Revisiting 4th Edition

[Alaxk Knight of Galt]

Our group played a long 4th edition game when it first came out in 2008. While we initially enjoyed it, most of the group soured on the 4th Edition experience. Personally, I could take it or leave it. I enjoy the character creation mini-game and the balanced combat. I missed the non-combat options with spellcasting in earlier editions and dislike the overwhelming focus on combat in 4th.

Now, in 2013, we are revisiting the edition. (We've dabbled with the edition from time to time (notably Revenge of the Iron Lich (which I ran) and Temple of the Sky God (which the current DM ran)). Here's the party and my thoughts.

Genasi Swordmage | Barbarian (my character)
Genasi Wizard (Mage)
Halfling Thief
Half-Elf Ardent
Dwarven Warlord
Half-Orc Monk

We've completed Born by Fiends and we are two sessions into Reavers of Harkenwold.

Random Thoughts
1. Combats are much quicker and a lot more deadly then what we experienced in 2008. Fights tend to be over in the 3rd round and are super intense. The damage output on the mobs feels like it's been cranked to 11 (in a good way). DM just told me he is making the fights in Harkenwold more difficult for our group, so perhaps the encounters RAW would have been too easy...

2. Skill challenges are still wonky. The skill challenge in Born by Fiends was simply glossed over by the DM after he read it and the group laughed out loud.

3. There's lots of role-playing opportunities. Last night, in a 5 hour session, we did 3 combats and 5 pure RP encounters. Two of the combats were back to back (with a promised 3rd battle in a row coming up).

4. Harkenwold is fun. This adventure has a real nice feel to it. The combat and RP elements, thus far, are well done. Personally, I miss seeing exploration and time management stuff. Traveling between the several villages has been entirely glossed over. If I was writing / running this adventure, I'd have random encounters and a greater focus on travel / exploration.

5. Characters are too bloated with options. Our Warlord, Monk, and Ardent have way too many options right now. We've played three sessions and I still don't feel like they have a firm grip on what their characters do. The Mage and Thief both have excellent grasp on their characters. In the case of the Thief, I think this is a result of him playing an essentials character. In the case of the Mage, I think this is a result of him taking time to thoroughly learn his PC. I have no problems running my Hybrid character (though, I probably spend the most time away from the table building / tinkering with it).

6. Character Builder is a blessing and curse. It's great to have a tool that allows you to build a character and have all the math right. It's a curse as the math in the game has so many moving parts that failing to use it will most likely result in mistakes. Additionally, it makes creating house rules agonizingly difficult (our monk is using a home brewed Theme, which can not be translated in any way into character builder).

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

O
1. Combats are much quicker and a lot more deadly then what we experienced in 2008. Fights tend to be over in the 3rd round and are super intense. The damage output on the mobs feels like it's been cranked to 11 (in a good way). DM just told me he is making the fights in Harkenwold more difficult for our group, so perhaps the encounters RAW would have been too easy...

As of MM3/DMG2, monster damage has been standardized. (A typical single-target at-will would deal 8 + level on average; minion damage has also been standardized.)

I noticed a few creatures in the MM1 actually did the same damage prior to the changes. Often these were viewed as OP at the start. (In Keep on the Shadowfell, guard drakes killed half my party in one encounter. They were certainly doing much higher damage than what was "standard" in 2008.)

Defenses have also been standardized (generally lower), and solo design is far better.

2. Skill challenges are still wonky. The skill challenge in Born by Fiends was simply glossed over by the DM after he read it and the group laughed out loud.

While Reavers tends to have a good rep, skill challenges can be poorly-written. Fortunately DMs can come up some on the fly, provided they have the new skill DC rules (which have lower DCs).

3. There's lots of role-playing opportunities. Last night, in a 5 hour session, we did 3 combats and 5 pure RP encounters. Two of the combats were back to back (with a promised 3rd battle in a row coming up).

See, I knew there was a reason encounter social powers existed

4. Harkenwold is fun. This adventure has a real nice feel to it. The combat and RP elements, thus far, are well done. Personally, I miss seeing exploration and time management stuff. Traveling between the several villages has been entirely glossed over. If I was writing / running this adventure, I'd have random encounters and a greater focus on travel / exploration.

