4e: Is it D&D to you?

[alhoon]

Given how quickly some undead can chew through your healing surges, you may not have to worry about that.

• all five Wights have At-Will Powers that strip the target of a Healing Surge

Another fine example of an unbalanced monster. One wight in an encounter? OK.
An encounter with 5 wights for 5 chars? That should count as two encounters!

[Jester of the FoS]

That might be a better example of an unbalanced encounter, not an unbalanced monster.
You'll also notice the damage from said wights is low, while a normal skirmisher is medium or high. And, if you don't have any healing surges left, it's a powerful ability that does nothing.

[alhoon]

On the contrary, each such attack of the wight costs 25% of the PC hit points. I.e one healing surge. Probably the dwarf fighter has a couple to spare. But the mage or the rogue doesn't. And even the fighter, after he loses 2-3 healing surges to wights, he will feel the pressure later on in the adventure.

Although I agree: It's an unbalanced encounter, not so much an unbalanced monster.

[Jester of the FoS]

On the contrary, each such attack of the wight costs 25% of the PC hit points. I.e one healing surge. Probably the dwarf fighter has a couple to spare. But the mage or the rogue doesn't. And even the fighter, after he loses 2-3 healing surges to wights, he will feel the pressure later on in the adventure.

But a wight encounter late in the day when you've already used most of your surges is less damaging. When you're rested 25%+ dmg is a lot, but when you're out of surges, it's just 1d6 and change, typically using low dmg table instead of moderate.
One of the small ways they balance monsters that isn't described in the faaaaar too-short building monsters section of the DMG. After working on 4e beastie adaptation I'd kill for a couple pages of extra hints and guidelines on weaknessess, resistances, senses, building minions, number & ratios of powers, types of power, multi-role monsters, limits on conditions and side-effects, etc.

It really is showing me some of the BIG problems with 4e (that'll likely get fixed in 5e in seven years).
Mostly having the static PC defences is odd, because sometime you just need a defensive mechanic (as seen on being pushed off an edge, which resorts to using the duration-tracking saving throws). Having pits and such make attack-rolls is just silly.
Then there's the loossness of encounters. Go a minion or two over budget? Same level. It's esspecially prevelant in the official stuff where almost every encounter is just a *touch* over. Look at the "heroic" adventure pubshed in Dungeon (the mansion one) where every encounter was Paragon-tier.

But the big one is how all monsters are 'balanced' in regards to AC/defences, damage limits, and hp. But there are *no* restrictions on eveything else. Some monster abilities are just better than others. A brute with the ability to re-roll an attacks, or an artillery with imminities and/or regeneration will tip the power scales. And should have the same xp as a generic version. You should be able to tweak monster xp with vulnerabilities while adding to the total with certain other powers.

[Strahdsbuddy]

Wow, Jester. I haven't gotten 4E yet but your last post really soured me on it as a whole. Encounter balancing makes my head hurt....and an attack roll for a pit trap?

OK, i don't read a lot of reviews and most of the D&D information i have comes from this board really. Alhoon is doing an ok job of defending the new system, but the cons seem to outweigh the pros. 3/3.5 is SO enormously huge as far as finding rules for pretty much anything, what motivation is there for the occasional gaming group (like mine) to wait around for 4E to catch up, and to seemingly relearn so much of the game? The joke review that Tykus posted (i think) made a gag about everyone playing a Dwarven adventurer named Carlos....that almost seems welcome compared to pits rolling to-hits!

I'm even thinking about changing my original answer; maybe this ISNT D&D to me...

[alhoon]

what motivation is there for the occasional gaming group (like mine) to wait around for 4E to catch up, and to seemingly relearn so much of the game?

That the 4E is amazingly simple while getting the job done.

I had the same feelings Strahdsbuddy, but after a complete session of 3 hours and 3 battles, I was content, I had enjoyed myself with the game and I had a clear head. I couldn't say the same for 3E except at the very low levels (1-3).
Back in 3E, a complete session at 9th lvl with 3 battles and RP would take 4-5 hours and would leave me tired from the calculations.

Read my after-playtest review to see what I mean.

And designing balanced encounters is far easier than in 3E. Just avoid some obvious pitfalls. But yes, it could have been even better.

[Strahdsbuddy]

I guess i got away from my original feelings on the topic: that the battle system is of very little interest to me due to our style of game. Just a few of the things i've been reading have thrown my mind into a cyclone.

