Has anyone house-ruled a method for speeding up combat, but keeping the players on their toes? I want the battle to last long enough for the PCs to feel some hurt, but not so long that the battle gets tiresome...
The higher in level we get, the longer the battles seem to take. Not because of too many character options, things to track or whatnot, but simple mathematics. The monsters have tons of HP...
Granted, we don't yet know if it will do what we think it's going to do, but we're going to try it out. We can always change it again later.
I'm not sure if halving monster HPs is the best solution, but a reduction seems in order. My group has been experimenting with 4E in four oneshot adventures (at levels 2,4,6 and 8) and we've found that what players can do is nicely balanced when compared to each other, but that monsters hit as easy, for big damage, and that monsters have way more hitpoints than the PCs. So that seems like a problem.
PC's have superior in-combat HP recovery skills when compared with most monsters. The higher HP totals on the monsters helps to make up for that.
t~
We're not even particularly fast, although we do all have fairly good gaming experience (although our Rogue seems to be stuck in earlier editions... we're trying to break her of that). Generally, though, everyone has a decent idea of what they want to do when their turn rolls around.
What's the party composition like? How many players? Are they taking more than about 30 seconds to determine a course of action each time they act? Are they hoarding their higher-damage daily powers 'just in case'? Do they use action points in combat, or do they hold onto those for emergencies?
What levels are they, and what magic items do they have? Especially at higher levels, 4e tends to assume that players will have level-appropriate magical gear... if they're behind the power curve on that, that can contribute to the feeling of slow combats.
We generally manage to get through two to three encounters in a 4-hour session. Our DM doesn't make extensive use of minions, although they're generally present (and we're only level 2 at this point). That's with standard HP for monsters.
We're not even particularly fast, although we do all have fairly good gaming experience (although our Rogue seems to be stuck in earlier editions... we're trying to break her of that). Generally, though, everyone has a decent idea of what they want to do when their turn rolls around.
What's the party composition like? How many players? Are they taking more than about 30 seconds to determine a course of action each time they act? Are they hoarding their higher-damage daily powers 'just in case'? Do they use action points in combat, or do they hold onto those for emergencies?
What levels are they, and what magic items do they have? Especially at higher levels, 4e tends to assume that players will have level-appropriate magical gear... if they're behind the power curve on that, that can contribute to the feeling of slow combats.
Well, these are all good questions. I'll try and answer them.
Firstly, we play around 6 hour sessions, but they are heavy in roleplaying. Instead of saying how many encounters we get through in a session, I'll say on average how long ONE of our encounters takes.
On average, our encounters last 1 1/2 to 2 hours - a SIGNIFICANT portion of our time. I find that combat bogs down our games and tends to slow everything to a crawl as soon as the first couple rounds of initiative are over. This slows the whole game down, making everyone lose their "drive" during the session.
Right now, we just finished up 4th level with 5 PCs:
Eladrin "Spear" Fighter
Human "Trickster" Rogue
Halfling "Archer" Ranger
Half-Elf "Leader" Cleric
Tiefling "Blaster" Wizard
When we were lower levels (1st and 2nd) the battles seemed not to last as long and they seemed more upbeat. Nowadays, they seem to get bogged down after 5 rounds or so. I won't say we're all experts at taking only 30 seconds to determine what we do, but I do know I have gotten into a habit of letting whoever is "on-deck" know they need to be deciding what to do in order to speed things up slightly. It hasn't seemed to help. Like I said, it's not that people are slow calculating, tracking, or anything. It's simply that the monsters are punching bags FULL of HPs... Meanwhile, the average PC attack is doing 1dX + X damage - and it doesn't amount to much. SURE, when they blast off their ONE daily it makes waves, but then it's back to the grind of 1dX + X.
I'd say the party is pretty active in using action points and their dailies right off the bat. They're not shy about it and don't really hoard their powers.
Magic Items might be the issue. I just handed out quite a few as we ended the first Act of our story, but I wouldn't say they were starved for items or anything. And I don't see even a +2 to attack and damage helping THAT much.
Thanks for the responses so far. Any more suggestions/ideas would be fantastic.
I love just how in touch the OP is with these forums, that he knew that he had to specify "non-minion HPs"
I'm sorry - is this a jab? I don't get it. Care to clarify? Thanks.
Well, these are all good questions. I'll try and answer them.
Firstly, we play around 6 hour sessions, but they are heavy in roleplaying. Instead of saying how many encounters we get through in a session, I'll say on average how long ONE of our encounters takes.
On average, our encounters last 1 1/2 to 2 hours - a SIGNIFICANT portion of our time. I find that combat bogs down our games and tends to slow everything to a crawl as soon as the first couple rounds of initiative are over. This slows the whole game down, making everyone lose their "drive" during the session.
Well, like I said, we're only at 2nd level just now. It's possible we'll start to slow down, too, but even tough encounters (which our DM loves to throw at us) generally don't take us more than an hour to get through. We've generally been facing +1 and +2 encounter levels so far... how tough (in terms of XP budget) have the fights been for your party recently?
We usually manage to get a good bit of roleplaying in as well, although we generally don't sit around for an hour at a time discussing things in character. (My Human Wizard keeps trying to make the overly-serious Dragonborn Fighter crack up with dirty jokes in Draconic. So far, no luck.) :D
Right now, we just finished up 4th level with 5 PCs:
Eladrin "Spear" Fighter
Human "Trickster" Rogue
Halfling "Archer" Ranger
Half-Elf "Leader" Cleric
Tiefling "Blaster" Wizard
When we were lower levels (1st and 2nd) the battles seemed not to last as long and they seemed more upbeat. Nowadays, they seem to get bogged down after 5 rounds or so. I won't say we're all experts at taking only 30 seconds to determine what we do, but I do know I have gotten into a habit of letting whoever is "on-deck" know they need to be deciding what to do in order to speed things up slightly. It hasn't seemed to help. Like I said, it's not that people are slow calculating, tracking, or anything. It's simply that the monsters are punching bags FULL of HPs... Meanwhile, the average PC attack is doing 1dX + X damage - and it doesn't amount to much. SURE, when they blast off their ONE daily it makes waves, but then it's back to the grind of 1dX + X.
Okay, so they're in the 'neither fish nor fowl' category; i.e., they've got a couple of encounter powers, a utility, and their beginning daily. Our party is one larger, with a Warlord in the extra slot, but otherwise fairly similar. Their next level gets them a second daily, which should help out a bit... gives more alpha-strike capability.
Overall, the party composition looks good. (Of course, depending upon stats, they might not be particularly effective in their chosen role... but you plays your cards and you takes your chances.)
I'd say the party is pretty active in using action points and their dailies right off the bat. They're not shy about it and don't really hoard their powers.
Good to see, although they don't have much in the way of things to 'hoard' just at the moment. (S'okay, neither do we.)
Magic Items might be the issue. I just handed out quite a few as we ended the first Act of our story, but I wouldn't say they were starved for items or anything. And I don't see even a +2 to attack and damage helping THAT much.
Thanks for the responses so far. Any more suggestions/ideas would be fantastic.
Well, +2 items wouldn't generally be appropriate at this stage of their career (well, maybe one in the party), but everyone should have a couple of +1 items appropriate to their character and a potion or two. Does everyone have an item with a Daily power they can use? Or at least with properties beyond an enhancement bonus? Those can often turn out to be force multipliers when used correctly. If most of their items are just vanilla +1 weapons, though, they're not as much help.
I'm just wondering if it boils down to tactics... but that's pretty hard to judge from forum posts. Do the strikers focus-fire, trying to bring down one bad guy at a time? Is the Wizard trying to get maximum effectiveness from his AoEs? (Does he even have any AoEs?) Can the Fighter effectively 'hold the line'... and is the Cleric a front-line combatant? Does the Rogue mostly hold back, firing a hand xbow or throwing shuriken, or does he try to get in close and stick a dagger somewhere sensitive? Do the players try to use terrain features to their advantage, such as bottlenecks in dungeon corridors?
There's a million other questions that could be asked, but I think I'll leave you with those for the moment.
I'm sorry - is this a jab? I don't get it. Care to clarify? Thanks.
Not at you, but at the general literalist snarkiness of these forums, to which I occasionally contribute. In any rational gaming society, (if such a thing exists) there would be no need to clarify that proposing cutting monster hit points in half excluded 1 hp minions.
Not at you, but at the general literalist snarkiness of these forums, to which I occasionally contribute. In any rational gaming society, (if such a thing exists) there would be no need to clarify that proposing cutting monster hit points in half excluded 1 hp minions.
Heh, sometimes it's just someone trying to be funny and failing.
Besides, if you cut 1 hp in half, then round normally, they still wind up with one hp.
> a problem.
Are you possibly making one of the more common mistakes? PCs add their Con *score* to their base hit point value, not their Con *modifier*. A lot of people skim over that and add the modifier because that's how it was done in 3E.
> and that monsters have way more hitpoints than the PCs. So that seems like
> a problem.
Are you possibly making one of the more common mistakes? PCs add their Con *score* to their base hit point value, not their Con *modifier*. A lot of people skim over that and add the modifier because that's how it was done in 3E.
Gah, good catch ND. I didn't even think of that.
> and that monsters have way more hitpoints than the PCs. So that seems like
> a problem.
Are you possibly making one of the more common mistakes? PCs add their Con *score* to their base hit point value, not their Con *modifier*. A lot of people skim over that and add the modifier because that's how it was done in 3E.
I don't know who this is directed at, but we do not play using the 3rd Edition method. We are following the rules.
I don't know who this is directed at, but we do not play using the 3rd Edition method. We are following the rules.
I think it was directed at Oorlof.
PC's have superior in-combat HP recovery skills when compared with most monsters. The higher HP totals on the monsters helps to make up for that.
t~
While this is absolutely true, I think it is also part of the problem. Because PC's can heal quicker, monsters have more hit points. Because monsters have more hit points, combat is slowing down as it scales up in level.
I've been running a Dungeon Adventure level 12 for several sessions now and we are getting in 1-2 encounters in (only). The combats just go on and on and on.
I've voiced concerns over the scaling of this game and I still have my doubts.
I haven't made any adjustments to HP's...but it is an idea to consider.
Heh, sometimes it's just someone trying to be funny and failing.
Besides, if you cut 1 hp in half, then round normally, they still wind up with one hp.
In 4e you always round down not up, even when the number is 1.
