|
I am looking for peoples in game experiences and reviews. I would like very much to read about various groups play through any of the WOTC published adventures. Has anyone seen threads written anywhere about this? I am very curious about how the new rules are working out in actual play with varying character dynamics.
Thanks
|
|
I have been playing in a Keep of the Shadowfell game for the past two month, just finished it last night in fact. I like the game system but KOTS was a total hack and slash with a little bit of fluff thrown into the mix and the last battle is a total slogfest especially if the party doesn't go after the one long range combatant early in the combat. Which was my parties biggest mistake. Over all 4e is fun, I still love 3.5 but 4e has some fun stuff in it too. I like from a DM point of view the ease for which I can level up and convert most monsters. In fact I have had only minimal issues converting 3.5 mods to 4e and then only due to 3.5 creatures having a lot more powers/attacks than a 4e one.
The teamwork I have seen from the players has been much greater, and the willingness to use powers on one another is much greater. They play smarter.
I am looking for peoples in game experiences and reviews. I would like very much to read about various groups play through any of the WOTC published adventures. Has anyone seen threads written anywhere about this? I am very curious about how the new rules are working out in actual play with varying character dynamics.
Thanks
I have run Keep on the shadow Fell, and some of my own Campain (4e Rise of the Rune lords)
Shadowfell is well done, very easy to run and very fun, Kobolds are Fun to run, and deadly to play against, and i found that very refreshing.
I have more info about my own game, as we have 4-5 players, The game dynamics are great, lots of great combos between different classes, the game is still deadly, we still have lots and lots of Roleplaying, and some amazing combat.
over all i find the game different than 3e but still a very fun D&D experiance
|
|
I really like that people share on the boards the strengths and weaknesses they have discovered through play of the various Paizo adventures that have been published (have found them of invaluable use in my own games). I am thinking of running one of WOTC's adventures and am looking for that sort of feedback for those adventures too. What you said about the final battle is perfect and I'll take that into concideration. I am however also looking for the same sort of reviews about the 4E rules too since it's all new to me. Could you give me an idea on your party makeup and what skills/abilities the players really liked and disliked for thier individual characters?
|
|
I have more info about my own game, as we have 4-5 players, The game dynamics are great, lots of great combos between different classes, the game is still deadly, we still have lots and lots of Roleplaying, and some amazing combat.
I'd love to hear more about it. What sort of great combos? Can you give some amazing combat examples?
Thanks, sounds exciting.
The teamwork I have seen from the players has been much greater, and the willingness to use powers on one another is much greater. They play smarter.
Improved teamwork sounds great. Do you have any examples of how this worked with your group? It may give me a better idea on what to expect from my group and I could point it out to them if they don't see some of the options they have.
Thanks :)
Yesterday we had 6 players:
Half-elf Warlock
Dragonborn Paladin
Halfling Rogue
Human Wizard
Shifter Cleric
Dwarf Fighter
Likes: breath weapon, warlock's curse, sneak attack + Sly Flourish, shifter rage, acid arrow, greater emphasis on movement, several opponents to deal with, being able to take on a dragon at Level 1, and have it feel close but not impossible.
Dislikes: I'll have to canvass them on those. They had a poor run of dice in some parts, particular the wizard (so many magic missile misses!) and the dwarf fighter (stuck by a glue pot for 5 rounds)
|
|
dwarf fighter (stuck by a glue pot for 5 rounds)
I just have to laugh at the imagery, that sounds great (note to self: Dwarves and glue don't mix). Looks like you had a really good mix to try alot of things out. The list of likes is great and I'll look into those. As far as the dislikes, I am more looking for things that didn't quite work as well as expected or were a disappointment for the players (that 3.5 feat you picked out thinking it was going to ROCK only to discover that because of something you missed it turned out to be useless).
Thanks again :)
I've been in two 4ed games so far. I DMed the first Pathfinder module, Burnt Offerings, except using 4ed rules (the game fell through due to lack of personal time to set up and run the game), and the second one I'm currently playing in (It's Keep on the Shadowfell). As a DM, the game is beautiful. It really is. The monsters are much more fun, their stats and abilities are there in plain english and monsters are much, much easier to use and run. The stat blocks say "This is what the monsters have. This is what they can do. Run with it." Therefore, you spend more time actually worrying about plot, story, and creating fun tactical encounters.
As a player, the game is very fun. I also play in a 3ed campaign that's been going on for over a year now, and it's a lot of fun as well. But character-wise I found 4ed to be much more enjoyable. Every class is versatile and fun. They have their own abilities and powers, and combat is a tactical challenge that's actually fun and exciting. And just because it's tactical doesn't mean we sacrifice roleplaying at all. We do what our characters would do, and there's non-stop character driven story and conversation. The game really just made combat more streamlined and enjoyable.
Our party is made up of a cast of different characters. The three who are always there are myself, an Eladrin Ranger (two-blade build), an Elven Wizard, and an Orc Fighter (using the rules in the back of the monster manual). There is also a Human Warlord who shows up every once in a while. With fewer members, we really have to be more aware of what to do in combat.
