General RPG DiscussionDiscussion of all RPGs and non-system-specific topics. DM/GM/player issues, settings, etc. Rules discussion belongs in one the forums below.
That kind of stance can have its own downsides, however. While I want my players to be paranoid, I want them to be paranoid about plot developments and twists, not about dangers to their lives at every second of their existence. Taken too far, this could lead to the famous case of the party rogue testing every 10x10 square of every corridor the party passes through for traps just so that they are not taken unawares.
Surprising the party with an unexpected fight now and then is fine, but while I'm all for giving them a bloody nose, using instant-killer monsters for this is just too extreme for my tastes.
There's certainly a fine line between caution and paranoia, and it's the DM's job to provide clue to the players, through actual play, of where that line is and how fuzzy it may be.
__________________ Reynard
-------- Reynard's Foxhole - My ENWorld Blog
Updated 03-24-09: Alvoran -- Island of a Thousand Kings
Only if the party is in the habit of stumbling blindly from one encounter to the next, without concern as to what's around the corner. in which case a few surprise rounds with Bodaks would probably do them good.
Unless your party is using Clairvoyance at EVERY door, they are going to enter combats without knowing the enemies sometimes. I've seen this argument on these boards more than a few times and I never really understand it.
Unless your players know the makeup of every encounter every time, they are going to fight "blind" sometimes. It's not about stumbling, it's about not having perfect information. I've yet to see a group have perfect information in any adventure and, quite frankly, I hope I never do. Sounds intensely boring.
"Oh there's fifteen orcs in the room to the left and seven in the room to the right. Down the hall there's this and that. What do you want to do first?"
I highly, highly doubt that this happens in any game.
So, eventually, your party is going to go into encounters blind. I'd hazard a guess that they go into encounters blind more often than not actually.
As far as running away goes, well, considering how slow most PC's are, any small PC is moving 20, anyone in heavy armor is moving 20, and the vast majority of monsters move 40+. Running really isn't an option.
__________________ Currently running: Sufficiently Advanced over Maptool. Soon to change. If you'd like to join in a short 3-8 session campaign for various systems, drop by our forums.
I double-dog-dare you to make your game sound super cool without comparing it to other editions. - paraphrased from Umbran.
There's certainly a fine line between caution and paranoia, and it's the DM's job to provide clue to the players, through actual play, of where that line is and how fuzzy it may be.
My guideline for DMs springing nasty surprises on the PCs is:
You want to induce terror in the PCs for your own entertainment. If you just kill them off, their terror - and thus, your entertainment - is over too quickly, so you want them bloody, but alive.
__________________
- a 4E setting for urban adventures! Join the ENWorld Urbis Group!
This is my hang up as well and is almost a deal breaker. The fights have taken too long and are boring the hell out of me. Fighting goblins shouldn't take this long! I will be implementing half HP for monsters in my current game, hopefully that will fix things for my group.
This has been my experience as well. When 1st level combats take as long as two hours, and one of the goals of the game was faster combats, somone has really messed up somewhere. Monsters have absurdly high hitpoints and defenses, except for minions (an overly gamist concept) which I have yet to encounter.
This has been my experience as well. When 1st level combats take as long as two hours, and one of the goals of the game was faster combats, somone has really messed up somewhere. Monsters have absurdly high hitpoints and defenses, except for minions (an overly gamist concept) which I have yet to encounter.
For the first 2 or 3 sessions, this was my group's experience. (Though never 2 hours at a stretch... that's completely outside my experience for 4e, though it happened several times in my mid-high level 3e game.)
It might be true before. 3e assumes very small numbers of opponents, 5 at the absolute most, because beyond that, the opponents simply cannot hurt the PC's.
Start with "5 at the absolute most..." this statement is simply not remotely accurate. I run combats with large numbers of monsters all the time. And yes, some specific attacks are minimally effective against certain PCs. But the overall effect can be quite real.
I certainly agree that the default system assumes small numbers. But "absolute" and "cannot" are flat wrong.
__________________ It was one of those nights when you turn out the lights, and everything comes into view
The combat system should be based on the world design. The world design should not be based on the combat system.
My 4 year old ties a towel to her shoulders and pretends to be a superhero. Roleplaying is not between the covers of a book.
