4E basic on WotC web


4th Edition

51 to 80 of 80 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

Well there needs to be some clarity then, because if this is what I think it is my opinion just went from "buy it, give it a shot and see which one you like better", to, "forget that...maybe I will playtest it in the gamestore, but I'm not wasting my money."

They said "a few" spells would be the duration of combat, which sounds to me like the ones you can cast once per day. If there isn't a proper level-ajustment that would just make it all the worse. I remember the hold person mechanic, and I thought it was a good change for what it did, but this looks to make spells like charm person, fear, etc all do the same thing.

The save and duration need some explaining.

I recall my DDO experience, where basically I knew not to use a good portion of my spells because they were 10 second break-by-ongoing-save effect and were only good for basically stalling tactics. It simply sounds familiar and I am making the assumption mainly because the way it's put leads me to make them along with the half-description I can dig up on sleep.

What I see in sleep shows me what I see in the damage spells, only a lack of +modifier vs the save-type. This kind of implies to me that this spell is a static effect, never improving over time. (not to mention it's a double-save mechanic now). Now if that's just sleep, oh well...then they haven't fixed the fact that I still won't use sleep past about 3rd level, but if this is going to be a trend with the spells like sleep then you will end up having stalling tactics at best.


David Marks wrote:
Cpt_kirstov wrote:


so in the aforementioned poison scenario, if you get poisoned in the first fight and just keep going you could go the entire dungeon without being able to use once per encounter abilities a second time?

BTW thanks for helping with our questions

Even in 3.5 poison only lasts for a minute, and I wouldn't expect poison to last any longer based on what we've heard so far. Still, good question! :)

from the D&D SRD:

When a character takes damage from an attack with a poisoned weapon, touches an item smeared with contact poison, consumes poisoned food or drink, or is otherwise poisoned, he must make a Fortitude saving throw. If he fails, he takes the poison’s initial damage (usually ability damage). Even if he succeeds, he typically faces more damage 1 minute later, which he can also avoid with a successful Fortitude saving throw.

It's not GONE a minute later. You have to recover those lost ability points the conventional way: one per night of rest or a Restoration spell.


Axcalibar wrote:

from the D&D SRD:

When a character takes damage from an attack with a poisoned weapon, touches an item smeared with contact poison, consumes poisoned food or drink, or is otherwise poisoned, he must make a Fortitude saving throw. If he fails, he takes the poison’s initial damage (usually ability damage). Even if he succeeds, he typically faces more damage 1 minute later, which he can also avoid with a successful Fortitude saving throw.

It's not GONE a minute later. You have to recover those lost ability points the conventional way: one per night of rest or a Restoration spell.

I beg to differ. You might still be injured, but you most surely are no longer poisoned. A Cure Poison (or is it Remove Poison?) does not give you back any damage you've suffered. :)

Liberty's Edge

Kruelaid wrote:
This is 4E basic. I somehow expect there is going to be a little more to system hardcore players will be using. So again, I'm going to abstain from judging 4E by what I'm seeing here.

I honestly have to agree with you. I'm still *trying* to be impartial about the 4e rules, although some aspects being discussed are striking me as unwieldy. We still haven't seen the actual rules and we've seen that WotC has shoddy PR, so the rules may actually be decent when we actually see them. Or they may suck worse than a massive hull breach on the space station. We don't know yet, but we'll all see when the time comes.

The settings changes are a different story; I loathe what they've done. But that's another kettle of fish, and I can easily ignore their settings and either make my own, update the older versions without the absurdities, or run with Golarion, should I end up playing 4e.


David Jackson 60 wrote:
Well there needs to be some clarity then.

These are meant for people playing the game at D&D Experience. The DM will know the game and the players will know their individual powers. They wanted to keep it brief just to give the skeleton - not even that - the spine for those who were going to play.

Liberty's Edge

Hey Rodney -

If you have a chance to come back, I'm wondering if you can clarify the 'ongoing effect' bit.

It did state that effects would have a duration, for example, per encounter. If I hit a PC with a dominate person (assuming there is anything like that in 4th edition) does he get one save only at the start, and then no other saves (since it was a duration of per encounter)? Or does that trigger the 'make a save every round' mechanic.

I do see that having the PC have a chance to break out of something that effectively 'takes them out of the fight' is good, since sitting out an encounter isn't that much fun. But it seems to me that having a better than 50% chance per round to come back in is a little high - it makes the use of such spells pretty useless, so the opponent is much more likely to come out with something more debilitating in the long term.


Rodney Thompson wrote:
...It's similar, yes, but remember that there may be people at D&D XP who have no experience with D&D at all.

Hahahaha. I find that highly unlikely since pretty much the only place to find out about the D&D XP was through the WoTC site. If this was Gen Con then I might believe that statement but give me a break. I do appreciate you taking the time to respond to our questions and comments because it is good to really see what those closer to the game development really think about it. Overall....meh....I'll definately read through the PHB before buying now.

Edited: To thank Rodney for responding to our sometimes silly responses.

RPG Superstar 2013 Top 16

I took a look at the primer (thanks for the link) and my initial response was: Why couldn't they release this like months ago?

At least this has some meat on it, all this speculation has everyone in their trenches.

Back to the primer:

I like the standard, move and minor actions.

I do not like the 55% save chance, every round.

I understand that 'cool powers' is the way, but I can already imagine the looks of disdain if you choose to make a basic attack.

The action point example given above does lead me to believe that 10 super duper attacks on the BBEG is going to kill it in one round (average party size for 4e is 5, 5+5=10).

More information will be coming shortly I guess.

Dark Archive Bella Sara Charter Superscriber

Aaron Whitley wrote:
Rodney Thompson wrote:
...It's similar, yes, but remember that there may be people at D&D XP who have no experience with D&D at all.
Hahahaha. I find that highly unlikely since pretty much the only place to find out about the D&D XP was through the WoTC site. If this was Gen Con then I might believe that statement but give me a break.

...

Right...

Try googling D&D experience...

(hint: there are more references to it than just the WotC website)

Dark Archive

I've been reading this thread and the document. From this document I infer that between encounters must be a "short rest" that lasts five minutes or more.
So the poison could work as usual.


Sebastian wrote:
Aaron Whitley wrote:
Rodney Thompson wrote:
...It's similar, yes, but remember that there may be people at D&D XP who have no experience with D&D at all.
Hahahaha. I find that highly unlikely since pretty much the only place to find out about the D&D XP was through the WoTC site. If this was Gen Con then I might believe that statement but give me a break.

...

Right...

Try googling D&D experience...

(hint: there are more references to it than just the WotC website)

Ahhhh, but that still requires that you know about D&D XP since the majority of those links were either from the WoTC site or related to the event itself. Like I said I doubt many people knew about this event who weren't already interested in D&D or RPGs.


DMcCoy1693 wrote:
Good to see you Rodney, appreciate you being here for clarification.

Why? Who's Rodney Thompson?

Anyway, I'm not happy with what I see. As mentioned above it looks like a skirmish game - kind of like D&D miniatures with a bit of roleplay thrown in...maybe.

As for tracking durations outside of encounters, if I'm asked by the players how long something took to do, I tell them. I haven't tracked it, I've guesstimated and they accept this.

Grand Lodge

Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

The more I think about it, the more doesn't convince me to change to 4e. For one, I need a truckload of more details on the rules (which probably won't be until the books are out). Secondly, nothing I see here makes me want to change to 4e. I think I find the resting rules particularly troubling, but the save vs. effect and duration rules could be problems also.

Several people have mentioned that these rules look more like skirmish boardgames rules than RPG rules, but really they struck me more as a rule set intended to me computer game portable.

One thing I haven't figured out yet (maybe I'm missing something): if an enemy attacks you and rolls against AC, Fort, Ref, or Will, what happens to attacks that deal physical and poison (like a scorpion's sting)? Does the attack have to hit AC, then succeed against Fort before you're poisoned. That would make sense, but I'm curious.

-Skeld


I think I just threw up in my mouth...

Seriously, the more I see about 4E, the less I am interested. At first, when it was put forward as "an extension of Book of 9 Swords" I thought that would be pretty neat. The first things I heard were interesting. Since then, wow. The rogue preview was crap. The rules primer is lame. It is certainly going back the way of Basic D&D. I'm sure it will be a playable system and probabl quite fun, but there is no way my group will switch for at least a few years. Too many of us will be outraged by the saving throw mechanic and the obvious pandering to MMORPG's (I WANT TO BE A STRIKER!!!)


Skeld wrote:

The more I think about it, the more doesn't convince me to change to 4e. For one, I need a truckload of more details on the rules (which probably won't be until the books are out). Secondly, nothing I see here makes me want to change to 4e. I think I find the resting rules particularly troubling, but the save vs. effect and duration rules could be problems also.

Several people have mentioned that these rules look more like skirmish boardgames rules than RPG rules, but really they struck me more as a rule set intended to me computer game portable.

One thing I haven't figured out yet (maybe I'm missing something): if an enemy attacks you and rolls against AC, Fort, Ref, or Will, what happens to attacks that deal physical and poison (like a scorpion's sting)? Does the attack have to hit AC, then succeed against Fort before you're poisoned. That would make sense, but I'm curious.

-Skeld

Indeed Skeld, if its anything like how DnD Minis works, you'll roll to hit AC then again vs Fort (with possibly a different bonus).

Sovereign Court

meh


The trend is to continue "dumbing down" the game, so that any moron can play. By 5th edition, combat will be reduced to a coin toss: heads you win, tails you loss. Bleah! I don't really *want* to game with a bunch of morons!


Upon reflection I believe I owe Rodney Thompson an apology. There are polite ways and rude ways to disagree with someone and I think my first comment about D&D XP was a bit rude. While I doubt what he said is true there is no reason for me to have been as rude and insulting about it as I was. Rodney, I'm sorry and I hope you continue to contribute to our discussions regarding 4E.

Sebastian, for good or evil, right or wrong, you are one of my favorite pains in the a$$.


Orcwart wrote:

Why? Who's Rodney Thompson?

He's a WOTC game designer. His specialty is Star Wars SAGA I believe, but obviously he is familiar with 4th edition.

He's one of the few WOTC staff who will stop by our neighborhood and field questions or offer information.

I'm not suggesting that anyone agree with him, but since he is about the only representative of WOTC who does come here and talk to us some of us like to make sure he's welcome. And, because he is informed. Otherwise we have to go to other boards to get first hand comments.

Again, one doesn't have to agree with him, but it's cool to have him around to get that other point of view. That and it's respectful, and Paizo Editors think well of him.. so that sort of makes him our guest, whether we like 4th edition or not.


Cheers to Rodney for the answers although on reflection I think I phrased the questions/points badly. The use of encounters as a fixed unit still worries me. I was not meaning to imply that if you wondered into a room full of monsters they would freeze just because you were still fighting the last encounter. I was trying to get across that this focus on encounters makes me feel that the encounters will be seen as always seperate from each other in more ways than distance. For example the lower level of Crown of the Kobold King is described in one of the sidebars as one long combat being waged with wave after wave of kobold ambushers. What worries me is that this will be less easy to facilitate in 4th edition with encounters being forcibly seperated (You fight one kobold ambush, open the door, fight the next). I just worry that this fluidity maybe impossible in 4th edition due to the arbitrary unit structure of encounters. Or that one bulls rush my last for dozens and dozens of waves of attack just for the convenience of not having to track its duration.

Also I am a bit worried that there was no response to my disease queery. Still Rodney's imput was much appreciated.


Now as to the basic rules they just released I have several issues.

My first and longest standing issue with 4E is that the whole game is designed around roles. While that might be useful for tournament or convention play and designing published adventurer I hate it in my games.

My next major issue is with the comments on reach. Unless reach weapons can be used to strike opponents next to you they have made reach weapons mostly useless and the idea that in order to use them defensively it has to be a special ability, power, or feat doesn't speak to the nature of the weapon. For me, this makes no sense.

The third problem that popped out at me, something I can easily change so it doesn't bother me too much, is that movement is listed in squares. Since I don't use miniatures this change is pointless to me. I'll stick with movement in feet, yards, or meters, whichever suits the moment.

The charge mechanic as it worked before was just fine so I see no reason to have changed it.

I can see the changes being beneficial for tournament or convention play but they are not for me. I'll take a look at the PHB before I buy it but I think I might go find another product (this is where CourtFool shows up to mention something about Hero...isn't that a t.v. show?).


Ross Byers wrote:

4th Edition: Because apparently a 20ft spear can't actually block anything!

4th edition: Because 'controller' means damage!

4th edition: Because durations don't matter outside of combat!

4th edition: Because charging shouldn't be a trade-off!

Short rests: Because nothing ever comes looking for you!

Sigh. 4th edition looks more and more hack-n-slash the more I hear about it.

That's a pretty skewed way of looking at what's presented. I'm not a big fan of 4e, but I think there's plenty to complain about without making things up.

Yeah, controller is a misnomer if you think of it as "controls a target". I think they mean it as "controls the battlefield". Still, a dubious name for the AoE specialist.

Charging doesn't necessarily need a trade off defined in itself. Charging is, in fact, a pretty standard way to start big fights and considered pretty useful Charging "recklessly" is a different story. And we don't know what counters may exist for charging. It had no trade off in 1e, IIRC. Except certain foes got to do boatloads of extra damage to you..

And short rests are just a way of defining the encounter as over. They don't do anything that fell under the category of "resting" before. All it does is say "after this, its a new fight" for the per encounter purposes. Oh, and lets you use up more of your per "real rest" healing ability.


Sebastian wrote:


Yeah, I hate minutes/level spells for that reason. They push the party to move fast and not take adequate care.

I'm definitely with you here. Buffs are a major chore and keeping track of exactly how many 6 second chunks of time has passed since the spell was cast does not add enough to the game to make it something worth a large accounting chore to handle.

As to extended fight scenes and per encounter powers - well there might be rules that allow one to get these powers back for big fights but lets assume that this is not in the rules. I'm not sure that not being able to get per encounter powers back even if the fight was one large battle would necessarily be a bad thing. It would certianly provide a certain kind of a challenge for the players since they have a lot of foes and yet still only one use of this ability. In other words extended fight scenes would provide a different flavour for an encounter then many smaller fights.


For me, it doesn't make much difference what quality the rest of the rules are when the class system sounds like rubbish. You can be the party wizard or leader, not both? If you play a fighter, you have to be party leader, whether you want to or not? I wonder why they didn't just eliminate character creation entirely and just make us all play pre-gens instead? For all the choice they give you, I suppose creativity, imagination and personality are to be strongly discouraged...


Rodney Thompson wrote:


It was explained in the document that you can only spend one action point per encounter.

I'm wondering a little about this restriction as it seems, at first blush to eliminate an interesting way of setting up an adventure.

Lets say the DM sets up the adventure so that their are 4 easy encounters and then one really tough fight at the end. In this case the best option for the PCs is to go through the first four encounters and save up all those action points so that when they hit the (unusually large and nasty) BBEG in the fifth encounter they can really go hog wild with their APs.

One of the benefits here is that it allows APs to offset the desire to stop and rest after every encounter to get your per day abilities back. Once you've got 4 APs saved up your not stopping for anything! If Bob is half dead we'll drag Bob behind us - 'cause I got 4 APs and I'll be damned if I'm going to have them all reset back to 1!.

However if you can only use one AP per encounter anyway then you really should simply use your action point once in every fight since there does not seem to be any reason to save them up - you get a new one after every encounter and you can't spend more then one per encounter hence the optimal number of APs to have is 1.

Is there something else we can cash out APs for? Is there some reason to accumulate more then 1?

EDIT: Trey points out below that I have misunderstood this and in fact you gain APs at a rate of 1 per 2 encounters.


This is a 2 page basic explanation of a few limited things. I would suggest not being too critical based on this and other titbits. If any of you saw the rules for the 3.5 boxed d&d set intro thing they were pretty limited.

I think the use of leader/controller/striker is no more than a game term. Wizards who are controllers will still be able to 'lead' the party, or 'strike' an opponent (I dislike the term tank as being anachronistic but whatever)

Presumably in your games it isn't just Fighters who fight.

(I once had a player in 1st ed who tongue in cheek tried to convince the rest of us that because he was the Magic User he should get all the Magic items to Use them)


Jeremy Mac Donald wrote:

However if you can only use one AP per encounter anyway then you really should simply use your action point once in every fight since there does not seem to be any reason to save them up - you get a new one after every encounter and you can't spend more then one per encounter hence the optimal number of APs to have is 1.

Is there something else we can cash out APs for? Is there some reason to accumulate more then 1?

It was my impression you only get an action point awarded every other fight. From the WotC document:

You begin each adventure with 1 action point, and you can get
another one for every 2 encounters that you complete (called a
milestone). You can spend 1 action point per encounter to take
one extra action on your turn. It can be a standard, move, or
minor action.
When you take an extended rest, your action points reset
back to 1.


David Jackson 60 wrote:

Somebody please explain this saving + duration thing for me with spells. This sounds like a dealbreaker to me in my hopes for 4th.

Your telling me that if a 20th level wizard casts charm person on a 2nd level fighter, he's got a 50% chance base to beat it???

Your telling me that the majority of spells will now probably not last more than a round or two before a save? Really even if the level comparison above doesn't fit and it's just some kind of misunderstanding, casting a spell now implies that it will be broken whenever cast within a round or two.

I suspect that a powerful mage will have ways of making low level NPCs just be dominated. In the end this should only come up as part of a plot point - during normal play, 20th level mages don't fight 2nd level fighters, they fight enemies that are of comparable power. So the real question here is "can the system handle a plot point where the evil archmage takes over the goblin tribe or were my archmage dominates commoners?".

The reality is if you have a 20th level mage in 3.5 you almost never actually play out an encounter with 10 normal Goblins as its a waste of time. So the combat mechanics don't have to address really heavily mismatched powers but their does have to be some kind of system that allows archmages, Ilithids and Aboleths to dominate lesser folk for extended periods of time.

RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32

Rodney Thompson wrote:
Some good points.

Thank you for your responses. It helped me understand some of the design choices that have gone into 4th edition. I agree with some (like the Fort, Will, and Reflex defenses), and disagree with others (Flat DC 10 saving throw to break effects). And certainly, complaining won't fix anything at this point. So I'll just ask two things that've been bugging me that I think will clarify things immensely.

What is the rules definition of 'Encounter'?

If a 'Short Rest' doesn't do anything but allow you to use certain healing abilities and things outside of a fight, why does it need to be a rules item? In 3E and 3.5RE, one just took actions outside of combat to reset 'per fight' items like reloading crossbows, restoring Psionic Focus, and retrieving thrown weapons.


Trey wrote:


It was my impression you only get an action point awarded every other fight. From the WotC document:

You begin each adventure with 1 action point, and you can get
another one for every 2 encounters that you complete (called a
milestone). You can spend 1 action point per encounter to take
one extra action on your turn. It can be a standard, move, or
minor action.
When you take an extended rest, your action points reset
back to 1.

Hmm well this helps a little though it does still seems a tad limiting in terms of possible adventure design. I guess I just like the idea of a BBEG that the PCs should take on with lots of APs in a really cinematic fight. Still if you gain APs only at the rate of 1 per 2 encounters then I suppose its always better to have more since you could potentially spend them twice as fast as your accumulating them in the later parts of the adventure.

RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32

Jeremy Mac Donald wrote:


Hmm well this helps a little though it does still seems a tad limiting in terms of possible adventure design. I guess I just like the idea of a BBEG that the PCs should take on with lots of APs in a really cinematic fight. Still if you gain APs only at the rate of 1 per 2 encounters then I suppose its always better to have more since you could potentially spend them twice as fast as your accumulating them in the later parts of the adventure.

I think it said you can only have 2 APs at a time.


WotC wrote:

Hit points still measure your ability to stay in the fight, but

healing’s no longer just the burden of one character
anymore. Each character has a certain number of healing
surges. Once during each encounter, you can take a
standard action called a second wind; this gives you a certain
amount of hit points back equal to your healing surge value
and gives you a +2 bonus to all your defenses until the start
of your next turn. You then tick off one of your healing
surges for the day. Some powers (like some cleric prayers)
will also heal you your healing surge value, and you’ll tick off
your healing surges for them as well. When you run out of
healing surges, you’ll want to take an extended rest.
If you’re outside of combat, you can take a short rest and
tick off the healing surges you need to heal up damage.

The healing from the party cleric that is mentioned in this quote from WotC simply uses up one of the healing surges that the character already [probably] had access to anyway. You can take a five minute rest or use your once per encounter 'Second Wind' ability to get just as many hit points back without a cleric in the party. In a long fight there might be some advantage to the cleric running around activating everyone else's healing surges with his/her abilities I suppose....

Edit:
If it weren't for the fact that it uses up a standard action I can see some players with injuries deliberately activating Second Wind on the first round of combat for the 'healing surge and +2 bonus to defenses', since Second Wind is a per encounter power which will recharge with a 5 minute rest; although I suspect that at some point there will be a class or feat out there that allows activation of Second Wind as a move or minor action....

The Exchange

Sebastian wrote:
David Marks wrote:

The problem with durations extending outside of combat is that other than a few very specific instances, keeping track of time out of combat is largely arbitrary and difficlt to do. How many times have my players asked me "what buffs are still running" after a fight, the looting of bodies, the wandering of corridors ... etc. I have to guess how much time has passed, and probably end up all over the place in general. Much easier to have most things last the encounter and just be done with it. At least IMO! Cheers :)

Yeah, I hate minutes/level spells for that reason. They push the party to move fast and not take adequate care.

Or the long arguments about how long the searching took or the dialogue, or any between encounter action. This makes time keeping so much easier.

The Exchange

Kruelaid wrote:

This is 4E basic. I somehow expect there is going to be a little more to system hardcore players will be using. So again, I'm going to abstain from judging 4E by what I'm seeing here.

On funny thing for me is the diagonal movement: I use hexes, always have and always will, so eliminating the diagonal cost does nothing for me.

Yep - I see hexes in my future if I switch to 4e.

The Exchange

Cylerist wrote:

Well said!
If the diagonal math was that hard for you, there are better ways you should be spending your free time then playing a game.

(not meaning to offend the math challenged - I am one of you- jast stating "It ain't hard"

So you have never had to recount your movement to make sure you got it right?

I know this happens more frequently than I care to mention with my group.


Charles Evans 25 wrote:


If it weren't for the fact that it uses up a standard action I can see some players with injuries deliberately activating Second Wind on the first round of combat for the 'healing surge and +2 bonus to defenses', since Second Wind is a per encounter power which will recharge with a 5 minute rest; although I suspect that at some point there will be a class or feat out there that allows activation of Second Wind as a move or minor action....

There already is. There are images up of the character sheets from D&D XP, and Dwarven Resilience is an ability to use Second Wind as a minor action. However, I don't really see how what you are describing is any kind of exploit or anything. The +2 bonus to defenses lasts only 1 round, and you can only use it once in any given encounter. Also, you only get so many per day. I don't really see anyone burning their second wind just for that purpose... Unless I'm missing something you are saying.


A couple of things I noticed:

4th Edition Basic wrote:
TIP: It’s good to take an extended rest when some members in the group are down to about 1 healing surge remaining, or everyone has used all their daily powers.

So the 5 minute workday, can just as easily be replaced with the 1 hour workday. So much better this way...

4th Edition Basic wrote:
However, you can also use a move action to shift; this lets you move one square without suffering an opportunity attack from adjacent enemies.

So... It seems the 5' step survived...

4th Edition Basic wrote:
There’s also no penalty for making ranged attacks into melee.

