The difficulty of a fight greatly depends on how the monsters and the PCs interact with each other AND the environment. This interaction is partially in the hands of the author. If the auther uses a brute with a push effect, the author should look at how you can design an environment to use that ability to great effect. Without the environment (or a monster that depens on movement) that push 1 effect does absolutely nothing. On the other hand, it also lays with the DMs. They need to carefully read the encounter description and think about how the environment interacts with the monsters both on a general (their role) and more detailed level (their attack powers). Lurkers should hide. Skirmishers should walk. A monster with a push effect should push PCs into dangerous terrain. In 4E monsters and PCs should not simply walk towards each other and start rolling the dice. The combatants should move around, trying to use the environment to their advantage while trying to prevent the opposition to do the same. It was certainly the biggest difference between the same fights at last convention where one group of similarly experienced players and party composition considered a fight a walk-over and the other used all dailies, had PCs drop below 0 left and right (and two so close to negative bloodied they felt the breath of Kalemvor) and cheered loudly when the villain finally dropped to the ground.
There is a difference between a challenging and an engaging fight. A fight can be very hard, but become boring and frustrating because it lasts too long and turns into a repetitive roll of basic melee attacks and at-will powers (especially if the PCs have difficulties hitting the enemies). An easy fight can be very engaging because the players have to think on how to utilize the environment to their own benefit or prefent the enemies from benefiting it. More often than not it is again the utilization of the environment that means the difference between boring and engaging. I had players describe a fight as challenging, until I pointed out that only two PCs got bloodied and none dropped below 0 and no dailies had been used. At that point they realized it only appeared challenging and that that in the end appearance was all that mattered.
A challenging fight is not necessarily a good thing for the adventure, especially not when it is run in a time sensitive environment. Hard fights can take up a lot of game time. It can result in the PCs not reaching the end of the adventure within the time available. In the end, most players really prefer an engaging story that they can finish to one that consists of nothing more than fights.
Finally, do not hesitate to focus on one PC, avoiding the defenders if it makes sense and there is an opening. When a monster with an intelligence of 12 observes a priest heal somebody, and that priest remains within striking range, do not let that paladin distract your monsters. Focus on that priest since concluding the opposition is going to have a harder time without a healer is really not that far a stretch. Furthermore, it gives the defenders something to do. In my experience they feel much more satisfaction if they had to use their brains to fullfil their role then to simply depend on their marking ability or dealing damage (because if that is what they want they should have played a striker). Of course, a DM should be careful with this tactic, since there is a fine line between logical tactics and generating the feel your targetting a specific player. It can also cause frustration when the player does not have as good a grasp of tactics as the DM, or who expects an ability to function (e.g. marks are never ignored) when it doesn't.
It is also at these four points that inexperienced (4E) DMs most often fail. In itself that is not too suprising. The line between challenging and frustrating is very small and if that challenge stems from the environment the players also need to realize the threat/potential the environment has. It is one thing to realize you can push somebody in a pit, but an entirely other thing that you bull rush somebody in a tent and cause him to fall prone and perhaps even get entangled as well. Authors miss the potential. DMs miss the line noting the special effect. DMs do not give the correct clues for the players to realize what is going on (very important!). Players and DMs do not pick up the hint, or simply do not interact with the environment.
So do you have any observations of your own?
Pieter Sleijpen
RPGA LFR Global Administrator
It is one thing to realize you can push somebody in a pit, but an entirely other thing that you bull rush somebody in a tent and cause him to fall prone and perhaps even get entangled as well. Authors miss the potential. DMs miss the line noting the special effect.
I think one reason that this goes on is that players have played other modules with tents and, in those modules, bull-rushing people into tents just pushed the monster 1 square. (Pits on the other hand, have clear mechanical effects which is why players make use of them). If all of a sudden, pushing people into a tent causes them to become prone and entangled, it will feel contrived if there was no clue before the monster did it to you (or if, like perhaps half of the terrain effects/traps thus far, it does not work on monsters--it only takes pushing the clay scout onto a trigger mechanism and having the crossbow turret start firing at the party rather than the clay scout once to put a REALLY big red flag in front of using the environment in this way). If on the other hand, the DM announces/heavily clues it in up front, it becomes the gimmick of this fight. You have to guess whether it is really worth doing or whether the author attached an effect that he thought was cool but is not tactically significant, and you don't expect it to work the same way in another fight where it is not specifically called out in the text.
