New to 4E and have a question about the adventure modules

19 posts / 0 new
Last post
I am new to the 4E, I have played the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 3.5 edditions of dungeons and dragons, but have taking a break from playing do to life becoming more complicated.  Now I wish to start playing the 4E, but I dont know how many characters to run in any particular adventure module.  Before I use to make my own adventures and I didn't use many of the modules, but now I wish to use the modules, because I feel that dungeons and dragons has taken some drastic steps to become a little more like World of Warcraft, which is fine by me, but I have no idea how many characters I should get to play say the slaying stone.  I haven't found anything on the book which states how many characters to play through the adventure.  I just don't want to walk through it and have it be too easy or too difficult. 

Thank you :-) 
Typically, five PCs is considered the 'standard', though it's not hard to modify the encounters up or down a bit if you have more or fewer PCs.
If you down load the free living forgotten realms adventures they will have recomendations on how to change each encounter based on more or less they 5 players.
They are not always well thought out but they tried. 
The sea looks at the stabillity of the mountian and sighs. The mountian watches the freedom of the sea and cries.
Thank you :-)
I because I feel that dungeons and dragons has taken some drastic steps to become a little more like World of Warcraft, which is fine by me, 

Watch out, friend.  Be careful when you compare 4e to WoW.  Some people get cranky because they consider it a criticism of a great game.

If you think it's like WoW because "there's no RP in 4e," check your premises again.    
 
But if, like me, you think that becoming a little more like WoW is good because it introduced more balance between classes at every level, and gave every class a role and a chance to shine at that role, then I agree.

And yeah, as the others said, the standard assumption is an adventuring party of five, but you can adjust things for more or less or less people.  Also, the standard assumption is that they will complete 3-5 encounters between extended rests, but this is open to debate and your mileage may (and should) vary based on what works for your group.

OD&D, 1E and 2E challenged the player. 3E challenged the character, not the player. Now 4E takes it a step further by challenging a GROUP OF PLAYERS to work together as a TEAM. That's why I love 4E.

"Your ability to summon a horde of celestial superbeings at will is making my ... BMX skills look a bit redundant."

"People treat their lack of imagination as if it's the measure of what's silly. Which is silly." - Noon

"Challenge" is overrated.  "Immersion" is usually just a more pretentious way of saying "having fun playing D&D."

"Falling down is how you grow.  Staying down is how you die.  It's not what happens to you, it's what you do after it happens.”

OP, I think you have developed a very unusual view of 4E, considering you played through all previous D&D versions and have been playing through a homebrewed 4E game. Most people's experiences are the exact opposite: that D&D plays pretty much the same as before but that the underlying mechanics are more polished (which some people don't like). The fundamental parts of the roleplaying game are exactly as they were in 1E. 

It's particularly surprising you feel this way after reading through the Slaying Stone module, which is an excellent (the best!) level 1 adventure written by 4E. It is written by Logan Bonner who has written some of the best 4E adventures. I have no idea how you could have read through this module and not recognised that it describes the same good old-fashioned roleplaying game that we all love.

In any case, the very first sentance of the first paragraph of the module, on page 1, says:

lNTRODUCTION
The Slaying Stone is a DUNGEONS & DRAGONS@ adventure designed for five 1st-level player characters. The characters should reach 2nd level by the end ofthe adventure.


 
INTRODUCTION

The Slaying Stone is a DUNGEONS & DRAGONS@ adventure designed for five 1st-level player characters. The characters should reach 2nd level by the end ofthe adventure.


 


So, OP, if you have the DMG or the DM Kit, there will be guidelines in there for fixing encounters for smaller or larger groups.  So, depending on your group size, you may want to pull out one or two monsters per encounter.

Or, you can do like I did and keep the encounters the same.  The encounters in that module weren't particularly difficult, so I ran them straight up.  It made for quicker leveling and more challenging combat for the players.

