While on a recent vacation, I bought the Dungeons and Dragons 4th Edition Players Handbook. I immediately launched into reading it during a marathon Starbucks session. After finishing up the PHB, I went down to the bookstore and immediately bought the other two core rulebooks. I’ve made my way almost halfway through the Dungeon Masters Guide, and I finally couldn’t bear not sharing my thoughts here on the site.
Save versus Wall of Text…
Things I Like About 4e
Rudimentary tanking is built into the core game mechanics. As readers of this blog and followers of my life likely already know, I’ve been playing a lot of World of Warcraft lately. One of my favorite parts of any MMORPG is the specialization of roles that PVE combat provides. Generally speaking you have a heavily armored tank up front taking hits and generally keeping monsters interested in / hating him, so that your damage dealers can kill off the monster with relative safety. Add in a dedicated healer to keep the tank from dying, and you’ve got the holy trinity of online RPG combat. The first time I experienced this style of combat, it felt like an absolute revelation.
The problem is that this style of combat has never really worked in D&D. Generally speaking, as a DM, you tried to target the healers and the mages since they were the biggest threat. This inadvertently shifted fighters into more of a damage-dealing role. In other words, rather than attempting to hold the line and take the hits, D&D fighters typically have had to just attempt to kill the monsters before they start chewing out your wizard’s spine.
In 4e, fighters and paladins can “mark” or “challenge” individual monsters. This doesn’t explicitly force the monster to attack him, but the enemy is at a rolling disadvantage (-2) when attempting to attack anyone other than the figher or paladin that marked him. In addition, fighters get to take a swing if this happens, and paladins get to deal radiant (holy) damage. This strikes me as kind of a “free market” approach to tanking. The invisible hand of the game system guides monsters to attack your defenders.
Skill challenges provide non-combat encounters with the drama of D&D combat. I have a habit of playing characters that are somewhat gimped with respect to combat. Some of my favorite 3e characters have been purely designed for roleplaying and therefore supporting roles in their party. My rogue/wizard/cleric might not be able to singlehandedly down a dragon, but he can probably con the local duke into sending a garrison of troops to do the dirty work for him. There’s not a lot of drama in this though, and it also has a very real tendency to become a one-man show. While one character is making skill checks against various esoteric DCs, the other people at the table are tuning out.
Enter the skill challenge. Everyone at the table rolls initiative — just as they would for a combat. The catch? They take turns rolling skill checks applicable to the situation in an attempt to meet a threshold of successes before they accrue too many failures.
An example is probably in order. Your party is trying to convince the local church of Lathander that a murder cult of Cyric has infiltrated the city.
DM: Okay. This is going to be a skill challenge to convince the bishop of Lathander that the cult is here in the Dalelands. Your key skills for this one are going to be Religion, Diplomacy, and History. You need to get eight successes before you get four failures. Everyone roll initiative.
PC1: Okay, I got an 18, so I go first. I’m going to use my Religion skill to remind the duke of the dark tenets of Cyric’s faith and how serious this matter is. I rolled a 21.
DM: (Checking against a DC of 20) The bishop nods his head. “You’re right on that one, lad. Cyric worshippers are not to be trifled with.”
PC2: Okay, my initiative was 14, so I’m up next. I’m going to use History to speak about past incursions from the Cyric worshippers. I got a 25!
DM: (Checking against a DC of 18) You remember that Cyric himself was active during the Dalelands during the time of troubles. When you tell the bishop this, he gets a pained look on his face. You can now use the insight skill once in the course of this challenge.
PC3: I’m up next, and I have Insight trained. I’m going to use my Insight check to see what’s wrong. I got a 16.
DM: (Checking against a DC of 15) It seems to you that the bishop might have lost someone important during the time of troubles. You remind him of those dark times.
PC4: I’m not really trained in anything relevant to this sort of thing, but I’ll try a Diplomacy check try and convince him that we can help with this problem. Aw crap! I rolled an 8!
DM: (Checking against a DC of 18) The bishop seems a little darker. “I see how this is…you come butter me up with honeyed words so that you can get paid to solve a non-existent problem.”
PC5: No no no! I’ll attempt a Diplomacy check to convince him that we’re not con men. Whew…Natural 20, so…28.
DM: (Checking against a DC of 18) “Okay, lad. I believe you’re being honest with me, and we all agree that Cyric is a serious threat. But how are you so sure that we’re dealing with a Cyric cult?”
This is the end of the round. The players currently have four successes and 1 failure. See what I mean about exciting non-combat encounters? Can’t you feel the drama? Skill challenges engage everyone at the table, and they turn dry skill check rolls into something memorable.
