RolePlay onLine RPoL Logo

, welcome to 4th Edition Dungeons & Dragons Discussion Forum

11:21, 29th March 2024 (GMT+0)

General Discussion.

Posted by engineFor group 0
engine
GM, 69 posts
Fri 1 Sep 2017
at 17:40
  • msg #48

Re: General Discussion

Godzfirefly:
In reply to engine (msg # 46):

Thanks for the reply. They are all good comments, some of which I had considered myself.

Godzfirefly:
There would have to be enough enemies that the PCs know they couldn't just fight them all and win.  Effectively infinite enemies (though not literally, in-story), so that the PCs can win fights against groups of them without reducing the threat of the whole.

Agreed. In the event that the micro-encounters involved actually NPCs, they could be agents ahead of the group who had been contacted by magical means or by particularly fast scouts. In the case of the PCs pursuing, they could be agents left behind.

Godzfirefly:
The PCs would need enough of a head start that they can conceivably hide, use stealth abilities, and make preparations.  But, not so much of a pursuit that they feel someone catching up to them is unreasonable.

The ongoing threat might not necessarily need to be directly from the pursuit. There would be times when the PCs could reliably trust that they had a strong lead, or had shaken pursuit, but would still have to be wary of things that could interfere with their ability to flee (such as, say, pixies turning all their ritual components into cheap glitter, or their mounts being infected by local vermin or plagues). At higher levels, scrying attempts could become a constant concern.

The intent would be that they could linger in locations long enough to have some normal adventuring, especially if part of the reward would assist them in the chase. Or, sometimes they would have to linger, perhaps to wait for a pass to thaw, or a ship to leave.

Godzfirefly:
While most of the pursuit should be trackers and scouts who the PCs can reasonably defeat, the PCs should know there are foes just behind those pursuers (who can't track, but can be alerted to the PCs' presence) that the PCs would probably be captured/killed by.

Yes, or some other failure mode. Maybe the PCs have something or someone that they don't dare leave behind (or just want to tweak someone off about), like River Tam in Serenity. Ooh, extra good if the McGuffin in question either is somehow detectable, or causes problems of its own - again, like River.

That way, if they don't want to bother with defeating the pursuit, or they get some bad rolls and the failures snowball, the game doesn't simply grind to a halt with an impossible fight.

Godzfirefly:
Skill Challenges should not describe the entire pursuit, but instead overcoming particular obstacles of the pursuit.  And, they should be designed so that failure doesn't get them "caught" but does give away their position to the trackers.  And, success shouldn't get them "away" either...it should give them enough breathing room to get some rest, at most.  (Unless you're ready for the PCs to get away...)

Definitely agreed. And it's clear you understand what I'm after: a long-term threat that can change in immediacy but won't resolve entirely for a little while.

Godzfirefly:
Terrain should be varied and meaningful, educating both skill challenges and combat maps.

And the individual mini-encounters, I think. A ship is delayed by an unexpected kraken migration (coincidence or enemy action?), a "shortcut" through the Feywild is beset by nymphs who can't take a hint, a mountain pass is thickly haunted.

Godzfirefly:
And, probably the #1 thing to remember is that the PCs need to always want to get away from whatever bad thing the enemies are threatening more than they want to surrender to stop dealing with the frustrating challenges of pursuit.

Definitely. I think the players would definitely need to be brought in on this, so we could find something that they were interested in pursuing/being pursued by over an extended time. I feel like fiction holds a lot of these, though of course the author isn't necessary beholden to the wills of the characters or to random number generators.

Thanks again for the feedback.

Are there easy ways to track things like relative distances and travel rates? How does one judge how long to let an advantage matter before the other side figures out how to counter it? Like, the party acquires new and better mounts, and changes the distance to their advantage; how do I judge when the other side notices this, and counteracts, and how much counteraction they are able to achieve? I'm worried that there's no way to do that impartially unless I have a highly detailed world and essentially play out the other side on my own - and even then it won't be that impartial.
Godzfirefly
player, 30 posts
Fri 1 Sep 2017
at 22:27
  • msg #49

Re: General Discussion

As far as relative distances, I'd just keep it abstract.  "You're pretty sure you have enough time for a long rest," or "You earned a short rest, but you can hear the hunting dogs bays echo across the hills around the valley you're in," or "You may have bested that party, but it won't be long before the scout that got away brings reinforcements."

