|
Kobold Hall isn't a real adventure. It's a "Learn to play" that teaches you the ins and outs of 4e combat. It shouldn't be compared to any sort of adventure product.
Maybe, but IIRC it is a mini-adventure that has more pages than many others published in Dungeon. Besides, a company like WoTC should have talented designers enough to do a more "serious" introductory module that teaches you the "ins and outs" of the system *and* manages to be entertaining (i.e. something that can be compared to quality adventures).
This just felt... insulting to me. It's bad and I would prefer my DM rather reciting the rules than playing it. I'm not a great DM, and even still I think I could probably whip up a better module in a couple of hours. What a waste of pages...
Maybe, but IIRC it is a mini-adventure that has more pages than many others published in Dungeon. Besides, a company like WoTC should have talented designers enough to do a more "serious" introductory module that teaches you the "ins and outs" of the system *and* manages to be entertaining (i.e. something that can be compared to quality adventures).
This just felt... insulting to me. It's bad and I would prefer my DM rather reciting the rules than playing it. I'm not a great DM, and even still I think I could probably whip up a better module in a couple of hours. What a waste of pages...
I didn't find the adventure too bad myself, as a DM I had to set the scene for the adventure( a paniced farmer rides into Fallcrest calling for aid from the city guard who tell him they don't have the manpower) I peak the characters interest (the party then approaches the Guard captain and offers their assistance-privately the PCs want to make a name for themselves).
There was a Skill challenge as the PC's convince the guard captain to allow them to deal with the Kobolds. Then the party heads to the Hall and goes through the adventure.After the Adventure the Party (headed by Priest of Pelor) deals with another Skill Challenge as they beseach the Lord to enter the abandoned Temple of Pelor(I left it abandoned in my campaign). Ok I did a lot of this off my own back to add flavour but the main DMG advises this sort of action for a campaign.
Maybe, but IIRC it is a mini-adventure that has more pages than many others published in Dungeon.
If you'd like to find a 4th Edition Dungeon adventure published in under 10 pages (the length of Kobold Hall), be my guest. For reference, most of the AP adventures clock in at around 40 pages.
Besides, a company like WoTC should have talented designers enough to do a more "serious" introductory module that teaches you the "ins and outs" of the system *and* manages to be entertaining (i.e. something that can be compared to quality adventures).
I found Kobold Hall plenty entertaining. So did all my friends. Sucks for you, I guess.
This just felt... insulting to me. It's bad and I would prefer my DM rather reciting the rules than playing it. I'm not a great DM, and even still I think I could probably whip up a better module in a couple of hours. What a waste of pages...
A lot of people have not only found it fun, but useful to boot. It probably just isn't for you.
|
|
If you'd like to find a 4th Edition Dungeon adventure published in under 10 pages (the length of Kobold Hall), be my guest. For reference, most of the AP adventures clock in at around 40 pages.
I don't think APs or "stand-alone" published adventure modules actually count, because they're in a league of their own (unless you count the "mini" adventures such as published by AEG for 3E, some of which were under 10 pages or so). Yet I remember a lot of 1E/2E/3E adventures published in Dungeon that were 10 pages or less, and felt to me more exciting than Kobold Hall (*and* contained more 'flavour', to boot). If I'm writing an adventure for 3E/PF, it takes maybe 5-9 pages (including all stats and maps and flavour) as a PDF-file.
Now, I thought 4E was supposed to save your time for pre-play prep, i.e. enable you to spend less time (and space) for number-crunching? And, honestly, to me it seems that the monster stat blocks, treasure parcels, hazard/trap write-ups and whatnot consume way more space than anything in 3E. I'm just sayin'.
Now, I thought 4E was supposed to save your time for pre-play prep, i.e. enable you to spend less time (and space) for number-crunching? And, honestly, to me it seems that the monster stat blocks, treasure parcels, hazard/trap write-ups and whatnot consume way more space than anything in 3E. I'm just sayin'.
It's a strange turn around that whilst previously the DMG contained most of the material for running the game( Magic Items,Magic item tables, Traps, diseases etc). The new DMG contains mostly just what its call 'guide', its an informtation book with advise for the DM in the most part with only a few pages on treasure,traps and monster creation.
Personally I'd have prefered the monster adjustment info in the Monster Manual,the Traps & Treasure Parcels in the PHB so I'd only need the PHB and Monster Manual at the game.The Powers do take up more space but thats understandable as they are keeping all blocks in the same format rather than previous editions which had different formats for Turning Undead,attacking,spellcasting etc.
The basics of adjusting creatures\encounters are a doddle compared to previous editions.
|
|
That is a pretty preposterous claim, honestly.
1) Monster Stat Blocks
Creating unique monsters or customizing monsters in 4E is worlds easier and quicker than in 3rd Edition. I can't imagine anyone claiming otherwise.
