4e increased my DM prep time...

[Lord Zardoz]

Elements from the original post have been reorganized a bit.

I hear that 4e dropped the prep time for a lot of DMs, and I don't doubt it, but I do wonder if there's something in my style that provokes this. Now, in 4e, I'm finding my prep time is dramatically increased from "virtually nothing" to "a good evening or two."

Part of it is quantity. In 3e, one or two monsters would challenge a whole party. In 4e, I need to mix and match at least 4-5 different monsters, each of which has their own abilities and powers to use.

I think that this is a potentially valid concern. In 3rd Edition there was a tendency for me to never mix and match monsters, just pick one and go. In 4th Edition, aside from varients (it is not just Goblin, there is the Goblin Cutter, Goblin Blackblade, Goblin Hexer, Goblin SharpShooter, etc). I can easily see someone spending more time then expected trying to balance out the roles of the monsters present.

I also need to present a battlegrid that is "interesting," in that it needs to contain terrain features, traps, hazards, or other rules bits to interact with (when I did that in 3e it was icing on the cake, but 4e kind of requires it).

I am going to have to disagree, or at least ask for a more specific example. I do not see how 4th Edition requires this any more than 3rd edition did.

Part of it seems to be the "leveling off" of abilities. There's nothing inherently dramatic or exceptional about any monster or PC ability -- they're balanced very well, which means they kind of homogenize. It's the "it doesn't matter how you describe it, the effects are what is key" problem.

I can partially agree here. All monster abilities that go beyond inflicting damage take their elements from the conditions list. This has a big effect on the 'flavor' of the description. However, I think that there is enough variance here to say that the monster abilities are still significant.

That same issue plagues skill challenges. There's no fiddly abilities that make you sit up and pay attention, nothing I can hang a hook on and go "why?", nothing that stands out to catch interest. 4e is a sleeker beast.

I will agree to some elements of this. There is not much to tell you when you should insist on a Diplomacy check instead of Bluff. There has not really been a good or compelling solution on how a given DM should go about creating and running a skill challenge. However, this is something that can vary greatly from game to game. I can see some DM's just cobbling a semi random set of skills together and saying 'make some checks and give me X successes'. However, the system as a whole has a huge amount of untapped potential.

Part of it is the fact that I can't trust the books to have rules for what I need. Because everything is designed for one narrow purpose, if the party, say, decides to recruit the centaur instead of kill it, I can't just run the monster sheet, I need to use the DMG2 and re-format the thing.

This is something I entirely agree with. One of 4th Editions benefits is that it streamlined the statblocks for monsters by insisting it was OK for a monster to not need to have every bit of info that a PC or NPC would have. However, there is a big problem when you try to quickly adapt a monster into a helpful NPC, especially if you expect it to need to be around for a while. I do think much of this can be handwaved though.

The bigger problem to me is that it is very difficult for a DM to keep an NPC alive if he ever uses it in combat. In 3rd Edition I could use potions, spells, magic items to give an NPC a few viable escape options (ie: break line of sight, use a rope trick. Fly away with a Fly potion). 4th Edition does not give me many options for having something cleanly escape.

As for suggestions, that is a bit trickier:
For monster prep time:

The encounter builder works well enough for me. I suggest deciding first on what kind of mix you want; Do you want to have a single heavy monster with support? Do you want to have front liners run interference for artillery? How durable do you want your monsters, and how much risk do you want to provide?

Higher level monsters simply hit more and wont be hit as often. Using them will increase risk to your players. Most 4th Edition encounters and adventures I have seen tend to use monsters of a slightly higher level then your players. If you go from 2 levels higher to 2 levels lower, your players will have a much easier time dealing with the encounter.

From there it is just pulling in what ever makes the most sense for the encounter.

For Skill Challenges:

For any skill challenge you need these things:

- A Reward for Success / A Punishment for Failure: Both your reward and your punishment must be something that should stick around for a while and have a real effect on the game. Something that should at least be worth using limitied resources. Forcing players to lose healing surges or access to encounter / daily powers is a good punishment. A free action point, treasure, or a semi-persistant bonus is a good reward. What ever it is should just matter though.

- A Resolution Mechanism: This is flexible. You can go with X success before Y failure, 3 Strikes to fail. You can have each player make X checks and give out one 'Penalty' per failure per player.

- A set of relevant Skills / Options. This is probably the trickiest, since you need to engage every player but avoid having one player dominate. You should also try to do more then providing a list of skills a player may use. You could allow a player to make a check vs a harder DC to cancel a previous failure. You can allow a check against a hard DC to gain a bonus to other rolls rather then gain a single success. Or you could allow a player to gain a success without a skill check if they just pay cash, or do something particularly intelligent.

END COMMUNICATION

 

[FireLance]

Part of it is quantity. In 3e, one or two monsters would challenge a whole party. In 4e, I need to mix and match at least 4-5 different monsters, each of which has their own abilities and powers to use. I also need to present a battlegrid that is "interesting," in that it needs to contain terrain features, traps, hazards, or other rules bits to interact with (when I did that in 3e it was icing on the cake, but 4e kind of requires it).

