D&D 4E Our first playtest of 4E

[HP Dreadnought]

I'm certain you shouldn't be able to use Tide Of Iron in a prone state. It's basically a Bullrush. How do you Bullrush while lying on the floor. Other than that interesting cheers.

Slither of Iron!

Not quite as impressive. . .

 

[bjorn2bwild]

Chris Pramas must be stopped!

Also, I agree. As soon as he said that, the h4ters jumped all over it, duct-taped it to their banners, and have been parroting it ever since.

Alright, hang on just a sec. Let me make something perfectly crystal clear.

I AM NOT A 4E HATER

Ok, now that that's out of the way...

I read the Chris Pramas review, but the CCG comments I made were not influenced by his remarks, but rather by the opinions expressed by the people I played with last night. None of my players have read the review, nor have they read any forum regarding 4E.

From the very beginning of the session, before a single die was rolled, the "is this becoming like a CCG" question was raised. A guy who used to play magic (but hasn't for a decade or so), while looking over his sheet, vehemently remarked that it looked like this game was turning into "find the right combo of powers and you can take out anything in one shot".

I countered him with, "yeah, it was like that in 3E too."

After playing the three encounters, all of the players were remarking on how similar it was to a CCG in terms of being able to maximize potential by throwing out the right powers at the right time.

Again, to me, the concept is exactly the same as 3E, but the effect in 4E is more pronounced. It seems as though the difference is that in 3E, you *could* look for the super deluxe Pun-Pun extreme combo, but in 4E, you *should* look for that combo.

But, all I have to go on is what's been released so far. Things may be totally different in June. I'm patiently waiting.

 

[bjorn2bwild]

1st level was always a hassle for me as a DM, until my most recent campaign I always had a hard time justifying why these characters, particularly in a setting as focused on backstory as eberron, were so inexperienced. For example. it suggests in the players guide to eberron that your character may be a veteran of the last war. For many of our concepts it was difficult to justify why the character would have failed to significantly distinguish himself until after the war was over. We felt it made more sense to start at level three in eberron.

Exactly. It's all a matter of context. If my group wanted to start a game with characters that had an established past and wouldn't be considered "beginners", then I'm sure that 4E as it is would do just fine.

My most recent home-brew campaign had the players start as apprentices of various kinds in a far-flung settlement, whose people had just barely learned how to smelt iron. Events surrounding the inevitable (somewhat violent) first-contact with the outside world caused them to become the first explorers from their village, charged with the task of finding out the heck was going on out there. In this context the players struggling to survive their first contact with their enemy and the dangerous passage through the mountains made perfect sense. They battled a boar and it was epic.

Very cool. Very context-appropriate. Now, do you think that the battle would have been so epic if it had been played out under what we know about 4E?

I think it really depends on how you want to run it. High powered first level characters aren't going to break 4e for me, but in some settings I'll most likely break it up into 2 or 3 levels of very quick progression, just as a nod towards the bumbling farm-hand hero concept. Even if I screw it up, it'll only last 3 levels, so no worries right?

Very cool. That's most likely the direction we are going to take as well.

ps. I think once we get the rulebooks it'll be pretty clear that you can't perform actions like wall of iron from prone. The power descriptions on the sheets are just that: power descriptions. Theres a lot more that we're missing. Thats why I am personally with holding judgement.

EDIT: Eberron only has one b. I can never remember that for some reason.

Right. We simply just don't know everything at this point. I made the call based on what information I had and what seemed like the fun thing to allow happen.

It's entirely possible that the PH will explicitly disallow the maneuver as it happened in our case, and I'll be fine with that.

 

[bjorn2bwild]

Personally, I enjoy WoW, enjoy (some) anime, and had fun in most of my limited experiences with CCGs. When I here someone say the combat mechanics are video-game/anime-like/or CCG-like, I makes me think "cool!".

If I can have the combat system run like my favorite games/anime but in one of my worlds, with my story and players, I say right on.

With some of my games (especially the latest one where I actually have an organization of "Robot-Ninja-Assassins-With-Laser-Beam-Eyes" - a self-constructing army of constructs with lightning blast eye attacks, amongst other powers - as a primary foe) I think of it like an anime, or borrow and alter cool stuff I've seen in CRPGs/MMOs. *shrug*

And that's great. No matter how you play the game, the point is to enjoy doing it. If that requires some fudging of the rules, so be it. If that requires no changes to the rules, so be it. In the end it doesn't matter as long as everybody's having fun.

Hooray for living in countries where we can get passionate about the semantics and mechanics of an imaginary world that hasn't even been released yet instead of worrying about when our next meals are or if the neighboring tribe/religious sect/country is going to kidnap and execute us in the middle of the night...

THIS

 

[keterys]

I'd be hard pressed to think of why you couldn't do Tide of Iron while prone, based on the information we have.

Passing Attack? Sure.

 

[bjorn2bwild]

Fitz, for this, you're awesome. I'm stealing this as my base model for the mundane tier. I'll give you credit whenever it comes up.

I do have a couple of concerns, which I will note below.

