Realization - My biggest issue with 4e

230 posts / 0 new
Last post
So my recent 4e games have been burning me out. Combats always take a while in 4e, that is just one of the facts of life, but our group has become significantly adept at mostly defeating a group of enemies then talking the rest into surrendering through RP. Sometimes it goes well, sometimes it does not. But even with this, I continued to have a nagging suspicion that something was wrong. I couldn't put my finger on it, until I began to think more about the Savage Worlds game I am in.

4e has no long term reprecussions for combat, so avoiding combat isn't seen as necessary.

That is it. In 4e you fully heal with a long rest, get back all your powers, and are good to go. This makes no incentive for the party to avoid various deadly scenarios. This combined with the fact that high level 4e characters are fairly resilient means that a group can go on for many days of adventuring falling into a pattern of combat, combat, combat, combat, combat, rest, combat, combat, combat, combat, combat, rest. Now, I don't mind a tactical skirmish every now and then, and I certainly don't want to even bother with a combat that has no threat of killing anyone (like most 5e and 3e combats), but I also don't want combat to have no impact on the party's performance throughout the day.

I certainly don't think daily HP attrition is the way to go as that only leads to the party having many fights that cannot possibly kill them followed by one that can. I think encounter based HP is more or less the way to go with every fight providing the opportunity for a player to drop. But I also want combat to be riskier than it is in 4e.

In savage worlds, wounds do this nicely. A single fight isn't necessarily likely to kill a PC, but any wounds you suffer will certainly be felt later on. Our savage worlds group tends to go out of its way to avoid combat where in 4e we charge forward. I want 5e to make D&D combat closer to the feel from savage worlds. The PCs can be big damn heroes charging forward if they want, but not without risk.
I like the style of play that you describe also. I love my campaigns to make players feel as if combat is dangerous and risky. If they can be avoided in any way, that's a bonus. Of course, some others like the hack and slash just dive right in type of game. As a result, D&DNext should have options for both.

What are some ways that additional risk could be added to the basic D&D damage/hp model? It would be interesting to brainstorm easy mods that do encourage players to avoid combat when possible.

A Brave Knight of WTF - "Wielder of the Sword of Balance"

 

Rhenny's Blog:  http://community.wizards.com/user/1497701/blog

 

 

I don't mind non-lethal combat at all, because this means you can lose without dying.  To compensate for the long combat time (which, I agree, is a problem), I generally only ran a combat once every two or three games, and it was a big, (censored)s-to-the-wall set-piece affair.

I was never a fan of wandering monsters/attrition encounters anyway.  If I'm gonna fight, I want it to mean something, not just 'here's this thing I'm throwing at you just to eat resources'.
I like considering 4e cons from pro-4e folks. Or at least ones who actively play and enjoy it. I think improving on said problems in Next could be a way to bring over 4e players.
That said... I haven't played Savage Worlds. For the sake of this thread, can one of you fine folks provide an example of one and how it affected your game (both in terms of narrative and mechanics)?
"What's stupid is when people decide that X is true - even when it is demonstrable untrue or 100% against what we've said - and run around complaining about that. That's just a breakdown of basic human reasoning." -Mike Mearls
The players can predict your style as a DM, mix things up and take them out of their comfort zone.
One thing that might work is the concept of a hit point threshold.

While a character might have X total hit points, they can only lose Y hit points (their hit point threshold a value that is some percentage of their overall hit points... I'd go with 20-25% but it could be anything) in a single encounter without dropping. Depending on your desired level of grittiness dropping in this fashion could lead to effects ranging from death saves to injuries to simple unconscousness.

You can then have inspirational abilities that increase a character's hit point threshold  (keeping them in the fight long enough to survive it) without actually recovering any lost hit points and then have true healing that restores actual hit points via magic or extended rest.

You can then tune the recovery rate of hit points based on your desired game style from a single extended rest restoring all your hit points to an extended rest .

