D&D 4E Our first playtest of 4E

[RigaMortus2]

maybe the skeleton got scared after being hit and stepped back; the other skeleton then took advantage of the opening to move in.

This is what I can't seem to fathom. Even with an intelligence of 3. Should we play them like an animal now, where they are maybe acting on some sort of instinct (not pure intelligence)? If that's the case, maybe I can wrap my brain around that one. Still would take some adjust me from me simply because, that's not the way I am used to running traditional (as in 3E) non-intelligent creatures...

 

[Fifth Element]

Wait a sec... Are skeletons intelligent now in 4E??? Hows does a skeleton choose to back off? I've never played, nor seen played, an unintelligent creature (like a skeleton or zombie) make a decision like this. Sorry, that just struck me as odd.

The skeleton warrior stats we have shows an Int of 3. The boneshard skeleton has a 4. That should make them at least a little bit interesting, rather than "they charge forward and attack, and attack, and attack, until destroyed."

 

[Fifth Element]

Funny. I don't recall every noticing a "bumbling-moron phase" in the games of D&D 3e I have run and played in at 1st level.

Does your DM make you roll for everything, even simple tasks that anyone should be able to do, like climbing a ladder? Do you not use the Take 10 and Take 20 rules?

Hmmmm.

I think we all know hyperbole was being used to make a point. We all know the arguments about 1st-level PCs being taken down by a single hit, etc, etc.

 

[RigaMortus2]

The skeleton warrior stats we have shows an Int of 3. The boneshard skeleton has a 4. That should make them at least a little bit interesting, rather than "they charge forward and attack, and attack, and attack, until destroyed."

But why does every creature have to be "interesting"? Sometimes you run into brutes whose only tactic is "charge forward and attack, and attack, and attack, until destroyed". I find those types of creatures more interesting really. Are they predictable? Sure. But I think they are in the minority, which is what makes them interesting encounters to me.

It would be bad if every creature and encounter was "charge/attack until dead". But it would be equally bad if NO encounter was "charge/attack until dead". IMHO.

They've gone from Dawn of the Dead intelligence to Land of the Dead intelligence (where the zombies were able to start 'figuring' things out).

 

[Vempyre]

About the skeleton's tactic : that's more a flavor thing on how to make skeletons react to a battle situation that an actual rule. I dunno why you guys discuss it as there is a "rule" on how skeletons should act and therefore part of the new 4E ruleset. (sorry of you guys don't treat it that way, but the posts seem to imply so when reading them)

Each campaign has different ways of interpreting what it means to have low intelligence (or no intelligence). It's called role-playing and is different for each of us, therefore it doesn't and shouldn't appear in the rules and really isn't relevant to any 4E rules discussion, in my opinion.

 

[zoroaster100]

Thanks for postig this playtest. I enjoyed reading it.

First level in first and second edition was partilucarly limited and the characters particularily frail. In third edition, first level characters got a bit more powerful and had a few more options. In fourth edition, first level characters will have even more hit points, healing and options.

For some players that will feel like a good change. For others it will feel like a bad change. I've had both types of players, some who hated the impotent feeling when starting at first level, and some who loved that stage and really built their connection to their character at that stage, fondly remembering their crazy exploits from the time they were barely competent to kill a house cat.

I remember in earlier editions, some groups liked to start at 0-level, with no special powers whatsoever, and build up to first level in a class. For those folks, the change of relatively powerful first level characters will be unwelcome. Perhaps all that is needed is an optional rule for 0-level characters with a weakened version of first level for each class, which a third party publisher could put out, and which such groups could use as an alternate starting place before moving onto first level. The optional 0-level characters could be given half normal hitpoints, only one instead of two at will class powers, and no daily class power. There you have it, rules for weaker 0-level characters to start out and get attached to before you get to 1st level.

 

[Wolfspider]

I think we all know hyperbole was being used to make a point. We all know the arguments about 1st-level PCs being taken down by a single hit, etc, etc.