As an extension of that, if you tell me that any game is the same just because you roleplay the same, then as far as I am concerned, you don't get the point.
"I just want D&D to run smoothly, palpate my gamer gland, and bring the metal." - A 4E fan
"I've got to have all that, but I require intelligent conversation as well." - Me
For the first 2 or 3 sessions, this was my group's experience. (Though never 2 hours at a stretch... that's completely outside my experience for 4e, though it happened several times in my mid-high level 3e game.)
After a few sessions, encounters fly.
-O
I'll have to check the precise numbers, but we ran through an amazing number of encounters last saturday. I can't remember any 4e or 3e game where it went so fast. I don't know if it is the level range (level 3-4) or if it was us that made this possible.
My campaign is the only 4e campaign that started at 1st level (the other 3 all were conversions from existing campaigns, 2 starting at level 6 and one at level 15), and maybe the fact that the players played these characters "up" from level 1 figured into it. On the other hand, one player had to run two characters, as one of our players can't come as often as he used to be, but we really don't want to reduce character numbers further. This usually tends to slow down game-play, since you have to get into the mind- and skillset of the second character.
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?>
Bryond - As soon as you go to 6 opponents, assuming you're playing by the book and not fudging, you are so far down the EL/CR scale that it's not even funny.
Look at an EL 10 encounter with 6 opponents: 6xCR 5 opponents. Now, assuming for a second that we're going to go EL par, so this should be a standard fight. Not too easy, but, no one should die either.
6 CR 5's. Let's see, that gives us a choice of: basilisks (with the lovely save or die mechanics involved - 6 saves per PC per round=instant TPK, from an encounter that should be non-lethal), but, let's use manticores. One of my favorite critters.
Let's see, we've got two claws at +10 and a bite at +8 or spikes at +8. 10th level PC's are going to be running in mid-twenties AC, very easily. The melee types are likely hitting 30 with a buff or two. Even the rogue is well into the twenties. So, our critters have about a 25% chance of hitting. At best. Likely, it's closer to 10%, particularly if the party has, in Reynard's view, ample warning of what's coming.
Best option here is 36 tail spikes. About 3 hit doing 3d8+6 damage total.
The wizard isn't even feeling that.
Can it be done? Oh probably. I'm sure most things can be done if you massage the numbers enough. Can it be done easily? Not a chance. I watched far too many combats go this way - lots of baddies, the PC's basically ignore them as they mow their way through. The baddies just can't hit, and, even when they do, don't do enough damage.
Note, that's with 6 baddies. Pump the numbers up to 10+ and watch what happens.
About the only way large groups work is if they have special attacks, like our basilisks above. If they are straight up melee monsters? Not a chance.
What blows my mind is that people still remain convinced that 3.5 did this well. Look at pretty much every module out there. You will see almost no encounters with more than 5 baddies. There's the odd one, usually when the baddies have some sort of mount, but, by and large, 5's the max. The math just fails beyond that. It fails because the power increase per level is not flat, it's exponential. Going from 2nd to 3rd level is NOT the same amount of relative power increase as going from 10th to 11th. Maybe for the non-casters, but, the casters? They are getting new levels of spells, plus gaining more slots of their existing levels. Plus the rapid increase in PC wealth. Plus the feat synergies. Plus, plus plus.
Are the absolutes wrong? Maybe. Fine. I'll concede that. But, at the end of the day, pretty much every D&D designer backs me up on this. Module after module reflects this understanding. Whether it's Goodman Games, Paizo, WOTC or Bleeding Edge - they all follow the same paradigm. 5 or less.
__________________ Currently running: Sufficiently Advanced over Maptool. Soon to change. If you'd like to join in a short 3-8 session campaign for various systems, drop by our forums.
I double-dog-dare you to make your game sound super cool without comparing it to other editions. - paraphrased from Umbran.
Bryond - As soon as you go to 6 opponents, assuming you're playing by the book and not fudging, you are so far down the EL/CR scale that it's not even funny.
Look at an EL 10 encounter with 6 opponents: 6xCR 5 opponents. Now, assuming for a second that we're going to go EL par, so this should be a standard fight. Not too easy, but, no one should die either.