), as a Medium creature can use a Greatbow, which does d12 base damage. This type of damage output speeds things up immensely. Your Rogue isn't a Brutal Rogue (who are also more damaging than Tricksters), but that's not SO bad, except for the fact that he can't flank with your Fighter for CA! The guy's an ELADRIN FIGHTER. I also pray he's multiclassing...? Please? *Cringe* This means he's probably not the most heavy-weight guy out there. Even your Cleric seems more like a Laser Cleric, as there isn't a single person on your Team who has a natural +2 Racial Bonus to Strength! The Human COULD, but I suspect it went into Charisma. Lastly, your Tiefling Wizard (who I'm going to assume is like me and is just using Fire Spells with Hellfire Blood) seems like he could put out the best damage on your Team! It definitely feels as if your Parry's damage output is the reason your battles take so long. Your Party's best bet is probably to use Tactics, Ambushes, or anything else they can to gain advantages over their enemies outside of basic Combat Powers.My Party in one of my games, for instance, consists of only four players: a Dwarven Fighter with an Executioner's Axe, a Sword-and-Board Human Fighter, a Tiefling Star Pact Warlock, and myself, a Dragonborn Bardlord with a Fullblade. Our DM is very hard, running us against Encounters much higher than our levels (Kobold Camps, Dire Wolves, etc.), but we have enough Powerhouses that we can usually end these battles in at least an hour, if not faster. I would suggest that, if your Party isn't the Powerhouse type, they revert to being Sneaky. A lot.
Normally I don't mind, but we don't have a huge amount of time to play (five hours every two weeks), and when I start to see every player's eyes glaze as "I use my at-will . . ." for the fourth time in a row, suddenly the mobs are bloodied and they go down faster.
I find the best battles include a whack of minions, and one or two standard monsters. I've had a few battles that lack minions and they just drag on and on and on. Minions are exciting, can still threaten the party, and more importantly, they go down in groups with an at-will or Dragonbreath. When the Wizard changes to a Swordmage . . . I guess I'll just include less minions, because then it'll just be the same length, but with more mini moving.
While I love the PCs out-of-combat restoration, so that they feel like they can die in combat but they can fight several battles, monsters all feel like tanks. Even the weaker artillery mobs have enough ways to avoid attacks or just keep surviving. While I love the tactics of it, it eventually bores the hell out of everybody.
So for now I've been fudging health values lower once the battle is basically decided, but I've been considering an NPC wide drop (with a few exceptions, of course) of 33% or so.
With encounter difficulty variance is used, it should make a lot of encounter time actually in the air opposed to players knowing they're going to win.
My group 'as yet to encounter large numbers of HP-heavy sods, having only reached Lvl 2 last session, but the Lvl 3-4 monsters I had 'em encounter dropped rather easy once the PCs got their act together.
The only time an encounter dragged on was when the last Lvl 1 Soldier creature was standing in a corner, denying the PCs the advantages of flanking it.
Another solution 'd be not to use healing surges for monsters and reduce other healing abilities. These are the things that may frustrate players more.
If your group is rp-heavy, well so is mine (that and lots of OOC talk, running off when it's their turn...), I 'd suggest using and allowing out of combat mechanics to deal with it.
The last fight ended with the main enemy, a lvl 4 controller (with 2 soldier creatures, 2 skirmishers and 3 minions in tow) being singled out by the PCs, and then being bullied (intimitated) into surrendering. I had the rest of the combatants roll saving throws to see whether they 'd continue and it ended with the soldiers (being mechanic creatures) shutting down (receiving orders contrary to their programming) and the 2 human skirmishers fleeing to get reinforcements. So the whole encounter ended in a roleplay encounter (skill challenge) and a chase.
I believe the designers have stated that as a standard house rule: halving monster HP for quicker combats.
Could you please point us to the source of this statement? (Not that I 'm against it), I guess it 'd help knowing who said that, as well as knowing the where and when...
Cheers!
Captn M.
my group is rather large as well, six PC's and i try to get them enough XP to level every two gaming sessions. Most of the encounters have been lvl +2/+3/+4 with fewer creatures. So these mobs have even more HP's and still they do fine against them.
Normally we play for four/five hours every two weeks with 3-5 encounters and at least an hour/hour and 1/2 of role playing.
Try to mix up the monster types. The most common ones I use are Skirmishers so far, good damage, mobility, but can only take a few strong hits in comparison. Also keeps the battle more mobile.
@the OP: I must say, your Party looks to be about the lowest damage-output Party I could imagine...your best Striker (the Ranger) decided to be small?? That practically halves the usefulness of Twin Strike (which I'm praying the Halfling took
My Party in one of my games, for instance, consists of only four players: a Dwarven Fighter with an Executioner's Axe, a Sword-and-Board Human Fighter, a Tiefling Star Pact Warlock, and myself, a Dragonborn Bardlord with a Fullblade. Our DM is very hard, running us against Encounters much higher than our levels (Kobold Camps, Dire Wolves, etc.), but we have enough Powerhouses that we can usually end these battles in at least an hour, if not faster. I would suggest that, if your Party isn't the Powerhouse type, they revert to being Sneaky. A lot.
So my players have to be a bunch of min-maxers in order to "compete" with monsters and not bore ourselves to death during combat? ... Blah.
I've fudged monster health in the past two battles my party has had. Composed of a Dwarf Fighter, Eladrin Warlock, Dragonborn Warlord, Elf Rogue, and Eladrin Wizard (soon to be an Genasi Swordmage . . . what a tactical nightmare, 4 melee-based PCs), my party takes AGES to fight enemies. We've got our power cards, they flank & abuse sneak attack and whatnot like crazy, and I make my monster attacks quickly, but battles really drag once the first few enemies go down and it's obvious the PCs won't lose.
Normally I don't mind, but we don't have a huge amount of time to play (five hours every two weeks), and when I start to see every player's eyes glaze as "I use my at-will . . ." for the fourth time in a row, suddenly the mobs are bloodied and they go down faster.
I find the best battles include a whack of minions, and one or two standard monsters. I've had a few battles that lack minions and they just drag on and on and on. Minions are exciting, can still threaten the party, and more importantly, they go down in groups with an at-will or Dragonbreath. When the Wizard changes to a Swordmage . . . I guess I'll just include less minions, because then it'll just be the same length, but with more mini moving.
While I love the PCs out-of-combat restoration, so that they feel like they can die in combat but they can fight several battles, monsters all feel like tanks. Even the weaker artillery mobs have enough ways to avoid attacks or just keep surviving. While I love the tactics of it, it eventually bores the hell out of everybody.
So for now I've been fudging health values lower once the battle is basically decided, but I've been considering an NPC wide drop (with a few exceptions, of course) of 33% or so.
This is damn near exactly how I feel DMing lately.
I believe the designers have stated that as a standard house rule: halving monster HP for quicker combats.
I heard this as well. A very popular houserule in WotC proper. I'm considering it myself as I'm sick of "all the minions/lesser enemies are dead and now the fight is dragging as they try to wear down the last creature oh god why can't this end?"
I haven't seen any reason to cut the monsters HP in half. I don't think I'm gifted with tactical geniuses, but they seem to buzz saw every encounter we've had and they are just now getting to 4th level.
my group is rather large as well, six PC's and i try to get them enough XP to level every two gaming sessions. Most of the encounters have been lvl +2/+3/+4 with fewer creatures. So these mobs have even more HP's and still they do fine against them.
Normally we play for four/five hours every two weeks with 3-5 encounters and at least an hour/hour and 1/2 of role playing.
Doesn't seem like the norm... Can you post some example encounters you've ran for us to examine and make sense of?
Thanks!
I heard this as well. A very popular houserule in WotC proper. I'm considering it myself as I'm sick of "all the minions/lesser enemies are dead and now the fight is dragging as they try to wear down the last creature oh god why can't this end?"
Agreed. While I've only had a few problem cases with it (still in low levels, and I like using minions quite a bit), I avoid Elites and Solos entirely because of the "Bog Down" nature of their hit points.
If people have tried it with half the hit points, I'd love to hear how it's going for you, so that I, and others, can make a more informed decision about it.
one thing that is notable, and you (I) don't really think about. Is encounter difficulty from DMG 104. Those fights where the players know they are going to win should only happen 3 times per level, where slightly harder encounters should happen another 3 times, and one battle that really taxes the group should happen once. then one encounter that is just a cakewalk (make them feel strong, its fun too).
The problem is that we aren't necessarily talking about "difficult" encounters, just long ones. You can have an easy long encounter or a hard short encounter, or any combination thereof. But even in a hard encounter that's supposed to be long, once there's only two non-minions left alive, it takes forever to bring them down. Or at least, it feels like forever. The excitement of danger has gone, most of the encounters have been used up (on both sides of the table), and what's left is an At-Will brawl, which isn't fun for anybody.
And don't even get me started on cakewalk battles. IMO, they're just a total waste of time. My PCs feel powerful when they smite a minion in half or turn him to a crisp, not when it takes them four rounds to kill a goblin . . . and there's been two other goblins firing at them, occasionally hitting.
The most exciting encounter my party has had was against nine minions and three standard monsters, as well as a trap that could be used against the monsters. Without the trap the battle would have been a bit of a brawl and would've ended badly ("I use my at-will"), but because the PCs were able to use it effectively, the battle ended much sooner than it otherwise would have. That said, it was also used against them, heightening the sense of danger.
With encounter difficulty variance is used, it should make a lot of encounter time actually in the air opposed to players knowing they're going to win.
Again, a short battle doesn't necessarily mean that it's easy. The next battle my PCs face is against a solo monster with fairly high damage output, but he's got fairly low health. The battle is intended to be short, but at the same the PCs are in serious danger if they don't keep this guy in check.
I don't want encounter time in the air and high; I want it much lower.
The problem is that we aren't necessarily talking about "difficult" encounters, just long ones. You can have an easy long encounter or a hard short encounter, or any combination thereof. But even in a hard encounter that's supposed to be long, once there's only two non-minions left alive, it takes forever to bring them down. Or at least, it feels like forever. The excitement of danger has gone, most of the encounters have been used up (on both sides of the table), and what's left is an At-Will brawl, which isn't fun for anybody.
The most exciting encounter my party has had was against nine minions and three standard monsters, as well as a trap that could be used against the monsters. Without the trap the battle would have been a bit of a brawl and would've ended badly ("I use my at-will"), but because the PCs were able to use it effectively, the battle ended much sooner than it otherwise would have. That said, it was also used against them, heightening the sense of danger.
Again, a short battle doesn't necessarily mean that it's easy. The next battle my PCs face is against a solo monster with fairly high damage output, but he's got fairly low health. The battle is intended to be short, but at the same the PCs are in serious danger if they don't keep this guy in check.
I don't want encounter time in the air and high; I want it much lower.
I agree with everything Athzar has said. Long encounters DO NOT equate to "challenging" encounters.
I feel like the monsters in 4E have too LITTLE damage output, and too MUCH HP...
Shorter and deadlier. That's how encounters should be. If we want to increase the length of the encounter we should be able to add MORE MONSTERS, not A monster with lots of HP...
> and that monsters have way more hitpoints than the PCs. So that seems like
> a problem.
