Cyronax
Explorer
I wanted to post my overall view of the 4e system so far. I got a good taste of the mechanics based on playing in 11-12 Delves (30 min. 1-3 encounter demos) and the 2 Living FR Previews (4 hrs. gaming each).
Up front, I did pre-purchase the 4e core books, but I only did that because I had the funds. I do not necessarily intend to automatically drop 3.5.
Anyway, I did enjoy 4E. I played the Eladrin Ranger about 60% of the time, followed by 20% with the Tiefling Wizard, and the remaining time spent testing out the other combos. I did not play the halfling paladin (more on that later).
First of all, I have to say that as a player and DM who enjoys playing complex characters with many interlocking facets such as Batman wizards or a multi-classed cleric, I was surprised at how quickly I was overwhelmed by certain rules.
I am surprised to say this, but of the pregen characters presented, I had the most trouble effectively playing the Dwarven Fighter. I do not like the 'marks,' nor was I that enthralled with the fighter's overall play. I kept forgetting to attack an enemy that moved away from me (and opened themselves up for an auto attack).
For some reason, that part of the combat felt more complex and less flowing than it used to . I hope the fighter will remain a good class for beginners and doesn't progress into something overly complex (especially when a old hand like me had problems).
On the other hand, I had been looking forward to playing the wizard. One of the things that interested me the most about 4E was how the wizard would be more active on the battlefield at low levels. Rituals, likewise, seemed like a great development, and would help break out of 3.5's 'scry, teleport, kill' high-level combo.
That said, I was actually a little bit bored by the wizard in combat. There was no strategy involved when playing it. Whereas the fighter was overly complex, the wizard was reduced to deciding if it wanted to hit more monsters and get lower damage (scorching blast) or if it wanted to hit one monster for more damage (magic missle). That's all it was basically. Non-at will abilities likewise were ... 'meh.' I really hope that the design team hasn't stripped out too many of the wizard's utility and non-combat spell regime. Again I know these demos were exercises in combat mechanics .... but those are concerns that my time at the convention raised.
Healing worked pretty good. The cleric was very fun to play, and I loved how everybody BUT the fighter was required to use a standard action to use second wind. I think that's a great benefit for the fighter, despite my earlier comments.
Ranger = love. I loved the eladrin ranger. I started a Delve as the ranger because I was the last person to join a group, and I ended up pleading to play the ranger at every game from then on. The combined mobility of the eladrin's fey step and the ranger's Fox's Cunning and Nimble Strike made archery cool again mechanically IMO. It played out in a way similar to Legolas in LoTR movies. I haven't read many of the other post-convention threads yet, but I am willing to bet that a lot of people will have sentiments similar to these.
I HATED the paladin. I leave it there however, since one of the developers (I think it was Andy Collins) told me that they'd fixed a lot of the problems with the paladin, so I will hold back and merely say the paladin at the convention might have been better received if it hadn't been a halfling. Most of my friends at the con felt that the combination of flawed class features along with a low damage dealing halfling made it a lemon of a character.
Overall, combat was about the pace that I expected. Expect lots of movement on the battlefield. Lots of dice rolls and lots of ongoing damage made a lot of the players confused, and a good DM is necessary to keep track of everything. I found myself confused a lot about the status of my party members due to a lot different ongoing damage occurring during some of the Delves. I think that that will occur a lot when the real 4e games start chugging along.
I did really like the new saving throw system. It lends itself to simplicity, but its main problem may be that people will forget to make their saves in certain situations, unless the DM is on his/her ball.
Okay, so my overall assessment of combat ...... really fun, if the DM is competent of maintaining a good running tally of initiative and ongoing damage. During many of the Delves, I saw the RPGA DMs and the 4e designers like Wyatt and Collins writing vertical initiative tallies with init count, character name, being followed by if a monster or PC was 'marked' or ongoing damage and duration. As a DM, I hadn't seen that method before, having instead used a number sheet with character/monster counters that was visible to the whole group.
Minor issue, but I thought it was key to making 4e combat flow, especially with the stacking ongoing damage stuff (which I liked).
I will write my thoughts on monster design and what I thought of some other aspects later.
(Edit: following sections were posted here, but was originally posted later in thread)
To continue my review ... or at least impressions of 4th edition, I turn to the stuff I was most interested in as a DM, the monster design and prep time.
Having seen the elegance of static defenses and perception, along with the simplified save, I am now very confident that the monster design system will be pleasing in like manner.
During a few of the demos, an RPGA DM would explain that minions would die within 1 hit generally. Cool. I like it. A dividing line between a roleplaying oriented DM and a straight combat DM style will be how he describes minions (and other roles).
For instance, one of the Delve DMs (early into the XP, when I was still getting used to the game) merely introduced an encounter along lines like this:
"You enter a dark cavernous chamber ..... as it comes into full view you see a monster and its minions."
The minis present were skeletons or some type of undead, and combat began not long after.
By the second round the 'monster' attacked one of the characters with a bow or sling. Anyway, none of the minis were armed with ranged weapons, so one of the players asked ...."What kind of monsters are these?"
The DM just said "they're minions, they die in one hit......they're a rabble of peasants and an archer."
It was a little jarring. Anyway, that was an extreme example, and I think the DM was just a little tired (especially because he rocked in another Delve I played in).
But .. the point is the presentation of minions really matters. The more interesting the minion or at least the less sure the players were that we were facing minions, the more fun I had. The same follows on with the other monster roles. (I think this point is being discussed in another thread.)
----------------
During the LFR 1 scenario, we fought a few Sembian guards and a Sembian official that were bullying a local contact. As part of the battle, the DM opened up on the halfling with a 'power' that really hurt the halfling, knocking him prone. The halfling's player asked what kind of power was it? The NDA that the DMs were bound to must have limited the DM's ability to just name the power, so he answered by describing the power with flourish (as DMs love to do).
So that point drove home one of my misgivings with the Book of 9 Swords and potentially 4e. I don't like simply saying I use "Tide of Iron," and then going from there. I want the DM and the players to try to be as descriptive as possible with their powers in order to try to limit our gamist instincts. I as DM will make double sure to do this, because I think it adds a lot to the gaming experience when the players don't quite know exactly what the power was that just hit them. I'd rather them think, "Whoah that guard is pretty handy with that mace, I wonder if I can get past it and try to tackle him."
------------
Prep time:
Final point. I think that the prep time of many DMs will be reduced significantly due to the scaleable roles that are associated with monsters.
Case in point, the DM of the LFR 1 preview I mentioned above told us that the merchant guards we fought were in fact level 5 (i think) bandits, but that the preview just renamed them. To me that says that DM customizeability and creativity are built into the Monster Manual. In a way that is much more quickly accomplished than in the 3e MM, as well as the NPC generation chapters in the DMG.
I see a set of monster stats as being more portable. I think 4e will probably allow the DM to pore over stats of different monsters and say, "okay the party's goin to fight some orc dervishes tonight. The orc entry doesn't have a 'dervish-like' feel. So I'll just swap out this feature or that feature and I just made a level-appropriate orc dervish out of the stats for a gypsy blade dancer" (or something along those lines), all within the confines of the rules presented in monster design in either the DMG or the MM.
So in the end, the DM will probably have more power. The danger of making a faulty monster due to an 'eyeballing' -led approach is probably overblown, and there is less fear of getting a monsters feats and skills messed up than in 3.5.
HUH?!
.... after I wrote all of this, I realize I sound like a 4e fanboy. I'm not a wholesale advocate of the system, but it does appear to be strong.
My main probable gripe will be that it gives up some of the positive complexity of 3.5. Specifically, I worry that the versatility of the Rogue and some other classes, and the ability of the commonman/everyman Hero is gone. I also share the concerns of many that predict 4e to be nothing more than a meta-gamed out Fight Club with PCs that never face extended periods of adversity or downtime. What I don't want is the 1st to 30th level progression to occur in a the space of a few days or months game time.
