I am asking because I am prepping for a 4E campaign (first 4E campaign). I already know my players have all these weird prejudices toward the game. When they hear that there is no way you will be able to have multiple attacks like in earlier editions, its going to be a turning point in the whole acceptance of the system, I can already tell. They're very picky, but its who I like to play with, because I do have the most fun with them. I just want to make 4E fun for them so I can run that.
Anyway, tell me what you think.
And allowing for multiple attacks wouldn't be that terribly broken in and of itself if they were melee basic attacks. But there are many items (bracers of mighty striking AV1) that could break that later on in the game.
there are many MANY powers that allow for you to make multiple attacks. the fighter gets plenty of them. The two weapon fighting ranger gets pretty much nothing BUT that. Barbarians get a few too.
And allowing for multiple attacks wouldn't be that terribly broken in and of itself if they were melee basic attacks. But there are many items (bracers of mighty striking AV1) that could break that later on in the game.
In 4E do you have to have a power to be able to attack with two weapons? I spotted Two Weapon fighting in the Martial Power books, but that's not really what I am looking for. It seems that most of the multiple attacks I have spotted insofar are mostly towards separate opponents and not something that is like the old school, attacking one person 2-4 times with one weapons.
I'll check out the Barbarian though.
There are loads of At-Will, Encounter and Daily powers that let you attack multiple targets. So it's covered by the rules already.
Neeto! Can you tell me where to look?
EDIT - I just noticed you said 'multiple'... I was looking for things that were like the old rules, in that you attacked one opponent multiple times. Not multiple targets. Thanks though.
- Cleave (kinda)
- Rain of Blows (upto 3 attacks on one target)
- Come and Get It
- Shift the Battlefield
- Thicket of Blades
- Silverstep
Ranger Options in PH1 upto Level 5:
- Twin Strike
- Dire Wolverine Strike
- Two-Fanged Strike
- Split the Tree
- Cut and Run
- Thundertusk Boar Strike
- Frienzed Skirmish
If you want to make many attacks, you're better off going Ranger than Fighter.
But please, since this is your first campaign... Run the game as written, for the sake of everyone involved.
I am asking because I am prepping for a 4E campaign (first 4E campaign). I already know my players have all these weird prejudices toward the game. When they hear that there is no way you will be able to have multiple attacks like in earlier editions, its going to be a turning point in the whole acceptance of the system, I can already tell. They're very picky, but its who I like to play with, because I do have the most fun with them. I just want to make 4E fun for them so I can run that.
Anyway, tell me what you think.
I'd recommend against starting your first 4E campaign with a pile of house rules. Tell your players you're playing by the book until everyone has some experience with the system.
If you are really considering implementing multi-attack rules as they level up then you have to do it for all classes.
I'd recommend against starting your first 4E campaign with a pile of house rules. Tell your players you're playing by the book until everyone has some experience with the system.
If you are really considering implementing multi-attack rules as they level up then you have to do it for all classes.
But then the question of how to balance the monsters in response comes up. And how to compensate for the characters whose special niche is making multiple attacks. And all the other problems that will come with such a drastic tweak to the system.
I'd recommend against starting your first 4E campaign with a pile of house rules. Tell your players you're playing by the book until everyone has some experience with the system.
If you are really considering implementing multi-attack rules as they level up then you have to do it for all classes.
Yes, I have been debating this fact in my mind. I have come to them and asked them to give it a chance for a campaign length game, which they have agreed to try. The reason I started this thread is because I am starting to realize that they are going to really dislike certain things about the game and I am trying to counter that. On one hand, incorporating house rules might help them whine less and adjust better. On the other hand, it might skew the system into being unrepresentative...
I'm trying not to lose the players to have them running back to 3rd so fast.
... If I made a power to help them adjust (as I was trying to do with the Iterative attacks), then I would try my best to make it work cohesively with the rules. So far though, as I scan over the powers in the PHB, it looks like having a Class Feature that allows multiple attacks, will imbalance the system. Well, at least if I did it the way I mentioned at the beginning of this post.
But then the question of how to balance the monsters in response comes up. And how to compensate for the characters whose special niche is making multiple attacks. And all the other problems that will come with such a drastic tweak to the system.
I think the proper way to incorporate any house rule power into the game is by seeing how the power you make matches up to other powers throughout the system. It will be apparent if a power you make up is more powerful when you compare it... most of the time... That's when looking at the monster's comes in.
I think the best things to consider are this:
-Is the power representative to its level
-Is the power representative to its class
-Will the power imbalance the game in consideration to
a) other classes
b) the challenge monsters normally provide
I am sure there is, of course, more to consider. I think that is a good start though.
As for multiple attacks specifically, I don't think it is necessarily problematic as long as it does not somehow imbalance the game. But again, the investigation of such a thing could be very extensive, as you point out.
What about this. If you look at the Two-Weapon Feat, in the PHB, notice that you gain a +1 bonus for using a second weapon. That's normally how it works unless you have a a power that lets you do better. Maybe doing something similar for multiple attacks could work. At 5th level, you get a second attack on a single opponent (via a Class Power, Utility or whatever you want), for that you get a +1 to damage. You can go from there to create the extra attacks that would each add more of a bonus to your hits for various levels.