Are you possibly making one of the more common mistakes? PCs add their Con *score* to their base hit point value, not their Con *modifier*. A lot of people skim over that and add the modifier because that's how it was done in 3E.
Sorry for the late reply, I was at work and couln't visit the boards for a couple of hours. Anyway, we do add Con instead of Con modifier to hitpoints.
Maybe an example will help: when at 6th level, my fighter had the highest HP-total in the party: Con 16, toughness feat, for 66 HP (IIRC). We were fighting what the MM considered (and suggests as) an appropriate encounter: three harpies, three spined devils, each clocking in at 70 HP. Most party members hovered somewhere around 50 HP. Did we mess up somewhere? We are a bit light on the ranged attacks (rogue, fighter, warlock, cleric; used to have a wizard but that player can't attend anymore) but even when they landed so we could go toe-to-toe, those monsters absolutely murdered us...
Strikers and controllers are the key party members for getting through battles quickly. Your defenders should probably be doing around 8-10 damage per round (actually, per hit) with their at-wills, while the strikers should be doing more like 15 thanks to their extra damage dice and damage-focused powers (your wizard's damage depends on how many enemies he can get into a single attack). If your group's strikers have chosen lower damage powers to maintain roleplay characteristics better (and I don't know whether they have from reading this), it should take you more time to get through combats; it's a tradeoff.
That said, it's DM prerogative to change anything you want to improve the experience for your group. Half HP sounds pretty drastic to me, but the 33% might be about right to maintain the bite of the monsters while speeding up resolution of the combat. After trying them out, myself, I suggest looking at the monster creation rules in the DMG to see the reasoning behind the values monsters have for their characteristics. At least with HPs, it seems the given monsters follow the rules, exactly.
So my players have to be a bunch of min-maxers in order to "compete" with monsters and not bore ourselves to death during combat? ... Blah.
No. But they should understand that by choosing sub-optimal combat characters, they've made it so that their combat encounters are likely to take longer. There's nothing wrong with this... but it does mean they'll have to take the bad with the good.
A Halfling has weapon restrictions that keep his damage lower than other Rangers. Since a Ranger (or any Striker's) job is damage output (in combat, that is), that means your combats will take longer.
The Eladrin spear-fighter is, again, fine for roleplay purposes... but its less than optimal in terms of combat efficiency. It makes it harder for the Rogue to set up Combat Advantage, which he absolutely needs if he's going to put out the damage he's supposed to in a combat situation.
The Wizard and Cleric are probably fine, but that (again) depends upon their choices.
As other people have said... it's your prerogative as DM to change anything that you want to in your own game.
So my players have to be a bunch of min-maxers in order to "compete" with monsters and not bore ourselves to death during combat? ... Blah.
I really didn't mean any offense, and Stereotyping me is kind of a silly thing to do. The following Post means no offense either, it is simply my view on your problems.
Opinion Starts Here
Friend, my Party is far from Optimized. It's just that three out of four of us have high damage output, and the last one is a Tank. We use good tactics to take advantage of our high damage output, while your Party should take advantage of their versatility (if it's even possible. See Below) to win Battles. If I wanted to OP my party, I'd have a Glaive, the Dwarf would be using a one-handed hammer and a shield, and the Fighter would be using a Bastard Sword. EVERYONE's stats would be much more optimized, as well. But we're actually roleplaying in our game, not just trying to break the game in half or anything.
However, what I was attempting to show you was that your Party's damage is nill, especially in comparison to the HP of most monsters. Your Rogue can't gain CA, your Fighter can't hit enemies hard enough for them to fear him, and your "Ranger," who should be dealing the highest damage of the entire party, is instead dealing the lowest amount of damage possible for a Ranger to deal! Meanwhile, your Casters are forced to pick up the slack and deal some decent damage, except that your cleric is too busy healing the Fighter and the Rogue (who are getting their butts kicked), so in essence, your poor Tiefling Wizard is forced to sacrifice Controller Powers so that HE can pick up the slack of the ENTIRE PARTY. You see, you don't have to optimize every character, but someone who's actually GOOD at the job their class is supposed to be doing is usually a good idea. Right now, the Cleric sounds like the only guy who's doing what his class is SUPPOSED to be doing. And no, you don't have to be optimized at all, but efficiency is usually something an Adventuring Party strives for. Your Fighter sounds like he should be a Taclord, your Rogue sounds like he should be a Warlock, and your Ranger sounds like he should be a Rogue. In an efficient party, your Cleric would then be a STR-based Cleric, and your Tiefling Wizard would Multiclass into Cleric and take some more Healing Powers, thus giving you lots of Healing Powers, some decent damage, Battlefield Control, AND good Ranged Combat abilities. You could take advantage of these things easily, and your Party probably wouldn't have as many problems.
However, what I was attempting to show you was that your Party's damage is nill, especially in comparison to the HP of most monsters. Your Rogue can't gain CA, your Fighter can't hit enemies hard enough for them to fear him, and your "Ranger," who should be dealing the highest damage of the entire party, is instead dealing the lowest amount of damage possible for a Ranger to deal! Meanwhile, your Casters are forced to pick up the slack and deal some decent damage, except that your cleric is too busy healing the Fighter and the Rogue (who are getting their butts kicked), so in essence, your poor Tiefling Wizard is forced to sacrifice Controller Powers so that HE can pick up the slack of the ENTIRE PARTY. You see, you don't have to optimize every character, but someone who's actually GOOD at the job their class is supposed to be doing is usually a good idea. Right now, the Cleric sounds like the only guy who's doing what his class is SUPPOSED to be doing. And no, you don't have to be optimized at all, but efficiency is usually something an Adventuring Party strives for. Your Fighter sounds like he should be a Taclord, your Rogue sounds like he should be a Warlock, and your Ranger sounds like he should be a Rogue. In an efficient party, your Cleric would then be a STR-based Cleric, and your Tiefling Wizard would Multiclass into Cleric and take some more Healing Powers, thus giving you lots of Healing Powers, some decent damage, Battlefield Control, AND good Ranged Combat abilities. You could take advantage of these things easily, and your Party probably wouldn't have as many problems.
> and that monsters have way more hitpoints than the PCs. So that seems like
> a problem.
Are you possibly making one of the more common mistakes? PCs add their Con *score* to their base hit point value, not their Con *modifier*. A lot of people skim over that and add the modifier because that's how it was done in 3E.
That made me lol. In our first game, the PCs did that. I (DM) was wondering why they were having such a tough time beating what should have been easy encounters. The first 3 or 4 encounters had at least 1 PC going into negatives, and had up to 3 at one time.
First up, i would like to make two points:
One: It is possible to 'min-max' (i hate that term) and still roleplay. Roleplaying does not immediately discount decent character design. And example would be my Kobold Rogue Kreet, who i really enjoyed roleplaying and made a brilliant backstory for him. He was also insanely mobile (with an action point he could move up to 14 squares in 1 turn if he was lucky, and 8 of those squares were shifts.) at level 4 and thanks to said mobility he could almost always have combat advantage and thus an inane damage output.
Two: Why is it surprising that in order to win in combat you need to have characters who are good at fighting? When i see people complaining about 'min-maxing' it puts me in the mind of somone putting an old man or a little girl into a boxing ring, and then complaining that they lost. Of course they lost, they're weaker than the boxer!
With that out of the way, i shall now do my best to analyse why you have a problem.
First up, an even level combat encounter should never take more than 3 - 4 rounds on average. I've run test encounters up to level 28, and they all averaged at 3 and a bit rounds to end. If your encounters are taking longer than 4 rounds on average, then you have a problem somewhere.
As we've already ascertained, your partys potential damage output is not as high as it could be, this in itself is not a problem, as it can be compensated for with good design and combat choices, which i'll now go onto.
Encounter design is a biggie. You as the DM are running a story for your players, as such you should be designing the encounters to be interesting. Sure i can just throw up a forest trail and have some random encounter pop up and attack, but that's probably going to get pretty boring pretty quickly. Instead you should put some thought into encounters, one game i'm running has two rangers (both with bow spec), a warlock, a laser priest and a fighter with some decent ranged abilities, so basically we have a mostly ranged party. As such, i've done alot of design (and redesign when i use WotC materials) to emphasize this. Many encounters involve some kind of high ground which gives a bonus to hit or damage, often i'll leave artillery creatures out as the high ranged power makes them very easy to kill, instead i try and put the players in positions where they have to avoid getting cornered, or need to block up a choke point. Interactive terrain such as ice, damaged cobbles, carnivorous flora ect all work together to make an encounter more interesting.
In general i apply a simple rule to all my encounters: What's the interesting thing that happens here? I try to have at least two interesting things in every encounter, an interesting thing can be anything from a lurker monster to a hidden trap to a magical glyph that gives a +1 to AC to some high ground that gives a +1 to hit on lower enemies to reinforcements and so on and so forth. Anything in the environment or the monsters which doesn't act as you might expect and does something different.
The DM's friend is a good thing to remember, add +1 (+2 in Paragon and +3 in Epic) to a given stat for whatever, it's enough to give the PC's a bit of an advantage (or the monsters if they're smart) without breaking the game.
The next important part about encounters is of course, monsters. The following sentance is in itself probably enough to turn your entire game around, especially if you have players who like heavy RP.
ROLEPLAY YOUR MONSTERS!
I cannot be any clearer than this, remember that your monsters are living beings too, roleplay them! Sure i can just take five Hobgoblins and throw them willy-nilly at my players, but that's no fun at all. It's much more entertaining when the monsters roleplay, maybe they shout tactics to each other, two attempt to push a character away from the rest so they can gang up on him, maybe another one calls out commands from the rear, and then when they're blooded they fall back and stage an ambush around the corner.
Think about it, how are these trained Hobgoblins going to react to two of their number getting killed while the players seem only marginally wounded? How would these untrained Goblins act differently? How about these religious fanatics or these wild animals? They're all going to do different things in different situations, work out what those things are in those situations, and then when those situations crop up, make them do those things!
The monsters should be as mobile as your players, if not more mobile, and they should act as living breathing creatures as well. Kobolds skitter between legs while shouting out orders in draconic and flee in terror at the first sign of serious resistance. Goblins dodge weapons and slide into new positions, giggling to themselves as they avoid even the strongest blow, but fleeing if things look like they're going badly. Hobgoblins line up and form an unbreakable phalanx while pushing slowly forward. An Ogre might go mad at the sight of blood and rampage through the Hobgoblin line, knocking Hobgoblins flying everywhere in it's charge to get at the PC's.
Make your monsters interesting, if they're just silent mindless things to get killed, then theres no fun at all in killing them. It's fun to fight with an opponant, somone who trades verbal insults, who searches for weaknesses and who reacts to your actions, it's not fun to fight a wooden dummy that just sits there. If your monsters are silently standing around attacking things, then they're no better than wooden dummies.