6 CR 5's. Let's see, that gives us a choice of: basilisks (with the lovely save or die mechanics involved - 6 saves per PC per round=instant TPK, from an encounter that should be non-lethal), but, let's use manticores. One of my favorite critters.
Let's see, we've got two claws at +10 and a bite at +8 or spikes at +8. 10th level PC's are going to be running in mid-twenties AC, very easily. The melee types are likely hitting 30 with a buff or two. Even the rogue is well into the twenties. So, our critters have about a 25% chance of hitting. At best. Likely, it's closer to 10%, particularly if the party has, in Reynard's view, ample warning of what's coming.
Best option here is 36 tail spikes. About 3 hit doing 3d8+6 damage total.
The wizard isn't even feeling that.
Can it be done? Oh probably. I'm sure most things can be done if you massage the numbers enough. Can it be done easily? Not a chance. I watched far too many combats go this way - lots of baddies, the PC's basically ignore them as they mow their way through. The baddies just can't hit, and, even when they do, don't do enough damage.
Note, that's with 6 baddies. Pump the numbers up to 10+ and watch what happens.
About the only way large groups work is if they have special attacks, like our basilisks above. If they are straight up melee monsters? Not a chance.
What blows my mind is that people still remain convinced that 3.5 did this well. Look at pretty much every module out there. You will see almost no encounters with more than 5 baddies. There's the odd one, usually when the baddies have some sort of mount, but, by and large, 5's the max. The math just fails beyond that. It fails because the power increase per level is not flat, it's exponential. Going from 2nd to 3rd level is NOT the same amount of relative power increase as going from 10th to 11th. Maybe for the non-casters, but, the casters? They are getting new levels of spells, plus gaining more slots of their existing levels. Plus the rapid increase in PC wealth. Plus the feat synergies. Plus, plus plus.
Are the absolutes wrong? Maybe. Fine. I'll concede that. But, at the end of the day, pretty much every D&D designer backs me up on this. Module after module reflects this understanding. Whether it's Goodman Games, Paizo, WOTC or Bleeding Edge - they all follow the same paradigm. 5 or less.
__________________ Currently running: Sufficiently Advanced over Maptool. Soon to change. If you'd like to join in a short 3-8 session campaign for various systems, drop by our forums.
I double-dog-dare you to make your game sound super cool without comparing it to other editions. - paraphrased from Umbran.
Bryond - As soon as you go to 6 opponents, assuming you're playing by the book and not fudging, you are so far down the EL/CR scale that it's not even funny.
I've never been one to let the CR/EL rules control me.
This is one of the places I was looking forward to more freedom when 4E was first announced.
I run encounters with 20+ foes. Not every session. Not even every other session. But it has happened many times in the past 8+ years.
I can easily run these fights in ways that are good and fun challenges for the party.
(I have also been known to throw the rare cakewalk through the horde of mooks fight at the party just to let them flex their awesomeness. But that is a different matter)
__________________ It was one of those nights when you turn out the lights, and everything comes into view
The combat system should be based on the world design. The world design should not be based on the combat system.
My 4 year old ties a towel to her shoulders and pretends to be a superhero. Roleplaying is not between the covers of a book.
As an extension of that, if you tell me that any game is the same just because you roleplay the same, then as far as I am concerned, you don't get the point.
"I just want D&D to run smoothly, palpate my gamer gland, and bring the metal." - A 4E fan
"I've got to have all that, but I require intelligent conversation as well." - Me
It's not a case of letting the CR/EL rules handcuff you. It's a case of simple math.
If you through 20 CR=Par creatures at the party, the party will die. End of story.
If you go down to EL=+2 or less, the party cakewalks the encounter.
How did you do it? I'm not saying you didn't. Not at all. It's just that, regardless of how many encounters i've run or played, I've never seen it done. I just don't see how.
__________________ Currently running: Sufficiently Advanced over Maptool. Soon to change. If you'd like to join in a short 3-8 session campaign for various systems, drop by our forums.
I double-dog-dare you to make your game sound super cool without comparing it to other editions. - paraphrased from Umbran.
It's not a case of letting the CR/EL rules handcuff you. It's a case of simple math.
If you through 20 CR=Par creatures at the party, the party will die. End of story.
If you go down to EL=+2 or less, the party cakewalks the encounter.
