4e Fan Creations and House RulesWorking on variant powers? Statting up a PC race or your version of a monster? Creating or converting an adventure? Put it here!
We have been play testing things from Dragon and Dungeon magazine by reducing lesser monster's hit points by anywhere from 25% to 75% along with experience point reductions to reduce the time it takes to do combat based on the suggestion of someone here and I must say that it is a very nice method. It makes the game feel the way it used to. Of course the big bosses retain all their hit points.
Interesting how so many people are finding it necessary to tweak combat this way. Myself I've gone with averaged damage instead of rolled damage (which includes +1/2 level damage for one target per attack) and a flat +2 attack bonus on both sides across the board. This is working very well for us. A fight with 1 elite, 4 standards and 20 minions (level 5-7) against 5 level sixes only lasted about an hour without any reported drag.
__________________ Player: "What are you going to do us next?! Key our cars after the session?!" Listen to our game play podcast here or on itunes.
Its odd, I haven't really noticed that monsters usually seem to HAVE excessive hit points. I guess reducing hit points on some monsters by 25% would get them killed off quicker, but it seems like when a couple of the high damage dealing PCs focus on a level equivalent monster it goes down in about 2 rounds. There are always a few monsters here and there that hang on a while, but once the party deals with the couple of biggies the rest have usually taken a decent amount of damage too.
I'd say if there is a problem its generally a higher level elite or solo (especially soldiers) that can seem to hang around a bit too long. I'd be more tempted to apply the MM2 monster design pattern and just cut back a bit on the defenses and maybe 20% on the hit points of the big guys and leave the small fry alone.
Of course every DM uses a bit different mix of monsters, so its kind of hard to say there is one perfect formula. I tend to rely a lot on larger numbers of monsters that are 1-3 levels lower than the PCs and a couple equal level baddies to bolster them up. It seems to be a reasonably good way to go so far.
My rules aren't designed to work on hit poitns per se, I've not had a problem with the monsters staying alive 'too long'. Mine are designed to make combat slightly faster and to flatten the power curve a bit.
__________________ Player: "What are you going to do us next?! Key our cars after the session?!" Listen to our game play podcast here or on itunes.
I've been playing with 50% hitpoints, +25-50% damage. It makes combat MUCH bloodier, but the party I run is enjoying it, since it allows them to avoid what they perceive as a grind, lets them use all the toys they like, and move onto story. The higher end of the increased damage scale I think only works because we have two leaders (warlord and cleric), otherwise I would advise the lower end of the scale unless you want a really scary combat.
The current level 8 party I am DM-ing usually mops up level +0 to level +2 encounters in about 5 rounds. Each fight lasts 30-45 minutes. In other words: monsters get killed fast enough.
As a DM I have some issues with actually managing to damage the party. I usually go for targetting the Invoker or Bard. The Ranger has too many immidiate interrupt powers. The Barbarian* has too much temp hp and too high healing surge value and the Fighter is just a pain I try to avoid.
*Started with str/dex 18 since he is a half-orc so he has quite good AC.
As a DM I have some issues with actually managing to damage the party. I The Barbarian* has too much temp hp and too high healing surge value and the Fighter is just a pain I try to avoid.
I actually managed to kill the full health, 8th level barbarian in our last adventure in Pyramid of Shadows in two rounds. A trap in the book, Location #4, cut him off from his allies and the monster just ripped him to shreds before anyone could get in there to help. I made it a little harder by adding some minons too, but all in all it was just a deathtrap. As for the fighter, i don't think i've ever come close to killing the fighter. From a DM point of view they can be a real pain in the arse.
I've been playing with 50% hitpoints, +25-50% damage. It makes combat MUCH bloodier, but the party I run is enjoying it, since it allows them to avoid what they perceive as a grind, lets them use all the toys they like, and move onto story. The higher end of the increased damage scale I think only works because we have two leaders (warlord and cleric), otherwise I would advise the lower end of the scale unless you want a really scary combat.
I posted the 50% hp, 150% number of monsters idea way back. That has worked reasonably well for us, but next session I'm going to try 50% hp, 200% damage instead. Mainly to make the game quicker and more dramatic; fights now seem a bit too long and a bit too safe.