I'm running a 4E adventure where we often have a different number of players at each session, so I have to be prepared to adjust for anywhere between 4 to 7 players. This usually only takes a minute, as I figure out what to add or subtract. For one especially key encounter coming up, I decided to add a named NPC if there were more players. I statted out the NPC as a level 11 rogue - it took 5 minutes. I created another encounter, reflavoring a cyclops as a one-eyed troll shaman and adding a warlock template to it. It took 10 minutes. In 3rd Edition, those would have taken at least half an hour, as I figured out feats, equipment, what classes they should have, what levels they took what classes at and what skills gained at each level... etc.
So stat blocks? Much faster. And if you are using prewritten adventures of each, than obviously the time is the same. (Unless you need to adjust for more or less players, in which 4E wins hands down.)
I didn't say it wasn't, once you "get" the "4E mindset" and understand each monster role and how they work on their own and in synergy. Yet for a "newbie" DM I think 4E is more challenging to run than 3E, due to a lot of "judgement calls". Also, regardless of all those templates and the formulas to adjust monster stats properly in relation to level and role, the biggest problem (in my opinion) in 4E design is the lack of advice on adjusting and applying monster *powers*. How many powers for an 8th level lurker? What event or number on a D& "triggers"/replenishes each power?
As it stands, the only official advice I've so far seen on this is to "goggle it up" in MM, i.e. to find a "similar" monster and try to start from there. I just can't believe that the designers wouldn't have a table with all listed monster powers and , so I think that's a bit condescending.
As for forum-posters, people have posted that "how many do you need?". Well, if I want to create a flying magical armor/golem, which regenerates and has three shield-based powers and four attack powers, which level should it be? Is seven powers too much? How many powers should it have, if it was, say, 15th level? Which of those powers are "triggered" when it's "bloodied"? Which of them should be "replenished" on a 3, 4, 5 and 6? Which only on a 5 or 6? And so on.
THAT's my biggest beef with 4E monster design -- it's just too "loose" for a "gamist" RPG. I wouldn't have a problem with it at all, if D&D were, say, a trait-based RPG with very few and simple mechanics. The problem lies in inconsistency with the very strict PC-related mechanics, and "loosely" designed monsters. Maybe I take the game too seriously just to "reflavour" every new monster, or maybe I just don't get the system?
And, just to make sure that you don't misunderstand me, I *have* read the books, and a score of 4E adventures -- and still I'm claiming that to *me* it would be far, far easier to run 3E/PF than 4E. And I've been DMing the game for 20+ years, but this is the first time I feel very insecure and confused with the rules. You can call it "preposterous" if you like, but I mean it.
2) Treasure ParcelsAgain, quick and easy compared to 3rd Edition. I decide on a few items to include over the course of a level, and figure out where to place those items and some amount of gold. I suppose this could be hard for someone who was really indecisive... but I haven't found it too lengthy a task. I even tend to personalize the loot (swapping out much of the raw cash for consumables, spell reagents, unique valuables and such)... and it still takes less time to figure out parcels for an entire...
Distributing treasure? I often do it on the fly (scrolls, potions, money, jewelry, art objects), except for "permanent" magic items (which I have decided beforehand).
The idea behind Treasure Parcels is good, I'll admit that. But like you say, I don't think it's easy for everyone to decide on items.
3) Trap/Hazards
These seem about the same. Find an appropriate one, and drop it into place. Scale if needed (which is a bit easier in 4E.) Not seeing much difference at all, and certainly nothing to suggest placing them in 4E is a lengthy process.4) Space
You mention they should save space, as well as time. From what I've seen, 4E stat blocks are significantly more efficient than 3rd Edition ones - I often can print off every single monster stat block so they fit on index cards, which is extremely useful. In 3rd Edition, not even remotely feasible for most monsters. Now, I will concede that there is one area in which 4E stat blocks might be longer - often, encounters feature multiple enemies, instead of just one or two. On the other hand, monsters rarely feature more than 3-4 total monster selections (even if you might have several of one specific monster), so I don't think that extends the adventure size by all that much.Treasure Parcels, similarly, are pretty quick to list - and means not worrying about the dozens of suits of masterwork leather armor that monsters are wearing, or a bunch of +1 longswords, or all the other mundane and uninteresting items that get brought back to town and turned into cash.
And traps/hazards, again, basically take up the same room in each edition.
In 3E, all the necessary stats for a trap or hazard takes up a couple if lines – in 4E, the “official” stats for them (including how to bypass/disable it with a plethora of skills or via attacks) seems to take about half a *page*. So I don’t know how you can claim that they take up the same space. And the same goes for Skill Challenges, too (which I happen to like, BTW, but I think they could have used a bit easier resolution formula).
