Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 Advantage Jul 01, 2009 11:43:24	I'm interested in encounters that feel more dangerous and aren't as long. I've heard lots of people cite "double damage, half health" for solo monsters, and I'm wondering if I can just do the same thing for all encounters. Lower defenses instead of lowering health, and increasing damage by 1.5-2x. Missing isn't any fun, and beating up monsters that don't really pose a threat is boring. Even monsters that slow the group down with status effects are just annoying if you know they'll go down without posing a serious threat to your life anyway. Fights are only interesting if there's a chance of losing, IMO.
#2 johnnii Jul 01, 2009 11:48:13	If the monsters realise they have lost, shouldn't they just retreat anyways? Doesn't work in all instances, but the majority of living creatures have some survival instincts, even animals.
#3 Advantage Jul 01, 2009 11:52:26	I heartily agree with that, but I've been running a campaign with a DM that goes with by-the-book encounters where the monsters have no chance of winning even from the start.
#4 sessile Jul 01, 2009 12:25:27	If you are looking to increase monster's combat capacity, then I would suggest adding +2 damage per tier and a +1 to hit as well. This would increase their threat by a far amount. I would also give a little more XP for such creatures too. Increasing damage by 1.5x to 2x seems a bit extreme. Also, you could try using encounters of level + 1 to level +3 to make things more dangerous. Remember, every group is a bit different. Some groups / individuals have their acts together and have great coordinated strategies that may allow them to blow through at level encounters. Other groups do not have there acts together and at level encounters may be challenging for them.
#5 kgmessier Jul 01, 2009 12:29:06	I heartily agree with that, but I've been running a campaign with a DM that goes with by-the-book encounters where the monsters have no chance of winning even from the start. It could make for more interesting encounters for sure, but the party may be more likely to run away in the face of such a powerful foe. Lowering the defenses rather than the health is a good move, because at least then they know they're hitting the darned thing. - Keith
#6 xtian Jul 01, 2009 13:25:52	Maybe make it varied. Some encounters play by the book, but some encounters function under the x2 damage, -defenses rules. Doing all encounters with those modifications will probably make some stuff play like rocket tag, which can get old if it happens every encounter (see: epic levels in 3.5). The occasional fast-and-furious combat will be a nice change in pace.
#7 Wyrd_One Jul 01, 2009 13:27:58	Our DM just tried this idea. We have only 4 characters and we're level 7 at the moment. The encounters were taking too long and we'd be down to At-Will's for the last half of each fight. So he tried the double damage, half HP idea last session. The length of the fights is much better now I think, things drop in a much more reasonable amount of time. The battles are quicker and dirtier... each hit from a monster hurts, but they get fewer hits in because we can kill them more quickly. I think it's a good way to compress the battles down in terms of number of rounds, but get the same end result. It makes the fights more exciting overall. I can't vouch for this technique at Paragon tier and beyond, but it seems to be reasonable for Heroic tier.
#8 christopher_perkins Jul 01, 2009 14:55:42	I'm interested in encounters that feel more dangerous and aren't as long. I've heard lots of people cite "double damage, half health" for solo monsters, and I'm wondering if I can just do the same thing for all encounters. Lower defenses instead of lowering health, and increasing damage by 1.5-2x. Missing isn't any fun, and beating up monsters that don't really pose a threat is boring. Even monsters that slow the group down with status effects are just annoying if you know they'll go down without posing a serious threat to your life anyway. Fights are only interesting if there's a chance of losing, IMO. I run 4E games for highly optimized groups of players (most of them game designers). To make a monster feel more brutal, I will sometimes add +1 die of damage to monsters' attacks. For example, a monster that would normally deal 2d6 + 5 damage might deal 3d6 + 5 damage instead. Over a few rounds, this extra damage starts to add up.
#9 solik Jul 01, 2009 15:25:47	"Over a few rounds"? Your highly optimized players shouldn't be allowing your monsters to survive that long ;)
#10 bone_naga Jul 01, 2009 15:58:15	I just add the 1/2 level bonus to damage for characters and monsters.
#11 Advantage Jul 01, 2009 16:53:36	I just add the 1/2 level bonus to damage for characters and monsters. Is this bonus added per attack or per round (like striker damage)? How has it worked out so far?
#12 bleach Jul 01, 2009 17:45:55	First, you got to ask yourselves. How many rounds of combat do I want for each monster. From then, you can decide what modifications are needed...
#13 kgmessier Jul 01, 2009 20:18:29	I run 4E games for highly optimized groups of players (most of them game designers). To make a monster feel more brutal, I will sometimes add +1 die of damage to monsters' attacks. For example, a monster that would normally deal 2d6 + 5 damage might deal 3d6 + 5 damage instead. Over a few rounds, this extra damage starts to add up. I'm taking this slightly OT, but is it really that much fun for players to run such highly optimized characters? I mean, in the end a player still wants a challenge, right? - Keith
#14 bone_naga Jul 03, 2009 1:09:32	Is this bonus added per attack or per round (like striker damage)? How has it worked out so far? Per attack. So far it has been ok, and although it hasn't been tested at high levels, I don't foresee any problems with it. It applies to monsters and PCs. Monsters go down faster, but they also inflict more damage.