Random encounters need to be handled differently in 4e. See, random encounters are a bad idea now, but pacing encounters aren't. (Therefore I'm more likely to use "random" encounters in a city or dungeon, where PCs might feel an urge to rest too early.) In the wilderness, a random encounter is a speed bump unless it's a level +4 or more encounter, since you're not likely to keep facing random encounters. Unless the PCs are wandering through a jungle filled with cannibalistic halflings, which is something I did once

5. Characters are too bloated with options. Our Warlord, Monk, and Ardent have way too many options right now. We've played three sessions and I still don't feel like they have a firm grip on what their characters do. The Mage and Thief both have excellent grasp on their characters. In the case of the Thief, I think this is a result of him playing an essentials character. In the case of the Mage, I think this is a result of him taking time to thoroughly learn his PC. I have no problems running my Hybrid character (though, I probably spend the most time away from the table building / tinkering with it).

4e has a lot of immediate reaction/interrupt powers, plus free action powers, which can slow the game down. (Option paralysis when making a creature is not a big deal, but it's a big deal if it's affecting you when you need to think quickly.)

Ironically, Essentials uses lots of triggered powers and yet it goes fast. This is mainly because your only option might be "do I use Power Strike now? Yes/no?"

6. Character Builder is a blessing and curse. It's great to have a tool that allows you to build a character and have all the math right. It's a curse as the math in the game has so many moving parts that failing to use it will most likely result in mistakes. Additionally, it makes creating house rules agonizingly difficult (our monk is using a home brewed Theme, which can not be translated in any way into character builder).

I hate the Character Builder.

For starters, players should learn to make a character with pen and paper before they start using the CB. Alas, I didn't insist on that with my group (not being aware of this issue), and now I have players who think inherent bonuses are "too complicate" to use without computerized assistance.

Making a 1st-level character is not hard, and no new player should be presented with 5th-level PC or something like that (although sometimes that's unavoidable).

The inability to implant house rules is just another mark against the Character Builder. One of my players played a thri-kreen battlemind in my Dark Sun campaign a while back, and the CB had trouble with some aspect of the rules (apparently it could handle the thri-kreen, but not the Dark Sun stuff, odd because I don't think the thri-kreen was available prior to Dark Sun's release).

Another thing I hate about the Character Builder is how it interacts with optimization boards, and the vast amount of splat books. I think the CB cost WotC a lot of splat sales, especially those before they discontinued the free offline version in 2010. Why buy a book when the CB already has it? (Maybe the CB was never available for free legally, I don't know because I don't use the program.)

In 3rd Edition, players were limited in the kind of splatbooks they could use. DMs could say they're not using so-and-so book, or the player has to own the book and show it to them, etc. It didn't matter if you found something on an op board or have a lot of PDFs, if it required too many sources, you couldn't use it.

In my group, even the more responsible players keep finding they accidentally used a power from some banned source in their build. (The barbarian player is like this, and always points it out when he notices.) I know there's some filter, but either it doesn't work properly or it's too hard to use. I think only one player has ever actually figured this out. (Said thri-kreen PC player.)

Since the glut of splats means inevitable broken combos when you use the Race from Book A with the power from Book B and the item from Book C plus this feat from Book D that was obviously meant to be used with Class E from Book F but they forgot to limit it... sigh. 4e is a lot more balanced than 3.x so it's not so bad, but crap gets through the cracks, like avengers with that stupid AC-boosting monk feat. (Why isn't that feat just a monk class ability? Or is that a feat tax for monks?) I use very few AC-targeting monsters these days.

I doubt anyone from WotC is reading this post, but I don't think the problem with the CB was its functionality, but its basic purpose.

 

[Alaxk Knight of Galt]

As of MM3/DMG2, monster damage has been standardized. (A typical single-target at-will would deal 8 + level on average; minion damage has also been standardized.)

I noticed a few creatures in the MM1 actually did the same damage prior to the changes. Often these were viewed as OP at the start. (In Keep on the Shadowfell, guard drakes killed half my party in one encounter. They were certainly doing much higher damage than what was "standard" in 2008.)

Defenses have also been standardized (generally lower), and solo design is far better.

While not having played 4th in a regular campaign since 2009, I had followed the game's development. It is still interesting (and the first time alarming) to see the changes in play versus theorycraft.

While Reavers tends to have a good rep, skill challenges can be poorly-written. Fortunately DMs can come up some on the fly, provided they have the new skill DC rules (which have lower DCs).

IMO and experience, skill challenges sound great on paper but make for poor mechanics in play.