Also, it bothers me that you describe (to players) kobolds wearing scale mail and wielding sharp swords, or hurling weird “glue-bombs”, and yet the players cannot pick them up (for loot) or wield them – just because they’re part of the monster “stat formula”. Out of curiosity – how do your players respond to this? Or do prefer not to describe any equipment on monsters and NPCs?
I mean, I'm not familiar with the adventures you are referring to, so I can't give a direct comparison. If you are able to fit a complete adventure into 5 pages, with everything included, than more power to you! But I'm confident that if you could do so, the same thing could be just as concisely put together as a 4E adventure.
It depends – remember that if you’re including all the monster/NPC/trap stats in your 4E adventure, they may easily consume more than those five pages. In 3E, the stat blocks are a bit shorter, generally (unless you use the Dungeon/Paizo format).
Now, that doesn't say anything about the actual quality of any specific 4E adventure. I, personally, haven't read Kobold Hall. I can't weigh in there. But I definitely will argue against any claim that 4E doesn't succeed at its goal of speeding up prep-time. Having run both - as a DM that is paranoid enough to try and get everything statted out in advance, all options prepared for and planned out, and information as organized and perfected as possible... 4E gets the job done, and is faster, easier, and more efficient in just about every way.
Again, I have to disagree, but that may be because I just can’t “get” the “4E mindset”, or perhaps I’m just too “simulationist” in my attitude to accept the internal mechanical inconsistencies (i.e. the difference between PCs and the rest of the world) in the rules? Also note that I’m not “bashing” 4E, I’m just noting that it may not be as fast, easy and fun for me as it is for you.
And, neither am I claiming that you couldn’t do great adventures for 4E , but I *am* saying that WoTC doesn’t have a very good track record of publishing well-written adventures for any edition (some of their 3E modules were just horrible, in my opinion). The Nentir Vale stuff was good, though, except for the ‘Kobold Hall’ (I even “stole” the map of Fallcrest into my PF playtest campaign).
|
|
Maybe, but IIRC it is a mini-adventure that has more pages than many others published in Dungeon. Besides, a company like WoTC should have talented designers enough to do a more "serious" introductory module that teaches you the "ins and outs" of the system *and* manages to be entertaining (i.e. something that can be compared to quality adventures).
This just felt... insulting to me. It's bad and I would prefer my DM rather reciting the rules than playing it. I'm not a great DM, and even still I think I could probably whip up a better module in a couple of hours. What a waste of pages...
I didn't find the adventure too bad myself, as a DM I had to set the scene for the adventure( a paniced farmer rides into Fallcrest calling for aid from the city guard who tell him they don't have the manpower) I peak the characters interest (the party then approaches the Guard captain and offers their assistance-privately the PCs want to make a name for themselves).
There was a Skill challenge as the PC's convince the guard captain to allow them to deal with the Kobolds. Then the party heads to the Hall and goes through the adventure.
After the Adventure the Party (headed by Priest of Pelor) deals with another Skill Challenge as they beseach the Lord to enter the abandoned Temple of Pelor(I left it abandoned in my campaign). Ok I did a lot of this off my own back to add flavour but the main DMG advises this sort of action for a campaign.
That's what I meant -- your "tweaks" to the adventure probably made it more fun for your players, and managed to "showcase" skill challenges, to boot. Why couldn't they do it in the first place? I mean, if one of the design goals was to offer DMs material that can be dropped "as is" out of the books, and this was supposed to be the introductory module in DMG, why leave out something as innovative (for D&D -- indie RPGs have had similar mechanics for years) and fun as Skill Challenges?
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
didn't say it wasn't, once you "get" the "4E mindset" and understand each monster role and how they work on their own and in synergy. Yet for a "newbie" DM I think 4E is more challenging to run than 3E, due to a lot of "judgement calls". Also, regardless of all those templates and the formulas to adjust monster stats properly in relation to level and role, the biggest problem (in my opinion) in 4E design is the lack of advice on adjusting and applying monster *powers*. How many powers for an 8th level lurker? What event or number on a D& "triggers"/replenishes each power?
I hate to post just to say, "good point," but, my god, that is a damn good point. In fact, the same goes for most of the system. The biggest thing lacking in the DMG is this level of behind the scenes analysis. There's that chart, which is useful and gets you most of the way there, but some discussion about the monster roles, appropriate powers, etc., would've been much appreciated.
Of course, I also dreamed of a similar product for 3e. I wish the conventional wisdom regarding monster books was something other than a list of monsters. I am sick to death of lists of monsters. I was sick of it in 3e and I'm not looking forward to it in 4e. I don't want a bunch of monsters, I want a monster book that is akin to a superhero system ala champions or mutants and masterminds. Give me lists of powers, give me a chapter on each role and how to customize the monsters, explain to me the mechanics that best achieve the flavor of a particular power type - tell me what a good designer considers when building a monster. I would love it if either Paizo or WotC released a book like this.
