|
This Memorial Day weekend, I attended Strategicon in Los Angeles, California. There, I participated in no less than nine Dungeons and Dragons 4th Edition sessions. I played three demo games and four delvs run by Wizard of the Coast. I also participated in two adventures based off the collected rules over at ENworld.
I confirmed my view that 4E is a different game than 3.x. Interestingly, this is not based on the new rules so much as the reaction of the various players, including myself. I saw far greater interactivity when PCs were in combat, both in melee as well as the new skill challenge system. The main example was in the use of healing. Because various PCs could heal from a distance without losing their combat effectiveness, players were constantly keeping tabs of who was hurt, who needed healing, and who needed protection. Other examples include the ability to give increased protection to allies, extra attacks, movement, etc., all without taking precious actions and resources from one's PC.
On the other hand, the game's emphasis on active cooperation from players and their PCs could prove to be a detriment to spotlight hogs, optimizers, and non-tactically inclined players. I saw this twice in game: my warlord, whose role as leader provided powers maximizing other PCs movement, strengths, etc., was a simple "I go up and try to hit him" PC when asked to corral NPCs to safety while the rest of the party fought the bad guys. And in another game, the party's striker/warlock took on undead by herself and was quickly killed in close combat.
I have more thoughts on specific game mechanics which I'll post later this week. Again, the experience validated my opinion the two are different games much in the same manner as True20's damage roll and Powers are to the D20 SRD's hit point and spell system, respectively.
Well, we would like to hear more.
Thank you for the info.
I like the enhanced interaction among the players. This might help players that they don't invest much in the game to become a part of it.
But I wonder about the feel of play, such as how difficult (or not) it is to play without a battle mat. Half of my players despise fiddly bits and tactics and minis, and they won't like rolling to resolve role-play situations.
Same boat here. A couple of my players were pretty outspoken about how much they didn't like the boardgame play of 3.5 and I suspect that's going to be a big roadblock in getting them to try 4th ed.
Just as we were moving away from the battlemat in our 3.5 game, I don't see anything keeping play nailed to the battlemap rules-wise in 4th. I've been glossing thru the quick-start rules in Shadowfell and making mental notes of how I'd adjudicate the seemingly map-focused abilities off the table. Fer instance, if a rogue wants to shift positions with an enemy, I could just as easily discribe that narratively and then remember to fudge a disadvantage for that opponent who has now been placed "exactly where I want him". The only real drawback is that your players might not see much difference in their "powers" from level to level. While other tables would be going all "sweet, I can shift him three squares instead of one," your players will likely get the same flavor description from you with only your unspoken RP-style "fudged disadvantage" being the difference.
The real challenge, though, is that the combats are geared for a lot more participants than you might have seen in 3.5. Six to 10 opponents seem common in this new version and your brain might have trouble remembering who's marked whom or who has what disadvantage. I'm toying with the idea of using a mini-map behind the screen to help me keep track of all the participants but then filtering all of that into evocative descriptions to my players and vice versa rather than forcing them to just move around game pieces.
On the up-side, though, it looks like the rules actually encourage roleplay rather than deny it. The "powers" seem to scream for evocative description on the part of your players and, aside from rules to see whether or not someone sees through your bluff, rules for RP-style interaction are completely absent.
But I wonder about the feel of play, such as how difficult (or not) it is to play without a battle mat. Half of my players despise fiddly bits and tactics and minis, and they won't like rolling to resolve role-play situations.Same boat here. A couple of my players were pretty outspoken about how much they didn't like the boardgame play of 3.5 and I suspect that's going to be a big roadblock in getting them to try 4th ed.
Just as we were moving away from the battlemat in our 3.5 game, I don't see anything keeping play nailed to the battlemap rules-wise in 4th. I've been glossing thru the quick-start rules in Shadowfell and making mental notes of how I'd adjudicate the seemingly map-focused abilities off the table. Fer instance, if a rogue wants to shift positions with an enemy, I could just as easily discribe that narratively and then remember to fudge a disadvantage for that opponent who has now been placed "exactly where I want him". The only real drawback is that your players might not see much difference in their "powers" from level to level. While other tables would be going all "sweet, I can shift him three squares instead of one," your players will likely get the same flavor description from you with only your unspoken RP-style "fudged disadvantage" being the difference.