See, I knew there was a reason encounter social powers existed

Yeah, no one has a social encounter power. We all just put on our silly hats and play make-believe. I'm a soldier

Random encounters need to be handled differently in 4e. See, random encounters are a bad idea now, but pacing encounters aren't. (Therefore I'm more likely to use "random" encounters in a city or dungeon, where PCs might feel an urge to rest too early.) In the wilderness, a random encounter is a speed bump unless it's a level +4 or more encounter, since you're not likely to keep facing random encounters. Unless the PCs are wandering through a jungle filled with cannibalistic halflings, which is something I did once

I disagree, but I think it's because I want something different in my DnD. I enjoy the Rogue-like, random encounters and exploration. I like the risk-reward system of pushing on or heading back to town. I feel 4E could have done some great stuff with that using Healing Surges as currency in the wild and by restricting where you could take an extended rest (or how effective they were).

I hate the Character Builder.

I'm still torn on character builder. It's a lovely tool that certainly has a purpose, but it makes certain things difficult / impossible to do.

 

[Balesir]

I feel 4E could have done some great stuff with that using Healing Surges as currency in the wild and by restricting where you could take an extended rest (or how effective they were).

Something that doesn't mess with the balance 4e has, but makes extended rests a bit more "valued", is a house rule I have tried with reasonable success - you might like it:

- Rate the suitability of each area/location for an extended rest; possible values are 1, 3, 4, 5 or 6.

- If the players decide to have the characters take an XR, use the following rules:

== Action Points and Item Uses (if you use them - I do, but not for all item dailies) reset as normal.

== For each used daily power (of any sort), roll a d6 (just as for monster power refreshes) - if the roll is greater than or equal to the location rating, the power returns; if the roll is lower, it doesn't.

== Do the same for healing surges. To speed things up you could take spent surges that fall into groups of six and just take a fixed proportion - roll for the odd ones.

To obviate taking multiple consecutive rests to circumvent this mechanism, add 1 to the "rating" for each rest after the first.

 

[Randomthoughts]

Now, in 2013, we are revisiting the edition.

Cool. I just restarted my 4e Dark Sun campaign and am gearing to actually play another 4e campaign.

We've completed Born by Fiends and we are two sessions into Reavers of Harkenwold.

2. Skill challenges are still wonky. <snip>

4. Harkenwold is fun. <snip> Traveling between the several villages has been entirely glossed over. If I was writing / running this adventure, I'd have random encounters and a greater focus on travel / exploration.

5. Characters are too bloated with options. <snip>

6. Character Builder is a blessing and curse. <snip> It's a curse as the math in the game has so many moving parts that failing to use it will most likely result in mistakes. Additionally, it makes creating house rules agonizingly difficult.

Is Born by Fiends a Dungeon adventure? Haven't heard of it.

What was the skill challenge in BbF about? I really like SC but they are hard to pull off sometimes, or in the manner one expects. I found running a bunch of them to be very helpful; I got better the more I ran.

Re: Harkenworld, was glossing over travel simply not part of the adventure or did the GM just skip them? Including or not something like travel tends to be a GM judgment call on the pace of the adventure. Sometimes you just want PCs to *get there*. OTOH, anytime the PCs travel outside of a city-state in my Dark Sun campaign, they're never sure what will happen.

Re: player options, maybe some of the players would benefit from running Essential classes instead. Were the GM and other players complaining about too many options?

Finally, re: CB, it's interesting. CB makes chargen pretty darn easy and fast. But I'd love to see more functionality like being able to accommodate House Rules better. But in those cases, I resort to the old fashion way: writing it on another piece of paper. It's not as elegant as integrating it in CB, but can you do?

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Yeah, I like using HS a lot, and I've always been pretty happy to rework the concept of a long rest or tweak how it works in specific situations. I think this was an area the DMGs could have touched on more.

 

[Alaxk Knight of Galt]

Is Born by Fiends a Dungeon adventure? Haven't heard of it.

What was the skill challenge in BbF about? I really like SC but they are hard to pull off sometimes, or in the manner one expects. I found running a bunch of them to be very helpful; I got better the more I ran.

Born by Fiends is a Living Forgotten Realms module. There are a couple of skill challenges in it (one involved doing favors for a guild, the other involved getting from point A to point B as quickly as possible).