Modules for such a system would be easy to create (a gritty module would have dropping result in death saves and you only recover your Con mod in hit points per day of rest while a heroic module would have dropping result in just unconsciousness and you regain all your hit points in a night's rest) and, provided you keep X and Y the same, you could even use the same encounter balancing mechanism across all of the modules.
In 4e, you could easily adopt the Disease Track to account for lingering wounds, if that's your thing.
4e has no long term reprecussions for combat, so avoiding combat isn't seen as necessary.

I'm curious what you see as "long term". Do you mean effects that carry on through several days (in other words, after one bad combat you're paying for it for days)? Or do you mean from one combat to the other? (As in, after one combat you really don't have anything taken away).

In 4e, there are significant repercussions inbetween extended rests, as your healing surges and allotment of daily powers wears down.

However, once you have taken an extended rest, you are as rested and reset as you can possibly by (unless you are using diseases/curses/whatever else you want to use the disease track mechanic for). The only thing that possibly carries over is consumable magic items (which are by their very nature, comsumed).

You can alleviate some of this problem by stretching the time between extended rests - IIRC, this has been a go-to recommendation for a lot of playstyles. Another one that I use is "during an extended rest, you regain all of your daily powers, one healing surge, and you heal one healing surge worth of hit points".

I use that in Dark Sun games, and it makes overland travel significantly more difficult - that combined with "survival days" being limited due to weight and cost, my Dark Sun games are actually remarkably gritty and deadly.

But RAW, if you absolutely must adhere to "one day = one extended rest" and by "long-term" you mean "more than 1 day" (neither of which are a bad thing, but just a matter of preference), then yes, 4e has very little repercussion for combat.

Supporting an edition you like does not make you an edition warrior. Demanding that everybody else support your edition makes you an edition warrior.

Why do I like 13th Age? Because I like D&D: http://magbonch.wordpress.com/2013/10/16/first-impressions-13th-age/

AzoriusGuildmage- "I think that you simply spent so long playing it, especially in your formative years with the hobby, that you've long since rationalized or houseruled away its oddities, and set it in your mind as the standard for what is and isn't reasonable in an rpg."

I like the day game. But 4e surges didn't really do it for me.  We had way too many for to be a resource of concern for us.  3e suffered from too much healing though I know.  

Here are my desires for the game
1.  Everyone doesn't heal up at the end of a battle
2.  Any encounter that does damage matters because of #1
3.  Healing is not squandered because it is rare and valuable.

I'm sure the healing system being modular can afford me this playstyle in 5e.  I hope they provide a module.

And as levels are gained, the stringency of this approach can easy off some. 
I see no effective difference between HP attrition trough a day and Healing Surge attrition trough the day. In fact I prefer the latter simply because the former means the first few combats of the day are irrelevant. I would much rather each battle be relevant.

Now I could imagine a world where HS recovered at a rate of 1 per hour of rest. That might help the problem some. The issue I find most difficult is the full recovery with a nights rest.

This incentivized play to fight every fight, then rest. Lesser recovery of HP/HD/HS wouldn't work to fix this.

Hmmm...savage worlds worked because exp was independent of battles won, and treasure is practically non existent. Also wounds in savage worlds take 5 days to heal. I'm not sure if such a system could work in D&D...
I don't really have a five minute workday problem.  My group rests daily if that because sleeping in the dungeon is very risky.  

I like the simplicity of just hit points.  I also think surges gives too many hit points.  Characters end up with three or four times their total per day in theory.   I could see limiting magic item healing per day.

 
4e has no long term reprecussions for combat, so avoiding combat isn't seen as necessary.

I haven't played a whole lot of 4e, but in my experience avoiding a combat usually means avoiding about half an hour of combat.