The more literal your tracking of relative distances are, the more you constrain yourself as a GM.  And, odds are your PCs don't have a truly clear idea how far behind them pursuit really is anyway.  Nor should they.  (In fact, you should probably roll some skills that aren't skill challenge related in secret for the PCs to make sure they aren't sure how accurate their own scouting is.)

Also, it probably says a lot about the kind of campaigns I run and play in that it literally never occurred to me that you might have meant the PCs are pursuing a foe...
engine
GM, 70 posts
Tue 5 Sep 2017
at 17:01
  • msg #50

Re: General Discussion

Godzfirefly:
The more literal your tracking of relative distances are, the more you constrain yourself as a GM.  And, odds are your PCs don't have a truly clear idea how far behind them pursuit really is anyway.  Nor should they.

I think part of what I'm after here is some constraint. Specifically, I want the players to be able to constrain my options through their choices. If they decide to ride through the night, or pay extra for faster mounts, I want that to matter and for them to have some sense of that.

What I think I'd have to leave abstract would be the ability of the enemy to counter the PCs. If the PCs seemed to have a reliable means of moving faster or evading detection (say two straight days of the PCs gaining ground or going undetected) the enemies would up their game in some way. The trick would be doing this in a way that didn't completely frustrate the players. A way that they could hope to counter initially by stretching a bit, but which they would need to find a more permanent solution for (ideally via some adventuring).

Godzfirefly:
(In fact, you should probably roll some skills that aren't skill challenge related in secret for the PCs to make sure they aren't sure how accurate their own scouting is.)

I don't go for that approach, but that's a different, non-system-related discussion.

Godzfirefly:
Also, it probably says a lot about the kind of campaigns I run and play in that it literally never occurred to me that you might have meant the PCs are pursuing a foe...

I've never seen it done myself, but it seems like a classic mission. Aragorn, Gimli and Legolas pursuing the uruk-hai, for instance.

I have been trying to think of reasons a party might need to run, even when they think they could take the enemy. In general, it would be when the enemy doesn't need to kill or capture the PCs in order to win.

I think one common (almost to the point of overuse) approach is to have the heroes be the protectors of someone or something that isn't capable of engaging in a direct attack or otherwise taking care of itself. Ideally, the McGuffin in question cannot simply be secured someplace or entrusted to someone else. It should also have some capability for interfering with efforts to keep its existence and location hidden.

The One Ring/Ringbearer; the rag-tag, fugitive fleet led by the Battlestar Galactica; River Tam (River can defend herself, but it's hard to know if she'll do that, or rub soup in her hair). If they weren't guarding their charge, the good guys could be leading a charge, or at least be more free to choose their own course and pace. And of course in each of those cases the good guys would probably be killed or captured if the pursuers ever caught up, but they don't have to be. The uruk-hai capture Merry and Pippin and could have captured Frodo (it occurs to me to wonder if Saruman gave them any heads-up about the possibility of the target suddenly disappearing), without killing anyone except Boromir. The Cylons can hit-and-run. River might wander off.

Elora Danan is another good example. She has to be brought someplace, she can't fend for herself, and she has an annoying habit of making noise at inopportune times.

By the same token, the party could be pursuing enemies in charge of such a thing. It matters rather less though, because the game doesn't halt if the PCs catch up to and kill a bunch of monsters.

Also, am I missing something, or are there no rules for obscuring one's trail? Seems like Stealth or Nature, with modifiers for speed, mode of travel and terrain. Bluff could throw someone off the trail, one imagines. I guess I'd handle this with skill challenges.
Godzfirefly
player, 31 posts
Tue 5 Sep 2017
at 17:12
  • msg #51

Re: General Discussion

In reply to engine (msg # 50):

I don't think 4th edition went into a lot of detail into what skills can do.  It pretty much said, "here are the categories; anything you can think of that counts as a skill should fit in one of these; roll as needed."
engine
GM, 71 posts
Tue 5 Sep 2017
at 17:21
  • msg #52

Re: General Discussion

In reply to Godzfirefly (msg # 51):

True, though I think it's noteworthy that disguising tracks was discussed, with a table and everything, but that obscuring tracks was not. It's probably easy enough to replace the base DC to find tracks by the Nature or Stealth check of the person hiding the tracks.

Or, if I were making this part of a skill challenge, a Nature or Stealth check against a static (though possibly modified) DC.
LonePaladin
player, 26 posts
Tue 5 Sep 2017
at 17:22
  • msg #53

Re: General Discussion

Godzfirefly:
I don't think 4th edition went into a lot of detail into what skills can do.

I said something like this about 4E on a different forum. On the roleplaying side, it's rules-lite: a lot of abstraction, short lists, improvisation, and 'do what makes sense to you'. On the tactical side, though, it goes the opposite direction -- very specific terms, unambiguous rules, and no improvisation.

In combat, if the rules don't say you can do it, then you can't.

Outside of combat, if the rules don't say you can't do it, you can try.
engine
GM, 72 posts
Tue 5 Sep 2017
at 17:32
  • msg #54

Re: General Discussion

LonePaladin:
In combat, if the rules don't say you can do it, then you can't.

Outside of combat, if the rules don't say you can't do it, you can try.

Thereby hang unwritten volumes on the (perceived) psychology of D&D players.
engine
GM, 76 posts
Mon 25 Sep 2017
at 02:25
  • msg #55

Re: General Discussion

Does anyone know a source for 4e-era Dragon articles or issues?
engine
GM, 77 posts
Wed 18 Oct 2017
at 20:46
  • msg #56

Re: General Discussion

Can a stunned creature command a summoned creature or the like? A stunned creature "can’t take actions," but the summoner "needs to spend actions to command it mentally. The wording is similar to that for the beastmaster ranger, and I suspect for similar mechanics.

I suppose "no" makes the most sense, since "stunned" suggests that a person is too out of it to do anything, and can't even speak, and "spending" actions (while not defined as an action itself) could be reasonably assumed to mean "if you're capable of taking actions yourself" or to be a free action, which a stunned creature can't take.

Thought I'd ask, though.
LonePaladin
player, 27 posts
Thu 19 Oct 2017
at 03:29
  • msg #57

Re: General Discussion

No, a stunned creature can't take any actions, period. But most summoned creatures and beast companions have some sort of default action they take if their master doesn't (or can't) give them orders.
engine
GM, 78 posts
Thu 19 Oct 2017
at 13:59
  • msg #58

Re: General Discussion

LonePaladin:
No, a stunned creature can't take any actions, period.

I know. That wasn't in dispute.

quote:
But most summoned creatures and beast companions have some sort of default action they take if their master doesn't (or can't) give them orders.

Most summons don't, though a fair number probably provide side benefits. Chalk up one for beast masters (although the beast apparently has to return to the master's side before acting independently) and druid summons.
LonePaladin
player, 31 posts
Sun 17 Dec 2017
at 16:24
  • msg #59

Re: General Discussion

Could we get a new topic thread? One for electronic aids? This would give us a space to discuss the Character Builder, Monster Builder, or third-party programs.
Godzfirefly
player, 33 posts
Sun 17 Dec 2017
at 16:32
  • msg #60

Re: General Discussion

In reply to LonePaladin (msg # 59):

I loved the Character Builder and Monster Builder when it was supported.  So disappointed when they stopped... :-(
jkeogh
player, 15 posts
Sun 11 Feb 2018
at 16:12
  • msg #61

Re: General Discussion

In reply to Godzfirefly (msg # 60):

I realize this has probably been covered elsewhere, but why did WOTC just stop supporting 4e altogether? Didn’t anyone like Paizo want to buy the rights and keep it going? It is such a fun system. It’s no more crunchy than 3.5/Pathfinder and Pathfinder is doing really well, or so it would seem...
engine
GM, 88 posts
Sun 11 Feb 2018
at 17:08
  • msg #62

Re: General Discussion

In reply to jkeogh (msg # 61):

The simple answer is that, unlike 3.5 and Pathfinder, there is no legal free version of the rules. Anyone can make their own version of 3.5, which is what Pathfinder is, but no one could just make a version of 4th Edition, because they don't have anything to work from.

