Crash Course in 4th ed.

[Garthanos]

Before I thank everyone again for the newest advice, I want say I have seen lot of reference to page 42 of the DMG as something that is very important, (not just in this thread). I am not getting why. Most of the stuff on the page I am already pretty good at but the table seems a little cryptic.

The general ability to be comfortable going outside the rules usually requires you to be familiar with the game or make use of a shorthand the table is a shorthand... so in this case if you are wanting a crash course it is a pay attention so you aren't nailed down by inexperience.

edit: didnt mean to be snickery with the above... sorry if I come off that way. I meant that you could be an experienced dm and have the idea but not be sure how to use it in this particular game context.

Players sometimes because 4th edition has more descriptive moves for all character types ... think they are limited to only those moves....if you know how to elegantly go beyond that and reward creativity.. then it improves the game experience so it is emphasized.

 

[LostSoul]

Before I thank everyone again for the newest advice, I want say I have seen lot of reference to page 42 of the DMG as something that is very important, (not just in this thread). I am not getting why. Most of the stuff on the page I am already pretty good at but the table seems a little cryptic.

It makes it easy to adjudicate any action based on level. Let's say I grab an orc by its hair and shove his face into a brazier full of hot coals. How much damage? Use the brazier's level (I'd go with 1-3) or the PC's level if skill is the main factor. I also drop the modifier and add in the stat's modifier, if it's relevant (Str in this example).

The same goes for any DC you want to set. Figure out what the level of the opposition is and pick a DC.

This means you need to give all sorts of stuff levels, like braziers, rivers, storms, mountains, and anything else that provides an obstacle or opposition. There are really only 10 levels, ranging from "Completely Mundane" to "The Realm of Gods".

 

[Lord Zardoz]

Before I thank everyone again for the newest advice, I want say I have seen lot of reference to page 42 of the DMG as something that is very important, (not just in this thread). I am not getting why. Most of the stuff on the page I am already pretty good at but the table seems a little cryptic.

Also, I am not really digging the whole "skirmisher-controller-brute-etc." role designation thingies. That just seems like a added layer of complexity that doesn't need to be there. Am I missing something. If I want kobalds, give me kobalds. If I want gnolls, give me gnolls and I will adjust their power levels. I am not so sure why several different level "role" designations are necessary.

The Page 42 note is exactly the sort of thing that an experienced DM will be able to eyeball on his own. However, it does provide a concrete baseline for damage and DC values, broken down from easy to hard or weaker to stronger. For anyone not familiar with the system, you just say "Hmm, ok, I have a level 4 adventuring party. How hard should this non monster based effect hit them for?", and your done, with some confidence that the numbers are about right.

The role designation is there to give you an idea of how an unfamiliar monster is most optimally used. At the most cynical level, it keeps someone from using a Mindflayer as though it were a Hill Giant. It also allows for the entry on Gnolls to have more then just a generic Level X monster.

You say you want gnolls. Ok, why? Do you just want to have some humanoids show up and try to beat on your players? Use the brutes or soldiers. Do you want them to hang back and harass the archers? You may want to use the artillery varient instead. Within the roles, there is a bit of overlap.

Soldiers vs Brutes: Soldiers are a bit more durable, and ideal keeping your players busy while something else does the heavy damage. Brutes are meant to be the heavy damage, and as a result are not quite as durable.

Lurkers vs Skirmishers: Lurkers are designed around ambush tactics or hit and run / hide tactics. Skirmishers are basically there to support and compliment the Brutes or Soldiers with high mobility. Great for getting the players to chase them.

END COMMUNICATION

 

[Ourph]

Also, I am not really digging the whole "skirmisher-controller-brute-etc." role designation thingies. That just seems like a added layer of complexity that doesn't need to be there. Am I missing something. If I want kobalds, give me kobalds. If I want gnolls, give me gnolls and I will adjust their power levels. I am not so sure why several different level "role" designations are necessary.

The role designations aren't about power levels, they are there to let you know how the monster is designed to work in combat. The roles DO make a big difference in how the monsters perform. In earlier editions, if you wanted a Gnoll fight, you were likely looking for a fight vs. humanoid skirmishers (i.e. good to-hit and damage but average AC and HP). If you wanted an Ogre fight, you were looking for a fight vs. humanoid brutes (i.e. good to-hit, really high damage and HP but fairly easy to hit). In other words, earlier editions used the exact same roles that 4e does, but they didn't use the same nomenclature.

The 4e designers also decided that all Gnolls didn't necessarily have to be skirmishers. Some could be soldiers, some could be artillery. In AD&D, if you wanted a fight that involved skirmishers and brutes, you might throw together a couple of Gnolls with an Ogre. If you wanted to add some artillery, you might have a couple of Kobold archers shooting from the back lines. The same thing happens in 4e, but you don't have to mix and match different creatures types. You can use variations of the same creature that serve different roles. In 4e you can have a fight against a group of all Gnolls that still includes Skirmishers, Brutes and Artillery.

Stalker0's anti-grind thread has a lot of good discussion on how the various roles play out in combat. As much as they might seem unnecessary for an experienced DM, roles really are an invaluable shorthand for encounter design, especially with the addition of powers that fit a specific role. Could you use skirmishers in the same way that you might use soldiers or brutes in an encounter? Sure. But you'll get much more satisfactory results if you use skirmishers to do skirmishy things and soldiers to do soldiery things.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Before I thank everyone again for the newest advice, I want say I have seen lot of reference to page 42 of the DMG as something that is very important, (not just in this thread). I am not getting why. Most of the stuff on the page I am already pretty good at but the table seems a little cryptic.

