Forum

[gizmo33]

Originally Posted by crash_beedo

It's a tougher argument in 4E, where it takes 1,000xp to get to level 2, and only 3750 to get to level 4, but the difference between a level 1 standard fight is 500xp and level 4 is only 875xp. Players *might* still be leveling at an acceptable (albeit unchallenging) pace if given access to enough encounters below their character level.

The difference in XP, hopefully, is proportional to the difference in difficulty (at least in theory). And turning a 1st level encounter into a second level encounter means adding 125 xp worth of monster. I don't think that players who kick down a door and see 6 orcs instead of 5 are going to cry foul. Plus you can use alliances between monsters, tricks and traps, etc. to boost the encounter difficulty on short notice.

IME people that ran old-school megadungeons would have to have plenty of tricks up their sleeves to balance encounters, which I think is far more difficult in earlier editions. I don't think the basic principles have changed (and as much as it might seem otherwise, the rules don't prevent the PCs from running away). People interested in megadungeons IMO should consult the 1E DMG and Dragon Mags from that time period, although the advice is of mixed usefulness IME. Unfortunately, IMO, the 4E DMG lectures pretty much run contrary to what a DM wants to do in a sandbox game.

The world/environment (which, in this case, is the dungeon), should adapt to the presence of the PCs, and the DM can see to it that it does so on a way that suits his interests in terms of balance. For example, I think the monsters living on level 2 would get curious about all the crashing and banging they hear going on upstairs. IMC they would investigate sooner or later. Meaning if the PCs don't go to the dungeon, the dungeon will go to the PCs. Probably while they are camping. Things that are good for game balance are often good for versimiltude as well.

I don't take the treasure parcels thing seriously either. I don't think it's necessary for 4E. I don't think it takes a DMing genius to get a sufficient sense of the PCs power. IME you can't balance challenges on a razor's edge no matter what, unless you fudge. That's due to random chance as well as tactical decisions by the PCs (which often appear as random chance due to the fact that two smart people often see the same thing two different ways). Bottom line is, place the treasure however you want, require the PCs find it, and expect the encounters to adjust to the PCs power level (which will just simply not be the same as character level). The adjustments don't have to be heavy-handed, the in-game rationale for them is basically that the more successful the party is, the more powerful creatures become aware of them and the weaker creatures band together for their survival.

If it takes a DM more than one or two encounters to figure out how powerful a 1st level party is with a bunch of +5 weapons, then that DM should stick to treasure parcels.

Also, when it comes to too much stuff, don't forget rust monsters, disenchanters, thieves, former owners, etc. Certainly, "taking away the PCs stuff" is something that is increasingly unfamiliar to DnD players but it's not prevented by the rules. Done badly, many of the tactics suggested by 1E for dealing with these issues can be obnoxious and heavy-handed, which is probably why 4E steers away from this gaming style. But IMO a DM has so many options for dealing with this issue that with some thoughtfulness, subtlety, and experience a DM make this into a good game.