D&D 4E My first taste of 4e, and what it means for 5e.

[JeffB]

Let's cool the Internet slapfight, please.

Do what I do. Imagine the parties involved are both talking in a Sheldon Cooper voice.


Seriously.

I started doing it a couple months ago, and it makes navigating ENworld much easier and fun.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Another thing I noticed in 4e that 5e needs to avoid: healing doesn't matter. Dropping to negatives in 4e isn't scary, especially not when the healer is nearby and he can set you up with a healing surge as a minor action and get you in the game.

Not with two leaders in the party, certainly. This is an issue - dropping to negative only really matters in the big battles.

As to people talking about the bard's healing: the player was an Essentials bard, and the way the healing power works is that the bard can spend a minor action to let another player spend a healing surge as a minor action. At least, that's how it's described on the character sheet, which seems pretty weak compared to the ardent's abilities. (Perhaps they made a mistake?)

Misinterpretation. The Skald spends a minor action to set up his aura. Then for the rest of the encounter any aly in the aura can (2/encounter) spend a minor action to either heal themselves or an adjacent PC.

 

[Chris_Nightwing]

]In practice this means that the average damage output from a rogue with combat advantage will be almost twice that of a rogue without, so a rogue in skilled hands will be attempting to gain sneak attack every turn.

Mmm yes, that's what we need more of in introductory roleplaying games, average damage output! That'll hook 'em!

Various things..

When I last ran a 4E game, I spent around an hour with each player helping them to create their character. We did this around the table so that each player knew what each other character was capable of. It was a lot of work to do this. It's very hard to explain how to play a character effectively when combat circumstances can vary wildly and it really takes at least 1-2 combats minimum just to get the basic mechanics (actions in a turn, saving throws, forced movement and so on) into everyone's heads. You've got to admit, at the very least, it would make life easier if each character started with only one at-will power? That means their basic option is clear and laid out for them - there is something they can do by default that won't require a tactical choice. Give them tactical choices once they understand the game!

I'm interested to see the multiclass plans for 5E. If they have a list of abilities gained more slowly than for your first class then they might double up as a way to introduce new players to their characters.

 

[the Jester]

Sure I'll do that, if you accept that maybe, just maybe your experiences aren't the only ones that exist and may not even be the majority of experiences that happen with new players. See how that goes?

I find it hilarious that a DM would have as much difficulty as you seem to describe in helping the players at his table.

Keep in mind that, very often, an Encounters game consists of a dm who has only seen the material the day before.

Encounters games are supposed to be an "easy intro" into D&D. I have seen plenty of instances where the majority of players at the table were all completely baffled by their options in an Encounters game. I think, while Encounters sessions are fairly fun, they are a terrible way to try to introduce someone to the hobby, because the game just isn't simple enough for a new player to pick up on the fly and perform at all effectively.

 

[D'karr]

Okay, first... I totally accept that for some DM's it is easy for them to monitor over 20 powers spread out amongst 5 different players while also running their monsters and the general game as well. Now, how about you cool it with the thinly veiled insults.

If you took anything as a thinly veiled insult you are reading way too much into the post. You mentioned it seemed complicated to you, so I agreed that it might be, if you look at it that way.

I've DM'd 4e and I've played under good DM's with 4e... Which, contrary to your inferences, has nothing whatsoever to do with whether a single DM would have an "easy" time teaching 5 new players 4e while running the game. I've tried to be civil with you and I'd appreciate it if you would return the favor. I've stated the reasons it was hard, but you've stated nothing to back up your own assertions of it being easy, all you do is repeat the same thing, "It's easy", over and over again... repetition doesn't make it so. How about you give us an example where you ran a game and had five totally new players who needed help running their characters and show us how you were able to help them and keep the game going smoothly?

I have remained civil. You seem to be taking it differently, and I can't really help that. I meant exactly what I said, if someone wants to make things way more complicated than they need to be, there is nothing that can uncomplicate that issue. Nothing I said in my post was meant to be uncivil to you, or the OP.

With that said I'll give an example since you asked for one.

The first thing about teaching "rules" is that the players don't need a brain dump at the beginning of a game session. All the rules can be shown at "runtime" when they become relevant. The first thing I tell the players is that this is a roleplaying game, and a game of imagination. If they can imagine their character doing something, then they can attempt to do it simply by stating what they want to do. Let "me", as the DM, worry about the mechanical "how-to".

