|
5 years ago ::
Sep 03, 2008 - 6:05PM
#31
|
Date Joined:
Aug 21, 2007
|
The Preview adventure, Escape from Sembia, as stated was written to demo 4E before all of the 4E rules were totally final. It was first run at DDXP end of Feb, beginning of March. I know, I was one of the DMs as was my wife. It was heavy on showing off how combat worked. It was much more challenging than the average LFR adventure. (I did ask the author if part of the purpose of the adventure design was to also demo the dying and death rules in 4E, and the way PCs pop back up with a healing surge. He did not deny it.)
If you want to role play a lot, may I be so immodest as to suggest you try the Waterdeep adventure, WATE1-1, Heirloom.
Unless a NPC becomes a major plot figure, it will probably only have a few sentences at most and no stats if not needed.
Keith
Keith Hoffman
LFR Writing Director for Waterdeep
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Sep 04, 2008 - 1:58AM
#32
|
Date Joined:
Aug 21, 2008
|
Nope, there aren't any 'CG Human Wizard 29', but then again, that isn't terribly useful, as there's a lot more to Elminster than just "Wizard 29".Yet people managed to run games in the 2E Realms despite only having a class and level for the listed NPC's. And the FRCG has a discussion on how to handle NPC's, which basically amounts to assigning whatever level is most useful to the DM. After all, if they're not appearing in your game, then their level doesn't really matter. And if they do appear, then the DM can come up with whatever stats he feels are appropriate.
This argument works against you as well. That is, if they don't appear, because you just use some bits of lore out of the books or whatever, they don't need stats, yes. So tell me the purpose of the last section (threats) of the FRCG then.
Full stat blocks make it much more easy for the DM to come up with a NPC if he needs one. On the other hand, what if the DM feels they don't fit in the game? Then he could as well build his own ones, of course. So I was just claiming that if there were some short-stats (as were in 2e/3e - even in the campaign setting  ), it would be easier for the DM to build his NPC and also the changes on the recommened level, class and so on would be the easiest thing at all.
And even if they do appear, you can go a long way with an NPC with nothing more then an appropriate skill DC.
Unless the PCs are supposed to be fighting against or with the NPC.
However, it occurs to me that this looks more like two seperate monologs with the same arguments rather than a real diskussion. :P
Someone saved a thread with my old signature by accident? Please PM me!
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Sep 04, 2008 - 5:04AM
#33
|
|
|
Some of the arguments aired around here seem to suggest the posters have not read the DMG all that well. There is a chapter in the DMG with a simple table which gives the hit points, defenses, attack rolls and typical damage output of creatures based on level and combat-role. The same chapter also include a couple of templates to be used to create elite creatures such as wizard or battle leader. Sure, coming up with the stats of a 28th level wizard is not going to be a few minutes work (especially not if you want to make the creature a little bit more unique), but it is certainly going to be quicker than it ever was in previous editions.
Of course, the whole discussion about the prevelance of combat, the ease with which to create NPCs and the arguments behind the various alignments (and not that good is a mix of neutral and chaotic good, I don't see any particular ruling that chaos equals evil) are generic 4E discussions. They are interesting, but they do not have anything to do with LFR.
My advice to the original poster is to run a real LFR adventure before passing judgment on the campaign. Make sure that your DM is also aware of the basic rule we use in LFR: the most important aspect of the game is for the players to have fun. A DM can change the adventure to fascilitate that fun. If the players want to convince the corrupt city guards to look the other way, but the adventure only mentions fighting them, the DM is perfectly within his right to add an imprompto skill challenge.
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Sep 04, 2008 - 5:43AM
#34
|
Date Joined:
Jul 16, 2002
|
This I think shows a weakness in the way they set up 4e. It appears to favor combat over story, because everything seems oriented to combat.
This is a really tired argument. Do they have to put rules in the books to make a story or tell you how to roleplay? Or is that what the DM is supposed to do?
4e design philosophy was to get rid of the unnecessary rules for roleplaying and left in what was need for conflict resolution. Whether that be by the sword or via diplomacy. You don't need rules for playing in character or talking in a funny voice or using sock puppets, only for what requires a die roll.
