I Swing the Vorpal Spork of Irony like some Hyperborean Usurper through the Hordes of the Unwashed.

Friday, March 12, 2010

My 4th Ed. Character won't DIE!!

Not that I want him to die mind you. A little more Drama would be cool. I'm starting to see what the Haters are talking about.
Tonight the PC's were randomly transporting around floating elemental moats fighting whatever the DM put on them. First up for me was a solo with an Immolith. I should have saved my dailys', cause up next was an adult Black Dragon. To be fair, had not my party members showed up (see Cleric*) I would have been in big trouble. Then, after a short rest, the Aspect of Lolth. Luckily for us she had a previous engagement and left early. All this is a lot to chew for an 11th level Dwarf Warlord.
Having said that, I've been playing this guy for almost a year now. He has taken on a near legendary status. He's got 11 ex-wives and 17 children to feed. And, he possesses the "Axe of the Dwarvish Lords" Come to think of it, I am very attached to Grognard Deepmug. I'm hoping that I can take him all the way to Level 30.
I guess what I'm saying is that when a campaign is well run, it's like a book. And, no one likes it when their favorite character dies before the book is done.


  1. Just throwing this out there I've had several of my characters die in 4e and I've been involved in two and one half tpks. So it isn't impossible to die. But I agree with you about the campaign/book idea.

  2. I hear what your saying and generally agree. I will say though that 4E can be as brutal as the DM likes. If the party is really balanced and comprised of solid tacticians and the GM is running an straight game (i.e. know fudging for good or bad) ... player survivability is decent. Yet if the DM wants you dead its pretty easy with some of the age old combos they still have available to them in 4th. All in all my experience with 4E has been that the game is streamlined, yet the focus of the average D&D game which is simply hack and slash goodness ... is delivered in a very satisfying fashion. Currently I'm playing in a 3.5 game and a 4E game. I far and away enjoy the 4E game and I've seen many of the flaws of 3.5. I was in the 4E Haters camp last year and have now moved squarely into the 4E fan club. The big thing I've seen is how weak the 3.5 chrs are at low level and how unnecessarily complex (and broken) the 3.5 characters can be once people start multiclassing.

    That said I prefer Savage Worlds (Deadlands, Weird Wars, Necessary Evil and Solomon Kane settings in particular) and Spirit of the Century (Fate) to D&D anymore I have tremendous nostalgia and fondness for the game I've been playing on and off since 1985 ... but I have come to prefer those systems for more role playing opportunity and a much sleeker easy to enter rule set. I have just found that with systems like 3.5, Pathfinder, GURPS, RIFTS, Shadowrun, etc. the rules just get in the way anymore ... I'm not a fan of the "simulator" systems ... they were cool in 1995 but I guess I've either outgrown them or just boiled down what I want out of RPGs to interactive story lines without crazy detail. Don't get me wrong though nothing satisfies the high fantasy hack and slash itch like D&D does ... so I continue to play.

  3. Damn I am envious of you..

  4. Forgive my late response on this...

    I have a dilemma about this for my upcoming first attempt at DMing. On one hand, I want to make the game challenging, with a real sense of penalty for failure, thus making the game seem exciting. On the other, I have a vested interest in keeping my newbie players' characters alive, so they won't decide to hate the game and quit. The trick is going to be finding the balance.


Let me know what you think. Please watch the language.