I just re-read this recently-quoted bit from the OP and it led me to wonder: does 4E need more solo monsters? We would need to design them carefully to avoid boring grindy fights, of course, but if we had a whole slate of solo monsters to choose from, we could make it easier to run more encounters where a single monster fights the party of PCs.

However, one side-effect of this is that the monsters will be truly monstrous, having hit points and abilities that are very different from the PCs. This would not strain credulity too much if the PCs only encounter actual monsters (demons, devils, dragons, undead, aberrations, giants, etc.) but I think it would not be appropriate for human and humanoid opponents (kobolds, goblinoids, orcs, gnolls, etc.) to be given the same treatment.

Perhaps for the latter, there should be an "Encounter Manual" that goes beyond the "Encounter Groups" appended onto the end of monster descriptions in the Monster Manual. Each "encounter" would present a typical group of monsters, e.g. "Orc Raiding Party", or "Goblin Scouting Party" with tips on tactics, synergy, adpatation for more or fewer PCs (which monsters to add or take away, and how it affects tactics), and minor variations and their effects (e.g. replacing one type of monster with another).

 

[Henry]

Both Mustrum's and Lord Zardoz's posts kick major butt. I myself use a lot of those same principles when I've run 4E games. I might use the monster manual sometimes, but largely, I've copied and clipped the tables from Pages 184 and 185 of the DMG1 to my DM screen, and just use some relevant monster powers or class powers to give the monsters their flavor. The only thing I've altered so far has been the hit points for some regular monsters, and for the Solo Monsters, especially. Ironically, the Elites I find have just the right amount of HPs, but the Solos have WAAAY too much, and regular non-minion monsters have about 25% too much, in my opinion.

 

[Lord Zardoz]

A breakdown of assorted roles and suggested powers.

I have my own take on when to use and what powers are appropriate:

Brute
Brutes should have a high intimidation factor. They should inflict huge damage, and take more damage individually to put down. Due to favoring HP over AC / Def, they are more vulnerable to being dogpiled. You do not want to take them on 1v1.
- Encounter/Recharge 6 Charge while not provoking Opportunity Attacks
- At-Will Attack that does bigger damage then expected.
- Encounter: Daze or Immobilize and inflict heavy damage.
- Gain Healing Surge on a critical hit.

Soldier
Use soldiers when you want an opponent that is defensivly sound and durable. They should use team tactics and are ideal for supportting each other and other allies.
- At-Will Attack marks or Encounter Power marks one target until it is dead, then recharges
- Immediate Action: Basic Attack when marked target attacks an ally
- Opportunity Attack
- Adjacent allies gain defensive bonus. (If leader, might also be offensive.)
- Encounter power to negate a condition on themselves.


Skirmisher
High mobility hit and run.
- At-Will Attack that allows a shift or 2 squares of movement
- +1d6 damage per tier when it has combat advantage (not cumulative with the above, pick one), OR when other specific circumstances warrant (ie, hits with both melee weapons).
- Recharge 5: Move through squares occupied by players.

Lurker
Lurkers hit hard, but they have a means to escape or hide during combat. They should be very well suited to ambush tactics. Their most powerful attacks generally cannot be used at will due to Recharge or being dependant on a target suffering a condition.
- VERY difficult to pin down in melee due to at will invis, or a teleport, or flyby attack, etc.
- Usually Inflict a condition (ie: immobilized) and has an attack that only works if the target is subject to that condition (ie: attack immobilized with standard at will twice, or +1d8 / tier to immobilized).
- Tends to inflict conditions that prevent it from being dogpiled (immobilize, Slow).

Artillery
Heavy attack from range. A key difference between Artillery and Lurkers is that fighting all lurkers would be VERY difficult. Attacking all Artillery is easy once you get to close range.
- Ranged attack always more effective then Melee attack


Controller
This type of monster will have area attacks which work best to allow the supporting monsters to gain some sort of advantage.
- At-Will Attack slows or slides
- Uses Area or Burst attacks, or creates a zone
- Encounter/Recharge 6 Power that immobilizes, dazes or dominates
- Encounter/Recharge 6 Power that knocks prone and slides/pushes/pulls

Leader
This is a secondary role. You can have a Brute Leader, or Controller Leader. They have powers that help their allies directly.
- Reaction power that negates a forces push / pull / slide
- Aura that grants a defence bonus or attack bonus.
- At-Will Attack allows allies adjacent to a hit target to make a free attack


Minions
A secondary role. Some minions have ranged attacks, others do not. These are best used as support, and to magnify the effectiveness of powers that depend on Combat advantage, or that grant bonuses / free actions
- Powers typically are 'self re-enforcing', such as gaining a defense bonuse for other adjacent minions.

