D&D 4E Encounter Based 4E - Thoughts?

[mkill]

There's still that problem of attrition that I find to be annoying. I don't like that each encounter isn't important. It's those encounters at the end of the "day" that really start to matter. The previous ones... Not so much. But, if I'm running a campaign where there are no "filler" encounters, no "grinding dungeons", etc... Then, the whole thing simply feels unsatisfying.

Of couse there are rising tide and climax fights in a plot-driven adventure.
First you fight henchmen, then the dragon (as in the boss' right hand. may or may not be an actual dragon) and then the big bad.
Plotwise, the PCs start at full power, grind through the henchmen, burn out against the dragon, then gain a "long rest" to get back to full and have an epic fight against the big bad.

4E was _designed_ to be a dungeon crawl system. What I'm proposing is turning it into a system that's designed around a story, plot, etc...

Plot-based adventures work perfectly fine in 4th edition. You're welcome at my table if you don't believe it.
Plots and dungeons aren't that different: In a dungeon, you bash a door to get to the next encounter, in a plot, you follow a clue.
In a dungeon, you decide whether to go left or right down the hallway, in a plot, you decide whether to talk to the vizier first or investigate that warehouse in the harbor. In a way, a dungeon is just a very restricted plot that railroads the story with solid stone walls.

Plot-based adventures are a storytelling technique.
The game system you use is just a framework to determine PC success or failure.

D&D has strong support for dungeon-based play as a matter of tradition, but whether you use that or not is your decision as DM.

 

[DevP]

So, I'm all for homebrewing, so you should go on and do that if you think that'd best get you the feel you want.

If 4E is working for you otherwise - if you'd prefer to use it without what annoyances - then I'd still be curious about what problems you're trying to fix.

It's those encounters at the end of the "day" that really start to matter. The previous ones... Not so much.​

So, what is it about those later fights that matter more? Is it the free use of the bigger powers? Is it a greater difficulty level or a greater plot relevance?

It's interesting about attrition: 4E seems to be a lot *less* about carefully managed resources than previous editions, but some people dislike what it has even now. Attrition is one way to put pressure on a combat. If there's no attrition, then you'll probably apply pressure by ramping up the difficulty and lethality (which is still in some sense a resources question, but just within the timeframe of this encounter).

 

[SageofMusic]

I agree with all the people above: getting rid of dailies is not a good idea. You're essentially killing druids, wardens and barbarians, as most of their power relies on dailies to get through encounters. I don't see how the system has to change that drastically to make it less meta game. Encounter powers and daily powers are described as moves that you have practiced (or spells you have memorized) that take such effort that you can only perform them once without having to rest. Think of it this way. An encounter power is a few rounds of tennis. It will tire you out, sure, but if you just caught your breath for a few minutes, you would be fine. Daily powers are a triathalon. Its almost impossible to do two triathalons in a day, and even if it were possible, no one would want to do it again. And you can still have plot based encounters. I think the problem is that you want to be more restrictive on the powers that your players use, but in reality, you just need to figure out how to balance powers better. If you have a fight in the morning when they're all rested and ready to go, you need to make it more powerful so that the players will be a little challenged. But if you have more encounters for them later on in the day, make sure that they don't use all of their daily powers, i.e. tire themselves out so the next fights will be TPK battles. And don't be afraid to change things on the fly. If you see that your characters are having a difficult time, fudge the numbers, let them have a little breathing room, introduce something else that helps them. D&D 4th edition is an incredibly flexible system, and you don't have to change it that much to get what you want.

 

[RyvenCedrylle]

I think maybe you're playing the wrong game, OP. Nothing personal. That being said, there's a game for you. I think Iron Heroes will serve your purposes much better. Despite how much I like to screw around with rules and mechanics, sometimes you just have to go find a game that inherently does what you want it to do.

I also use the inherent bonuses rule and it works very well for me. I rely pretty heavily on training, boons and my custom-built magic items for world flavor. It can be done, but requires a lot more work. I run two games every other week and I think if I ran any more often, I'd have to just go with it as written.

 

[P1NBACK]

I think the problem is that you want to be more restrictive on the powers that your players use, but in reality, you just need to figure out how to balance powers better.

Wrong. This has absolutely nothing to do with "balance". Balance means nothing to me.

If you have a fight in the morning when they're all rested and ready to go, you need to make it more powerful so that the players will be a little challenged.

This is exactly what I was hoping to _avoid_.

...

 

[P1NBACK]

I think maybe you're playing the wrong game, OP. Nothing personal. That being said, there's a game for you. I think Iron Heroes will serve your purposes much better. Despite how much I like to screw around with rules and mechanics, sometimes you just have to go find a game that inherently does what you want it to do.

I also use the inherent bonuses rule and it works very well for me. I rely pretty heavily on training, boons and my custom-built magic items for world flavor. It can be done, but requires a lot more work. I run two games every other week and I think if I ran any more often, I'd have to just go with it as written.

Thanks. Good stuff.

It's funny you mention Iron Heroes, because I've considered writing a 4E version of it for a while now.

 

[DevP]

So what's special about the use of dailies or the resulting power level from the players going "nova"? It just means a slightly higher power level from them, right? Is there anything else really to it that's unsavory?

 

[Saagael]

if you're worried about story pacing I agree with others that you should require an extended rest only after some important event (i.e. plot-drive). It makes sense that the players don't get a decent rest until they've been thoroughly run ragged, or that they spend their extended rests planning, scheming, and otherwise deciding their actions rather than actually resting. That means that you can each "day" is more focused around a story arc, or when the dm decides "this story is done, you can take a rest" (much like encounters).

I'm using a rule that PCs don't benefit from an extended rest until they've reached 2 milestone (4 encounters). That way the game might span a week, but they'll not get an extended rest until they've taken care of whatever goal they've set.

It's part of the system that some battles are more trivial than others. Part of it comes from the fact that the PCs are heroes, with lots of power. They don't need to spend as much energy fighting the henchman. If you don't like that, then just increase the henchman's difficulty. it's much, much easier than messing with the balanced PC rules.

Alternatively, you can run a series of small combats as a skill challenge, and make the PCs lose powers and healing surges based on their success. You don't worry about all the minor battles as the're squished into one skill challenge, but you still use up resources so that they can't go nova on the final battle.