Yet another look at KotSF/4th Ed.

[Henry]

Yeah, the FAQ mentions that the benefits of the Fighter's Combat Challenge ability only apply to marked targets. Regardless, I can't imagine why the fighter wasn't sticky vs his mark. The fighter gains a free attack against the mark almost no matter what and he hits fairly hard (2d6+3= 10 avg). Was the fighter just rolling terribly?

Huh, I remember the fighter as much better in playtesting - before the clarification. Still, same idea applies, he's holding down the fort.

Given you can only rest 1/24 hours to get back dailys, there are plenty of ways to discourage people from trying to take an extended rest after every encounter.

Yeah, but they're the same ways you discourage back in 3e and earlier. Still, I've always had the experience that I've never had a problem with the "15-minute workday" any any edition of D&D, so it doesn't matter to me. And I'm willing to bet that in playtesting, the majority of players didn't feel deprived enough to just quit adventuring without their dailies, either.

 

[Rzach]

In point 14 you mention that the wizard has 3 near identical rays. This has been pointed out as not being true already.

But did you know that a wizard is not affected by a burst that he casts unless the power states other wise? That is covered in the dm rules in the adventure. Also the origin square of a blast is not affected by the blast. This means that when a wizard is surrounded they can unleash area affect spells on top of their selves and remain uninjured by the effects. Also blasts don't count as a ranged power so they shouldn't provoke opportunity attacks.

The wizard in my game used this to keep the kobolds off of him. No one wants to close in melee with a guy who immolates everything next to him.


Later,
Rzach

edited spelling and mistake I made from my game notes.

 

[Endroren]

So your big gripe is that the adventure wasn't story driven and seemed to be focused on combat, ummmm Ok, I believe the adventure is there to show the biggest changes in the rules which is combat, if you want to have a more story focused adventure erm write one? Also you might think doing the adventure as a Beer and Pretzels type one from the start (Eric the cleric etc), may have lead to a less story focused adventure by the DM as well?

Oh, come on. Look at the rules. They are GREAT but they're the heir to Warhammer Quest or maybe "Super D&D Minis". I think he has a valid concern and you can't just write it off with a critique like this. Even the pre-release news tells us this is all about Encounters. And when you read an encounter it's pretty much a highly complex minis scenario.

Again...very cool game but I think his complaint is completely valid.

 

[Endroren]

I'd suggest that, in order to make "story", you ask each player: "What does your PC want?" Then make the action scenes lead towards resolution of that goal - either push him further away from that goal (failure), or bring him closer to it (success).

I think though that the point is that 4E doesn't seem to focus on that style of play. Rather, it is HERO QUEST 4E with the D&D name. Very cool. Very fun. But just look at the structure of the game as set forth by WotC. It's absolutely an "uber minis game" rather than a true RPG.

Is that bad? Not really. If it is still fun, then great. But I think his complaint is on the money and very valid.

 

[Insight]

Area effects provoke opportunity attacks. So dumping a spell on yourself to clear minions isn't the best plan unless the minions can't hit you (or can't hit you very often).

 

[LostSoul]

I think though that the point is that 4E doesn't seem to focus on that style of play.

I agree with that; just wondering how that technique would work to add drama to action scenes. (It works in movies...)

 

[Felon]

Three thoughts occur to me:

1) The fighter's marking and "suckage" -- Were you giving the fighters the free attack when the enemy went wandering off after the squishier PCs? Every time the enemy wanders off, the fighter gets one, mark or not, and it's nto as easy to avoid as op-attacks were. That's pretty strong incentive not to wander away from a fighter more than once.

Can you make more than one immediate action before your next turn? I thought it was capped at one.

 

[JeffB]

Answer to PCs who *take advantage* of resting rules = wandering monsters (if you don't use them already)


I've not played, but I got my copy last night- so far, I'm liking what I see

 

[Felon]

Sleep does seem like a crap spell now. Maybe minions shouldn't get to make saves to wake up--then at least it can actually put SOMEONE to sleep instead of just making them drowsy.

I thought 4e's claims of ending the 5-minute workday were a bit of a canard, and I knew 4e was going to involve at least as much bookkeeping. Not sure how making effect durations variable ("save ends") instead of fixed was supposed to speed things up or minimalize bookkeeping.

 

[nckestrel]

Oh, come on. Look at the rules. They are GREAT but they're the heir to Warhammer Quest or maybe "Super D&D Minis". I think he has a valid concern and you can't just write it off with a critique like this. Even the pre-release news tells us this is all about Encounters. And when you read an encounter it's pretty much a highly complex minis scenario.

Again...very cool game but I think his complaint is completely valid.

How is it better to have a combat than an encounter? That's like complaining movies have scenes.
pre-4th Ed: get description of room, ignore room for fight. kill monsters. search room for loot. check to next room. no interaction between montsers, rooms or other monsters, rooms. (any interaction between them was usually ad hoc by DM, not part of standard design).
4th ed: room description, monsters, loot all presented together as an encounter. DMs are strongly encouraged to mesh all the elements together at once, including events that change the encounter during the encounter.

The emphasis is on creating a scene (encounter), using the elements to create a story with the scene.