How did you do it? I'm not saying you didn't. Not at all. It's just that, regardless of how many encounters i've run or played, I've never seen it done. I just don't see how.
__________________ Currently running: Sufficiently Advanced over Maptool. Soon to change. If you'd like to join in a short 3-8 session campaign for various systems, drop by our forums.
I double-dog-dare you to make your game sound super cool without comparing it to other editions. - paraphrased from Umbran.
This has been my experience as well. When 1st level combats take as long as two hours, and one of the goals of the game was faster combats, somone has really messed up somewhere. Monsters have absurdly high hitpoints and defenses, except for minions (an overly gamist concept) which I have yet to encounter.
Yeah as other have said I think this is largely due to inexperience with the system, as 2 hours seems a bit much.
Last Friday I ran 3 combat encounters in a span of about 3 hours. This included:
1. A fight/escape through a city with about 20 2nd level minions (coming in waves) and 2 real 3rd level guards.
2. Ambushed on the edge of a river with 2 3rd level mercs 1 4th level mage 5 1st level goblin minions 1 7th level cave troll.
3. Chased down the river by 4 canoes holding: 1 5th level hobgoblin warcaster 3 3rd level Hobgoblin Archers 4 3rd level Hobgoblin soldiers.
In addition to the fights there was a good amount of role playing, as they had just saved the lord of the town from being executed, met up with one of his loyal men, and then watched for trouble as the lord went to the graveyard to bid fairwell to his late wife.
I wouldn't call combats in 4e "quick" but they are faster then a similar fight in 3e would be (although not as fast as 2e) but one thing I;ve noticed is that the movement and action happening in the fights holds my interest a lot more. Combats are more fun to me, so I don't mind if they linger a bit.
I'll have to check the precise numbers, but we ran through an amazing number of encounters last Saturday.
I checked the numbers: 8 encounters, one of them a skill challenge, in KotS.
We played from around half past seven in the evening to half past one in the morning, so around 6 hours for 8 encounters. Sounds like a fair time to me, and I can't say that any of the encounters felt boring or repetitive so far.
I suppose we _will_ finish Keep on the Shadowfell the next time I run. Finally. I am eagerly awaiting to get to the next adventure!
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?>
This has been my experience as well. When 1st level combats take as long as two hours, and one of the goals of the game was faster combats, somone has really messed up somewhere. Monsters have absurdly high hitpoints and defenses, except for minions (an overly gamist concept) which I have yet to encounter.
This is my major complaint also. In our last game (second game of 4e) our 1st level party fought about 5 kobolds. And it took us an hour and a half.
Now forgive me for being old fashioned, but my memory of kobolds is that they are 'weak' and come in hordes.
5 kobolds should not take that long to finish, and more importantly they should not have more hit points than the party's defender!
There were no minions in this combat, and it got me thinking - if you took a 3e or earlier module and moved it across to 4e, virtually all the kobolds (or goblins etc) that you encounter should be minions.
This seems to be a major rethink on how modules are created. No longer do we see a number of weaklings with one or two leaders at the end (the bbegs), now they're ALL tough. Essentially WotC have re-arranged the system here altogether. We used to fight 'monsters' and a few of those monsters would have classes to make them special. Now EVERY monster has a class and a number of levels. We're not fighting monsters any more, we're fighting characters. And I for one am not enjoying the difference.
Where are the 1st level critters that get blatted in a single hit? I know this is what minions are for, but they just seem too few and far between. The standard has been reversed - we used to get lots of critters and a few toughies. Now we get lots of toughies and a few critters.
Strangely it puts me in mind of Dawn of War (computer game). That game has 3 difficulty settings. The difference between the settings is simply how tough each creature is. The game doesn't really get any harder. It just gets more boring as you have to stand there shooting at a single monster for 3 hours.
Are the absolutes wrong? Maybe. Fine. I'll concede that. But, at the end of the day, pretty much every D&D designer backs me up on this. Module after module reflects this understanding. Whether it's Goodman Games, Paizo, WOTC or Bleeding Edge - they all follow the same paradigm. 5 or less.
This is my major complaint also. In our last game (second game of 4e) our 1st level party fought about 5 kobolds. And it took us an hour and a half.
Now forgive me for being old fashioned, but my memory of kobolds is that they are 'weak' and come in hordes.
5 kobolds should not take that long to finish, and more importantly they should not have more hit points than the party's defender!
There were no minions in this combat, and it got me thinking - if you took a 3e or earlier module and moved it across to 4e, virtually all the kobolds (or goblins etc) that you encounter should be minions.
This seems to be a major rethink on how modules are created. No longer do we see a number of weaklings with one or two leaders at the end (the bbegs), now they're ALL tough. Essentially WotC have re-arranged the system here altogether. We used to fight 'monsters' and a few of those monsters would have classes to make them special. Now EVERY monster has a class and a number of levels. We're not fighting monsters any more, we're fighting characters. And I for one am not enjoying the difference.
Where are the 1st level critters that get blatted in a single hit? I know this is what minions are for, but they just seem too few and far between. The standard has been reversed - we used to get lots of critters and a few toughies. Now we get lots of toughies and a few critters.
Strangely it puts me in mind of Dawn of War (computer game). That game has 3 difficulty settings. The difference between the settings is simply how tough each creature is. The game doesn't really get any harder. It just gets more boring as you have to stand there shooting at a single monster for 3 hours.
This. After my players said they didn't like 4e we sat down and talked and this post above touches on their two main issues at low level play. They felt the fights took too long...and certain things were too tough for what they were...mainly kobolds and goblins.
I mean I could only agree when one of my players said it was more comical than heroic in any way to be fighting a 3 foot tall goblin or kobold and it's doing a pretty decent job of beating the tar out of a 6'2 220lb trained warrior. I couldn't do anything but agree.
I think that 4e fights, especially against opponents you know are ultimately unimportant do drag on. I'm sorry but every fight doesn't need to be an epic battle that takes an hour. Just like every monster doesn't have to be as tough or tougher than the PC's. Now I know some will argue that's what minions are for...but that's exactly the problem, minions are the other extreme, paper tigers that don't give the players any real sense of accomplishment or challenge (unless you run tons of them, and then we're back to the long combat problem and the Wizard being all powerful in combat as it's the only controller in the core books). I'm thinking about implementing the half hit point rule and trying to get my players to play 4e again...if not then it's 3.5 and Pathfinder for me.
__________________ Nobody built like me, I designed myself ...as an
It doesn't have to be 5 regular monsters, or 5 minions, or 50 minions. You can have a couple regulars and 8-10 minions. It really works. Honest.
I think part of it is the learning curve, and also people just hashing and hemming and hawing over every possible tactic. Our fights get quicker, but they can drag out seemingly endlessly when players just refuse to make decisions.
The end fight of chapter 1 has 8-10 level 4thish Hobgoblins, 2 Hell hounds (CR3) and a "CR5" green dragon.
The PC party is suppose to be at level 5 or 6 at that point.
The encounter level of that battle is 10 however.
I don't have the book on me so my data isn't perfect.
Yes, because one single encounter changes my point. I'll concede the "always" part, and exchange it for, pretty much most of the time. I checked out a Dungeon magazine the other day. First adventure, no encounters with more than 5, second adventure, 5 of the 20 encounters had more than five, but, three of those had six opponents, third adventure, no encounters with more than five. Dungeon 136. Just a random issue I pulled off the shelf.
__________________ Currently running: Sufficiently Advanced over Maptool. Soon to change. If you'd like to join in a short 3-8 session campaign for various systems, drop by our forums.
I double-dog-dare you to make your game sound super cool without comparing it to other editions. - paraphrased from Umbran.
The end fight of chapter 1 has 8-10 level 4thish Hobgoblins, 2 Hell hounds (CR3) and a "CR5" green dragon.
The PC party is suppose to be at level 5 or 6 at that point.
The encounter level of that battle is 10 however.
I don't have the book on me so my data isn't perfect.
D&D 3e does have combats against a lot of enemies, but for the monsters to be a challenge they generally end up being "TPK" encounters. APL+4 or APL+5 are at the very limit of what a party can handle... and often can't. If they've had an encounter or two previously, these ones often end very badly for the party.
For encounters against 8+ opponents that end up at APL or APL+1, the opponents are generally too wimpy to work.
Linear Mode
And yet another word from our sponsors