I see no effective difference between HP attrition trough a day and Healing Surge attrition trough the day. In fact I prefer the latter simply because the former means the first few combats of the day are irrelevant

There is a difference between

"I have 20 hit points for the first fight, 20 hit points for the second, and 20 hit points for the third; if I take more than 20 points of damage in any fight I'm keeping a spot on the ground cool with my dying body for a bit" and

"I have 60 hit points, so in any fight I can take up to 59 points of damage without kissing dungeon floor".

Supporting an edition you like does not make you an edition warrior. Demanding that everybody else support your edition makes you an edition warrior.

Why do I like 13th Age? Because I like D&D: http://magbonch.wordpress.com/2013/10/16/first-impressions-13th-age/

AzoriusGuildmage- "I think that you simply spent so long playing it, especially in your formative years with the hobby, that you've long since rationalized or houseruled away its oddities, and set it in your mind as the standard for what is and isn't reasonable in an rpg."

Em: what if HP was cut to 25% but you had surges to give you an extra 4x that amount. It would be the same net as having 100% HP per day but you can't use it all at once.

Black sheep: I agree which is why I like the pacing of encounter based HP. With 60 HP the first two fights feel pointless because there is no chance you can lose.
We had the same issue so we introduced this houserule: if a PC drops to 0 hp or less his total number of surges drops by 1. This cannot be recovered unless one week of complete rest is taken in a safe and confortable environment with appropriate medical care (that means till the end of the adventure, basically).

It may not seem much but it has actually changed the players approach to fighting and given combat more substance somehow. 
So my recent 4e games have been burning me out. Combats always take a while in 4e, that is just one of the facts of life, but our group has become significantly adept at mostly defeating a group of enemies then talking the rest into surrendering through RP. Sometimes it goes well, sometimes it does not. But even with this, I continued to have a nagging suspicion that something was wrong. I couldn't put my finger on it, until I began to think more about the Savage Worlds game I am in.

4e has no long term reprecussions for combat, so avoiding combat isn't seen as necessary.

That is it. In 4e you fully heal with a long rest, get back all your powers, and are good to go. This makes no incentive for the party to avoid various deadly scenarios. This combined with the fact that high level 4e characters are fairly resilient means that a group can go on for many days of adventuring falling into a pattern of combat, combat, combat, combat, combat, rest, combat, combat, combat, combat, combat, rest. Now, I don't mind a tactical skirmish every now and then, and I certainly don't want to even bother with a combat that has no threat of killing anyone (like most 5e and 3e combats), but I also don't want combat to have no impact on the party's performance throughout the day.

I certainly don't think daily HP attrition is the way to go as that only leads to the party having many fights that cannot possibly kill them followed by one that can. I think encounter based HP is more or less the way to go with every fight providing the opportunity for a player to drop. But I also want combat to be riskier than it is in 4e.

In savage worlds, wounds do this nicely. A single fight isn't necessarily likely to kill a PC, but any wounds you suffer will certainly be felt later on. Our savage worlds group tends to go out of its way to avoid combat where in 4e we charge forward. I want 5e to make D&D combat closer to the feel from savage worlds. The PCs can be big damn heroes charging forward if they want, but not without risk.



This is the conclusion I came to some time ago. My suggested solution has been to tie the attrition to resources. Basically make it so that all resources are primarily encounter based, as you progress through the day you get worn down and have less encounter resources available. You then have a series of modules to act as a slider for how long it takes to recover those resources. You could have a traditional module where it recovers overnight (ie vancian spells. You expend all your stuff, get it back overnight), you could have one closer to 4e (bring back the Milestone concept, milestones restore your resources), and you could have a grittier one where each day only restores a fragment of the capability, creating a grittier game where consequences last beyond one good nights' sleep.

If you could somehow tie the resource attrition into Wounds/Healing Surges, then it'd be golden, imo. 
savage worlds worked because exp was independent of battles won, and treasure is practically non existent. .



Easily doable in 4e.  Just stop tracking XP and level up based on story, and use Inherent Bonuses.  Adapt the Disease Track for lingering wounds, and BANG.  You got it.
savage worlds worked because exp was independent of battles won, and treasure is practically non existent. .