I did read your post-playtest, Alhoon. Very helpful. Not sure i'm gonna run out and convert anytime soon (Or play any D&D anytime soon) but it was good food for thought. but as i look at the PILES of old edition books i have.....I just can't see it.

[alhoon]

OK, suit yourself. I believe there will be many people that wouldn't convert to 4th yet, especially the "old guard".

[steveflam]

OK, suit yourself. I believe there will be many people that wouldn't convert to 4th yet, especially the "old guard".

Well I was sceptical about 4E. So I went and obtained the PHB and found a pc generator and an excel file to make me a pc. It's not really that bad. I created a Rogue. It's kind of wierd that the only bow they use is a hand crossbow(Love drow so not complaining

When all was said and done I thought I'd be able to play it. After all Ive been making p.c's in new versions for a few years [through 2E, 3E, 3.5 and as well WoD]. And besides I think some people mentioned combat. Well not all games are combat oriented, more are roleplaying. If what alhoon says is true about thew combat being shorter, I'd have to say that is an improvement over 3.5. If any of you have played out combats on tabletop in 3.5 with many players, it takes a long long long time as alhoon says 4-5 hours sometimes.

I find it odd that we have powers now, even humans. But as with 3.5 and feats and other new additions, people will adjust. The healing is a bit different too, but as wil new editions things change. I suspect that maybe the way p.c's are made that WotC is perhaps trying to attract a new generation of rpgers as with the last edition. AS long as people keep playing D&D it doesn't matter.

For those of you who won't be playing 4E that's ok. There is more than enough material from 2E, 3E and 3.5 to last and last and last!


That's my two coppers!

[Troile]

A fighter, a thief, a mage, and a cleric are fighting an orc. The fighter charges at the orc, bellowing his war cry as he brings his sword down hard onto the orcs head. The orc raises his shield in time and blocks the attack, but his knees buckle from the force of the fighter's onslaught (subtract 9 hit points). The thief follows up, creeping behind the orc, as he tries to stab him in the back. The orc notices at the last second, and twists out of the way, the thief's dagger skidding off of his chainmail (subtract 6 hit points). The orc strikes back, swinging his scimitar wide at the fighter before him, who stumbles back, the scimitar blade mere inches from his throat (subtract 6 hit points from the fighter).

Fair enough, but in those cases I would say the armour and shield bonus was enough to deflect the blows.

So a healing surge isn't a case of regenerating wounds like Wolverine or anything of the sort. What they represent is inner pools of resolve that allow you to push onward, ignoring the pain from aches and bruises incurred during combat, whereas most other people would stop to regroup. They represent morale boosts, fortune turning in your favor, and the will to fight on. Cleric healing isn't just raw healing. It's also inspiration, soothing frayed nerves, and replacing fear with resolve. It's why you can have a non-magic healer like the Warlord, now. He doesn't actually heal you. Rather, he inspires you to press on. So nope, hit points aren't just wounds. They're much more then that, with physical wounds being a small part of what they're made up of.

At some point it falls short. At some point you're going to have actual wounds that you shouldn't be able to moralize yourself through.

You're chasing down your archenemy through a hallway, but he's prepared with a readied action. Bam! A critical hit!
You're down, reduced to negative hitpoints, you slouch down against the wall. But there's still time for a death save. A natural 20; instant healing surge! You follow this with Second Wind and rise from the floor, back to half hitpoints.
Moving towards him you chant "Hello. My name is Indigo Montoya. You killed my father. Prepare to die!"

That combat is impossible to represent in d&d. That dagger is only going to do so much damage (I'm not sure in 4e...but I know in 4e everything has even more hp than it did in 3.5).

I know in 3.5 that I can make the character of Inigo Montoya and he would be very different even from other fighters...I'm not so sure I could in 4e though. Maybe I could name his powers something else but he would probably end up much the same as everyone else.

Relying on a 5% chance to have a cinematic combat, or death, is not my idea of a good system. I don't want my hero to only be heroic 5% of the time.

At the end of the movie the hero gets carried away in an ambulance, at the end of the adventure the hero healing surges all of his wounds away.

If it works for you thats great, I really don't like the mindset behind 4e. I would most definitely play a dungeon crawl or a one shot adventure, but I won't play a campaign. It seems like a fine game, but more of a miniatures combat type game than what I want out of d&d.

