4e adventure: 1, adventuring party: 0.
We had our first Total Party Kill last night, in the second adventure in the official series (Thunderspire Labyrinth). This was our first 4e campaign.
The party had been infiltrating an enemy fortress (I'll leave details vague, in case anyone reading is, or will be, going through this module), and were already a bit tapped for resources, having used a few Daily powers and a bunch of the healing surges, before deciding to press even further forward to accomplish their mission.
Unbeknownst to them, their next encounter was to be with the "boss" of the fortress, whose cadre included a controller-type that they had encountered a few times before, and which had, in the past, lived up to its role very well.
The dice were running cold for the players, and the party of six struggled under the onslaught from the four enemies. It didn't help that the rechargeable powers that the NPCs had were recharging much more than probability says they should: the DM's d6s were hot, the players' d20s were not.
Things were looking grim for a while, and I was sure the party was doomed, but the tide turned, the boss took some heavy hits, and the controller fell. All but one Daily power was used, every Encounter power was used, and half the party had no healing surges left, but they had the boss worried enough that he fled via an escape route through which the rest of the party wisely declined to follow. Emboldened, the party worked to finish off the remaining foes. Until they heard the door in the hall slam open. Reinforcements had arrived, including another of the hated controllers that they had just dispatched.
At this point, I knew it was over. the party had only At-Will powers remaining, against a fresh group of enemies of the party's level. It would be slaughter. Or would it? The dice didn't really improve for the players, nor did they wane for me, the DM, yet... the party still stood. Damage was dealt out in both directions, saving throws were missed even more, yet the party still stood. The rest of the original NPCs were slain, then one of the new set -- and then the party finally had their first fatality (it would be impolite for me to point out that it was Griff's dragonborn hybrid, so I won't). Hitpoints kept falling, the few healing surges were dwindling, yet the party fought on, against all odds, using every idea and strategy that came to them, until it looked like there was a way to escape their doom, and the adventurers started to withdraw from the encounter. Then the boss returned.
It was over at this point. The party continued to withdraw, but one, two, then three more of the party were picked off while retreating. It looked like the remaining two would escape -- the rogue wisely split from the rest of the group to split the enemy's attention -- but he and the paladin were still under their cloud of bad luck, and fate (and their flying enemy) completed the slaughter. Some other party of adventurers would have to save the day.
But ... this blog is about 4e, not about adventure recaps. So why do you care? It's the second-last paragraph that matters: "the party had only At-Will powers remaining". At-will powers have always felt like the "I'll attack" from 3.5 combat, or as Griff puts it, "I've used up my spells; I'll pull out my crossbow" which was the 3.5 way that a sorcerer admitted he or she was now useless.
But when left with only at-will powers, the party showed that they were not useless, not automatically doomed. Whether it was the warlord's Wolf Pack Tactics, moving the party around strategically, or the cleric's Sacred Flame, trying to get extra saving throws rolled, these "useless" powers ... weren't that useless after all.
Of course, it wasn't enough. There was a point that I thought the party would defy all odds and finish this back-to-back pair of encounters on at-wills and no healing surges, with only one or two casualties. But as I mentioned, the dice were completely against the players, and it wasn't to be. But it was only because of (bad) luck, not the design of the characters, or 4e, that led to their end.
I have new respect for at-will powers, and will, on future characters, put a little more thought into their selection, thinking, "if I was in a party of characters whose players could only roll 3s and 4s on d20, with no healing surges and just my at-wills , what would I like to be stuck with?"
Showing posts with label healing surge. Show all posts
Showing posts with label healing surge. Show all posts
Sunday, October 11, 2009
Monday, August 10, 2009
Should we rest?
Griff and I were talking (alas, not over a D&D table) about the whole Shaman thing, where I feel that healing is the realm of clerics, but most everyone else disagrees. I mentioned that I was considering trying out a cleric/shaman hybrid build, just to see how much healing goodness could be squeezed out - Griff pointed out that there likely isn't that much demand in a party for that much healing, given that people have their Second Wind and their own store of healing surges.