I particularly like my eladrin fey step ability (teleport 5 squares), and I tend to use it after exhausting my encounter to be surrounded by enemies and get an attack on just one (helpful against Minions). Then I teleport behind the main bad guy and due my Jaws of The Wolf (massive damage to one target). The Wizard loves her magic missles (which also have a hard time hitting in our group), and her acid arrow. She's almost killed me with it, actually, just last night. Due to the splash. The Fighter does what he does best. Cleaves, takes sweeping attacks, and he usually has a bad habit of rushing in, leaving us to save him.
All in all, it's a fantastic tactical game. And it is D&D. There's no sacrifice in roleplay, or roleplaying spells (Roleplaying spells are still there - Utility powers and rituals). No lack of roleplay in character powers or abilites. And it's pretty cool to be able to have abilities only your character can do, and have them be named.
Keep on the Shadowfell isn't fantastic in terms of story or creativity. But it is a very good adventure to get used to the rules, and we're having a lot of fun with it so far.
I played it for the first time last week. I inherited a cleric in the game. I found I really enjoyed the new retooled rules. I really enjoyed that when I used my cleric attacks, that it indirectly helped others. I like the way the rules have been changed to improve teamwork. The at will, daily, and encounter spells works well.
It is simpler. It doesn't seem to lend itself to complex hack characters.
|
|
Not to worry, I can put the role-playing into any adventure. Sometimes things in adventures don't work exactly as the author thought they would though and this is where all your experiences help any who come after you have a better game. So if an ability of a particular character (or combo with multiple characters) made the whole thing a cake-walk, that dragon caused 50-75% casualties on the average, or that secret door that wasn't put on the map than I want to know about it. Not everything has to be that extreme however, I also want to hear about just how things worked out for a group on the average. So, not trying to have a discussion on the merits of 3.5 versus 4E or whether it's more fun or not, just want to know the challenges and great experiences that you guys have run into while running 4E. Maybe I am jumping the gun here a bit but hoping to avoid a 3E/4E discussion.
Our party is made up of a cast of different characters. The three who are always there are myself, an Eladrin Ranger (two-blade build), an Elven Wizard, and an Orc Fighter (using the rules in the back of the monster manual). There is also a Human Warlord who shows up every once in a while. With fewer members, we really have to be more aware of what to do in combat.
I particularly like my eladrin fey step ability (teleport 5 squares), and I tend to use it after exhausting my encounter to be surrounded by enemies and get an attack on just one (helpful against Minions). Then I teleport behind the main bad guy and due my Jaws of The Wolf (massive damage to one target). The Wizard loves her magic missles (which also have a hard time hitting in our group), and her acid arrow. She's almost killed me with it, actually, just last night. Due to the splash. The Fighter does what he does best. Cleaves, takes sweeping attacks, and he usually has a bad habit of rushing in, leaving us to save him.
This stuff is great though (note to self:BEWARE THE ACID SPLASH!),
Thanks :)
Sorry, I didn't mean it to be an anti-3e thing, I like both editions. But besides the point, 4ed is really easy to get into and because the rules work so well together, like everyone else says, there's a whole lot of teamwork involved.
One of my utility powers is when I'm missed by a melee attack, I can move the enemy into an adjacent square to me and gain combat advantage against them. I've used it to move them to an adjacent square that moves through a square the orc threatens (and therefore provokes an opportunity attack) and we've killed a few kobolds and goblins this way.
I won't lie. Beware of rangers. As far as I've seen, they are the most deadly class in the game. Especially when coupled with the Eladrin and their abilities.
Oh, and another thing, just last night, there was a secret tunnel that we had to be searching in the exact right spot for(the correct square), and I rolled a natural 20... On the space RIGHT NEXT to the secret door.
I played in one 4e game to test the combat and 2 sessions of an actual campaign. I played a human Paladin all three times. We found that 4e combat necessitated a grid and miniatures, this allowed movement to be more tactical, it took us a few combats to figure our powers out and how to work together. As some of the previous posters mentioned 4e really fosters teamwork.
I had a few problems with 4e though, I found combat took to long to resolve, an encounter equal to our CR could take 1 hour versus 15 minutes in 3.5. Part of this was the extra time needed to plan your move on the grid, another thing was the huge increase in monster hp (the dire rats we fought had 38 hp!) and the slight reducution in damage output. I also didn't like the feel of some of the powers, like the fighter's mark ability, it may be a good mechanic but it comes off as kind of gamey.
From a role playing standpoint out of combat 4e is about identical to 3.5 for roleplaying, which identical to pretty much everything else aslong as you have good role players.
I'd recommend 4e if your group has a serious problem with power-gamers, as all the classes seem more consistent. That being said all 4e classes tend to overlap at low levels while 3.5/3.P not so much, it depends what you looking to get out of your game.
|
|
One of my utility powers is when I'm missed by a melee attack, I can move the enemy into an adjacent square to me and gain combat advantage against them. I've used it to move them to an adjacent square that moves through a square the orc threatens (and therefore provokes an opportunity attack) and we've killed a few kobolds and goblins this way.
I won't lie. Beware of rangers. As far as I've seen, they are the most deadly class in the game. Especially when coupled with the Eladrin and their abilities.