Just an idea though.
throw in a bit of saga rules here, and make it a feat that allows only basic attacks. it would have to have a drawback though, otherwise everyone would use it, and it would gimp rangers and two-blade fighters.
Yeah, I know what you mean. What do you think of having it as a feat or class power (for fighters maybe) where the extra attacks give you +1 per extra attack (at whatever levels you designate appropriate).
Edit: +1 to damage that is
There's also the Martial Power "Tempest Technique" fighter talent that gives a bonus to hit and bonus damage when using two weapons.
The feat Two-Weapon fighting basically does that anyway. If you are wielding two weapons, one in each hand, you gain +1 damage to the main hand attacks.
There's also the Martial Power "Tempest Technique" fighter talent that gives a bonus to hit and bonus damage when using two weapons.
Right, but in my example of multiple attacks the power would be different as the Class advances. At levels 1st- 4th, you could gain a +1 for an extra attack, 5th-10th a +2 for attacking three times on the same opponent, and so on. The levels are just examples here, based on other advancement I have seen powers have. I thought that this type of power would be best featured as a Fighter's Class Feature.
I don't think that there is any power that does that, is there?
The thing is, that powers that attack the same target multiple times are powerful enough already. (Just check the Character Optimisation boards). They really don't need a boost because they are pretty powerful to begin with.
That was a not so great way to try to balance high level fighter types with casters in the older editions.
It isn't needed in 4E at all . The melee types are already pretty balanced against other classes and for the role they were designed to do.
If you suddenly add in extra attacks for fighters, just for old times sake, you'll have the reverse situation from what it was in 3.5 and older eds. Fighters will become dominant over everyone.
Try the system as is for a few levels at least , hopefully you guys will stop thinking of it as 3.5 only different.
No, but you can get plenty of magic items and feats that add static bonuses to damage, and they apply to each hit. Plus, if you increase your main attacking stat at say levels 4 and 8, you get +1 damage as well to all attacks.
The thing is, that powers that attack the same target multiple times are powerful enough already. (Just check the Character Optimisation boards). They really don't need a boost because they are pretty powerful to begin with.
Well the way I meant for this propositioned power to function, was by having the +1 to damage, per attack. It would be like the Two-Weapon Fighting Feat in that way, except it would just merely increase the bonus at higher levels. I wouldn't give the power a bonus from various magic items per hit, if I were to use it ever.
Thanks though, I'll check out the CO boards.
It sounds like they think the fighter class will be somehow weaker without those extra attacks ?
That was a not so great way to try to balance high level fighter types with casters in the older editions.
It isn't needed in 4E at all . The melee types are already pretty balanced against other classes and for the role they were designed to do.
If you suddenly add in extra attacks for fighters, just for old times sake, you'll have the reverse situation from what it was in 3.5 and older eds. Fighters will become dominant over everyone.
Try the system as is for a few levels at least , hopefully you guys will stop thinking of it as 3.5 only different.
Now why would you assume that we all think of 4E as "3.5" but different? The point of this post is actually because I know how different 4E is. I don't know what they are going to think of the fighter without the iterative attacks, I just know that in previous games it's always been something everyone likes a lot. Enough so that I started this thread to see what people thought of its possibility in 4E, since I am new.
Obviously the game is very different, power is not achieved in the same manner anymore. I am not sitting here trying to start an edition war by making claims that 3E's way of attacking was less or more balanced. I am trying to incorporate a storytelling effect in the game.
I understand when you say I should try to use the game as it is first, but people have already said that and I have already responded to that above. My response was that I was considering the possibilities. If there is a way to incorporate the likable aspect of multiple attacks, that would be cool, if not oh well.
And actually, I think my way of trying to incorporate multiple attacks isn't that bad of an idea (not that I am planning on using it or anything - don't worry!)
Anyway, thanks for the comment.
2 1[W] + mod attacks each that mark at level 5 is most likely better than a 3[W] + mods attack.
id say each 1[W] + mods above the first is about as good as each [W] in the attack at about levle 11, +4 ability mod and +2 magic item alone does near the same average damage as a [w] with a d12 weapon. at that point each 1[W] +mods above the first is worth about [2] W.
by higher levles these mods coukld easily without optimizing be +7 ability, +5 weapon, +2 feat, +2 more from a feat or enchantment, which is 3[w] with a d12 weapon, so each 1[W] plus mods is as good as 4[W] on an attack.
add in certain weapon enchantements or items and you can get static bonuses into the mid 20s easy.
now lets consider all the extra yummy crits you will get with so many extra attacks! with a high crit weapon weapon, or a heavy hitting crit enchantment.
. . .The reason I started this thread is because I am starting to realize that they are going to really dislike certain things about the game and I am trying to counter that. On one hand, incorporating house rules might help them whine less and adjust better.
This is only advice: Don't do this.
