My first 4e session (no spoilers!)

[MerricB]

Well, it's been a long wait since I wrapped up my 3.5e Ulek campaign, but today we got the chance to sit down and begin our first 4e campaign. My plan is to use the adventures published by Wizards for this initial run (whilst I run a Greyhawk homebrew on Friday nights).

Players are Sarah, Greg, Adam, Nathaniel and Josh, with Josh being the only new player to D&D; all the others are old hands now, having played with me for the past 5+ years.

We were playing at Nate's for the first time, which delayed the start of the session as people tried to find the place! Then there was the regular joy and chatter of people seeing each other again, the net result of which was the session lasted somewhere in the order of 2-1/2 to 3 hours instead of 4 hours. That's not too bad, as the group really needs time to get used to the new rules.

In that time we managed to get through the first two encounters and do some useful roleplaying in Winterhaven. I'm very fond of the set-up in Winterhaven. There's good basic information about the important townsfolk and what they know, and a good DM will easily be able to turn that into something more. Both Josh and Sarah managed to talk to the townsfolk and learn interesting things, whilst Nate and Greg managed to band together to persuade the Lord's guards to let them through after Sarah particularly flubbed her persuasion attempt.

In regard to the fights: hmm. I'm exceedingly fond of minions. They did their job very well, allowing the players to feel good about themselves. Unfortunately, that feeling didn't last that long as soon there were no minions and a small number of creatures with a surprising number of hit points. Hey, I'm used to low-level humanoids going down with one hit! These guys certainly weren't.

One of the legacies of my heavy DDM days is that I actually have enough miniatures to properly represent (or near enough) the number and types of monsters on the map. And the characters, near enough. Sure, Sarah's tiefling was using the Inspired Lieutenant figure, but it's such a good figure and hits the essence of her PC that it was a shame not to use it.

Oh, I love the little forest symbols on the map. Very useful.

So, the PCs entered both combat, they slew the minions, and then they got split up, each PC taking on pretty much one enemy. This is apparently not the best way of doing it in 4e: monsters really require some sustained hitting to take them down, so wolf pack tactics might not be out of line.

Josh's dwarven fighter got into a fighter with another defender-type; they both hit each other and marked each other. This repeated quite a bit. Greg's paladin likewise, although not quite so much. Nate, playing a Warlock, got into a shooting contest with a Controller, with Adam's Wizard occasionally wandering by. Sarah's Warlord (Yes, I have the three "W"s in my party, and it's going to be confusing) began to be frustrated at how the party wasn't staying anywhere near her and thus could use her Leader abilities effectively.

The second combat really managed to display their lack of teamwork, and my monsters took two of the PCs to 0 hit points and unconsciousness; I think Josh used 8 healing surges, during and after the fight, to recover totally. Ow. He did his job as a defender, though.

Teamwork? Oh, yes, this edition requires it massively.

Both combats lasted into their sixth round and took about an hour or so to play. I felt they were going fairly slowly, but I'm sure we'll improve. Marking and conditions are things that I'm really going to need to improve my tracking of. For marking, I just took the viewpoint that we'll keep hitting each other. Conditions for monsters are more of a problem. I use a scratchpad to keep track of their hp, and with more monsters on the table than in 3e (one of the things I really, really like about 4e), I need to pay more attention to which one is affected and the like. I really, really don't want to be putting markers on the table - mainly because I can't reach the battlemat easily. (My books are in the way).

Oh, I'd also like a new DM screen. There's actually quite a bit of stuff I'd like reminders for (like what the common knowledge skill checks are) which would fit on there nicely.

For me, the jury's still out on how it works mechanically. Flavour-wise, there's a lot to like. However, the proof of this pudding will be in the playing and I haven't done enough of that yet. There are encouraging signs, though.

Cheers!

 

[Yavathol]

That's very interesting, Merric.

I just played my first session too, the same adventure, and we had a very different experience. It could be that the DM was being kind, but I suppose he has to find his feet too, and it is better to err on the players side than go the other way, especially while learning the rules.

We had four players turn up, so we were a little under strength. People seemed a little unsure about possible complexities of the cleric and wizard, so we ended up with a paladin, a TWF ranger, an eladrin rogue and a tiefling warlock!

In protracted fights I guess we might suffer from lack of leaders, and there were quite a few misses, but in general the strikers kicked out so much damage that the shieldbearers and slingers went down in 2-3 rounds.

This was helped greatly in the first couple of fights where the rogue and ranger were able to sneak up on the kobolds and take them out from the cover of the trees without revealing their position.