Easily doable in 4e.  Just stop tracking XP and level up based on story, and use Inherent Bonuses.  Adapt the Disease Track for lingering wounds, and BANG.  You got it.



yes you have a game that almost totaly dosent resemble dnd in any way at all. im sure that will sell well.
savage worlds worked because exp was independent of battles won, and treasure is practically non existent. .



Easily doable in 4e.  Just stop tracking XP and level up based on story, and use Inherent Bonuses.  Adapt the Disease Track for lingering wounds, and BANG.  You got it.



yes you have a game that almost totaly dosent resemble dnd in any way at all. im sure that will sell well.



*pats Mike on the head*

You're so cute when you're dense.
So my recent 4e games have been burning me out. Combats always take a while in 4e, that is just one of the facts of life, but our group has become significantly adept at mostly defeating a group of enemies then talking the rest into surrendering through RP. Sometimes it goes well, sometimes it does not. But even with this, I continued to have a nagging suspicion that something was wrong. I couldn't put my finger on it, until I began to think more about the Savage Worlds game I am in.

4e has no long term reprecussions for combat, so avoiding combat isn't seen as necessary.

That is it. In 4e you fully heal with a long rest, get back all your powers, and are good to go. This makes no incentive for the party to avoid various deadly scenarios. This combined with the fact that high level 4e characters are fairly resilient means that a group can go on for many days of adventuring falling into a pattern of combat, combat, combat, combat, combat, rest, combat, combat, combat, combat, combat, rest. Now, I don't mind a tactical skirmish every now and then, and I certainly don't want to even bother with a combat that has no threat of killing anyone (like most 5e and 3e combats), but I also don't want combat to have no impact on the party's performance throughout the day.

I certainly don't think daily HP attrition is the way to go as that only leads to the party having many fights that cannot possibly kill them followed by one that can. I think encounter based HP is more or less the way to go with every fight providing the opportunity for a player to drop. But I also want combat to be riskier than it is in 4e.

In savage worlds, wounds do this nicely. A single fight isn't necessarily likely to kill a PC, but any wounds you suffer will certainly be felt later on. Our savage worlds group tends to go out of its way to avoid combat where in 4e we charge forward. I want 5e to make D&D combat closer to the feel from savage worlds. The PCs can be big damn heroes charging forward if they want, but not without risk.



In my experience the loss of Healing Surges made the daily attrition in 4th Edition more meaningful than the loss of HP in any other edition.

This was thanks to tying healing so substantually to the Surge mechanic.

Admittedly unlimited healing was less of a factor in AD&D or 2nd Edition, but the "always at full HP" effect of 3rd Edition and 3.5 really got to us after a while. 
This is why healing surges and wands of cure light wounds needs to die in a fire.

 Fear is the Mind Killer

 

This is why healing surges and wands of cure light wounds needs to die in a fire.



And Staves of Healing, and Healing Potions...

The number of items you have to cut is quite high.

Or, you can limit daily healing.

Such as, with Healing Surges.

Which you can still use without allowing free "per encounter" healing, if that's your real bugbear. 
Magical helaing is fine, wands were to cheap/efficient. It is nice the devs seem to agree with me;)

 Fear is the Mind Killer

 

savage worlds worked because exp was independent of battles won, and treasure is practically non existent. .



Easily doable in 4e.  Just stop tracking XP and level up based on story, and use Inherent Bonuses.  Adapt the Disease Track for lingering wounds, and BANG.  You got it.



yes you have a game that almost totaly dosent resemble dnd in any way at all. im sure that will sell well.



Actually this is very much how I am playing my current 4e game (I'm the DM) and it feels very much like D&D to us.  To be honest I stopped tracking XP 25 years ago.  We just leveled up when it made sense.  Plus, he is talking about a modification, not selling a game.  If something like this where to be included in Next it would be a module for sure.
Magical helaing is fine, wands were to cheap/efficient. It is nice the devs seem to agree with me;)



Magic healing is fine, but a healing surge mechanic, or what I prefer to call a heroic surge, has such great potential to solve so many issues with different play styles it has really surprised me that they haven't embraced it.  Simple magic healing can't do that.