In general, players gain expectations about the environment from the modules that they have played. If, in those modules, the environment only existed to hurt the PCs or the effort and setup had an effect that was not worthwhile, it is going to be a while before players risk a sure thing in order to exploit the environment (which could easily backfire).
Perhaps this will change as DMs become more familiar with 4th edition and grow accustomed to using the limited damage expression tables etc, and the multitude of 1-1 modules where the traps or terrain effects could only hurt the PCs (off the top of my head there were encounters like this in, Luru 1-1, Cor 1-1, East 1-1, Agla 1-1, Dale 1-1, and, to some extent, East 1-2), but it is a promise that constantly changing DMs and past history make difficult to deliver on.
Due to all the discussions about the ease of LFR adventures on these boards I paid special attention to this aspect of the game at a convention last weekend. I have a couple of observations based on my own games, me watching other games and the stories of other players. While things can be different at other areas, they had a significant influence at this convention.
The difficulty of a fight greatly depends on how the monsters and the PCs interact with each other AND the environment. This interaction is partially in the hands of the author. If the auther uses a brute with a push effect, the author should look at how you can design an environment to use that ability to great effect. Without the environment (or a monster that depens on movement) that push 1 effect does absolutely nothing. On the other hand, it also lays with the DMs. They need to carefully read the encounter description and think about how the environment interacts with the monsters both on a general (their role) and more detailed level (their attack powers). Lurkers should hide. Skirmishers should walk. A monster with a push effect should push PCs into dangerous terrain. In 4E monsters and PCs should not simply walk towards each other and start rolling the dice. The combatants should move around, trying to use the environment to their advantage while trying to prevent the opposition to do the same. It was certainly the biggest difference between the same fights at last convention where one group of similarly experienced players and party composition considered a fight a walk-over and the other used all dailies, had PCs drop below 0 left and right (and two so close to negative bloodied they felt the breath of Kalemvor) and cheered loudly when the villain finally dropped to the ground.
There is a difference between a challenging and an engaging fight. A fight can be very hard, but become boring and frustrating because it lasts too long and turns into a repetitive roll of basic melee attacks and at-will powers (especially if the PCs have difficulties hitting the enemies). An easy fight can be very engaging because the players have to think on how to utilize the environment to their own benefit or prefent the enemies from benefiting it. More often than not it is again the utilization of the environment that means the difference between boring and engaging. I had players describe a fight as challenging, until I pointed out that only two PCs got bloodied and none dropped below 0 and no dailies had been used. At that point they realized it only appeared challenging and that that in the end appearance was all that mattered.
A challenging fight is not necessarily a good thing for the adventure, especially not when it is run in a time sensitive environment. Hard fights can take up a lot of game time. It can result in the PCs not reaching the end of the adventure within the time available. In the end, most players really prefer an engaging story that they can finish to one that consists of nothing more than fights.
Finally, do not hesitate to focus on one PC, avoiding the defenders if it makes sense and there is an opening. When a monster with an intelligence of 12 observes a priest heal somebody, and that priest remains within striking range, do not let that paladin distract your monsters. Focus on that priest since concluding the opposition is going to have a harder time without a healer is really not that far a stretch. Furthermore, it gives the defenders something to do. In my experience they feel much more satisfaction if they had to use their brains to fullfil their role then to simply depend on their marking ability or dealing damage (because if that is what they want they should have played a striker). Of course, a DM should be careful with this tactic, since there is a fine line between logical tactics and generating the feel your targetting a specific player. It can also cause frustration when the player does not have as good a grasp of tactics as the DM, or who expects an ability to function (e.g. marks are never ignored) when it doesn't.