BUT, overall ... I see 4e as positive. It puts more power into the hands of both the players and the DM. At least I hope.
Hope this is useful
C.I.D.
Up front, I did pre-purchase the 4e core books, but I only did that because I had the funds. I do not necessarily intend to automatically drop 3.5.
Anyway, I did enjoy 4E. I played the Eladrin Ranger about 60% of the time, followed by 20% with the Tiefling Wizard, and the remaining time spent testing out the other combos. I did not play the halfling paladin (more on that later).
First of all, I have to say that as a player and DM who enjoys playing complex characters with many interlocking facets such as Batman wizards or a multi-classed cleric, I was surprised at how quickly I was overwhelmed by certain rules.
I am surprised to say this, but of the pregen characters presented, I had the most trouble effectively playing the Dwarven Fighter. I do not like the 'marks,' nor was I that enthralled with the fighter's overall play. I kept forgetting to attack an enemy that moved away from me (and opened themselves up for an auto attack).
For some reason, that part of the combat felt more complex and less flowing than it used to . I hope the fighter will remain a good class for beginners and doesn't progress into something overly complex (especially when a old hand like me had problems).
On the other hand, I had been looking forward to playing the wizard. One of the things that interested me the most about 4E was how the wizard would be more active on the battlefield at low levels. Rituals, likewise, seemed like a great development, and would help break out of 3.5's 'scry, teleport, kill' high-level combo.
That said, I was actually a little bit bored by the wizard in combat. There was no strategy involved when playing it. Whereas the fighter was overly complex, the wizard was reduced to deciding if it wanted to hit more monsters and get lower damage (scorching blast) or if it wanted to hit one monster for more damage (magic missle). That's all it was basically. Non-at will abilities likewise were ... 'meh.' I really hope that the design team hasn't stripped out too many of the wizard's utility and non-combat spell regime. Again I know these demos were exercises in combat mechanics .... but those are concerns that my time at the convention raised.
Healing worked pretty good. The cleric was very fun to play, and I loved how everybody BUT the fighter was required to use a standard action to use second wind. I think that's a great benefit for the fighter, despite my earlier comments.
Ranger = love. I loved the eladrin ranger. I started a Delve as the ranger because I was the last person to join a group, and I ended up pleading to play the ranger at every game from then on. The combined mobility of the eladrin's fey step and the ranger's Fox's Cunning and Nimble Strike made archery cool again mechanically IMO. It played out in a way similar to Legolas in LoTR movies. I haven't read many of the other post-convention threads yet, but I am willing to bet that a lot of people will have sentiments similar to these.
I HATED the paladin. I leave it there however, since one of the developers (I think it was Andy Collins) told me that they'd fixed a lot of the problems with the paladin, so I will hold back and merely say the paladin at the convention might have been better received if it hadn't been a halfling. Most of my friends at the con felt that the combination of flawed class features along with a low damage dealing halfling made it a lemon of a character.
Overall, combat was about the pace that I expected. Expect lots of movement on the battlefield. Lots of dice rolls and lots of ongoing damage made a lot of the players confused, and a good DM is necessary to keep track of everything. I found myself confused a lot about the status of my party members due to a lot different ongoing damage occurring during some of the Delves. I think that that will occur a lot when the real 4e games start chugging along.
I did really like the new saving throw system. It lends itself to simplicity, but its main problem may be that people will forget to make their saves in certain situations, unless the DM is on his/her ball.
Okay, so my overall assessment of combat ...... really fun, if the DM is competent of maintaining a good running tally of initiative and ongoing damage. During many of the Delves, I saw the RPGA DMs and the 4e designers like Wyatt and Collins writing vertical initiative tallies with init count, character name, being followed by if a monster or PC was 'marked' or ongoing damage and duration. As a DM, I hadn't seen that method before, having instead used a number sheet with character/monster counters that was visible to the whole group.
Minor issue, but I thought it was key to making 4e combat flow, especially with the stacking ongoing damage stuff (which I liked).
I will write my thoughts on monster design and what I thought of some other aspects later.