Oh, and another thing, just last night, there was a secret tunnel that we had to be searching in the exact right spot for(the correct square), and I rolled a natural 20... On the space RIGHT NEXT to the secret door.
Np, actually this is all great stuff. Moving the opponent to cause an opportunity attack is something I'll have to keep in mind (and track as the DM). Rangers look very effective but what did you see that made them stand out as deadly in your experiences (and how did that combine with the Eladrin)? So how did you find the secret tunnel or did you? (DM fiat since you were so close?)
I had a few problems with 4e though, I found combat took to long to resolve, an encounter equal to our CR could take 1 hour versus 15 minutes in 3.5.
Wow! What's your secret? I would die for a 15 minute equal CR encounter in 3.5.
|
|
I had a few problems with 4e though, I found combat took to long to resolve, an encounter equal to our CR could take 1 hour versus 15 minutes in 3.5.Wow! What's your secret? I would die for a 15 minute equal CR encounter in 3.5.
Me, too. I play in both systems and would love to see what you did for your 3.x game to make combat so short.
|
|
I am looking for peoples in game experiences and reviews. I would like very much to read about various groups play through any of the WOTC published adventures. Has anyone seen threads written anywhere about this? I am very curious about how the new rules are working out in actual play with varying character dynamics.
Thanks
I played a 5th level wizard (controlled) who used his daily power to nuke an enemy wizard to death. The latter triggered the summons of a firebat whose firetrail caused damage. While our ranger (striker) dealt with it, I bolstered our party's fighter (defender), rogue (striker), and cleric (leader) took on the wizard's henchmen in melee using at-will and encounter blasts and bursts.
|
|
Would you mind taking your 3.5 discussion elsewhere as I am interested in the way 4E runs, plays, and hearing about other peoples experiences with it so far. So if you have something useful to add in that regard, please do.
That sounded like an epic encounter Matthew, thank you for sharing. I'll have to keep an eye on those auras.
I played a 5th level wizard (controlled) who used his daily power to nuke an enemy wizard to death. The latter triggered the summons of a firebat whose firetrail caused damage. While our ranger (striker) dealt with it, I bolstered our party's fighter (defender), rogue (striker), and cleric (leader) took on the wizard's henchmen in melee using at-will and encounter blasts and bursts.
I'd be very interested in hearing more about this higher level play. We are going to be starting at first level here in about a week or so but I imagine it won't take them terribly long to reach that level.
I don't know much about high level play, having only just completed our second session of KotS, but there is one aspect of game play I haven't seen mentioned yet.
I've discovered that even with only two sessions, that the learning curve is pretty low. By session two, I was comfortable enough with the rules that I was able to adapt to my players decisions, even when those decisions consisted of "y'know, let's not go there. Let's go to this other place instead." I was able to provide decent roleplaying and combat encounters with only a few moments' pause and they only weakness was a lack of a really pretty battle mat.
That, however, points out a weakness of the game and that's its dependence on battle mats. This isn't an argument about the game being a tabletop wargame or anything, but I found my options limited when it came to combat scenes.
For example, if the PCs are approaching a merchant wagon (just to make something up), I could present the merchant as the nicest and most helpless man in the world, but if I put that merchant on a battle map, the players would know something was about to hit the fan. On the other hand, if I didn't pre-place the mat and a battle WAS coming, I'd have to stop everything so I could place or draw the map, killing any tension or energy that might have developed from the surprise attack.
There doesn't seem to be any solution for that.
For the most part, though, I was pleased with my players' abilities to roleplay, especially as they've started to learn their abilities better, and we had more than a few cheering moments during our combats.
I had a few problems with 4e though, I found combat took to long to resolve, an encounter equal to our CR could take 1 hour versus 15 minutes in 3.5.Wow! What's your secret? I would die for a 15 minute equal CR encounter in 3.5.
Our whole group (except for maybe one person) are generally good at remembering spells/powers or take good notes. We usually decide on an action very quickly and we have the dice set aside to resolve any attacks and damage. We can fit about 2 PC actions into a minute and the DM can get several enemies out of the way quickly if they do the same action (like all the Orcs attack with Great Axes). Of course there are exceptions with especially diabolical encounters.
Other than the tactical movement 4e wasn't that much slower, its just in 3.5 a battle lasted about four turns on average, in 4e it seemed to take upwards of 10.
|
|
I played a 5th level wizard (controlled) who used his daily power to nuke an enemy wizard to death. The latter triggered the summons of a firebat whose firetrail caused damage. While our ranger (striker) dealt with it, I bolstered our party's fighter (defender), rogue (striker), and cleric (leader) took on the wizard's henchmen in melee using at-will and encounter blasts and bursts.I'd be very interested in hearing more about this higher level play. We are going to be starting at first level here in about a week or so but I imagine it won't take them terribly long to reach that level.
Sure. There was actually very little difference. While the PCs and opponents had more hitpoints, powers, and magic items, it wasn't the plethora you'd receive in older editions of DnD. HOWEVER, I did notice more conditions said powers brought about: more on-going conditions per round to be saved, more items to track as one got bloodied (my PC wore armor that increased defenses when he got bloodied), etc. Thankfully the DM was a WotC employee and was able to keep track of pretty much everything.
|
|
I really like that people share on the boards the strengths and weaknesses they have discovered through play of the various Paizo adventures that have been published (have found them of invaluable use in my own games). I am thinking of running one of WOTC's adventures and am looking for that sort of feedback for those adventures too. What you said about the final battle is perfect and I'll take that into concideration. I am however also looking for the same sort of reviews about the 4E rules too since it's all new to me. Could you give me an idea on your party makeup and what skills/abilities the players really liked and disliked for thier individual characters?
Well interms of the rules, there are a few issues mostly just odd wording in a few spots, none of them jump out at me at the moment. Over all the classes are great, the feat are meh (feels like there is not enough worth taking, while having access to more feats), the skills are streamlined and effective both in and out of combat. combat runs smoother (as long as your dice work with you), and the striker classes kick butt!!! As to the group I am playing in....
Vanderous Kain 3rd Level Human Warlock/Paladin of the Raven Queen(Solider of Faith feat)[My character]
Precissine 3rd Level Human Cleric of Pelor/Ranger(Ranger multiclass feat)
Lange Malory 3rd Level Halfling Rogue
Kyroshi 3rd Level Paladin of Bahumat
like I said before we are just finished up with KOTS which we all felt was a bit of a slogfest at time. The DM is working on his stuff now though he might use Thunderspire, and will probably use the Heathen adventure from WOTC website as he said it was well wrtten and not heavily hack and slash which was his biggest gripe of KOTS.
I will be DMing a converted module based in Nick Logue's Razor Coast in the next two weeks it should be tons of fun even with only two players.
One aspect that stood out in our session was lack of healing at low levels. While you can spend your healing surges all you want outside of combat, once your in it the amount of healing floating around is sharply limited. That cleric or Warlord can, at low levels, heal twice plus you have a second wind. Thats it. This has led to some pretty tense situations as its not uncommon for the party to simply be tapped out of healing. I laughed at the useless 50 gp potions that let you use a healing surge when I first saw them. I don't laugh any more - I buy them and hoard them as a precious commodity - life in a bottle.
I second (third?) the healing issues at low level.
Yesterday, as I ran my party through a conversion of Jason Bulmahn's 'Mad God's Key,' they were battling a solo elven wizard in his den. The 2nd level wizard, by the way, had 112 HP! The party used up all of its Second Winds, the cleric used both of his healing powers, and the paladin used both of his 'lay on hands' abilities. After several rounds of Burning Hands and Flaming Sphere, the entire party was down except for the cleric. Remembering his last unused power and the unconscious prisoner on the floor, the cleric of Pharasma cried out, 'A life for a life!' and caved the prisoner's head in with his mace, allowing him to use his Channel Divinity feat: Raven Queen's Blessing and grant the paladin a healing surge. The paladin leaped up and delivered the final killing blow to the wizard, and everyone lived happily ever after, but it was close.
Another caveat. Beware adding equipment to enemies. It isn't spelled out very clearly in then DMG how this affects an enemy's level, but my party got smoked by an elite enemy that, according to the DMG, should have been challenging but beatable. Turns out that the magical armor and shield I gave him pushed him over the edge. I would suggest that you err on the conservative side regarding enemy power until you have a good sense of your party's abilities.
O
|
|
Wow, that's some intense stuff you guys are writing. The healing limitations sound critical to be aware of. A 112 h.p. mage at 2nd level takes a large mindset shift on my part. Ok, conditions and item tracking both important and it sounds like items have a large impact on how challenging something is (Gotta rework what is ok to throw around at what level). Lord Thasmudyan and Arcesilaus (and all others) I will definitely be interested in hearing about how those conversions or published modules play out for you. Sounds like there have been a decent number of close calls for various reasons. I hope we can continue to share and benefit from each others experiences here.
Thanks ALOT, this is giving me all sorts of good stuff for thought and am forming a gameplan quickly.
If you want to listen in on a sample of gameplay, you could download (or listen to them in the embedded page) the Penny Arcade/PVP 4e podcasts.
http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/drfe/20080530 is the first one. Check the archive for more.
I listened to some of these while doing random housework, some during the long drive back and forth with the wife on the recent holiday, and they are a hoot.
As for my experiences, I'm converting Age of Worms to 4e. We started at 4th level in the third adventure, Blackrock Keep, so I think my party managed to bypass a lot of the fragility of lower levels.
Also, we are a group of 6 players instead of 4. I've been scaling encounters as the MM and DMG indicated, but either my players are really smart, or the difficulty scales a bit differently with more PCs. It's been REALLY hard to challenge them. They tend to steamroll over most things that the rules as written say should be appropriate.
The most difficult combat for them was a fight against two level 8 harpies in the lizard man lair. Both of the harpies being controllers, and both rolling remarkably well on their ability recharge checks managed to seriously challenge 6 level 4 characters.
After DMing the KotS I am now playing in a 4e campaign. I am playing a Dragonborn Paladin of Kord. The rest of the party consist of Teifling Wizard, Tiefling Rogue, Eladrin Warlord, Elf Fighter and a Half-Elf Warlock. In two sessions of roughly 4 hours each we have had 3 combat encounters which consisted of
- 1 spiretop drake, 2 needlefang drake swarms and 2 spitting drakes
- 3 Visejaw Crocodiles
- 1 Kruthik Adult, 3 Kruthik young and 8 Kruthik Hatchlings.