They have agreed to try the new system. So, take them at their word and sell them on the new system. Emphasize the strengths of the new system, and show them those strengths in play.
Trying to make the new system more "comfortable" for them by making it more like the old system will do two things:
1) It shows them you don't trust the new system either and that you think it needs fixing.
2) It will keep them from seeing the new system. They will cling to the comfort zone you've tried to create and lament the "comforts" they no longer have. The new system turns a lot of 3e conventions on their collective ears - it uses a lot of new conventions. Until they see the new system in its own terms, they will never stop comparing it (unfavorably) to 3e.
Iterative attacks are perfect example of how the 4e mindset differs from 3e.
1) In 3e, they were a means allowing melee classes to deal with minions - since against major opponents, they usually missed. 4e actually has minions.
2) The system math in 4e actually pretty much guarantees that iterative attacks will miss.
3) Combat in 4e is much more mobile and fluid. The will not be as many opportunities to give up your move+standard to gain iterative attacks.
4) In 4e there is no inherent power difference between weapon classes and implement classes. Giving weapon attacks access to iterative attacks will unbalance the classes, something 4e has worked hard to avoid.
On the other hand, it might skew the system into being unrepresentative...
This is a strong possibility.
One thing you could try doing is explaining multi-[W] powers as similar to iterative attacks. Everyone gets plenty of those. They won't get to make so many attack rolls, but the damage is similar.
QFT. And at the same time they get to move around a lot more, being able to use the environment to great effects ;)
This is only advice: Don't do this.
They have agreed to try the new system. So, take them at their word and sell them on the new system. Emphasize the strengths of the new system, and show them those strengths in play.
Trying to make the new system more "comfortable" for them by making it more like the old system will do two things:
1) It shows them you don't trust the new system either and that you think it needs fixing.
2) It will keep them from seeing the new system. They will cling to the comfort zone you've tried to create and lament the "comforts" they no longer have. The new system turns a lot of 3e conventions on their collective ears - it uses a lot of new conventions. Until they see the new system in its own terms, they will never stop comparing it (unfavorably) to 3e.
Iterative attacks are perfect example of how the 4e mindset differs from 3e.
1) In 3e, they were a means allowing melee classes to deal with minions - since against major opponents, they usually missed. 4e actually has minions.
2) The system math in 4e actually pretty much guarantees that iterative attacks will miss.
3) Combat in 4e is much more mobile and fluid. The will not be as many opportunities to give up your move+standard to gain iterative attacks.
4) In 4e there is no inherent power difference between weapon classes and implement classes. Giving weapon attacks access to iterative attacks will unbalance the classes, something 4e has worked hard to avoid.
This, exactly.
Iterative Attack (Paragon Tier)
You are a master of attacking multiple targets.
Prerequisite: None
Effect: Once per round, when you attack with a melee or ranged attack that inflicts more than 1[w] or 1[b] of damage, roll a separate attack roll against any target in range for each [w] or [b] of damage to be inflicted. Any additional damage or effects that are normally applied by the attack in the event of a hit (including imposing a mark, or any additional damage based on an Ability modifier) are only applied if the first iterative attack hits. If a critical hit with this power would otherwise apply additional damage or effects (for example, as a result of a magic item), this extra damage or effects apply only if the first iterative attack critically hits. Critical hits with subsequent iterative attacks apply only the maximum damage of the [w] or [b] imposed by that attack. Each iterative attack after the first receives a cumulative -1 penalty to the attack roll.
Basically, in exchange for being able to attack multiple targets with what amounts to reduced basic attacks (reduced both in terms of attack and damage), you inflict less damage on your primary target. This makes a decent minion killer, but not much else.
If you have to turn 4e into 3e to keep your players in the game, you were probably better off playing 3e to begin with.
I am asking because I am prepping for a 4E campaign (first 4E campaign). I already know my players have all these weird prejudices toward the game. When they hear that there is no way you will be able to have multiple attacks like in earlier editions, its going to be a turning point in the whole acceptance of the system, I can already tell. They're very picky, but its who I like to play with, because I do have the most fun with them. I just want to make 4E fun for them so I can run that.
Since this is your first game (and your group's first experience with 4e), there's a lot of ways that people can overlook the multiple attack capabilities in 4e.
First, what a lot of people have said:
Two Weapon Rangers and Fighters (particularly Tempest Fighters) have a lot of power which allow for multiple attacks. Explain to your players that now, people who want to play "multiattackers" pick certain classes and builds, and people who don't want to (perhaps, preferring "Big Damage" attacks) play other builds.
A lot of these "multiple attacks" are available to the class, regardless of the build (any fighter can pick up Twin Strike), and thus, available to anyone through multiclassing.
Often overlooked are the Close Burst Attacks, for most classes. These allow you to attack everyone adjacent to you (or even further out, for some classes). Rather than being written as "multiple attacks", some new players may overlook the Close Burst attacks. I myself wrote up a very fun Fighter that picked, almost entirely, close burst attacks. Like Fessig, he was better at fighting groups!
