Grognard's First Take On 4e

[Imaro]

Um, I didn't forget that at all. It makes no difference in how many hits a PC can take. Mainly because, irrespective of "WHEN" the hits are administered, the total number of hits remain the same.

A monster that requires 8 hits to bite the bullet where an at-will is one hit -> daily = 3 hits will ALWAYS require 5 rounds (assuming you hit each round).

The only time your scenario would be an issue is if the monster could be one-shotted by a daily power and on average, none of the dailies we've seen been capable of wiping out an equivalent level monster by itself.

The reason why it works in CRPGs is because you already KNOW when a boss encounter will be.

Ok, now look at this from a more realistic scenario, where there are 5 PC's. Now we run into situations where 5 daily powers could be unleashed on a single monster in the span of one round...which amounts to 15 of those hits that it would only take 8 to down the beast. In fact according to this logic you'v proposed...5 characters could eliminate 1 of their opponents in the first round and have another set up to drop in the second, thus reducing the amount of return attks and damage the party members will in turn take or have to worry about for the next round, if they unleash first. And they totally avoided a long-term bloodied condition of one (poossibly two) of their opponents

Now if they go with at-will's then it amounts to a total of 5 hits...not even enough to take out one monster...leaving a greater rate of oppositional attack and damage in the next round. Now do you understand what I am trying to get at? In a group environment there are totally different results when unleashing those daily powers all at once. 1 use of a power might not be able to kill a monster in one round, but what about 2 or 3?

 

[Primal]

Elijah, you have betrayed Grognards everywhere! Despite your "vow never to run 4e" you admit to "secretly hoping it would be cool" - this is unacceptable. As a fellow Grognard, you knew none of us were to get those books - for any reason* - and yet you did it anyway. Your feeble attempts at being dismissive toward the game do not pardon you.

Turn in your Grognard Card.

Wis, Grognard 14/Dumbass 6


* Unless Oprah adds the core books to her Book of the Month club.

Wis,

I'm sorry to inform you about this, but you'll be required to change your username to 'Wisdom Bonus', because when EnWorld shifts to 4E, there won't be any *penalties* mentioned anywhere (they're too difficult to calculate -- positive modifiers work better).

Of course, the Grognard Council tried to protest this matter, but to no avail -- those tricksy representatives of the Wizards pulled off some implement-empowered Charm spells, which also hurled us violently back 15 fe... 3 squares!

You're not alone in this -- my name will change to 'Primal Power' next year.

 

[Primal]

But they can look different, of course. There's another thread devoted to this topic, but I agree with those there. Does playing "guess if it's a minion" increase metagame thinking or does subtly making possible minions more obvious (most if the time) maybe move that kind of thinking to the background? Players will wonder "if it's worth it" anyway (they did in 3e with spells); taking the guesswork out of it (but not doing so obviously, leaving some doubt) will probably actually help verisimilitude.

I'm convinced that metagaming will dramatically increase as combat becomes even more tactically orientated and "abstracted" (i.e. less simulationist) in 4E. It's all about shifting, pulling, opportunity actions, movement, teleporting, and whatnot -- and how to respond to those 'exception-based' monster powers/hazards. I guess more tactically-oriented players and DMs will get more out of it, but I don't think my group will.

 

[crosswiredmind]

I'm convinced that metagaming will dramatically increase as combat becomes even more tactically orientated and "abstracted" (i.e. less simulationist) in 4E. It's all about shifting, pulling, opportunity actions, movement, teleporting, and whatnot -- and how to respond to those 'exception-based' monster powers/hazards. I guess more tactically-oriented players and DMs will get more out of it, but I don't think my group will.

You will need to pay attention in combat when it is not your turn - that is true. The tactical nature of the game is not all that different than 3.5 was. In 3.5 you could tune it out a bit more but 4e is definitely more of a team game than a bunch of solo artists taking their turns.

 

[BeauNiddle]

Ok, now look at this from a more realistic scenario, where there are 5 PC's. Now we run into situations where 5 daily powers could be unleashed on a single monster in the span of one round...which amounts to 15 of those hits that it would only take 8 to down the beast. In fact according to this logic you'v proposed...5 characters could eliminate 1 of their opponents in the first round and have another set up to drop in the second, thus reducing the amount of return attks and damage the party members will in turn take or have to worry about for the next round, if they unleash first. And they totally avoided a long-term bloodied condition of one (poossibly two) of their opponents

Now if they go with at-will's then it amounts to a total of 5 hits...not even enough to take out one monster...leaving a greater rate of oppositional attack and damage in the next round. Now do you understand what I am trying to get at? In a group environment there are totally different results when unleashing those daily powers all at once. 1 use of a power might not be able to kill a monster in one round, but what about 2 or 3?

Ah the old 'Take off and nuke them from orbit - it's the only way to be sure' gambit.

In 3rd ed where a monster had an almost guaranteed chance to hit and could do enough damage to paste the players then an all out nuke was the only sensible tactical choice.

In 4th ed they have gone to great pains to produce a much more reasoned response. Take healing surges for example - as long as you have 4 left at the end of the encounter then you can heal back to full. Also compare encounter and at-will to daily's, yes the daily's are impressive but not so much that you have to spend the rest of the day cowering in a rope trick. The enemies also have a much more balanced damage output (and chance to hit).

If a party run into their first encounter and unload their full set of dailiy's on the first round then that fight is going to be much easier. But was the party do next? They'll have used maybe 10% of the healing available to them and they still have 75% of their powers. It's assumed that the party will continue adventuring. If they do so they get used to multiple combats and hence will start pondering WHICH encounter to use their daly's in. From their it's only a short step to working out WHEN during an encounter they should use their daily's (and per encounter's). Thus 4th ed is designed to teach the players NOT to use the nuke strategy.

Much to the joy of this tactician.

 

[Primal]

You will need to pay attention in combat when it is not your turn - that is true. The tactical nature of the game is not all that different than 3.5 was. In 3.5 you could tune it out a bit more but 4e is definitely more of a team game than a bunch of solo artists taking their turns.

It seems 4E is not only more tactical than 3E from the players' POV -- based on what I've seen (and read) the DMs are also required to "up their game" and plan every encounter from much more tactical perspective than ever before. And I must confess that I just can't get those monster roles or their 'exception-based' abilities. Does every encounter need every "type" of monsters (e.g. "artillery" or "brutes")? If so, why? And when I'm thinking of marking and how complicated (and abstract, from a 'simulationist' POV) those PC abilities are... sheesh, maybe I'm not just cut to running 4E?

 

[Mistwell]

You have a spoon you like. People around you told you that forks were cool. So you bought a fork, and with an open mind, you tried to consume soup using the fork. It didn't work, and are very disappointed with the fork. Despite the fact that the people who told you that forks were cool never told you to consume soup with it.

 

[Victim]

It seems 4E is not only more tactical than 3E from the players' POV -- based on what I've seen (and read) the DMs are also required to "up their game" and plan every encounter from much more tactical perspective than ever before. And I must confess that I just can't get those monster roles or their 'exception-based' abilities. Does every encounter need every "type" of monsters (e.g. "artillery" or "brutes")? If so, why?

You don't think that encounters with mixed groups of enemies are more interesting than homogenous groups in 3e?

 

[Henry]

You have a spoon you like... [SNIP]

You do realize don't you that you've just created the perfect analogy for the people complaining that 4e won't let them run the kinds of games they like? If the fork won't ever let you consume soup, then it's all the more reason to ditch the fork.

It's very possible that 4e won't work for what he used to use 3e for.

 

[Henry]

It seems 4E is not only more tactical than 3E from the players' POV -- based on what I've seen (and read) the DMs are also required to "up their game" and plan every encounter from much more tactical perspective than ever before. And I must confess that I just can't get those monster roles or their 'exception-based' abilities. Does every encounter need every "type" of monsters (e.g. "artillery" or "brutes")? If so, why? And when I'm thinking of marking and how complicated (and abstract, from a 'simulationist' POV) those PC abilities are... sheesh, maybe I'm not just cut to running 4E?

From what I've seen, you don't use every single type in a combat. You instead use critters that fit the kind of combat you want to run. It's really no different from 3e on this. For instance, in an encounter where you think it will be cool to have some enemy ranged attacking across a cliff where the PCs are hard pressed to go, you wouldn't use stock hook horrors to do it. You'd use another monster, or a variant "piercing horror" that flung barbs from his arms or something.

Same idea. If you have a very mobile terrain, you use kobold skirmishers. If you have a narrow corridor, you'd say "kobold dragonshields would work here to stop 'em up." The thing is, you don't have to know what variety of monsters can do ranged, what runs around like a mage killer, etc. Instead, you say, "OK, I need an Orc/Kobold/Goblin/Thayan artillery for this, and some Soldiers for the ground," etc. Most monsters that are intelligent have this kind of breakdown, from what we've seen, and the unintelligent monsters will have customization rules that let you trick them out like some Darwinian God-GM to make that artillery critter you want for the task, complete with the one or two special powers that set him apart as a member of a given species.