Also, I am not really digging the whole "skirmisher-controller-brute-etc." role designation thingies. That just seems like a added layer of complexity that doesn't need to be there. Am I missing something. If I want kobalds, give me kobalds. If I want gnolls, give me gnolls and I will adjust their power levels. I am not so sure why several different level "role" designations are necessary.

Think not of roles as "complexity" - see it as a helpful descriptor, something that tells you what the monster will do in combat. If you create a new monster, you can use the roles to get the result you want from the monster.

Imagine any RPG - there is a monster that fires rays of destructive energy, and another monster that is hard to hit and constantly threatens the player characters. Another monster can turn invisible and only appears when the characters are exposing a weak spot.
The first is most likely Artillery. The second is most likely a Soldier. The third is a Lurker.

Since monsters can be a very diverse bunch, it is sometimes hard to figure out how to use them best - the roles are supposed to help you. When you read "Lurker" you know: This guy has a trick that makes him retreat from combat and comes back with a nasty surprise attack. You wouldn't let him stand in front of the PCs, like you would do with a Soldier or a Brute. Instead, you let him retreat and move him so his powerful "comeback" attacks have the best effect.
When you have a Controller, you know that is a monster that can limit a characters actions or mobility, so your best use for it is a player character that has particularly effective actions available (generally or in the moment), or that requires mobility.
If you have a Soldier, you place him in a position where he can protect his allies best.
If you have a Brute, you want to send him after the "softest" target (Wizard, Rogue for example).

 

[WSmith]

Hum, so the way the Page 42 reference comes together sounds a lot like in Tunnels & Trolls where the GM uses his judgment to decide on a Saving Roll target number dependent on the difficulty and other factors based upon the situation. Well, that certainly is a good thing and if I think of that in those terms I can picture it.

I am hearing a lot about players and DM getting locked into the "card/power only" mindset. Not to toot my own horn, but I think (at least I hope) that won't be an issue with me. To cite Tunnels & Trolls again, the rules are very lite for combat, (if anyone wants to know more about it, hit me up outside the thread... I would love to talk T&T, ) so if the character wants to do something like throw sand in a combatant's eye, the GM has to make a judgment call as to the chance of success based upon how the player describes the action. That kind of enforces the "do something different" thinking which leads to things like using a dead bandits body as a shield for cover and throwing halflings into oncoming goblins.

There is so much good advice here. Thanks to everyone so far. I still have to let the role sink in. Maybe after I play a few sessions it will make more sense.

 

[WSmith]

Stalker0's anti-grind thread has a lot of good discussion on how the various roles play out in combat. As much as they might seem unnecessary for an experienced DM, roles really are an invaluable shorthand for encounter design, especially with the addition of powers that fit a specific role. Could you use skirmishers in the same way that you might use soldiers or brutes in an encounter? Sure. But you'll get much more satisfactory results if you use skirmishers to do skirmishy things and soldiers to do soldiery things.

I might have to check this thread out.

EDIT: I actually started reading this on Saturday but will take a closer look at it today.

 

[WSmith]

Players sometimes because 4th edition has more descriptive moves for all character types ... think they are limited to only those moves....if you know how to elegantly go beyond that and reward creativity.. then it improves the game experience so it is emphasized.

This is something I will certainly keep an eye out for. Traditionally, I loved to DM outside the box. Some of my best adventures were not prepared at all except for maybe a random chart roll or two. I would love for PCs to swing from chandeliers into the chest of an ogre, throw sand in a foe's eye, bully a kobald prisoner by hanging them over cliff, wield a roasted coney and swing with reckless abandon at other tavern brawlers, etc.

 

[fba827]

Also, I am not really digging the whole "skirmisher-controller-brute-etc." role designation thingies. That just seems like a added layer of complexity that doesn't need to be there. Am I missing something. If I want kobalds, give me kobalds. If I want gnolls, give me gnolls and I will adjust their power levels. I am not so sure why several different level "role" designations are necessary.

It might seem odd but it actually is helpful in streamlining it for you (the DM).

Roles give you an eye-ball idea of what sort of tactics this creature might use (hang out in the back and shoot, go toe-to-toe, etc).

But it also streamlines the monster itself to what is relevant for what you plan on using that monster for.

If you had only one kobold that had 4-6 abilities for different situations (his melee attack, his sling attack, his attack that he uses when hiding behind bushes, his attack for calling down the fires of his god on to enemies, his motivating words to boost his allies morale, and so on) it can be harder to eyeball at a glance in the midst of a fast-paced encounter which one you want to use.

But by having 4-5 different types of kobolds each has maybe 2-3 types of attacks, thus making it easier...

but when its separated, you have the (making up names here) kobold warcaster you'll just have to concern yourself with his blast of fire or weapon attack for when he's surrounded. whereas if you have the kobold shieldguard, you'll have his basic attack, or his shield bash that marks an enemy, does damage, and knocks him down...(and not have to sift through other types of attacks).

because you're not planning on having the kobold warcaster up in toe to toe action but instead behind his line of 'tanks' for the majority of his life span, having an extra 2-3 attacks in his stat block isn't really efficient use of space or "eyeball time"

it's a convince for the sake of streamline thing. Is it necessary? no. But if it helps you in terms of time or ease, even a little, then it is a good thing.

 

[Piratecat]

I am hearing a lot about players and DM getting locked into the "card/power only" mindset. Not to toot my own horn, but I think (at least I hope) that won't be an issue with me.

I think it's much more of a player problem. Even experienced, improvisational players can fall into this trap.

I really like the roles, myself. That anti-grind thread (you don't need to read the whole thing, just the first posts) lays out what they're good for; for instance, I use few soldiers due to their higher AC. A good rule of thumb is never to mix more than 2 or 3 different types of monsters so that things don't get too confusing to track.