Reading that 25 to 50% extra damage has done it for you makes me a bit nervous tough - maybe 100% extra damage is a bit much. But it ought to work out pretty much the same at 50% more monsters, mathematically.
My reasoning, very schematically, is this:
50% extra monsters at half hit points
Monsters do more damage because there are more of them.
150% damage (numbers) * 50% time (hp) * 150% total ho (numbers again) = 113% total damage over the fight
100% extra damage at half hit points
200% damage * 50% time (hp) = 100% total damage over the fight
__________________ Carl Cramér
Member of the Netbook of Feats review board.
I actually managed to kill the full health, 8th level barbarian in our last adventure in Pyramid of Shadows in two rounds. A trap in the book, Location #4, cut him off from his allies and the monster just ripped him to shreds before anyone could get in there to help. I made it a little harder by adding some minons too, but all in all it was just a deathtrap. As for the fighter, i don't think i've ever come close to killing the fighter. From a DM point of view they can be a real pain in the arse.
After the Fighter got Crushing Surge, he has been really hard to damage. If he gets too much attention, he just swaps to hit for 8 or 5 temp hp depending on if he hits or not. He gets 3 temp hp if he hits with his normal powers...
I have managed to put our fighter down, but that was about level 3 or 4 with a Hobgoblin warcaster that rolled high all the time. Hobgoblin warcasters are fun.
I can probably kill any character if I cut them off from the rest of the party. Something that is not going to happen if they have ANY way of preventing it. Throwing half an encounter on a single character without back is deadly.
I posted the 50% hp, 150% number of monsters idea way back. That has worked reasonably well for us, but next session I'm going to try 50% hp, 200% damage instead. Mainly to make the game quicker and more dramatic; fights now seem a bit too long and a bit too safe.
Reading that 25 to 50% extra damage has done it for you makes me a bit nervous tough - maybe 100% extra damage is a bit much. But it ought to work out pretty much the same at 50% more monsters, mathematically.
My reasoning, very schematically, is this:
50% extra monsters at half hit points
Monsters do more damage because there are more of them.
150% damage (numbers) * 50% time (hp) * 150% total ho (numbers again) = 113% total damage over the fight
100% extra damage at half hit points
200% damage * 50% time (hp) = 100% total damage over the fight
How long does your fights last? Mine lasts as I mentioned about 5 rounds, so yours should last maybe 3? That isn't even enough to blow through all your encounter powers at higher levels, much less any dailies?
I think the important thing I've seen (only done it in three sessions, so four combats give or take) is that the damage range can be somewhat unpredictable. A player who takes a couple bad hits can be extremely knocked around, and can find themselves in very precarious positions if they're less than 10hp before that hit. It becomes EXTREMELY dangerous in any combat with a creature that can give ongoing damage. Speaking of which, don't adjust ongoing damage. Even ongoing 5 is scary, ongoing 10 is scary but still reasonable, but ongoing 15 is devastating. Maybe it isn't at epic, but I don't know if there's enough hp still to make it ok.
Party is 13th level with a Warlord, Cleric, Sorcerer, Paladin, and Warlock. If a striker gets picked on by a brute or more than one other monster, they get messed up quick. Last encounter the Warlock was hovering around 5hp every round after the first, survived but still very scary for her and that was with at least one leader focusing healing on her every round. Any action-removing power where a character can't move (stunned, dazed, immobilized) is potentially lethal. In this particular combat, they were fighting 4 Ash Remnants and immobilization keeping them locked down, and they would be in fear of being mobbed. I have a feeling ghouls would kill one of them.
Combat threat does depend on the monsters. I'm playing at level 13 right now, and based on looking at hp scaling, if a creature is going up on average 4-5hp or so every level, every 5 levels it'll add a round of combat which pretty dangerous at first glance. Creatures 3+ levels above a party are dangerous originally, in this version they are exceedingly difficult. I haven't done the actual math on these things, since I really don't have the time, but just looking at it.
Combat threat does depend on the monsters. I'm playing at level 13 right now, and based on looking at hp scaling, if a creature is going up on average 4-5hp or so every level, every 5 levels it'll add a round of combat which pretty dangerous at first glance. Creatures 3+ levels above a party are dangerous originally, in this version they are exceedingly difficult. I haven't done the actual math on these things, since I really don't have the time, but just looking at it.
Well, yeah, you've pointed out two potential issues. One is swinginess. When you crank monster damage you've got the potential to just kill PCs outright in a single round, which generally isn't possible (or likely) with standard damage outputs.
I agree about higher level monsters too. It isn't really about their hit points so much. Sure they'll be LESS of a threat at 50% hit points, but with their higher defenses they may well simply not GET damaged if the party has even a bit of poor luck on a couple rolls. The higher level damage is then really significantly lethal.
The other issue that I haven't seen addressed though is skew. When you have low hit point opponents fights become shorter in rounds and anything that doesn't simply do quantities of damage becomes considerably devalued. Why bother with wizard AoE control effect spells when even a moderate amount of focus fire will just wipe the monster out? You lose some of the tactical positioning aspects of combat as well since any plan that requires a couple rounds to pay off is just not worth it. You'll also significantly narrow the character's viable actions due to action economy as well. In a 4 round fight it is unlikely to be worth using a standard action for anything except a direct attack.
Well, yeah, you've pointed out two potential issues. One is swinginess. When you crank monster damage you've got the potential to just kill PCs outright in a single round, which generally isn't possible (or likely) with standard damage outputs.
I agree about higher level monsters too. It isn't really about their hit points so much. Sure they'll be LESS of a threat at 50% hit points, but with their higher defenses they may well simply not GET damaged if the party has even a bit of poor luck on a couple rolls. The higher level damage is then really significantly lethal.
The other issue that I haven't seen addressed though is skew. When you have low hit point opponents fights become shorter in rounds and anything that doesn't simply do quantities of damage becomes considerably devalued. Why bother with wizard AoE control effect spells when even a moderate amount of focus fire will just wipe the monster out? You lose some of the tactical positioning aspects of combat as well since any plan that requires a couple rounds to pay off is just not worth it. You'll also significantly narrow the character's viable actions due to action economy as well. In a 4 round fight it is unlikely to be worth using a standard action for anything except a direct attack.
I actually think the concept of less time of battle has done one good thing for me and that's it makes terrain far more important. If an enemy can take a couple swings and not even be bloodied, it is far more willing to sit in the open and not run behind rocks or walls. If any hit can be over 50% of a creature's hitpoints, they tend to be smarter (or at least I am lol). Players move around a lot more too, because as monsters drop, they have to go after the next one. Increasing terrain damage is something I've also done, except for falling damage. I haven't had an opportunity to ponder falling damage much, may be worthwhile to increase but I"m not sure.
Another thing, it becomes somewhat more interesting to have more lower-level enemies. They may not hit much, but they're still threatening when they hit. Minions are the same, throw in a lot more lower-level minions and its no longer "oh, they hit me for 7-10 damage" but instead "damn! thats another 10-15 damage! we need to deal with these!"
As to whether to increase damage from +50% to +100%, I'd say the big question is how many higher level threats are there? Keeping the enemy range from +/- 1 level of the party, it may not be too bad. If you get above +2 of the party though, I'm not sure if that would go well.
I actually think the concept of less time of battle has done one good thing for me and that's it makes terrain far more important. If an enemy can take a couple swings and not even be bloodied, it is far more willing to sit in the open and not run behind rocks or walls. If any hit can be over 50% of a creature's hitpoints, they tend to be smarter (or at least I am lol). Players move around a lot more too, because as monsters drop, they have to go after the next one. Increasing terrain damage is something I've also done, except for falling damage. I haven't had an opportunity to ponder falling damage much, may be worthwhile to increase but I"m not sure.
Another thing, it becomes somewhat more interesting to have more lower-level enemies. They may not hit much, but they're still threatening when they hit. Minions are the same, throw in a lot more lower-level minions and its no longer "oh, they hit me for 7-10 damage" but instead "damn! thats another 10-15 damage! we need to deal with these!"
As to whether to increase damage from +50% to +100%, I'd say the big question is how many higher level threats are there? Keeping the enemy range from +/- 1 level of the party, it may not be too bad. If you get above +2 of the party though, I'm not sure if that would go well.
Well, overall my points are based more on analysis than experience with trying it, so I don't think they should be given TOO high a weight either. Once or twice I have run into games where they were trying to do this and were having some odd things happen, but it can be pretty hard to sort out one specific house rule as being the reason for something too. So its not a bad experiment to try and I'm interested in hearing more about how it actually went for people.
I'm still not that unimpressed with regular old minions though. I think there are definitely certain characters that can really clean them out, but even with a pretty good control wizard in the party I'm DMing they still regularly manage to get the party's attention. Had a level 7 battle the other day where I had 4 level 7 minions. They didn't have a HUGE impact, but they closed with the party and got hits. One got cleaved, another the STR cleric finally had to bash with healing strike, 2 others fell to the warlock's rod of reaving but it was round 4 before the last one went down, so they got an average of 2-3 swings, probably 10 attacks in all, 5 hits, so 25 damage. I suppose doubling it might have made them scarier, but I probably should have upped it to like 7 per hit anyway at that level.
I've run a fair amount of 50% hps, 200% damage monsters in my campaign, and it has worked just fine. However, my party is large and has multiple leaders, so I wonder if I am undervaluing that damage increase somewhat.
Lemme just add that this GREATLY increases the swinginess of encounters, though.
I've been using the 50% HP / 200% damage tweak for the past few sessions.
I think it's great, but it does have major problems.
Fast combat is awesome. In a four hour session, we might have 3 or 4 combats, lots of exploration and roleplaying and storytelling. Last night we had a bunch of exposition, a couple of quick combats (one didn't even need a tactical map) and a BBEG fight with 15 minions, 6 soldiers (2 leaders), an artillery, and the BBEG himself. The whole combat lasted 6 rounds, about 2 hours of game time, and the swordmage and warlord were both 2 hp away from negative bloodied.
However, tactics can be messed up. The fighter is at a bigger disadvantage, because a come-and-get-it can kill him fast. Basically, no one can stand toe to toe with anyone and trade more than 3 solid hits without going down. I've stopped doing coup de gras, but it's really scary.
I don't double damage for minions, ongoing, or traps. I am also doubling XP, because I want the campaign to move as quickly as possible.
I've been using the 50% HP / 200% damage tweak for the past few sessions.
I think it's great, but it does have major problems.
Fast combat is awesome. In a four hour session, we might have 3 or 4 combats, lots of exploration and roleplaying and storytelling. Last night we had a bunch of exposition, a couple of quick combats (one didn't even need a tactical map) and a BBEG fight with 15 minions, 6 soldiers (2 leaders), an artillery, and the BBEG himself. The whole combat lasted 6 rounds, about 2 hours of game time, and the swordmage and warlord were both 2 hp away from negative bloodied.
However, tactics can be messed up. The fighter is at a bigger disadvantage, because a come-and-get-it can kill him fast. Basically, no one can stand toe to toe with anyone and trade more than 3 solid hits without going down. I've stopped doing coup de gras, but it's really scary.
I don't double damage for minions, ongoing, or traps. I am also doubling XP, because I want the campaign to move as quickly as possible.
One thing we noted immediately is the effect of powers that make the monsters attack themselves, such as Fool's Opportunity, Bloody Path, all domination effects, etc...
__________________ -Monster? Tell me, what makes you call a pretty young lady like me a... a... monster?
-Come on! You walk through fire, you walk through walls, you rip holes in the celling, and you can even fly.
-Very good reasons, but not good enough!
How long does your fights last? Mine lasts as I mentioned about 5 rounds, so yours should last maybe 3? That isn't even enough to blow through all your encounter powers at higher levels, much less any dailies?
Using double damage/half hp monsters, my two fights yesterday lasted about 5 rounds each. These were tough fights, at level +3 or +4.
__________________ Carl Cramér
Member of the Netbook of Feats review board.
One thing we noted immediately is the effect of powers that make the monsters attack themselves, such as Fool's Opportunity, Bloody Path, all domination effects, etc...
Yoinks.
I've been using the half hps, double damage for some monsters- sometimes mixing an encounter up with some "faster damage and die" monsters and some standard ones.
Oh yeah, and when I do it, I double damage dice only- so if the default monster does 1d10+3 damage, the "faster damage and die" version does 2d10+3. (This also means no increase in ongoing damage.)
To be fair, powers that make monsters attack themselves tend to actually not be terribly effective compared to actual PC attacks. So them becoming more effective is probably not too scary.
Linear Mode
And yet another word from our sponsors