[alhoon]

If it works for you thats great, I really don't like the mindset behind 4e. I would most definitely play a dungeon crawl or a one shot adventure, but I won't play a campaign. It seems like a fine game, but more of a miniatures combat type game with RP elements.

My opinion also, in a nutshell!

[Jester of the FoS]

At some point it falls short. At some point you're going to have actual wounds that you shouldn't be able to moralize yourself through.

Right, when you're out of healing surges. You cannot be healed by any warlord powers or most cleric powers (except things like cure light wounds

You're chasing down your archenemy through a hallway, but he's prepared with a readied action. Bam! A critical hit!
You're down, reduced to negative hitpoints, you slouch down against the wall. But there's still time for a death save. A natural 20; instant healing surge! You follow this with Second Wind and rise from the floor, back to half hitpoints.
Moving towards him you chant "Hello. My name is Indigo Montoya. You killed my father. Prepare to die!"

That combat is impossible to represent in d&d. That dagger is only going to do so much damage (I'm not sure in 4e...but I know in 4e everything has even more hp than it did in 3.5).

Readied action with a high level monster encounter power, which can often do the equivalent of 4 or 5x weapon damage, so plus a bonus for surprise.
4d8 or even 5d8 wouldn't be out of the question.
If Indigo has already lost a few hp (from earlier combat) and the blow was a critical it could drop someone.

Relying on a 5% chance to have a cinematic combat, or death, is not my idea of a good system. I don't want my hero to only be heroic 5% of the time.

Huh?
Are we talking about the chance of being criticalled. Well, there's more than a single combat roll so there's always a good chance of a critical.
If we're talking about the healing surge from the death roll, that's also more than 5% since you have no less than 3 rolls to make that. AND you can use your second wind once so you always have some healing (even if you split the party to chase after a nemesis).

At the end of the movie the hero gets carried away in an ambulance, at the end of the adventure the hero healing surges all of his wounds away.

And who knows what happens after the adventure? It's easy enough to force the PCs to recover and do nothing for a while, the equivalent of the long rest.

If it works for you thats great, I really don't like the mindset behind 4e. I would most definitely play a dungeon crawl or a one shot adventure, but I won't play a campaign. It seems like a fine game, but more of a miniatures combat type game than what I want out of d&d.

That's totally fair. You play whatever you want and whatever makes you happy.
But then why are you arguing and trying to convince us healing is bad?

[Troile]

But then why are you arguing and trying to convince us healing is bad?

The thread asked for our thoughts on 4e.

I'm explaining what I don't like with some examples.

I'm not saying healing is bad, I'm saying I don't like healing surges. It isn't d&d to me.

I put the disclaimer on my comments to show that I'm not trying to convince anyone, just sharing my feelings.

I can appreciate that people here find it can add a cinematic flair to their games and I've enjoyed the conversation.

But I still don't like it.

[alhoon]

I like it enough to allow 3 HSurges per day in any 3rd edition Campaign (including RL) I may start.

[Adam]

I'm jumping into the thread kind of late, so apologies if I'm covering ground that's already been covered. I have personally been running a 4th Ed. campaign since basically they released Shadowfell, since it fortuitously fit up with a time when my 3rd ed. game was sort of floundering due to attendance issues. I had many of the same concerns as folks are mentioning here, but find myself in the very-much pro 4e camp now.

1) DMing. Compared to 3rd ed. 4e is like a DM's dream. Everything is so much simpler. Encounter design was actually factored into the creation of monsters. Monsters are designed with the level of opponent they will typically be facing in mind, rather than simply spitting out a stat-block from an arbitrary formula based on their creature type rather than what makes for a good fight at a particular level. Attacks are simple. There's no stacking of 300 buffs before fights. Monsters don't need a +1 ring, sword, weapon, armor etc. to be effective (and, thus, you don't have to give all of that to your players after the fight.) And monster design notes are given in the book, making it quite simple to patch together a monster of the appropriate level simply by formulating their hps and attack numbers and borrowing attacks from appropriate benchmark monsters of the same type and level. Other than ongoing effects which, I will admit, are a bit of a pain to keep track of (I'm currently working out the best way to do this efficiently) the system is just so much simpler. As Allhoon puts it, you don't feel drained when the game is over. In my case, I usually feel energized to go work on next week's game.