Finally, the often overlooked Action Point! This allows you to make an attack (and not just a lowly Basic Attack) and follow it up with even more goodness. Here's a multiple attack mechanic that is accessible to every class and build. It can be really powerful. Just look at Come and Get It, followed by Thicket of Blades.
I would encourage your players to sit down and look at the system's options as written. It is possible to build many different fun, effective multiattacking characters. Even better, it is possible to "dabble" in multiattacking, and retain strong, high damage single target attacks too.
The thing I would emphasize most is that multiple attacks is now an option in character builds, along side things like high damage, inflicting conditions, or moving opponents. It's less of a tactic that "everyone" uses, and more of something to distinguish your fighter, or rogue, or whatever, from another one.
Fighters don't get iterative attacks until 6th and by then, they'll have forgotten all about it.
Less seriously, just let them roll a second ice after the first and declare it a miss automatically. It captures the spirit of iterative attacks perfectly.
Now why would you assume that we all think of 4E as "3.5" but different? The point of this post is actually because I know how different 4E is. I don't know what they are going to think of the fighter without the iterative attacks, I just know that in previous games it's always been something everyone likes a lot. Enough so that I started this thread to see what people thought of its possibility in 4E, since I am new.
I think you are taking the wrong approach to moving to 4E. You are thinking that people will not like what they lose. You should take the approach that players will like what they gain. A 4E fighter has features that more than make up for the loss of iterative attacks. In 3E, monsters suffer no penalties (except possibly face an AoO) for ignoring the fighter and going after his (softer target) allies. In 4E, the monsters face more severe penalties for ignoring the fighter and going after his allies.
Obviously the game is very different, power is not achieved in the same manner anymore. I am not sitting here trying to start an edition war by making claims that 3E's way of attacking was less or more balanced. I am trying to incorporate a storytelling effect in the game.
I would say that adding iterative attacks will in no way enable you to incorporate a storytelling effect in the game. I would also say that not having iterative attacks will in not way prevent you for incorporating a storytelling effect on the game. Adding interative attacks will in no way address this concern of yours and will more likely cause other major issues.
I understand when you say I should try to use the game as it is first, but people have already said that and I have already responded to that above. My response was that I was considering the possibilities. If there is a way to incorporate the likable aspect of multiple attacks, that would be cool, if not oh well.
There is. Just pick a class that has powers that allow you to make multiple attacks. A ranger has multiple attack powers. A fighter with the tempest technique option also has multiple attack powers. There is no need to make any major changes to the 4E rules to do this. There are even some fighter powers that allow you to make multiple attacks without needing to choose the tempest technique option.
And actually, I think my way of trying to incorporate multiple attacks isn't that bad of an idea (not that I am planning on using it or anything - don't worry!)
I think your way of incorporating multiple attacks is a bit unbalancing. Every class already gets an increase every even number level. There are a few feats that increase as you go up in levels, but what you seem to propose gives PC's the increase faster. Look at the Weapon Focus and Toughness feats. These are one of the few feats that actually increase as you go up in levels. Notice how they increase at every teir (10 levels). What you propose increases at a much faster rate and strikes me as being overpowered.
I know you are trying to introduce 3.5 players to 4E. If they are so resistant to every trying it then it may not be worth the trouble to make a hybrid 4E 3.5 version. If your players do want to try 4E, tell them that the rules are different. If they just miss interative attacks, then that's the least of your worries. There are many more thing that 3.5 players will find very odd or different in 4E. Just look at the spell casters, and the multiclassing rules.
I would highly recommend you just play 4E as is. The character roles is probably the biggest things they have to get used to because it defines how you play in combat. Probably many of the reasons for their discontent will be related to this. If they ask why their fighter cannot deal loads of damage like before, the reason is that the fighter is no longer supposed to do that. I think that is more likely the reason they may not like losing the iterative attacks. If they want to deal loads of damage, they have to play a striker class like the ranger.
(By then you'll probably be either happy without them, or not fond of the system anyway).
In 4E they did away with Iterative Attacks. I am trying to come up with a way to reintroduce it into the game.
...
I am asking because I am prepping for a 4E campaign (first 4E campaign). I already know my players have all these weird prejudices toward the game. When they hear that there is no way you will be able to have multiple attacks like in earlier editions, its going to be a turning point in the whole acceptance of the system, I can already tell.
...
Anyway, tell me what you think.
Honestly, getting rid of iterative attacks was a great move for 4th edition. In 3rd edition, iterative melee attacks made it very dangerous to melee. If you didn't use something like spring attack, you opened yourself up to a very devistating counter attack. (Unless you had a wussy DM who had the monsters spread their attacks around.) I've seen many cases where a medium/high level character closed, made his single attack, and then got destroyed by a dragon, or a Maralith, or a hydra, with it's multiple attacks.
I will be using Chris Perkin's Iomandra and the Dragon Sea Setting. I'm going to start with the story line he provided there and detail it for my campaign needs. I think this setting is a really good incorporation of the base 4E story, that will allow me to utilize and introduce everything about 4E via a single campaign
Thanks to all!