Finally, 4th edition puts alot more in the hands of the DM than 3.5 did. In 3.5 there were rules for everything, hell there were even rules for how to engage in sex (although that was a third party book). 4th takes a much simpler approach, 4th lets the DM do it.
An example would be one of my characters wanted to swing on a chandelier and kick a monster off a balcony in the process. I did a quick scan in the skills tab and found that this would be an acrobatics check to swing on the chandelier, but oh noes! There was no rules for kicking people in the face!
So i made one up on the spot, i said it'd be a strength attack vs reflex, and that he'd get a +2 bonus to hit because he was swinging through the air quite quickly. The attack would do a mere 1d6 damage, but would push the monster 1 square, if it failed it's saving throw it would get knocked off.
Sure enough, the attack hit, the monster failed it's saving throw and it fell off the balcony, taking 3d10 falling damage. That single attack (which i decided would be a move and a standard to perform) did more damage and was far more interesting than most at-wills would have been in the same situation.
Basically, don't be afraid to make on-the-spot judgements and to think outside the box. You may also need to point this out to your players, i have noticed that alot of players tend to bore themselves more than you do. The first few encounters were somewhat boring, although i had designed some great environments with all sorts of possibilities, the players were too used to being punished by DM's for thinking outside the box that the never did anymore, so i had to point out to them that maybe they could say push off this wall with an acrobatics check to give them a +1 to damage on their target and a push effect to boot (PoP2's wall attack as a reference).
Basically, it all boils down to some pretty simple steps.
Make your encounters interesting.
Make your monsters interesting.
Make your players interesting.
Ovbiously encounters and monsters are entirely up to you as a DM, but if your players are constantly just repeating "I use X on Y" with glazed expressions on their faces, try pointing out that there are other options. Somone here had a story about how they intimidated a Goblin into surrendering, i find this very sad, not because they didn't kill the Goblin but because they thought this sort of action was so rare that it warrents a story all by itself.
Non-combat solutions should always be viable, encourage your players to think outside the box and reward them when they do. Encourage your players to think tactically and reward them when they do, make the monsters interesting and different, make them really seem like enemies, maybe instead of killing this tribe of Goblins the PC's could try and befriend them instead, then they could get the assistance of a few Goblins in their later adventures. Make your environments interesting, they're in a 3D world, not a flat empty plane, and the ground should and does have an impact on what happens in that world. Make taking the high ground a real advantage, or fighting uphill a real disadvantage. Above all, make your players THINK.
And in the end, if it's still not working, if your players are resolutely ignoring your environment, or if you just can't think of interesting encounters, or maybe you just can't bring yourself to let them try and talk their way out of this threat, you might just be playing the wrong game.
DnD is all about creating your own fun, it's more like a toy than a game, it gives you some guidelines and basic rules, and from then on it's up to you to make it interesting. If your players aren't equipped for combat then ovbiously they're going to need to find a different way to achieve their objectives. I just started running a fun little short campaign involving a party of Doppelgangers, a murder mystery and a big castle. It's actually great fun and combat so far has basically amounted to a couple of failed assassination attempts and a tussle with the castle guards. The players have spent most of their time coming up with clever ways to get into various areas without killing anyone.
I know i have repeated myself several times, but i'm trying to hammer some points home. I have seen dozens of games fail because the DM didn't think outside the box and just mechanically moved things around. The DM is a person for a reason, a machine can run a DnD game just fine, it can follow the rules, but a person can elaborate upon those rules, and that's why the DM exists, to elaborate, to change, to be alive. And i've also seen dozens of games fail because the players didn't think outside the box and just mechanically walked forward slashing at enemies. Again, a machine can do this, you are a person, a human being, be creative!
If all else fails, remember that 4E is much more 'heroic action' based than 3.5. Go watch some action movies, play some action games like Prince of Persia, see all those rediculous stunts, those incredible environments that provide all sorts of interesting opportunities to do fun things like swing from ropes and run along walls? That is what 4E is trying to be. Help it along, take some ideas from the movies, let a player grab onto this thin column and spin around with his sword out, attacking all the enemies around it. Make a monster grab onto this rope and swing across the room, attacking everyone in a line. Make a monster that stands on the high ground and taunts the PC's, laughing at their pathetic attempts, and maybe let the PC's take him out with a single arrow, just like in the movies.
Let the heroes BE heroes! Let them do heroic things, encourage the players to do incredible feats of daring and strength, hell, i have a library of downloaded youtube videos that show 10 - 20 second clips of various movies with fun fights and moves, and i often break those out on my laptop for the extra pzaz, and the players do the same.
Be differerent, fun is found in inginuity and originality. Be clever, be original, but above all, be human. DnD has people in it for a reason, and that reason is not so they can mechanically follow the rules to the letter and be people shaped machines.
That is all.
I have actually noticed the reverse on occassion. Someone will throw down a cool power or daily with some nifty effect beyond damage - and be disapointed when the target just dies. I've done that a few times with Hammer & Anvil (What, /my/ damage killed it? bummer.)
-E-
encounter, power, encounter power, maybe daily, at will until dead. Slight exaggeration but not by much as classes with minor actions were using them as well. It seems you have to optimise your whole party as well which doesn't seem newbie friendly as alot of the hardcore 4th ed fans claim.
I like 4th ed but this was a major buggin point for our group. Combat= hackfest more or less. More tactics than3.5, less strategy it would seem.
This sounds like a combination of bad encounter design and poor player design.
First up, i would like to make two points:
One: It is possible to 'min-max' (i hate that term) and still roleplay. Roleplaying does not immediately discount decent character design. And example would be my Kobold Rogue Kreet, who i really enjoyed roleplaying and made a brilliant backstory for him. He was also insanely mobile (with an action point he could move up to 14 squares in 1 turn if he was lucky, and 8 of those squares were shifts.) at level 4 and thanks to said mobility he could almost always have combat advantage and thus an inane damage output.
Two: Why is it surprising that in order to win in combat you need to have characters who are good at fighting? When i see people complaining about 'min-maxing' it puts me in the mind of somone putting an old man or a little girl into a boxing ring, and then complaining that they lost. Of course they lost, they're weaker than the boxer!
With that out of the way, i shall now do my best to analyse why you have a problem.
First up, an even level combat encounter should never take more than 3 - 4 rounds on average. I've run test encounters up to level 28, and they all averaged at 3 and a bit rounds to end. If your encounters are taking longer than 4 rounds on average, then you have a problem somewhere.
As we've already ascertained, your partys potential damage output is not as high as it could be, this in itself is not a problem, as it can be compensated for with good design and combat choices, which i'll now go onto.
Encounter design is a biggie. You as the DM are running a story for your players, as such you should be designing the encounters to be interesting. Sure i can just throw up a forest trail and have some random encounter pop up and attack, but that's probably going to get pretty boring pretty quickly. Instead you should put some thought into encounters, one game i'm running has two rangers (both with bow spec), a warlock, a laser priest and a fighter with some decent ranged abilities, so basically we have a mostly ranged party. As such, i've done alot of design (and redesign when i use WotC materials) to emphasize this. Many encounters involve some kind of high ground which gives a bonus to hit or damage, often i'll leave artillery creatures out as the high ranged power makes them very easy to kill, instead i try and put the players in positions where they have to avoid getting cornered, or need to block up a choke point. Interactive terrain such as ice, damaged cobbles, carnivorous flora ect all work together to make an encounter more interesting.
In general i apply a simple rule to all my encounters: What's the interesting thing that happens here? I try to have at least two interesting things in every encounter, an interesting thing can be anything from a lurker monster to a hidden trap to a magical glyph that gives a +1 to AC to some high ground that gives a +1 to hit on lower enemies to reinforcements and so on and so forth. Anything in the environment or the monsters which doesn't act as you might expect and does something different.
The DM's friend is a good thing to remember, add +1 (+2 in Paragon and +3 in Epic) to a given stat for whatever, it's enough to give the PC's a bit of an advantage (or the monsters if they're smart) without breaking the game.
The next important part about encounters is of course, monsters. The following sentance is in itself probably enough to turn your entire game around, especially if you have players who like heavy RP.
ROLEPLAY YOUR MONSTERS!
I cannot be any clearer than this, remember that your monsters are living beings too, roleplay them! Sure i can just take five Hobgoblins and throw them willy-nilly at my players, but that's no fun at all. It's much more entertaining when the monsters roleplay, maybe they shout tactics to each other, two attempt to push a character away from the rest so they can gang up on him, maybe another one calls out commands from the rear, and then when they're blooded they fall back and stage an ambush around the corner.
Think about it, how are these trained Hobgoblins going to react to two of their number getting killed while the players seem only marginally wounded? How would these untrained Goblins act differently? How about these religious fanatics or these wild animals? They're all going to do different things in different situations, work out what those things are in those situations, and then when those situations crop up, make them do those things!
The monsters should be as mobile as your players, if not more mobile, and they should act as living breathing creatures as well. Kobolds skitter between legs while shouting out orders in draconic and flee in terror at the first sign of serious resistance. Goblins dodge weapons and slide into new positions, giggling to themselves as they avoid even the strongest blow, but fleeing if things look like they're going badly. Hobgoblins line up and form an unbreakable phalanx while pushing slowly forward. An Ogre might go mad at the sight of blood and rampage through the Hobgoblin line, knocking Hobgoblins flying everywhere in it's charge to get at the PC's.
Make your monsters interesting, if they're just silent mindless things to get killed, then theres no fun at all in killing them. It's fun to fight with an opponant, somone who trades verbal insults, who searches for weaknesses and who reacts to your actions, it's not fun to fight a wooden dummy that just sits there. If your monsters are silently standing around attacking things, then they're no better than wooden dummies.
Finally, 4th edition puts alot more in the hands of the DM than 3.5 did. In 3.5 there were rules for everything, hell there were even rules for how to engage in sex (although that was a third party book). 4th takes a much simpler approach, 4th lets the DM do it.
An example would be one of my characters wanted to swing on a chandelier and kick a monster off a balcony in the process. I did a quick scan in the skills tab and found that this would be an acrobatics check to swing on the chandelier, but oh noes! There was no rules for kicking people in the face!
So i made one up on the spot, i said it'd be a strength attack vs reflex, and that he'd get a +2 bonus to hit because he was swinging through the air quite quickly. The attack would do a mere 1d6 damage, but would push the monster 1 square, if it failed it's saving throw it would get knocked off.
Sure enough, the attack hit, the monster failed it's saving throw and it fell off the balcony, taking 3d10 falling damage. That single attack (which i decided would be a move and a standard to perform) did more damage and was far more interesting than most at-wills would have been in the same situation.
Basically, don't be afraid to make on-the-spot judgements and to think outside the box. You may also need to point this out to your players, i have noticed that alot of players tend to bore themselves more than you do. The first few encounters were somewhat boring, although i had designed some great environments with all sorts of possibilities, the players were too used to being punished by DM's for thinking outside the box that the never did anymore, so i had to point out to them that maybe they could say push off this wall with an acrobatics check to give them a +1 to damage on their target and a push effect to boot (PoP2's wall attack as a reference).
Basically, it all boils down to some pretty simple steps.
Make your encounters interesting.
Make your monsters interesting.
Make your players interesting.
Ovbiously encounters and monsters are entirely up to you as a DM, but if your players are constantly just repeating "I use X on Y" with glazed expressions on their faces, try pointing out that there are other options. Somone here had a story about how they intimidated a Goblin into surrendering, i find this very sad, not because they didn't kill the Goblin but because they thought this sort of action was so rare that it warrents a story all by itself.
Non-combat solutions should always be viable, encourage your players to think outside the box and reward them when they do. Encourage your players to think tactically and reward them when they do, make the monsters interesting and different, make them really seem like enemies, maybe instead of killing this tribe of Goblins the PC's could try and befriend them instead, then they could get the assistance of a few Goblins in their later adventures. Make your environments interesting, they're in a 3D world, not a flat empty plane, and the ground should and does have an impact on what happens in that world. Make taking the high ground a real advantage, or fighting uphill a real disadvantage. Above all, make your players THINK.
And in the end, if it's still not working, if your players are resolutely ignoring your environment, or if you just can't think of interesting encounters, or maybe you just can't bring yourself to let them try and talk their way out of this threat, you might just be playing the wrong game.
DnD is all about creating your own fun, it's more like a toy than a game, it gives you some guidelines and basic rules, and from then on it's up to you to make it interesting. If your players aren't equipped for combat then ovbiously they're going to need to find a different way to achieve their objectives. I just started running a fun little short campaign involving a party of Doppelgangers, a murder mystery and a big castle. It's actually great fun and combat so far has basically amounted to a couple of failed assassination attempts and a tussle with the castle guards. The players have spent most of their time coming up with clever ways to get into various areas without killing anyone.
I know i have repeated myself several times, but i'm trying to hammer some points home. I have seen dozens of games fail because the DM didn't think outside the box and just mechanically moved things around. The DM is a person for a reason, a machine can run a DnD game just fine, it can follow the rules, but a person can elaborate upon those rules, and that's why the DM exists, to elaborate, to change, to be alive. And i've also seen dozens of games fail because the players didn't think outside the box and just mechanically walked forward slashing at enemies. Again, a machine can do this, you are a person, a human being, be creative!
If all else fails, remember that 4E is much more 'heroic action' based than 3.5. Go watch some action movies, play some action games like Prince of Persia, see all those rediculous stunts, those incredible environments that provide all sorts of interesting opportunities to do fun things like swing from ropes and run along walls? That is what 4E is trying to be. Help it along, take some ideas from the movies, let a player grab onto this thin column and spin around with his sword out, attacking all the enemies around it. Make a monster grab onto this rope and swing across the room, attacking everyone in a line. Make a monster that stands on the high ground and taunts the PC's, laughing at their pathetic attempts, and maybe let the PC's take him out with a single arrow, just like in the movies.
Let the heroes BE heroes! Let them do heroic things, encourage the players to do incredible feats of daring and strength, hell, i have a library of downloaded youtube videos that show 10 - 20 second clips of various movies with fun fights and moves, and i often break those out on my laptop for the extra pzaz, and the players do the same.
Be differerent, fun is found in inginuity and originality. Be clever, be original, but above all, be human. DnD has people in it for a reason, and that reason is not so they can mechanically follow the rules to the letter and be people shaped machines.
That is all.
What he said with sugar on top.
@the OP: I must say, your Party looks to be about the lowest damage-output Party I could imagine...your best Striker (the Ranger) decided to be small?? That practically halves the usefulness of Twin Strike (which I'm praying the Halfling took
This is not an attack on you, but I would like to use this as an example. There are a hundred (if not more threads) that discuss how 3e sucks because how the game plays is totally based on the game mastery you used in building your character. That the only real challenge of the game is really how you make your character.
It is very interesting to see a person defening 4e because someone did not min/max their characters properly and that is what is wrong.
Just something to point out that 4e still has some of the same problems as 3e.
I really didn't mean any offense, and Stereotyping me is kind of a silly thing to do. The following Post means no offense either, it is simply my view on your problems.Opinion Starts HereFriend, my Party is far from Optimized. It's just that three out of four of us have high damage output, and the last one is a Tank. We use good tactics to take advantage of our high damage output, while your Party should take advantage of their versatility (if it's even possible. See Below) to win Battles. If I wanted to OP my party, I'd have a Glaive, the Dwarf would be using a one-handed hammer and a shield, and the Fighter would be using a Bastard Sword. EVERYONE's stats would be much more optimized, as well. But we're actually roleplaying in our game, not just trying to break the game in half or anything.
However, what I was attempting to show you was that your Party's damage is nill, especially in comparison to the HP of most monsters. Your Rogue can't gain CA, your Fighter can't hit enemies hard enough for them to fear him, and your "Ranger," who should be dealing the highest damage of the entire party, is instead dealing the lowest amount of damage possible for a Ranger to deal! Meanwhile, your Casters are forced to pick up the slack and deal some decent damage, except that your cleric is too busy healing the Fighter and the Rogue (who are getting their butts kicked), so in essence, your poor Tiefling Wizard is forced to sacrifice Controller Powers so that HE can pick up the slack of the ENTIRE PARTY. You see, you don't have to optimize every character, but someone who's actually GOOD at the job their class is supposed to be doing is usually a good idea. Right now, the Cleric sounds like the only guy who's doing what his class is SUPPOSED to be doing. And no, you don't have to be optimized at all, but efficiency is usually something an Adventuring Party strives for. Your Fighter sounds like he should be a Taclord, your Rogue sounds like he should be a Warlock, and your Ranger sounds like he should be a Rogue. In an efficient party, your Cleric would then be a STR-based Cleric, and your Tiefling Wizard would Multiclass into Cleric and take some more Healing Powers, thus giving you lots of Healing Powers, some decent damage, Battlefield Control, AND good Ranged Combat abilities. You could take advantage of these things easily, and your Party probably wouldn't have as many problems.
This sounds like a combination of bad encounter design and poor player design.
First up, i would like to make two points:
One: It is possible to 'min-max' (i hate that term) and still roleplay. Roleplaying does not immediately discount decent character design. And example would be my Kobold Rogue Kreet, who i really enjoyed roleplaying and made a brilliant backstory for him. He was also insanely mobile (with an action point he could move up to 14 squares in 1 turn if he was lucky, and 8 of those squares were shifts.) at level 4 and thanks to said mobility he could almost always have combat advantage and thus an inane damage output.
Two: Why is it surprising that in order to win in combat you need to have characters who are good at fighting? When i see people complaining about 'min-maxing' it puts me in the mind of somone putting an old man or a little girl into a boxing ring, and then complaining that they lost. Of course they lost, they're weaker than the boxer!
With that out of the way, i shall now do my best to analyse why you have a problem.
First up, an even level combat encounter should never take more than 3 - 4 rounds on average. I've run test encounters up to level 28, and they all averaged at 3 and a bit rounds to end. If your encounters are taking longer than 4 rounds on average, then you have a problem somewhere.
As we've already ascertained, your partys potential damage output is not as high as it could be, this in itself is not a problem, as it can be compensated for with good design and combat choices, which i'll now go onto.
Encounter design is a biggie. You as the DM are running a story for your players, as such you should be designing the encounters to be interesting. Sure i can just throw up a forest trail and have some random encounter pop up and attack, but that's probably going to get pretty boring pretty quickly. Instead you should put some thought into encounters, one game i'm running has two rangers (both with bow spec), a warlock, a laser priest and a fighter with some decent ranged abilities, so basically we have a mostly ranged party. As such, i've done alot of design (and redesign when i use WotC materials) to emphasize this. Many encounters involve some kind of high ground which gives a bonus to hit or damage, often i'll leave artillery creatures out as the high ranged power makes them very easy to kill, instead i try and put the players in positions where they have to avoid getting cornered, or need to block up a choke point. Interactive terrain such as ice, damaged cobbles, carnivorous flora ect all work together to make an encounter more interesting.
In general i apply a simple rule to all my encounters: What's the interesting thing that happens here? I try to have at least two interesting things in every encounter, an interesting thing can be anything from a lurker monster to a hidden trap to a magical glyph that gives a +1 to AC to some high ground that gives a +1 to hit on lower enemies to reinforcements and so on and so forth. Anything in the environment or the monsters which doesn't act as you might expect and does something different.
The DM's friend is a good thing to remember, add +1 (+2 in Paragon and +3 in Epic) to a given stat for whatever, it's enough to give the PC's a bit of an advantage (or the monsters if they're smart) without breaking the game.
The next important part about encounters is of course, monsters. The following sentance is in itself probably enough to turn your entire game around, especially if you have players who like heavy RP.
ROLEPLAY YOUR MONSTERS!
I cannot be any clearer than this, remember that your monsters are living beings too, roleplay them! Sure i can just take five Hobgoblins and throw them willy-nilly at my players, but that's no fun at all. It's much more entertaining when the monsters roleplay, maybe they shout tactics to each other, two attempt to push a character away from the rest so they can gang up on him, maybe another one calls out commands from the rear, and then when they're blooded they fall back and stage an ambush around the corner.
Think about it, how are these trained Hobgoblins going to react to two of their number getting killed while the players seem only marginally wounded? How would these untrained Goblins act differently? How about these religious fanatics or these wild animals? They're all going to do different things in different situations, work out what those things are in those situations, and then when those situations crop up, make them do those things!
The monsters should be as mobile as your players, if not more mobile, and they should act as living breathing creatures as well. Kobolds skitter between legs while shouting out orders in draconic and flee in terror at the first sign of serious resistance. Goblins dodge weapons and slide into new positions, giggling to themselves as they avoid even the strongest blow, but fleeing if things look like they're going badly. Hobgoblins line up and form an unbreakable phalanx while pushing slowly forward. An Ogre might go mad at the sight of blood and rampage through the Hobgoblin line, knocking Hobgoblins flying everywhere in it's charge to get at the PC's.
Make your monsters interesting, if they're just silent mindless things to get killed, then theres no fun at all in killing them. It's fun to fight with an opponant, somone who trades verbal insults, who searches for weaknesses and who reacts to your actions, it's not fun to fight a wooden dummy that just sits there. If your monsters are silently standing around attacking things, then they're no better than wooden dummies.
Finally, 4th edition puts alot more in the hands of the DM than 3.5 did. In 3.5 there were rules for everything, hell there were even rules for how to engage in sex (although that was a third party book). 4th takes a much simpler approach, 4th lets the DM do it.
