D&D 4E Rambling thoughts about D&D 4th Edition

[Joshua Randall]

4e has just as much good, and bad, art as any other edition. To exclude an entire edition OF ART because you didn’t like the rules is stupid as sh*t.

 

[cavalier973]

This is a tangentially related thought, but I think the cover art of at least one of the rules books should depict what the game is about—and hat tip to Matt Colville for giving me this idea.

The 0D&D cover art, for example, was a guy on a horse, so that explains the subsequent covers depicting guys on horses—it’s traditional. However, a swordsman on a horse, in my opinion, does not properly depict what the game is about.

The Holmes Basic rules depicts an adventuring party in a dungeon, facing a dragon. So, the cover meets both qualifications for what I consider to be a proper cover for the Dungeons and Dragons game.

The original AD&D cover art is fantastic. It depicts a party of adventurers, in a dungeon, disposing of the bodies of slain lizard-folk, while two of their number are atop a giant idol, stealing the gems from its eyes. We have a dungeon, but, unfortunately, no dragon.

The Moldvay rules have a spearman and a lady magic-user, “one foot turned in the other direction” (hat tip Professor Dungeon Master), in a dungeon, facing a green dragon that is emerging from a pool. Dungeon, check. Dragon, check. Awesome.

The iconic Mentzer Red Box cover by Larry Elmore is my favorite. A young fighter is recklessly charging a red dragon, in a dungeon. Treasure carpets the floor. I have a good idea what this game is about. Dragon, check; dungeon, check.
As an aside, the Mentzer expert rules cover has a guy on a horse, being attacked by a dragon, but not in a dungeon—but this fits the purpose of the game, which was to introduce wilderness adventuring.

1e AD&D had a cover change from the excellent idol room to an elderly wizard in a non-descript location, doing wizard things. Boo on this cover. No dungeon, no dragon.

Second Edition brings back a guy on a horse, reminiscent of the 0D&D cover. The rider even has the wing-ed helmet. No dungeon, no dragon.

The “New, Easy to Master” Basic Black box has an image that I first saw, many, many years ago, in an ad in a comic book. A fighter with a long-handled, two-handed axe is facing off against a charging dragon, in what is presumably the dragon’s lair. This art is almost as good as the Mentzer red box cover. Dungeon, check; dragon, check.

The Rules Cyclopedia (I almost forgot this one) depicts a guy on a horse (Tradition!) being attacked by a dragon. Unfortunately, it appears to be in a swamp. So, dragon, but no dungeon.

The 2e book changed its cover, and depicts three adventurers—a muscled fighter, a wizard and a rogue (or ranger) in a dungeon. The fighter has just punched the door into flinders. Dungeon, check, dragon, no check.

3rd edition books were presented as ancient tomes, with no scene depicted, which is perfectly reasonable. Still, no dragon, and no dungeon.

4th edition, as I mentioned, is a weaksauce, uncomfortable-looking pose by a pair of adventurers. They look to be in a dungeon, but there is no dragon. Just a dragonborn.

The Essentials books both depict adventurers in dungeons on their covers, but no dragons.

The Fifth Edition cover shows a pair of adventurers taking on a giant, in what looks like an interior location, so dungeon, yes, dragon, no.

 

[D'karr]

4th edition, as I mentioned, is a weaksauce, uncomfortable-looking pose by a pair of adventurers. They look to be in a dungeon, but there is no dragon. Just a dragonborn.

The 4e DMG shows the other side of that picture. The Dragon scrying the dungeon for his next snack.

 

[cavalier973]

The 4e DMG shows the other side of that picture. The Dragon scrying the dungeon for his next snack.

Good point!

 

[Mannahnin]

The 4e DMG shows the other side of that picture. The Dragon scrying the dungeon for his next snack.

Which is a bit of a callback to the 1981 B/X covers, where the Basic set cover is the Fighter & Magic-User confronting a dragon, and the Expert set cover is a wizard scrying on that scene.

 

[cavalier973]

I was making characters using the offline character builder, and noticed that the cleric power “Righteous Brand” had been changed from granting a bonus equal to the cleric’s STR bonus to granting a straight +3 bonus to an ally’s attack against the same target.

I disagree with that change, and checked the pdf of the 4e player’s handbook, to thankfully find it still granted the STR bonus. The cleric I was building has a STR of 20, with a bonus of +5.

On another note, I learned on another thread that the “Come and Get It” fighter power was changed from a STR vs AC attack to a STR vs Will, which makes no sense. The pulling of enemies is an effect of the power. As long as an enemy is in range, it will get pulled to the fighter. The attack is subsequent to the pulling, and therefore should be STR versus AC.