-Sands666
sort of
Attack Frenzy - You can spend an action point as a standard action to make multiple basic attacks during your turn. The number of basic attacks you make depends on your level. Level 1-10 you can make two basic attacks. At level 11-20 you can make three basic attacks. At level 21+ you can make four basic attacks. The attacks need not be made against the same target.
The only issue may be bob the wizard throwing four magic missiles which you and i both know would completely unbalance the game and the order of the universe itself. ;)
you know, another easy way to do this would be to give out a few extra action points at creation, and allow the pc's to spend more than one during an encounter. or even allow an action point to be spent to allow multiple basic attacks per tier.
sort of
Attack Frenzy - You can spend an action point as a standard action to make multiple basic attacks during your turn. The number of basic attacks you make depends on your level. Level 1-10 you can make two basic attacks. At level 11-20 you can make three basic attacks. At level 21+ you can make four basic attacks. The attacks need not be made against the same target.
The only issue may be bob the wizard throwing four magic missiles which you and i both know would completely unbalance the game and the order of the universe itself. ;)
I think I am just going to use the rules exactly the way they are presented, then criticize and change.
The issue now, is trying to handle all the criticism I know I am going to be hearing. Like I said these are picky players - I'm walking into a den of critics. I think I should even be surprised they're willing to try 4E at all. I think that the majority of the players already have it in mind that they will keep their opinion of not liking 4E straight to the end, no matter how much they like the game.... its up to me to break them/make them give it a real chance.
Why am I trying so hard? Like I said above, these are the people I like playing with the best, they are the group I have stuck with through all the others I have been with. If they ultimately don't like it in the end, what can I say, at least they gave it a try. Maybe I will game with them for 3E and 4E with others.
... but for now I am sharpening my swords and making sure I give 4E the best it has got with everything I can manage: Good story, good adventures, good role play, know all the rules, plan for every game extremely well, play area configuration... everything I can think of I am going to use. This just might kill me guys!;)
Why do you like 4e so much? What do you think they will criticize the most?
Honestly I like 4E because its change. I want to try it because its something fresh and different, because its fun to explore the new D&D.
Half of the people in my group are much like old men who do not like change or things that are different. They are just critics plain and simple. Furthermore, they are very attached to the older style of D&D. I imagine their criticism is going to revolve around things that they cannot do anymore, that they used to like about 3E. I have gathered some of this from a one-nighter I played with them using a delve, that I ran the way it was meant to be run. It was scratching the surface, but some things came up like: iterative attacks and the wizards 'lack' of choices when it comes to spells.
I have already brought those things up in other posts, and people here have mowed down those criticisms with suppressive 4E fire.
I feel like I just get attacked from both sides of the fence sometimes when I try to figure this stuff out. sheesh.
)The best way to overcome their criticisms is to point out that the problems those elements caused in 3e. Iterative attacks made melee classes feel better, bet it didn't actually make them better; Wizards were too powerful, period; multiclassing rendered the entire concept of "class" moot and broke what little system math there was; etc. . .
The reason I was asking was to help figure out how to sell them on the new edition. There have to be specific elements that you like: I was wondering what they are. You should only sell what you believe in (yes, I was in sales
The best way to overcome their criticisms is to point out that the problems those elements caused in 3e. Iterative attacks made melee classes feel better, bet it didn't actually make them better; Wizards were too powerful, period; multiclassing rendered the entire concept of "class" moot and broke what little system math there was; etc. . .
Yeah, I get what you mean. The thing is, the criticism will come, I'll rebut and it won't make any difference because it'll come down to their preference - which is seriously stubborn and overriding in the face of any alternative many times. All I feel I can really do, is run the best 4E game possible as my attempt... and then keep running 4E whenever its my turn in the group to run ha ha. SUFFER GUYS!
All I have to say to the OP is DON'T DO IT! It will completely throw off the balance of the game. It's really not worth it. I missed the iterative attacks when I first converted to 4e, but then I realized that there's a VERY good reason that they got rid of them.
Awesome to know. What exactly is the reason by your reckoning? (It may have already been mentioned above)
EDIT-P.S. you may have noticed, to your delight, that I will not be incorporating the iterative attacks. You 4E peeps seem damn militant about enforcing its decree upon even a slight suggestion. Ease up on the main thrusters guys.
Anyway.. this thread is almost closed (I think)
While the amount of attacks dont go up (Unless you are ranger and to lesser extent barbarian. Those guys go to town with sheer volume of attacks). But the actual threat from your single attacks gos up alot. this actualy makes action point novas much more spectacular. Fluff up multiple [W] as multiple attacks within one combat manoeuvre or as one extra strong blow. To boost efekt have them roll their weapon damage dies one by one (brutal property works wonders here: players seem to be very happy when they get to reroll crapy rolls).
Most people problems rise not from system itself but from thier interpretation. And that can be affected.
Sands666 in my experience there is one very importan 4e aspect that should help allevate your players pain of losing multiple attacks: multiple [W] powers.
