Well, I've downloaded and printed everything I could find on 4E from the DnDXP and am going to run a playtest game tomorrow with my group. I'll post how it goes and try to be as honest as I can in my critique. Should be interesting. :)
Be happy to hear how it goes.
Does your group already have an opinion about 4e? If they're starting from a positive opinion, that's going to change their perceptions from if they start with a negative opinion, or if the group is somewhat mixed.
Well, I've downloaded and printed everything I could find on 4E from the DnDXP and am going to run a playtest game tomorrow with my group. I'll post how it goes and try to be as honest as I can in my critique. Should be interesting. :)
AZRogue, I have a request, if you guys have time- try running it without the paladin or cleric and see if it works well. I'm interested in seeing how the healer-less party fairs...
|
AZRogue, I have a request, if you guys have time- try running it without the paladin or cleric and see if it works well. I'm interested in seeing how the healer-less party fares...
I'm curious too; can parties consist of any classes, or should their still be a mix of defender/striker/controller/leader?
I'd hazard a guess you would still need that 'core four' mix, as in 3.5, but it would be good to get away from needing a specific class.
It's been my experience in 3.5 that in practice, if you rigidly enforce the Trapfinding rule, that you always need a rogue, the CR of undead assumes you have a cleric, and throwing curveballs at the party means you usually need the diversity of a wizard over the narrower sorceror. The only member of the 'core four' that can be regularly swapped is the warrior-type, and even then, players will dip into the class for the occasional feat.
The only time other classes get a look-in is as 'fifth member' or NPC allies/cohorts. I'd like to see a bit more variety.
Does your group already have an opinion about 4e? If they're starting from a positive opinion, that's going to change their perceptions from if they start with a negative opinion, or if the group is somewhat mixed.
One guy knows about 4E and likes the changes he's seen (which are few, since I'm the only one in our group with a message board addiction), and the other 4 know about but don't care one way or the other. They stopped playing 3E because they didn't like how the game worked at higher levels but are happy with the mix of d20 Modern and Rolemaster we've been playing since. Of those 4, 2 are big time character developers, and the other 2 are power gamers who spend hours devising combos like Haste, then Harm, Maximized Sound Burst (before 3.5). So, 1 colored for 4E and the others pretty much unsure a new version of DnD will work for them and oblivious to the rumors released so far.
And I'll try an encounter or two without the Cleric, and without the Paladin. Going to mix it up just bit.
And while I'm pro-4E, I really will try to be as honest in my evaluation as possible. :)
... Of those 4, 2 are big time character developers, and the other 2 are power gamers ...
Wow, you have a GREAT mix for a playtest, especially this part. Given that much of the discussion I've heard has centered around the role vs. roll aspects of 4e, I'll be very interested to hear which of your players 4e appeals to, which don't like it, and the reasons for both opinions.
Wow, you have a GREAT mix for a playtest, especially this part. Given that much of the discussion I've heard has centered around the role vs. roll aspects of 4e, I'll be very interested to hear which of your players 4e appeals to, which don't like it, and the reasons for both opinions.
... Of those 4, 2 are big time character developers, and the other 2 are power gamers ...
Thanks, I'll try. :) I just wanted to mention that my 2 character developers are very big into writing up backgrounds, choosing logical Feats, giving me character goals for a campaign with hooks, and always play from a standpoint of "what would my character do?", but I described them as character developers because I'm not sure they can be categorized as deep immersion roleplayers.
They don't speak in character very often, enjoy the combat side of things (but don't bother optimizing for it in any way if it doesn't make sense to them), and get along well with the power gamers (we've all known each other since elementary school ... and I'm 36 now). They just base their decisions completely off their characters and backstory, while the other players focus on how best to kill stuff. They just don't tread on each others' toes.
And the 5th guy, the one who has heard a bit about 4E, is the other, occasional, DM. He spends his games trying to figure out what kind of adventure I wrote and what I planned so he can do something else. :p
I just wanted to make sure that I described them right. I usually don't like putting a person into just one category. :)
Note: My original post from last night got eaten by the board. I think it was too long. So I'm doing this next one in Open Office just in case because it was very disheartening to lose all that text. :-p
Well, I ran my playtest last night. We played a rough version of Raiders of Oakhurst, a fan-created adventure from ENWorld, that I used for all of two minutes before branching off and designing my own encounters based off the creatures from the DnDXP.