I'm quite familiar with hyberbole. But he didn't say something like "even starting fighters can be killed by a strong fart" or somesuch that would have indicated that he was talking about the frailty of 1st level characters.

He mentioned specifically skill use, like climbing a ladder, so I wondered about his experience.

 

[RigaMortus2]

About the skeleton's tactic : that's more a flavor thing on how to make skeletons react to a battle situation that an actual rule. I dunno why you guys discuss it as there is a "rule" on how skeletons should act and therefore part of the new 4E ruleset. (sorry of you guys don't treat it that way, but the posts seem to imply so when reading them)

Each campaign has different ways of interpreting what it means to have low intelligence (or no intelligence). It's called role-playing and is different for each of us, therefore it doesn't and shouldn't appear in the rules and really isn't relevant to any 4E rules discussion, in my opinion.

Well, from the 3E SRD we have this...

A skeleton does only what it is ordered to do. It can draw no conclusions of its own and takes no initiative. Because of this limitation, its instructions must always be simple. A skeleton attacks until destroyed.

That bolded part seems pretty clear cut to me. Doesn't say anything about the skeleton backing off to take a breather or for any other reason. It attacks until destroyed or is ordered to back off.

So, if the creator or master of the skeleton gave it instructions to back off, then yeah, I could see this. We could assume the master of the skeleton was the boneshard skeleton. But the OP did not state that it was, nor that it was ordered to back off.

So I am sorry, but I have to disagree with you. This IS relevant to a 4E discussion in that, if skeletons now have an intelligence or can suddenly make concious decissions for themselves, that is different than how 3E ran them, and is worth mentioning/discussing.

And I have to disagree with

I dunno why you guys discuss it as there is a "rule" on how skeletons should act and therefore part of the new 4E ruleset.

Under the skeleton description, A skeleton attacks until destroyed. or is ordered to do something else. To play it otherwise is not playing by that rule. If 4E changes that, then fine, it's worth noting.

 

[ltbaxter]

Thanks for posting that playtest, very interesting! I like how it highlighted both tactics, 'feel', and some interesting questions.

- As soon as you said the cleric ran up front I recoiled in horror, knowing what was about to happen with the kobold mob attack. I'm amazed he survived
- Tide of Iron from prone?! Wow! Part of me (the 3e part) thought "how silly", but the emerging 4e in me said "Cool!!" Really, what a great use of a tactic. 3e you have essentially no choice but suck up the AoAs. With the rule changes on prone just being -2 on attack and Combat advantage against you (-2), it's going to be more common to fight from prone perhaps. Perhaps "on the knee" is the new prone?
- Interesting to catch that Skeletons now have initiative, and an interesting question to how that might impact tactics. I don't think we're at all in the realm of "assume everthing is the same until proved differently", but looking at the extent of other changes, I think most bets are off until we see the 4e MM.
- It was also nice to see how the characters were surprised by the monsters' special abilities. I've not seen that since 1st edition when as a player I wasn't "allowed" to read the Monster Manual! I expect many DMs and modules will subtly vary powers of monsters to constantly keep players on their toes.

 

[hong]

This is what I can't seem to fathom. Even with an intelligence of 3. Should we play them like an animal now, where they are maybe acting on some sort of instinct (not pure intelligence)? If that's the case, maybe I can wrap my brain around that one. Still would take some adjust me from me simply because, that's not the way I am used to running traditional (as in 3E) non-intelligent creatures...

D00d, I'm just using informal language, you know?

Substitute any of the following for why the skeleton might have stepped back:

- It got stunned (English language usage please, not D&D technical jargon) by taking lots of damage and being temporarily disorientated, moved away

- It got frustrated at not being able to kill the guy and moved to look for a better opening

- It got faked out by the guy and moved away by mistake

- The other skeleton shoved (English language usage please, not D&D technical jargon) it out of the way so somebody else could have a go

If any of these don't work, substitute your own rationale for why skeletons don't have to stick like glue to their targets.