D&D 4E Highlights from the D&D Convention .... 4E reaction (after over 14 hrs of play)

[Cyronax]

I wasn't at D&D XP, but I can read a character sheet, so I have a pretty good guess:

In 3.x, you get an AoO if your opponent moves more than 5 feet without tumbling or withdrawing.

In 4th edition, you get an OA if your opponent uses a move action to move away from you. You do not get an OA if your opponent spends his move action to shift (move one square) instead... unless you are the fighter whose special power enables her to take an OA whenever an opponent shifts.

In 3.x parlance, it's like having a feat that lets you take an AoO whenever an opponent takes a 5' step. Most people don't get it. If you're used to 3.x, you're used to 5' steps not provoking. So, it's the kind of thing that would be easy to miss--particularly if you're struggling to keep track of a bunch of ongoing and single round condition modifiers (I have an AC bonus from shielding smite, am taking ongoing damage from an poison (save at the end of turn), am imobilized by kobold glue (save at end of turn), and that opponent over there--the kobold with blue tac on his spear--has my mark and takes -2 to hit anyone who isn't me. Oh, and the cleric just hit with his attack so I get another bonus for a round).

That's exactly right, Elder-Basilisk. The RPGA DMs had to continually remind players of fighters that they could attack. And keep in mind that this isn't for your 'marked' enemy.

Its for any enemy that moves away from you.

Also to be clear, I don't think its overpowered. In fact I think its a good feature for the fighter. My point had been that the feel of the fighter had changed significantly from what I had expected.

But then again, it was only a 1st level character, and this is probably just another higlight that 4e is a whole new ballgame.

 

[Cake Mage]

ah. way cool, thanks.

 

[Cyronax]

The wizard also probably didn't have all the cantrips he can normally have, and there were no rituals. Or switching out of implements for another (I am imagining a wizard having a belt with various implements tied to it).

Yeah, I agree. I think it'll be fleshed out and my concerns allayed. I just really really hope that I can still make an Illusionist-esque wizard with material from the original 4e core books.

Ditto for a Necromancer.

C.I.D.

 

[Cyronax]

Only to note your character preference...



Why does the fighter nee to be the beginner class? For complxity: we are still used to 3.5 and you seem to prefer the non-melee types.



Hey, good to hear, that the wizard is easy to play, if you are used to play the class in 3.5.
Or ... is the wizard the new beginner class?



Good to hear that, but I think it is a race and not a class feature.



Interesting. By the write up I thought the ranger the most boring. Glad to hear it is fun to play

In addition to wizards, I actually tend to play melee oriented characters, usulaly a warrior x/cleric x. So I'm not biased against complexity in melee fighters .... just found it unusual that a 1st level fighter was that difficult to master quickly.

In 3.5, I actually think that fighters can get very complex at high levels, and I like that fact.

 

[SupremeBadgerLord]

That's exactly right, Elder-Basilisk. The RPGA DMs had to continually remind players of fighters that they could attack. And keep in mind that this isn't for your 'marked' enemy.

Its for any enemy that moves away from you.

Also to be clear, I don't think its overpowered. In fact I think its a good feature for the fighter. My point had been that the feel of the fighter had changed significantly from what I had expected.

But then again, it was only a 1st level character, and this is probably just another higlight that 4e is a whole new ballgame.

Every other week for the last 4 months I've reminded the fighter in my home group how marking works for a fighter. He still doesn't remember how it works. I blame that on the player not the system though

 

[Cyronax]

Every other week for the last 4 months I've reminded the fighter in my home group how marking works for a fighter. He still doesn't remember how it works. I blame that on the player not the system though

Again, I'm not talking about marking in this instance. I'm talking about the ability called "combat challenge."

Combat Challenge: when an adjacent enemy shifts, make an immediate melee basic attack against them.

In almost every Demo I played in (and again I was usually the ranger), players continually forgot this aspect. Several DMs commented on this fact.

As far as my dislike of marks, I just don't know if I like how an enemy can stay marked (or divinely challenged), even if the character who marked them is busy fighting another enemy on the other side of the room.

 

[Corinth]

Yeah, I agree. I think it'll be fleshed out and my concerns allayed. I just really really hope that I can still make an Illusionist-esque wizard with material from the original 4e core books.

Ditto for a Necromancer.

C.I.D.

Illusionists and Necromaners are separate classes in 4.0 that receive their abilities from a Power Source other than Arcane or Divine power, as noted in a preview leak some months ago, and currently it's believed that both are Shadow-powered with the Illusionist being the Controller and the Necromancer being the Leader class.

 

[SupremeBadgerLord]

Again, I'm not talking about marking in this instance. I'm talking about the ability called "combat challenge."

Combat Challenge: when an adjacent enemy shifts, make an immediate melee basic attack against them.

In almost every Demo I played in (and again I was usually the ranger), players continually forgot this aspect. Several DMs commented on this fact.

As far as my dislike of marks, I just don't know if I like how an enemy can stay marked (or divinely challenged), even if the character who marked them is busy fighting another enemy on the other side of the room.

Combat Challenge is the name of the fighter classes marking. No worries I'm using terminology that wasn't used at DDE I guess. I assure you it is the same difference. We are talking about the exact same thing people are forgetting to do. Funny thing is the two different paladins in the group have never had any problem remembering how Divine Challenge works, that's why at least as far as my group goes, I'm blaming it on the player not caring enough to remember, rather than the system.

 

[KarinsDad]

As far as my dislike of marks, I just don't know if I like how an enemy can stay marked (or divinely challenged), even if the character who marked them is busy fighting another enemy on the other side of the room.

I think one potential house rule that might see a lot of use might be as long as the marker keeps attacking the marked, he stays marked. If the marker does not attack the marked in a given round, the mark vanishes.

The concept of the marker going off and doing other things and an opponent stays marked sounds wrong.

 

[Cyronax]

I think one potential house rule that might see a lot of use might be as long as the marker keeps attacking the marked, he stays marked. If the marker does not attack the marked in a given round, the mark vanishes.

The concept of the marker going off and doing other things and an opponent stays marked sounds wrong.

That's a good house rule. I might use that, if the marks aren't altered/fixed by the time of release.