Of course, part of me wants to say that Slaying Stone didn't have every encounter laid out, and I had to make up some of my own.  So, it may just be that I tended to make more difficult encounters.
Someone else suggested doing LFR adventures.  (livingforgottenrealms.com) which might be a good idea.  However LFR starts adventure level 2 which can be hard for new players who are fresh off the printing press.  I would also strongly advise against running any of the specials (abbreviated SPEC) with brand new characters.  As some of the SPECs as written can take new characters and chew through them like it's 2nd edition.
Currently working on making a Dex based defender. Check it out here
Show
Need a few pre-generated characters for a one-shot you are running? Want to get a baseline for what an effective build for a class you aren't familiar with? Check out the Pregen thread here If ever you are interested what it sounds like to be at my table check out my blog and podcast here Also, I've recently done an episode on "Refluffing". You can check that out here
I do happen to think it is a lot like WoW, but that is all right.  I think the 3.5 eddition was honestly the best eddition of Dungeons and Dragons ever put out. There are aspects to the 4E which I really enjoy, including the increase in the number of classes and races.  I do think a lot of the role playing things like "charm person" are gone.  I use to use charm person to help with the story a little more than to help with a battle scence (though it coudl be used there as well).  But this is just my opinion, I don't mean to step on anyone else's toes and I certainly don't believe that my opinion is the only valid opinion.  Cool
I like the concept of the Slaying Stone module but it had some logical problems that didn't make a lot of sense to me so I ran something else for my first 4E adventure, and as mentioned the encounters in it are not difficult, and some of them are avoidable or escapable

pretty much every module is designed for 5 players, but as has been mentioned, its not overly difficult to make a few changes to make them appropriate for more or fewer players
I'm a new 4e DM running the Slaying Stone adventure. It does state that an optimal group size is 5, which seems to be true for most of the other modules. However, I have a group of 7, so I've added extra minions, and maybe one more skirmisher type monster to each encounter to scale it up a little. I also ran the Coppernight Hold dungeon delve for a group of 3 players, and simply removed a couple of minions and one of the duplicated skirmisher types to scale it down. One encounter in Coppernight Hold has 8 minions and 3 skirmishers, so I cut it down to 6 and 2. My group of 3 level 1's had no trouble defeating a level 3 encounter, though, with a tiny bit of help from me bluffing a couple misses here and there. (That's another thing you can do. With my large group, I don't always roll behind the screen, but with the smaller one, I rolled everything behind my screen so that I could pretend bad rolls if I needed to, I also just happened to roll a few truly awful rolls a few times.)

I actually appreciate that 4e mechanics and balance are similar to WoW because it makes it easier for me to explain things to some of my players who have played WoW before. When we were putting the group together, it was easy to be able to explain "you want a tank, a healer, and the rest of you as DPS" to get the message across for how to balance their team. And since my first group is so big, but a few people won't make it every time due to school priorities, they understood that adding a hybrid class (in WoW terms) Shaman would be a good idea for when the Cleric inevitibly won't be able to attend. It seems that since RPG video games are so popular nowadays that it makes 4e much easier to explain in some ways if you can equate it with something like WoW, or even Skyrim. 
it's still a bit different so watch out, defenders don't work the same as tanks (i should know, i play both), and leaders can specialize in buffing and enabling instead of healing- and the meat of the game in the sense of roleplaying is very different.

the thing most like it, imo, is the balance- it's balanced around the assumption that every class/role should be viable, unlike prior additions of DND where some classes were traps- which put you out of luck if you liked the flavor a class and wanted to be strong.

IMAGE(http://www.nodiatis.com/pub/8.jpg)

Someone else suggested doing LFR adventures.  (livingforgottenrealms.com) which might be a good idea.  However LFR starts adventure level 2 which can be hard for new players.

LivingForgottenRealms has intro adventures and mini-campaigns that are designed for 1st level PC's.