An example would be one of my characters wanted to swing on a chandelier and kick a monster off a balcony in the process. I did a quick scan in the skills tab and found that this would be an acrobatics check to swing on the chandelier, but oh noes! There was no rules for kicking people in the face!
So i made one up on the spot, i said it'd be a strength attack vs reflex, and that he'd get a +2 bonus to hit because he was swinging through the air quite quickly. The attack would do a mere 1d6 damage, but would push the monster 1 square, if it failed it's saving throw it would get knocked off.
Sure enough, the attack hit, the monster failed it's saving throw and it fell off the balcony, taking 3d10 falling damage. That single attack (which i decided would be a move and a standard to perform) did more damage and was far more interesting than most at-wills would have been in the same situation.
Basically, don't be afraid to make on-the-spot judgements and to think outside the box. You may also need to point this out to your players, i have noticed that alot of players tend to bore themselves more than you do. The first few encounters were somewhat boring, although i had designed some great environments with all sorts of possibilities, the players were too used to being punished by DM's for thinking outside the box that the never did anymore, so i had to point out to them that maybe they could say push off this wall with an acrobatics check to give them a +1 to damage on their target and a push effect to boot (PoP2's wall attack as a reference).
Basically, it all boils down to some pretty simple steps.
Make your encounters interesting.
Make your monsters interesting.
Make your players interesting.
Ovbiously encounters and monsters are entirely up to you as a DM, but if your players are constantly just repeating "I use X on Y" with glazed expressions on their faces, try pointing out that there are other options. Somone here had a story about how they intimidated a Goblin into surrendering, i find this very sad, not because they didn't kill the Goblin but because they thought this sort of action was so rare that it warrents a story all by itself.
Non-combat solutions should always be viable, encourage your players to think outside the box and reward them when they do. Encourage your players to think tactically and reward them when they do, make the monsters interesting and different, make them really seem like enemies, maybe instead of killing this tribe of Goblins the PC's could try and befriend them instead, then they could get the assistance of a few Goblins in their later adventures. Make your environments interesting, they're in a 3D world, not a flat empty plane, and the ground should and does have an impact on what happens in that world. Make taking the high ground a real advantage, or fighting uphill a real disadvantage. Above all, make your players THINK.
And in the end, if it's still not working, if your players are resolutely ignoring your environment, or if you just can't think of interesting encounters, or maybe you just can't bring yourself to let them try and talk their way out of this threat, you might just be playing the wrong game.
DnD is all about creating your own fun, it's more like a toy than a game, it gives you some guidelines and basic rules, and from then on it's up to you to make it interesting. If your players aren't equipped for combat then ovbiously they're going to need to find a different way to achieve their objectives. I just started running a fun little short campaign involving a party of Doppelgangers, a murder mystery and a big castle. It's actually great fun and combat so far has basically amounted to a couple of failed assassination attempts and a tussle with the castle guards. The players have spent most of their time coming up with clever ways to get into various areas without killing anyone.
I know i have repeated myself several times, but i'm trying to hammer some points home. I have seen dozens of games fail because the DM didn't think outside the box and just mechanically moved things around. The DM is a person for a reason, a machine can run a DnD game just fine, it can follow the rules, but a person can elaborate upon those rules, and that's why the DM exists, to elaborate, to change, to be alive. And i've also seen dozens of games fail because the players didn't think outside the box and just mechanically walked forward slashing at enemies. Again, a machine can do this, you are a person, a human being, be creative!
If all else fails, remember that 4E is much more 'heroic action' based than 3.5. Go watch some action movies, play some action games like Prince of Persia, see all those rediculous stunts, those incredible environments that provide all sorts of interesting opportunities to do fun things like swing from ropes and run along walls? That is what 4E is trying to be. Help it along, take some ideas from the movies, let a player grab onto this thin column and spin around with his sword out, attacking all the enemies around it. Make a monster grab onto this rope and swing across the room, attacking everyone in a line. Make a monster that stands on the high ground and taunts the PC's, laughing at their pathetic attempts, and maybe let the PC's take him out with a single arrow, just like in the movies.
Let the heroes BE heroes! Let them do heroic things, encourage the players to do incredible feats of daring and strength, hell, i have a library of downloaded youtube videos that show 10 - 20 second clips of various movies with fun fights and moves, and i often break those out on my laptop for the extra pzaz, and the players do the same.
Be differerent, fun is found in inginuity and originality. Be clever, be original, but above all, be human. DnD has people in it for a reason, and that reason is not so they can mechanically follow the rules to the letter and be people shaped machines.
That is all.
I don't know who this reply is to, but I hope it's not to me.
I don't need a lesson on how to play D&D. I never said I have any problems designing interesting encounters, roleplaying monsters, or having fun with D&D. And again, you don't know anything about my characters stats until I posted just now, so assuming they are comparable to a "little girl and an old man" against a boxer is just rude and condescending.
Talk about a self-righteous response to a legitimate question that many people seem to have a problem with.
I play in a striker-heavy party, all well built, and combat *still* takes far too long. The worst part is, there's nothing that can be done about it, short of something like you suggest, cutting HP in half. This is a major problem to me. I've never played an RPG where combat takes this long, ever. Either they were innately quick and lethal systems, like Runquest or the Storyteller system, or there were ways to circumvent HP, to get fights over with.
In 4E, there's no choice but to hack away. It's absurd. No one enjoys these long fights. There's a sense of inevitability that you'll win - there's never a sense of threat, but it's a grueling exercise, not in tactics, but in patience.
I guess I don't understand what they were going for, with the combat. As a GM, I want the fights over with fast, so we can move on with the story. As a player, I want the same thing. No one wins with fights that drag on, round after round, repeating the same actions until the number finally drops to zero.
While half HP can speed things up, I'd prefer more interesting options, like a return of instant kills for monsters and players alike. Then, at least, there would be some threat and intensity to the thing.
Min/Maxing does NOT equal Efficiency.
I said your Party was inefficient based on how you described them, and that their character decisions didn't seem to mesh very well. That's all! I provided some ideas on what would be more efficient, because 4E does usually require that you at least try to be efficient if you want to live. And it's all just my opinion, as well.
As for 4E: No, you don't have to min/max at all to still be effective. However, Rangers that don't deal much damage and Fighters that have no Con or Str bonus (and min/maxers will tell you to NEVER buy an 18, btw) don't make much sense to most of us. Now, if they work fine in your party, then so be it, just lower the HP by around 33% for more streamlined Combat. Whatever works.
@Hamakto: I loved the System Mastery of 3.5, but I hated how they implemented the whole System (the basics of the whole thing were awesome, and then they just went and split everyone into two categories: "Godlike" or "Cannon Fodder"). 4E does not require min/maxing, but anytime you play any version of DnD inefficiently, you have a good chance of getting killed.
R_C's post isn't worth responding to.
I kinda brought this up on another thread but kinda got shot down in it (4th ed is perfect etc and way better than 3.5 yadda yadda). We more or less threw in the towel with 4th ed as combat whole fun at 1st was boring by level 4 as it was all about the damage. Fights went something like this.
encounter, power, encounter power, maybe daily, at will until dead. Slight exaggeration but not by much as classes with minor actions were using them as well. It seems you have to optimise your whole party as well which doesn't seem newbie friendly as alot of the hardcore 4th ed fans claim.
I like 4th ed but this was a major buggin point for our group. Combat= hackfest more or less. More tactics than3.5, less strategy it would seem.
And how does this differ from level 4 combat in 3.5 ?
And how does this differ from level 4 combat in 3.5 ?
The monsters would die quicker even if hackedto death by melee types. Thats not counting any spell effect that would accelerate the combat or clever use of an illusion or enchantment tyoe spel that would help you avoid the fight all togather.
UGH. You people aren't even listening, are you?? Let me state this loud and clear:
Min/Maxing does NOT equal Efficiency.
I said your Party was inefficient based on how you described them, and that their character decisions didn't seem to mesh very well. That's all! I provided some ideas on what would be more efficient, because 4E does usually require that you at least try to be efficient if you want to live. And it's all just my opinion, as well.
As for 4E: No, you don't have to min/max at all to still be effective. However, Rangers that don't deal much damage and Fighters that have no Con or Str bonus (and min/maxers will tell you to NEVER buy an 18, btw) don't make much sense to most of us. Now, if they work fine in your party, then so be it, just lower the HP by around 33% for more streamlined Combat. Whatever works.
@Hamakto: I loved the System Mastery of 3.5, but I hated how they implemented the whole System (the basics of the whole thing were awesome, and then they just went and split everyone into two categories: "Godlike" or "Cannon Fodder"). 4E does not require min/maxing, but anytime you play any version of DnD inefficiently, you have a good chance of getting killed.
R_C's post isn't worth responding to.
Maybe not. Or maybe you aren't listening.
We're saying even with tactics [b]and[/i] efficient characters, the fights are STILL taking an overly long time. Apparently, WotC staffers agree if the "in house" rule they've been using is to cut monster HP in half. The problems obviously seem prevalent in the community.
Has anyone done this in-game yet? Can anyone provide us some advice as to whether they have tried it or not?
Thanks.
I don't know who this reply is to, but I hope it's not to me.
I don't need a lesson on how to play D&D. I never said I have any problems designing interesting encounters, roleplaying monsters, or having fun with D&D. And again, you don't know anything about my characters stats until I posted just now, so assuming they are comparable to a "little girl and an old man" against a boxer is just rude and condescending.
Talk about a self-righteous response to a legitimate question that many people seem to have a problem with.
How about giving us an example of one of your encounters, and what your players do in those encounters?
This sounds like a combination of bad encounter design and poor player design.
First up, i would like to make two points:
-snip-
That is all.
Epic post is epic.
How about giving us an example of one of your encounters, and what your players do in those encounters?
I'll use an example of one encounter that took SOOOOO long I had to call it quits on the encounter and rush through the rest of the session.
I have a party of 5 characters at 4th level. According to the DMG, the "target" XP value for a typical encounter is 875 XP.
The encounter took place in a haunted swamp, in which the characters were looking for some bad guys who had taken up base in one of the tombs in a cemetery there. As they hiked through the swamp, they came across a mound of "hard" land roughly 50 feet in diameter. A massive black stone, 5 feet high, 15 feet in length, and 10 feet in width, laid atop of this mound. As they inspected it, they found small animal bones and strange carvings on the mound. In addition, anyone who moved within 5 ft of the stone had all light, including magical, extinguished.
As they set to studying this rock, four wraiths attacked.