This is the only thing I could stomach. To be clear, I don't like this change. But I can actually buy this as an improvement to the game. I'd rather the penalty, but I can't fault it being removed since it makes ranged attackers and melee attackers work better together.

This is the kind of change they should have focused on. If 4th Edition is/was filled with tweaks like this, I could proclaim it useful to others. It would still be unacceptable to me... But I could recommend it to others.
Too bad I already know there are changes that aren't this good. :-(

There is going to have to be one hell of a finale for this fireworks show to be entertaining at all.


Paolo wrote:


There already is. There are images up of the character sheets from D&D XP, and Dwarven Resilience is an ability to use Second Wind as a minor action. However, I don't really see how what you are describing is any kind of exploit or anything. The +2 bonus to defenses lasts only 1 round, and you can only use it once in any given encounter. Also, you only get so many per day. I don't really see anyone burning their second wind just for that purpose... Unless I'm missing something you are saying.

I posted making the (admittedly possibly fallacious) assumption that the most advantageous moment to have the bonus to 'defenses' (if you need the healing surge anyway) is most likely on the first round of combat when there may be the most enemies (that you are aware of) still alive, with all their heavy 'per encounter or day' powers still available for use and trying to kill you. +2 bonus to defenses is not to be sniffed at I suspect, unless the numbers in 4E are totally crazy.

It is possible that there is some 4E definition of '1 round' which makes my idea (based upon an older edition understanding of what 1 round is) utterly invalid.

Edit:
In this context I was thinking of it as being used as a defensive equivalent of a 'Charge'. You may 'Charge' in the first round of combat in the hope that if you hit hard enough, you will not have to hit that enemy again; you might 'Second Wind' on the first round of combat on the basis that you would be in the most peril from the most (known) enemies trying to kill you.


Charles Evans 25 wrote:
It is possible that there is some 4E definition of '1 round' which makes my idea (based upon an older edition understanding of what 1 round is) utterly invalid.

I'm not sure what you mean. What indication have we been given that a round is anything other than one cycle through the initiative order? Besides, it actually says the bonus lasts "until the start of your next turn." I was just referring to it as 1 round.

You are right, though. I think it would be advantageous to use the healing surge when you both need the healing and have many enemies trying to kill you.


Paolo wrote:
Charles Evans 25 wrote:
It is possible that there is some 4E definition of '1 round' which makes my idea (based upon an older edition understanding of what 1 round is) utterly invalid.

I'm not sure what you mean. What indication have we been given that a round is anything other than one cycle through the initiative order? Besides, it actually says the bonus lasts "until the start of your next turn." I was just referring to it as 1 round.

You are right, though. I think it would be advantageous to use the healing surge when you both need the healing and have many enemies trying to kill you.

Apologies, if I confused things slightly by responding to your '1 round reference', instead of reading the text again and seeing that the original states 'until the start of your next turn'. In that context, what I was trying to say is irrelevant, as there is no room left for uncertainty.

RPG Superstar 2009 Top 16, 2012 Top 32

Ross Byers wrote:

What is the rules definition of 'Encounter'?

If a 'Short Rest' doesn't do anything but allow you to use certain healing abilities and things outside of a fight, why does it need to be a rules item?

From what I'm reading, your two questions answer one another: 'Encounter' is everything that happens until your next 'Short Rest.'

Dark Archive

Chris Mortika wrote:

4th Edition looks to be a game system for which a lot of pretty smart people spent a fair amount of time. I think it's capable of doing what they want it to do.

It's really not a game I want to buy, but it looks like a great game on its own merits.

(And again, I can't help thinking that if Wizards had "retired" D&D, and announced the new edition with a new title, there would be such a reduced hue and cry.)

Amen to all of that!

Exactly my opinion.


I have a lot of problems with this edition. For me, the healing surges for nonhealers are pretty much the dealbreaker.

That just smacks of MMOs, and doesn't really entertain me.