Not even remotely. I propose (for those who like that sort of thing):

Level 1/4

--Start at 1/4 Level one HP (and surges and heal rate)
-- No second wind
--any damage will make you "bloodied"
--all your attacks, defences and skills are -4
--You may chose only one of your at-will powers (and it counts as an encounter power)
--you have no feat(s)
--chose one class ability, but not the "big one" (IE sneak attack for a rogue)

I do not like the condition change for bloodied for a couple of reasons. The first and foremost being that the rules for death and dying now specifically correlate to when a character is bloodied; and by changing the condition for bloodied to "any damage" that effectively means that a character will die at -1 hit points. I think that's a bit harsh.

My suggestion is to keep bloodied as "half hit points rounded down" and keep the rules for death and dying as if the character was a full level 1 character-- that is, to allow a character to go into negatives up to the equivalent of his "level 1" bloodied number (along with the associated sustain roll mechanic).

The second reason is that many effects for races, classes, and monsters, depend on the bloodied condition. It's too much of a change to allow 1 hit point to cause "bloodied" to trigger.

Level 1/2 250 BXP (Beginner's Experience)
- Half HP (and surges and heal rate)
- No second wind
- Bloodied at half (of half)
- attacks, skills, defences -2
- Get a other at-will power, but it's encounter
- get your encounter power (and it counts as a daily)
- gain the "big" class ability, but make it daily if it's an encounter power.

Level 3/4 500 BXP (Beginners Experience)
- 3/4 Level one HP (and surges and heal rate, get a second wind)
- Bloodied at half (of 3/4)
- attacks, skills, defences -1
- gain your "big" racial abiility (like fey step for an eladrin)
- get your at wills at-will

Level 1 1000 BXP, then start again at zero with REAL XP
- Gain your daily
- Set everything to what it should be for level one

Go to, Hero!

Fitz

You mention that level 1/4 does not have the feat, but then there's no mention of when it comes into play. I'd suggest level 1/2 or level 3/4.

Your setup will work as a base guideline, but will have to be modified for races and classes that have more than the base number of powers and features.

Again, it's a good base guideline. I'll play around with it and the pre-constructed characters from DnDXP and get back with you with my results. A new thread is probably warranted as this is diverging significantly from discussing a playtest.

Anyway, thanks!

 

[FitzTheRuke]

Fitz, for this, you're awesome. I'm stealing this as my base model for the mundane tier. I'll give you credit whenever it comes up.

Glad you like it. Steal away. It's something I was thinking about since I first heard people complain about how characters are too tough at first level. Didn't write it down 'till just there, so there's bound to be a few mistakes.

I do not like the condition change for bloodied for a couple of reasons. The first and foremost being that the rules for death and dying now specifically correlate to when a character is bloodied; and by changing the condition for bloodied to "any damage" that effectively means that a character will die at -1 hit points.

We're on the same wavelength. I didn't mention it because the negative hit points AFAIK is not connected to bloodied, it's just the same value, half hit points (only negative).

I agree with your change.

You mention that level 1/4 does not have the feat, but then there's no mention of when it comes into play. I'd suggest level 1/2 or level 3/4.

Oops. I think 1/2.

Your setup will work as a base guideline, but will have to be modified for races and classes that have more than the base number of powers and features.

Yeah, I haven't tried it, so I'm sure that's true. General guideline should be, list the race & class powers from seemingly weakest to toughest, give a few out at each step. (Things like Low-Light vision and, obviously, stat bonuses should occur at 1/4, of course.)

Again, it's a good base guideline. I'll play around with it and the pre-constructed characters from DnDXP and get back with you with my results. A new thread is probably warranted as this is diverging significantly from discussing a playtest.

Anyway, thanks!

Thanks! Feel free to play with it and post it to a new thread!

Fitz

 

[breschau]

We held an impromptu 4E playtest tonight...

Thanks for the write-up. I'm hoping to run one of these soon. I can't wait really.

I've always hated 1st-3rd level play. It's real exciting in the "great, I'm dead again. I'm not waiting until you guys can afford to resurrect me, so I guess it's new character time" sense. It's lame to be paranoid. You want that kind of thing, play Call of Cthulhu. I love the idea of starting as a hero who can actually do something. The monsters are tougher too? Bring it. It's not "safe" because you can still die, but you're not a tulip in robes anymore either.

 

[Daniel D. Fox]

Personally, I do not understand why folks are ready to houserule "lower than 1st level" characters.

If Powers are relative to all classes, then by that means those abilities are therefore considered mundane. The only difference now is that instead of a peasant swinging a sword after becoming a 1st level Fighter, he can use his sword in more interesting ways as a peasant.

Relative is the key word; if anything, it's an ad hoc approach to deeper simulation through elements never proposed for combat ever outside of Iron Heroes.

 

[fnwc]

Personally, I do not understand why folks are ready to houserule "lower than 1st level" characters.

To each his own. Personally, I feel like 1st and 2nd level are *boring*. At that level, your class barely plays well, and is far too fragile. Most of the time, players are just trying to level to a point where they can enjoy their characters.

Of course, there are a lot of players who like extremely low power, lethal games -- although a lot of the time you'll notice it's the DM who favors it, rather than the players.