Teach me to fish; quit giving me barrels of fish the designers already caught.
Creative Director
|
Of course, I also dreamed of a similar product for 3e. I wish the conventional wisdom regarding monster books was something other than a list of monsters. I am sick to death of lists of monsters. I was sick of it in 3e and I'm not looking forward to it in 4e. I don't want a bunch of monsters, I want a monster book that is akin to a superhero system ala champions or mutants and masterminds. Give me lists of powers, give me a chapter on each role and how to customize the monsters, explain to me the mechanics that best achieve the flavor of a particular power type - tell me what a good designer considers when building a monster. I would love it if either Paizo or WotC released a book like this.
Teach me to fish; quit giving me barrels of fish the designers already caught.
The thing of it is, though, is that conventional wisdom says that it's better to keep those types or rules and advice close to the chest and to continue creating volumes of monsters. Think about it this way: from a business viewpoint, it's better to sell a monster book every year rather than just sell one that encourages the customer to STOP buying monster books by showing them how to make monsters.
I don't necessarily agree with that logic, though, especially since a professionally created, well-done monster book has more to offer than just new monster stats. It also offers great art, lots of adventure ideas, and an entertaining read. I mean, the tools to write a novel are as cheap as they can come (a pencil and a stack of paper does the job), yet does that mean that novels are a bad business model? Nope, because as it turns out, even novelists buy novels. In fact, novelists are generally voracious readers. Taking that extension into the gaming world would seem to hint that GMs who enjoy building their own monsters would only INCREASE their desire to buy monster books from a company that took the time to prove to them that they want to share the secrets of monster design.
Anyway, at the time I'm writing this post (sitting here hoping that my power doesn't go out and huddling against the snow and coming wind), my understanding is that the first Pathfinder Bestiary is going to have about 30 pages at the end that talks about the theory behind designing new monsters and lists a lot of consolidated monster rules. The book's primary purpose is to provide that giant list of monsters (and while some folk might be sick of monsters, they have always and continue to be huge draws for sellers, so new monster products are here to stay as long as the hobby stays, I think), but it's also, hopefully, going to serve as a monster design guide as well. At the very least, it's good to get that info out there so that prospective writers for the Pathfinder RPG know what we at Paizo expect and look for in monster design!
The thing of it is, though, is that conventional wisdom says that it's better to keep those types or rules and advice close to the chest and to continue creating volumes of monsters.
In a market like what d20 use to be, I would agree. In a market in like what 4e is turning out to be (and what Pathfinder may be), I heavily disagree. 4e has little true competition. Sure GG and MGP may someday put out a monster book, but they do not really have any other competition. Wizards is in a different league and all the PDF publishers are no where near their market share. Yea, XRP may join their ranks someday soon, but that day is not today. Plus 4e has the added bonus of not being able to use what other companies wrote. There is not sharing of ideals like under the OGL so Mongoose can't use the powers that Goodman published.
Pathfinder, even though it is playing under the OGL rules, may not have any major competition for some time. Other then Paizo, I have not seen any new 3.5 product in game stores this year and I haven't heard of any POD titles in the past 2-3 months that wasn't a compendium or similar. I gotta tell ya, finding 3.5 writing opportunities out there is getting pretty scarce. They are still out there, but more hunting is involved.
I've read the PH for 4e before I played it and was not a fan of it. They completely revamped the D&D game and now it rings MMORPG (specifically WOW)!!!
Once I played the game, it only confirmed the fact that they took a little bit of 3.5 and combined it with WOW. They kept some of the movement of 3.5, called them different names like shift, minor action, etc. and added WOW at will abilities and cool down abilities (once per encounter, once per day abilities).
Furthermore, they neutered a lot of weapons in the game to cap damage, which is an absolute sin (honestly, how do you neuter the greatsword, went from 2d6 to 1d10!!). Bastard swords got killed too, they made them versatile weapons!! REALLy, I get to add an extra damage point for using the weapon 2-handed!! 1 DAMAGE!! They got rid of hand and a half damage. HORRIBLE!!
From what I've gathered so far, is that I could play 4e and write down on these at will abilities or encounter abilities,essentially, paper mashing. OR, I could play WOW and button mash at home and let the computer tell me what abilities I have left.
If I would have to choose right now on what I would play: 4e or WOW =WOW, 4e or 3.5 = PF !!!
Kobold Hall isn't a real adventure. It's a "Learn to play" that teaches you the ins and outs of 4e combat. It shouldn't be compared to any sort of adventure product.
I agree that Kobold Hall is badly setup at places, but as we learned the 4e stuff I ran it and I have to say it became deadly at times (and lets not even talk about the perpetual boulder of DOOM!) but I have to say Skull-Skull was a fun idea that I liked and was a very cool flavor thing to have kobolds do (that is play games that are also traps :P)
I've read the PH for 4e before I played it and was not a fan of it. They completely revamped the D&D game and now it rings MMORPG (specifically WOW)!!!
