Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 6175704" data-attributes="member: 42582">OK, this thread is a bit of a surreal experience, but putting that to one side!For rules, if they have a copy of Rules Compendium use that; if they don't, see if they'll pitch in and buy one for the table! Otherwise, if you're using the DMG and PHB, be prepared to download and note the errata - some of it is pretty marginal, especially at low levels (eg changes to fly rules to make play smoother) but some is not (eg changes to hiding/invis rules to rectify balance problems). There are also things that aren't relevant to either smooth play or balance, but that make a difference depending how you play them, such as multiple damage types (in the PHB you split it half/half to each type for resistance purposes; post-errata you only get the lesser of your two resistances applied to the damage as a gestalt whole).Also, many powers in the PHB have been errata-ed - far more, and more fundamentally, than in later sources - and several feats have been eclipsed by Essentials feats - if your players are building PCs in DDI they will get the errata automatically, but if you're relying on the PHB you'll notice discrepancies from time to time.For framing and running skill challenges, I strongly recommend any of the threads here over the past few years - the DMG advice is not bad content-wise but poorly presented and organised, and many of the examples are ill-conceived. On the other hand, the example in the Rules Compendium is good but has no good advice/commentary to support it. As a play technique, I suggest this one adapted from   [MENTION=6696971]Manbearcat[/MENTION] - have 3 dice on the table in front of you, one for successes, one for failures, and one for "advantages" (in-built skill challenge buffs introduced in Essentials), so the players can track the challenge without the metagame intruding into the verbal back-and-forth. I've also attached my own skill challenge guidelines, which combine what I think is the best of the DMG, DMG2 and Essentials rules and advice, plus some stuff from other places/posters too.First level PCs are fairly capable in 4e, and fairly mechanically rich, so you're probably OK starting there. If your players are experienced, you won't mind speeding through low levels - higher level monsters aren't significantly more challenging for the GM to play (whereas high level PCs are noticably more challenging for their players, with a lot of moving parts).I would suggest ignoring the XP rules and doing the old "level when appropriate" thing. I use the XP rules in my own game (I'm a bit of an irrational stickler in that respect), but it is largely a waste of time, as it always turns out that the players earn enough XP for a level in around 8 to 12 hours of play. I don't think this is an accident, either - it is a design feature. XP in 4e aren't a reward despite the misleading chapter title in the DMG; rather, they are a device for increasing the narrative scope of and narrative stakes of the game, and also for increasing the mechanical complexity of PCs (which is somewhat linked to narrative scope and stakes, but not completely). So levelling faster or slower isn't "cheating" or "ripping off the players" - it's about how quickly your group wants to escalate things.Read the DMG chapters on the gods, languages, and the default conceits of the points of light gameworld. If someone has a copy of the pre-release Worlds & Monsters, read that too - it's better than the DMG on this stuff.A lot of mechanical elements in 4e bring their own plug-and-play story heft - dwarves, tieflings, warlocks, etc - but some don't, or don't as much - halflings, rangers, wizards. My advice would be to start with what your players give you and work from there.Like XP, this approach to items makes them not really rewards, but rather PC build elements. The variation I use is one suggested in Adventurer's Vault - rather than new items I default to levelling up the PCs' existing items (unless a player expresses an interest in changing their implement, armour etc, or when I am leaving the item that will fill a new slot). This is a compromise between inherent bonuses and full-fledged items, and it helps reduce the ridiculous amounts of items and money that can otherwise end up floating around.If you have a ritual caster, rituals and ritual components also make good treasure.I never used battle maps until 4e. I draw them up on printed grid paper (my squares, drawn using a table in Word, are smaller than the offical ones, so as to get more stuff per sheet of paper) - set-pieces that I can see on the horizon I will draw up in advance; improvised stuff I draw up on the spot (or it it's very simple run gridless, either TotM or just with tokens on the table). You bascially can't go wrong with a bit of cover, a bit of difficult terrain, a pit or ledge, and a circular path: so combat encounters should mostly occur in ruins, or in woods, or on mountain plateaus, or in buildings with unreaslistically wide corridors and balconies, etc.I use old board game tokens on the maps, not miniatures.Don't let the map distract you from fictional positioning: the green swirl on your map might be difficult terrain that provides cover, but it is also a tree that can be climbed, burned etc. The blue isn't just difficult terrain or a hazard, it's also water that can be swum, frozen with an Icy Terrain spell, etc. I think a lot of the "boardgame" complaints result from forgetting about fictional positioning. Keywords - damage types and effect types - are central here, as they provide your anchor between mechanics-to-mechanics interface and mechanics-to-fiction interface.MV monsters do level+8 hp damage on a hit, more-or-less. 2 to 3 hits will drop a squishy. 4 hits will drop, or come close to dropping, a defender. I wouldn't double damage.A monster with normal hit points takes around 3 to 4 level-appropriate hits to drop it. So combat will normally last 4 to 6 rounds. If you halve hp you'll get quicker combats, but they will have less "progression/drama" than is inherent in the RAW setup. I'd suggest starting with RAW and see how it goes.I've always had a 5-PC party, and even with absence the smallest they've ever been at in combat is 3 PCs. So I can't give expert advice here. (On terminology, though, your "lazy warlord" would be a fully meta-warlord; "lazylord" refers to a real PC who only ever uses action-granting powers, and so in the fiction is a "princess", or similar non-combatant, who is being helped out by the derring- do of her warrior companions.)But I would suggest avoiding solos, especially at 1st and 2nd level. Once you get to 3rd level a single 1st level solo would be a 6th level challenge for 2 PCs, or a 4th level challenge for 3 - tough but viable.And you are correct that solos are often more fun with hangers on.At 1st level with 2 PCs I'd start with an elite and minions if you want a "boss plus goons" vibe, and see how that goes.[ATTACH]58755[/ATTACH]</blockquote>

Verification