D&D 4E 4e Encounter Design... Why does it or doesn't it work for you?

[Neonchameleon]

well, those were examples of big combats towards the end of a 2 1/2 year long campaign... every combat wasn't a huge climactic encounter. However, I should have said that the climactic encounters in 4E almost always left me unfulfilled as a DM, while I almost never had that problem in previous editions with climactic encounters.

Out of curiosity, how big a group? Because this is IMO a genuine weakness of 4e -PCs synergise with each other so seven PCs is more than 40% stronger than five.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Out of curiosity, how big a group? Because this is IMO a genuine weakness of 4e -PCs synergise with each other so seven PCs is more than 40% stronger than five.

Yeah, once you get past about 6 PCs it can get a little crazy. Still, at that point you're no worse off than in previous editions, and at least you have a baseline. You'll have to judge exactly how much synergy counts for but its a matter of trial-and-error.

 

[Pour]

Out of curiosity, how big a group? Because this is IMO a genuine weakness of 4e -PCs synergise with each other so seven PCs is more than 40% stronger than five.

I can vouch for this, especially in Epic (running level 23). They just recently battled against three demon lords (lvl 28, 30, and 31 solos) and accompanying demons (2 marilith, 2 khlurich, and 2 balor) and have survived 8 rounds with only 2 player deaths thus far. This is with me working the angles and extending damage/effects into Fourthcore levels (minus the outright save vs death). That said, I did allow a kind of massive sacrifice/excellent rp to banish 1 of the lords, but that's the give and take of DMing.

I guess my main point is Epic requires, in my eyes, a lot from a DM that isn't simply baked into the game's regular encounter design (never mind my running 7 through the tier). All the MM3 math fixes fall flat in my eyes at this point in the game, given the ability to heal, the great interrupts, and the generally high defenses the party can attain and/or share. The framework of encounter design can still work, though, so long as I boost the damage and homebrew a lot of various effects/terrains/hazards/diseases. Auras are my good friend in Epic, too.

I've also begun doing something quite dastardly, but with great affect, in Epic characters having to make choices. They may be demigods in power, but not even they can be everywhere at once. I provide them with many avenues and enemies, and they have to make hard choices who to hit or who to defend, invariably allowing other enemies to gain footholds or enact their plots. It's the great gray area that balances mighty deeds, the idea of being so powerful you now must choose who lives and dies. Each of their decisions, even meant with the best of intentions or the most efficient of logic, still leaves millions out in the cold at any given time. It's been fascinating to watch their responsibilities grow with their power, and in some cases their guilt. I also tend to move Epic characters' agendas counter to one another, as I think would be realistic, which creates some party tensions, Survivor-like alliances, and more than one player facade. It's incredible fun, but I don't think any of it came from official encounter design...

You also need to command the pacing and support a kind of larger-than-life air to Epic, introduce plots and encounters that go so far beyond the scope of Heroic and Paragon it's nearly a different game. Or that's what I've found, anyway. Truth be told, I've lost players over the years from Heroic to Epic based on scope alone. They'd gone as far as they liked and didn't want to push it to the limits we're at now, basically fighting gods, the servants of the Great Old Ones, alien armadas, etc.

 

[Manbearcat]

I do sympathize with the issues surround a 7 player group. 4e has so many synergies (that proliferate as you advance in tier) baked into PC team framework that if you move beyond (I would honestly say 4 and not 5) you are going to reap what you sow as the game moves on. I have played the entirety of 4e (through epic tier) with 3-4 PCs. 3 is slightly less than desirable (I've had to homebrew an Encounter Utility Power to provide for deeper PC action economy and another for action economy loss prevention from denial effects...much like Solo monster building) but 4 is a very cozy sweet spot. I'm lucky with 3 as these 3 players are all extraordinarily above the curve with their tactical minds and they have great chemistry together. They move extremely quickly through their turns so it gives us the advantage of having combat rounds zip by with no lag. I can extrapolate in my head what it must be like to have 7 average players (from a tactical orientation), that cannot do math quickly, at Epic tier and the stuttering, swingey combat that would emanate. I can also consider 7 highly tactically minded players and the insane action denial that would likely stem from that. Both thoughts give me an aneurism so I do sympathize.

That being said. I've played a 7 PC group at level 14 in 3.x. If the above is an aneurism, then what I endured then was a Mind Blast from an army of Illithids (DORKY D&D HUMOR OMG). Neither particularly playable as there is a terminal velocity of suck that one can endure in gaming. Once across that threshold, the rest is irrelevant.

 

[S'mon]

Y4e gives me monster builds, action resolution rules and encounter design guidelines which reliably produce non-filler combats. It's hard (not impossible, but hard) to make them filler, or boring, by accident.