The real challenge, though, is that the combats are geared for a lot more participants than you might have seen in 3.5. Six to 10 opponents seem common in this new version and your brain might have trouble remembering who's marked whom or who has what disadvantage. I'm toying with the idea of using a mini-map behind the screen to help me keep track of all the participants but then filtering all of that into evocative descriptions to my players and vice versa rather than forcing them to just move around game pieces.
On the up-side, though, it looks like the rules actually encourage roleplay rather than deny it. The "powers" seem to scream for evocative description on the part of your...
Sounds like the "powers" could be used in a future Superhero RPG.
Sounds like the "powers" could be used in a future Superhero RPG.
I think they did themselves a great diservice by calling them "powers" at all. In fact, I'm finding a lot of my anticipated displeasure is stemming from poor naming conventions. "Powers" and "shifting" and "squares" and "Orcus"...once I renamed them, most of my grief was gone.
Once I started thinking of "powers" as "abilities", "shifting" as "maneuvering" and "squares" as "five-frickin'-feet," the game became a lot more palatable.
Seriously. One of the figher's "powers" is to land a number of smaller jabs in addition to a single main thrust. It's not a superhuman ability, just a sign of training and skill.
|
...it looks like the rules actually encourage roleplay rather than deny it. The "powers" seem to scream for evocative description on the part of your players...
I played this weekend at Gamex too. I actually enjoyed the new focus on movement. I was able to shove opponents into better positions (for me ;) and got bumped around a bit myself. Fun.
The Powers are evocative ... the first few times you use them. But after a while I found myself using Flurry of Blades (or whatever it was called) over and over again.
Still, I didn't hate it. For me at least, 4E will probably be a fun play-at-a-con game.
Here's a re-post of some of my other thoughts on the playing 4E...
I played a rogue in Escape from Sembia - a short adventure set in the new Forgotten Realms. Three or four big combats and one of those complex skill encounter thingies. Some specifics...
Bloodied
When you are at half you HPs, you are 'Bloodied.' This is an actual condition and it's even listed on your character sheet. Several monsters had things triggered when they were Bloodied. This one undead thing were were fighting let off a blast of necrotic energy. Some barbarians went wild. I think some PC classes also have abilities tied to being Bloodied. It was fun to have the monster change or do something special halfway through. It was also nice to get a little indicator that you were about halfway there (even if it made my skin rot). A couple of creatures also had "Upon Death' effects as well. Exciting.
Marking
Okay, I liked this too. The fighter had the ability to 'Mark' an opponent just by attacking it (he didn't even have to hit, just engage it). Once he'd marked it, the creature too a penalty (-2 I think) if it attacked anyone else. It makes sense. If I'm fighting you and you take a swing at someone else, I'm going to pop you. The penalty represents you having to keep an eye on me no matter what. [For idea thieves, it could also provoke an AoO.] I got marked at one point by a bad guy and prevented me (my choice) from backstabbing another opponent. Nice mechanic.
Critical Hits
Critical hits don't require confirms anymore and don't do double/triple damage. Instead they do max damage. I can't say I like this better, but I did like it. Waaaay faster. One roll, hurray!, done. I'm not sure of the full probabilities or anything but it seems to me with 3.5 double damage, where you still have to roll damage, half the time you're going to end up with less-than-max damage and half the time your going to end up with more-than-max damage (max damage for a regular hit), and that's assuming you crit. So it seems to me that the 4E way should result in slightly more damage overall. Still trying to make up my mind, but not bad at all.