2) Healing. The healing system is a bit wonky, in that there comes a point in the day where healing stops working on you. That part is weird. Other interesting points include somebody shouting encouragement to you, and that somehow makes you better. But I'm willing to work past this point because if nothing else they freed the healer from being a healer first and a participant in the combat second. I haven't played a ton of clerics, but the times that I did it I very quickly got tired of burning my shiny flamestrike spell to convert it into a heal because otherwise the doofus rogue who just HAD to pry the rubies out of the demon god idol's eyes would die. And to an extent, yes, you have to treat it like the beast it is. Maybe I'm a little more used to HPs being abstract because I played some Star Wars RPG and they basically put it right out there on the marquis to say "Hey, hp's are abstract. They can mean a lot of things." If you don't like them, I would recommend creating something like the Star Wars rules had, where a critical hit attacked a static number of HPs that never increased during the course of the character's life and were equal to their con value, to represent that ultimately getting hit straight on with a great axe kills anybody, no matter how sweet they are with a bastard sword.

3) Death and dying. This set-up is brilliant. There's a way for a monster to kill you outright with massive damage (dropping you to -bloodied hps.) But there's also the in-between zone, and all the fabulous tension it puts on your players when they have to roll that saving throw and knowing that they're potentially 3 d20 rolls away from death. And man-oh-man, you have never heard a table erupt the way they do when the fighter hits that 20 and comes back to his feet just in time to save the party from a complete wipe. And is it realistic? No. But is it cinematic? Very much so. And that more than anything else is what they have going on here.

4) Elimination of 3rd Edition-sms. These are worth mentioning on their own. Your party will never again wake up at 9 o'clock, open the door to the next room in the dungeon, fight three fiendish darkmantles, and have to stop at 9:20 to go back to bed because the fighters rolled terrible and the mages and clerics had to blow their spell-load to save the party. Gone are the high-level villains with stat blocks that take up 3-4 pages (I point you towards Strahd from EtCR. And he's not even that high-level.) Gone is the wizard basically being able to replace the party once the group moves beyond about level 15 due to his ridiculously wide-ranging powers due to the number of spells available. Wizards actually feel the way we were always told they should feel: like glass cannons. Fighters can keep up with them in their abilities as they level. No more time stop, wizard casts 6 spells, time stop ends and all the bad-guys are dead. No more rogues with +30 to tumble that laughingly dodge around all your guys' threatened squares, stab them in the back for +10d6 damage, and then spring attack away. And, to swing the power level the other way, no more level 1 parties that live or die based on how the fighter rolls, since everybody is so fragile that one orc with a falchion rolling 18's on successive rounds can mow everybody else down with one swing. Essentially, the decision to take the math that works so well in what they term the sweet spot of 3rd ed. and stretch it out to the whole range of levels has created a game that feels and plays like your characters really are heroes at all levels, but also like your monsters are really, REALLY monstrous.

And don't even get me started on grapple rules.

Is it wonky in places? Sure. Is it odd that the fighter's best trick in his arsenal can only be used once a day? Definitely. Are these design concessions I can live with to play a very fun game. Of course. I have my doubts about the game's ability to be used in RL, and it's likely that if I did it I'd have to work in some means of tweaking things to ensure that the feeling of being small fish in a very big, evil pond remains intact, but a lot of what makes RL so unique as a setting has absolutely nothing to do with rules and everything to do with GM style and campaign flavor. I mean, if your RL game is all about combat, combat, combat I personally don't think you've quite grasped what the main idea of the place really is (although some GM's I'm sure would argue just as vehemently against that point and be just as right.) And 4th edition, just like every edition of D&D that has ever been created, leaves the brunt of the role-playing and campaign feel up to the players and gms. The addition of skill-challenges (another favorite of mine) at least takes a stab at quantifying these in some meaningful, rules-related way, but any DM worth his DM's Screen can see by looking at them that without the appropriate RPing and seasoning they'll fall flat on their face and be completely dull and boring. (Player-The duke is reluctant to give us info? Um, I roll Diplomacy. GM-What do you ask him? Player-Uh, I ask him to give us the info. *rolls dice* I roll a 20. GM-Ok, do it 4 more times and he'll give it to you.) But I definitely think it could be made to work. In it's own way, RL is basically the definitive PoL setting, with a few safe places in a world that is very much out to get you as soon as you step out of the walls (and even sometimes when you're within the walls.) In any case, I would recommend to most hardcore 3e grognards to at least give 4e a chance. I didn't want to, tbh. I wanted it to suck so I could stay with what I had before and laughingly not give any money to WotC for having the temerity to replace my 3e books. I was wrong, and am glad to realize this later.