Once I played the game, it only confirmed the fact that they took a little bit of 3.5 and combined it with WOW. They kept some of the movement of 3.5, called them different names like shift, minor action, etc. and added WOW at will abilities and cool down abilities (once per encounter, once per day abilities).
Furthermore, they neutered a lot of weapons in the game to cap damage, which is an absolute sin (honestly, how do you neuter the greatsword, went from 2d6 to 1d10!!). Bastard swords got killed too, they made them versatile weapons!! REALLy, I get to add an extra damage point for using the weapon 2-handed!! 1 DAMAGE!! They got rid of hand and a half damage. HORRIBLE!!
From what I've gathered so far, is that I could play 4e and write down on these at will abilities or encounter abilities,essentially, paper mashing. OR, I could play WOW and button mash at home and let the computer tell me what abilities I have left.
If I would have to choose right now on what I would play: 4e or WOW =WOW, 4e or 3.5 = PF !!!
You forgot to call people who like it morons or children.
1 out of 10 for originality. Must try harder to troll.
I've read the PH for 4e before I played it and was not a fan of it. They completely revamped the D&D game and now it rings MMORPG (specifically WOW)!!!
Once I played the game, it only confirmed the fact that they took a little bit of 3.5 and combined it with WOW. They kept some of the movement of 3.5, called them different names like shift, minor action, etc. and added WOW at will abilities and cool down abilities (once per encounter, once per day abilities).
Furthermore, they neutered a lot of weapons in the game to cap damage, which is an absolute sin (honestly, how do you neuter the greatsword, went from 2d6 to 1d10!!). Bastard swords got killed too, they made them versatile weapons!! REALLy, I get to add an extra damage point for using the weapon 2-handed!! 1 DAMAGE!! They got rid of hand and a half damage. HORRIBLE!!
From what I've gathered so far, is that I could play 4e and write down on these at will abilities or encounter abilities,essentially, paper mashing. OR, I could play WOW and button mash at home and let the computer tell me what abilities I have left.
If I would have to choose right now on what I would play: 4e or WOW =WOW, 4e or 3.5 = PF !!!
No. Go troll somewhere else.
I didn't say it wasn't, once you "get" the "4E mindset" and understand each monster role and how they work on their own and in synergy. Yet for a "newbie" DM I think 4E is more challenging to run than 3E, due to a lot of "judgement calls". Also, regardless of all those templates and the formulas to adjust monster stats properly in relation to level and role, the biggest problem (in my opinion) in 4E design is the lack of advice on adjusting and applying monster *powers*. How many powers for an 8th level lurker? What event or number on a D& "triggers"/replenishes each power?
As it stands, the only official advice I've so far seen on this is to "goggle it up" in MM, i.e. to find a "similar" monster and try to start from there. I just can't believe that the designers wouldn't have a table with all listed monster powers and , so I think that's a bit condescending.
As for forum-posters, people have posted that "how many do you need?". Well, if I want to create a flying magical armor/golem, which regenerates and has three shield-based powers and four attack powers, which level should it be? Is seven powers too much? How many powers should it have, if it was, say, 15th level? Which of those powers are "triggered" when it's "bloodied"? Which of them should be "replenished" on a 3, 4, 5 and 6? Which only on a 5 or 6? And so on.
While I think you've described what might well be an interesting product I think its far to early in the cycle to really settle on the 'correct' answer to your questions. Looking back over the history of 3.0 and 3.5 we see that the design of the monsters changed pretty constantly from Monster Manual I through Monster Manual V. This, presumably, reflected a changing and evolving view of good monster design and, in reality, there is no particular reason to believe that the the design put forward in Monster Manual V was the final 'correct' answer, it was just the answer they felt was best up to that point.
There is already some significant evidence that the base line assumptions put forward in Monster Manual I of 4E are being modified. Specifically it appears that monsters are going to get more powers, on average, then what we saw in 4Es Monster Manual I. Not only do we hear on the WotC podcast that the Eye Tyrant is considered one of the funnest and most exciting of the monsters in that book (and its pretty clear from looking at the Eye Tyrant that it has the most powers vis a vis every other monster in Monster Manual I). We also seem to see a general increase in the number of powers that monsters have in the supplement books that have been coming down the pipe line. Hence there is already evidence that the correct number of powers for the gaming is, in general, being revised with a general upward trend.
