Grognard's First Take On 4e

[Primal]

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

Well, not necessarily, no. See, I think it quickly becomes quite boring if *every* encounter has one or more Controller, one or more Artillery, one or more Brute, one or more Skirmisher, a host of Minions, and so on. And it's not just that -- your character's role more or less determines which monster you're supposed to attack (e.g. rangers keep peppering arrows at the Artillery and Controllers, while fighters and paladins are supposed to always tangle with Brutes and Minions). So while the first few adventures it might seem cool and awesome to take on a host of monsters in each fight, but soon it may become wearisome to always concentrate on certain enemy "types" in the spirit of team play, because you're are *expected* and even *required* to.

Not to mention that if you're not a tactically-minded DM, encounter/monster design in 4E might take a lot longer than it did in 3E.

 

[Imaro]

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.

I'm not really seeing how this relates to what was being discussed. I wasn't arguing if 4e promotes or doesn't promote going nuke...I guess I could think about it and post my response later. The discussion was about whether there was an advantage or not to using your more powerful abilities early on in a fight or using weaker abilities and waiting...whether you decide to use those powers or not in ay specific encounter is a different beast all together.

Even just using encounter powers where they equal "2 hits" and at-wills equal "1 hit" it is better for the group to hit most encounters with their most powerful abilities first...again with the 8 hit monster, if everyone in the party does "2 hits" instead of "1 hit" then the beast dies as opposed to being able to attk one or more players on it's turn. I think this will appear more and more in D&D 4e as time progresses, almost to the point where it will become redundant and predictable...I saw it happen with jedi in SW Saga ed. 85-90% of the time the players opened with most powerful to least powerful force powers.

 

[Cheesepie]

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?

And somehow these PC abilities are more complicated and abstract than the ridiculous amount of spells available to each spellcasting class in 3.5?

Just like I'm sure you got comfortable with the most common spells you encounter and quickly adapting to new spells in 3.5, I am sure you will be fine with powers in 4E.

 

[Mal Malenkirk]

Random Thoughts :

For those who bemoaned that the fighter is just a punching bag, consider that a fighter using a two-handed weapon is probably up there toward the top of the heap for damage dealing.

It's likely that a daily doing 3D12 (or 6D6) +6, for example, is the best damage dealing attack available to the party at level 1. And if the guys turn Kensai, I expect he's easily worth a striker in pure damage dealing.

Of course, shield rocks in 4e and you dismiss it at your perils but the increased offense seems worth it.

Minions : I expect appropriate for their levels last longer on the battlefield than 3e monsters that could be one-shot (Which were used by DMs for exactly the same purpose as 4e minions will be). The fact they don't die on a miss means they'll survive area attack better and since their defense is appropriate for their level, they'll probably be alive deeper in any given fight than their 3e equivalent would have been. And of course, they'll have more of an impact.


The fact that a fighter with cleave can kill two minions at once is probably a big deal, too.

 

[Primal]

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.

You see, here's my beef with the 'exception-based' monster design: I just can't fathom how to stat any 'Piercing Horrors' or other variants. What powers to give it? I don't have a clue what "role" it should have and why. If I need an orc, I'll use an orc -- if it's supposed to wield a greataxe and challenge the group's fighters, I'll give it some barbarian and/or fighter levels. What's with these odd 'Bloodied Rages' and triggered abilities? Why do some monsters have no 'at-will' melee/missile abilities, while others have very "flavored" ones? (e.g. "Whirling Double Axes of Death +6" vs. "Greataxe +8")?

The whole system seems odd from my own perspective, and I'd feel very uncomfortable with doing that, since I'm a simulationist and so are my players (I hated how monsters worked in AD&D, too). If I give weird and effective "unique" powers to monsters that are not in balance with the PCs can accomplish with their powers, my players will soon want to create Dragonshield Kobolds, Bloodaxe Berserkers and Eyes of Gruumsh. And frankly, I would have statted orc barbarians and adepts with completely different kind of powers than the ones in the Orc MM excerpt. And I'm a lousy tactician, to boot.

 

[Primal]

And somehow these PC abilities are more complicated and abstract than the ridiculous amount of spells available to each spellcasting class in 3.5?

Just like I'm sure you got comfortable with the most common spells you encounter and quickly adapting to new spells in 3.5, I am sure you will be fine with powers in 4E.

To your first question: oh, yes -- by far! For example, what's with all that Sliding/Shifting/Pulling stuff? Or why does the Warlord grant my guy extra actions, but I can't do that myself? It can't be just "he knows the perfect moment", because I should get an Insight/Perception/Dexterity check to try figuring it out myself, right? And how come the rogue can throw a dagger at a dragon/golem/tarrasque and shift it three squares, unless he can load his daggers with kinetic/magical energy? Why can the warlord force my guy to charge? And so on. A lot of the abilities do not make a lot of sense from a simulationist POV. Therefore, the combat is more abstract in nature, because you are not supposed to question the logic or realism behind the actions.

