How does mid- and high-level play pan out in the new edition?

This is clearly one of the design goals of 4E. I know it's hard to step back and look at it from a blank slate point of view, but is that really necessarily a big factor in the way the game "seems" in the absolute, rather than just in contrast with 3.x? I mean, shouldn't it be that the feel of the game comes from the variety and choice you mention, and the increased special effects, rather than from arithmetic?

That said, it's probably good for DMs to mix in the occasional much-lower- and much-higher-level opponent so you can feel how the math changes too.

I was actually very happy about that fact. My biggest gripe with 3.x was how much of a pain higher level stuff was, primarily in the area of math being both blown out of proportion and lots of temporary, stacking numerical modifiers to keep track of. Both are issues 4e doesn't have, and I think that's fantastic.

I think that some things are deceptively similar. A slide 7 looks a lot like a slide 2 with a bigger number. But a little forced movement repositions someone within a fight, while the big one can throw people out of the fight entirely. When you can force a move greater than the target's speed and then move yourself, some interesting tactics open up.

Plus a group is a lot more likely to have some nasty wall or zone effects at that level. Higher level characters tend to have a lot more interlocking elements.

The thing is, it's really, really hard to get out of someone's range.

Take a fighter in heavy armor, movement of 5. He can run (7) and charge (5), meaning he can basically attack anyone within 12 squares. Granted, it's a basic attack, but it sucks to be next to a fighter and marked if you weren't intending on attacking him.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Take a fighter in heavy armor, movement of 5. He can run (7) and charge (5), meaning he can basically attack anyone within 12 squares. Granted, it's a basic attack, but it sucks to be next to a fighter and marked if you weren't intending on attacking him.

Yeah, he can basic attack at -5 from running someone 12 squares away. If the battlefield is open - forced movement ignores difficult terrain, the other guy moving back generally doesn't.
 

Plus a group is a lot more likely to have some nasty wall or zone effects at that level. Higher level characters tend to have a lot more interlocking elements.
Zone effects are one thing I hadn't mentioned that I did notice for the warlock in particular, so there is that to look forward to. And of course you are correct in that as these abilities become more prevalent, the tactics begin to change some.

I don't know. I'm keeping an open mind. And the game is certainly tactically interesting now. But I can still see a point where it begins to fail to be so, mostly because of a lack of late-game tactical changes. Hopefully, as you say, the expanding options will keep the game fresh for 30 levels, the way 3e did for 20 (our last campaign went from 1-20 over the course of about 2 years.)

I'd still like to hear more opinions on mid- and high-level play, for those who have experience with such.
 

However, as I leaf through the later abilities, I start to realize that, beyond slides, short teleports, and AoE...the game does not seem to offer anything new at mid- and high-levels. Instead, the numbers just get slightly bigger. A slightly longer slide. A slightly longer short-range teleport (or short-range fly). A slightly wider AoE. A couple additional damage dice.

What I'm asking is, is there something I'm not seeing on the printed page? Do mid- and high-level combat offer different and varied tactical challenges not seen in the low-level game? Or is the game, while interesting at low-levels, lacking depth?
The Game does not fundamentally change as characters gain levels and abilities anymore.:lol: A good portion of the "tactical depth" at higher levels in 4E comes from the more exotic / extreme environments the battles take place in. Far better that 3E's "tactical height" IE blasting foes while Flying outside the range of Dispel Magic.
 

I was actually very happy about that fact. My biggest gripe with 3.x was how much of a pain higher level stuff was, primarily in the area of math being both blown out of proportion and lots of temporary, stacking numerical modifiers to keep track of. Both are issues 4e doesn't have, and I think that's fantastic.

Yes, exactly. The wide number spread is certainly a hallmark of high-level 3.xE play, but I think the fact that it is so dominant in the feel of the game is a problem. I don't think lopsided math should be something that sticks out so much.
 

I was actually very happy about that fact. My biggest gripe with 3.x was how much of a pain higher level stuff was, primarily in the area of math being both blown out of proportion and lots of temporary, stacking numerical modifiers to keep track of. Both are issues 4e doesn't have, and I think that's fantastic.

Yes, exactly. The wide number spread is certainly a hallmark of high-level 3.xE play, but I think the fact that it is so dominant in the feel of the game is a problem. I don't think lopsided math should be something that sticks out so much.
 

Remove ads

Top