We started playing at 7:00 pm and didn't finish until 2:00am, one fifteen minute break. I feel almost hungover, heh. I haven't ran a game that long in years, but we haven't been playing lately so maybe everyone was just ready to roll some dice. We had six encounters, none of them really based on the adventure but set up based on my whim as I set up each one. I'll post my general impressions and comments from the notes I took and what I remember. I might go into more detail in another post, after. But I'm going to type a lot here, so be prepared. :-)
The Players
Well, one of my players got called in to work this weekend so couldn't make it (one of the character-oriented players) which sucked, but another of my players brought his cousin who has moved here from out of state and he tagged along. The new guy had never played DnD before but was curious and bored so came over. I handed out the pre-gen characters from the DnDXP and they all chose one and, lo and behold, both one of my power gamers and my character oriented player wanted to play the halfling paladin. So, I copied another paladin and let them go to it. No one played a Cleric.
Ranger – the “Other DM”
Wizard – Powergamer 1
Fighter – the New Guy
Paladin1 – Character-Oriented player
Paladin2 – Powergamer 2
First Impressions
The characters were looked over by the players and they each got a copy of the Rules from the DnDXP event. Only the other DM of the group has been reading about 4E; the others just know that it exists and have liked what I've told them, when they manage to pay attention. They liked the characters in general though a couple lamented that they couldn't choose their abilities themselves. I ran down the rules with them, going over Standard, Movement, Minor, and Immediate Actions and what not. No one said much about what they found except for the Wizard who was very happy over being able to throw Magic Missiles each round if he wanted.
The Ranger wanted to know how often he could teleport and I told him once every 5 minutes, basically, but if he kept it under control and used it as a character trait I wouldn't stop him from playing with it, provided there was no abuse. So, of course, he quickly became a arrogant Eladrin bastard who stepped in and out of existence while being snide to the adventurers that he allowed to tag along (he called the Halflings 'rodents' until he got a look and toned it down, heh). I noticed that they didn't run up to save him very often when he got into trouble, though. Ah, karma.
The Ranger also took it upon himself to help the Fighter with the game and loaned out some dice. He's not really a jerk, but knew this wasn't a campaign so took advantage to rub the other PCs where he otherwise wouldn't.
The Game Mechanics
They worked. Everyone grasped the Attack vs. AC/Fort/Reflex/Will very quickly and liked it. I had to explain Marking to them and everyone just nodded and moved on. Except for Paladin1. He wanted to know how it worked and why and I told him that it was a Divine Challenge and to play it the way he wanted. He did well and the other Paladin actually took his lead as Paladin1 always made sure to challenge the enemy that was the biggest threat to his allies and never, once, considered attacking another target while it was Marked. He played it like it was a very real divine challenge and he had issued it on behalf of Tymora and was going to see it through. What didn't go over well at all was Marking knocking off other Marks. I explained that it was for balance issues which they grudgingly accepted but they didn't like it. After a while they got used to it and it didn't come up again. Surprisingly, no one tried the Paladin Mark-and-run trick that they fixed after DnDXP. I think I owe Paladin1 for that, though.
The Saves to end effects caused mass riot. A static Save? What kind of idiocy is THAT? People got mad over that, heh, but I explained it to them that it wasn't really a Save, it was a Duration check, and after everyone played with it in effect for a while they came to accept it. After I asked them what they thought of the Duration Check (I called it that to not draw further attention to the “S” word) and they said it was okay. No enthusiasm, but it served its purpose. So, bleh was the opinion, I think.
Powers being divided into Encounter, At-Will, and Daily abilities wasn't mentioned, surprisingly, other than the Ranger and his Fey Step. No one mentioned the division between abilities at all, actually. Maybe there will be difficult questions in a campaign, or maybe they just expected some difference as it was a new system, but it didn't come up.
The Monsters
Okay, I love the monsters. As in, I LOVE the monsters. I loved the kobolds and their Shifty ability (damn you Fighter!), and I loved the hobgoblin warcaster's Force Pulse and Force Lance knocking players around, and I loved the human bandits' Dashing Strike, and I loved the Skeleton's Speed of the Dead ability. The monsters were fun to run and I can see a lot of potential. They were dangerous and gave the PCs a challenge as they figured out how to defeat them.
The Combat
One thing I noticed quite a bit was the teamwork. Yeah, there's ALWAYS been teamwork, but it seemed much more potent, now. There wasn't really as much getting into position to hit a target as getting into a position to play off what your ally just did, or play off an opening he made. Maybe it seemed this way because there was a lot of movement during the battles. People moved and shifted all over the place and rarely stood in one place.