  
Magical helaing is fine, wands were to cheap/efficient. It is nice the devs seem to agree with me;)



Magic healing is fine, but a healing surge mechanic, or what I prefer to call a heroic surge, has such great potential to solve so many issues with different play styles it has really surprised me that they haven't embraced it.  Simple magic healing can't do that.


  



You are talking about two totally different things.

Healing Surges are a system for managing healing in %s and limiting daily healing.

Your "Heroic Surge" is more like the Second Wind.

Now, I like both and think both should appear in Next.

But it is important to separate them, as a lot of confusion seems to stem from their conflation. 
OP: Your complaint (There's little incentive not to fight) was kinda the point.

The 4ed design team felt that combat was an important part of D&D. They saw how, in past editions, resource management/threat of death encouraged players to either create elaborate ambushes that resulted in no threat to the party, or avoid combat altogether. Essentially, walking into a room of orcs and fighting them (IE. what any 12 year-old newbie would want to do) was the wrong call. So they designed a game where combat was encouraged, and setting up chains of buff spells beforehand was hard/not always worth it. 

Has it gone too far in the other direction? Is there too little incentive to make elaborate plans to circumvent threats or defeat them cunningly? Yes, there is little incentive

However, if you should choose to do so, you will not die, as in the case of fighting in lethal editions. In 4ed, if you manage to stealth around a small band of orcs, you'll be skipping a combat encounter you probably could have won. In 1ed, if you fight every single monster that comes up on the wandering monster table, you'll probably come across something you can't handle and some PCs will die.

As much as Skill Challenges get maligned, I do feel they are good representations of situations where the DM wants to threaten PCs with a powerful monster(s), but set up a framework for them to avoid deadly combat but still challenge them. EX. navigating a Purple Worm tunnel without getting caught by a Solo monster 5 levels higher then them. If they succeed, no problem. If they fail, welp KILLER ENCOUNTER!

TL;DR  Even as a 4ed fan, I think that the system could be a tad more deadly, but only a bit. I've had many PCs die in this supposedly-safe system due to strings of bad dice rolls and poor decisions. Making it too deadly would send D&D back into the era where fighting is something smart players avoid.
   

"Ah, the age-old conundrum. Defenders of a game are too blind to see it's broken, and critics are too idiotic to see that it isn't." - Brian McCormick

I absolutely hated Healing Surges spent when others used magic/powers on a PC. I don't know why. It just made me bristle. I know that many argue it represents the limitations of the body, etc, but it just didn't feel right to me. It felt very gamey and more clearly intended to limit healing.

I'm growing more and more fond of the current HD of healing system. I think it does present a limit, but it also makes self healing an option so that potions, magic, etc. are not really necessary. As such, there is no reason why a DM can't design an adventure that challenges the players with a big fight up front, and then harries the party with smaller skirmishes until the party can find a place to rest. By the same token, the DM can design an adventure that whittles away at the PCs and then hits them with a larger more deadly encounter. There is a lot of flexibility in this system. To me, when there were healing surges, I felt that each encounter had to challenge the PCs enough to make them expend more resources. It felt more of a burden to me.

With the current HD healing rules, I've run games without clerics/healers and it is possible to have fun and be very challenged at the same time.

I think HD of healing works. As a DM, I don't feel the burden to make all encounters more challenging. I feel more flexibility. I also don't feel as if the party necessarily needs a healer or healing magic/items to succeed and have a good time. It also allows different classes to heal at different rates depending on their training, and it provides a way to increase tension and drama when PCs are low or out of HD to spend.

A Brave Knight of WTF - "Wielder of the Sword of Balance"

 

Rhenny's Blog:  http://community.wizards.com/user/1497701/blog

 

 

My biggest issue with 4E is quality of adventures.

