D&D 4th Edition RulesAsk questions about 4th-Edition rules and the like in here. General discussion about 4E or any other game belongs in General RPG Discussion, above.
All Striker Frontline:
- Hexhammer (Infernal Warlock / Fighter -> Iron Vanguard): more durable than most Defenders.
- TWF Ranger / Cleric -> Warpriest (in heavy armor, with HBO): hits like a Striker, marks like a Defender; durable 1/day with Divine Power. Oh, he heals too.
Midrange:
- Brutal Rogue: normal melee Rogue who can wear Hide armor.
- Draconic Sorcerer: Burning Spray + White Lotus feats = yeah, bugger off. Throw in Acid Orb + Reaper's Touch and you've covered a lot of bases.
Optional:
- Elf Archer (Hybrid Ranger | Cleric): it's not like Archery Rangers actually have any good class features...
- Barbarian: my experience with these guys is that they really like having a full-on Leader in the party. However, a hybrid Str+Cha Barb | Cleric could be excellent, taking Str-powers which heal and key their secondary benefits off of Charisma. Same deal with a hybrid Str+Cha Barb | Warlord.
Cheers, -- N
I like the strike team.
Do we want to open it up to PHB2/MM2 I know there was discussion limiting it to the first three core book.
Re: scoring criteria, I think the simplest and most 'objective' way of doing this would be testing to destruction: both groups run through the same series of encounters with on a single short rest between each. See how far they get before everyone is dead. It's the only real measure, even if it might not be quite practical for your run.
Here's some encounters...I just used the standard encounter listing found in the DMG (it's of course listed for 5 players but the encounter budget doesn't push it up too far...)
Battlefield Control
Here's some encounters...I just used the standard encounter listing found in the DMG (it's of course listed for 5 players but the encounter budget doesn't push it up too far...)
Battlefield Control
(yeah, it's random, but I couldn't find a good match given the restrictions I placed on myself
Double Line Encounter
3 Front Line Soldiers - 3 Wood Woad (MM2)
2 Rear Line (1 Artillery - Gnome Entropist {MM2}, 1 Controller - Eladrin Twilight Incanter {MM1}
Slightly above a standard encounter +1 (Total Xp = 1750) but not overly much that a party should have to use up dailies or action points.
Commandeer and Troops
Commandeer Controller - Neogi Slaver (MM2)
5 Troops in support - 2 Duergar Shock Troopers (MM2) and 3 Dwarven Hammerers (MM1)
Dragon's Den
Behir Bolter Whelp (MM2)
EDIT: Forgot to add one
Wolf Pack
1 Fang of Yeenoghu (MM2)
3 Gnoll Gorgers (MM2)
3 Gnoll Claw Fighters (MM1)
1. Solo combat
2. Boss + many minions
3. Terrain/traps + artillery
4. Straight up just a good mix of monsters without minions or very few
We have a lot of the #4 type encounters, we need a #2 and #3 encounter so the wizard can shine.
I don't know what should come first the encounters or the PCs because likely one will influence the build of the other.
Mixed Role Party:
Tiefling Wand Wizard using fire and maximizing their to hit chance and damage
Dwarf WIS Cleric maximizing their ability to lead the party by giving bonuses
Dragonborn or Human Fighter, sword and board with hyper defense
Rogue duplicated from the the Strike team
2 Black Pudding (MM2) in an underground cavern that has suffered from an earthquake and the cavern has slightly collapsed thus the entire area is considered Difficult Terrain
There aren't a lot of choices for solo monsters at the heroic tier especially if you want to add some minions in....
2 Black Pudding (MM2) in an underground cavern that has suffered from an earthquake and the cavern has slightly collapsed thus the entire area is considered Difficult Terrain
There aren't a lot of choices for solo monsters at the heroic tier especially if you want to add some minions in....
Elite + minions --> not a solo. Conceptually like a necromancer and a bunch of minion skeletons and zombies. Something along those lines.
__________________ Sadrik
Last edited by Sadrik; 8th June 2009 at 03:27 AM..
Elite + minions --> not a solo. Conceptually like a necromancer and a bunch of minion skeletons and zombies. Something along those lines.
Well, the 2 black puddings make their own minions but if you want just an elite and minions that still is a little bit tricky without the use of a template...I rather only restrict myself to the MMs and not use either the DMG or any other source...
Well, the 2 black puddings make their own minions but if you want just an elite and minions that still is a little bit tricky without the use of a template...I rather only restrict myself to the MMs and not use either the DMG or any other source...
Solo + Minions - the standard template seems to suggest using a lower level solo and some minions, doesn't it? I am sure you could find something in the area, it just won't look like a Necromancer, more like a Dragon plus some Human Lackeys or so.
It might also be interesting to have a single higher level encounter in the middle, followed by easier encounters. E.G. see if the party still fairs well when it spend most dailies in a previous encounter.