Sorry WOTC, you lost me with Essentials. So where I used to buy every book that came out, now I will be very choosy about what I buy. Can we just get back to real 4e? Check out the 4e Conversion Wiki. 1. Wizards fight dirty. They hit their enemies in the NADs. -- Dragon9 2. A barbarian hits people with his axe. A warlord hits people with his barbarian. 3. Boo-freakin'-hoo, ya light-slingin' finger-wigglers. -- MrCelcius in response to the Cleric's Healer's Lore nerf
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Sep 04, 2008 - 1:58PM
#35
|
Date Joined:
Sep 28, 2004
|
I believe anyone that has played both Escape and the new adventures will tell you they are different. There should be much more RP and background. Keith is correct that Waterdeep is a good example. There are others as well. Escape should simply be used for both a GM and new player to understand the new mechanics. How the powers work, what skills are used when, shifting, special effects such as bloodied bonuses or actions, how special mechanics interact (warlord healing when someone uses an action point, etc.) I have yet to use a second wind because I always forget. My only recommendation with Escape is that people take the pregenerated character and transfer it to a real character sheet so you know where to look and what to look for on the page when you actually play a real adventure. Having now played all of the adventures (thanks Gencon) less Luru and the Previews. I can say my impression is as follows: RP may be cut down for groups of newer players/GM's that are not familiar with the new system, more because of the time to get used to it, but also because HP's are larger combat can take longer. Yes you do more damage but the game is now far more strategic. Shifting players etc. can take a bit more time but can make for far more interesting combat. Ohhh you monsters that shift away....  I have also come to believe that the game now is moving more toward a collectable card game style. You don't need cards but you have a list of actions use them, set things up strategically (maybe only leaders but it seemed like more), and move to the next person. Power cards are definitely advantageous and just having them makes it feel more like a mix of D&D and say Magic. A solid GM will bring back more of the RP and make it feel less like a strategic card game unless that is what the gamers are interested in experiencing. I have always felt imagination has slowly slipped away in how interactions/attacks/other actions were incorporated into PC game play, yet a solid GM can overcome many of the game "mismechanics" if that is what the players feel is an issue. I would suggest getting some free powercards (see dragon9's sig for a link), play a couple of the LFR adventures and see if there is a change after a couple of them, at worst you waste 8 hrs of your life and have no fun, but I doubt that will be the case. I have yet to play any of the WoTC published 4e adventures not LFR related so I cannot comment on how they play.
Lasciate ogne speranza, voi ch'intrate.
"Abandon all hope ye who enter here."
A child of 5 could understand this, someone bring me a child of 5.
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Sep 04, 2008 - 3:35PM
#36
|
Date Joined:
Apr 25, 2001
|
To the original poster, regarding the opening battle of Escape From Sembia:
It is unfortunate that, since your group was unfamiliar with the background of the Realms, or at least Sembia, that your Gm did not give you any background information on which to base your actions. This was not the fault of the author or the mod.
I played it at DDXP and have run it several times for local gaming clubs. I don't recall anyone at any of my tables having a problem fighting the "guards" who were clearly the bad guys.
Amy
My blog http://mistimp.blogspot.com
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Sep 04, 2008 - 6:49PM
#37
|
Date Joined:
Jun 26, 2004
|
It was the fault of the Authors that both the 4e Intros (Sembia and Scalegloom) where ridiculously tough. TPKs were the norm in both.
I recommend skipping both of them (though I believe Scalegloom's lethal encounter got returned to a semblance of sanity later).
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Sep 04, 2008 - 7:08PM
#38
|
Date Joined:
Mar 16, 2001
|
This argument works against you as well. That is, if they don't appear, because you just use some bits of lore out of the books or whatever, they don't need stats, yes. So tell me the purpose of the last section (threats) of the FRCG then.
The book is intended for DM's, and threats are far more useful for DM's then stats for Elminster, Drizzt, and whatever other NPC's are running about Faerun. Besides, most of those stat blocks are monster stats, not named NPC's.
Full stat blocks make it much more easy for the DM to come up with a NPC if he needs one.
Full stat blocks also eat up a lot of space that could be better spent on describing the game world. Especially when the DM can come up with most of those NPC's on his own.
On the other hand, what if the DM feels they don't fit in the game? Then he could as well build his own ones, of course. So I was just claiming that if there were some short-stats (as were in 2e/3e - even in the campaign setting ), it would be easier for the DM to build his NPC and also the changes on the recommened level, class and so on would be the easiest thing at all.
Would listing "Wizard 29" next to a name really make a difference? If the DM's going to invent his own stats, then something like that is still pretty well pointless.
Unless the PCs are supposed to be fighting against or with the NPC.
In which case the DM can come up with his own stats. There's no need to stat out every possible NPC in Faerun, though, as more often than not, they won't see any use, in which case they're just eating up space for no good reason. Space which could be better spent on other things.
However, it occurs to me that this looks more like two seperate monologs with the same arguments rather than a real diskussion. :P
Looks more like me discussing and you monologuing, actually.:P
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Sep 04, 2008 - 9:17PM
#39
|
Date Joined:
Oct 17, 2007
|
It was the fault of the Authors that both the 4e Intros (Sembia and Scalegloom) where ridiculously tough. TPKs were the norm in both.
I recommend skipping both of them (though I believe Scalegloom's lethal encounter got returned to a semblance of sanity later).
I think they were specifically made to be TPKs. As mentioned earlier, they were done like old school convention modules IE. your character is completley expendable.
I think you're right to skip these modules if you know 4ed and are using a character you'd like to keep.
"People want balance but can't accept this homogenization that occurs as a result of that balance being implemented. then they complain that the fighter is weaker than the wizard ad nauseam.: - Teitan
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Sep 05, 2008 - 12:07AM
#40
|
Date Joined:
Sep 20, 2003
|
As others have mentioned, Escape from Sembia shouldn't be played as an intro to Living Forgotten Realms. It should be played as an intro to 4th edition combat. THAT is what it was designed for.
|
|
|