We also face a problem in that its unlikely that the correct number of powers is really a static number. It seems fairly obvious that minions need less powers, on average, then Solos. Whats likely more of a twist in this is that the number of Powers a Solo needs probably changes somewhat depending on the level of that Solo. There seems to be some evidence that Solo's at 17th and 18th level are, on average, tougher and last longer in combat then 1st Level Solo's. If this turns out to be a true consensus among the masses then it stands to reason that higher level Solo's will need more powers then lower level ones since the big baddie should probably be able to do something cool and unique every 2nd or 3rd round of a combat if we are to keep the monster feeling fun and fresh during a climatic encounter.
Powers are another aspect of monster creation thats likely still in need of tinkering. It may well come to pass that damage levels of the average monsters power will either go up or down, on average, during the games life cycle. There is no real reason to believe that the optimum level is already known. Beyond this the design of powers in 4E is extremely open ended. I get the impression that there is no master list of powers because there is no plan to make powers particularly swappable from one creature to another. Essentially there is no assumption about even the basics. A tigers claw damage is not necessarily the same as a bears claw damage. The Gnomes ability to vanish when hit is (so far as I know) unique to Gnomes and I get the impression that making powers unique to each individual monster is part of the plan. This allows one to try and keep each monster feeling fresh - a big deal if one wants to constantly release new monster books.
So we may one day see a 'Monster Makers Manual' but if we do probably that should not be a product slated for release for some years yet. Not until there is a much better feel for the system really
THAT's my biggest beef with 4E monster design -- it's just too "loose" for a "gamist" RPG. I wouldn't have a problem with it at all, if D&D were, say, a trait-based RPG with very few and simple mechanics. The problem lies in inconsistency with the very strict PC-related mechanics, and "loosely" designed monsters. Maybe I take the game too seriously just to "reflavour" every new monster, or maybe I just don't get the system?And, just to make sure that you don't misunderstand me, I *have* read the books, and a score of 4E adventures -- and still I'm claiming that to *me* it would be far, far easier to run 3E/PF than 4E. And I've been DMing the game for 20+ years, but this is the first time I feel very insecure and confused with the rules. You can call it "preposterous" if you like, but I mean it.
Well I suppose they did modify the way monsters were handled in teh system. In many ways the monsters are handled in the same manner as 1st and 2nd but 1st and 2nd edition monsters were comparatively simple things most of the time. So, while they used exceptions based monster design just like 4E, mostly they were not that complex. That said there sure are a lot of exceptions to this that were little on the more complex side (Nilbog anyone).
3.x went with a very standardized system, especially initially, so a monsters type told you a great deal about the monster. Hence once you understood the types you had a pretty good grasp of the monsters themselves. 4E combines the exceptions based design of 1st and 2nd edition with a wide range of powers (potentially limitless different powers) creating a system thats very open ended. If your searching for codified structure or at least simplicity then 4E monster design might leave one floundering because its neither particularly simple in terms of thinking up powers (though ideally they are simple and straight forward once they have been thought up) nor is it codified.
All of that said I suspect that you can get by fairly well at first by sticking to the monsters offered in the Monster Manual and the varous supplements. With experience with the system you will eventually form a personal opinion about what works and what does not work in terms of powers and why this is so. Once you feel you have a grasp on the system it should be an easy matter to design monsters yourself.
In particular you might want to consider if the change in feeling in combat in the early stages of 4E may be throwing you for a loop. I found that in 3.5, but instead of the early stages throwing me for a loop in the monster creation department it was the later stages. 3.5 characters were able to dish out such awesome sums of damage by the time they got beyond 12th level that my 2nd edition assumptions simply did not apply in any way shape or form anymore and I had to get used to a new paradigm. You may be experiencing this with 4E were low levels feel significantly different then they did in earlier editions.
|
|
I hate to post just to say, "good point," but, my god, that is a damn good point. In fact, the same goes for most of the system. The biggest thing lacking in the DMG is this level of behind the scenes analysis. There's that chart, which is useful and gets you most of the way there, but some discussion about the monster roles, appropriate powers, etc., would've been much appreciated.
Of course, I also dreamed of a similar product for 3e. I wish the conventional wisdom regarding monster books was something other than a list of monsters. I am sick to death of lists of monsters. I was sick of it in 3e and I'm not looking forward to it in 4e. I don't want a bunch of monsters, I want a monster book that is akin to a superhero system ala champions or mutants and masterminds. Give me lists of powers, give me a chapter on each role and how to customize the monsters, explain to me the mechanics that best achieve the flavor of a particular power type - tell me what a good designer considers when building a monster. I would love it if either Paizo or WotC released a book like this.
Teach me to fish; quit giving me barrels of fish the designers already caught.
Exactly! Considering that one of the primary design goals in 4E was to increase *balance* in the mechanics (not just between the PC classes), I just can't believe that such a "formula" for monster powers wouldn't exist. And didn't someone claim (on the EnWorld forums) to have "solved" the point-costs for each class power in PHB?