Hm, I find 4e 'monster pinata' bags-of-hp effect does or did reliably give boring combat, at least for the last hour or so of the fight! Halving monster hp while using L+8 damage generally solves that.

 

[Quickleaf]

Yeah, the issue of Solos is 'OK everyone throw your dailies, ok it's Dazed/Immobilized/Blinded, beat it over the head".

Of course, this isn't far from earlier editions. I'm sure everyone here has heard stories of "We geared up for the big fight, and in the first round the BBEG failed his Save or Die". It's just that in 4e, most characters get their own Save or Suck powers (and the higher the level, the more are handed out like candy).

When the encounter, or series of encounters, is nearly finished, I want both sides to be down to their last hit points and on their last reserves where a good roll of the dice by one side or the other can swing the battle. With 4E, my bad guys were on their last reserves well before the PCs in most every battle.

Just wrapped up the dragon fight with an exceedingly narrow victory by the PCs. The dragon was locked down by conditions for two rounds, but the rest of the 7 or 8 round battle it unleashed holy hell. At one point, the bard was dead, the wizard and barbarian were bleeding out, and the fighter and paladin were bloodied and had depleted most of their resources. Actually, the kill hit was a melee basic attack from the fighter.

It was a L+4 fight, everyone was still getting a feel for their PCs, and I used a 3-stage boss monster format merged with the MV red dragon.

Awesome tense solo battle. Totally doable in 4e.

 

[Primitive Screwhead]

RE: OP , 4E encounter design and why it works for me....

At low levels, 4 or less, encounter design was a challenge due to the swingyness of combat. Had a 3rd level party almost wiped out by a improperly designed 1st level frog..

5th through 15th level however, encounter design was pure gold. I literally took templates out of the DMG and played then straight. Ended up with solid, challenging fights.

Above 15th you start running into math issues, synergy issues, and long combats. Skill challenges and alternate combat mechanics{like zone combat} trim down the time spent on less important combats while the 4e encounter stands strong as key or boss level epic fights.

Above 20th you start running into another problem. Most monsters were not designed as 'epic', but rather as up-leveled paragon or even heroic threats. Bumping the math helps, but drags out the combats and adds to the pinata effect. My solution has been to custom design all my epic threats, leaning on Upper Krust's work and others around this board.

I jumped to 4e primarily because of the encounter and monster building rules. I was tired of spending hours building 3x monsters that died in 2 rounds of combat.

Things that would have made 4e even better:
- strong skill challenge mechanic {I use Stalker0's Obsideon with some mods}
- options for handling less important combat
- stealth combat {I use a 3pp supplement that is great}
- design time spent on the epic tier as it is a completely different game

 

[Rechan]

- design time spent on the epic tier as it is a completely different game

Has any game handled Epic well? Doesn't every edition break down after a certain level, due to the various math and abilities?

 

[NewJeffCT]

Just wrapped up the dragon fight with an exceedingly narrow victory by the PCs. The dragon was locked down by conditions for two rounds, but the rest of the 7 or 8 round battle it unleashed holy hell. At one point, the bard was dead, the wizard and barbarian were bleeding out, and the fighter and paladin were bloodied and had depleted most of their resources. Actually, the kill hit was a melee basic attack from the fighter.

It was a L+4 fight, everyone was still getting a feel for their PCs, and I used a 3-stage boss monster format merged with the MV red dragon.

Awesome tense solo battle. Totally doable in 4e.

Not sure who did it on enworld, but they had encounter levels scaling up as the party went up in level. So, a Level+0 encounter at level 5 was like (for example) a Level+1 encounter at level 10, level+2 at level 15 and Level+3 at level 20. So, if you wanted the same challenge to level+0 at level 5, you'd have to throw a level+3 encounter at the party at level 20. It might have been even more dramatic than that. I think if I had that chart going into the campaign, it would have helped.

However, then you're either putting more monsters on the board and making the combat longer, or else putting higher level monsters out there that hit almost every time and/or are also hard to hit because of their high level compared to the PCs.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Not sure who did it on enworld, but they had encounter levels scaling up as the party went up in level. So, a Level+0 encounter at level 5 was like (for example) a Level+1 encounter at level 10, level+2 at level 15 and Level+3 at level 20. So, if you wanted the same challenge to level+0 at level 5, you'd have to throw a level+3 encounter at the party at level 20. It might have been even more dramatic than that. I think if I had that chart going into the campaign, it would have helped.

However, then you're either putting more monsters on the board and making the combat longer, or else putting higher level monsters out there that hit almost every time and/or are also hard to hit because of their high level compared to the PCs.

I know Upper_Krust says to add 1 to the party's level every five - and that the second daily at 5th makes a vast amount of difference.