New Playtest Report: Prophecy of the Priestess

[Jhaelen]

There's mention of terrain affecting the encounter, 1st level (assuming, 1st level) critical hits not killing PCs, Dwarf Rogue (with a great axe) using movement and flanking, wizard supporting with precision and accuracy of arcane powers (blasts, similar to ranged touch?)

Of these I found the terrain effects the most interesting, unfortunately there wasn't much detail given.

Most importantly, he describes how much easier it was for him to run a 4e combat:

I consider that part to be the weakest one of the whole article. Either it was added by someone from their marketing department or the poor playtest reporters are required to add something like this to their articles.

I mean, really: Is there anyone who thinks an encounter with skeletons, zombies and goblins is difficult to run in 3E?

If what I've heard of 'exception-based monster design' is any indication it might even become more difficult to run in 4E...

 

[Dave Turner]

I'll be much more impressed when the combat complexity involves say: 6 Ogre barbarians, a Troll Druid, a Dire Bear animal companion, a Half-Fiend Troll Cleric, and Troll with a Ghast template. And I'll only believe it when I see a round by round example of play for a fight of that complexity. Until then, this sort of 'Gee, I ran one of the most trivial combats in the game and it went really smoothly', not only grates as talking points but turns me off because it makes the designers sound like idiots. Surely they didn't actual think the problem with 3.X is that fights with zombies, skeletons, goblins and low level PC's were too complicated?

I hadn't considered this point before, but appreciate it now. It's a great criticism of the previews we've seen thus far.

 

[DandD]

I agree. Nobody cares for the small fries who's only option is to attack and do nothing else.

Complex combat that really is easy and fast done is what the community is waiting for, not trivial exercises in 1-hitting some poor goblins and undeads. And as long as there aren't any details about the terrain obstacles, they could as well have only mentioned that the sky was blue or something equally unimportant.

 

[JohnSnow]

Unless maybe their only action now is NOT to attack and do nothing else. They did say that one of the design goals of 4e was to make play as compelling at 1st-level (and 20th, and 30th) as it is at 10th.

So maybe there's more to these 1st-level nasties in 4e than there used to be. Hence, we learn from this article that there IS some complexity, but it's not overwhelming.

That would be a much more charitable way to interpret the comment. And in keeping with what we've heard so far. Why should a 1st-level combat be dull as dishwater?

 

[catsclaw227]

I'll be much more impressed when the combat complexity involves say: 6 Ogre barbarians, a Troll Druid, a Dire Bear animal companion, a Half-Fiend Troll Cleric, and Troll with a Ghast template. And I'll only believe it when I see a round by round example of play for a fight of that complexity. Until then, this sort of 'Gee, I ran one of the most trivial combats in the game and it went really smoothly', not only grates as talking points but turns me off because it makes the designers sound like idiots. Surely they didn't actual think the problem with 3.X is that fights with zombies, skeletons, goblins and low level PC's were too complicated?

Of course it would be better to read about a higher level combat. I want to see examples of a complex, furious battle and I want to see the purported elegance of the 4e combat system. But just because he was reporting on the FIRST session of an adventure, including the PC social interactions, doesn't mean that the designer sounds like an idiot. When I am describing a programming methodology in .NET to someone who is an expert VB6 programmer, and it's a simple example, it doesn't mean that I sound like an idiot doing it.

I am getting the impression from reading your 4e criticisms that nothing they do will impress you and they might as well hang up the dice now.

I am optimistic, that's true. But I am going to reserve my constructive critcism for when I actually see mechanics. And I am thinking that it will be closer to the end of the year. What's the point of bashing it or praising it when there's nothing really mechanical to see. I am guessing that all the previews we will be getting over the next month or two will be predominantly fluff. Even the playtests.

I read them for the fun of it. Not to try to squeeze some veiled reference to a possible crunchy bit.

 

[Skyscraper]

I noticed in the report the comment of "Mal lending aid to his allies in need". (Mal is the Warlord.)

I don't know if i missed some warlord desciption, but this is news to me. It appears as though the gist of the warlord's actions were support. "In need" suggests healing, but i guess buffs are not out of the question. No cleric in the group suggests someone else is going the healing. Has this class' role been described in this respect already?

Sky

 

[hopeless]

Anyone notice?

I'll be much more impressed when the combat complexity involves say: 6 Ogre barbarians, a Troll Druid, a Dire Bear animal companion, a Half-Fiend Troll Cleric, and Troll with a Ghast template. And I'll only believe it when I see a round by round example of play for a fight of that complexity. Until then, this sort of 'Gee, I ran one of the most trivial combats in the game and it went really smoothly', not only grates as talking points but turns me off because it makes the designers sound like idiots. Surely they didn't actual think the problem with 3.X is that fights with zombies, skeletons, goblins and low level PC's were too complicated?

The "monsters" are actually innocent bystanders turned into monsters.

Exactly how are they going to explain this one?

The villain was a warlock who cursed them and somehow controls them at the same time?

If this is the case wouldn't it mean there MUST be a way to reverse this effect or is this going to be par for the course, adventures where the PCs inevitably lose because innocent lives are taken and there is no way to save them... where's the Point of Light in that?