The combat have been fun and exciting, and any slowness is generally related to us not not knowing the rules as well as we did 3.5 and sometime suffering from 3.5 backlash where we think a rule works one way and now it doesn't (Grab, standing from prone no longer provokes Oppurtunity attacks, forced movement not provoking OA's etc).
, etc
We have also taken part in 3 skill challenges
- finding the tomb
- deciphering the runes to open the door
- convincing the guardian to give us the item we were after.
While these were mechanically skill challenges they were role-played out by the DM quite well and we didn't realise after wards that they were skill challenges until the DM gave us XP afterwards. For this campaign we are trying out awarding XP after every fight/skill challenge rather than bundling it up all at the end like we have done in previous campaigns.
Overall we are having a great time, and its interesting to learn a new ruleset and the abilities of a character/class.
|
Me, too. I play in both systems and would love to see what you did for your 3.x game to make combat so short.I had a few problems with 4e though, I found combat took to long to resolve, an encounter equal to our CR could take 1 hour versus 15 minutes in 3.5.Wow! What's your secret? I would die for a 15 minute equal CR encounter in 3.5.
Well, low-level 3.5 combat sessions can easily be that short. Low-level 4.0 combat sessions are a different story.
Well, low-level 3.5 combat sessions can easily be that short. Low-level 4.0 combat sessions are a different story.
Cory's right. Low level (first and second level) 3.5 combats can be quite short. Characters (and monsters) tend to drop after one or two hits.
|
|
I ran Into the Shadowhaunt on Worldwide Game Day twice. I was hampered by not having the rules in hand (I was waiting for my order from Amazon, of course).
The first run ended in a TPK. The party encountered the two animated statues (Level 2 Elite Brutes) which proceeded to pummel the PCs into hamburger helper. The second run ended with three dead PCs (those statues again) and two running for dear life out of the dungeon.
Once I received my books, I ran a game at the next D&D Meetup at GranLan. I'd set up a simple cavern run (with Master Maze), with the group being led by Ulli "the Bold," a blowhard NPC rogue that preferred to "lead from the rear." I wanted to ensure that the PCs would be the stars of the encounters.
A mixed bag of goblins (2 sharpshooters, 4 cutters, 4 warriors) was their first encounter. The sharpshooters got the drop on the Dwarf fighter as he entered the cavern, and their hand crossbows found their mark; the Dwarf was bloodied right off the bat.
Fortunately, 4E has Second Wind, which Dwarves get to use as a minor action. The Dwarf started slogging through a wall of goblins while the sharpshooters took potshots at him. Noted was the lack of penalties for shooting into melee and/or through your allies - one of my pet peeves, but I was running it straight for this game.
After the goblins were defeated (the sharpshooters legged it once the rest had fallen), the party started exploring the rest of the cavern. Two cavern chokers sprang out from concealment, and the party did more damage to the Dwarf with their attacks than the chokers did.
I have to say that 4E gives players loads of options, and many of the powers are designed to promote teamwork (quite certainly by design). I do like that 1st level characters aren't so fragile that one blow can kill them. This gives the players the chance to choose to run for it if they're losing a fight.
I'll be a player in a game this Saturday, playing a Dragonborn paladin. I'm looking forward to it.
:D
Boy, those statutes are brutal. We lost our Rogue (level 1) to them, when they rolled a 20 and knocked him down, then stepped on him with another 20. The pair of crits did like 30 damage, and brought the poor guy to -20 instantly.
Overall I've liked 4E a lot. Getting 3E rules mixed up in 4E was a big problem at first as well. It's already starting to push 3E out of my brain though.
Fortunately, 4E has Second Wind, which Dwarves get to use as a minor action. The Dwarf started slogging through a wall of goblins while the sharpshooters took potshots at him. Noted was the lack of penalties for shooting into melee and/or through your allies - one of my pet peeves, but I was running it straight for this game.
Initially, I also had a problem with this rule, but the benefit it grants to artillery characters (both PCs and enemies) is undeniable.
Actually, I've been impressed by 4e's rules that allow the various roles to actually function as described. The party warlock, for example, really is a striker in the truest sense of the word, hopping about the board, tactically nuking individual baddies, concealed the entire time.
From the other side is an example from our last session: The PCs encounter an evil cleric of Zon-Kuthon, who immediately summons 3 skeletons and 2 decrepit skeletons from the lake of blood that separates him from the party. The skeletons are, of course, intended to provide the cleric some valuable range attack time by delaying the inevitable charge of the PCs. The party paladin, however, (playing with a 3.5 mindset) immediately charges the cleric, merely shrugging when I mention the 2 opportunity attacks that will provoke from the skeletons. Little does the player know that skeletons have a +2 to hit and +1d6 damage on opportunity attacks. Slashed up and bloodied on the first round, the paladin stumbled up to the feet of the cleric, who promptly smote him. The rest of the party figured out quick that they needed to deal with the skeletons first, then turn to their leader.
