One-shot post mortem

[Colin Sullivan]

So, running dragon magazine adventures is an odd experience. My
impulse when making adventures is to try and make most of them on the
harder side, after all why fight if they don't count for anything.
Both of the fights we ran on 4/18 we not extraordinarily hard but were
both fun I thought. They encouraged continuing the adventuring day,
rather than tempting you to camp after each fight.

Balance post phb 2 continues to be really very good. The barbarian was
really cool and very effective, but then so was the almost completely
phb1 ranger. I don't think the party would have made it if the warlord
wasn't so good at keeping people healed. The wardens combination of
defending and melee control was awesome. So far if I had to come up
with a complaint about 4e classes, its that leading still isn't always
as glamorous as the other positions.

[Jay.Mc...@gmail.com]

I hope you don't mind, but I tracked down the module you ran and took
a look at it. I think we did pretty well.

I think my inclination is pretty similar to yours regarding encounter
design. I'd like them to be a challenge. The fights were were in
were not fights I would ever prepare. 4 9th level PC's vs 8 4th level
and 2 6th level first time, and 5 4th level and 4+ 6th level the
second. I guess this shows that I have a lot to learn, since as you
said, they were fun, challenging fights. Particularly the second with
it's terrain feature and the crazy zombies. I wonder how we would
have fared with the full zombie treatment. Not well, I imagine.

I really liked seeing the barbarian and warden in action. Two classes
we haven't seen before. The barbarian performed as advertised and
then some, and the warden was all I had hoped it would be.

I was just as impressed with the other two classes that we *have* seen
in action, just hammering home even more that 4e is more than capable
of allowing tons of variation. Dan's warlord is the 3rd or 4th (i
lose track) that we have seen in game, and great at leading and
keeping the party (Jesse) alive. We all did a swell job considering
we had just a few minutes to decide on and make a character. I would
have expected a misstep or two, but the strikers were deadly, the
leader kept us all alive (and in the second fight for sure added a
whole extra tactical benefit besides), and the warden proved itself a
capable defender.

I liked playing Flint a lot more than playing Therryk.

Jay

[Daniel Thayer]

Yup. I had a ton of fun with this session. I would have really liked to see what a controller could have contributed to those fights. I can speculate, I suppose, but it's not the same as seeing it in action. Could it be that these are the kind of encounters 4e has intended?... 'Cuz, those were good times. Everyone was (player wise) on the same page as far as focus and fun were concerned. Chelsea seemed to really enjoy her Barbarian. Seems to me that's happened before. Is there a little Mongol in yer blood-line Chel? =P. The Warlord seemed well suited for its role; very helpful towards the party, with a bevy of options toward that end. The Bard, in comparison, has options as well which seem geared more toward trickery than straightforward help... flavor-wise. This is the part where I realize I am rambling without a point. So, yeah... good game all!


Dan

--
"Not everything that can be counted counts, and not everything that counts can be counted."
-Albert Einstein

[Jay.Mc...@gmail.com]

Few things...

Reach weapons cannot threaten at reach, so you can't flank unless you
are adjacent.

Wardens have some really cool controller like abilities. I think a
reach weapon only improves that.

The description of the Primal power source at the front of the PHB2
specifically mentions a Paladin of Erathis as possibly having . . .
differences of opinion with those with Primal powe. I find that funny
and a bit troubling.

Jay

On Apr 19, 6:41 pm, Daniel Thayer <arlar...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Yup. I had a ton of fun with this session. I would have really liked to see
> what a controller could have contributed to those fights. I can speculate, I
> suppose, but it's not the same as seeing it in action. Could it be that
> these are the kind of encounters 4e has intended?... 'Cuz, those were good
> times. Everyone was (player wise) on the same page as far as focus and fun
> were concerned. Chelsea seemed to really enjoy her Barbarian. Seems to me
> that's happened before. Is there a little Mongol in yer blood-line Chel? =P.
> The Warlord seemed well suited for its role; very helpful towards the party,
> with a bevy of options toward that end. The Bard, in comparison, has options
> as well which seem geared more toward trickery than straightforward help...
> flavor-wise. This is the part where I realize I am rambling without a point.
> So, yeah... good game all!
>
> Dan
>

> On Sun, Apr 19, 2009 at 4:14 PM, Jay.McKin...@gmail.com <

> -Albert Einstein- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[Colin Sullivan]

I knew something seemed off about how we were doing reach.
I can't wrap my head around Barbarians not being martial. I guess it
doesn't effect very much, except some feat pre-reqs. But maybe thats
just my old 3.5-ism creeping in.

On Apr 20, 2:56 pm, "Jay.McKin...@gmail.com" <Jay.McKin...@gmail.com>
wrote: