D&D 4E Is It Time to Look at 4E Again?

[Kobold Boots]

Eh, we've been running Keep on the Shadowfell since late March in bi-weekly 8 hour sessions and averaging 2 encounters per session.. we tend to play slow and allow people to take their time.

We nearly TPK'd on the kobold hall. Two characters got away but all the tanks fell.

The large trap room on the second level of the keep was rather challenging for my party as well, mostly due to one of the characters getting stuck in the whirlpool trap early in the encounter.

That said, I find 4e to be just as lethal as any other edition is. Depends on how well you roll. I tend to average 4 criticals per session and with the way my group plays (tanks in front, party in the back) I have no problem blowing through the party's healing surges and general healing abilities.

Other than that other possible TPK experiences were due to my "figuring out" power levels and finding the right challenge for the party.

 

[Herschel]

Keep on the Shadowfel was a rough first module. The kobolds were downright nasty and the ambush before getting there netted two TPKs for me. Then again, the group wasn't quite sure what to expect and didn't think too highly of said kobolds. They learned to respect them quickly enough. The first time, the rogue went scouting ahead. The second time, the Warlord was first in party marching order and went down fast. The third time, they figured it out.

 

[Henry]

Yeah, and it's as untrue now as it was when people said it about 3e.

I made a conversion of the A1 Slave Lords module to 4E; in one playtest, the halfling rogue died in the first round of combat to four ghouls in the first combat of the game; in the actual convention game, the fighter died to a severely-scaled down basilisk in the first combat.

As for the OP, It's always worth another trial run, but I'll also say if there's something about the game that doesn't set right with your group, I wouldn't force it, either, and if you are all pretty happy with a heavily house-rules Pathfinder, stick to that.

 

[Retreater]

I'll try to answer questions as I go.

I

find I'm thinking of "is the computer plugged in?" type tech support questions here. Like, did you calculate level 1 hps using CON /score/ or CON /mod/? That could explain some TPKs if you had PCs running around at aproximately half the hps they should have.

I think we created the characters correctly. The first batch that faced the TPK in KotS (against Irontooth) were the pregens supplied with the module. The second batch were created with DDI, which handles most of the math for you.

The second enounter that was a TPK was, as far as I can tell, a by-the-book encounter. The kruthiks were supposed to be a tough encounter (one or two above the party level), but they were just devastating. Synergistic attacks and swarms of minions made sure that the party didn't land a single blow against the BBEG of the encounter.

Didn't have access to the DMG 2.

I'll need to actually consult the books (and go back in my memory) for more details about the encounters.

Retreater

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

First, a little bit of history with me and 4E.

Played through most of Keep on the Shadowfell when it was first released in May 2008. (Well, more specifically, I DMed it for a few sessions, ran into a TPK; another DM took over, I played for a few sessions, then we went back to 3.5.)

From Summer 2008 to Winter 2009, it was 3.5/Pathfinder/or other systems. In Winter 2009 I started a new group (players completely new to tabletop RPGs) with PHB 2 and a DDI subscription in addition to the Core Rules.

That went okay for a month or so. Then it ended in a TPK amidst lagging player interest and personal issues amongst the players. (At that time we were playing through the Chaos Scar encounters with some of the Adventure Path.)

Since Winter 2009 it's been PF all the way.

I've been running it, and it's okay. I haven't run into any TPKs, which happened about every other session in 4e. But I'm looking ahead to my next campaign, and I'd like to put some new flair and house rules into it. All of the house rules I'm looking at are inspired by 4e.

So, I'm wondering if I should 3.5-ize 4e or 4e-ize 3.5. Or if I should just leave well enough alone.

Has anyone else had a smiliar experience? Has anyone gone back and forth on 4E and finally discovered that they can make it work?

(I think more than anything else, I just can't run combats right in 4E or develop good encounters - which is a major problem.)

Retreater

Odd, 4e encounters are vastly easier to set up than 3.5 ones. Can't really say why you would be running into TPKs. KotS was not exactly a model of balanced play though, it doesn't follow the encounter guidelines well at all.

The general consensus has been that 4e's encounter building system actually started off dialed back to a rather easy level of difficulty with equal level encounters being either relatively trivial or at most providing a bit of attrition but no actual danger. Many players found they could pretty easily take on encounters up to at least level +7 during paragon and epic play.

Current monster guidelines have been dialed up a good bit. Level +0 encounters are now considered reasonable challenges, though still unlikely to kill off a party unless they have really bad luck or are on their last legs already. Level +3 is now TOUGH and for low level PCs life threatening. Even so 6th or higher level PCs should be able to handle these encounters most of the time.

PCs are generally SLIGHTLY stronger in heroic tier than they were with PHB1 simply because they have more options and there is some better equipment out there. Paragon and especially epic PCs though have gained a good bit of resiliency. It is quite hard to really TPK an epic party, though with the newer MM3 solo monsters it is at least possible now.