Re: Harkenworld, was glossing over travel simply not part of the adventure or did the GM just skip them? Including or not something like travel tends to be a GM judgment call on the pace of the adventure. Sometimes you just want PCs to *get there*. OTOH, anytime the PCs travel outside of a city-state in my Dark Sun campaign, they're never sure what will happen.

I'm not running it (nor have I read it) but I don't think the GM is glossing over travel concerns. I like your Dark Sun approach of leaving civilization / cities is dangerous.

Re: player options, maybe some of the players would benefit from running Essential classes instead. Were the GM and other players complaining about too many options?

Agreed. A mistake of 4th (early at least) was making every class equally complicated.

 

[Tequila Sunrise]

2. Skill challenges are still wonky. The skill challenge in Born by Fiends was simply glossed over by the DM after he read it and the group laughed out loud.

I know plenty of other 4e fans love SCs, but I tend to agree with you. Most of the ones I've experienced have been clunky affairs. The best one was basically the DM telling us "Here's a trapped corridor you have to go thru. What crazy stunts do you try to do it with?" I had a high endurance, so I ended up enduring the flame jet traps. (Kinda like walking on hot coals.)

5. Characters are too bloated with options. Our Warlord, Monk, and Ardent have way too many options right now. We've played three sessions and I still don't feel like they have a firm grip on what their characters do. The Mage and Thief both have excellent grasp on their characters. In the case of the Thief, I think this is a result of him playing an essentials character. In the case of the Mage, I think this is a result of him taking time to thoroughly learn his PC. I have no problems running my Hybrid character (though, I probably spend the most time away from the table building / tinkering with it).

I don't know if I'll ever be able to wrap my head around the 'too many options' complaint...but then I play casters in 3.x so by comparison a 4e character is easy-peasy.

6. Character Builder is a blessing and curse. It's great to have a tool that allows you to build a character and have all the math right. It's a curse as the math in the game has so many moving parts that failing to use it will most likely result in mistakes. Additionally, it makes creating house rules agonizingly difficult (our monk is using a home brewed Theme, which can not be translated in any way into character builder).

I don't like the CB, and I don't mention it to players I introduce to the game.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Heh, I love CB, and the fact that it allows players to avoid really digging deeply into character building, not a problem. Who WANTS optimizers? lol. Honestly, there are times I wish some players would get a better handle on the rules, but casual players rarely do. I doubt it would change just because they had to fill out a character sheet by hand.

I know I'm weird, but I have no real problem with SCs, at least if I write them. Practice does make perfect though. Many of the ones in published adventures are weak at best. Framing them is a whole art all of its own.

 

[D'karr]

I love the character builder for the fact that I don't have to worry about the "mechanics" of the character, only the flavor. However, I use the offline one, and modify it when I want to add a house rule. For example one of my players ended up "reanimating" a twig blight and wanted to use it as a companion. I tweaked the Fey Beast Tamer theme and added a twig blight. Awesome solution, though it could have easily been written on the sheet.

My "philosophy" on skill challenges is that they provide me with a framework for rewarding non-combat encounters. That is all.

I run them pretty much in the same manner that I used to run non-combat encounters in past editions - very free-form. The difference is that when I start the challenge I assign it a level and difficulty. Sometimes this is based on the PC level, sometimes based on the NPC level, sometimes based on the situation, and sometimes based simply on gut instinct. Most of it is a give-take between the DM and PC, based on the situation. The difficulty for a check is always based on the situation. The more difficult something seems to be the harder the DC. The player only knows the difficulty as we discuss it, not the target number. That allows me to adjudicate without tipping the balance in the DM or PC favor. When they complete the challenge, whether successful or not, they get rewarded (XP) based on the outcome. They also "suffer" the consequences of success or failure. I can add "complications", or "boons" during the challenge based on the circumstances.

My players get into a lot of non-combat situations, and this has been a very solid framework to use for adjudication. This has created a more organic use/feel to the skill challenge framework, and provided me with what I didn't have before - a consistent way of rewarding that type of play.

When I use a "published" skill challenge I always "flip" it to work in this manner. The skill challenges seem to work better when they are organically merged with the actions of the characters trying to achieve a goal, rather than simply a list of "approved" skills. I run the challenges in a way similar to how I run combats. The description of what is happening is very important to the pacing, and the feel of the encounter. That shift in "philosophy" got rid of the "suckiness" of the skill challenges as presented in published format.