Thoughts of the Arch Chancellor - My weblog on EN World - containing game related material, like: house rules, design theories, reviews, play reports, adventure ideas
Secret Member of <Think we would just hide our secret with a spoiler tag, eh?>
Solo + Minions - the standard template seems to suggest using a lower level solo and some minions, doesn't it? I am sure you could find something in the area, it just won't look like a Necromancer, more like a Dragon plus some Human Lackeys or so.
I was actually hoping NOT to use Dragons but really, there aren't any level 7 monsters that are solos that aren't dragons in the MMs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mustrum_Ridcully
It might also be interesting to have a single higher level encounter in the middle, followed by easier encounters. E.G. see if the party still fairs well when it spend most dailies in a previous encounter.
Well, all of the encounters I've put up have XP budgets between EL + 1 and EL + 2 so I don't think they'll need dailies so we might want to add more monsters or a new encounter for a challenging/hard fight.
Wouldn't this be just it for a difficult Solo Encounter with Minions:
Young Blue Dragon (Level 7 Solo Artillery): 1.250 XP
8 Human Lackeys (Level 7 Minion): 600 XP
Total XP 1.850
Terrain: A forest, a small river with a bridge crossing it.
Scenario:
Spoiler:
The Lackeys are bandits that are forced to work wit the Blue Dragon. Their old leader was killed by the dragon. The Lackeys fear the dragon too much to just run away. The Lackeys do not present themself at first, and wait until the party is trying to cross the bridge, then running out of the woods to strike them. Their goal is to keep the enemy party together, to give the dragon a good chance to catch most of them, while at the same time not being caught up in the dragons blast.
I would have preferred an encounter with the Red Dragon and a bunch of "artillery capable" minions, but I didn't find any ones in the level range. Decrepit Skeletons would have been neat for that, but they are level 1!
Sahugin Guards could try, but they get only one attack with their weapon and are then unarmed!
Thoughts of the Arch Chancellor - My weblog on EN World - containing game related material, like: house rules, design theories, reviews, play reports, adventure ideas
Secret Member of <Think we would just hide our secret with a spoiler tag, eh?>
Is there anything horribly wrong with using the DMG rules for adding or subtracting a level from something? For example dropping a level on a red dragon, or having level 6 decrepit skeletons?
I think there are like level 4 or 5 decrepit skeletons statted out in the D&D Compendium cause they were in some module.
Is there anything horribly wrong with using the DMG rules for adding or subtracting a level from something?
An absolute great rule. I find that within the range of about +/- 3 the rule works really well at delivering the same challenge and actual level of that monster provides. Really increases the mileage out of your MM.
First, I would avoid any multiclassing of the strikers to fill their "holes" - this is a test of concept, and as such IMHO the strikers should concentrate on being strikers, not on strikers + something else.
Second, I would generate a huge list of D20 rolls, and use it for both parties, going through it in order. This will help standardize the luck between the two parties (well, it won't do so completely, as one group may roll that natural 20 for their daily and another for their roll to jump o nto a table). Doesn't work so well if you use the same party for both and they remember the rolls. Incidentally, I would also do this for all the monsters, each with their own table of rolls.
That may be more planning than you are willing to do, however...
If I might make some suggestions -
First, I would avoid any multiclassing of the strikers to fill their "holes" - this is a test of concept, and as such IMHO the strikers should concentrate on being strikers, not on strikers + something else.
The concept is how a party of strikers built to operate as such compare to a balanced party not strikers built for maximum damage or whatever.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr_Ruminahui
Second, I would generate a huge list of D20 rolls, and use it for both parties, going through it in order. This will help standardize the luck between the two parties (well, it won't do so completely, as one group may roll that natural 20 for their daily and another for their roll to jump o nto a table). Doesn't work so well if you use the same party for both and they remember the rolls. Incidentally, I would also do this for all the monsters, each with their own table of rolls.
That may be more planning than you are willing to do, however...
The concept is how a party of strikers built to operate as such compare to a balanced party not strikers built for maximum damage or whatever.
Well, my understanding was that the issue you are seeking to prove/disprove is that a party of all strikers is "better" than a balanced party.
As such, I think its a better "proof" of that concept if you run the strikers as strikers, rather than multiclassing them into the other roles. I'm not saying they need to be all about damage, but rather that as a proof of concept, you will get better results if you don't try to blur the boundaries between the two parties. For one, it will make it a lot clearer which (if any) of the other roles a striker heavy party does need and those which it can work around.
Strikers with a bit of multiclassing can retain damage and still satisfy other role requirements. That's the test, not 'Can strikers who intentionally ignore their options compare to a theoretically balanced group'.
I love this thread because its basically measuring a party of strikers and a party with multiple roles and asking which one does more damage. Its like saying:
I own 3 jets and 20 street racing cars.
You own a bike.
Whoever on average travels faster wins at life.
-------------------------------------------
The benefits to having multiple roles lies not in pure damage output, but in overall party ability, something that's very hard to measure.
Linear Mode
And yet another word from our sponsors