I hadn't really thought about the eladrin being a good match for a rogue, but that worked very well. One kobold caught her in a glue pot but she was able to just teleport out of the square and re-establish a firing solution. Having taken the improved SA feat (d6->d8) she also kicked out far more damage than the ranger. The teleporting was also perfect for getting into a flanking position in the final fight of the evening against Ironjaw, far more effective than trying to move in confined quarters and take opportunity attacks.

Even though we only had the Paladin's breath weapon as an area effect, by carefully choosing our front line (and picking the right, unguarded entrance!) we encouraged the kobolds to charge up, miss, and shift away, thereby forming a nice 3x3 square for the paladin to catch almost all the remaining minions in a single attack!

I'm not sure if it totally feels like D&D, I really miss versatile spells like grease and detect thoughts, but we did all have a good time. Too many situational markers on the table though - this guy is bloodied and warlock cursed, this guy is hunter quarry and on fire(!), this one is divine challenged...oh well.

 

[MerricB]

Versatile spells - huh; they're overrated. Honestly, how often did you ever see them until fairly high levels (8+)? If anything, with the Wizard's cantrips of Mage Hand, Prestidigitation and Ghost Sound, they're more versatile than before.

I'm looking forward to seeing the Arcane power book, though.

Cheers!

 

[Imaro]

Hey Merric,

I just ran my first session yesterday and it went very similar to yours. What it got me to wondering was, even though the rules of 4e are simplified it feels like you still need...

1. Rules Mastery, without a player being aware of exactly how things like combat advantage, flanking, etc. work they will be at a big disadvantage.

2. Tactics... it almost feels that unless your players are better or equal tacticians to you as a DM a fight will go in your favor. I don't know if this is a good thing, especially for those who just want to have fun and kill stuff without going through the mental gymnastics of a chess match. There are no more simple "kill em" characters.

What are your thoughts on these two considerations?

 

[MerricB]

Hey Merric,

I just ran my first session yesterday and it went very similar to yours. What it got me to wondering was, even though the rules of 4e are simplified it feels like you still need...

1. Rules Mastery, without a player being aware of exactly how things like combat advantage, flanking, etc. work they will be at a big disadvantage.

This is true... but it's true of every edition of D&D. You can only get so far without knowing how things work. A thief in 1e is a pretty lousy combatant if he hasn't wised up to backstabbing (and possibly even then). The 1e wizard who only memorises Fireball will broil his party...

There are slightly more things to remember in 4e than 1e, thanks to conditions, but - honestly - most of them fit on a single page with fairly big type.

There is basically one rule to remember - that of flanking - and then each character may need one other rule. In particular, marking for the defenders, curses for the warlock, combat advantage=sneak attack for the rogue...

2. Tactics... it almost feels that unless your players are better or equal tacticians to you as a DM a fight will go in your favor. I don't know if this is a good thing, especially for those who just want to have fun and kill stuff without going through the mental gymnastics of a chess match. There are no more simple "kill em" characters.

Hmm... look, I think this depends a lot on what character you're playing. The fighter Josh was playing could pretty simply sit there and just hit whatever was in front of him and stop it from concentrating on anything else. That wasn't that hard.

Characters like the Warlord take a lot more skill to play, as they rely a lot on getting the group to work together. Sarah was constantly frustrated that everyone was running around the map without a plan.

There's a big difference in 4e: You face groups of monsters and every monster in that group (save minions) is tough. This is a huge change from 3e, where you either fought one or two monsters (and thus all attacked the same monster) or you fought 5+ monsters and they couldn't do damage to you and they died after being hit once or twice. I really can't express the contempt I feel for the power curve in 3e.

In neither of the battles did I feel that I was being tactically smart and thus overpowering the PCs; the tricks that the kobolds had were something the players had to react to, but they weren't really that problematic. Rather, they need to learn exactly how to work in concert to take the monsters down instead of just going against unwounded monsters...

Cheers!

 

[Jer]

In neither of the battles did I feel that I was being tactically smart and thus overpowering the PCs; the tricks that the kobolds had were something the players had to react to, but they weren't really that problematic. Rather, they need to learn exactly how to work in concert to take the monsters down instead of just going against unwounded monsters...

One observation from my own initial run of my group through 4e D&D the other weekend is that 4e not only rewards good tactics from the players, but also the powers actively encourage the players to make good tactical decisions - once they have enough rules knowledge to know how 1) their own exploits work and 2) how Combat Advantage works.