While the amount of attacks dont go up (Unless you are ranger and to lesser extent barbarian. Those guys go to town with sheer volume of attacks). But the actual threat from your single attacks gos up alot. this actualy makes action point novas much more spectacular. Fluff up multiple [W] as multiple attacks within one combat manoeuvre or as one extra strong blow. To boost efekt have them roll their weapon damage dies one by one (brutal property works wonders here: players seem to be very happy when they get to reroll crapy rolls).
Most people problems rise not from system itself but from thier interpretation. And that can be affected.
Thanks! Yeah, my players interpret 3E as the best.... actually I would even say they still like aspects of 2E a lot in games... but mostly 3E now....
That's definitely true of interpretation in this case.
everything went so fast and smooth that I ane my players thought we were doing something wrong, but we were not.
My group and I have been together now for near 20 years. we have played everything from basic d&d (i still got the rules cyclopedia!), to 1e right up to 4th.
None of us have a favorite edition, but there are aspects from each edition that each of us favor. I like 2e because it took about 5 minutes to roll a pc. I like 4e because it takes me about 5 minutes to write an adventure.
3e and 3.5 were awesome due to its flexibilty and versatility (though thinking back it kind of reminds me of when my daughter takes off too big a bite of cake and has to spit some out to swallow it down, if you catch my drift
)One of the things I remembered most about my first 4e game was that I actually felt like i was running 2e again.
everything went so fast and smooth that I ane my players thought we were doing something wrong, but we were not.
My group and I have been together now for near 20 years. we have played everything from basic d&d (i still got the rules cyclopedia!), to 1e right up to 4th.
None of us have a favorite edition, but there are aspects from each edition that each of us favor. I like 2e because it took about 5 minutes to roll a pc. I like 4e because it takes me about 5 minutes to write an adventure.
3e and 3.5 were awesome due to its flexibilty and versatility (though thinking back it kind of reminds me of when my daughter takes off too big a bite of cake and has to spit some out to swallow it down, if you catch my drift
I have the Cyclopedia as well! I still use that book, even in the 3E game I run for my neighbor's kids. I'll probably still incorporate it into 4E too eventually. It has a lot of good little details that can easily add unique features to any campaign. I like the details it gives on the Lord Titles, the Kingdom Events and the Random Town Person Generator (all the various careers they have are kind of fun to look at). That's all for role play, but it helps!
My original group I play with today, I have been playing with them for about 15 years (since high school)! Most of them got into the game when it was 2e. I had been wanting to learn the game but never knew how to play. I bought that Cyclopedia because I originally thought that you had to learn the basic rules before you could play the 'advanced' rules setting. I ended up knowing more about the game than some of my friends did.
My original group I play with today, I have been playing with them for about 15 years (since high school)! Most of them got into the game when it was 2e.
Your group seemed to accept the changes from 2E to 3E. This would indicate that they are not entirely resistant to changes. I think your challenge is not to make 4E more like 3E. I'm glad you decided to not pursue that course of action. I think the best way to show your group the merits of 4E is to play 4E.
I understand that going from 3E to 4E is a big change. Iterative attacks can be made up from X[W] damage. As for the "lack of options for spellcasters" you'll have to sell them the fact that it's not necessarily a good thing to have too many options for one class and not enough for another (eg. Barbarian). Choosing a class should not be a decision between playing a class with many options and a class with few options. It should also not be a decision between choosing a class who can do a few things or a class that can practically do everything.
What are the criticisms you have heard from your group regarding 4E? Perhaps we can help you give some good answers to show them why 4E is a good edition to play.
Your group seemed to accept the changes from 2E to 3E. This would indicate that they are not entirely resistant to changes. I think your challenge is not to make 4E more like 3E. I'm glad you decided to not pursue that course of action. I think the best way to show your group the merits of 4E is to play 4E.
I understand that going from 3E to 4E is a big change. Iterative attacks can be made up from X[W] damage. As for the "lack of options for spellcasters" you'll have to sell them the fact that it's not necessarily a good thing to have too many options for one class and not enough for another (eg. Barbarian). Choosing a class should not be a decision between playing a class with many options and a class with few options. It should also not be a decision between choosing a class who can do a few things or a class that can practically do everything.
What are the criticisms you have heard from your group regarding 4E? Perhaps we can help you give some good answers to show them why 4E is a good edition to play.
My players loathed 3E when it first came out. I didn't like it at first, but eventually realized that it was much better. It ended up that everyone kind of went a different way with the game, some of us adopted 3E fully and others meshed things they liked form 2E & 3E with homebrew rules... that basically make the game not what it actually is at all. That's fine. Its just hard to get them to like new stuff. They like it to stay the same, as far as I can see. Call them suicide kings if you want, they can be stubborn.
4E IS a big change. When I first glanced at the rules I noticed a lot had changed. I think a lot of the tactics within the actual combat system are very similar to 3E, but the way you gain power for your character is formated completely different now.