<evil DM laugh>
O
|
|
Yeah, I played that game day scenario. We ended up fighting the Drow spellcaster, his skeletons, and the statues attacking from the rear all at the same time. It came down to our Cleric and a statue left standing. He managed to bring back my Dwarf Fighter by giving him a surge if I remember correctly and we finally dropped the last statue. 2 of the characters had missed 2 of 3 of thier death checks at this point but we barely managed to stabilize them before they perished for good. Very nearly a TPK and we were playing fairly well I thought but spread our damage around a bit too much. It seems that concentrating on opponents to take them down is a bit more important. It seems it's tough to take something out by yourself at 1st level.
|
|
Wow, that's some intense stuff you guys are writing. The healing limitations sound critical to be aware of. A 112 h.p. mage at 2nd level takes a large mindset shift on my part. Ok, conditions and item tracking both important and it sounds like items have a large impact on how challenging something is (Gotta rework what is ok to throw around at what level). Lord Thasmudyan and Arcesilaus (and all others) I will definitely be interested in hearing about how those conversions or published modules play out for you. Sounds like there have been a decent number of close calls for various reasons. I hope we can continue to share and benefit from each others experiences here.
Thanks ALOT, this is giving me all sorts of good stuff for thought and am forming a gameplan quickly.
Yeah, I will most definatily let you know. It will be an interesting experimental session as the game will also include flintlock guns, which I found a fairly good conversion of on ENworld. Hopefully I can turn this into more than just a one shot adventure as Nick's got some devilishly cool ideas with this Razor Coast setting. God I love pirates :)
Yesterday we had 6 players:
Half-elf Warlock
Dragonborn Paladin
Halfling Rogue
Human Wizard
Shifter Cleric
Dwarf FighterLikes: breath weapon, warlock's curse, sneak attack + Sly Flourish, shifter rage, acid arrow, greater emphasis on movement, several opponents to deal with, being able to take on a dragon at Level 1, and have it feel close but not impossible.
Dislikes: I'll have to canvass them on those. They had a poor run of dice in some parts, particular the wizard (so many magic missile misses!) and the dwarf fighter (stuck by a glue pot for 5 rounds)
Didn't really dislike much. The monster powers were plausible and we pretty much had to think as a team to take them down. Poor dice rolls come along in any and all versions, so no real difference there - although having your daily power go bum up is a whole bunch of no-fun.
It all felt dangerous, but possible if we took enough of the right risks and got a little lucky. The powers mesh well, and my cleric felt genuinely useful as a combatant as well as a healbot. Lots of role-play opportunities, although to be fair this is a group that will happily role-play making a cup of tea, so not a very fair test.
4E is working out well for us. Although at first glance I did think the mechanics would be limiting, in fact it's slightly the opposite. PCs have much more freedom to behave in different ways according to circumstances and casters are not reduced to rubbish ranged fighters once the spelliness goes for the day. I think as well that once we're all more familiar with the powers and their effects, combat is going to bat along very quickly. It all feels faster, more dangerous and more collaborative, which to me is a lot of what playing D&D is about.
Very nearly a TPK and we were playing fairly well I thought but spread our damage around a bit too much. It seems that concentrating on opponents to take them down is a bit more important. It seems it's tough to take something out by yourself at 1st level.
I've been noticing the difficulty with taking opponents down via concentration myself. I'm not certain that it will remain completely true as we get more comfortable with the system but in general it seems more difficult to pin enemies down and then clobber them. I'm guessing that the lack of full attacks and larger numbers of enemies is making it easier for monsters to break off and threaten the spell casters and such which is forcing the players to counter by spreading out.
Well today I had my very first 4e experience.
Can't say I am impressed though. There were 5 of us and I played the tiefling warlock. We did 5 encounters so that gave me enough combat to give me some conclusions.
1) Lot's of HP, for everyone.
2) Which makes it sometimes hard to end an encounter.
3) Lack of attack options, it's either your daily, your encounter or the at will powers. Not much else.
4) I think the combat is very swingy, either your best attacks hit and the bad guys take a beating or everything grinds to a very slow pace as you beat your opponents to a pulp.
5) It is not DnD. I started with adnd, did 3e and so I think I got a good idea when something is DnD. And 4e just doesn't feel like it.
Anyway, the rest of the guys want to give it another shot, I'll join them, but not with any high hopes.
|
|
Saturday's game went rather badly. Having been told that the group had a wizard and a warlock, I made a dragonborn paladin, because it sounded like they needed a front line combatant and a healer. I helped my friend Rob to create a human ranger, going with the two-sword style, figuring we'd need more melee capable people, since the wizard and warlock should have ranged/area effect damage covered.
As it turned out, the warlock player was absent, and we had two other players arrive, only then to begin creating their characters. They chose identical human fighters, and we were several rounds into the first encounter while they were still choosing their powers and possessions.
We had found a keep (actually a fairly large castle) with zombies walking the walls. My dragonborn paladin crashed through the front gate, which had been hastily repaired, only to land prone on the other side (Dex was his dump stat, after all).