But even low-tier H1 adventures should be fine. Mind you: 1st level D&D PC's arguable have a hard time in any adventure (even though 4e, and LFR in particular, tend to be very easy to survive). That's not a bad thing though. You can always just make a new first level PC.

it's still a bit different so watch out, defenders don't work the same as tanks (i should know, i play both), and leaders can specialize in buffing and enabling instead of healing- and the meat of the game in the sense of roleplaying is very different.

the thing most like it, imo, is the balance- it's balanced around the assumption that every class/role should be viable, unlike prior additions of DND where some classes were traps- which put you out of luck if you liked the flavor a class and wanted to be strong.



True of course. It's just the quick 'n' dirty way of explaining. Once they decided on the group balance and who was interested in which roles, we got down to details and understanding the 4e role types.

It was also simpler for some of them who played WoW to look at a class name and already understand some basics that came from WoW. Paladins, clerics, warlocks, rangers, druids, shaman, and fighters are similar in many ways. If you've played WoW, you don't have to look at a Player's Handbook to be able to say "a ranger shoots things, a warlock uses magic, a fighter is a martial warrior, a cleric heals in some way." It was easy for a player who had always played warlocks in WoW to know he'd still enjoy a warlock in D&D.
Erm. All of your examples still apply if you've played previous editions of D&D, too. Ranger still shoot things, warlocks still use magic, fighters still are martial warriors, and clerics still heal.

Gold is for the mistress, silver for the maid

Copper for the craftsman, cunning at his trade.

"Good!" said the Baron, sitting in his hall,

"But Iron -- Cold Iron -- is master of them all." -Kipling

 

Miss d20 Modern? Take a look at Dias Ex Machina Game's UltraModern 4e!

 

57019168 wrote:
I am a hero, not a chump.
Erm. All of your examples still apply if you've played previous editions of D&D, too. Ranger still shoot things, warlocks still use magic, fighters still are martial warriors, and clerics still heal.



They haven't. None of them ever played D&D before. Obviously, that's why I had to try to make comparisons and use other games to explain things. Why on earth would I have to do that if they'd played D&D before?
Whenever I see "WoW" and "D&D" mentioned in the same sentance, I pretty much automatically read it as, "4e is just a tabletop version of WoW! Ewww!" Its like PTSD from the Edition Wars.

Gold is for the mistress, silver for the maid

Copper for the craftsman, cunning at his trade.

"Good!" said the Baron, sitting in his hall,

"But Iron -- Cold Iron -- is master of them all." -Kipling

 

Miss d20 Modern? Take a look at Dias Ex Machina Game's UltraModern 4e!

 

57019168 wrote:
I am a hero, not a chump.
Whenever I see "WoW" and "D&D" mentioned in the same sentance, I pretty much automatically read it as, "4e is just a tabletop version of WoW! Ewww!" Its like PTSD from the Edition Wars.

Since 2008 I've always got a kick out of hearing/reading that because it's actually the other way around:  WoW is just a computerized version of D&D.

OD&D, 1E and 2E challenged the player. 3E challenged the character, not the player. Now 4E takes it a step further by challenging a GROUP OF PLAYERS to work together as a TEAM. That's why I love 4E.

"Your ability to summon a horde of celestial superbeings at will is making my ... BMX skills look a bit redundant."

"People treat their lack of imagination as if it's the measure of what's silly. Which is silly." - Noon

"Challenge" is overrated.  "Immersion" is usually just a more pretentious way of saying "having fun playing D&D."

"Falling down is how you grow.  Staying down is how you die.  It's not what happens to you, it's what you do after it happens.”

Whenever I see "WoW" and "D&D" mentioned in the same sentance, I pretty much automatically read it as, "4e is just a tabletop version of WoW! Ewww!" Its like PTSD from the Edition Wars.

Since 2008 I've always got a kick out of hearing/reading that because it's actually the other way around:  WoW is just a computerized version of D&D.



Very true! I think most MMO players, especially of WoW, already know that much of it was built on D&D concepts.