I believe the thing they dislike about it the most, is that it seems to be too streamlined. One of the players told me he would join in the campaign if he was around when I ran it and if he could ignore how 'horrible' the rules are.'
It appears dumbed down at first, at least it did to me. I'm still analyzing the system though. So far it seems easier to manage, which is nice. But I think with all of these bias' going in, their stubbornness will persist no matter how legendary my game becomes as I DM 4E for them. I feel like its trying to convince someone that the sky does not exist.
I myself was reluctant to try 4E but I was won over after the first session. Make it fun for the players. Utilize some of the new trap/terrain features and have a skill challenge as part of the first session. The combat is so much more fluid and the fact that you have to work as a cohesive tactical unit to survive make this version of D&D much more exciting, challenging, and satisfying.
As I have mentioned before, I did run a test session with some of the players who would be in the main group.
They thought that the Wizard sucked because there was no longer all of these spells to choose from and that iterative attacks being missing was a HUGE deal.
They felt like the whole combat was extermely repetitive as they sat there using the same powers again and again, lack of variety was one big criticism.
They thought it was a better system for fighter classes.
Wizards are not what they used to be anymore. Everyone here says they are better, better, better because of x, y and z - and 4E haters say a, b, c, but what is important to me to notice is how different some things are and what might have been lost that they like.
You can tell me all of the good things about the Wizard as is now in 4E but it won't change the fact that its very different. I think this difference, whatever it is (please don't start talking about what is better now or then), is why the guy who loves Wizards in my group does not like it.
"What can I cast now, again, in this combat, Magic Missile or Scorching Burst?" That's it.
"You mean I don't have other spells?" No you do.. but, well they're the one's right there, you can use that one once per day and this one ... once per encounter!
"Thats it?" .. yeah, but its kind of the same cause you have more dailies than a normal character, you just have to pick which one... per day. You're a controller now, as a Wizard!
"A Controller?"
argh... why are people so picky
They're giving it a shot.. but are they? If they just hate the game and will do so for years whether I run it or not... I don't know if its worth it beyond me wanting to play.
... it almost makes me start to hate 3E, just because of this whole lame situation.
OH! And they could almost care less about cool environments. Shifting and combat maneuvers are not as cool as rolling a d20, 5 times to hit....5 times. That sort of stuff has always been around in our games, but not in a veryry precise way just a, 'it kind of happens' way.. I personally like seeing where everything is (as in 4E) and actually having a combat where they players win because of good strategy, not just cause they are the players.
-END RANT_
_
........ sorry just had to blow off some steam (it's irritating imagining the stubborn criticism I'll be hearing, stuff that probably won't even make sense sometimes.)
The same power could be made for other classes.
For example, a stance that allows the fighter to strike with a cleave attack.
or
...
That's rough dude, good luck getting past your players' prejudice. As a DM I have the "If you really don't like how I run the game, you can get off your lazy bum and DM one yourself" attitude. But I can understand wanting to make the transition smoother from one edition to the next. And actually, adding iterative attacks and maintaing 4e's careful balance is pretty simple:
1. Give [all of] your PCs an extra standard action at levels 6, 11, 16, 21 and 26, or whatever levels they like.
2. Multiply monster hps by half the number of extra standard actions you give PCs. For example a 6th level monster would have x1.5 hps, an 11th level monster would have x2 hps, etc.
It'll make action points less flashy, players will run out of encounter and daily powers more quickly and you wouldn't want to set your 5th level PCs against 6th level monsters for example, but it'd work out all right.
I believe the thing they dislike about it the most, is that it seems to be too streamlined. One of the players told me he would join in the campaign if he was around when I ran it and if he could ignore how 'horrible' the rules are.'
It appears dumbed down at first, at least it did to me. I'm still analyzing the system though. So far it seems easier to manage, which is nice. But I think with all of these bias' going in, their stubbornness will persist no matter how legendary my game becomes as I DM 4E for them. I feel like its trying to convince someone that the sky does not exist.
You can only go so far as to explain the merits of these changes. At some point, they have to decide to come part way as well. I agree that the change from 3E to 4E is quite dramatic.
They thought that the Wizard sucked because there was no longer all of these spells to choose from and that iterative attacks being missing was a HUGE deal.
They felt like the whole combat was extermely repetitive as they sat there using the same powers again and again, lack of variety was one big criticism.
They thought it was a better system for fighter classes.
Wizards are not what they used to be anymore. Everyone here says they are better, better, better because of x, y and z - and 4E haters say a, b, c, but what is important to me to notice is how different some things are and what might have been lost that they like.
You can tell me all of the good things about the Wizard as is now in 4E but it won't change the fact that its very different. I think this difference, whatever it is (please don't start talking about what is better now or then), is why the guy who loves Wizards in my group does not like it.
"What can I cast now, again, in this combat, Magic Missile or Scorching Burst?" That's it.
"You mean I don't have other spells?" No you do.. but, well they're the one's right there, you can use that one once per day and this one ... once per encounter!
"Thats it?" .. yeah, but its kind of the same cause you have more dailies than a normal character, you just have to pick which one... per day. You're a controller now, as a Wizard!
