Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Dragonblade" data-source="post: 6177452" data-attributes="member: 2804">As someone who likes 4e and has a lot of experience playing and running it, I'd say no. 4e really plays best when done as a more story oriented game with big cinematic set piece battles. Its not really designed to be played as a game requiring careful hoarding of strategic resources.Grinding through rooms of monsters and traps is playing against its strengths, IMO. And I suspect the result won't be satisfactory if thats what you want. Now that said, lots of experienced DMs have hacked it and have made it work for that style of play. But I personally don't recommend it.Sure! The easiest and quickest fix is to grant every MM1 monster +5 to damage per attack/aura per tier. So a paragon tier monster does +10 damage per attack.There are additional optimizations you might consider once you have some games under your belt.For example, you might consider dropping defenses by 1 across the board for all monsters, or adopt the 13th Age escalation die mechanic to ease "grind" if becomes an issue for your game."Grind" is basically how 4e combats can reach a point where the PCs victory is assured but there are one or two last holdout monsters who just won't die because the players are rolling poorly. To be fair this can occur in any edition, but 4e monsters have more HP so its more noticable in 4e. Escalation Die fixes it well, IMO.Other monster tweaks you can make if "stun locking" becomes an issue, is to let elites and solos save vs ongoing effects at the beginning of their turns, instead of at the end. And allow them to automatically end any effect on them in exchange for taking level appropriate improv damage.Stun locking is something that heavily optimized controllers like Wizards can do to solo monsters. They pile up effects that the monster can't easily break out of so the monster just sits there while players dogpile on it and kill it. Its ok as an occasional tactic, but some players really like to spam the technique to the point that it gets annoying for the DM.Don't know. I always used DDI. Sorry. <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=":)" />Depends on the player. Was never an issue for me or my groups, but can be. The 4e Essentials player books (Heroes of the Forgotten Kingdoms and Heroes of the Fallen Lands) provide more stream-lined classes that have fewer options to deal with in play. For players that like to keep things simple, they should use Essential classes. Players that like more complex builds can use classes from the classic 4e PHBs.Have fun with it. Don't be afraid to tweak the system, or ask for advice if you want to change the way a certain dynamic is working out. 4e is great RPG if cinematic video-game style bossfights are cool and something you want in your gaming. If you like more low power, gritty and resource management oriented gaming, than I'd say 4e is a poor fit. I'd check Castles and Crusades or classic AD&D for that style of play.I've found that one size doesn't really fit all. I love Pathfinder for more fantasy sim gaming. I love 4e for my big "God of War" or "Final Fantasy" style gaming. And my new love, 13th Age for light and fast paced cinematic fantasy. I go with AD&D when I want that old school dungeon crawl. <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