It is also at these four points that inexperienced (4E) DMs most often fail. In itself that is not too suprising. The line between challenging and frustrating is very small and if that challenge stems from the environment the players also need to realize the threat/potential the environment has. It is one thing to realize you can push somebody in a pit, but an entirely other thing that you bull rush somebody in a tent and cause him to fall prone and perhaps even get entangled as well. Authors miss the potential. DMs miss the line noting the special effect. DMs do not give the correct clues for the players to realize what is going on (very important!). Players and DMs do not pick up the hint, or simply do not interact with the environment.
So do you have any observations of your own?
Pieter Sleijpen
RPGA LFR Global Administrator
This post should be required reading for all RPGA DMs who are making the transition from 3.5 DMing to 4e DMing.
Perhaps this will change as DMs become more familiar with 4th edition and grow accustomed to using the limited damage expression tables etc
I know that locally we are just starting to use "DMG page 42" for stuff like this. Both players and DMs are starting to be comfortable enough with the "try anything" approach inherent to 4E that stuff like entangling folks into tents, or leaping off a 30 foot building onto a foe to mid-air bull rush the foe over a cliff (suggested by a retired professional wrestler who should know what he's talking about lol) is starting to come up now, when it really never did in 2008.
For example I recently ran Baldur's Gate 1-1 and for the final fight
Bald1-1 Spoilers
I laid out two possible scenarios for the fight, one of the kidnappers were surprised and one if they were not. If they were surprised they wouldn't be in position yet and would provide good targets for AOE spells and the like. If they were not they would try to cut off the group using the cabinet to the side of the door and beat up the group in two batches. As it turns out they were not surprised and they nearly wiped the group out. It was a tough fight, the players used all their tricks and the bad guys used theirs and nobody held back. The players looked at one point like they were going to TPK, but held it together and won. Being prepared for the fight made what I have seen as a dull fight an interesting and challenging one.
1. If I just saw a leader heal someone, that's basically half (at higher APLs, 1/3) of that PC's free healing used for the encounter. As a character's encounter resources are expended, the PC becomes a less inviting target.
2. If I just saw a leader heal someone, I know where the 'safety radius' is: 5 squares in heroic, 10 in paragon, centered on that leader and moving with the PC. It turns out that it's relatively difficult for any of the current leaders to heal outside that range, so PC who can be kept out of that 'safety circle' for a meaningful amount of time becomes a target. The only PC on the board who cannot be driven out of the circle is the healer itself.
3. That last fact, combined with the healing taking a minor action, means that it is comparatively costless for a leader to keep itself healed. The real cost of healing to the party comes when the leader must leave/not enter a preferred square to heal an ally. That cost never gets paid if everybody's pounding on the leader, and the leader burns the healing words self-curing. All that's happened is the enemy has traded a standard action for the healer's minor action.
4. On the other hand, forcing the healer to move non-optimally to heal an ally is effectively dazing the healer for a round: move and minor are used healing. It's even better if the healer must shift then move to heal, as that has traded your standard for the healer's standard plus the resource. Best of all is if the healer cannot reach the needed target to heal: You just denied the party 2 or 3 very good encounter powers for some amount of time, which greatly decreases their resources.
5. All of this is based on the observation that most healers seem more than capable of outhealing the damage they can take. In my observation, dropping anyone while healing resources remain tends to be extremely difficult. The way to defeat the party is to make it burn actions, not healing.
Brayden Glad
Pieter said:
Finally, do not hesitate to focus on one PC, avoiding the defenders if it makes sense and there is an opening. When a monster with an intelligence of 12 observes a priest heal somebody, and that priest remains within striking range, do not let that paladin distract your monsters. Focus on that priest since concluding the opposition is going to have a harder time without a healer is really not that far a stretch. Furthermore, it gives the defenders something to do. In my experience they feel much more satisfaction if they had to use their brains to fullfil their role then to simply depend on their marking ability or dealing damage (because if that is what they want they should have played a striker). Of course, a DM should be careful with this tactic, since there is a fine line between logical tactics and generating the feel your targetting a specific player. It can also cause frustration when the player does not have as good a grasp of tactics as the DM, or who expects an ability to function (e.g. marks are never ignored) when it doesn't.
...So do you have any observations of your own?
I definitely agree with the environment, so many abilities are only useful (or at least enhanced) by a complex environment that you can tactically take advantage. Pushing around an enemy doesn't mean much if you can't do it any harm such as pushing it over a cliff, into a spiked wall, whatever.