The DMG includes tons of actual general-case DM advice that I wish I had years ago. The first few chapters in the DMG have almost no 4e-specific information. Instead, they seem intent on helping novice DMs understand player types, group dynamic, and game management. The breakdown of player types is fair, helpful, and non-judgmental. The concrete advice on how to track initiative is the sort of thing you always wished some other DM would share with you. Moving all the magical items out of here and into the PHB opened up space for more DMG-appropriate information.
Building encounters seems a bit easier and more formulaic. I really like charts. I’m less of a fan of calculation. Yes, I could and did calculate out encounter levels for monster groups in 3e, but 4e really seems to take almost all of the work out of it. The DMG even provides handy charts of different (relative) levels of monsters that you can throw together to build just the encounter you want. Everything is broken down by monster roles, and they even include some rudimentary tactics for the squad. I honestly feel like I could throw together an impromptu night of gaming with just an hour to prepare.
At-will powers make all characters feel exciting to play every round of every game. If you’ve ever played a low-level wizard in previous editions of D&D, then you know what it’s like to feel useless. When you’re all out of magic missiles for the day, you get the joy of sitting back and rolling to hit with your crossbow against monsters designed to challenge the fighters and paladins. 4e take a novel approach to fixing this. Every single class becomes something like the sorcerer.
Every class gets daily powers that they can only use once per day, encounter powers that can only be used once per encounter, and at will powers that can be used without worry about running out of uses. Wizards and clerics don’t have to pre-memorize spells. You just choose a power off your list and use it. Wizards can use magic missile every single round of combat. Indefinitely. Likewise fighters rarely have a reason just make a basic melee attack. While just swing for damage when you can swing for damage and do damage to an adjacent enemy at the same time for free? Even when your encounter and daily powers are gone, you’re not reduced to doing things your class simply isn’t good at. No one chooses to play a wizard because they love standing in the back and having a 25% chance to hit with a crossbow every turn.
Combat seems like it would really fly. Early levels in 3e fly. You have limited choices for actions, and you only get one or two things to do each round. As you begin to near epic levels, however, full attack actions start taking a bit of rolling to resolve. In addition, you have so many spellcasting choices that it can take some time to decide your best course of action. Of course, our characters need to become more powerful and more useful as they gain experience, but what’s the best way to do this without drastically increasing the time spent resolving combat? 4e seems to approach this game requirement through the use of powers. Powers allow for a game that scales up as you go up in level without having to give each character 6-7 attacks. Rather than making multiple swings, 4e scales up the damage of your powers as you level. In addition, powers seem to just target one defense rather than requiring a to-hit roll, a spell resistance roll, and then a will save roll. And for those times when you really do need an extra action to finish off a dangerous enemy, you can always just spend your action point and take that extra action.
Things I’m Not Thrilled About in 4e
The lack of certain classes/races in the PHB makes me fear an avalanche of supplemental books. The number one thing I hated about 2e was the sheer amount of books full of kits and strange races and optional rules. When 3e came out, I was thrilled as could be. The game was enjoyable with just the core rulebooks. Nearly any character you could dream of could be created with some weird alchemy of multiclassing. Shaman? Sounds like a druid/sorcerer/barbarian to me. A samurai? I think you mean a monk/paladin. I’m not really a fan of supplements. The economic side doesn’t really bother me since there’s no real requirement to buy them. No, the part that bugs me about them is that they’re generally not as playtested for balance. This is especially true of third-party supplements. Yeah, there are some awesome gems out there, but there’s also some totally imbalanced stinkers. As a DM, you have to keep a very watchful eye on which supplements you allow. With no druids, bards, or monks, I fear what people are going to whip up in the interim while we wait for the PHB2.
Converting 3e characters is a practical impossibility. I think it’s quite fair to say that 3e D&D had more flexible character building options. You could multiclass all to hell. You could take cross-class skills. You could spread your skill points all over to build just the character you dreamed. Now, it’s not at all a negative thing to have less flexibility in the character design of 4e; frankly, it’s a design decision. Heck, even if you’re trying to convert a single class character, moving that character into 4e will seem like an out-of-body experience. If my gaming group converted to 4e and we wanted to have our favorite PCs available for high-level 4e play, we would really have to resign ourselves to treating our characters as completely new entities that coincidentally have the same life experiences as our old 3e PCs. I’m reluctant to even put this on the negative list because I actually respect the clean break aspect. Unfortunately it adds a bit of inertia when it comes to considering the switch.
Technorati Tags: Dungeons and Dragons, 4e, D&D