RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16, 2011 Top 32
|
Let me preface this by stating my D&D history: I played maybe 2-3 games of second edition. It was fun, but the rules were near incompehensible to me. So, in college I mostly played GURPS and the various White Wolf products. Then I left the country for six months, which I spent in a mud hut in West Africa. When I got back my gaming buddies told me about this great new edition: 3rd! I got involved, started DMing it, and loved it. When 3.5 came around we reluctantly switched over, came to love it as well and I still am in a gaming group that primarily plays D&D 3.5.
So a couple weeks ago, our FLGS owner offered to run a 4e demo for us, owing to the fact that one of our number is a prime revenue stream for the FLGS. We agreed and last night the five of us plus a nice bystander who happened by joined up to take on the Escape from Sembia demo game from WotC. I played the Tielfing Wizard.
What We Wrought: The first few minutes were spent getting used to the character sheet. There were a few changes, of course, so we read over them, swapped sheets and oo'd and ah'd. Then we began. Our mission was to deliver a scroll to a cobbler who would pay us for the trouble. As we waited for the signal to approach him from a local bar across the way, a brigand and four guards walked up. The brigand stabbed the cobbler, who fell to the ground. We sprang into action, mainly since we hadn't yet been paid. The first combat consisted of us attempting to save the cobbler, who lay bleeding upon the ground from the predations of the obviously evil guards. This combat went a little slow, as we all got to know our capabilities. However, it was fun. Magic missiles flew, eldritch blasts cracked the air, healing words were spoken and smiting was had. We managed to kill two guards, but the brigand and remaining guards were able to flee like scared chickens. We healed the cobbler, who paid us and told us we had to get the scroll out of Sembia. So we took off.
We ran straight into a dead end alley filled with crates. At this point we got to check out the skill encouter system, which I have to admit was pretty cool. We needed to get eight successes before we got four failures. We could have hidden, found another way out or climbed atop crates to get to the roof. My tiefling, being sneaky decided to hide. And rolled two 1s. In a row. So, while the others scrambled to find cover, I contented myself with hiding badly and pronouncing loudly in a russian accent that I was a a crate, nothing to see here, move along. Luckily the cleric had the presence of mind to drag me into the nearby hole in the warehouse wall he had discovered. As the guard tried the locks outside, we rolled again to see if we suceeded. And we failed. Again. Rather than get bogged down in endless guard attacks, the DM handwaved us out of town. Probably wise, as my tiefling still had some epic failures in him!
We "procured" some horses outside of town and rode toward the border. Upon reaching a forest, we came across a ruined tower and some hobgoblins. Overhearing them planning evil, we attacked and managed to kill them all, in a much quicker fashion than before. COmbat really does speed up when you're not endlessly groping through rulebooks to find a suitable option. However, Skamos the Russian-accented tiefling wizard was slain in a most unpleasing fashion by an archer's cruel arrow. He died as he lived, cursing and threatening to drag souls screaming into hell. However, due to the DM's kind nature, another tiefling wizard, this time a Scottish accented stereotype happened to be wandering by and joined the party. Much rejoicing was had.
Our third encounter was against some particularly nasty undead. Which is to say, normal undead, who are now particularly nasty. This made me happy, as wimpy undead aren't scary, but exploding undead who cause ongoing necrotic damage are downright creepy. Cue manic laughter.
Our last encounter took place on a bridge, where bounty hunters stood waiting to deny us our rightful escape. Four beserkers, one wizard and chain-wielding roguish type who I rapidly dubbed Cheney. (Much shooting your friend in the face jokes ensued.) The berserkers were pretty tough, the wizard was less so, mainly due to the DM being unable to roll above a 9. The chain fighter was brutal. His Dance of Death ability allowed him to move five squares and attack anyone he could along the way. Ouch. We were hurting and ready to drop when the warlock managed to eldritchly blast the bugger into oblivion. Hooray! We escaped from Sembia. (Worst. Vacation. Ever.)
The lowdown: Once we got our legs under us, combat DID go faster. In the last battle we went through about six rounds of combat with six players in the same time it usually takes a group of four to go through four rounds. Definitely an improvement. Critical hits now deal max damage with no confirm rolls. That was pretty awesome, and saved a lot of time. Static saves made things quicker and gave us less to worry about. The skills seemed pretty streamlined, though a better explanation of what you'd use each skill for would be nice. Racial abilities were neat and really gave the characters difference. Especially the halfing's forced reroll ability: that was awesome and saved him from at least two critcal hits.