I wanted the encounter to be difficult, because it was an important part of the story. I didn't want to add minions because I couldn't find suitable minions for this particular encounter. The setup was this:
Four Level 5 Wraiths, 200 XP each for a total of 800 XP. Wraiths take half damage from all sources and regeneration 5 unless hit with radiant damage, BUT, they have extremely low defenses (my party was hitting them every time), extremely low HP (37) and vulnerability 5 radiant damage. Believe it or not, I was worried this might be a change of pace and actually be a QUICK battle. Wrong. Despite all this, I followed the rules of the DMG and the XP was 75 XP below the target, but the PCs had a disadvantage in the black stone (i.e. the "hard" encounter)
The stone set atop the mound. In addition to extinguishing lights, anyone bloodied within the stone started to take 5 ongoing nectrotic damage (visualized as the character's blood draining from them and floating in the air toward the stone). Around the mound, the swamp created pockets of sludge and water that acted as difficult terrain.
The wraiths snuck up on the PCs and ambushed them (they have +11 to Stealth and all but the Ranger of the group got surprised). They quickly used their encounter power to shift 6 spaces to surround the PCs.
The wraiths howled when they were hit, and the part of their form that was damaged flickered in wisps and reformed... I roleplayed the Wraiths and characterized their agony in undeath.
What happened? Well, the players used good tactics. They were hitting and damaging the Wraiths consistently, and avoiding being flanked themselves. Actually, most of them didn't get near bloodied themselves, I think 3 of them used a healing surge. Only one character was bloodied and took the nectrotic damage from the stone. Their damage output on the other hand was pretty much shrugged off by the insubstantial nature of the Wraiths and the regeneration. The rogue could hit for a bit, and eventually with her help they took down ONE of the wraiths. And, a bit time hit hurt three of them when the cleric used his Turn Undead. But, the wraiths just had too much HP. The party couldn't take them down. And the fight dragged on for two, two and half hours.
Eventually, I called it quits, had the stone draw the wraiths into it, and urged the PCs to move along.
In hindsight, the group decided they may have done better if they had ganged up on one wraith at a time. I figured I might have been able to throw less wraiths at them (although that would have been HALF the XP value for a level 4 encounter.)
Now, admittedly, this was designed to be a hard encounter. But, this is one of the LONGEST encounters. Not the ONLY long encounter.
Although you would probably hate having me as a player. :P But anyways.I will point out the low damage (Strikers that actually Strike may have helped), but their main thing was definitely bad Strategy. Now, their Tactical Maneuvers and the like may have been good, but you should almost always concentrate fire on one target at a time. Other than that...the Wraiths weren't gaining over 37 HP, were they? 'Cause Regen can't do that... Just checking, though. :D
Still, it did seem to take an EXTREME amount of punishment for even one wraith to go down. Maybe wraiths are just bad mofo's.......I mean, insubstantial combined with regeneration and weakness inducing attacks.
I've been surprised as I play that there are traps in encounter design. From the description of the Wraith encounter: Insubstantial with regeneration is a big deal, if the wraith isn't taking 10+ points of damage a round it is going to be gaining hp rather then losing them. If the party doesn't focus fire then it is going to take a long time. I had a similar problem when I made an encounter that had a soldier who was two levels higher then the party. His defences and AC were high enough that he was lasting longer then I expected or wanted.
IN SUMMARY: Have monsters either retreat, surrender or die with a pile of hit points left. I wouldn't recommend a blanket reduction of all monster hit points, I do it on a case by case basis that sometimes monsters go down when they would have some HP left.
I'll use an example of one encounter that took SOOOOO long I had to call it quits on the encounter and rush through the rest of the session.
--snippage--
Now, admittedly, this was designed to be a hard encounter. But, this is one of the LONGEST encounters. Not the ONLY long encounter.
Focus-fire would have helped. The Cleric should have been trying to do Radiant damage to the targeted Wraith each turn that it was possible, as that negates its Regeneration (in addition to dealing 2-3 extra points of damage, since they have Vulnerability to Radiant). They should have been able to take one down in two rounds (one round if they get lucky). Of course, that assumes they hadn't been weakened by the Wraiths already, but since the Wraiths probably had CA the first round they might have been.
Hmm... let's see...
Replace 2 wraiths with 2 specters. Their non-AC defenses are somewhat better (Fort and Will), but they have the same vulnerability to Radiant and no Regeneration; their Chill Aura adds a bit more of the 'feeling of dread' to the encounter. Their HP are a bit lower (since they're a level lower), and the XP wouldn't be as much. Their Invisibility adds a bit more tactical challenge to the encounter. Their Spectral Touch does similar damage to the Wraiths but doesn't cause weakness.
For the same XP value, you could've gone:
1 Mad Wraith
1 Wraith
2 Phantom Warriors (Ghosts)
That only gives one Regenerating, Insubstantial creature to deal with, and the party has the aura on the Mad Wraith to work around, as well as the Phantom Warriors ability to mark targets.
In both cases, those fights would have gone quicker, because half or more of the opponents wouldn't have been regenerating, even though they all were only taking half damage due to being Insubstantial.
EDIT: BTW, I think that your encounter was actually pretty cool and flavorful as it was, and I wouldn't have been upset by running into it.
That being said, a little more variety in the monsters used generally makes for a more interesting encounter in 4e. Even if you were thinking 'wraiths' to begin with, keep in mind that the terms wraith, ghost, and specter are generally interchangeable in just about any arena except RPGs.Seems like if I throw more than one or two non-minions at the party in one encounter, they simply don't produce enough damage output to deal with monsters in a timely fashion. The battle lasts incredibly long.
I've encountered this problem twice in two flavors:
-PCs strike the monster maybe once per round (this was unbelievable, even caused me to re-reference the monster's defenses)
-PCs strike more than once per round, but do an average of 1% of monster's total HP in said round.
Yes, I have considered it. In one of the encounters (the one where they could hardly hit), I created an excuse for the monster to leave, and ended the encounter without rewards for anyone. I've never had to do this, but then again I've never seen so many players sighing and looking bored with the tedium. See, it wasn't even that the monster was deadly. The fight just wasn't intense; the monster hit maybe once every few rounds, nothing too major, and it would go back and forth. Ten rounds they fought it. It was awful.
Edit: yes the monster was a solo but this party had already fought and defeated a solo a couple months prior, which actually was fun and not too long. I admit to making a design error in that adventure for not considering both potential PC damage and monster average damage, but it's still early in the edition.
I can't say I'd impose an HP reduction across the board in D&D4e, but there are some monsters who mount an obnoxiously tedious battle when engaged. It also doesn't seem to me that the PCs were underpowered in either case, since they didn't die and other battles went normally.
I'll use an example of one encounter that took SOOOOO long I had to call it quits on the encounter and rush through the rest of the session.
I have a party of 5 characters at 4th level. According to the DMG, the "target" XP value for a typical encounter is 875 XP.
The encounter took place in a haunted swamp, in which the characters were looking for some bad guys who had taken up base in one of the tombs in a cemetery there. As they hiked through the swamp, they came across a mound of "hard" land roughly 50 feet in diameter. A massive black stone, 5 feet high, 15 feet in length, and 10 feet in width, laid atop of this mound. As they inspected it, they found small animal bones and strange carvings on the mound. In addition, anyone who moved within 5 ft of the stone had all light, including magical, extinguished.
As they set to studying this rock, four wraiths attacked.
I wanted the encounter to be difficult, because it was an important part of the story. I didn't want to add minions because I couldn't find suitable minions for this particular encounter. The setup was this:
Four Level 5 Wraiths, 200 XP each for a total of 800 XP. Wraiths take half damage from all sources and regeneration 5 unless hit with radiant damage, BUT, they have extremely low defenses (my party was hitting them every time), extremely low HP (37) and vulnerability 5 radiant damage. Believe it or not, I was worried this might be a change of pace and actually be a QUICK battle. Wrong. Despite all this, I followed the rules of the DMG and the XP was 75 XP below the target, but the PCs had a disadvantage in the black stone (i.e. the "hard" encounter)
The stone set atop the mound. In addition to extinguishing lights, anyone bloodied within the stone started to take 5 ongoing nectrotic damage (visualized as the character's blood draining from them and floating in the air toward the stone). Around the mound, the swamp created pockets of sludge and water that acted as difficult terrain.
The wraiths snuck up on the PCs and ambushed them (they have +11 to Stealth and all but the Ranger of the group got surprised). They quickly used their encounter power to shift 6 spaces to surround the PCs.
The wraiths howled when they were hit, and the part of their form that was damaged flickered in wisps and reformed... I roleplayed the Wraiths and characterized their agony in undeath.
What happened? Well, the players used good tactics. They were hitting and damaging the Wraiths consistently, and avoiding being flanked themselves. Actually, most of them didn't get near bloodied themselves, I think 3 of them used a healing surge. Only one character was bloodied and took the nectrotic damage from the stone. Their damage output on the other hand was pretty much shrugged off by the insubstantial nature of the Wraiths and the regeneration. The rogue could hit for a bit, and eventually with her help they took down ONE of the wraiths. And, a bit time hit hurt three of them when the cleric used his Turn Undead. But, the wraiths just had too much HP. The party couldn't take them down. And the fight dragged on for two, two and half hours.
Eventually, I called it quits, had the stone draw the wraiths into it, and urged the PCs to move along.
In hindsight, the group decided they may have done better if they had ganged up on one wraith at a time. I figured I might have been able to throw less wraiths at them (although that would have been HALF the XP value for a level 4 encounter.)
Now, admittedly, this was designed to be a hard encounter. But, this is one of the LONGEST encounters. Not the ONLY long encounter.
As people have said, its more the monsters you set them up against than anything. Weakened against an insubstantial monster, your players would only be doing like 25% dmg. With that, and the things regen, it'd make for a longer fight. Add to that the lack of focused fire to overcome the regen, I can see why that'd take a while.
As people have said, its more the monsters you set them up against than anything. Weakened against an insubstantial monster, your players would only be doing like 25% dmg. With that, and the things regen, it'd make for a longer fight. Add to that the lack of focused fire to overcome the regen, I can see why that'd take a while.
Agreed, and a similar problem could have occurred in 3.5
Focus-fire would have helped. The Cleric should have been trying to do Radiant damage to the targeted Wraith each turn that it was possible, as that negates its Regeneration (in addition to dealing 2-3 extra points of damage, since they have Vulnerability to Radiant). They should have been able to take one down in two rounds (one round if they get lucky). Of course, that assumes they hadn't been weakened by the Wraiths already, but since the Wraiths probably had CA the first round they might have been.
Hmm... let's see...
Replace 2 wraiths with 2 specters. Their non-AC defenses are somewhat better (Fort and Will), but they have the same vulnerability to Radiant and no Regeneration; their Chill Aura adds a bit more of the 'feeling of dread' to the encounter. Their HP are a bit lower (since they're a level lower), and the XP wouldn't be as much. Their Invisibility adds a bit more tactical challenge to the encounter. Their Spectral Touch does similar damage to the Wraiths but doesn't cause weakness.
For the same XP value, you could've gone:
1 Mad Wraith
1 Wraith
2 Phantom Warriors (Ghosts)
That only gives one Regenerating, Insubstantial creature to deal with, and the party has the aura on the Mad Wraith to work around, as well as the Phantom Warriors ability to mark targets.
