striker, a defender and a leader, and you're good to go. Just hold off on using too many minions (a few per fight is okay) until the party is somewhat higher level, because taking them down sans controller could be tricky early on. But for virtually everything else, as long as the party has those 3 roles covered, they should be completely fine.

2 is a little trickier. Still doable (I'd highly recommend a striker-leader party, or a leader and a strikery defender like a fighter) but it will require much more tailoring of encounters to fit the party, and it will constrain you much more in what sort of difficulty you can throw at them. A few equal level encounter per day will likely be more than enough to bring the party to the brink.

The limits on wizards, even though Rituals probably mitigate this a bit. I simply love DMing a party with a wizard in earlier editions (or BFRPG), especially when the players are being creative... So many possibilities for a crafty player to use!

Wizards are certainly more limited in certain ways, but I can attest that they're still a blast both to play and to DM for. At-will magic, rituals and especially cantrips go a long way towards helping them feel magical--every time I've played a wizard from level one he's been using cantrips to handle virtually any mundane task imaginable. Our DM houseruled an alternative ritual system (you can cast one fixed cost ritual of your level or lower per day for free ), so I also use them a ton. And in combat, well, wizard spells are just cool. They have the best dailies in the game (in keeping with prior games), but they also have at-will spells so they aren't stuck using a crossbow or dagger when they run out. They also have a bunch of cool feats, from metamagic like enlarge spell to flavorful additions like familiars.

Its true that wizards are no longer the end all be all. But they're still feel pretty magical and wizardly, and in play I think you'll find they perform better than you might think.

 

[Rechan]

Also bare in mind that wizards got "better" as more splatbooks came out. The wizard in the PHB1 is a bit weak compared to later Controllers.

 

[JohnSnow]

Interesting commentary. As someone who likes 4e and plays it regularly (DMs, actually, but...), I can see all of your points. I'd even venture to say I agree with most of them.

The wizard spell concern is certainly a valid one. While it's less obvious in the Quick-Start rules, there are still utility spells. As has been mentioned, the PHB Wizard gets prestidigitation, mage hand, light, and ghost sound as "at-will" powers. That handles almost all your minor magical effects.

However, the PHB Wizard is basically a battle mage (or "invocation expert" to steal an earlier term) with a few "other" powers that are more "universal" wizard abilities (like flight, invisibility, and so forth). Divination and non-combat protection spells have largely been moved to rituals, as were most of the traditional "handy, but not necessary" spells like Tenser's Floating Disc. To that list, Arcane Power adds summoning and illusion spells to the Wizard's repertoire. But yeah, that's pretty much it.

I think largely as a result of trying to "make room" for all the other classes, three formerly very broad classes (wizard, cleric and fighter) have been narrowed considerably. Since the wizard is no longer the game's "primary spellcaster," but just one of many, certain spell types have been turned over to other classes where appropriate. For example, buffing, hexing, and healing magic are largely (although not exclusively) the province of characters that fill the "leader" role (bards, clerics, shamans), the bard is the master of charms, and the druid is the polymorph class.

Similarly, the fighter class is now targeted at being a melee bruiser, and so is pretty ineffectual as a skirmisher or ranged combatant. The cleric is still a great healer and buffer, and the best at dealing with the undead, but is, at best, a secondary combatant.

The plus side is that the classes are more equal. But on the minus side, they're also less flexible.

I'll share some thoughts on hit point and healing surges in a future post, but I have to run for now.

 

[Somebloke]

Also bare in mind that wizards got "better" as more splatbooks came out. The wizard in the PHB1 is a bit weak compared to later Controllers.

Stinking Cloud disagrees with you.

 

[Rechan]

Stinking Cloud disagrees with you.

I meant in terms of At Wills, and more variety (illusions, summons, etc).

Wizard dailies are king. (Although I've yet to meet a daily that beats Wizard's Fury. Dang.)

 

[Gort]

Speaking of wizard dailies, did anyone else notice that Flaming Sphere is a million times better than all the other level 1 dailies?

 

[Garmorn]

Speaking of wizard dailies, did anyone else notice that Flaming Sphere is a million times better than all the other level 1 dailies?

Actually I think that is a matter of taste. I have seen both in action and I would as a wizard player prefer Wizard Fury. The ability to make a attack as a minor action for an entire encounter is fantastic.