Dark Archive

Adventure Path Charter Subscriber

Just a brief observation from reading this ruleset for those of us who remember 1st edition:

It seems to me that:

D&D 4E = Basic Dungeons and Dragons

D&D 3.5 = AD&D


Larry Lichman wrote:

Just a brief observation from reading this ruleset for those of us who remember 1st edition:

It seems to me that:

D&D 4E = Basic Dungeons and Dragons

D&D 3.5 = AD&D

I don't disagree with that when you have only this primer to look at..

(And I am a forty year old guy that played in his early teens..)

The thing is, Larry, is that if it's really this simplistic-
(-and I readily admit, from just this document, it does look simple!)
- how on earth can they have a book that large that is mostly crunch?

..and books to follow with more options?

I'm not busting your chops, because my first impressions were the same as yours. I'm just strongly thinking there has to be layers to this game that we're not able to see yet.

Dark Archive

Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
Watcher wrote:
Larry Lichman wrote:

Just a brief observation from reading this ruleset for those of us who remember 1st edition:

It seems to me that:

D&D 4E = Basic Dungeons and Dragons

D&D 3.5 = AD&D

I don't disagree with that when you have only this primer to look at..

(And I am a forty year old guy that played in his early teens..)

The thing is, Larry, is that if it's really this simplistic-
(-and I readily admit, from just this document, it does look simple!)
- how on earth can they have a book that large that is mostly crunch?

..and books to follow with more options?

I'm not busting your chops, because my first impressions were the same as yours. I'm just strongly thinking there has to be layers to this game that we're not able to see yet.

I certainly hope so, Watcher. Otherwise, 4E may become a nice introductory product for those new to RPGs, but may not appeal to an experienced gamer.


Chris Mortika wrote:
Nobody wants a game with Weapon Speed factors and Weapon against Armor Type modifications, a host of fighting styles, and tons of situational modifiers.

But... I like weapon speed. And weapon against armor type modifications. But I agree that too many situational modifiers would be burdensome.

I don't particularly like the "it's my turn... so I will hit you four times with my really big heavy sword before you hit me with your two daggers or that guy with the shortbow."

It's fun for me to roll initiative, then factor in my hits, spaced out by its weapon speed. Sure, if a fighter goes last in initiative, he'll use all of his attacks "at once," but it's still a fun concept for me.

No offense taken, of course. :)


Damnit. This looks like a fun game. There, I said it.
However it doesn't look like a game that I'd call D&D. I'll probably play it, but I have a feeling that I'll be finding some local 3.5ers to run game with.


One thing I don't like (but do like a little) is the encounter-thinking. All this one per encounter and lasts for one encounter can make things hard.

Lets say you fight a monster, you defeat a monster, you rest. That's one encounter. The next monster will be a second.

Now you fight a monster, you flee, you rest you attack again. These I would say are two encounters.

But then you fight a monster, you flee, the monster chases you but your faster so you manage to set up an ambush a bit further down the road. Could be one encounter, could be two.

But what if the monster didn't chase you in a straight line, it had to go around something because it was too big, and on the way it picked up a couple of friends. New encounter or still the original? I realy can't say.

Measuring in encounters is very practical in one way, but seems a bit to obscure for measuring time elapsed. But that's just me.


Timothy Mallory wrote:
Ross Byers wrote:


4th edition: Because charging shouldn't be a trade-off!

That's a pretty skewed way of looking at what's presented. I'm not a big fan of 4e, but I think there's plenty to complain about without making things up.

Charging doesn't necessarily need a trade off defined in itself. Charging is, in fact, a pretty standard way to start big fights and considered pretty useful Charging "recklessly" is a different story. And we don't know what counters may exist for charging. It had no trade off in 1e, IIRC. Except certain foes got to do boatloads of extra damage to you..

Well actually..

1st Edition DMG, pg. 66 wrote:


Armor Class of Charging Creatures: There is no dexterity bonus allowed for charging creatures. Creatures with no dexterity bonus become 1 armor class lower, i.e. easier to hit.

Kinda makes Kender Taunt's useless too, or at least make less sense.

51 to 80 of 80 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Gaming / D&D / 4th Edition / 4E basic on WotC web All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.