My players (who are not generally known for their brilliant tactics - more for their "every man for himself" antics) quickly learned in their first fight with a bunch of kobolds how to take advantage of their powers to form synergies with each other and keep themselves from getting killed. Everyone initially tried to do the one-on-one thing with the kobolds - the standard tactic in any 3.x game we've played - and got beaten hard. Then the fighter and the paladin started comparing notes on how their "mark" powers worked and suddenly they were teaming up very well - much better than they had in our previous games. Even the wizard was getting into the act - once he got over the fact that he could cast Magic Missile more than once and had a small Fireball available to him at first level.

I like this - it takes a bit of the burden off of me as a DM to see this. I'm actually far less afraid of a TPK in the low levels of this edition than I was in 3e (where, frankly, I had to cheat - or at least "play stupid" - to keep my players alive for all of the 3e campaigns I've run). The powers act as "hints" to get the players to pick up at least decent tactics and to encourage them to work together a bit more than I've seen in any of the previous editions of the game.

What I am a bit afraid of is that the players will just pick up particular combos of tactics and use them over and over again - combined with the slightly longer combats that might serve to make combat boring once the "newness" of the system wears off. I suspect that part of keeping things exciting will be on me as the DM to choose different opponents (who use different tactics) and to spice up the battlefield with different hazards. We'll see, I suppose.

 

[Gundark]

Our group has played 3 sessions of 4e so far and so far we love it considerably. Even though we're all "newbs" to the game we only needed to look a rule once, as oppossed to looking it up several times in 3e.

The tactics thing is true and becomes more apparent with "boss fights". Once your group reaches a certain metal toothed goblin if they're not careful they'll be eating a TPK.

The one gripe I have is combat takes a long time. Chewing through all those hit points (on both sides) takes time. High level combat will be about the same length as it was in 3e, they seemed to replace one level of complexity with another.

 

[MerricB]

What I am a bit afraid of is that the players will just pick up particular combos of tactics and use them over and over again - combined with the slightly longer combats that might serve to make combat boring once the "newness" of the system wears off. I suspect that part of keeping things exciting will be on me as the DM to choose different opponents (who use different tactics) and to spice up the battlefield with different hazards. We'll see, I suppose.

Just a few notes from my reading of the rules:

First, certain tactics will NOT work against certain monsters. Each race of creature has certain tricks - shifty for kobolds for instance - which changes things around. Against orcs, keeping them flanked is relatively easy. Against kobolds, it's more likely they'll be flanking you!

Second, characters do gain new powers. At 1st level, they're mainly limited to the "At wills". This is great, because it teaches them the core abilities of their class, and they get used to how they work against different opponents. By 10th level, they have 3 encounter powers and 3 daily powers, as well as 3 utility powers, not to mention (likely) a magic item daily as well. So, instead of having 3 powers to choose between they're up to 6 or 7. If combats last 6-8 rounds, most of the rounds they get to use a different power if necessary.

Cheers!

 

[MerricB]

The one gripe I have is combat takes a long time. Chewing through all those hit points (on both sides) takes time. High level combat will be about the same length as it was in 3e, they seemed to replace one level of complexity with another.

Hmm... I don't think that's quite true. Sure, combats may take the same *time*, but you won't have one player sitting there for five to ten minutes, rolling dice, figuring out modifiers, before finally announcing the results of his 6+ attacks!

Instead, it should move through each player pretty quickly. Thus not getting the experience when it takes 30 minutes for a combat round.

In my final 3.5e session with my Ulek group, Nathaniel was rolling his attacks ahead of time on his computer and then just announcing the damage when we reached his turn. Urgh. It saved time, but horrible for immersion.

I think one thing that actually does slow 4e combat down isn't actually the extra hit points, but instead that the DM has a lot more monsters to control.

Cheers!

 

[Mathew_Freeman]

Just a few notes from my reading of the rules:

First, certain tactics will NOT work against certain monsters. Each race of creature has certain tricks - shifty for kobolds for instance - which changes things around. Against orcs, keeping them flanked is relatively easy. Against kobolds, it's more likely they'll be flanking you!

Second, characters do gain new powers. At 1st level, they're mainly limited to the "At wills". This is great, because it teaches them the core abilities of their class, and they get used to how they work against different opponents. By 10th level, they have 3 encounter powers and 3 daily powers, as well as 3 utility powers, not to mention (likely) a magic item daily as well. So, instead of having 3 powers to choose between they're up to 6 or 7. If combats last 6-8 rounds, most of the rounds they get to use a different power if necessary.

I was just about to write something more or less exactly like this, only MerricB got there first.

Thanks!