Complex Skill Challenges
I had read the description of these the Wizard's site but it didn't really sink in until I played. When it says something like "8 successes before 4 failures," it means as a party. We were trying to get out of town quickly. The DM gave a few seconds to talk about what we were going to do, then he went around the table and asked each of us. He matched what we said to a list of possibilities he had written down and matched it to a particular skill check. For example, one player said he just started running toward the bad part of town. Athletics check. I said I climbed a wall and ran along the rooftops. Acrobatics check. And so on. In at least one case the DM had to make up/figure out which skill check would be appropriate because the player thought of something that wasn't written in the adventure. Success, success, success, failure, success, success, success, failure, failure, success. That 7 and 3. We needed 8 before 4. Last one: failure. No immediate effect because it wasn't catastrophic or anything (not like 4 in a row), but it did alter an encounter later in the session. This part of the adventure was very heavy on story and interpretation and not a lot of die rolling, only about 2 times each in the end. Interesting. A nice change of pace.
At-Will Powers
I had two at-will combat powers, one that allowed me to move a little extra before an attack and one that did a little extra damage. They each had their own attack to hit number to use rather than my regular attach number. At first I would do regular attacks and occasionally one of the at-wills, then I realized that both the attack and damage for my at-wills was the same or better than my regular attack, so I started using my special at-wills all the time. That annoyed me at first. It seemed lame, why would I ever use a regular attack if these are just plain better? Then it hit me. I was supposed to use my at-wills all the time, they represent the way my character fights. My regular attack numbers were just a base that my at-wills were built off of. And there were certain situations where I couldn't use my at-will - AoOs and sneak attacks - so I had to just use my regular attacks there. Once it made sense to me I was alright with it. Yes, it was a little video gamey with my two special moves, but it was fun and combat had a lot of action as everyone learned to use their at-wills.
Moving Others in Combat
I got shoved out of my square a couple of times. It was fun. I had two powers where I could move my opponents as well (one once per encounter and the other once per day). I pushed a guy off a cliff and pulled another into a flank. Very dynamic.
Static Saves
In 4E some of your attacks are versus your opponent's will or fort or reflex save. You roll, not him; his save is a static number like AC. As the attacker it's fun to roll. When it's against you, it's just like being told that a sword hit or missed you. Honestly, I didn't really notice the difference so I guess it was okay.
Damage and Healing
You start with a lot more HP but a lot of damage goes around too. And there is plenty of healing available. You have a certain number of healing surges per day and each one heals a certain number of HP. In combat, you can take one by just going full defense for one round (called Second Wind). Out of combat you can use the rest on yourself as well, but when they're gone, they're gone. When a cleric heals you, she is also activating your healing surges (if you have any left). I didn't play a cleric, but she seemed to have plenty of healing to go around, like it was an at-will power or something. Being able to heal all your own damage seems a bit much, but I like the idea of getting a second wing in combat. You don't die until you get to negative your Bloodied amount, so half your HP. Our fighter would get healed up to his full HP and be deep into negatives and back several times in each combat. Okay, but a little too much fluctuation for me.
Odds and Ends
* Rogues get a bonus with daggers
* Movement is in squares not feet
* There's a hierarchy of actions - standard (including attacking), move (including 5' step) and minor. You can substitute actions for something lower, so instead of a standard action you can take another move, instead of another move you can take a minor, or you could do three minors. This seemed to clear up a lot of the questions about what we could and couldn't do.
* Action points (1 +1 every other encounter; can use 1 per encounter) give you an extra standard action, although you can use it to move or for a minor action.
* Run no longer = x4, just +2 squares and leaves you vulnerable to AoOs and sneak attacks, etc.
* Thieves' Tool give you a +2 bonus, rather than a penalty for not having them.
* "Ongoing damage" seems to bring together all the different types of continuing damages into one rule. Saves every round to end it in most cases.
* Having "Combat Advantage" replaces your opponent being "denied Dex" or "Flatfooted" for things like sneak attacks.
* Some skills have passive versions. Passive Perception is your Perception +10 and the DM used it when he wants to surprise you. Great idea. No need to alert players anymore.
* Tumble is a rogue ability.
I have no idea what character creation is like :(
|
|
I have more thoughts on specific game mechanics which I'll post later this week.
As promised.
All-Will Powers. The wizards I played each had two ranged weapons (Magic Missle and Ray of Frost) which they could use at-will. Finally, wizards, finally, could chuck their crossbows in DnD. Even better, they were as effective, damage-wise, as their melee brethren's weapons/At-Will power.
