We Actually Played a Game!
August 7, 2008
The stars were finally right on Saturday night: we managed to kick off the first session of our 4E DnD campaign. To ease ourselves into the new rules, and to shake off the cobwebs, I ran the first two encounters from Keep on the Shadowfell over the course of 2.5 hours. Even though we got started later than I’d like (damned kids and their “sleep is for suckers” attitude) and I felt off my improvisational game, feedback has been positive. Time for reflection has lead to the following thoughts.
Rogues and the striker role
Perhaps it’s the fact that I helped to “optimize” my wife’s rogue, but playing to type works very well for a halfling character with the Artful Dodger trait. Unlike other classes or roles, the rogue seems to benefit most from certain trait / feat / power combinations. By design, she sure can dish out the damage, but if she gets hit, she feels it. Chasing down a backpedaling Kobold Wyrmpriest saw her taken into negative HPs three times. If it weren’t for the paladin, she wouldn’t have gotten back into the fight.
Paladins and the defender role
Taking a paladin as the defender was a good idea in light of the fact that the party consisted of three characters. They incorporate some aspects of the cleric and combines them with the defensive muscle of a fighter. In 3.5, this cross-functionality was a weakness, but in 4E it’s a definite strength. Several powers allow the paladin to heal others during combat and Lay on Hands is invaluable to the group (especially in the case of the yo-yo rogue, above). The rogue/paladin combo, especially when it comes to flanking, marking and combat advantage, allowed the former to get off sneak attacks almost every round.
Wizards and the controller role
I can see where the complaints about the 4E wizard come from: at 1st level, there isn’t much controlling going on. Although they do have some early area denial options, they seem more like a striker than a controller. As long as the wizard keeps moving and stays out of melee, their lack of defensive prowess should keep them alive. Not much more to say without more playtime experience.
Encounter design
With a group smaller than the optimal number, the DM has to adjust encounters appropriately. The method I used for the first two combats was to eliminate enemies in order to not exceed the xp budget for the encounter. This worked well, but it detracts from the “more enemies; better encounter” dynamic of 4E. For the next few, I’ll try reducing the levels of the enemies and making substitutions where appropriate.
Ease of play
Greatly improved over 3.5. However, this may be a result of the fan resources available on ENWorld. Conditions that persist until saved against, or until the end of the next turn, make a ton of sense: no more spreadsheets for buff / penalty durations. Consistent levelling rules across all classes and mechanics that move the math further into the background. In sure I’ll find more as the game progresses, but I have no complaints in this department.
My only real gripe is that 4E has entranced me that I’m seriously considering buying every damn supplement Wizards releases. As long as they maintain their quality, 4E may have a hold over my wallet for the foreseeable future.