 

[Kwalish Kid]

To your first question: oh, yes -- by far! For example, what's with all that Sliding/Shifting/Pulling stuff? Or why does the Warlord grant my guy extra actions, but I can't do that myself? It can't be just "he knows the perfect moment", because I should get an Insight/Perception/Dexterity check to try figuring it out myself, right? And how come the rogue can throw a dagger at a dragon/golem/tarrasque and shift it three squares, unless he can load his daggers with kinetic/magical energy? Why can the warlord force my guy to charge? And so on. A lot of the abilities do not make a lot of sense from a simulationist POV. Therefore, the combat is more abstract in nature, because you are not supposed to question the logic or realism behind the actions.

Simluation was never supposed to be about identifying a roll of the dice with every single possible episode of consciousness of every character in the world. Nor was simulation every supposed to be about assigning a roll of the die to every particle in the world to dertermine its position in phase space. There was always some abstraction. It is quite possible in games that focus on simulation to allow some characters to do one thing and not allow others to do that same thing.

 

[Primal]

Simluation was never supposed to be about identifying a roll of the dice with every single possible episode of consciousness of every character in the world. Nor was simulation every supposed to be about assigning a roll of the die to every particle in the world to dertermine its position in phase space. There was always some abstraction. It is quite possible in games that focus on simulation to allow some characters to do one thing and not allow others to do that same thing.

I'm well aware of that and I did not imply, to my knowledge, that *everything* should be covered by the rules of a game. However, I *did* note that combat is *more* abstract in 4E than it was in 3E. As to your last point: agreed, I never said it weren't so, and you're a bit off the mark there, because that is hardly relevant here. For every "non-PC" being, 4E seems to be mostly about "unique" abilities tied to everyone's "role" *and* mixing them with the crunch that is shared by everyone and strictly derived from the rules. Now, I wouldn't mind if it worked the same way (i.e. consistently) for everyone, but it doesn't -- the PCs live on their own "thread" of existence within the rules and the story. Therefore, they can do stuff nobody else (except major villains) can do, and monsters/NPCs can do stuff they can't do. And before anyone comments on it -- yeah, your fighter couldn't have Energy Drain or Petrifying Gaze in 3E either, but I'm referring to things that you should realistically be able to accomplish (e.g. whatever stunts a goblin/kobold/bugbear/orc whatever does in combat, should be allowed for PCs, too).

 

[crosswiredmind]

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?

If you are a "simulationist" gamer then you should appreciate that combat does require tactics and coordination. Furthermore combat teams should alway leverage the use of combined arms to enhance their effectiveness. Good simulation use rules to generate expected results. 4e does that very well. So I guess I am not getting what you see as the real problem.

 

[WalterKovacs]

You see, here's my beef with the 'exception-based' monster design: I just can't fathom how to stat any 'Piercing Horrors' or other variants. What powers to give it? I don't have a clue what "role" it should have and why.

Of course, they have not yet put out the section for the core books on building monsters. We have heard from people that peeked that there is such a thing.

It's very easy to say "I know how to do it in 3.5 but how do you do it in 4e?" ... well, because we have the DMG and Monster Manuals available ... but we don't have the same yet for 4e.

If I need an orc, I'll use an orc -- if it's supposed to wield a greataexe and challenge the group's fighters, I'll give it some barbarian and/or fighter levels. What's with these odd 'Bloodied Rages' and triggered abilities? Why do some monsters have no 'at-will' melee/missile abilities, while others have very "flavored" ones? (e.g. "Whirling Double Axes of Death +6" vs. "Greataxe +8")?

In general ... a monster COULD be designed like a character. But if he isn't going to be using most of those abilities because he's dead after the encounter ... it's extraneous information.

The whole system seems odd from my own perspective, and I'd feel very uncomfortable with doing that, since I'm a simulationist and so are my players (I hated how monsters worked in AD&D, too). If I give weird and effective "unique" powers to monsters that are not in balance with the PCs can accomplish with their powers, my players will soon want to create Dragonshield Kobolds, Bloodaxe Berserkers and Eyes of Gruumsh. And frankly, I would have statted orc barbarians and adepts with completely different kind of powers than the ones in the Orc MM excerpt. And I'm a lousy tactician, to boot.

The powers may be unique ... but they are only "not in balance" with the PCs to the extent that they have such low life expectencies.

You could say they could play with those powers ... but they'd have considerably lower ammounts of healing surges ... not to mention a distinct lack of daily powers, etc ...

And, we have already heard that PCs do get access to some powers with are similar to those of the monsters. For example, a rogue can pull off the same garotting tricks that the monsters do. It could very well be that many of the monster powers DO exist for PCs ... but with some minor fluff changes in some cases. The "shiftiness" of kobolds is likely a racial ability, and if they made a PC playable version of the race, it would probably get a racial power involving shifting which could be improved over time with racial feats. [See also drow and darkness, gnomes and their 'illusions', etc].

So, some tricks that monsters have, especially if they appear for many monsters of that race, are likely racial in nature [or is a racial 'tradition' that they are trained in]. Orc society would likely train it's "fighter types" differently than those of human civilizations. So, the fact that there are things a PC can't do because they are of a different race than the monster shouldn't cause simulist disonance. It makes perfect sense in a world that monster races may not have shared the training in all their tactics with the "PC races".