Speaking of powers, you could quickly tell which players were used to playing 3.x fighters or similar classes. Most, if not all, struggled with the myriad abilities available to their 4E fighter as well as game mechanics previously performed by other classes like healing. One player, for example, would just go up to a foe and strike them with their weapon, forgetting their At-Will power to not only strike, but either heal nearby allies or give extra AC or whatever. And many players, including yours truly, forgot Second Wind. In my defense, I forgot because either my PCs could heal themselves or was getting healing from other PCs. Other players simply forgot because they were used to the clerics doing so in the middle of combat.
Saving Throws as AC. I liked this concept at the start and it worked beautifully. My PC would use "Ray of Frost" against the enemy, roll a D20, add modifiers, and compare it against an opponent's Reflex. Simple and consistent. None of this "does the spell automatically hit (magic missle), do a ranged touch attack (3.x Ray of Frost), need a saving throw (fireball) or bypass spell resistance first before making a saving throw?" Course, this may all change once I see the rulebook :)
Skill Challenge. A word of warning. What I'm about to describe is based off the ENworld pdf and not the official version. I can add, though, it's pretty close.
At the denoument of our adventure, our party had to figure out how to stop a major demon from entering our world. The DM told us it was a skill challenge with the following conditions:
We had to obtain 8 successes to stop the demon before we obtained 4 failures. There were three tiers: Easy, Medium, and Hard, each with a DC** associate with it. If you made the Easy DC, you got a success. However, if you didn't, you got 2 failures. If you made the Medium DC, you got 1 success: failed, and you got 1 failure. Hard was the reverse of Easy: 2 successes if you beat the DC, 1 if you failed. The DM, after hearing your action, would tell you which tiers you rolled against. Then -- and this is important -- you declared which tier your rolled against and applied the consequences.
To obtain the successes, each player described what his/her PC was doing to stop the demon and what skill were they utilizing. My PC, for example, used his Perception skill during the first round of the challenge to see if there was a connection between the demon and his power sources (one near dead and two living bodies). DM said I could chose Easy or Medium. I chose Easy but failed. Oops. Tension at the table suddenly flared up as we were 50 percent on our way to allowing the demon through!
Each player described their actions in turn, with the DM colorfully describing any necessary results besides Success/Failure. Note that you cannot declare your PC is avoiding the challenge (though, again, this may change once I have the book). We received our third failure which caused the demon to lash out with a sonic scream versus Reflex that caused damage. We did two rounds of the skill challenge. Finally, on the third round, with 7 successes and 3 failures, one player went for broke and declared an Easy. He made the DC and the demon was banished.
*No, this is not a real power. Don't have my sheets in front of me :)
**I don't remember if it was called DC in the game or not.
Ok, but how did you felt about the skill challenge? Were you anxious or indifferent? Does it add anything to the game?
|
|
Ok, but how did you felt about the skill challenge? Were you anxious or indifferent? Does it add anything to the game?
I liked it. While I had already planned to use it in my future games, that was based on my original read on that ENworld pdf. Seeing it in action (we were sweating bullets when that player chose the East tier) cinched the deal.
Adding to the game? What I think it does, in my opinion as a DM, is both make my non-combat encounters easier to structure and another way to get the players involved. Case in point: knowledge check rolls. In my current 3.x games, PCs with the appropriate knowledge skills would assist the one with the highest rank while PCs who don't have the skills wait in the background. One PC rolls and we compare to the established DC to see if they succeed, and it's over (usually) with a roll (the die is cast....)
But with skill challenges, I can now look at such searches differently. In an earlier skill challenge, for example, a player rolled a one while researching a library about the object of our quest, a castle. The DM ruled that not only did that add a failure to the challenge, but an errant fireball from some demonic wizard blasted the library wall, nearly fry the PC (didn't bypass his Reflex), killed several librarians and injured the main helper NPC.
