Has 4E D&D become deadlier than 3E?
- Thread starter reveal
- Start date
Jack99
Adventurer
I see one at least every other fight, if not more.
Doug McCrae
Legend
Combat is less swingy than 3e due to greater hit points and lower damage. It's harder for a PC to die because the -ve threshold is greater.
That said, I TPKed the party on the second fight of my first session. There wasn't any bad luck or bad tactics, it's just a level+4 encounter is dangerous, especially when the PCs are level 1. Hopefully I learned something from this.
<- killer DM
That said, I TPKed the party on the second fight of my first session. There wasn't any bad luck or bad tactics, it's just a level+4 encounter is dangerous, especially when the PCs are level 1. Hopefully I learned something from this.
<- killer DM
Victim
First Post
I think that the baseline fight in 4e is more dangerous than the standard fight in 3e. On the other hand, we didn't do too many standard 3e fights. But I think that many 3e fights were dangerous in terms of spike damage - comparatively, 3e characters were usually like glass cannons. It's not unreasonable for many characters to self kill on average (in terms of hitting and not just raw damage) in 2-3 rounds; some would drop themselves in a single round. Combine that with a few people acting in concert on a side, you have groups losing at least one character (PC or monster) every round to focused fire. Even in a fight the group quickly wins, it's easy to lose someone to a focused or lucky attack early on. On the other hand, in 4e it seems like individual PCs are at less risk of death (since it's easy to heal up KO'd people and buffer from KO to death is bigger), but the party as a whole seems to have a bigger risk of losing.
Another issue is that so far it leasts like PCs exist in a narrower range of power for their level. In 3e, some characters could defeat foes that vastly outleveled them, especially with group support. This power disparity makes many fights easier (because the group is powerful), but some really hard since the GM is trying to create a challenging encounter for the powerful characters but doesn't exactly know how to adjust things - it's easy to go too high. It looks like 4e encounters will generally be closer to the expected level of challenge.
Another issue is that so far it leasts like PCs exist in a narrower range of power for their level. In 3e, some characters could defeat foes that vastly outleveled them, especially with group support. This power disparity makes many fights easier (because the group is powerful), but some really hard since the GM is trying to create a challenging encounter for the powerful characters but doesn't exactly know how to adjust things - it's easy to go too high. It looks like 4e encounters will generally be closer to the expected level of challenge.
Raven Crowking
First Post
Because 4e takes away much of the attrition model of earlier editions, to feel signifcant an encounter must often be deadly. Instead of having a wide range of outcomes built into the system (based upon different forms of attrition), 4e has focused combat into more of a win/lose, where excitement requires a very real chance of loss.
IMHO, of course.
RC
IMHO, of course.
RC
I think D&D 4e is deadlier and agree with the posts above that think so, I like to add the following to:
1) The combat involves much more movement and such a need for greater team tactics. Characters can do more than their 3.x counterparts, even at low levels, and monsters are easier for the DM to run. Mixed with the special abilities monsters have that Henry mentioned, this makes combat as a whole able to catch the players off gaurd. Then when they do not pull themselves together, characters get killed off quickly.
2) Healing Surges add another level of danger into the game and make characters more mortal. I've had players get in over their heads unexpectedly (i.e. like from situations described above) and then use up all of their healing surges keeping themselves alive (since Clerics and Warlord healing uses up the target's surges - which is so cool). Then the player's avoid the monsters, find a place to get a breather and regain encounter powers, but their healing is gone. Their at half hitpoints, dailies expended, out of healing potions and trapped in a bad spot where they have to fight their way through minions and the other monsters. Very intense stuff.
I also like to add, that the death saving throws are very dramatic. When someone goes down and is dying the panic and drama that takes over the players is very cool. They fight their way to their allies to stabize them (unlike before when they would metagame). This adds a level of danger too, because it makes the players more reckless and take chances when someone is about to die.
I have to add (with not flaming or starting any edition wars) that with these changes alone being discussed in this thread (4e combat being more dangerous) is one of two main reasons I could never go back to a pervious version of D&D. The combat is the most cinematic and intense I have ever seen it, without random save or die effects taking away the fun. Also, the game in no way feels like World of Warcraft to me (which I played for 2 years).