My take: I was skeptical about 4e. I wanted to wait until I had seen the rules before I made any decisions. After playing this demo, I'd pretty happy about what I've seen. I don't know if I'm completely ready to give up the ghost and drop 3.5/Pathfinder completely, but I think I'm a lot more excited about the release than I was. I'll definitely pick up the core books and read them through. If the game is this fun at higher levels, then I'll definitely play. And of course, if they don't screw up my beloved Bard when he finally gets released...
Sounds like you had a fun time!
I have a question: Did you feel like you had a good variety of things to do among the party? I haven't been following every piece of information regarding 4E so far, but somehow I got the impression that combat could end up something like:
DM: You encounter 5 hobgoblins.
Wizard: I use my per-encounter ability that does 3d6+6 damage and makes the target unable to move for 1 round.
Fighter: I use my per-encounter ability that does 3d6+6 damage and shifts the target one square.
Cleric: I use my per-encounter ability that does 3d6+6 damage and heals some hp.
Rogue: I use my per-encounter ability that does 3d6+6 damage and allows me to move one square.
DM: O.K. The hobgoblins attack now, using their per-encounter abilities. They do some damage, and you move some squares.
Wizard: I use my at-will ability that does 1d6+2 damage.
Fighter: I also use my at-will ability that does 1d6+2 damage.
Cleric: I also...etc., etc.
O.K., that's probably a huge exaggeration. :) But did you like the range of abilities that people had available?
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16, 2011 Top 32
|
Ha! I feel your pain... All the characters had slightly different things to do, although, of course, they're all pretty similiar. For example, my wizard had his trusty magic missile, or he had his column of fire that was a burst that did 1d6+5 damage within one square of the target, or he had a force orb that exploded like a grenade and did 2d8+5 to a primary target and 1d10+5 to any adjacent enemies or I had my sleep spell that slowed everyone and made them unconscious if they didn't save. I had a range of options for combat which satisfied me. I can only say what I saw of the others, which was that while each one was pretty much an attack of some kind, they seemed like different attacks. One did damage and gave the paladin 3 temp hit points. One did damage and knocked the guy back a square (great near chasms), one did damage and slowed the enemy. So, while they were variations on a theme, it was a pretty decent theme to start out with.
I thought about this a bit when I was driving home from the demo. In 3e, at 1st level, what options do you have? Use your spell, trip, disarm, attack, heal, etc. In actual play at 1st level it comes down to attack, spell or ranged attack. So when compared with 4e, it's mostly the same, but you get a little more flavor to your melee, spell or ranged attacks.
Without having seen higher level play, I can't be completely sure that it doesn't rapidly devolve into your description, but for the first level PCs we played, it was at least fun.
It's interesting that you guys seemed to have a pretty good time with the encounters at 6 strong. My group tried it at 5 and we got beat down pretty bad by the hobs. The skeletons actually TPK'd us, and only one survived the bandit ambush at the end. Of course, this also may be a comment on the differences in player skill and DM bloodthirstiness. I can't speak for the OP, but in my game, it wasn't so clear cut on when to use what power.
As the Wizard, for example, I really wanted to save my encounter area effect to catch a punch of enemies together, so I tried to convince the Fighter to use his at-will to push enough enemies together to make it worth it. You had a daily you wanted to save until things looked hairy, and even once you blew everything and were left with at-wills, you still had two at-wills to pick from, to keep things interesting. I found it a pretty fun system, and am pretty excited about its pending release.
I thought about this a bit when I was driving home from the demo. In 3e, at 1st level, what options do you have? Use your spell, trip, disarm, attack, heal, etc. In actual play at 1st level it comes down to attack, spell or ranged attack. So when compared with 4e, it's mostly the same, but you get a little more flavor to your melee, spell or ranged attacks.
I thought about this, too; there really isn't a lot of variety at 1st level. Personally, I like as much variety in my "powers" as possible which is why I (almost?) always play spellcasters/manifesters.
It sounds like the wizard has a decent variety of powers (from what you say), but I also like the resource management aspect of 3.5 spells, too (at least I think I do -- maybe I'd actually prefer something else more if I tried it!). I.e., if my 2nd-level cleric has Magic Weapon, Conjure Ice Beast I and Obscuring Mist memorized, I have to think carefully about whether it would be best if I cast one of those spells now, or convert one to a healing spell, or save them all for later. And my 2nd-level beguiler needs to think: "Is it worth trying to fool these guards with a Disguise Self spell, or should I save that slot for another Sleep spell later?" Whereas in 4E, if I have per-encounter powers I might as well use them as soon as possible (use it or lose it!), falling back on at-will powers once I run out, and only use my daily power(s) if it looks like I'm in big trouble.