I can see designing a skill challenge where the PCs have to figure out how to feed a pet monster whose owner is dead/missing. Failure means the death of the creature. Or it goes berserk and attacks. And I'd tell my players the most likely consequence. Nothing gets players tense than impending combat or some sorta major failure :)
Reference to Skill Challenges I try to think of it from several angles. How would this system work for new-young gamers, how would this work for experienced gamers, how would this work for modules and how would this work for 'role-playing'?
My take on this follows:
This would have helped me when I was 10 and trying to figure out what 'heroes' can do and how to resolve actions. It can tend to interfere with 'role-playing' if a young gamer think everything has to follow the dice rolls.
An experienced gamer should be able to use this model to make up challenges on the fly. They can think up the general situation and mechanics (8 success or 4 failures) and then make up the difficulty based on the players ideas. A series of simple decisions (easy-Medium or Hard) should be easy to adjudicate.
In reference to modules, it is very controllable for tournament play and giving DM's ideas for Skill Challenge scenarios. I could see a book of skill challenges.
Finally, in terms of role-playing... I don't know. I could see a DM abusing the 'rolling' of skill challenges and loosing some fun.
But I didn't get to PLAY this weekend! So what do you think?
|
|
Ok, but how did you felt about the skill challenge? Were you anxious or indifferent? Does it add anything to the game?
I liked it. While I had already planned to use it in my future games, that was based on my original read on that ENworld pdf. Seeing it in action (we were sweating bullets when that player chose the Easy tier at that end) cinched the deal.
Adding to the game? What I think it does, in my opinion as a DM, is both make my non-combat encounters easier to structure and another way to get the players involved. Case in point: knowledge check rolls. In my current 3.x games, PCs with the appropriate knowledge skills would assist the one with the highest rank while PCs who don't have the skills wait in the background. One PC rolls and we compare to the established DC to see if they succeed, and it's over (usually) with a roll (the die is cast....)
But with skill challenges, I can now look at such searches differently. I can see designing one where, for example, the PCs have to figure out how to feed a pet monster whose owner is dead/missing. Failure means the death of the creature. Or it goes berserk and attacks. And I'd tell my players the most likely consequence. Nothing gets players tense than impending combat or some sorta major failure :)
Note there can be consequences during a challenge. In an earlier scene, a player rolled a one while researching a library about the object of our quest, a castle. The DM ruled that not only did that add a failure to the challenge, but an errant fireball from some demonic wizard blasted the library wall, nearly fry the PC (didn't bypass his Reflex), killed several librarians and injured the main helper NPC. Ouch :(
We still like to hear what you think about how it plays. I've read some awesome systems out there that just didn't translate that well from the book to the gaming table!
As for Skill Checks possibly emphasizing (man, Firefox's spellchecker has RUINED what used to be my quite adequate spelling ability) rolling through what should be a social encounter, I'd say the risk is no greater than when 3E introduced the idea of social skills.
Some players will always prefer to just give a lame or basic explanation of what they want and then roll, I had players do this even in 2E. At least now we have rules to make them follow.
Cheers! :)
|
|
We still like to hear what you think about how it plays. I've read some awesome systems out there that just didn't translate that well from the book to the gaming table!
Good point.
Some players will always prefer to just give a lame or basic explanation of what they want and then roll, I had players do this even in 2E. At least now we have rules to make them follow.
Huh. I can see a slight problem here. Because Skill Challenges, from what I've seen so far, work with groups, such players could lead to an increased number of failures. Again, maybe there's something in the PH that deals with it.
Huh. I can see a slight problem here. Because Skill Challenges, from what I've seen so far, work with groups, such players could lead to an increased number of failures. Again, maybe there's something in the PH that deals with it.
To that, I'd have two responses:
1) The only way to get better is to practice. Generally players who offer basic explanations of what they're trying then roll are ones who don't speak up much anyway. This will maybe put them in the spotlight more and let them build up some nice creative muscles.
2) I think if a particular player is actually hampering the group because of their specific playstyle, the other players will be happy to help out. In 4E playtests my group ran, when one player couldn't figure out what to do, other players had plenty of opinions on some viable options. Group solidarity and all that.
Cheers! :)