Note:
Brute vs Soldier: While they may not be implemented exactly this way in the MM, I see the key difference as being this: A soldier is usually protecting the heavy hitters. A brute is the heavy hitter.

END COMMUNICATION

 

[Victim]

Part of it is quantity. In 3e, one or two monsters would challenge a whole party. In 4e, I need to mix and match at least 4-5 different monsters, each of which has their own abilities and powers to use. I also need to present a battlegrid that is "interesting," in that it needs to contain terrain features, traps, hazards, or other rules bits to interact with (when I did that in 3e it was icing on the cake, but 4e kind of requires it).

My experience was that 3e still required groups of monsters, even though the encounter building rules often said otherwise. Most monsters didn't really have anything to tip the economy of actions in their favor, so leaving sending them in ones or twos just meant they got mowed down since the PCs had so many more attacks. Most monsters didn't really seem able to stand alone without getting smeared.

And the ones that were able to fight effectively when heavily outnumbered tended to be really annoying for some people. Stuff like Dragons who were super tough spellcasting fliers. Monsters with off buttons for a few PCs. Flight so melee people have to waste actions getting to fly or use weak attacks. Grapple related stuff. Etc. You don't want to fight that stuff all the time.

 

[S'mon]

The bigger problem to me is that it is very difficult for a DM to keep an NPC alive if he ever uses it in combat. In 3rd Edition I could use potions, spells, magic items to give an NPC a few viable escape options (ie: break line of sight, use a rope trick. Fly away with a Fly potion). 4th Edition does not give me many options for having something cleanly escape.

I guess it's hard per the RAW to ensure a specific antagonist NPC isn't killed by the PCs, but I don't see much difference from 3e. Certainly IMC there are very often enemy survivors who escape - in my game yesterday there were survivors from 2 of the 4 fights: in a battle with 6 Worgs, the last Worg ran away with his tail between his legs, and in a fight with gnolls and a Grell, the Grell eventually decided to leave after being reduced below 1/4 hp - the PCs were quite happy to see it go as in another round it would certainly have killed a PC. Likewise IMC sometimes the PCs lose, and so far there have always been survivors, too - though one fight with Orcs left 4/6 PCs dead, the one still standing escaped with the unconscious body of her surviving comrade.

 

[Jhaelen]

My prep time has decreased a lot. In the time it took me to prepare one or two encounters for 3e I can prepare a complete adventure in 4e.

I don't know if my situation is representative, though. Most of my prep time in 3e was creating monster stat blocks. Spellcasting npcs were particularly time-consuming.

Customizing monsters and levelling them up or down is very fast in 4e.

About the only thing I spend more time on than in 3e is preparing for non-combat encounters. I think about potential skill challenges in advance: i.e. what one, two, or three failures might mean and how to resolve it. I don't codify much of this, I just take a couple of notes since I prefer skill challenges to be more 'free-style'.

Actually, preparing encounters _during_ the game is something that takes me longer than in 3e. This is because encounter areas tend to have more relevant features which I have to draw and detail.

 

[ExploderWizard]

Actually, preparing encounters _during_ the game is something that takes me longer than in 3e. This is because encounter areas tend to have more relevant features which I have to draw and detail.

Why not draw up the complex ones ahead of time?

 

[Mallus]

Hello, my name is Mallus, and 4e increased my DM prep-time too.

(I think. At the very least it failed to decrease my prep time in the dramatic way it has for other people.)

Part of it is simply learning the system. I've been running 4e for about 6 months, after a year playing it and I still feel like I'm getting the hang of building encounters, still experimenting, etc. I have to remind myself 'terrain is important' and 'use a mix of monsters/role'. Fortunately this is getting easier. As is the post-encounter design act of rationalizing required to fit the mechanics of the encounter into the fiction of the setting.

Running 4e also makes me realize that I'll always need a lot prep time. I spend a lot of time thinking about the non-mechanical things: characterization of NPC's, motives, setting fluff, short but effective descriptions of things, heck, the language I'm going to use in the session in general (because in the end the campaign world is not made from rules, charts, or random tables. It's made from the words I exchange with my players on game night).

No amount of streamlining the rules is going to help me with that.

 

[Retreater]

4e also increased my prep-time. Even using DDI, I felt the need to pre-draw maps, place color-coded terrain, get out condition markers, find appropriate minis (for the really big combats).

I still don't feel comfortable running it. If I try to wing an encounter, it will NEVER go right. Usually I slay every PC on the table without ever giving them a fighting chance. I at least think that I'm following the encounter design by the book.

It doesn't help that I haven't found any prepublished adventures that I liked (including all official WotC and Dungeon adventures). This means that every encounter had to meticulously crafted by hand ... and like I said earlier, I don't think they ever went well.

Case in point. I was introducing a group of 4 new players to gaming and decided that 4e would be a good starter for them. I ran a couple of the Chaos Scar adventures, and then BAM! Two back-to-back TPKs in supposedly balanced encounters.

There's 4 new players who will never touch RPGs again. Darn it.

Retreater