Four mummies croaked, "Intruders! Attack!" Despite getting a natural 20 on my initiative, they still beat me (same init score, better Dex), and walked over to attempt to pummel the prone paladin. Good AC held up, and 4E makes it so standing up does not provoke OAs, but I needed help to face four mummies.
The fighters made their way in, first one and then the other a round later. We found that the mummies were regenerating their injuries, except for the one that my paladin was hitting with Holy Strike (radiant damage). As it turned out, no one else could deal either fire or radiant damage, so the mummies concentrated on me. With AC 25 (we were level 7), he was getting hit about once per round. He'd used one Lay on Hands to heal himself, but was saving the other in case one of the other PCs went down.
When another PC was bloodied, I was getting ready to use Invigorating Smite to heal myself and one of the bloodied fighters, when two mummies hit simultaneously, one with a crit. My paladin went down, unconscious and dying.
The GM had the mummies converge to make coup-de-grace attacks to finish off the paladin, rather than moving to fight the active combatants. While my helpless form was getting bludgeoned to death, the "boss" encounter showed up, a Boneclaw.
Our ranger chose to break off from the mummies to face the boneclaw single handed. He got a few attacks in, but got shredded in the process. When the ranger went down, the boneclaw picked him up and carried him towards the fray.
By this time, two of the mummies had finally fallen. The boneclaw commanded them to stop, and gave the (living) PCs a chance to retreat. Wisdom prevailed, and they dragged off their dead (me) and dying (ranger). Out of combat, the ranger rested and then used his healing surges to recover. The paladin's body was brought back for burial.
After the game, my friend and I discussed the game. The lack of teamwork had really put us at a disadvantage against the mummies, which should have been beatable. They're level 8 brutes, but there were only four of them, so that's around a level 7 encounter. The boneclaw, though, is a level 14 soldier, WAY out of our league. We could barely touch him, while he could hit on anything but a natural 1.
I can't say this was an indictment of the system. Bad dice rolls happen in any game (our die rolls were pretty bad that game), and teamwork is essential against tough opponents. Our fighters were only half interested in the game - one spent most of the game text messaging or reading a magazine. They'd not spent much time reading the PHB, so they didn't understand their abilities very well, and didn't really care.
Overall, it was something of a disappointment.
|
|
I don't know why he chose the boneclaw - maybe he liked the miniature. Oh, there were 5 characters; the wizard went the control route, and had no fire or radiant attacks. Supposedly he'd set up the encounters to handle eight level 7 characters, but three players didn't show for the game.
I'll be running a 4E game this Saturday at the Meetup, if there are enough players interested. I think I can balance the encounters a bit better than this, and will definitely include some roleplaying and skill challenges. As a GM, I prefer to have the PCs emerge bloody, battered, and bruised, but ultimately victorious.
Well today I had my very first 4e experience.
Can't say I am impressed though. There were 5 of us and I played the tiefling warlock. We did 5 encounters so that gave me enough combat to give me some conclusions.
1) Lot's of HP, for everyone.
2) Which makes it sometimes hard to end an encounter.
3) Lack of attack options, it's either your daily, your encounter or the at will powers. Not much else.
4) I think the combat is very swingy, either your best attacks hit and the bad guys take a beating or everything grinds to a very slow pace as you beat your opponents to a pulp.
5) It is not DnD. I started with adnd, did 3e and so I think I got a good idea when something is DnD. And 4e just doesn't feel like it.Anyway, the rest of the guys want to give it another shot, I'll join them, but not with any high hopes.
I really don't understand this point of view.
Plenty of HP for everyone is great, and is a change that has been a long time coming.
I've played in and run upwards of thirty 4th Edition encounters at this point. I have never found any to be "hard to end".
Your attack options are incredibly more varied than what you had available in D&D 3.5, especially if you played a melee class (unless you argue that sunder/disarm/bull rush/other-corner-case-action-no-one-used counts as an "attack option" on the same level as 4th Edition powers). Not only that, but your options only increase as you level.
Most encounters take a median amount of time, and the damage difference between your best attack and your at-will attacks isn't that huge. Tactics play a much bigger role than whether you hit or miss with your big gun when you pull it out.
Your last point is the one that really gets me. I've played AD&D, 3rd Edition, D&D 3.5, and 4th Edition. Arguably, I know D&D just as well as you do. And I can say, without a doubt, 4th Edition is Dungeons & Dragons. It's got dungeons, dragons, dice, role-playing, friends around a dinner table, a fantasy setting, magic weapons and iconic classes. Really, please tell me what critical element of the game is missing. Yeah, it's different than what you're used to because for whatever reason you find it difficult to let go of the old system, but that doesn't make it suddenly "not-D&D". In fact, my experiences with 4th Edition have all left me with the impression that this is something D&D was working towards all along, the continued perfection of the game.
I have never personally met someone who came into a game of 4th Edition D&D and didn't have a blast, except when they had decided ahead of time that they just "didn't like 4th Edition", for whichever nebulous, ill-defended reasons they chose. It behooves you to go into the game looking to enjoy it, rather than to pick apart the things you don't like. You might actually find yourself having a good time.
I really don't understand this point of view.Well today I had my very first 4e experience.
Can't say I am impressed though. There were 5 of us and I played the tiefling warlock. We did 5 encounters so that gave me enough combat to give me some conclusions.