The combats were still challenging. Other than the first encounter, a PC went unconscious at least once an encounter. The PCs didn't feel as fragile, they said, but they never felt “safe” either. They were very conscious of the danger. I think a big part of this was the Ranger who (I think he's read the rumors on how hard it will be to die) Fey Stepped behind enemy lines (hobgoblins) and Nimble Striked ... and was promptly swarmed and dropped to negative hit points and the nearest hobgoblin took his bow and broke it to add insult to injury. After the Paladins broke through and saved him he never went running around too far from a Defender again. So the worries I had that the PCs would be unstoppable killing machines was unfounded (from what I saw). The monsters are deadly too and all that seems to be the case is that the PCs aren't in danger of dropping from just one lucky crit. If they get ganged up on they can just as quickly drop to the ground, but it takes 2 to 3 hits to do it.
The Healing
No one questioned the Healing Surges either, which drove me CRAZY as that's the thing that bugs me the most. I explained Healing Surges as a pool of healing potential that their Second Wind could access once per encounter OR could be accessed by various abilities, depending. They said 'okay' and kept playing. I waited for the arguments or questions as they Healed up between fights but it never happened. After the game when I bugged them about it they said that it is, indeed, weird how the healing works but that it worked alright. I still have problems with it, but my players don't, so I'm not sure if that's good or bad. My house rules I've been making up might not be so lovingly embraced.
Running the Game
I can't say running the game was easier. I can see that it WILL be easier, and I think I could have made it easier, but I'm going to have to unlearn a few things. I don't think I did that great a job at all, actually. I forgot rules here and there, forgot Conditions active on the PCs, and forgot monster abilities sometimes. I wasn't very happy with that, but the PCs didn't notice at least. But I did and it bugs the hell out of me. I wish that I knew the rules by heart, and running off of notes printed from a pdf isn't my style. One major thing, I think, would have been if I let the PCs keep track of their Conditions themselves. I think I forgot about their conditions more than anything else, and towards the end they were already just rolling to remove them by themselves and I would remember and be like “yeah, roll to see if you are still affected” but maybe with more practice it will be easier to remember. The abilities weren't difficult to track at all. Once I learn the rules and decide how to divide the workload I think it will be much, much faster, but I'm not sure it will be easier, really (for the DM) than any other edition. In preparation, yeah, but in running it you're still doing your job. It's different, but you're still doing what you do.
Is It Still DnD?
Most definitely. More detail: There were times, specifically when the PCs rested between Encounters, where it didn't really feel like DnD to me and felt strange ... disconnected. It didn't really seem to mesh with the rest, IMO. The PCs weren't bothered by it and used that time to tick off surges, adjust their hit points, and discuss the adventure. So it kind of seemed organic to them but disjointed from my perspective. But when Initiative was rolled and they started doing their thing it was 100% DnD. Swords were being swung, kobolds dying like flies, warcries called out, and Tymora's favor called upon just like I would expect from a DnD game. It felt right. It felt good. And it was fun. Yeah, I used the “F” word, but it's true. We had a lot of fun.
Was The Game Quicker?
In a way. The encounters ran about as long, real time, as any 3E encounters at that level that I remember. Maybe even a touch longer at times. BUT, in the timeframe that I would have expected to play, say, 3 rounds we ran 7. So, the encounters took the same time in real time, but there were many more rounds, with 6 to 8 rounds the average range. That made time pass quickly. Like I said, we weren't even aware that time had passed how it did and we were all surprised when we realized that we had been playing for around seven hours.
Opinions
Everyone liked the game. The complaints came from not being able to make their own characters. Paladin1 wanted to choose his own abilities to help him design a backstory and I think his liking of the game will depend a lot on how many options are open to him at character creation. We aren't sure how that will be so he's just being optimistic. He liked the combat system and saw no problems with it as played, but he's going to get his kicks from creating his own character. My other players want to make their own characters because they didn't think all the choices on the pre-gens were optimal. They're talking synergy between abilities and such and I'm curious how they're going to work the system (as I know they will).
The new guy got the hang of it all by about the third or fourth encounter. He didn't really take initiative but got comfortable with playing by that time. The best part? He asked if he could join our regular group, so we gained a player. He seems like a nice guy, though I'm not sure what type he is. I don't think he knows yet, but he is already talking about buying dice and such. I loaned him one of my 3E PHBs so that he could read it and get a feel for how DnD looks and to learn some of the terms. So, it looks like I have to learn to work with 6 players instead of 5, but that's okay with me. :-)
And that's it for now. I'll post more later, but I'm horrible at organizing this type of thing. My rambling post is a good overview of how things went and general thoughts on things. I'm going to rest my fingers now.
Thanks for the feedback!
Any unexpected standout moments from the PCs that you felt were inspired/empowered by 4e's mechanics?
Hmm, let me see. The Fighter, once he got into it a bit (and with some coaching at the beginning from the other DM) used his Tide of Iron very effectively to keep enemies from attacking the other party members. He would attack them and Push them back, step into the spot they had been standing, and repeat next round. He actually was very, very effective and I think the consensus was that the Class itself was what was effective as he was just starting out and had never played an RPG before. The guy got the hang of it, don't get me wrong, but the Fighter's abilities really made him a presence on the field. And he messed my kobolds up when they Shifted, let me tell you. Combat Superiority made him almost impossible to pass in a corridor.
Oh, and Mage Hand was great. The Wizard used Mage Hand for quite a bit, maybe even too much. It became the new 10' pole, so to speak. He would cast Light on a coin and toss it ahead with Mage Hand, or drop a rock into a pool. He even took the hammer that sat near a warning gong and dropped it into a cookpot so that the hobgoblins couldn't summon reinforcements. If other cantrip spells are that useful, it will really spark some creative play.
I also forgot to mention some key things in my other post:
I think the party had a harder time without a Cleric (they had at least one guy go down each encounter, not counting the first one) and I'm not sure what would have happened if there had been a Cleric there. After the game the Cleric sheet was looked over and a couple of the guys remarked that they wouldn't have minded playing him had they known they known that the Cleric could attack while doing a lot of his abilities. So, not having a Cleric is very doable, but it becomes very tense sometimes, to be sure.
Second thing I didn't mention was that I used a battlemap. I used a battlemap for all but one encounter and on the encounter I didn't use it (skeletons and skeleton archers that were really kobold archers stat wise that I called skeleton archers because I didn't find a skeleton archer statblock quickly enough, but it worked fine) I kept track of things with scratch paper and description. It did make things more difficult determining all the Shifting abilities and who was Adjacent to whom. Where there was confusion I would just say whether they were close enough, or far enough away, and that was that.
So, I think you could definitely NOT use a battlemap but be prepared to make those calls as a DM. I never used a map in AD&D or 2E, and my group remembers, so this was no problem. They asked me where things were and I told them, using the scratch paper as a guideline. If you're comfortable doing that, it won't be a problem. You might miss the occasional Shift (as it loses a bit of its utility) and the PCs will REALLY depend on how well you describe the scene, but it can be done. If you've done it in 3E you should be able to do it again, as I didn't notice anything that wasn't on par with, say Attacks of Opportunities. Some of the Pushing powers, like the hobgoblin warcasters' force lance ability, might not be as powerful, but it isn't a big deal. The players were of the consensus though that they liked using the mat better, so I think I'll do like I did in 3E and use a mat for big, involved fights and not use one for quick skirmishes.
Diagonal movement. Everybody paused over the 1:1 movement rules. But we tried it and after the first fight it really didn't matter. It didn't cause any suspension of disbelief (not like Healing Surges/Extended Rests for me) and it just worked, I guess. I forgot all about it for long stretches of time and it felt normal by the end and never caused any weird situations. So, I'm downgrading the diagonal movement complaint I've had to the "minor" category.
Thanks for the candid and informative post. It's nice to have a sense of what happened in a pre-release 4th edition home gaming experience.
Oh, and congratulations on the new player, it seems 4th edition is succeeding already on one of its implied objectives.
To be honest, I think he would have played in a previous edition too. He liked playing and didn't think he would. Maybe it was easier for him to learn what he could do with the 4E pre-gens we had, it's hard to say, but he had a lot of fun and I don't think I can say that 4E is responsible for him joining the group. It might have helped, though.
And thanks. New players are always nice and since he's related to one of my friends it should make it easy to assimilate him into it. :-)
Hey, do you mind posting the encounters you used? I'm planning on doing something similiar the weekend afte Easter, and I wanted to get an idea of what kind of challenges to throw at the players. I downloaded the pre-gens, the 4E rules primer, and a very good listing of monsters from the EnWorld site. I'm just having a little trouble putting it all together!