While that's true, that everyone has a little innate healing, it still takes something to stimulate the use of a healing surge after the Second Wind has been used in battle, and in a tough fight, the defenders tend to absorb a lot of healing on behalf of the party, and thus need their extra healing surges (of which they tend to have many) activated quite often. My defense in going ahead with a cleric/shaman build is that this 'activation' is still very much a necessary function, and that anything that can alleviate damage without using a healing surge is also welcome -- temporary hitpoints, damage redirection, or "as if they used a healing surge" powers.
And from that, we realize that this is how 4e and 3.5 differ yet again. That in 3.5, the healing came solely from your divine spellcasters and the healing potions which everyone would try to stock up on. When the cleric ran out of spells, or everyone ran out of potions, it was time to head back to town and rest (okay, the arcane spellcaster might also have run out of spells).
This daily limitation in 4e, though, only exists in two places: Daily powers (including Utility powers that have Daily use, and magic items with Daily abilities) and each character's healing surge total. That's it -- everything else comes back when you're done the battle. And, as Griff recently commented, gaining another Daily or two as you advance means that you last even longer per-day, provided the healing surges last.
So, how often has your party had to stop for the day because everyone's exhausted their daily resources? We've done it a few times already, I'd say at least once per party level. Is it because we're all feeling weak because our squishy Daily power is no longer available? Perhaps once, but I'd say it's almost always when the party as a whole, or our target-practice paladin are out of healing surges.
And this is why I think there's still a place for the "party healer", provided that there are ways to help apart from allowing the others to use their healing surges. In fact, as the party cleric, I've never used all of my surges (using more than half only once), so a way to share my inner strength by allowing others to take my surge is, to me, a nice parallel for the divine energy that 3.5 clerics brought to their wounded comrades. Instead of asking my deity to heal my companion, I'm begging my god to take my sacrifice of my own reserves to further her divine plans through my fellow adventurer.
Amen.
While that's true, that everyone has a little innate healing, it still takes something to stimulate the use of a healing surge after the Second Wind has been used in battle, and in a tough fight, the defenders tend to absorb a lot of healing on behalf of the party, and thus need their extra healing surges (of which they tend to have many) activated quite often. My defense in going ahead with a cleric/shaman build is that this 'activation' is still very much a necessary function, and that anything that can alleviate damage without using a healing surge is also welcome -- temporary hitpoints, damage redirection, or "as if they used a healing surge" powers.
And from that, we realize that this is how 4e and 3.5 differ yet again. That in 3.5, the healing came solely from your divine spellcasters and the healing potions which everyone would try to stock up on. When the cleric ran out of spells, or everyone ran out of potions, it was time to head back to town and rest (okay, the arcane spellcaster might also have run out of spells).
This daily limitation in 4e, though, only exists in two places: Daily powers (including Utility powers that have Daily use, and magic items with Daily abilities) and each character's healing surge total. That's it -- everything else comes back when you're done the battle. And, as Griff recently commented, gaining another Daily or two as you advance means that you last even longer per-day, provided the healing surges last.
So, how often has your party had to stop for the day because everyone's exhausted their daily resources? We've done it a few times already, I'd say at least once per party level. Is it because we're all feeling weak because our squishy Daily power is no longer available? Perhaps once, but I'd say it's almost always when the party as a whole, or our target-practice paladin are out of healing surges.
And this is why I think there's still a place for the "party healer", provided that there are ways to help apart from allowing the others to use their healing surges. In fact, as the party cleric, I've never used all of my surges (using more than half only once), so a way to share my inner strength by allowing others to take my surge is, to me, a nice parallel for the divine energy that 3.5 clerics brought to their wounded comrades. Instead of asking my deity to heal my companion, I'm begging my god to take my sacrifice of my own reserves to further her divine plans through my fellow adventurer.
Amen.