In both cases, those fights would have gone quicker, because half or more of the opponents wouldn't have been regenerating, even though they all were only taking half damage due to being Insubstantial.
EDIT: BTW, I think that your encounter was actually pretty cool and flavorful as it was, and I wouldn't have been upset by running into it.
Hey Akram, this is an amazing response and I much appreciate the advice. I am still getting the hang of DMing 4th Edition, and varying the monsters is a great tactic and the monsters you described would retain the flavor and work well. Why didn't I find that specter?!
Thanks much.
Hey Akram, this is an amazing response and I much appreciate the advice. I am still getting the hang of DMing 4th Edition, and varying the monsters is a great tactic and the monsters you described would retain the flavor and work well. Why didn't I find that specter?!
Thanks much.
De nada... thirty years of playing and DMing various RPGs will do this sort of thing to you.
Basically, I looked at the idea you were going for - 'spirits of the dead' - and asked myself what else fit the concept. While I haven't memorized the MM cover to cover (yet...), I knew there had to be other incorporeal undead.
The fact that the basic Wraith has three damage-mitigating abilities makes them really tough. Trying to remove some of that advantage, while preserving the flavor of the encounter, was the idea I took to re-making the encounter.
Also remember that you can always change the cosmetic properties of a monster and call it something else. If you wanted everything to be 'wraiths', you could call the basic Specters 'Chilling Wraiths' and describe them as looking like Wraiths with a bluish-black aura of cold... or call the Phantom Warriors 'Wraithguards' and describe the black, shadowy blades in their hands as they swoop in to attack. This trick works for any monster, as long as you don't make any mechanical changes to their abilities.
Basically, though, anytime you want to make an encounter with only one monster type, look around the MM a bit and see if maybe there's something thematically appropriate that you could substitute that would add some extra flavor to the encounter. Variety is the spice of life; it also works wonders in the game. ;)
First up i'd like to apologise for the accusatory tone of my previous post, i had meant it to sound like a "If you are not doing these things, you should be" because i didn't know what you were doing, i just provided an overview of good design ideas. It did come out as a bit of a rant though, sorry about that.
Arkam's points are very valid, especially the one about varying monster types. Never make an encounter that is composed entirely of one type of monster, especially something like Wraiths. Unfortunately you do need to analyse monster abilities when creating encounters, you can't just throw in a bunch of monsters with the right XP values, as that will often result in bad.
Basically, Wraiths are, as you saw, very tough bastards. Whenever you think about putting a monster with good damage resistance into the party, think about what kind of damage your party is mostly doing. In this case you should have noticed that your party does not have much in the way of Radiant damage, and thus the Wraiths are going to be very difficult to kill.
Of course it's easy to suggest this in hindsight, but with a bit of experience you'll find it becomes much easier.
I do have a potentially useful suggestion for you, make up a few random encounters and test run them with your players, this will give you a very good feel of how encounters should be built. I ran about a dozen of these over two sessions when 4E first came out and it gave me a great insight on how to design encounters properly.
One house rule you might also want to look into is Vulnerability. I recently decided that vulnerable damage dealt would ignore damage reduction from things like insubstantial, as well as providing the bonus damage. I did th is after running a test encounter similar to the one you described that just did not end. Especially with things like Wraiths.
Some monsters are designed as survivors, they're supposed to be very difficult to kill, avoid using more than one or two of those in an encounter or, as you can see, things will take a very long time indeed.
To drag my post on even further, Wraiths are specifically designed to be "all or nothing" monsters. They're built with lots of resistances, but low HP to force the players to focus fire on them and kill them off in 1 or 2 rounds. As you can probably now see, 4 Wraiths is not a good design.
If you want to give some other examples of encounters you've had that dragged on for awhile, i'd be happy to help you with any issues in them, and i'm sre Akram would as well.
Seems like if I throw more than one or two non-minions at the party in one encounter, they simply don't produce enough damage output to deal with monsters in a timely fashion. The battle lasts incredibly long.
The battle is long in rounds. In high level play especially, battle time is much shorter.
This is exactly why I decided to post this thread. I understand that particular encounter was poorly designed, and even apologized to my players about it in our forums.
I'm trying to get the hang of 4E design which is much different than 3E's.
Your last post is very helpful. Thanks.
Pheonix, thanks for the great post.
This is exactly why I decided to post this thread. I understand that particular encounter was poorly designed, and even apologized to my players about it in our forums.
I'm trying to get the hang of 4E design which is much different than 3E's.
Your last post is very helpful. Thanks.
Actually, I think that almost all of the encounter was good; you just didn't think about the ramifications of that one monster having 2-4 times its HP value because of two effects: Insubstantial and Weakened. So instead of 37 HP monsters, they were 74-148 HP monsters. With Regen 5.
The black stone should count as a level 1 hazard, which brings the XP total to 900. Still fine in terms of budget. Maybe give it a deactivation trigger; say, 50 points of Radiant damage to the stone in one round will stop the effect until the following sunset. Allow a DC 25 Arcana check to discover this through use of Detect Magic.
I 'm the poster who told the story you referred to in your lenghty post as...
Somone here had a story about how they intimidated a Goblin into surrendering, i find this very sad, not because they didn't kill the Goblin but because they thought this sort of action was so rare that it warrents a story all by itself.
First of all, I reckon you didn't get what I was talking about. I never said it was rare or unusual, but the skill check turned the combat encounter into a roleplaying/skill challenge encounter which helped the PCs find their way around. The point was not: "Use Intimitate! It rocks!!!!!!"*
I suggested the use of out-of-combat methods (which we find in 4th ed aplenty) in combination with combat to speed up combat. Using Intimitate is the most common, as it 's one of the few skills with rules for use in combat, but in the example I gave that 's only where the fun started. The PCs learned more of their surroundings and - being prisoners - finally found a way to escape by using the captured enemies as a cover.
But why do I go on about that? Well, I think that in D&D 4th edition - sorry, Zardnaar, I guess we disagree here - there are more options for an enterprising PC/group/DM to use, specially for rp-heavy groups. Warstory Time: A cleric in my group gave a sermon prior to combat to convince some of their pressganged enemies to join the PCs instead of fighting them. As the fight went well for the PCs - with the rogue even convinclingly shouting "Liberty" - those adressed joined them indeed.
So the cleric diplomatically dealt with a few enemies just like the rogue would disemble a trap that 's part of the encounter. I can see people using such methods in the game more and more, or even plan it into the very heart of the encounter (e.g. winning over an enemy whose is in it for the money, was charmed/duped by the bad guys or felt betrayed by the good guys...)
That encounter design is rather open now, well, that 's pretty obvious, I guess as time goes on, we learn the finer parts of it.
Cheers!
Captn Morgrim
PS: On a related note, I run most skill challenges in my games very RP-heavy, so that rolling the skill checks necessary to suceed becomes virtually secondary to the spoken word...
*Hellfire and damnation, I cannae speak l33t, that rotten abomination o' a language fer completely brain-damag'd bilgesuckin' swabs, even when I wish t' parody it!
Yes, my tone in the post was rather ranty, i don't like stupidity, and i see so much of it, especially in relation to DnD. Makes me get an angry face.
First of all, I reckon you didn't get what I was talking about. I never said it was rare or unusual, but the skill check turned the combat encounter into a roleplaying/skill challenge encounter which helped the PCs find their way around.
My point was that a skill check turning a combat encounter into a roleplaying or skill challenge should not be a rare occurance. If the PC's want to attempt to talk their way out of fighting the monsters, then unless the monsters are mindless or really determined to kill them, that should be an option. And even if they are mindless it might be an option to sneak past the monster instead of killing it.
My point was that so many DM's go "Oh look, stuff to fight, go kill it." and so few Players fail to realise that there might be another option that they all charge around willy nilly killing stuff for no good reason other than 'it was there.'
Anyway, rather than reword the post i'll just leave it there, there are still a number of very valid and good points in the post, so long as you get past the "Aagaghagahgh i'm sick of IDIOTS" tone i took in it.
Yes, my tone in the post was rather ranty, i don't like stupidity, and i see so much of it, especially in relation to DnD. Makes me get an angry face.
Ye're not the only one here. Here in the forums, it often seems like cases of "didn't do the research". E.g. not looking up the rules, or, literally, not doing any kind of research and then proposing inbalanced rules. Research in the later case includes looking up game mechanics, similar effects from similar classes/powers and so on. Even Wikipedia can be of help in regards to researching historic settings and items, most don't even look there (else we wouldn't have to deal with "firearms should attack ref and not AC" posts everytime the topic comes up in the Equipment forum).
("Didn't do the research" might also apply to whoever came up with the double sword and double flail...)
My point was that so many DM's go "Oh look, stuff to fight, go kill it." and so few Players fail to realise that there might be another option that they all charge around willy nilly killing stuff for no good reason other than 'it was there.'
Trouble is that many aren't willing to think outside the box, even tho' that 's far easier in the current edition to accomplish. And that 's the pity.
All in all, mayhap ye should put a disclaimer in yer post...
Cheers!
Captn M.
Personally, I don't like changing rules for just the monsters. If I want to get shorter combats with more fear for pcs, I will experiment with the following:
1/2 hp for monsters and pcs.
or
When any creature or pc is bloodied, he or she gains Vulnerabilty 5 until unbloodied.
or
One attack per foe against a bloodied opponent always does double damage (Call it before damage is rolled).
or
Add +5 damage for one attack per round vs. bloodied foe. (+10 if paragon, +15 if heroic).
Many of these ideas were voiced, but I have not had time to play/experiment yet.
Cheers.
But seriously, just halving monster HP seems (to me) to completely defeat the purpose of the balance game, since now all the monsters go down twice as fast i would imagine that an immediate result of that would be the battles being significantly easier.
So the only "monster wins" that are eliminated would be the ones where the monsters wear down the PCs slowly and outlast them. I'm okay with that because I think that's a very dissapointing end to a long and potentially boring fight.
---
However, for unrelated reasons, I would like to see the bloodied condition mean something.
It also halves monster survival time, which means it's significantly harder for the monsters to use tactics and set up tactical traps in combat.
Dunno. Once you start making multiple changes the only real way to get any idea as to what is going on is to try it. I might give that a shot when i start my next campaign, just to see how it goes.
If you want to give it a go, by all means go ahead, i'd be interested to see what effect halving monster HP actually does have.
To the monsters?
To the monsters and characters, the idea being to scale damage up for the PCs and NPCs equally (although to keep that, Elites and Solos would probably need to get 2x and 4x level, respectively). It should lead to about the same difficulty but generally faster fights and it's a bit less extreme than cutting HP by half (I think, haven't actually done the math on it. If it is then maybe bump it down to 1 point for every 1/2 level).