Alot of my home games have combats that take -hours- even in 4th Ed just because of the more relatively minor points of how a combat can become more difficult.
What I mean is having an enemy (of reasonable intelligence or training) play to its strengths... in the same way as the players are...
The easy ways to do this are these:
- Have Masterminds target those wearing heavy armour with control effects (slow/immobilise/daze etc.).
- Have Artillery target those wearing light/no armour with their ranged attacks.
- Have Artillery move into cover/concealment if at all possible.
- Have Soldiers/Brutes attack those targets affected by control effects in preference to others (despite marks etc.).
- Have Soldiers/Brutes hold their action until they can charge an opponent, who comes within range or until the Artillery has used its alpha strike/AoE.
- Have Lurkers/Skirmishers try to get behind (or flank) the targets the Soldiers/Brutes are engaging.
- Have Lurkers/Skirmishers attack those targets with the least obvious armour in preference to others (despite marks etc.).
- Have Lurkers attempt to hide before/during combat so they can reposition unseen.
You can also have your enemies react to what the PCs do:
- If PC Leaders expose themselves (by using healing abilites for example), target them with all available firepower on the following rounds/turns, until they retreat or go down.
- If an enemy is bloodied, shift and move them past/through a Brute/Soldier so that it is more dangerous to pursue them.
- Don't be scared to keep Lurkers hidden until the battle seems over, or until the party has spent its encounter/daily powers.
- Don't be afraid to retreat... the most sinister mastermind is one who runs away... potentially taking XP with it!
There are also a few pratical tactics for unintelligent/animal intelligence monsters:
- Always go for your biggest hit first.
- Always try to flank if there are more of you than the party.
- Use AoE even if you might hit your allies.
- Don't be scared to push lesser allies out of the way to get to a target.
And the most insidious...
- Don't be scared to attack downed (negative HP) characters!
That last point should be the most scary thing for players about fighting beasts... they don't know to stop fighting, just because you're on the dirt... they might be easy to outsmart, but many times players at my tables have had to try to lure a monster away from a dying comrade, for fear it might just eat them there and then!
Hope that helps...
PGC
For more intelligent foes, however, there are more considerations to include:
1. If I just saw a leader heal someone, that's basically half (at higher APLs, 1/3) of that PC's free healing used for the encounter. As a character's encounter resources are expended, the PC becomes a less inviting target.
2. If I just saw a leader heal someone, I know where the 'safety radius' is: 5 squares in heroic, 10 in paragon, centered on that leader and moving with the PC. It turns out that it's relatively difficult for any of the current leaders to heal outside that range, so PC who can be kept out of that 'safety circle' for a meaningful amount of time becomes a target. The only PC on the board who cannot be driven out of the circle is the healer itself.
Even though I agree that highly intelligent monsters will use action-denial tactics as well as good target selection, I disagree with these two points. They strike me as DM metagaming.
Because the rules of the game are not the laws of nature, there is just no way for a monster to know how many times a leader can use XXXX Word in an encounter and very little way for them to know what the range of the leader's healing powers are.
Of course, it doesn't take precise knowledge of how PC powers work for a monster to see that hurting the leader and keeping him away from the rest of the party is a good idea.
Even though I agree that highly intelligent monsters will use action-denial tactics as well as good target selection, I disagree with these two points. They strike me as DM metagaming.
It absolutely is DM metagaming. However, this thread is about how to increase the challenge of combats for players who think combats in LFR are too easy. If these players want the challenge level increased, such metagaming is one way to give them that challenge.
For players that are having trouble with combats being too difficult, the same metagaming can be used in reverse to make the combats a little easier.
In the end, metagaming aside, it is up to the DM to decide what tactics to use. Even two (or three or 100) reasonable people who try to run monster tactics without metagaming are going to disagree on exactly how different monsters could and should work.
Shawn
LFR Global Admin
1. If I just saw a leader heal someone, that's basically half (at higher APLs, 1/3) of that PC's free healing used for the encounter. As a character's encounter resources are expended, the PC becomes a less inviting target.
