D&D 4E Our first playtest of 4E

[RigaMortus2]

- 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?

Do we know the effects of being prone? Does it cost you an action to get up from prone? Does it provoke an AoO (I refuse to use OA!!!)? Can you crawl while prone? Does that cost an action or AoO?

If you allow Tide of Iron from prone, does this mean you get to automatically be standing? Or are you really still prone, on the ground, but bullrushing too? Would this be a loophole for AoOs or costing an action?

In other words, if you successfully bullrush, you would move into the opponents square (and they would move back one). But this move wouldn't cost you anything, where normally, it might cost a move action. You see what I am getting at? Might be a minor loophole, but still. Not saying it's a bad thing, just pointing out there may be inconsistancies or loopholes or unintentional side effects within the rules again (like Cleaving off an AoO in 3E).

 

[RigaMortus2]

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.

Hmmm... Can't see a skeleton getting 'frustrated'. Not a 3E skeleton anyway. Guess a 4E one can now.

WAIT A MINUTE!!! I got it!!! Since we know they are copy/pasting things directly from World of Warcraft (yes, I am being facious, but humor me)... They are now making undead like the Forsaken. Basically intelligent undead. Ok, got it now

Seriously though, I think I get your point. Bottom line seems to be that the DM wanted that skeleton to move out of the way, and you just have to come up with a roleplay reason why it might have done that. He didn't shift 5 feet away because of tactical reasons, he might have stumbled on a rock and it caused him to shift back 5 feet (as an example). Kinda cheesy reason, but it's better than "After calculating all the variables, the skeleton decided to step back to let his brethern through".

 

[Vempyre]

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.

It is flavor text not an hard rule. But even then, until we get the 4E MM, there is no telling if that particular flavor text has been changed.

I've know in my 22 years of playing tons of DMs that do not follow that "default flavor" in order to build more interesting skeletons because the normal ones are too boring and pretty much a non-challenge. So even if that text isn't removed from the final 4E skeletons, a particular DM letting his skeletons have some little bit of leeway in a short playtest is more fun and better for a campaign, I think.

Skeletons than can somehow react to what you are doing, if only in a very limited way, always feel more malevolent and threatening and a better fit for roleplaying and storytelling.

But as I said, it is more about flavor than rules. And flavor is a highly subjective matter.

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

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.

Perhaps you haven't played The Whispering Cairn. There's nothing quite like watching my players try to figure out the lantern room. It usually involves multiple party members falling great distances onto stone floors. I've run it twice, and it was a laugh riot both times. It wouldn't have worked out quite as well if 1st level PCs weren't completely incompetent at climbing things.

 

[Fifth Element]

But why does every creature have to be "interesting"?

Gotta tell you, this quote is awesome out of context.

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

It is flavor text not an hard rule. But even then, until we get the 4E MM, there is no telling if that particular flavor text has been changed.

I've know in my 22 years of playing tons of DMs that do not follow that "default flavor" in order to build more interesting skeletons because the normal ones are too boring and pretty much a non-challenge. So even if that text isn't removed from the final 4E skeletons, a particular DM letting his skeletons have some little bit of leeway in a short playtest is more fun and better for a campaign, I think.

Skeletons than can somehow react to what you are doing, if only in a very limited way, always feel more malevolent and threatening and a better fit for roleplaying and storytelling.

But as I said, it is more about flavor than rules. And flavor is a highly subjective matter.

Never in my 17 years of gaming have I allowed the flavour text to prevent me from running a monster in the manner that I wish to. I really don't see why this issue has been allowed to hijack the thread. Can we drop it?

Also: "I got in one little fight and my skeleton got scared..."

 

[outsider]

But how is it any different? So instead of swinging your +5 (+1 BAB +4 Str) "to hit" longsword dealing 1d8+4 damage, you'll be swinging your +10 "to hit" longsword dealing 1d8+4 damage with some small bonus to it (perhaps a shift afterwards, perhaps additional damage, perhaps a knock back effect).

You are underestimating the effect of these "small bonuses". The difference is that you actually have some options now and resources to manage. Doing 1d8+4 damage one round, 1d8+4 and a shift the next, 1d8+8 damage the next, and 1d8+4 with knockback in the next is far more interesting than just doing 1d8+4 every round.

 

[Fifth Element]

You are underestimating the effect of these "small bonuses". The difference is that you actually have some options now and resources to manage. Doing 1d8+4 damage one round, 1d8+4 and a shift the next, 1d8+8 damage the next, and 1d8+4 with knockback in the next is far more interesting than just doing 1d8+4 every round.

But why does every action have to be "interesting"?

 

[WanderingMonster]

Great playtest post, OP.

From the rest of the thread, I'm gathering that some folks want 1st-level characters to be mundane, and monsters to be uninteresting.

Maybe this is a simulationist holdover, where PCs grow from bumbling morons into heroes, and some monsters can't use tactics due to lack of an intelligence score. Myself, I prefer options and effectiveness from the get-go, and the ability for monsters to make interesting choices as well. Not only is this more fun for players, but the DM gets to make some tactical choices as well. I've always been of the opinion that flavor text is there as a guide for new or time-strapped DMs, not law.

When I compare the two differences presented here, one is obviously more fun that the other (IMHO). I'd be interested if the OP clarified with his players what they meant by the game not feeling like D&D. Did they mean it didn't feel like 3e, or it didn't feel like an RPG, or it didn't feel like fantasy roleplaying?

Anywho, good post and an interesting thread.

 

[Stalker0]

I think all the poster is saying is that, relative to the world, the PCs seem more powerful and competent. In 3rd edition, there's a bumbling-moron phase of the party, where tasks like "Climb a ladder!" can prove daunting. This phase isn't there - your PCs don't run from everything, and are competent at level 1.

I prefer this change, other people don't. That's about all there is to it.

-Cross

I don't normally enjoy 1st level 3e too much, so the change didn't bother me. However, out of respect for those who do enjoy it I wish they had kept that phase in, at least for 1 level. I mean, its no skin of my nose to start at 2nd level if I feel 1st level characters aren't heroic enough. Its quite harder for a person to houserule 1st level to make characters more like the common man.