I gather 13th Age was meant to have a fair bit in common with 4th Edition. I couldn't get into all the stuff with the Icons.

All that aside, as much as some people enjoyed 4th Edition, it really is quite widely reviled. I think it partly goes back to the fact that people loved the openness and availability of 3.5, and saw 4th Edition as closed and expensive. So, there was no real point in trying to argue its merits: even if people found they enjoyed it, there was still that monetary leap to take.
engine
GM, 92 posts
Fri 16 Feb 2018
at 19:09
  • msg #63

Re: General Discussion

I might make this its own topic:
How important do you find it as a player or a GM to keep all of the roles covered in a party?

Personally, the only group I would have trouble being in or running in would be a defender heavy group. Defenders don't overlap very well, I feel. Even more than one is likely to be a drag for one of them against a single powerful opponent, unless that opponent has a way of neutralizing defenders and having a back-up is useful. If a group really wanted to play an all-defender group, I'd probably just make the game about protecting NPCs or something.

But I've encountered people lately who request that parties they run or participate with are "balanced." Some GMs feel that this (along with the "standard" 5 PCs) makes planning a game easier for them. Others feel that it keeps game from bogging down, mainly because there's at least one heavy damage dealer, and an infrastructure to keep them alive and hitting. Without that, they feel, things go amiss.

But what about the controller? Don't get me wrong, I love controllers, and they can be clutch in some situations, but usually replacing a controller with another striker or leader is not likely to hurt a group. So, that might be another way to think of my question: why is there a need to fill the controller role? If it's merely sentimentality, hey, I get that. But I assume that's not always the case.

And of course I'm focusing a lot on combat here. Controllers tend to have access to highly useful utility powers, and many of them are also ritual casters1, so they could prove highly useful outside combat. Then again, at least two leaders also have access to ritual casting.

So, I'd be interested in your thoughts. As long as players who want balanced parties are willing to change to fill the perceived gaps, I'm fine with it as a GM. And as long as no one forces me to play a role I don't care to play (which there usually isn't, but one does have moods), I'm okay with GM's requiring it.

1 Seekers, hunters and (oddly but understandably) mages are the primary exceptions, though hunters do have wilderness knacks.
This message was last edited by the GM at 19:11, Fri 16 Feb 2018.
LonePaladin
player, 33 posts
Sat 17 Feb 2018
at 04:03
  • msg #64

Re: General Discussion

As one of the DMs who likely sparked this idea for discussion, my own opinion of it has changed over the years. Initially, I put a lot of emphasis on having a group with all four roles, for pretty much the reasons you've given. Granted, when we only had the Player's Handbook that essentially meant that someone was playing a wizard.

I'm going to call that sort of party "well rounded" instead of "balanced", because the goal there is making sure you've got some of everything.

Of course, as later books came out and more classes were added, the... um, well, the role of each role blurred a bit. Some classes labeled as Controllers had good damage potential. Some Strikers could draw aggro. Some Leaders could alter the battlefield.

So, intentionally or not, the focus of building a party shifted away from the pigeon-holes of Controller, Defender, Striker, Leader. And when the Essentials line came out they pointedly veered away from it. A fighter sub-class became a Striker, as did a wizard subclass. A ranger became a Controller. A barbarian became a Defender. A druid became a Leader. And then there were the hybrid class rules.

Ultimately, it turned into "play what you want, and we'll figure it out". If everyone wants to make Striker-types, then you've got a party of glass cannons. Party of leaders? Unlikely, but doable, and good luck hurting them.
Godzfirefly
player, 35 posts
Sat 17 Feb 2018
at 04:13
  • msg #65

Re: General Discussion

In reply to engine (msg # 63):

In my opinion, the need for all 4 traditional roles (in any edition of D&D) is directly proportional to the amount of combat in the campaign.  Specifically, if a campaign has particularly hard combat encounters, large numbers of encounters without rest periods, and/or long combats.  If any of those are a major concern in your campaign, having a team capable of coordinated tactics and covering the valuable roles is particularly important.

If your campaign is not particularly combat heavy, then role coverage isn't very important.  If you struggle to make milestones with combat in your campaign, you're probably not worrying about things like combat resource economy or role coverage.  Even very hard combats can be covered pretty readily if you're willing to throw large amounts of resources at it because you know there's unlikely to be another combat that day.  And, even if you have large numbers of combats per day, you don't use up resources that quickly if all your combats are super-easy.  And, by the same reasoning, if you don't need to try that hard to win a combat, you don't really need to be that optimised.

The same reasoning applies to the question, "How important is it to build a character optimised for combat?"  In a very real sense, it is the same question, just applied to a character instead of a team.

Now, when you play face-to-face with players and a GM you know the playstyle of, you usually have a feel for how important any of these concerns are.  But, on rpol, players can't know if the GM will throw a lot of hard combat, a lot of easy combat, or very little combat at all (per in-game day.)  And, the GM can't be sure the players will be skilled at either building characters or performing in combat.  So, both sides tend to prefer teams that can handle that uncertainty.  They want to be ready for a worst-case scenario.  After all, an early end to a campaign due to TPK isn't usually fun for anyone.
jkeogh
player, 16 posts
Sun 25 Feb 2018
at 21:47
  • msg #66

Re: General Discussion

Has anyone here had any success/fun playing in the Dark Suns setting in 4e? I was curious about the Themes in particular and if there were any great stories of a party using these themes?
engine
GM, 94 posts
Sun 25 Feb 2018
at 22:40
  • msg #67

Re: General Discussion

In reply to jkeogh (msg # 66):

I got the books and read them, and found that I still didn't understand what Dark Sun was trying to achieve. I think it made more sense back in 2nd Edition when it came across as a way to push back against many of the tropes of the game that were tired even then.

Themes seem to work well enough, though I almost always see them as just a way to tack on some extra abilities, rather than as a way to increase one's characterization. I played a character once with the Noble theme who I played as an exile from his homeland, but it didn't come up much. I couldn't even tell you what everyone else's themes were.

I think they might work a lot better in Dark Sun. I wanted to play a wilder in particular. Good luck.
jkeogh
player, 17 posts
Sun 25 Feb 2018
at 23:10
  • msg #68

Re: General Discussion

In reply to engine (msg # 67):

I guess your point about themes is usually the case. Traits in Pathfinder are often treated similarly (chosen for the benefit potentially omitting the flavor that they were designed for)...
LonePaladin
player, 34 posts
Mon 26 Feb 2018
at 00:26
  • msg #69

Re: General Discussion

In the game I recently started -- and some of you know which one I'm talking about -- I looked over the entire list of themes, basically removing those that were specific to DS, then allowed all the rest. I intended them to be used to indicate what a character does outside the context of their race/class combination, a way to reflect their profession or way of life.

Likewise, I asked them to pick multiple Backgrounds -- and to use these as placeholders to build their actual background on. I've made notes about each, and have already started making notes on which elements might be useful for later stories.
engine
GM, 95 posts
Mon 26 Feb 2018
at 01:11
  • msg #70

Re: General Discussion

LonePaladin:
I intended them to be used to indicate what a character does outside the context of their race/class combination, a way to reflect their profession or way of life.

Perhaps it's too early for you to tell, but has your intent been borne out?
LonePaladin
player, 35 posts
Mon 26 Feb 2018
at 02:37
  • msg #71

Re: General Discussion

I think so. We still need time for the ideas to gel, but already I'm seeing some behavior indicative of the choices made there, rather than just simply playing up to race/class stereotypes.
Redsun Rising
player, 18 posts
Weeaboo or Superman fan?
You be the judge.
Fri 12 Oct 2018
at 12:08
  • msg #72

Re: General Discussion

Yo.

You mind removing me from this? There is one of you in particular I don't like. We don't want to hear each other - that's mutual at this point.
Sign In