Then I give them a very quick rundown of their pregen sheet. I assume that a player that brings his own sheet filled out has the basic knowledge to find things on their sheet, but I ask them anyway. Show them ALL, generally how to read their character sheet. Show them the location of their defenses, their skills, their speed and initiative, and the color and frequency for their at-will, encounter, and daily powers. This whole introduction usually takes less than 2 minutes at the table.

If we are using pregens I have already familiarized myself with that particular pregen. So for example if I provide a sheet with an avenger class, I should know about the oath, and how it works. But if I don't provide that as a sheet I don't need that. Over time I've become more and more acquainted with each class but I assume that is the same with all DMs. They start green, and over time grow more familiar with the classes. Just like the players.

So when we start the game runs as it would normally run, I provide the situation, being the eyes, ears and general senses of the characters, and ask the players what they want to do. If there is an actual mechanical resolution to what the player wants to do, I adjudicate it and tell the player what he needs to do to attempt what he wants. I also tell him if what he is attempting is easy, average, or difficult. Though I don't give them actual target numbers. I'm giving the player the amount of information that his character would have to make an "informed" decision. If they are using skills I explain the basic d20 mechanic of roll+mod.

When it comes to combat I'll set up the situation and then call for initiative. I'll explain that they roll a d20, add the initiative modifier, and that is their initiative. Everyone acts in that order. I gather initiative, and I usually ask which character they are using and note it so that I have it in front of me for reference. We start combat.

Got to the highest initiative, ask the player what he would want to do and which of the pregens he is using if I didn't ask this before. At that time I explain to ALL the players that during a combat they have a "standard, move, minor" + an action point and explain how that works. Since I'm already familiar with the pregens I let him know what possible actions would be beneficial to him "tactically". If it's a character that is not a pregen I usually know by their class what they can possibly do at 1st level, if not it take 10 seconds for me to look at their powers and determine what would be workable for their role in the current situation.

The player decides what to do, I adjudicate, he rolls, and we move on. If there are environmental things that they could use, braziers, etc. I show it to them and describe them. When it's the monsters turn I look at their abilities, and tactics if noted on the encounter. Select what to do, roll, hit or miss, and move on. If there are environmental things that I mentioned that both players and monsters can use I show the players by using it, if possible. As combat advantage becomes available, I explain it, specially to a rogue, or thief; a quarry the same way, a curse is no different, a mark in the same manner, etc. Only make mechanics relevant when they're actually relevant.

The point is that it's easier to explain to the entire table how combat works by only concentrating on the relevant pieces for each character at each slice of time. As combat progresses, I have to do that less, and less as the players get accustomed to their characters. This takes no more time than what it takes for me to look at the monster attacks and decide what to use. After one or two turns the players have gotten the hang, and usually one or two will start helping the others.

The game doesn't come to a screeching halt, because unlike a player I don't have to have analysis paralysis. I recommend an option, let the player decide, and move on. I explain the options as they become relevant. If a player is playing a thief, I explain to him how to gain combat advantage, but at the same time I'm explaining it to all players. If I see someone seriously hurt, I remind the leaders of things they can do. When a power is used that has ongoing damage, or a condition I explain it at that time, and note it on the initiative sheet. When a player's initiative comes up I remind him of the damage, it's already on my sheet, and as he finishes his turn I have him make the save if it's required.

My role as DM is to teach them and make it easy for them to decide. Not to give them so much information that they haven't got a clue of what would be beneficial.

When someone reads this they might think that this is an overwhelming amount of work. The truth is that it is so simple that it's almost trivial.

I hope that example makes sense, and answers your question.

 

[D'karr]

When I last ran a 4E game, I spent around an hour with each player helping them to create their character. We did this around the table so that each player knew what each other character was capable of. It was a lot of work to do this. It's very hard to explain how to play a character effectively when combat circumstances can vary wildly and it really takes at least 1-2 combats minimum just to get the basic mechanics (actions in a turn, saving throws, forced movement and so on) into everyone's heads. You've got to admit, at the very least, it would make life easier if each character started with only one at-will power? That means their basic option is clear and laid out for them - there is something they can do by default that won't require a tactical choice. Give them tactical choices once they understand the game!

This is a different situation than encounters which is what the OP mentioned. In encounters the players pick a pregen, or bring a premade character. I believe only one season of encounters had character building on it, and it was a disaster because character creation can be way too varied. The current encounters season has a character building session as a separate session at the beginning, or the DM can condense the "themes" available as character options for the characters to select at the beginning of the season.