In any case if you have problems with TPKs then just dial things back some. Every group is different. Don't be afraid to adjust encounter levels when you need to. 4e assumes a reasonable amount of tactical play and if the group isn't much on tactics or the DM is especially sharp then it will make encounters tougher.

 

[TerraDave]

Keep on the Shadowfel was a rough first module.

I do wonder how much of this was just KotS, which can really surprise new players. I had multiple near TPK, and essentially did have one, but as it was so early, I hand waved it away.

With essentials, there are supposed to be several new low level modules (in the red box, DM kit, and monster vault), it might we worth checking out for those and other newby friendly stuff.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

I also think, that 4e is quite lethal... o better put, the chance of a TPK seems bigger than in previous editions...

the reason is just simple: wizards have a harder time leaving their dying friends alone

 

[josha]

I think you should give 4E another try with Essentials.
The system has been simplified in needlessly complicated areas (grapples, non-lethal damage, and the skill system), and given more depth in areas to simple or dull (the fighter class and humans). Several broken rules have also been fixed (clerics and 1st level wizards), the workload on DMs is now lighter.
The best part is you can start playing 4E for $20 with the red box coming on September 7th.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I think we created the characters correctly. The first batch that faced the TPK in KotS (against Irontooth) were the pregens supplied with the module. The second batch were created with DDI, which handles most of the math for you.

WotC seems to like to softball it's pregens a little, make them on the 'sub-optimal' side. I think it's so players will be happier when they get around to making their own characters.

The second enounter that was a TPK was, as far as I can tell, a by-the-book encounter. The kruthiks were supposed to be a tough encounter (one or two above the party level), but they were just devastating. Synergistic attacks and swarms of minions made sure that the party didn't land a single blow against the BBEG of the encounter.

BBEG? The adult? Did it just sit back and throw poison spines (a good tactic, but not what Kruthiks generally do). Minions are usually pretty easy to clear - that's what controllers are for... You didn't let 'gnashing horde' stack, did you? I've seen accidental stacking auras do some horrid things.

I'll need to actually consult the books (and go back in my memory) for more details about the encounters.

If you did H1/H2/H3, I'm less surprised about the TPKs. The early modules really did break the guidelines here and there. I don't know if it's a 'video game mentality' (you should have to go at the boss more than once), or wanting to provide a 'real challenge' or just being rushed to the printer before the encounter system was quite perfected...


For instance, one encounter in H2, the final I think it was, has a statue that just up and dazed any PC standing near it /at the start of their turn/. It couldn't be turned off or destroyed, and only attacked the PCs. And it wasn't adequately figured into the exp total of the encounter - which was overwhelming, with another elite overleveled controller with an unwarranted terrain advantage (also not figured into the difficulty) that made it unhittable.


In stark contrast to their own early modules, the 4e encounter guidelines produce very reasonable combats - even a tad easy.

 

[Gort]

We need more information on how you design such killer combats. It is quiet hard to be so lethal using the encounter guidelines from the DMG.

Not really, in my experience. Some monsters are obviously better than others, and you should ABSOLUTELY be using the errataed monster damage guidelines that arose from Monster Manual 3 - depending on which monster we look at, it can be an increase in damage output by 50%, sometimes even more.

A lot of it will depend on your party, also. The parties I tend to run for are reasonably well-versed in optimisation - they'll boost the right stats, take feats that make sense at the time - but they don't do stuff like go on the Wizards optimisation boards, download an optimised build and use it. If yours do, I could see how it might be difficult to challenge a permanently flying, invisible ranger who consistently does 150 damage per round.

Party composition is also important. A party consisting of leaders and defenders will tend to be extremely robust, if a bit dull to play with. In my groups I tend to encourage them to have a leader and a defender, and to fill the rest of the group with strikers. Keeps combats fast, deadly and interesting.

If you want to do lots of damage in encounters, I recommend skirmishers. Good accurate damage, often with a "and do an extra 4d6 damage if you do this" kicker, will leave your characters screaming. Try to avoid using soldiers, they lead to dull combats.

Another thing that might affect the "optimisation" of the parties in my games is that I have them use the standard array - 16, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10. Not being able to start with a 20 in your primary stat definitely lowers the power level of the party. It's listed as "method 1" in the PHB, so I think that effectively makes it the, "default that the game was balanced around". Another thing I don't do is follow the 4e "have your players make a wishlist of stuff they want" philosophy. I'll put treasure they can USE in the game, but I'd have thought that using wishlists would just lead to treasure becoming yet another avenue for tediously over-optimised characters.

Last of all, keep in mind that for a hard encounter you can go up to four levels higher than your party. Five brutes who are all hitting for an average of 20 damage apiece will scare the crap out of your average level 1 fighter with his 30 hitpoints.

Edit: Just for the sake of information, I've only had the one TPK in my time playing 4e. I've killed four or so other PCs besides that TPK, though.

Edit 2: Oh yeah, and if you like, you could post the character sheets of these PCs you're having such a hard time killing and maybe we could help you out.