Few hours ago, I've been listening the podcasts from the time when 4E was announced and also Q&A. It was interesting to hear it. Authors were certain of supermacy of 4E above 3E. They knew players wouldn't be able to use many of their 3E books, but they thought 4E is mechanically so much better, that players would get over it.

4E corrected many issues of 3E for sure. However, that's not the whole story. It bring new ones, and largely crashed on bringing supreme adventures. Most of the offical 4E adventures were a joke compared to Pathfinder Path, and even compared to the great 3E and AD&D adventures.

New edition can be supreme, but if it doesn't offer better adventures, then it is doomed. Converting adventures of old editions, or even adventures of other games is terrible for DM. If a game offers great adventure modules, then it is the reason to change current system, and play the new edition.

It is vital for Next to bring the best quality adventures of all. However, in this moment I see no clear evidence it will happen. I believe WotC has to open the licensing for the 3rd parties to release their adventures under Next as much sa possible. Great step would be to ask Paizo to publish Next Adventure Path or some conversion to Pathfinder path. However, I'm not sure how this is likely.

BTW Is there some official statement regarding to the game license of Next for 3rd parties already?
 Most of the offical 4E adventures were a joke compared to Pathfinder Path, and even compared to the great 3E and AD&D adventures.

New edition can be supreme, but if it doesn't offer better adventures, then it is doomed. Converting adventures of old editions, or even adventures of other games is terrible. If a game offers great adventure modules, then it is the reason to change current system, and play the new edition.



And I feel the opposite. The biggest advantage to run the 3ed and PF adventures was that they did the math for you. Many Paizo fans will admit that they wouldn't run high-level 3ed/PF if they had to custom-make monsters themselves. The Paizo adventures themselves do nothing for me. They have strong stories, but I find them too strong, IE. what was presented was 99% the author, and there was very little I could add to it. 

I agree that good adventures should exist, but only to help unsure or timecrunched DMs. No good system should need adventures to work well. That's just limiting the role of the DM and creating dependency on the creators to keep selling stuff to groups.     

"Ah, the age-old conundrum. Defenders of a game are too blind to see it's broken, and critics are too idiotic to see that it isn't." - Brian McCormick

 Most of the offical 4E adventures were a joke compared to Pathfinder Path, and even compared to the great 3E and AD&D adventures.

New edition can be supreme, but if it doesn't offer better adventures, then it is doomed. Converting adventures of old editions, or even adventures of other games is terrible. If a game offers great adventure modules, then it is the reason to change current system, and play the new edition.



And I feel the opposite. The biggest advantage to run the 3ed and PF adventures was that they did the math for you. Many Paizo fans will admit that they wouldn't run high-level 3ed/PF if they had to custom-make monsters themselves. The Paizo adventures themselves do nothing for me. They have strong stories, but I find them too strong, IE. what was presented was 99% the author, and there was very little I could add to it. 

I agree that good adventures should exist, but only to help unsure or timecrunched DMs. No good system should need adventures to work well. That's just limiting the role of the DM and creating dependency on the creators to keep selling stuff to groups.     



I have to disagree with you Alter_boy. The PF Adventure Paths are far and away more deep and story oriented than the 4e adventures. Adding and removing monsters to the AP? I like to progress the rate to match the AP, so adding additional monsters is a minor thing to contend with. But as far as easily adding, I think it is simple. My pirate crew in Skull & Shackles went to the Abyss for all of October and won the "demon-wing" ship from the AD&D adventure "A Paladin in Hell" spliced in.

Using the PF AP's as a rich and plot thick type of starting point is much different than the "chain-of-encouters" type adventure 4e was churning out.