Half? An 11th level cleric could potentially have nine heals available for one encounter (two healing words, healing strike, beacon of hope, cure light wounds, bastion of health, strengthen the faithful, mass cure light wounds, battle cry). Admittedly some are dailies, but even so there's a lot of healing there. Just about every level there is at least one power that heals (sometime contingent on hitting, but not always).
While it is true about encounter resources being used making PCs less inviting to attack, this only really works at low levels. Beyond that it's very hard, even for an intelligent monster (or DM...) to keep track of everything five characters at the table can potentially do. Heck, I have a hard enough time trying to remember everything I can do with one character on occasion.
It absolutely is DM metagaming. However, this thread is about how to increase the challenge of combats for players who think combats in LFR are too easy. If these players want the challenge level increased, such metagaming is one way to give them that challenge.
For players that are having trouble with combats being too difficult, the same metagaming can be used in reverse to make the combats a little easier.
In the end, metagaming aside, it is up to the DM to decide what tactics to use. Even two (or three or 100) reasonable people who try to run monster tactics without metagaming are going to disagree on exactly how different monsters could and should work.
Shawn
LFR Global Admin
Well, yes and no. Characters get a knowledge check to discover monster abilities. Is it really metagaming to think that an intelligent enemy caster might know how 'healing word' works in much the same way? After all, there must be plenty of clerics in the D&D world.
Well, yes and no. Characters get a knowledge check to discover monster abilities. Is it really metagaming to think that an intelligent enemy caster might know how 'healing word' works in much the same way? After all, there must be plenty of clerics in the D&D world.
Well, all I can say is this: Even two (or three or 100) reasonable people who try to run monster tactics without metagaming are going to disagree on exactly how different monsters could and should work. :-)
Shawn
Another tactic for the intelligent monsters: That guy in plate armor and using a shield is probably the hardest to hit, but the guy in cloth armor and holding a staff is probably just as hard to hit. (Stupid wizards, with their staff of defense and shield spell....)
It absolutely is DM metagaming. However, this thread is about how to increase the challenge of combats for players who think combats in LFR are too easy. If these players want the challenge level increased, such metagaming is one way to give them that challenge.
For players that are having trouble with combats being too difficult, the same metagaming can be used in reverse to make the combats a little easier.
In the end, metagaming aside, it is up to the DM to decide what tactics to use. Even two (or three or 100) reasonable people who try to run monster tactics without metagaming are going to disagree on exactly how different monsters could and should work.
Shawn
LFR Global Admin
I'd just like to say that this post exemplifies the best way to scale an adventure. The more LFR adventures I run and play, the more I find that the difficulty level of an adventure is almost entirely within the hands of the DM. Some people get frustrated by DM meta-gaming, and that's understandable, but a certain amount of it may be necessary to adjust the difficulty of an adventure in either direction. I have already seen a few disagreements on what constitutes "DM Metagaming" and I think that these arguments will continue.
One solution I've been using that has been working for me is to offer a choice between three difficulty levels to the party, come to an agreement on one, and then strive to run the adventure at the difficulty level agreed upon. My monsters don't change with difficulty, but their tactics and the amount of "DM Metagaming" (a very relative term) I use do vary.
~Dave
I want to underscore the difference between difficulty and challenge. A difficult encounter is one that likely threatens PC's chances to succeed at and live through the encounter. That can be fun, but it can also be too much for players.
A challenge is really anything that requires an "A-game" mentality, and does not have to threaten the life of the PC. In 3.xE, this was largely confined to RP, puzzles, and the like. In 4E, you can challenge with a lot more, including tactical positioning, proper use of terrain, understanding what the enemy is doing, etc.
A simple example is that skull game the kobolds use in the back of the DMG. Yelling "Skully skull skull" and similar threats, the kobolds hurl a skull on a rope at the PCs, trying to chuck them into the vat of nasty waste. Independent of the difficulty of that encounter, you challenge the PCs with an interesting dynamic and to analyze and respond to the situation ("Hey, DM, could I catch that skull and chuck it back at them?" "Now that I teleported here, I grab a skull and return the favor...")
