Playtesting questions

[Li Shenron]

You can't mark a target multiple times. A new mark supersedes and old one.

I called it "mark" but I generically meant all abilities where you select a target and that target remains affected until you switch to another target. So not just the fighter's "combat challenge" but also the paladin's "(forgot the name)", the "warlock's curse" etc. I think that one character can be targetted by these all at once.

 

[small pumpkin man]

I called it "mark" but I generically meant all abilities where you select a target and that target remains affected until you switch to another target. So not just the fighter's "combat challenge" but also the paladin's "(forgot the name)", the "warlock's curse" etc. I think that one character can be targetted by these all at once.

The Paladin's ability is a mark, just a special one, and as such doesn't stack with the fighter's mark. Thing is, with the curse and the Ranger's ability, only the character that used the ability has to remember who they've marked, since all it does is give that particular character bonus damage (in the Warlock's case, it does one other thing, but it's not that big a deal.) In fact in smaller fights the ranger and the Warlock can just curse everyone and then not worry about it, and in very large fights with mooks, it might not even be worth them remembering whom they've cursed, instead just curse their target in the same round they attack.

 

[Iron Sky]

Ranger can only put his Quarry on one creature, but the warlock can curse as many as he wants.

 

[Jack99]

Let me get this right - You tested 4e by doing a PvP-battle?

 

[Li Shenron]

The Paladin's ability is a mark, just a special one, and as such doesn't stack with the fighter's mark.

Oh... I didn't know that. :\ They seemed stackable...

Thing is, with the curse and the Ranger's ability, only the character that used the ability has to remember who they've marked

That's true. Probably you can just default these 2 to your current target, changing it at every round. In that case however, it is unnecessarily complicated to describe them as "marking". They could just have been constant abilities (maybe with some restrictions to 1 target only per round, in case you get multiple attacks at higher levels), at least it would have spared us some headache.

 

[Li Shenron]

Let me get this right - You tested 4e by doing a PvP-battle?

Yes, we only used the 6 pregen PCs for this first try.

 

[Jack99]

Yes, we only used the 6 pregen PCs for this first try.

I am gonna hazard a guess and say that you will probably find the game smoother if you play it as a cooperative game, with players "against" the DM. Although 4e should be much more balanced PvP-wise, than the other editions put together...

Cheers

 

[Li Shenron]

I am gonna hazard a guess and say that you will probably find the game smoother if you play it as a cooperative game, with players "against" the DM. Although 4e should be much more balanced PvP-wise, than the other editions put together...

Cheers

I was actually running 3 characters at once, against the players (in fact probably "me" was the most reason why the game was quite slow at the first attempt, as I had too much stuff to keep track of), sort-of simulating a battle in an adventure.

But yes, there is certainly more room for cooperation than before.

For example, the fighter's power to push other characters is probably useless if you don't use it to push the foe towards a trap/pit or to give an ally a benefit from that (like, not having to shift to reach the foe, or being able to target the foe with a spell without hitting the ally with splash damage etc.). It's quite hard to figure these things out in early games*, but it looks like there's a lot of tactics to explore.

*meaning that our playtest was full of "you should have done that in your previous turn/action" moment

edit: anyway, one other positive thing is that there was not so much to do with your MOVE action besides actually moving. I consider this positive, because it encourages a little more mobility. Not too much due to AoO (why didn't they just drop AoO from movement completely?), but still more than 3e when characters tend to "stick" to the same foe until it drops.

 

[Baumi]

BTW, in case you were wondering, the results of the playtest were a bit so-and-so. Of couse it was severely limited, because we just used the 6 pregen characters, 3 vs 3.

PVP was never a strong point of D&D and most other RPG's. It would be better if you try one of the free Adventures (or one Encounter from them), that should be more fun and work more smoothly (many PC-powers work best in combination with others and Monsters are different to run then PCs).

- It wasn't faster than 3e; of course, we know how to play 3e while we don't know yet 4e so we wasted a lot of time discussing the rules, trying to look for a way to use all our action, choosing which power to use etc, so it's our fault. It took about 2.5-3 hours just for 1 battle It was a long battle anyway, perhaps around 8-10 rounds (multiplied by 6 characters it's a lot of turns). I think however that perhaps the number of special abilities at 1st level is too many.

Why did it take so long for just 8-10 rounds? There are no full-round Attacks anymore and most Actions are over with just one roll...

- Diagonals were slightly frustrating. Clearly, again our fault that we're used to the old way, because the frustration came from the fact that often we didn't notice how close we were from an opponent's charge/move. Lesson learned: when running away from someone, you must always run diagonally

Thats no advantage, the enemy would come at the same speed after you and the range of the weapon stay the same if you run straight or diagonal. Also in most Terrains (City, Dungeon, Wood,...) you cannot run diagonal all the time.

- The Ranger's quarry seemed a little bit too good, coupled with Accurate Strike it almost always hit and the PC was definitely the best of the bunch, and the last man standing. Perhaps it just got the best player... but anyway it seemed by far the best at-will power.

The Ranger is a great Damage Dealer, but that's normal since he is a striker. But Accurate Strike is not that great .. did you use the revised Version (only 1d10 Damage)?

 

[Goobermunch]

Oh... I didn't know that. :\ They seemed stackable...



That's true. Probably you can just default these 2 to your current target, changing it at every round. In that case however, it is unnecessarily complicated to describe them as "marking". They could just have been constant abilities (maybe with some restrictions to 1 target only per round, in case you get multiple attacks at higher levels), at least it would have spared us some headache.

Except I think the warlock's curse can only target the nearest enemy. In one game I played, I cursed an enemy adjacent to me, but ended up blasting one much further away (as the combat played out, I never actually got to attack the guy I cursed ). So it does help somewhat to have a marker for your cursed targets.

In a game like you ran, I'd just have the warlock player take a 3x5 card, tent it, and write curse on one face. Then he can give it to a cursed player. If he ends up cursing someone else, he can make another curse card.

I've been thinking about ways to handle marks, curses, and quarries, and I really like the idea of the magnetic markers Keith Baker described in his blog. The other thought I had would be to take a sheet of cardstock and put a grid on it. Each monster gets a square. When a PC uses a curse, mark, or quarry ability, he or she puts a poker chip on the monster's square. That way, you can look at the monster on the mat, then look on the board for the status effects. The nice thing about this is you can also do continuing damage effects on the target monster at the same time.

--G