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

[vagabundo]

[MENTION=11239]Gort[/MENTION]: I think I should have wrote: "Accidentally" lethal. The DMG guidelines are fairly transparent, so DM's should be able to create challenging encounters without accidentally creating killer ones.

Saying that, Retreater mentioned using kruthiks*, these beastie's really are PC killers. I've heard quiet a few stories about them being involved in TPKs. I think they hit well above their level.

*I do remember not using an encounter from KotS with these little guys in it - mostly for flavour reasons - but then hearing that this was a poxy encounter if run, as is, on a 1st level party. KotS is a pretty bad introduction to 4e anyway.

 

[Jhaelen]

You didn't let 'gnashing horde' stack, did you? I've seen accidental stacking auras do some horrid things.

Actually, I think, that was changed in one of the recent rules updates: the damaging elements of auraus now stack. It's only penalties that don't stack, now.

I've started playing the Ashen Crown module which also features lots of kruthiks but compared to some of the encounters involving undead, they were easy-peasy.

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.

I've seen similar stuff in other modules and I agree that this is something I don't like. Either such affects must affect the opposition as well or they should be designed as hazards, granting xp.

 

[jimmifett]

Irontooth can be a pretty tough fight, especially in the retail version of KotS. I suggest you get the updated pdf free from the wizard's site.

Basically, The waterfall + iron tooth's cave can be a VERY tough encounter, one the DM will have to adjust on the fly. Normally, you have the outside encounter (the water fall), followed by a rest, followed by the cave. If you (as the DM) let a kobold get inside to warn the others, you as the DM have to decide what the others are going to do. Do you have the enemies rush outside and join the existing fight? (two full encounters mashed together, regardless of irontooth, is very tough at low levels). Do the monsters in the cave instead setup an ambush?

If the inside monsters aren't alerted, then the players can choose how they want to enter. Ideally, the players should take the cave slowly / tactically, creating choke points. As DM, I have irontooth hang back until half+ of his underlings are defeated, as why should he risk his life when he can always get more kobolds. When he does wade in, keep in mind that he's been errata'd such that his big attack must hit 2 different targets.

It's also been said that irontooth is an example of encounter PCs should run from, maybe coming back at lvl 2 or 3, but i'm not sure if the story is really setup for this, it's been a while.

 

[Retreater]

It sounds like I was running everything by the book, which is why our experience went so askew. It seems like everything that did in the party has been errata'd. Which begs the question, why did WotC release this? These products have soured my group's impressions of 4E for more than two years.

The kruthik encounter was one that I created in a dungeon of my own design for a group that did not play KotS. I think I used the stats from DDI when I ran the adventure (back in Oct. 09), so if those were updated at that time, I was using the updated stats.

I guess I'll have to see if Essentials proves a successful reboot of 4E. With so much houseruling and modficiation necessary to run a successful game (even if the houserules come from WotC), I don't know if it will be the system for me. (Really, I have to change the damage of all the monsters from the Monster Manual? I've already scribbled new DCs throughout my PHB because that was done inaccurately.)

So what changes do I need to make to the core 4E to make it a viable game that plays as intended?

Retreater

 

[Gort]

It sounds like I was running everything by the book, which is why our experience went so askew. It seems like everything that did in the party has been errata'd. Which begs the question, why did WotC release this?

Good grief.

 

[jbear]

Good grief.

Yes, indeed...

Anyway.

My short answer would be, 'yes, it's a good time to try it again.'

My next answer would be, 'I haven't played Pathfinder, so i wouldn't know. But personally, all of the things I have wanted to alter in 4e have slotted into the system seamlessly and effortlessly. Nothing has fallen apart.' I'm not sure what kind of game you are looking for, or the kind you enjoy, which elements you like/dislike/prefer from the two systems... so it's hard to call. You seem kind of caught in a limbo in between.

What would you have to do ... well... tricky question.

You could hunt down a 4e game and try it with experienced 4e players, as opposed to your friends. That might give you a fresh perspective on it. Butthat might not be possible, or something you'd be prepared to do or even enjoy. So...

You could start from Essentials and use it exclusively. It's designed for new players. But none of us have played/tried or even properly seen Essentials... so, who knows...?

Or you could get a DDI account, even for just a month, which would give you access to two increadible tools, the Monster Builder, and the Character Builder. Then you could pick up something like Masterplan program (free) to help you organise your campaign, encounters, battles etc. You wouldn't have to rebuild all your creatures in the MM, only adjust the ones that you are actually going to use. Plus there is the MM2 ... and MM3... with one subscription you get access to everything. Pretty good deal, don't you think?

Will Essentials make you like 4e any more? I don't know. A lot of people are asking the same question. Personally I love the system already. I liked it from the start, and from where I'm sitting, it just keeps getting better.

Good luck in finding the game where you can feel like that's the game you want to be playing.

 

[Retreater]

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.

Does DDI update the monsters to this new standard? If not, where can I get this information (aside from the obvious purchasing MM3)?

You could hunt down a 4e game and try it with experienced 4e players, as opposed to your friends. That might give you a fresh perspective on it.

I wish. There's zero love for 4E in my area that I know of.

I'll try giving it a shot with the Red Box - considering I should be able to buy at Target with a birthday giftcard. It will be a small risk to give the system another chance.

Retreater

 

[nightwyrm]

Does DDI update the monsters to this new standard? If not, where can I get this information (aside from the obvious purchasing MM3)?

Old monsters are not updated, but you can get the new "expected damage by monster level" chart in either the aug or jul (I forgot which) update available on the WotC website. A simple way I use, which seems to work reasonably well, is to either add another damage dice or double the static damage for pre-MM3 monsters.

 

[Aegeri]

Good grief.

This amuses me, because in my head I imagine Charlie Brown is reading the forum and saying that out loud.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Hmmm... so, the first module put 'em off, and maybe you stacked some auras you shouldn't have (if they made 'em stack, it's a very recent - and very bad - update. There's been a spate of rather questionable updates, lately - presumably, it's all going to come together when Essentials comse out.).

Anyway, I guess I'd have to conclude: no, now is not a good time. If you're having fun with Pathfinder, stick with it for another year or so. Then come back when the Essentials dust has settled, and any intitial problems (analogous to those with the first 4e modules) get hammered out and errata'd.