Whoa. 4e is hard on PC mortality rates.

[TimeOut]

I underestimated my goblins.

Goblins are deadly if used right, but not as annoying as the shifty kobolds. Of course nothing beats a Kobold Wyrmpriest dealing 12 damage to all 5 characters during a surprise round...

 

[Grazzt]

If you are having trouble with the encounter, look at how the group is working together to take out key targets, keep each other safe and use their resources wisely.

And much like the older pre-3.x editions (@ least I never saw it much in 3.x) .... PCs need to know when to retreat (that whole "he who fights and runs away..." thing).

 

[vagabundo]

I used to fudge a lot in 3e and let everyone away with it.

With 4e I've had a TPK and, last night, the Dragonborn Paladin from KotS got OA'd unconscious. He was surrounded by a mob of kobold dragonshields. No fudging on my part anymore.

The PCs are tough and can survive if played right, if they die it is truly their own fault and not a problem with the rules.

 

[Henry]

Just a long-winded theory, but...

RPG players -usually- are very bad at teamwork. Too many iconoclastic personalities....
[snip]
I suspect once people start getting used to this, you're going to see more comments about the ease of success in 4E - but only once people realize how to play it, and that, I suspect, such play requires -not- being the hero, but just a member of an ensemble cast.

It's an interesting theory; I wonder if it can help explain why a lot of people disliked earlier AD&D to other games. In OD&D and in 1st edition AD&D, you HAD to be a team player to be successful; there was no other recourse. In the beginning, mages DIDN'T rule the roost the way people claim they do today; they had very few defensive spells, and only a few spells per day at all!

In AD&D, If the clerics didn't defend and heal, and if the wizards didn't kill enemies in droves but stay out of combat when they were out of spells, if the fighters didn't play "meat shield" and help the party pick choke points to fight in instead of giant open rooms, and if the thieves didn't do their job with traps, wall traps, etc. then you didn't survive those dungeons with flooding room traps, kobolds behind murder holes with ballistae and boiling oil, etc. Those pigeonholed roles that didn't offer much mechanical character definition also ensured that everyone had at least one or two glaring weak spots that needed someone to watch their backs for.

 

[Zil]

I use to fudge a lot in 3e and let everyone away with it.

With 4e I've had a TPK and, last night, the Dragonborn Paladin from KotS got OA'd unconscious. He was surrounded by a mob of kobold dragonshields. No fudging on my part anymore.

The PCs are tough and can survive if played right, if they die it is truly their own fault and not a problem with the rules.

I don't buy that. Why is it necessarily a problem on the players side? We played through Keep on the Shadowfell the other night and ran into a period there of rolling really bad on our die rolls while the goblin irontooth and company were rolling really well. We started dropping and hurting bad and there was a chance it could have been a TPK simply based on our bad luck.

All of the versions of D&D have an element of luck built into them. 4E doesn't make that magically go away.

 

[Wisdom Penalty]

All of the versions of D&D have an element of luck built into them. 4E doesn't make that magically go away.

True, of course. The only thing I would add is the 4e seems to make those periods of bad luck more, how do I say, manageable.

Mathematically I think this stems from the fact that monsters in 4e hit more (again, just using my limited play experience) but damage less, on average, than their 3e counterparts. This leads to periods where the PCs may be getting wumped eight ways from Sunday, but they aren't killed outright.

 

[vagabundo]

I don't buy that. Why is it necessarily a problem on the players side? We played through Keep on the Shadowfell the other night and ran into a period there of rolling really bad on our die rolls while the goblin irontooth and company were rolling really well. We started dropping and hurting bad and there was a chance it could have been a TPK simply based on our bad luck.

All of the versions of D&D have an element of luck built into them. 4E doesn't make that magically go away.

No sorry, "the rules" I had a problem with was 3e not 4e. I think the PCs are tougher in 4e and have a lot more survivability. I think the combats are great in 4e.

I agree that you could play everything "right" and still get creamed by bad rolls. In that case good tactics should still save your asses and cover your retreat or it is time to beg for your life/bribe the ko-bo's (RP always the Roll-players last resort).



My point was that with 4e I, as DM, am letting the cards (dice) fail where they will and the players had better watch out.

ASIDE: I accidentally forgot to change the encounters in KotS as I have only four PCs. That extra dragonshield is probably the reason the Dragonborn dropped. My bad <evil grin>...

 

[Ander00]

Blue jello is very good at exploding...but it can't give chase too well.

Its death throes killed my warlord. I'm not a fan of these kinds of abilities :\.


cheers

 

[Rodrigo Istalindir]

I've played through 9 1st level encounters so far, and aside from the dragon at the end of Scalegloom Hall (which was designed as a meat grinder), haven't seen anything close to a player death, much less a TPK.

Yeah, I break mirrors for fun, too. Bring it on, fate

 

[med stud]

It's an interesting theory; I wonder if it can help explain why a lot of people disliked earlier AD&D to other games. In OD&D and in 1st edition AD&D, you HAD to be a team player to be successful; there was no other recourse. In the beginning, mages DIDN'T rule the roost the way people claim they do today; they had very few defensive spells, and only a few spells per day at all!

In AD&D, If the clerics didn't defend and heal, and if the wizards didn't kill enemies in droves but stay out of combat when they were out of spells, if the fighters didn't play "meat shield" and help the party pick choke points to fight in instead of giant open rooms, and if the thieves didn't do their job with traps, wall traps, etc. then you didn't survive those dungeons with flooding room traps, kobolds behind murder holes with ballistae and boiling oil, etc. Those pigeonholed roles that didn't offer much mechanical character definition also ensured that everyone had at least one or two glaring weak spots that needed someone to watch their backs for.

I'd say that was the genius of the first editions of D&D. Strategy games are best when they are simple yet provide valid choices. You don't need many choices but they should all be valid sometimes.

A classical example is Command and Conquer vs Starcraft; in C&C there were tons of units but you really only needed to use one or two of them. In Starcraft each race have few units but they are all useful all the game in certain situations.

I think 4e have bought into this paradigm. If there is an "old school"- feel about 4e, it's that meaningful simplicity IMO.