D&D 4E What can Next do to pull in 4e campaigns?

[pemerton]

The basic encounter system in all three editions is still "we assume a fair fight is - for a party of four - four creatures of X power, two creatures of X+2 power, one creature of X+4 power.

I don't know about 3E or D&Dnext, but for 4e this is not right. Adding 4 levels to a monster in 4e roughly doubles its strength (assuming the PCs are in the same general ballpark level-wise); it does not quadruple it.

 

[Incenjucar]

No, you're both talking about 3e doing a poor job assigning CRs accurately. The basic encounter system in all three editions is still "we assume a fair fight is - for a party of four - four creatures of X power, two creatures of X+2 power, one creature of X+4 power. Increase X by one or more to make the fight harder for your PCs." All of the CR math/XP budget work out mathematically to exactly the same thing.

So the SRD is wrong?

http://dandwiki.com/wiki/SRD:Challenge_Rating_(Creature_Statistic)

 

[Savage Wombat]

So the SRD is wrong?

http://dandwiki.com/wiki/SRD:Challenge_Rating_(Creature_Statistic)

No, the SRD agrees with me. I used "X" instead of CR for that reason, and that it would mesh better with the description of 4e.

Let me phrase it another way - if you take the "complicated" system from 3e, and convert the appropriate monster CR into it's experience value, and then treat that Exp value as the "budget" for the encounter, you will get the same number of monsters as you would if you broke, say, a CR 9 encounter into a CR 7, a CR 5 and two CR 3s. It's the same math. (Apparently 4e uses half-steps.)

 

[YaLi Ma]

I don't think Wizards of the Coast is interested in pulling in 4E groups at all. I think they're more interested in pulling in people that played D&D prior to 4E and then stopped playing or are playing different games. If 5E was designed to make 4E players happy, I wouldn't be interested.

 

[Mistwell]

I don't think Wizards of the Coast is interested in pulling in 4E groups at all. I think they're more interested in pulling in people that played D&D prior to 4E and then stopped playing or are playing different games. If 5E was designed to make 4E players happy, I wouldn't be interested.

Pretty sure the tactical combat and customization optional modules are designed to pull in 4e groups.

 

[Nemesis Destiny]

It's also worth noting that they can't afford to ignore the 4e gamers any more than they could continue to ignore the people who didn't like it (which leads us to the current situation), so unless they pull a rabbit out of their collective hats, they've put themselves in a real catch-22 here. Will the portion of 4e players who aren't hard-core, or who play whatever the latest version is be enough to keep them afloat? Only time will tell. Likewise, will they actually succeed in attracting enough lapsed 3.5 and PF players? Only time will tell.

 

[Incenjucar]

No, the SRD agrees with me. I used "X" instead of CR for that reason, and that it would mesh better with the description of 4e.

Let me phrase it another way - if you take the "complicated" system from 3e, and convert the appropriate monster CR into it's experience value, and then treat that Exp value as the "budget" for the encounter, you will get the same number of monsters as you would if you broke, say, a CR 9 encounter into a CR 7, a CR 5 and two CR 3s. It's the same math. (Apparently 4e uses half-steps.)

Sounds like 4E does all of the work for you.

That said, 4E does not make the assumption that a single monster that isn't a solo should ever be an encounter of its own. 3E is built around the notion of 1 monster vs. 1 party (and doesn't really factor in the SIZE of the party). 4E instead assumes 1 monster vs. 1 PC, which makes it a lot easier to build an encounter even if you CAN (with extra work) do that with 3E.

This is why I can build an encounter that looks like this without having to sit down and build a table or do any math on my own:

White Widow x1
Yuan-ti Abomination x2
+1 Abomination/PC>4

or

Yuan-ti Malison Chanter x1
Yuan-ti Abomination
Yuan-ti Initiate x10
+1 Malison Chanter/PC>4

Granted, math isn't hard, but it's still a waste of my time.

This also ensures that 4E encounters are balanced for larger battles instead of smaller ones, especially for those DMs who kind of stick to the letter of the book instead of breaking out of it.

 

[Obryn]

Heck; my own group is looking at starting a new 4e campaign shortly, using Zeitgeist.

Next isn't a game made for my group, right now. And that's fine.

 

[Incenjucar]

Heck; my own group is looking at starting a new 4e campaign shortly, using Zeitgeist.

Next isn't a game made for my group, right now. And that's fine.

Bolded for emphasis.

While I do feel that 4E-preferring gamers kind of got the short end of the stick, we still have a system that's really really easy to work with, so we'll live and we'll continue to have fun. The only issue is WotC's bottom line, which is theirs to worry about.

 

[Dominar Rygel XVI]

It's also worth noting that they can't afford to ignore the 4e gamers any more than they could continue to ignore the people who didn't like it (which leads us to the current situation), so unless they pull a rabbit out of their collective hats, they've put themselves in a real catch-22 here. Will the portion of 4e players who aren't hard-core, or who play whatever the latest version is be enough to keep them afloat? Only time will tell. Likewise, will they actually succeed in attracting enough lapsed 3.5 and PF players? Only time will tell.

I would say that all depends on the number of 4th editions players vs the players of all the other editions put together.