Monday, March 16, 2009
An interview with the devil (just kidding Heinsoo)
My interest in all things DnD has been pretty low lately (for a number of reasons) so I haven't had much to write about.
Until Crwth pointed out this interview with Rob Heinsoo.
Now, I've been unfairly critical of Mr. Heinsoo in the past. In my defense I was in a foul mood that day and his Dev Post about his desk (when I was expecting something relevant) just pushed me over the edge. While it's true that I'm extremely jealous of the fact that he holds my dream job (and embittered by the knowledge that he's certainly more qualified and better at it than I'd ever be) I have a lot of respect for Heinsoo.
That said...
For starters Heinsoo says (and I'm paraphrasing here) that he designed 4E so that it would play like he expected the game to play when he was ten years old. Not to be smarmy, but if there's one overwhelming impression I get from 4E, it's that it was designed for ten year olds.
By that I mean that it's very much a game where you can whip up a character in a few minutes and dive right in. Over all that's not a bad thing, but I feel like they simplified by taking away choices from the players. At the same time there seem to be even more keywords and effects and conditions that need to be repeatedly looked up (although that might just be due to mixing them up with the more familiar 3.5 terms).
Otherwise, for the most part I agree with some of the things Heinsoo has to say.
First off I agree that a 1st level 4E character definitely has the feel of a 4th level 3.5 character. Not a bad thing, to be honest. My only counter is that I never had a 1st level character die. Oddly enough all of my dead PCs were in the 4th to 15th range of levels. In other words, right in Heinsoo's "sweet spot".
Is that from DM Crwth pulling punches at the early levels? Dumb luck? More care with delicate low levels PCs? All of the above?
While I'm at it, I'll also agree with his point on the "sweet spot". I definitely looked forward to hitting 3rd level as the feat gained felt like the point where my character concept finally began to be realized. Above and beyond that I can't say that I enjoyed the 4th thru 10th levels any more than the levels 11 and up.
However, and this is admittedly damning, my upper level characters were a rogue/sorcerer and a sorceress, so I can't really say that fighter-types were outshone at those levels. I do find it hard to believe that an 18th level Fighter with the plethora of feats and the ability to deal out 100+ damage in a round wouldn't be as much fun as my 18th level sorceress. But it's possible.
Still, I've gotta disagree with Heinsoo's assertion that in 3.5 not all of the classes "rocked". In my opinion every class from the Barbarian to the Wizard (and I'm sticking to the PHB core classes here) most definitely rocked. Most importantly, they all rocked in decidedly different ways. Whether it was the ability to Rage or sing or change shape; or a plethora of feats, or sneak attack, or smite, every class had an identity.
While I applaud the intent of 4E to give every 1st level character a fighting chance via a ton of hit points (and healing surges) I think they just went too far with the various powers.
By giving Powers to all they've stripped away the relevance of those powers. Once every one has them, they cease to be anything special. Where's the noticable difference? Where's the defining characteristic of the character?
The answer is that it depends on the character's role. The Controller directs traffic. The Striker deals out damage. The Defender holds the line. The Leader gives out the buffs. Every class has a set of powers that support the given role. That's what defines the 4E character. The role within the party has become king.
I'm not arguing that having roles is a bad thing. It's called a Role Playing Game for a reason. Plus, semantics aside, it just makes sense for a party to have as many bases covered as possible. From experience every time we created a new party it always began with a question of who was going to play what. We didn't necessarily handcuff ourselves to having someone to take care of healing or deal with traps but it was in our heads at the very least.
Putting my quibbles aside, I did enjoy getting a little insight into the aims and thought processes of the 4E designers. I'll also say that they seem to have hit the mark on everything that they wanted to do. 4E does play easily, it flows nicely, the encounters are fun, and there are never any moments where a player has nothing to do.
It should be a really great game.
So why don't I enjoy it nearly as much as 3.5?
Until Crwth pointed out this interview with Rob Heinsoo.