"A Controller?"
I'm not sure what level they looked at. At level 1, the 3E wizard has 2 spells that they can cast once per day. At level 1, the 4E wizard has 4 spells. Two can be cast again and again. One can be cast every 5 minutes (encounter) and 1 can be cast one per day (daily). On top of that, they can cast a few rituals as often as they have gold for it. The 3E wizard has a few cantrips that they can cast once per day. The 4E wizard has cantrips they can cast over and over and over again.
When I looked at the changes from 3E to 4E, I saw the 4E system as being better because I looked at the system as a whole. You can pick on 4E by looking at a small segment (like the wizard) and say why 3E is better at this small segment. When I look at the system as a whole, I understand how those little parts that are changed make 4E a better system as a whole.
In a general gaming system, is it good that class A has practically no character options and class B has hundreds of options by level 5? Look at the 3E barbarian. Make 2 level 10 barbarians in 3E and look at them. They have practically the exact same features. They all rage the same, they all have improved uncanny dodge, they all have damage reduction. The only thing really different about them are skills and feats and weapon. Now look at the level 10 wizard in 3E. Look at all of the options it has at level 1. The wizard probably has more options at level 1 than the barbarian has at level 10. At higher levels, the player has to do a lot of research into the rules and options that can be overwhelming for some players.
In a general gaming system, is it good to get into a battle where only one party member can really do anything significant to win the battle while everyone else has to run and hide? It can make for an interesting plot scenario if you are focusing on a particular character or item he has. However, I was in a game like that and was pretty much religated to being a spectator while one character did all the work. In 4E this is highly unlikely to happen unless the DM makes a significant effort. In 3E this can happen more or less at random when the DM thinks that a monster is interesting.
I think that it is good for a gaming system if no matter what charcter you choose, you have a good number of options (and not too many). I think that it is good for a gaming system where all players are able to and must get involved in a battle and all make significant (and different) contributions. All of the powering up and down of certain classes in 4E compared to 3E are for these purposes.
They're giving it a shot.. but are they? If they just hate the game and will do so for years whether I run it or not... I don't know if its worth it beyond me wanting to play.
... it almost makes me start to hate 3E, just because of this whole lame situation.
OH! And they could almost care less about cool environments. Shifting and combat maneuvers are not as cool as rolling a d20, 5 times to hit....5 times. That sort of stuff has always been around in our games, but not in a veryry precise way just a, 'it kind of happens' way.. I personally like seeing where everything is (as in 4E) and actually having a combat where they players win because of good strategy, not just cause they are the players.
-END RANT_
_
........ sorry just had to blow off some steam (it's irritating imagining the stubborn criticism I'll be hearing, stuff that probably won't even make sense sometimes.)
Yeah. Hearing about the attitudes of some people really get to me as well. I would say that I am someone who doesn't like change much either and less so as I get older. When 4E came out, it really highlighted the major shortcomings of 3E that I overlooked before.
This thread seemed to have gone from homebrew iterative attacks to "how to convince 3E players to like 4E" which is probably what your issue was about in the first place. Good luck with your group. I hope they can overcome their resistance to change enough to appreciate the good aspects of 4E.
- 3/3.5 th:
- wizards: most of the time crappy crossbowmen with crappy hp/AC
- fighters: no itterative attacks
- wizards: most of the time crappy crossbowmen with crappy hp/AC
- 4th:
- wizards: casting all the way and much more survivable*
- fighters: also no iterative attacks
- wizards: casting all the way and much more survivable*
(*: in the campaign I DM I've run a lvl 4 session with 3 PCs: 2 wizards who took turns frontliners, and 1 cleric making sure the wizards survive)
Even if your players don't like low level campaigns, I would suggest that they give it a try.)
Even if your players don't like low level campaigns, I would suggest that they give it a try.)
For a group that is new to 4E, I would also recommend a low level campaign. A level 1 character in 4E feels more powerful and can do more than a level 1 character in 3E. They can do a fair number of things and take a few hits before going down. A stray arrow will not kill anyone, however bad tactics and teamwork will.
I'm not going to change the rules. I am starting them off at level 1. We're going to play twice a month. They will be leveling up (hopefully) at the end of every game. So the campaign will last around 15-17 months while they play their characters all the way up into Epic Level.
After this point, there will be nothing but clarity about what 4E is about.
I am actually going to be sticking to the game rule for rule (though I will include errata). If the rule states: Your character goes to sleep and wakes up with full hit points the next day, no matter how wounded you are - then that's the way it is in my game. End of story.
My plan is to make each adventure manageable (ample maps, nothing too grand, or at least if it is, something that is broken up into chewable bits - fewer NPCs that are fully interacting with the PCs in the game at any given time, so that I can role play them well, etc.). At least in the beginning maps will be smaller, as I try to integrate tactics more so than dungeon mazes... maybe mazes will come later...
Anyway, that's the plan. I am focusing on fleshing out the campaign with the story I linked here, so that when it begins, it'll be an exciting game!