Note to corporate: DO NOT SKIMP ON ADVENTURES!
"If it's not a conjuration, how did the wizard con·jure/ˈkänjər/Verb 1. Make (something) appear unexpectedly or seemingly from nowhere as if by magic. it?" -anon "Why don't you read fire·ball / fī(-ə)r-ˌbȯl/ and see if you can find the key word con.jure /'kən-ˈju̇r/ anywhere in it." -Maxperson
Healing surges are just daily limits to heal, just like daily healing spells. The two suck.

4th edition lethality is the same as in other edition.
If the players are good, hit harder or don't allow them a short rest before the next encounter. It's easy to chain an exploration encounter with a combat, or two combats, or two social encounters and so on. I chained three combats once, only two PCs survived by kiting opponents (I wanted at least one death for the story).
Even the combat time in 4th edition can be shortened when needed by blocking most game slowing tactical effects from the players and chosing quick and brutal tactics for the monsters. I'm not saying that 4th edition combats were not too slow for the most part, just that it wasn't unavoidable.

I do the same way I did with previous editions, playing with the choice of monsters as their power are not the same even when they are of the same level, and using the encounters themselves against the players.
It's even easier to create a deadly situation against 4th ed. PCs as no healer can go nova.

DMs are not helpless victims in front of any edition mechanics.

If you think my english is bad, just wait until you see my spanish and my italian. Defiling languages is an art.

Still don't get the appeal of wounds.
I think it would be interesting if using an HD dropped max HP by 1 (until safe extended rest. Possibly 1 day/HP?). But, as long as the PC was still standing they could take an hour rest to pop some pain killing herbs and bandage their wounds. Similay, critical hits could invoke penalties until that damage was healed. Would this turn up the grit enough?
"What's stupid is when people decide that X is true - even when it is demonstrable untrue or 100% against what we've said - and run around complaining about that. That's just a breakdown of basic human reasoning." -Mike Mearls
 Most of the offical 4E adventures were a joke compared to Pathfinder Path, and even compared to the great 3E and AD&D adventures.

New edition can be supreme, but if it doesn't offer better adventures, then it is doomed. Converting adventures of old editions, or even adventures of other games is terrible. If a game offers great adventure modules, then it is the reason to change current system, and play the new edition.



And I feel the opposite. The biggest advantage to run the 3ed and PF adventures was that they did the math for you. Many Paizo fans will admit that they wouldn't run high-level 3ed/PF if they had to custom-make monsters themselves. The Paizo adventures themselves do nothing for me. They have strong stories, but I find them too strong, IE. what was presented was 99% the author, and there was very little I could add to it. 

I agree that good adventures should exist, but only to help unsure or timecrunched DMs. No good system should need adventures to work well. That's just limiting the role of the DM and creating dependency on the creators to keep selling stuff to groups.     



I have to disagree with you Alter_boy. The PF Adventure Paths are far and away more deep and story oriented than the 4e adventures. Adding and removing monsters to the AP? I like to progress the rate to match the AP, so adding additional monsters is a minor thing to contend with. But as far as easily adding, I think it is simple. My pirate crew in Skull & Shackles went to the Abyss for all of October and won the "demon-wing" ship from the AD&D adventure "A Paladin in Hell" spliced in.

Using the PF AP's as a rich and plot thick type of starting point is much different than the "chain-of-encouters" type adventure 4e was churning out.

Note to corporate: DO NOT SKIMP ON ADVENTURES!

I think this just shows that different people want different things from the adventures. While PF adventures are a better read, that's what I get a novel for, not an adventure. I found the 4e adventures much easier to drop into my game and that's what I want. That 'rich and plot thick type' really falls apart and become meaningless after you've chopped out the parts you want to use and awesome story gets left by the wayside.

So I agree with Alter Boy on this one. Good adventures are nice, as some like those. Others of us like the 'adventure hook' or encounter type as we make the majority of of the adventure on our own but will use extra  'parts' we find interesting. Some like both. Neither is better. If you aren't looking for 'deep and story oriented', then it's just a bunch of wasted page count (or at best a nifty mini-novel).