1) Lot's of HP, for everyone.
2) Which makes it sometimes hard to end an encounter.
3) Lack of attack options, it's either your daily, your encounter or the at will powers. Not much else.
4) I think the combat is very swingy, either your best attacks hit and the bad guys take a beating or everything grinds to a very slow pace as you beat your opponents to a pulp.
5) It is not DnD. I started with adnd, did 3e and so I think I got a good idea when something is DnD. And 4e just doesn't feel like it.Anyway, the rest of the guys want to give it another shot, I'll join them, but not with any high hopes.
The boost in HP isn't bad, it's just something I noticed.
Well, my group did have problems ending things, this may be subjective.I didn't play a fighter, I played the warlock and at level 1 I can sure compare it to a sorcerer.
damage output difference: Fire of phlegestos 3d10 + con (daily) vs burst 1d10+chr or con (at will). You are right, no difference whatsover (this is sarcasm).
Ok, the last part was my subjective feeling about the game. We did have fun, especially during the non-combat phase (imho). 4e just didn't suck me in, I've played a lot of other games in the last few weeks and they did 'hook' me.
Maybe the next session will bring me into the 4e light ;>
I really don't understand this point of view.Well today I had my very first 4e experience.
Can't say I am impressed though. There were 5 of us and I played the tiefling warlock. We did 5 encounters so that gave me enough combat to give me some conclusions.
1) Lot's of HP, for everyone.
2) Which makes it sometimes hard to end an encounter.
3) Lack of attack options, it's either your daily, your encounter or the at will powers. Not much else.
4) I think the combat is very swingy, either your best attacks hit and the bad guys take a beating or everything grinds to a very slow pace as you beat your opponents to a pulp.
5) It is not DnD. I started with adnd, did 3e and so I think I got a good idea when something is DnD. And 4e just doesn't feel like it.Anyway, the rest of the guys want to give it another shot, I'll join them, but not with any high hopes.
The boost in HP isn't bad, it's just something I noticed.
Well, my group did have problems ending things, this may be subjective.
I didn't play a fighter, I played the warlock and at level 1 I can sure compare it to a sorcerer.damage output difference: Fire of phlegestos 3d10 + con (daily) vs burst 1d10+chr or con (at will). You are right, no difference whatsover (this is sarcasm).
Ok, the last part was my subjective feeling about the game. We did have fun, especially during the non-combat phase (imho). 4e just didn't suck me in, I've played a lot of other games in the last few weeks and they did 'hook' me.
Maybe the next session will bring me into the 4e light ;>
Yes, let's please compare it to the Sorcerer at 1st level. A 1st-level Sorcerer can cast four spells a day (not counting cantrips, which are just awful, and assuming a decent Charisma score) from a list of two spells. Essentially, two options, limited to four uses per day total.
Compare to a 1st-level Warlock in 4th Edition. Two at-will powers, both thematically-tied to a Warlock's class and both interesting and useful. One encounter power, usable anywhere from one to four times per day on average, and a daily power, usable once each day. Four options, two of which are unlimited, and the other two of which are limited in a manner similar to a 1st-level D&D 3.5 Sorcerer's spells. Not to mention your Warlock's Curse ability and your Tiefling's racial ability, your pact-related abilities and your prime shot feature, all of which encourage interesting tactical choices in terms of movement, choice of target and use of actions.
A Sorcerer in D&D 3.5 at 1st-level could typically stand in the same spot and cast magic missile at a target. Often this was his best option in a round, assuming he hadn't already cast four spells today (in which case his best option was to whip out a crossbow and act like a poor man's rogue).
A Warlock in 4th Edition at 1st-level can (and should!), EVERY ROUND, do the following: move three squares to receive concealment, make sure you're positioned both closer to your target than anyone else and also closer to an uncursed enemy than a cursed enemy, use a minor action to either curse someone or activate your racial power, and finally use one of your attack powers to hit a cursed target for extra damage. Oh, and if that cursed target is killed, either on your turn or someone else's, you get to do something else nifty based on your choice of pact.
I don't mean to sound like I'm hating on D&D 3.5 or anything. I loved the game and defended it against people who attacked it for one reason or another. But 4th Edition is, from all of my play experiences, a whole heap of fun and objectively better in terms of tightness of game design than D&D 3.5 was. Give it a fair shot and really try to get into your class and its abilities. I hope you come around, because there is a lot of fun to be had in the new edition if you're looking for it.
Maybe I did something wrong at character creation, but I felt I was forced to take certain at will powers just because I chose a certain pact => I got the blast and hellish rebuke because I chose the infernal pact. Maybe this interpretation was wrong somehow?
anyway, the feeling I got was that my options were limited, maybe the sorcerer only knows 2 1st level spells and can cast them 4 times but at least the number of spells I can choose from is greater than the 4 at-will powers....
My group had the moving, cursing / hunter's quarry stuff down within 2 encounters. I was not all that impressed by the 1 temp hp for each kill, though ;>
The above just shows that all your actions are prescribed in some way.
What I also noticed and should be added to my list is the total lack of fear on the part of the PC's. The HP's and healing surges did seem to instill a sense of bravado.