A bit off recent discussions, but speaking of giving 4e a try, Wil Wheaton just did so:
Not to hijack a thread, but I am also giving 4th ed a try this christmas. I am meeting a couple of old friends from home, and we're trying it out.
I have flipped through the books, and there is one thing both me and my friend are wondering about. When do you get more attacks? Or don't you?
There are no iterative attacks.
There are no iterative attacks.
I think any extra attacks are gained through specific powers, Fighter get a few of those as they advance.
Generally though instead of extra attacks your PC's get whirlwind attacks ( burst 1 ) or simply do more damage on a hit rather than more attacks.
They do give other 'attack' options that are interupts or minor action attacks.
They did the same to STAR WARS SAGA Ed although the SWSE did include feats to grant the inerative attacks. Personally I say good riddance, they seemed to be a waste of time as mostly you needed to roll 20's to hit the targets.
That's what I meant -- your "tweaks" to the adventure probably made it more fun for your players, and managed to "showcase" skill challenges, to boot. Why couldn't they do it in the first place? I mean, if one of the design goals was to offer DMs material that can be dropped "as is" out of the books, and this was supposed to be the introductory module in DMG, why leave out something as innovative (for D&D -- indie RPGs have had similar mechanics for years) and fun as Skill Challenges?There was a Skill challenge as the PC's convince the guard captain to allow them to deal with the Kobolds. Then the party heads to the Hall and goes through the adventure.
After the Adventure the Party (headed by Priest of Pelor) deals with another Skill Challenge as they beseach the Lord to enter the abandoned Temple of Pelor(I left it abandoned in my campaign). Ok I did a lot of this off my own back to add flavour but the main DMG advises this sort of action for a campaign.
Yeah I'll give you that, they could've done a bit better with inserting Skill challenges into the first adventure, even making the Hall harder to find and making the PC's convince an old veterun into telling them where it is as a good SKILL challenge tester.
Convince the Veterun:
Reminding the old guy with History and reminding him of his former glory in killing kobolds and goblins and how he'd be helping the people by telling them where the Halls lie or Bluffing by telling him some great evil lies within the halls which needs to be dealt with, or pure diplomacy to convince him of the groups good intentions to aid the peasants and remove the threat.
Skill challenges should be more highlighted and a bigger part of the game, among the biggest complaints has been about the lack of skills available and the diminished role of skills. More does need to be done to make them a bigger part of the game.
There are no iterative attacks.Personally I say good riddance, they seemed to be a waste of time as mostly you needed to roll 20's to hit the targets.
That's certainly stretching the truth.
How about dual-wielders? Is that still possible?
You can hold a weapon in each hand, but one of them must have the 'off-hand' property.
You don't make two attacks, you just choose in each round which weapon you will attack with. If you have Two Weapon Fighting feat you get a bonus to hit (or is it damage? I forget).
If you are a ranger, you can make multiple attacks with two weapons.
My basic advice would be: treat 4E like a new game and forget any rules from 3.5 .
There are no iterative attacks.Personally I say good riddance, they seemed to be a waste of time as mostly you needed to roll 20's to hit the targets.That's certainly stretching the truth.
How about dual-wielders? Is that still possible?
A little harsh I'll admit but they just never seemed to be worth the gaming time spent running through the secondary attacks espicially when you got to three attacks per round.
There are no iterative attacks.Personally I say good riddance, they seemed to be a waste of time as mostly you needed to roll 20's to hit the targets.That's certainly stretching the truth.
How about dual-wielders? Is that still possible?
True dual wielding is possible by playing a ranger (from the PHB) or the tempest fighter (from MP). There may be a stray power or two in the other classes, but these are the only ones that can do it consistently.
Ah yes, forgot tempest fighter.
How about dual-wielders? Is that still possible?
Yes, as some other guys said, rangers and tempest from MoTP.
I had the same surprise as you, like "#$*, when we get more attacks?", and then, after DMing 4E I started loving it.
All that time lost adding and subtracting bonus from high level Rangers... :)
My basic advice would be: treat 4E like a new game and forget any rules from 3.5 .
I think I have come to that conclusion as well. Reading the rules, this is a totally different game. I won't go as far as to say that "this is not D&D", but it is important to keep in the back of your head. I wouldn't ever play in any established setting with these rules, by the way. How can you explain two entirely new playable races that barely existed beforehand?
One more question.. we are just going to create some characters and test some of the rules.. do we really need all three books? Or can I just find an encounter on the web to test the rules with?
The DMG has a sample adventure with monster stats etc. You don't need the Monster Manual initially. You can also find lots of free stuff online. Try the Wizards website or put "Raiders of Oakhurst" into Google.
My basic advice would be: treat 4E like a new game and forget any rules from 3.5 .