The other reason is how streamline and fun DMing 4e is, absolutely in my opinion the most fun I have had running games since I was a kid and I am 34 now and being playing since I was 10. I personally think WOTC did a great job. The only thing missing is the awesome campaign setting materials of 2nd edition (Dark Sun, Planescape, Spelljammer, Ravenloft) and some of the classic modules and content like Tomb of Horrors, Temple of Elemental Evil (etc). Give them time and I sure that stuff is coming (as we've seen in the Dragon and Dungeon articles).
With these two reasons alone, I look forward to running 4e every week and our group already has some great encounters and memories made using Keep on the Shadowfell (which my players should be finishing the last two encounters this next week). Ironically, I am the sort of DM who never used minis and steered away from "typical" dungeon crawls. I am very story and roleplaying focused and leave my miniature gaming with Warhammer Fantasy Battles (which I've played for 16 years). D&D 4e I think is the first RPG that successfully uses minis to improve the combat encounter more than it hurts the immersion. The group tactics, near death elements and hordes of monsters swarming the players that come from it are awesome.
1) The combat involves much more movement and such a need for greater team tactics. Characters can do more than their 3.x counterparts, even at low levels, and monsters are easier for the DM to run. Mixed with the special abilities monsters have that Henry mentioned, this makes combat as a whole able to catch the players off gaurd. Then when they do not pull themselves together, characters get killed off quickly.
2) Healing Surges add another level of danger into the game and make characters more mortal. I've had players get in over their heads unexpectedly (i.e. like from situations described above) and then use up all of their healing surges keeping themselves alive (since Clerics and Warlord healing uses up the target's surges - which is so cool). Then the player's avoid the monsters, find a place to get a breather and regain encounter powers, but their healing is gone. Their at half hitpoints, dailies expended, out of healing potions and trapped in a bad spot where they have to fight their way through minions and the other monsters. Very intense stuff.
I also like to add, that the death saving throws are very dramatic. When someone goes down and is dying the panic and drama that takes over the players is very cool. They fight their way to their allies to stabize them (unlike before when they would metagame). This adds a level of danger too, because it makes the players more reckless and take chances when someone is about to die.
I have to add (with not flaming or starting any edition wars) that with these changes alone being discussed in this thread (4e combat being more dangerous) is one of two main reasons I could never go back to a pervious version of D&D. The combat is the most cinematic and intense I have ever seen it, without random save or die effects taking away the fun. Also, the game in no way feels like World of Warcraft to me (which I played for 2 years).
The other reason is how streamline and fun DMing 4e is, absolutely in my opinion the most fun I have had running games since I was a kid and I am 34 now and being playing since I was 10. I personally think WOTC did a great job. The only thing missing is the awesome campaign setting materials of 2nd edition (Dark Sun, Planescape, Spelljammer, Ravenloft) and some of the classic modules and content like Tomb of Horrors, Temple of Elemental Evil (etc). Give them time and I sure that stuff is coming (as we've seen in the Dragon and Dungeon articles).
With these two reasons alone, I look forward to running 4e every week and our group already has some great encounters and memories made using Keep on the Shadowfell (which my players should be finishing the last two encounters this next week). Ironically, I am the sort of DM who never used minis and steered away from "typical" dungeon crawls. I am very story and roleplaying focused and leave my miniature gaming with Warhammer Fantasy Battles (which I've played for 16 years). D&D 4e I think is the first RPG that successfully uses minis to improve the combat encounter more than it hurts the immersion. The group tactics, near death elements and hordes of monsters swarming the players that come from it are awesome.
Dice4Hire
First Post
I think 4E combat can play much closer to the line of life or death than previous editions, as characters can come back from the wrong side of 1 hit point far more easily. A minor action from any of three classes can bring them back up, and at level one, perhaps to half easily.
So going down is not as bad as before. As far as going down in a one to one fight, it is not that easy. My party fought some kobolds and the ranger was always going down. First, he got mobbed early on, and then the warpriest kept putting him down whenever he felt like it with his orb power. The problem for the party was wasting/using actions to keep him up. It made for an intersting fight, very fluid.
So going down is not as bad as before. As far as going down in a one to one fight, it is not that easy. My party fought some kobolds and the ranger was always going down. First, he got mobbed early on, and then the warpriest kept putting him down whenever he felt like it with his orb power. The problem for the party was wasting/using actions to keep him up. It made for an intersting fight, very fluid.