(Edit: following sections were posted here, but was originally posted later in thread)
To continue my review ... or at least impressions of 4th edition, I turn to the stuff I was most interested in as a DM, the monster design and prep time.
Having seen the elegance of static defenses and perception, along with the simplified save, I am now very confident that the monster design system will be pleasing in like manner.
During a few of the demos, an RPGA DM would explain that minions would die within 1 hit generally. Cool. I like it. A dividing line between a roleplaying oriented DM and a straight combat DM style will be how he describes minions (and other roles).
For instance, one of the Delve DMs (early into the XP, when I was still getting used to the game) merely introduced an encounter along lines like this:
"You enter a dark cavernous chamber ..... as it comes into full view you see a monster and its minions."
The minis present were skeletons or some type of undead, and combat began not long after.
By the second round the 'monster' attacked one of the characters with a bow or sling. Anyway, none of the minis were armed with ranged weapons, so one of the players asked ...."What kind of monsters are these?"
The DM just said "they're minions, they die in one hit......they're a rabble of peasants and an archer."
It was a little jarring. Anyway, that was an extreme example, and I think the DM was just a little tired (especially because he rocked in another Delve I played in).
But .. the point is the presentation of minions really matters. The more interesting the minion or at least the less sure the players were that we were facing minions, the more fun I had. The same follows on with the other monster roles. (I think this point is being discussed in another thread.)
----------------
During the LFR 1 scenario, we fought a few Sembian guards and a Sembian official that were bullying a local contact. As part of the battle, the DM opened up on the halfling with a 'power' that really hurt the halfling, knocking him prone. The halfling's player asked what kind of power was it? The NDA that the DMs were bound to must have limited the DM's ability to just name the power, so he answered by describing the power with flourish (as DMs love to do).
So that point drove home one of my misgivings with the Book of 9 Swords and potentially 4e. I don't like simply saying I use "Tide of Iron," and then going from there. I want the DM and the players to try to be as descriptive as possible with their powers in order to try to limit our gamist instincts. I as DM will make double sure to do this, because I think it adds a lot to the gaming experience when the players don't quite know exactly what the power was that just hit them. I'd rather them think, "Whoah that guard is pretty handy with that mace, I wonder if I can get past it and try to tackle him."
------------
Prep time:
Final point. I think that the prep time of many DMs will be reduced significantly due to the scaleable roles that are associated with monsters.
Case in point, the DM of the LFR 1 preview I mentioned above told us that the merchant guards we fought were in fact level 5 (i think) bandits, but that the preview just renamed them. To me that says that DM customizeability and creativity are built into the Monster Manual. In a way that is much more quickly accomplished than in the 3e MM, as well as the NPC generation chapters in the DMG.
I see a set of monster stats as being more portable. I think 4e will probably allow the DM to pore over stats of different monsters and say, "okay the party's goin to fight some orc dervishes tonight. The orc entry doesn't have a 'dervish-like' feel. So I'll just swap out this feature or that feature and I just made a level-appropriate orc dervish out of the stats for a gypsy blade dancer" (or something along those lines), all within the confines of the rules presented in monster design in either the DMG or the MM.
So in the end, the DM will probably have more power. The danger of making a faulty monster due to an 'eyeballing' -led approach is probably overblown, and there is less fear of getting a monsters feats and skills messed up than in 3.5.
HUH?!
.... after I wrote all of this, I realize I sound like a 4e fanboy. I'm not a wholesale advocate of the system, but it does appear to be strong.
My main probable gripe will be that it gives up some of the positive complexity of 3.5. Specifically, I worry that the versatility of the Rogue and some other classes, and the ability of the commonman/everyman Hero is gone. I also share the concerns of many that predict 4e to be nothing more than a meta-gamed out Fight Club with PCs that never face extended periods of adversity or downtime. What I don't want is the 1st to 30th level progression to occur in a the space of a few days or months game time.
BUT, overall ... I see 4e as positive. It puts more power into the hands of both the players and the DM. At least I hope.
Hope this is useful
C.I.D.
Last edited:
