Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="seskis281" data-source="post: 4124832" data-attributes="member: 41593">I would like to say this - this post makes me feel better about my fears that 4e would move even farther down the line of PC's being unkillable in any situation, even at low levels. Of course, that reality with this particular situation may be construed as a "negative" by those who didn't like PCs dying so easily in earlier editions...I think the setup is interesting in and of itself. I wouldn't mind a bit of clarification - were the pregens of differing levels for different playtests? If so, what levels were these (I was assuming they are 1st but wanted to ask)? If they were 1st I am somewhat startled by the mere thought of a full dragon encounter -- my 1st level parties have always found a group of sneaky, well-armed Kobolds a challenge in a cave setting full of traps, and they would scurry when encountering so much more powerful creatures (or have to devise elaborate non-combat plans to achieve a goal like getting around it). I realize this is just a difference in game philosophy perspective... the intention of 4e is to make "Heroic" characters from the get-go, and it certainly is less thrilling to say "we just beat the Kobolds!" than "We just beat the Dragon!"  I guess if you are going to go with a 4x base increase to HPs, etc., add healing surges, marked and bloodied bonuses, etc., then what a 1st level party "is" changes up quite a bit to what a 4th or 5th level party is for me under AD&D, C&C or other older system rules. Not a prob for me if this appeals to others.I am also glad to hear that encounters move much faster. I admit to being one of the ones who disparaged what I was seeing in 3.5 games, where I'd watch as a 3 hour session was essentially taken up with two long battles and maybe 10 minutes of roleplaying in between, with stacks of rules books, miniatures, maps and laptops to run them... with one round sometimes taking 10-15 minutes. I commend the designers if they have reversed this and made combat a smoother, faster process... But the one significant thing in the playtest report that bothers me is:This is what I was most afraid of. In 27 years of gaming, I've never used minis beyond the most rudimentary of times - even just using dice on top of a table or book to show relative directions etc. I use a whiteboard now, just to identify basic layouts.To me, FRPGs are about the imagination of the minds eye - seeing the fantastic not literally in front of you but in the more literary sense of imagination. There has always been a tension pulling D&D between the simulationist (as the term has come to be known on the boards) who emphasize the fantasy battle/wargaming mechanics and the gamists who emphasize the narrative, the story and the character interaction. This was a tension that existed from the start as Chainmail morphed into D&D, and indeed many have noted the mention of minis in the earliest of D&D materials (the direct evolution of Chainmail). Of course, the RELIANCE on these as CENTRAL to the game play was almost non-existent for many, if not most.  I left "official" D&D with the advent of 3.5. I was interested in looking at 4e to see if some of the directions indicated (which did appeal to me) would make it a game I'd embrace again in addition to the other systems I've moved to.  The emphasis indicated here on being a minis game diminishes that interest greatly.Again, this is just my reaction and my own personal feelings.... I'm sure many will have the opposite view on 4e.Cheers! And may whatever game you play give you hours of fun!  <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /></blockquote>

Verification