So instead of asking for 'better' adventures, I think we should be asking for both kinds of adventures. Deep, story oriented epic adventures series AND adventure hooks/encounters to make everyone happy.

PS:I think the big failing of 4e was the lack of 3rd party support. Had that happened, I think you'd have seen plenty of the kind of adventures you like for 4e. Sadly, I don't forsee WOTC/Hasbro letting go of it's iron grip so this is unlikely to change. 

Magical helaing is fine, wands were to cheap/efficient. It is nice the devs seem to agree with me;)



Magic healing is fine, but a healing surge mechanic, or what I prefer to call a heroic surge, has such great potential to solve so many issues with different play styles it has really surprised me that they haven't embraced it.  Simple magic healing can't do that.


  

+1
Honestly if I wanted to make healing more 'gritier' in 4e, i'd just remove the "you regain all hit points and healing surges during an extended rest', and just give something like 1-2 surges back a day.

A pc would then take 4 days to fully recover, but it still might not be a good idea to go adventuring for a few more, but doesnt stop you.  
That is it. In 4e you fully heal with a long rest, get back all your powers, and are good to go. This makes no incentive for the party to avoid various deadly scenarios. This combined with the fact that high level 4e characters are fairly resilient means that a group can go on for many days of adventuring falling into a pattern of combat, combat, combat, combat, combat, rest, combat, combat, combat, combat, combat, rest. Now, I don't mind a tactical skirmish every now and then, and I certainly don't want to even bother with a combat that has no threat of killing anyone (like most 5e and 3e combats), but I also don't want combat to have no impact on the party's performance throughout the day.



Yeah, I felt the same way. Especially since combats in 4E were so long, I don't want to waste an hour on a combat that exists purely to deplete surges.

The main issue with 4E combat was simply that it took forever and there were too many layers of safety. You had hit points, then you had tons of healing powers beyond that, and until your healing was peeled away, there was no real risk to PCs. There just wasn't enough swinginess to 4E combats.

It was a big overreaction to 3E being overly swingy, and I found most 4E battles just boring, because you knew you were 100% safe, it was just a matter of how many surges you lost.

That is it. In 4e you fully heal with a long rest, get back all your powers, and are good to go. This makes no incentive for the party to avoid various deadly scenarios. This combined with the fact that high level 4e characters are fairly resilient means that a group can go on for many days of adventuring falling into a pattern of combat, combat, combat, combat, combat, rest, combat, combat, combat, combat, combat, rest. Now, I don't mind a tactical skirmish every now and then, and I certainly don't want to even bother with a combat that has no threat of killing anyone (like most 5e and 3e combats), but I also don't want combat to have no impact on the party's performance throughout the day.



Yeah, I felt the same way. Especially since combats in 4E were so long, I don't want to waste an hour on a combat that exists purely to deplete surges.

The main issue with 4E combat was simply that it took forever and there were too many layers of safety. You had hit points, then you had tons of healing powers beyond that, and until your healing was peeled away, there was no real risk to PCs. There just wasn't enough swinginess to 4E combats.

It was a big overreaction to 3E being overly swingy, and I found most 4E battles just boring, because you knew you were 100% safe, it was just a matter of how many surges you lost.




Saw your "100% safe" comment and figured I'd reply. I just lost my 10th level Wizard in a Level 13 Encounter yesterday; it was his first encounter of the day. 4e worked hard to remove swinginess, but it's still there; it's just much less probable, which I find beneficial. Instead of a fairly high frequency of losing my PC, I don't often experience character death, making it that much more interesting to come up with a way around. I don't just default to a tired solution; this is my first death, rather than a sixth one. (Also a note, my Wizard was the party's only caster; we'll have to find another way to get him back on his feet)
Am I the only person who usually had to hold back to avoid a TPK in 4e?
Am I the only person who usually had to hold back to avoid a TPK in 4e?

Nope.

My character almost died in an 4th Edition game.
Sign In to post comments