I'll probably have to try it and see for myself. One thing's for sure -- I never buy version 1.0 of anything, so I'll probably wait for a few extra PHBs to come out before buying anything.
I thought about this, too; there really isn't a lot of variety at 1st level. Personally, I like as much variety in my "powers" as possible which is why I (almost?) always play spellcasters/manifesters.It sounds like the wizard has a decent variety of powers (from what you say), but I also like the resource management aspect of 3.5 spells, too (at least I think I do -- maybe I'd actually prefer something else more if I tried it!). I.e., if my 2nd-level cleric has Magic Weapon, Conjure Ice Beast I and Obscuring Mist memorized, I have to think carefully about whether it would be best if I cast one of those spells now, or convert one to a healing spell, or save them all for later. Whereas in 4E, if I have per-encounter powers I might as well use them as soon as possible, using at-will powers once I run out, and only using my daily power if it looks like I'm in trouble.
I'll probably have to try it and see for myself. One thing's for sure -- I never buy version 1.0 of anything, so I'll probably wait for a few extra PHBs to come out before buying anything.
Encounter powers are a good bit stronger than your at-wills .. I found it best to wait for prime circumstances to really let loose with mine as a Wizard. It's possible other classes might be better served opening with one of their big hitters though.
Also, higher level characters will have more per encounter powers, meaning that even if you always open with one of them, you'll have to figure out which one to open with.
What can I say? I like 4E.
Cheers! :)
Encounter powers are a good bit stronger than your at-wills .. I found it best to wait for prime circumstances to really let loose with mine as a Wizard. It's possible other classes might be better served opening with one of their big hitters though.
I'm not disagreeing with you; by "as soon as possible", I meant "as soon as prime circumstances are achieved".
Also, higher level characters will have more per encounter powers, meaning that even if you always open with one of them, you'll have to figure out which one to open with.
Very true! I don't know if you'll have the same number of choices as the corresponding 3.5E character (e.g. a 3.5E level 5 cleric will have 9 spell slots; I'm not sure if a 4E level 5 cleric will have the same number of different powers or not).
What can I say? I like 4E.
Cheers! :)
I like a lot of the ideas, too. And hearing playtest reports from folks like you and the original poster helps to dismiss some of my concerns.
Encounter powers are a good bit stronger than your at-wills .. I found it best to wait for prime circumstances to really let loose with mine as a Wizard. It's possible other classes might be better served opening with one of their big hitters though.I'm not disagreeing with you; by "as soon as possible", I meant "as soon as prime circumstances are achieved".
Also, higher level characters will have more per encounter powers, meaning that even if you always open with one of them, you'll have to figure out which one to open with.Very true! I don't know if you'll have the same number of choices as the corresponding 3.5E character (e.g. a 3.5E level 5 cleric will have 9 spell slots; I'm not sure if a 4E level 5 cleric will have the same number of different powers or not).
I like a lot of the ideas, too. And hearing playtest reports from folks like you and the original poster helps to dismiss some of my concerns.What can I say? I like 4E.
Cheers! :)
Glad I could help quell some FUD! They've actually told us a fair deal about the game if you're interested in reading some of the previews.
A level 5 character (no matter the class) will have two encounter powers (one from 3rd, one from 1st), two daily powers (one from 5th, one from 1st) and one utility power (one from 2nd).
On top of that, of course, you can get more powers from your race/feats/multiclass and with multiclassing, can trade out one of your encounter powers for an encounter power from another class by 5th.
Cheers! :)
Sounds like you had a fun time!
I have a question: Did you feel like you had a good variety of things to do among the party? I haven't been following every piece of information regarding 4E so far, but somehow I got the impression that combat could end up something like:
DM: You encounter 5 hobgoblins.
Wizard: I use my per-encounter ability that does 3d6+6 damage and makes the target unable to move for 1 round.
Fighter: I use my per-encounter ability that does 3d6+6 damage and shifts the target one square.
Cleric: I use my per-encounter ability that does 3d6+6 damage and heals some hp.
Rogue: I use my per-encounter ability that does 3d6+6 damage and allows me to move one square.
DM: O.K. The hobgoblins attack now, using their per-encounter abilities. They do some damage, and you move some squares.
Wizard: I use my at-will ability that does 1d6+2 damage.
Fighter: I also use my at-will ability that does 1d6+2 damage.
Cleric: I also...etc., etc.O.K., that's probably a huge exaggeration. :) But did you like the range of abilities that people had available?
I know that a few people are upset about the powers that are doled out to every class, but the way I see it is that even a fighter getting all of two unique attack forms each round (such as Tide of Iron or Cleave), its still three times as many choices that they would otherwise be choosing from (including the basic attack that most fighters just end up doing anyway).
So, if the players are going to just sit there and say "I use my encounter power that deals X damage and does Y", they were probably just saying "I attack" in 3rd Edition. If players are more into the game, or the DM is into describing the action, then its probably going to be just the same, if not more so because the DM now has variations to work with.For example, a DM can describe a basic attack as a sword slash, but if the character uses Tide of Iron, he can now describe the shield bash effect and have it actually DO something.
I know that a few people are upset about the powers that are doled out to every class, but the way I see it is that even a fighter getting all of two unique attack forms each round (such as Tide of Iron or Cleave), its still three times as many choices that they would otherwise be choosing from (including the basic attack that most fighters just end up doing anyway).
I can't speak for other people -- I'm personally not the type of guy who gets upset over changes to the rules of a game. "Oh no! I can no longer sell my children at the end of 'The Game of Life'! Quick -- I must express my outrage on the internet!" :)
I was just saying from my extremely superficial look at the abilities of various classes, many of them looked vaguely similar to me (e.g. do XdY damage and get a small bonus). By contrast, I think WotC did a pretty good job on making the "maneuvers" from the Tome of Battle look fairly unique compared to wizard or cleric spells of the same level. YMMV, of course!
I was kind of concerned about that initially. I thought, "A lot of these powers are basically deal damage and perhaps do something else neat." When I compared the attack powers to the options that classes get in general, I quickly realized that EVERY class has stuff that does basically the same thing.
Sure, the wizard spell writeups differ from the fighters weapon block, but both are just damage dealing actions. They do it in different ways, and sometimes deal different damage types, but the end result is just style.
Compare THAT to the fact that most classes in 3rd Edition basically do weapon damage for their attacks, and its actually pretty dry. A barbarian might occasionally rage, and a ranger might use two weapons, but they are just making routine attack rolls for routine damage.
Since combat is part of almost every D&D game, making it as elaborate and fun as possible makes a lot of sense.
I'm no longer concerned that some classes might have very similar combat powers. I'm sure that more than one is going to be deal X type of damage and push creature one square. Thats totally fine by me. After all, there are only so many different things that they can use, but its still more elaborate than what 3rd Edition does, which could be summed up as "make attack rolls back and forth until the monster dies."
Sure, a DM can attempt to describe attacks, but there are only so many varieties on explaining how the fighter hits the monster with his sword. By including stuff like, "push the monster about", the player can get more engaged in the game whether or not the DM is actively describing every action.
|
"There were interesting choices to make during fights and it wasn't just a matter of trotting out your best attack again and again."
I'm intrigued by this, as I viewed some of the sample PCs, and read some of the playtest reports, and the question in my mind was "Why wouldn't I use Ability X, over and over, round after round?
Unless there are some conditions for using them, which we haven't been privy to? (Eg. in 3.5, any attack of opportunity is just a basic attack. No special maneuvres added)
I am most wary of the fact that many of the special bonus effects are described as a done deal, regardless of the opponent's abilities. For example; a knockback effect is described, but makes no reference to rolling off against the opponent, or being modified (or ignored) by their strength or size.
If this is the case, and a Colossal Giant can be tipped off a bridge on round 1, by a Level 1 Fighter, using one of his apprentice-level abilities, then I can forsee a failure to suspend my disbelief in this game.
Now, it may be that I've not got the full picture yet, and that whenever the ability text boldly states that "The opponent is knocked back...", they actually mean "The opponent may be knocked back, as per the rules in the main PHB...", but if that is the case, then they aren't doing a very good job of getting that aspect across.
"There were interesting choices to make during fights and it wasn't just a matter of trotting out your best attack again and again."
I'm intrigued by this, as I viewed some of the sample PCs, and read some of the playtest reports, and the question in my mind was "Why wouldn't I use Ability X, over and over, round after round?
Unless there are some conditions for using them, which we haven't been privy to? (Eg. in 3.5, any attack of opportunity is just a basic attack. No special maneuvres added)
I am most wary of the fact that many of the special bonus effects are described as a done deal, regardless of the opponent's abilities. For example; a knockback effect is described, but makes no reference to rolling off against the opponent, or being modified (or ignored) by their strength or size.
If this is the case, and a Colossal Giant can be tipped off a bridge on round 1, by a Level 1 Fighter, using one of his apprentice-level abilities, then I can forsee a failure to suspend my disbelief in this game.
Now, it may be that I've not got the full picture yet, and that whenever the ability text boldly states that "The opponent is knocked back...", they actually mean "The opponent may be knocked back, as per the rules in the main PHB...", but if that is the case, then they aren't doing a very good job of getting that aspect across.
Hmm. On an OA (an Opportunity Attack, what would be an AoO in 3E) you can only make a basic attack, no powers involved. Also, when charging only a basic attack is allowed. Finally, some powers allow the user or his allies to make basic attacks ... they come in then as well.
There could also be other times when a basic attack is called on that we don't know about as well, of course. I think at least one status ailment restricted you from using any powers, but allowed you to continue to attack. Also, if you don't have any ranged powers, using a ranged basic attack is probably better than doing nothing against flying foes and the like.
That said, I believe the idea is that you will almost always prefer to use a power over a basic attack when possible. Some At-Will powers can even be used AS a basic attack.
As for pushback affects (which now come in flavors push, pull, and slide), I don't believe there is any limiter like what you are searching for. There is a caveat that may change your mind, however. Whenever someone would be moved into a dangerous zone through a power (like off the side of a bridge, or into a pool of lava) they can make a saving throw to fall prone instead.
Expect some enemies to be resistant to being moved, but this will likely be an exception based power of that enemy, not a general rule for large sized creatures.
Finally, the one Giant I've seen recently had a 3 square pushback power, so I'd definitely not be happy fighting them on a bridge either way. The new abilities flow both ways.
Cheers! :)
|
|
Hmm. On an OA (an Opportunity Attack, what would be an AoO in 3E) you can only make a basic attack, no powers involved. Also, when charging only a basic attack is allowed. Finally, some powers allow the user or his allies to make basic attacks ... they come in then as well.
There could also be other times when a basic attack is called on that we don't know about as well, of course. I think at least one status ailment restricted you from using any powers, but allowed you to continue to attack. Also, if you don't have any ranged powers, using a ranged basic attack is probably better than doing nothing against flying foes and the like.
That's good to know; this would make sense.
If you've hoofed it over from the other end of the corridor, you may be able to barge into your enemy, but won't have time to set up your special 'finishing move'.If you're blinded, you may be able to flail around and connect, but won't be able to use attacks that require pinpoint accuracy.
As for pushback affects (which now come in flavors push, pull, and slide), I don't believe there is any limiter like what you are searching for. There is a caveat that may change your mind, however. Whenever someone would be moved into a dangerous zone through a power (like off the side of a bridge, or into a pool of lava) they can make a saving throw to fall prone instead.
Expect some enemies to be resistant to being moved, but this will likely be an exception based power of that enemy, not a general rule for large sized creatures.
That's still a good ability, if the opponent's only option is to be flat on their back, or sailing to their doom.
I'd still prefer for this to be an inherent ability of a creature, that can be listed in the statblock (like the grapple modifier in 3.5, or the CMB score in PFRPG), and can be intuitively guessed at (in-character) from the creature's size and strength ("Strewth; look at the size of that thing!"), rather than relying on the Monster Manual writers to remember to include the 'push resistance' quality. It will get missed, and it's rather bad form for a DM to retroactively add it, mid-encounter, when a player of a halfling declares he's going to judo-flip the giant chef into his own cauldron, or runs along a bridge full of giants, tossing them all off.Finally, the one Giant I've seen recently had a 3 square pushback power, so I'd definitely not be happy fighting them on a bridge either way. The new abilities flow both ways.
That's good too know. As someone who played 'Against the Giants' in First Edition, it was apparent that giants were not as dangerous as they should be. Bumping up their HD in Second Edition, still didn't alter the fact that they simply hit to inflict 'some hit points', which was neither here nor there to any party with a cleric and a cure wand.
In Third Edition, it is possible to add the ability to score a 'home run', via the purchase of feats, like Awesome Blow, but I don't see why this should be required. It's not clever, it's not skillful, therefore, it shouldn't require a feat. It should just be a brute-force side-effect of being hit with a club the size of a telegraph pole, whether that is by a cunning stone giant chief, a dullard hill giant or a mindless construct (who can't even buy feats).In this respect, the 4E philosophy, of giving creatures the features they need to do their job, without worrying about the math, could improve things. I'm just wary that doing so will push out another ability, when we could just have 'If you get hit for X damage, roll Str vs Str for pushback' as a standard rule.