Now, I've been unfairly critical of Mr. Heinsoo in the past. In my defense I was in a foul mood that day and his Dev Post about his desk (when I was expecting something relevant) just pushed me over the edge. While it's true that I'm extremely jealous of the fact that he holds my dream job (and embittered by the knowledge that he's certainly more qualified and better at it than I'd ever be) I have a lot of respect for Heinsoo.
That said...
For starters Heinsoo says (and I'm paraphrasing here) that he designed 4E so that it would play like he expected the game to play when he was ten years old. Not to be smarmy, but if there's one overwhelming impression I get from 4E, it's that it was designed for ten year olds.
By that I mean that it's very much a game where you can whip up a character in a few minutes and dive right in. Over all that's not a bad thing, but I feel like they simplified by taking away choices from the players. At the same time there seem to be even more keywords and effects and conditions that need to be repeatedly looked up (although that might just be due to mixing them up with the more familiar 3.5 terms).
Otherwise, for the most part I agree with some of the things Heinsoo has to say.
First off I agree that a 1st level 4E character definitely has the feel of a 4th level 3.5 character. Not a bad thing, to be honest. My only counter is that I never had a 1st level character die. Oddly enough all of my dead PCs were in the 4th to 15th range of levels. In other words, right in Heinsoo's "sweet spot".
Is that from DM Crwth pulling punches at the early levels? Dumb luck? More care with delicate low levels PCs? All of the above?
While I'm at it, I'll also agree with his point on the "sweet spot". I definitely looked forward to hitting 3rd level as the feat gained felt like the point where my character concept finally began to be realized. Above and beyond that I can't say that I enjoyed the 4th thru 10th levels any more than the levels 11 and up.
However, and this is admittedly damning, my upper level characters were a rogue/sorcerer and a sorceress, so I can't really say that fighter-types were outshone at those levels. I do find it hard to believe that an 18th level Fighter with the plethora of feats and the ability to deal out 100+ damage in a round wouldn't be as much fun as my 18th level sorceress. But it's possible.
Still, I've gotta disagree with Heinsoo's assertion that in 3.5 not all of the classes "rocked". In my opinion every class from the Barbarian to the Wizard (and I'm sticking to the PHB core classes here) most definitely rocked. Most importantly, they all rocked in decidedly different ways. Whether it was the ability to Rage or sing or change shape; or a plethora of feats, or sneak attack, or smite, every class had an identity.
While I applaud the intent of 4E to give every 1st level character a fighting chance via a ton of hit points (and healing surges) I think they just went too far with the various powers.
By giving Powers to all they've stripped away the relevance of those powers. Once every one has them, they cease to be anything special. Where's the noticable difference? Where's the defining characteristic of the character?
The answer is that it depends on the character's role. The Controller directs traffic. The Striker deals out damage. The Defender holds the line. The Leader gives out the buffs. Every class has a set of powers that support the given role. That's what defines the 4E character. The role within the party has become king.
I'm not arguing that having roles is a bad thing. It's called a Role Playing Game for a reason. Plus, semantics aside, it just makes sense for a party to have as many bases covered as possible. From experience every time we created a new party it always began with a question of who was going to play what. We didn't necessarily handcuff ourselves to having someone to take care of healing or deal with traps but it was in our heads at the very least.
Putting my quibbles aside, I did enjoy getting a little insight into the aims and thought processes of the 4E designers. I'll also say that they seem to have hit the mark on everything that they wanted to do. 4E does play easily, it flows nicely, the encounters are fun, and there are never any moments where a player has nothing to do.
It should be a really great game.
So why don't I enjoy it nearly as much as 3.5?
Labels:
first level,
healing surge,
Heinsoo,
powers,
roles,
sweet spot
Monday, October 20, 2008
Show me something Warlord. Anything.
I've had the chance to see our party's Warlord in action over a handful of sessions now, and so far nothing has changed my original opinion of this new class.