For creating characters for my campaigns, I followed a completely different approach. First I ran my group through a very short adventure with pregens so that they could get used to the system, and acquainted with the "rules". Incidentally, this is exactly the same thing we did when we started with 3.x. After that session I gave them a base for what the campaign was going to encompass, and we sat down and discussed what people wanted to play in general terms. From that session they ended up deciding, based on their general ideas, what classes they wanted to play. I helped them "marry" their concept with the class that would achieve it best. We ended up with a Dwarf Warlord, an Eladrin Ranger, a Tiefling Warlock, a Minotaur Warden, a Human Barbarian, a Dragonborn Paladin, a Warforged Slayer, an Elven Rogue, and a Razorclaw Seeker.

Yes, I have a large group, and the only two characters of that bunch that were unusual for the specifics of the campaign were the razorclaw, and the warforged. Since we sat down at the beginning and talked about character concepts, including them became a good storytelling device for the campaign and made it better.

The next time they came over they had their characters done, and we sat down to play. We worked in themes and backgrounds at that initial game, and the game has been going great. My level of involvement in character creation for that group was in linking concepts to the mechanics that "best-fit", and helping with their backgrounds.

The characters are now 4th level, and they have changed some options from when they started. I had no problem at all with that because the new options work better for the execution of their initial concept.

My other campaigns have used variations on that theme. I don't care about mechanics except to make sure that the player knows which mechanics work as they intend according to their concept and the campaign.

 

[B.T.]

Something else while I'm thinking of it: it's not wrong to have powers that do the same thing. While unique mechanics are desireable, I don't really see what is wrong with giving the bard, ardent, and cleric the same healing power. Isn't the ability to spend a healing surge with a bonus good enough? I feel that a lot of 4e could be streamlined by eliminating the minor effects.

My opinion on this is that each class should have 2-3 "special" mechanics, and anything beyond that point needs to not exist. To go back to my thri-kreen, I would have had to track:

• Basic attacks.
• At-will powers, including a reaction, a special ranged attack, and a marking system.
• Attacks of opportunity.
• Several encounter powers, one of which can only be used when rolling initiative.
• Power points.
• Racial abilities.
• Action points.

Too much. The dwarf weaponmaster is much simpler, but even then, there are a lot of mechanics on top of everything. The older I get, the less patience I have for fiddly bits. The rules need to facilitate gameplay, not hinder it, and for me, that means the rules need to get out of the way as much as possible.

 

[D'karr]

Something else while I'm thinking of it: it's not wrong to have powers that do the same thing. While unique mechanics are desireable, I don't really see what is wrong with giving the bard, ardent, and cleric the same healing power. Isn't the ability to spend a healing surge with a bonus good enough? I feel that a lot of 4e could be streamlined by eliminating the minor effects.

I don't have much of a problem with that. If I was redesigning 4e right now I'd make powers within each power source interchangeable. But that is neither here nor there.

However, 4e was accused of making everything the same. Not that I agree with that, a lot of things "read" the same but were different were it counted in their execution.

With the bard, cleric and ardent I see their different "healing" mechanics as more tailored to their specific flavor. It's true that making a "simple" mechanic for all would maybe make it simpler, but IMO you lose a lot of gameworld flavor in this. Reading the flavor for Majestic Word, Healing Word, and Ardent Surge (with each different mantle), gives a significant gameworld difference, even if the effects might seem similar ("healing").

 

[Manbearcat]

A valiant effort to test drive 4e. Its just unfortunate that what you are depicting is probably the worst case scenario possible I could imagine (for any edition really) for getting a feel for what an enjoyable 4e game would be like.

I cringe to think that this might be anywhere near a majority percentage of the standard introduction to the game for people of the coming generations. If it is, our hobby may exit stage left.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Mmm yes, that's what we need more of in introductory roleplaying games, average damage output! That'll hook 'em!

Point. Wrong phrasing - but does the idea of explaining how to play have merit?

My opinion on this is that each class should have 2-3 "special" mechanics, and anything beyond that point needs to not exist. To go back to my thri-kreen, I would have had to track:

• Basic attacks.
• At-will powers, including a reaction, a special ranged attack, and a marking system.
• Attacks of opportunity.
• Several encounter powers, one of which can only be used when rolling initiative.
• Power points.
• Racial abilities.
• Action points.

Too much.

Some of those don't need tracking - they just come up - but there's a reason the Battlemind is on my "You need a good explanation if you want to be one of these" list. (So are the other two Power Point classes).