On another note, I was comparing the DC numbers of the DMG, the DMG2, and the Rules Compendium. Supposedly, the DMG DCs were too high, the DMG2 DCs were too low, and the Rules Compendium’s were just right.
I’m not so sure.
The Rules Compendium scores are given for each level, up to 30, while the DMG and DMG2 lists scores in three level ranges.

I think the original DMG scores are right. Adventurers of levels one through three, for example, have Easy, Normal, and Hard scores of 10, 15, and 20, respectively. An adventurer moving from level one to two would essentially have the scores lowered by one.

Unfortunately, the pdf of the DMG uses the DMG2 scores, which are 5, 10, and 15. With those scores, the only adventurer who would roll for an easy DC would be one who was not trained in the particular skill (or have other bonuses that add up to 5). Maybe there is something in that, but I think, right now, that the higher scores are better.

 

[Red Castle]

I was making characters using the offline character builder, and noticed that the cleric power “Righteous Brand” had been changed from granting a bonus equal to the cleric’s STR bonus to granting a straight +3 bonus to an ally’s attack against the same target.

I disagree with that change, and checked the pdf of the 4e player’s handbook, to thankfully find it still granted the STR bonus. The cleric I was building has a STR of 20, with a bonus of +5.

On another note, I learned on another thread that the “Come and Get It” fighter power was changed from a STR vs AC attack to a STR vs Will, which makes no sense. The pulling of enemies is an effect of the power. As long as an enemy is in range, it will get pulled to the fighter. The attack is subsequent to the pulling, and therefore should be STR versus AC.

On another note, I was comparing the DC numbers of the DMG, the DMG2, and the Rules Compendium. Supposedly, the DMG DCs were too high, the DMG2 DCs were too low, and the Rules Compendium’s were just right.
I’m not so sure.
The Rules Compendium scores are given for each level, up to 30, while the DMG and DMG2 lists scores in three level ranges.

I think the original DMG scores are right. Adventurers of levels one through three, for example, have Easy, Normal, and Hard scores of 10, 15, and 20, respectively. An adventurer moving from level one to two would essentially have the scores lowered by one.

Unfortunately, the pdf of the DMG uses the DMG2 scores, which are 5, 10, and 15. With those scores, the only adventurer who would roll for an easy DC would be one who was not trained in the particular skill (or have other bonuses that add up to 5). Maybe there is something in that, but I think, right now, that the higher scores are better.

If I remember correctly, the DC was for attribute test. When it was a skill test, you were suppose to add 5 to the difficulty level to compensate for the possible training, which is why the DC from the first DMG were considered too difficult. The math for 4e pretty much always considered a result of 10 as normal.

 

[cavalier973]

I want to run a group through “Keep in the Shadowfell”, but with a better team than the pregens.

I’m thinking, Warlord, Fighter, Paladin, Warlock, and Wizard, with each PC optimized (at least three of them with a “20” in their main stats). You know, an actual “4e” party.

 

[Mannahnin]

I want to run a group through “Keep in the Shadowfell”, but with a better team than the pregens.

I’m thinking, Warlord, Fighter, Paladin, Warlock, and Wizard, with each PC optimized (at least three of them with a “20” in their main stats). You know, an actual “4e” party.

I ran it as the start of a long-running 4E campaign. Our group had a fun time with it, despite its flaws. The battle with Irontooth and the final one against Kalarel were especially dramatic. I think we had one or two PCs still up and conscious when they triumphed at the end, and the survivors were able to save all or all but one of their comrades. I think our party was Warlord, Paladin, Wizard, Cleric, Ranger, maybe?

 

[Red Castle]

I'll start a new campaign at the end of january (just need to wrap up my current one first) and was thinking about running Keep on the Shadowfell at first. I never ran pregen module and wanted a more dungeoncrawling feel at first, try it with 4e. I gave up the idea and will run a sandbox episodic campaign instead where the characters become the heroes of Winterhaven... so I might eventually plug in the Keep, just in another context.

My group consist of a Tiefling Warlord, a Human Fighter, a Human Wizard and a Dragonborn Sorcerer. I was a little disappointed at first because I wanted to see a little bit more class unique to 4e, but then again I never had a Sorcerer player and I feel like the 4e version of the class seems to be the best one, the more distinct instead of just being a Wizard that don't need to learn his spells. The sorcerer spell being unique to the class also feel more like it is a real raw natural power, not something that can be copied by someone else.