In fact, it seems to have the same "flaws" that the 3.5 version of the Cleric had. In that the majority of the Warlord's rounds are spent bestowing things upon his fellow adventurers. The Cleric used to "waste" actions on healing (a "problem" fixed by healing surges) and now the Warlord "wastes" actions either moving other players, or giving them an extra attack.
Granted, an extra attack or move is always appreciated. But, do we really need a new class for this purpose? Just give powers to the individual classes to do it themselves, just like with Healing Surges.
Personally, I've never cared for playing a Cleric because of the burden of healing party members. I'll certainly never play a Warlord.
The thing that probably miffs me about this "class" is that I can't shake the feeling that they bumped the Sorcerer to make room for it in the PHB.
Bastards.
In fact, it seems to have the same "flaws" that the 3.5 version of the Cleric had. In that the majority of the Warlord's rounds are spent bestowing things upon his fellow adventurers. The Cleric used to "waste" actions on healing (a "problem" fixed by healing surges) and now the Warlord "wastes" actions either moving other players, or giving them an extra attack.
Granted, an extra attack or move is always appreciated. But, do we really need a new class for this purpose? Just give powers to the individual classes to do it themselves, just like with Healing Surges.
Personally, I've never cared for playing a Cleric because of the burden of healing party members. I'll certainly never play a Warlord.
The thing that probably miffs me about this "class" is that I can't shake the feeling that they bumped the Sorcerer to make room for it in the PHB.
Bastards.
Labels:
bastards,
healing surge,
sorcerer,
warlord,
wasted actions
Friday, April 4, 2008
Good points. Bad points.
Today I have points on my mind. Hit Points. Action Points. Experience Points.
For starters I love having lots of Hit Points. For pretty obvious reasons. So I`ve certainly got nothing against getting some extra HP at 1st level. A little cushion might come in handy against that dreaded critical hit.
That aside, 4e seems to be going a little overboard.
Now I don`t know how much damage a ``1st level`` monster is going to be capable of, or how easy it will be to hit my character in his starting studded leather, but come on. Based on the sample character sheets 1st level characters start with HP in the 20 to 35 range. Nice.
But then they also get Healing Surges. At least 6 per day and most have in the area of 10 or so. That's 6 to 12 surges of 5 or more HP. Add that onto the starting 20 HP and your 1st level character basically starts with 50 HP (at the low end). The sample fighter gets 137 HP.
137. I had an epic character who didn't have that many HP to burn.
"But Griff, this is a good thing. More HP is awesome."
Sure. But 137? At first level? My god. How much damage can a goblin striker or orc controller do?
"But Griff. It's not about that. The idea is for Healing Surges to replace all those Cure Light Wounds spells cast by the party cleric."
Fair enough. They want to give clerics (and the players who like the cleric class) more to do during combat than just casting cure spells. The thing is, if you don't like "wasting" rounds casting cures and heals, then DON'T PLAY A CLERIC. Duh!
Pushing that obvious logical solution aside, let's give every character Healing Surges to replace the Cure Light Wounds spell/potion/wand. That way, instead of the cleric doing his job, or ROLE if you prefer, every character now has to "waste" a round per encounter on a "Second Wind" for healing. Yeah. That makes sense.
The good thing here is that the player only gets one Second Wind per encounter. What I don't get is why the rest are used during the Short Rest that happens between each encounter. I suppose this will encourage DMs to design encounters in waves, and pack more into each adventuring "day". This in turn should mean faster level ups. I just wonder if a bit of the tactical planning will disappear as players with their nearly limitless HP plow through dungeons like a chainsaw through cheddar.
The jury is out on the change in Action Points too. I was never a huge fan of the Eberron setting, but the concept of Action Points was pretty cool. Every gaming session includes a roll or two that falls into the "I think I made it but I'm not sure it was quite high enough" category. Or a critical save throw or skill check that you just want to be sure of. Perfect times to spend an AP and get an extra d6 added on.
Nice mechanic and simple to keep track of since they replenish every level. For some reason they're changing that in 4e. Instead of a pool of APs you get 1 per day, plus 1 for every other encounter (or "milestone"). Keeping track of the number of encounters in a "day" strikes me as a little awkward and a needless headache. But whatever. An extra action sounds pretty sweet (I'll use 'em mostly for the Second Wind) but I think I'd prefer the old 3.5 mechanic.
Finally Experience Points. My personal favorite. And from what I've seen, there's not a whole lot to be written. Sounds like it'll take a few extra encounters before getting that delicious level up. However, all those phat HP will make that easy enough. The best thing about XP in 4e is in terms of encounter design. Even as a player I'm excited about everything I've seen in regards to encounters. The mix of monsters with varied roles in each encounter, along with social and trap encounters promises nothing but positives.
For starters I love having lots of Hit Points. For pretty obvious reasons. So I`ve certainly got nothing against getting some extra HP at 1st level. A little cushion might come in handy against that dreaded critical hit.
That aside, 4e seems to be going a little overboard.
Now I don`t know how much damage a ``1st level`` monster is going to be capable of, or how easy it will be to hit my character in his starting studded leather, but come on. Based on the sample character sheets 1st level characters start with HP in the 20 to 35 range. Nice.
But then they also get Healing Surges. At least 6 per day and most have in the area of 10 or so. That's 6 to 12 surges of 5 or more HP. Add that onto the starting 20 HP and your 1st level character basically starts with 50 HP (at the low end). The sample fighter gets 137 HP.
137. I had an epic character who didn't have that many HP to burn.
"But Griff, this is a good thing. More HP is awesome."
Sure. But 137? At first level? My god. How much damage can a goblin striker or orc controller do?
"But Griff. It's not about that. The idea is for Healing Surges to replace all those Cure Light Wounds spells cast by the party cleric."
Fair enough. They want to give clerics (and the players who like the cleric class) more to do during combat than just casting cure spells. The thing is, if you don't like "wasting" rounds casting cures and heals, then DON'T PLAY A CLERIC. Duh!
Pushing that obvious logical solution aside, let's give every character Healing Surges to replace the Cure Light Wounds spell/potion/wand. That way, instead of the cleric doing his job, or ROLE if you prefer, every character now has to "waste" a round per encounter on a "Second Wind" for healing. Yeah. That makes sense.
The good thing here is that the player only gets one Second Wind per encounter. What I don't get is why the rest are used during the Short Rest that happens between each encounter. I suppose this will encourage DMs to design encounters in waves, and pack more into each adventuring "day". This in turn should mean faster level ups. I just wonder if a bit of the tactical planning will disappear as players with their nearly limitless HP plow through dungeons like a chainsaw through cheddar.
The jury is out on the change in Action Points too. I was never a huge fan of the Eberron setting, but the concept of Action Points was pretty cool. Every gaming session includes a roll or two that falls into the "I think I made it but I'm not sure it was quite high enough" category. Or a critical save throw or skill check that you just want to be sure of. Perfect times to spend an AP and get an extra d6 added on.
Nice mechanic and simple to keep track of since they replenish every level. For some reason they're changing that in 4e. Instead of a pool of APs you get 1 per day, plus 1 for every other encounter (or "milestone"). Keeping track of the number of encounters in a "day" strikes me as a little awkward and a needless headache. But whatever. An extra action sounds pretty sweet (I'll use 'em mostly for the Second Wind) but I think I'd prefer the old 3.5 mechanic.
Finally Experience Points. My personal favorite. And from what I've seen, there's not a whole lot to be written. Sounds like it'll take a few extra encounters before getting that delicious level up. However, all those phat HP will make that easy enough. The best thing about XP in 4e is in terms of encounter design. Even as a player I'm excited about everything I've seen in regards to encounters. The mix of monsters with varied roles in each encounter, along with social and trap encounters promises nothing but positives.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)