I think I have come to that conclusion as well. Reading the rules, this is a totally different game. I won't go as far as to say that "this is not D&D", but it is important to keep in the back of your head. I wouldn't ever play in any established setting with these rules, by the way. How can you explain two entirely new playable races that barely existed beforehand?
One more question.. we are just going to create some characters and test some of the rules.. do we really need all three books? Or can I just find an encounter on the web to test the rules with?
I'd look to SCRIBD.COM and in the SEARCH type 4E and there is a homebrew book done by STROMNU(or something like that) that puts gnomes, Half orcs and Aasimmar into the game along with Barbarians, bards, specialist wizards, monks, old 3.5 monsters, old magical items.....basically the guy has tried to put back most of the 3rd edition stuff by converting it across.
Personally it's a brilliant job of capturing the real feel of the 3rd ed class's in 4E.Email me Trellion and I can help you get started, my hotmail is Prossersteve@hotmail.com.
But likewise I can't bring myself to change the entire of the Forgotten Realms so I've started creating a new world starting with the Nentir Vale and the Fallen Nerath Empire.
As it stands, the only official advice I've so far seen on this is to "goggle it up" in MM, i.e. to find a "similar" monster and try to start from there. I just can't believe that the designers wouldn't have a table with all listed monster powers and , so I think that's a bit condescending.
The annoying thing is that they certainly do have such a table, along with rules for monster design. You just can't get them. I've heard a few interviews with designers at WotC where they talk about the various 'rules' they use in-house when designing powers and monsters. For example, 'an encounter power which deals damage can't have an effect that lasts past one round' is one that I heard mentioned in an interview on the Tome Show. That would be good information for anyone trying to write homebrew classes or 3rd party books, which is precisely why WotC doesn't want you to have it.
Now, I doubt such lists are 'hard-and-fast' - they probably evolve based on player feedback, etc. I'm sure they're not using the same rules to write PHB2 that they used for PHB1, because they know what works and what doesn't a bit better. Case in point are 'accuracy' powers such as Sure Strike, vs. 'sure thing' powers such as Reaping Strike. The latter are far more popular, so I expect we'll see them nerfed a bit, or see accuracy powers get a bit of a boost. I think we've already started to see this in some of the new stuff from Martial Power.
As it stands, the only official advice I've so far seen on this is to "goggle it up" in MM, i.e. to find a "similar" monster and try to start from there. I just can't believe that the designers wouldn't have a table with all listed monster powers and , so I think that's a bit condescending.The annoying thing is...
Careful with the quotes please. I did not make the statement your attributing to me.
One more question.. we are just going to create some characters and test some of the rules.. do we really need all three books? Or can I just find an encounter on the web to test the rules with?
Try the DnD RPG starter set. I ran this for my wife and her ante-natel group one afternoon when i was off work and they were all bored and hanging around in my house. They all really enjoyed it! Surpirsing how bloodythirsty and merciless a group of new mums can be.
OK, I hope it's still OK to come up with random questions in this thread, instead of creating new ones.
1) How often can you use utility powers?
2) When you are unconscious, you roll a save every round. d20 + what?
And, yes, we have tried to find it ourselves, but we couldn't.
Every Utility power will tell you in its description if it's a Daily, Encounter or At Will.
Death saves are just a d20 roll.
Every Utility power will tell you in its description if it's a Daily, Encounter or At Will.
Death saves are just a d20 roll.
Ah.. I'm blind. Only d20? Then why does it say, 20 or higher?
Thanks, btw.
That's right - there are a few feats or features that can modify it.
Like giving syphilis a try.
I don't need to try it to know I wouldn't enjoy it.
Like giving syphilis a try.
I don't need to try it to know I wouldn't enjoy it.
Yesss! A war!
Brings in throne and pops some corn
Do y'all need more weapons? a catapult maybe?
Like giving syphilis a try.
I don't need to try it to know I wouldn't enjoy it.
Oh, awesome. We sure needed more of this kind of attitude.
|
Kobold Hall isn't a real adventure. It's a "Learn to play" that teaches you the ins and outs of 4e combat. It shouldn't be compared to any sort of adventure product.
In away this I think was a mistake. Kobold Hall was just room 1 = fight, room 2 = fight, room 3 = fight... repeat. It may have taught combat mechanics but it does little to instill the fun of role playing for new people. This "introduction" adventure is what turned off 2 new players from 4E I had. I guess partly my fault as I didn't really pre-read too much of the "adventure" before running it to know it was a boring linear fight-fest. They should have included equal amounts of skill challenges, skill based events, and interesting NPCS fleshed out in a way that a novice DM could run them. Kobold Hall gives the impression (which has haunted me since - and the Keep on the Shadowfell also didn't help) of 4E being a series of miniatures battles (physical action) loosely linked by a story line. In effect the "porn movie" of the role playing world. I know this is unfair and perhaps a product of the first adventures I ran, but that wasn't in part my fault.
S.