We are, I think, used to challenge and difficulty being the same thing in combat encounters. With too low a difficulty level, we end up bored. In 4E, the difficulty can be low but the challenge, interest level, and fun can still be really high.
Now, a lot of this is in the authoring realm. Still, DMs can take a look at encounters with an eye towards these challenges, focusing on how terrain, dynamics, monster types, and other aspects can create a challenge. Just imagine a goblin hexer that stands on the other side of the door, having the goblin adjacent to him open and close the door for him every round so he can fire and then be safe (and absorb a readied action against him by using his redirect immediate action). That's the kind of thing that can make for fun tactics at the table as the party splits to handle the challenge. Even with the fight being easy, it ends up being challenging and fun.
Well, yes and no. Characters get a knowledge check to discover monster abilities. Is it really metagaming to think that an intelligent enemy caster might know how 'healing word' works in much the same way? After all, there must be plenty of clerics in the D&D world.
Well, monsters and NPCs follow different rules than PCs in 4e, so technically there will only ever be a maximum of six PC-class clerics in the gameworld at any one time.
Combats need 3 things to be difficult
1) A DM with superior tactical sence than the players and the will to use it.
2) The encounter has to be well designed
3) The encounter has to be draining
Also the biggest problem is that many encounters are tipicaly poorly designed, and no offence to mod writers I dont know the rules on this, but rarely use level +4 and 5 monsters which are the only way to challange a strongly optimized party
Example, we were playing spell guard and the
adventure spoiler!
Dark stalker while increadably strong against the PCs didnt tpk them it just took a long time to kill and quickly dropped many party memebers draining several surges by itself. This was a strong encounter because the monster was well designed.
Dark stalker while increadably strong against the PCs didnt tpk them it just took a long time to kill and quickly dropped many party memebers draining several surges by itself. This was a strong encounter because the monster was well designed.
I'd just like to say that this post exemplifies the best way to scale an adventure. The more LFR adventures I run and play, the more I find that the difficulty level of an adventure is almost entirely within the hands of the DM. Some people get frustrated by DM meta-gaming, and that's understandable, but a certain amount of it may be necessary to adjust the difficulty of an adventure in either direction.
I think that metagaming attacks the honesty of the game. It attacks the fact that this should be a roleplaying game.
I rate it as worse than cheating on die rolls.
If that's the only solution the cure is worse than the disease, imho.
-James
1. Play smart. Ignore the monster's intelligence and motivations. Play it smart, evaluate the benefits of ignoring the defender, drop bloodied targets first, focus fire, etc.
2. Use what the monsters know to their advantage. The PCs get to know what effects the monster's abilities have and the monsters get to know the same. When the barbarian rages keep him under control, keep him knocked prone, immobile, and slowed. Once the monsters find out who the fighter is keep him dazed to limit his combat superiority.
3. Replace all brutes. Brutes are terrible, period. Replace them with soldiers and skirmishers. Even elite and solo brutes are bad compared to other elites and solos.
I also dont see something else I would like to see in mods. Total monster advantage with no checks given. (The monster is invisable is now not invisable and all 5 attack the party with CA and get a full surprize round.)
You like that?!? As far as I can remember, that was one of the most universally detested factors of a number of Living Greyhawk core mods. ("The monsters are hiding under the sand, unless the players specifically say that they are looking for foes under the sand, they do not get a spot check and automatically surprise the PCS.") Personally, I would hate to see that return to the RPGA.
You like that?!? As far as I can remember, that was one of the most universally detested factors of a number of Living Greyhawk core mods. ("The monsters are hiding under the sand, unless the players specifically say that they are looking for foes under the sand, they do not get a spot check and automatically surprise the PCS.") Personally, I would hate to see that return to the RPGA.
The problem is however, that sometimes you have characters who are twinked to be totally surprise-proof (such as my own main character who has a passive perception of 27 at only 6th level) and hence such a situation, which *can* be interesting if used sparingly, can *never* arise.
I ran a module last night where the enemies were decidedly low-power... lots of lurkers, skirmishers and one controller/mastermind.
The players had them vastly outgunned, with 2 Archer Rangers (with massive passive Perception), 2 Lazer Clerics, a Staff Wizard and an AC Tank Fighter.
After the final battle, the players remarked that the enemies had seemed particularly tough this time (this was the third replay for some)... the reason?
- The Controller locked down the Fighter with an at-will daze attack every round.
- The Lurkers didn't use their melee attacks, they shot the lighly armoured Clerics and Rangers with their crossbows while they were concealed (to add +1D6 damage).
- The Lurkers stayed concealed as long as they could, improving their defences against the Ranger's bow attacks.
- The Lurkers used hard cover to reposition and shot the characters with defence bonuses from both concealment and cover where possible.
- A couple of critical hits made the Lurkers seem to be higher damage enemies than they were.
I also used my old trick of increasing the size of a couple of Guard Drakes (keep the same stats, just make them large with no reach), which allows them to block more squares (this makes them more effective Brutes). This only irritated the Fighter (who got to use his Dragon Breath safely for once) while it gave the Wizard lots of big targets to drop his AoE on... so if anything it made them easier to deal with.
However, this was marked change in tactics from those reccomended in the module. But it was enough to stretch the combat out and caused the use of a number of Healing Words and even some Second Winds... following this the players felt they had claimed a justified victory... and, like I said, this was a third reply for some!
Minor changes can make major differences.
The problem is however, that sometimes you have characters who are twinked to be totally surprise-proof (such as my own main character who has a passive perception of 27 at only 6th level) and hence such a situation, which *can* be interesting if used sparingly, can *never* arise.
If you think that is surprise proof, you are in for a *real* surprise one of these days. At level 6, there are a few enemies that have stealth checks in the +15 range and lots more down around +10 or 12. That means they beat your passive half the time. Even an active check will likely miss high stealth rolls.
There is nothing quite like the party eyes giving the all-clear to lead to overconfidence. Next thing you know, the cleric has been eaten and a bugbear strangler is using his corpse as a body-shield. Will you be the first to attack and potentially drop him below his negative bloody value?
passive perception of 27 at only 6th level
As a thought experiment I built a character with a 27 passive Perception at level 1 out of the gate.
Elf Ranger (+2)
20 Wisdom (+5) (he can still afford a 16 Dex with this Wis, and you can get away with a 16 in your attack stat if necessary)
Trained (+5)
Durpar region (+2)
Skill Focus (+3)
Total: +17
- Don't be scared to attack downed (negative HP) characters!
That last point should be the most scary thing for players about fighting beasts... they don't know to stop fighting, just because you're on the dirt... they might be easy to outsmart, but many times players at my tables have had to try to lure a monster away from a dying comrade, for fear it might just eat them there and then!
Not only is that likely to really upset players, I don't think it's as realistic as you seem to think. Most predatory animals are fairly intelligent, at least compared to prey animals. Also, they tend to not eat their kill until they feel they have some safety. They will drag it to a safe place and take a good look around them before settling in to dinner. The "realistic" thing, then, may be to have the animal try to drag the dying character away, or stand over the dying character to protect its kill from its rivals, the other PC's.
The way I approach DMing combat is to really think about the motivations of the NPC's. What is their goal? Is it really just to throw themselves at the PC's and fight to the death like they often seem to be played? Maybe, but probably not. Maybe they are just protecting their turf. They might stage a tactical withdraw to areas easier to defend. Maybe they just turn tail and run when they are bloodied, or at least pull back to the back lines while fresh troops take their place. Assuming the NPC's are interested in self-preservation can actually make the combat much more difficult. That archer you've hit a few times and bloodied might just duck behind a post, gaining full cover, for a few rounds until he sees a good opportunity...
If there is a leader type in the back, and he is reasonably intelligent, he is probably somewhat tactically skilled. This is probably not these NPC's first rodeo. They will probably know how to use teamwork and effective tactics. It isn't metagaming to see that the guy in the robes in the back is probably a softer target than the huge, metal-clad sword-of-death guy up front.
To add realism, though, those coordinating commands from the leader might have to be given out loud, if it is not reasonable to assume that the NPC team is super-well-coordinated and disciplined. He points to the healer and says, "get him, my minions!" That, at least, will give the PC's a head's up about what is about to happen to them... assuming they understand the leader's language....