TarionzCousin
Second Most Angelic Devil Ever
This translates into great DM advice: know when to break the rules, so to speak.
And that's why.
Great thread. Kudos to all.
D&D 4E How to build encounters in 4e (aka Only you can prevent Grindspace!)
Great thread. Kudos to all.
ObsidianCrane
First Post
This isn't a DM thing, but I recently learnt to love "Explorer's Fire", its a cute little ritual that makes going through a dungeon much better for the party if they are tactically minded.
Well worth the look.
Also if you want PCs to look beyond Knock and Comprehend Languages, presenting them with things like a damaged elevator made from simple materials makes Make Whole useful - they either take the time and Make Whole or they end up fighting on a trap...
The newly shown Rust Monster also makes Enchant Magic Item obviously useful
(I recomend avoiding Rust Monsters before the PCs can cast the Ritual though)In short rituals are one of the harder things to get to grips with in 4E and it can be hard to find ways to exploit them as a character, so providing the odd "hey this ritual would work" solution to problems is a good way of rewarding the GP players need to invest in getting them and learning them, not to mention casting them.
ObsidianCrane
First Post
Thanks for doing it.. I have a fledgeling 4E DM to point at it and would have missed it otherwise.
I read over your list and if you think those builds are a problem you are going to hate Bards.
Seriously I suspect that the concerns with those classes are more rooted in the builds of them you have seen than anything else.
1) Shielding Swordmage - I've seen this used very effectively by virtue of making it easier for squishier strikers to get in and do their thing in melee. Though this can be a party mix issue.
2) Infernal Pact Warlock - if they are the "sit back and hide" type of Warlock these are boring, for the DM. Though if you can catch them early they often have problems. If they are the "get in the enemies grill" style of Warlock these guys are a lot of fun to play and have in the group. In essence its the playstyle that makes or breaks these guys.
3) Bow Rangers (heck non-Beastmaster Rangers) - the 'twin strike' grind is something I find very annoying as a DM. Its like "I'm going to play a boring character" and leads to just that - boredom on behalf of the player. They are out of danger (or will be moving there soon) and they twin strike every round (because the probablility of doing damage is so high). I very much recomend against new players using this Ranger build as a result. In the hands of an experienced and agressive player these guys are fine however.
4) The Leaders - meh.. I pretty much disagree here. If the encounters are EL+1 or 2 the "I'm a healer" leaders get to be cool for their healing.
4 a) Laser Clerics - remember to use creatures that apply conditions that a save ends - they will be in range 5 (and thus attackable with some deft movement) right fast to hand out those saves to the other PCs.
4 b) Warlords -its not the type of Warlord so much as the choices they make in play. A Warlord should be encouraging people to use their action points and thus get the combat done faster, or keep the other PCs on their feet longer allowing more agression/risk taking from them. A warlord isn't a stay at home healer, they are an in the enemies base killin' their dudez healer. Make sure you highlight that to a potential Warlord player. Recomend Viper's Strike and Wolf Pack Tactics if they are new players and not familiar with your group. They can retrain to Shove, Commanders, or Furious at the next level, after they have learnt the tricks of the party and get an idea of when they can best be used.
5) Charisma Paladin - wtf? Seriously if they want to play a Paladin for a healer they should play a smashy cleric, it gives all the smashy function of a paladin with better healing. Charisma Paladins are fine when they are played to be Defenders with a touch of Leader, not Leaders who Defend. It is worth noting though that 1st level Paladins can suffer if they don't have a +3 Prof weapon and an 18+ stat (hard lesson learnt). Players have to realise (and may need guidance) that the roles are more than just words on a page. If you want to be a healer - be a Leader. If you want to be in the front going "come on hit me" so your budies don't get hurt be a Defender (why yes even Shielding Swordmages do this). The scenario you describe is one of the player decisions, not the build itself.
This is something that as DMs we need to be careful about judging, I have seen players do the strangest things that can make a class/build look ineffective; from just not read the relevant rules, to play against Role, to just forgetting about a feature they have. It behooves us in order to keep the game flowing and interesting to ensure we keep on top of these things and prod the players out of their complacency. Some players don't necassarily like that (fair enough), but some players need it so that they get more from the game.
ObsidianCrane
First Post
Hmm so far I'm yet to have a PC die as a result of doing this, and I find that using "Hard Encounters" works very well.
What I have instead is less "grinding" through dozens of encounters to get through an adventure, and more time doing the interesting fights. In describing the plot of the adventure I can add in the PCs defeating weaker monsters, or replace that part of exploring the dungeon with a skill challenge (what I'm about to do with Rescue at Rivenroar).
This means that all the combats matter, and the PCs need to think about what they are doing in each one more, and that instead of taking 5 or 6 sessions to get through a dungeon it takes 1 or 2 and the most important thing - the plot - is upheld.
The thing you need to be careful of when using Hard encounters is the Monster level, don't push that up to much or you will end up with problems.
Here's some example encounters (just the monsters) for 3x4th level PCs (a Paladin, a Fighter, and a Wizard)
Encounter -1 The encounter the players rated the toughest. (Because they were trying to conserve Daily powers)
2 Wyrm-Wisp (4th level skirmisher - refluffed and made cold based)
1 Orc Witch Doctor (2nd level Controler)
2 Orog Militants (3rd level Soldier)
Encounter -2 The easiest encoutner. (Wizard cast Flaming Sphere)
1 Cave Troll (level 7 Brute)
10 Orc Drudges (level 4 Minion)
The troll blocked a bridge over a stream the PCs needed cross that was frozen over by a thin layer of ice. So it was the Troll or the Ice & the Troll. The Drudges attacked in 3 waves (3,4,3) and the wizard had fun blasting them away while the Defenders tied up the troll.
Encounter - 3 The last encounter where the PCs got to use what they learnt in encoutner 1 about the Wyrm-Wisps to make better choices in this one.
1 Young Blazewyrm (level 4 Elite Brute - refluffed and made cold based)
2 Wyrm-Wisp (4th level skirmisher - refluffed and made cold based)
6 Orc Drudges (level 4 Minion) widely spaced initially making the wizard able to get only 2 at once.
Each one of the encoutners rates as hard, but none of them were terribly over the top for the party, and in different ways each of them let each character have "cool" moments (the Paladin being grabbed by the troll and marking it so when he was used as a club the troll got hurt being a fav..) each encounter had "gorramit" moments as well keeping the players on the edge of their seats and the possibility they might have to run away in mind.
By the time the final encounter resolved for the night all the party's daily resources were exhausted (except Surges and these were low) and they were high fiving over killing their second Dragon, and the campaign plot had been moved forward with lots of forshadowing of the next adventure.
The alternative to this was to basically add at least 2 more encounters, which would have meant 2 sessions worth of game for the same net effect. Each additional encounter means its more likely to fall into "grindspace" because you just end up fighting more encounters that are essentially the same for little reward. Each encounter might be challenging but after a while it gets to be "another group of X" or you start tossing plot out the window and just putting monsters in to be interesting (the sin Rescue at Rivenroar suffers from). The important thing is to mix up the level of difficulty of the encounters, with WotC's recomendation for "Hard" being the general target range, with a few "Standard" encounters and the very occasional "Very Hard"
The best way to make "hard" encounters is to mix things up; monsters faught, terrain faught over etc etc... (see the rest of the thread really)
Well, the OP had 12 PCs die doing this.
Do you ever fudge as a DM? Does a hit suddenly become a miss?
Do you stop attacking the Paladin because you know he has 5 hit points remaining and focus on a different PC instead?
Do you have the relatively smart foes suddenly do dumb things or take actions which do not result in an attack on any PC that round (such as shifting away from one PC and then moving to another PC, effectively wasting an entire round for that monster)? Note: this question only pertains to intelligent foes.
I don't quite believe that if the PCs are fighting tough battles nearly every time that the dice will not grow cold and PCs will not eventually die without the DM fudging stuff to protect the PCs from death. One of the things about the tough encounter concept is that the players are expected to use Daily powers and items in nearly every encounter (not every player every encounter, but someone in the group on average). So, those dailies will not be available in latter encounters where if the dice go cold, the players have fewer Daily resources to counter this.
And, risk of death has got to be a valid risk, or it kind of defeats some of the reason for using tough encounters in the first place. A challenge is not as fun if the players think the DM is protecting their PCs, at least not for some players (such as myself who is bothered when it's apparent that the DM is protecting a PC). For me, the real fun is with overcoming a challenge as a group without DM assistance.
Not saying that you do that, but it's a consideration a DM should take into account based on the attitudes of his players. Let a PC die if that is what happens. Give the players other ways such as quests to get the PC back if that is what the player wants to do.
Last edited:
Vayden
First Post
True. It's our responsibility to know what rituals our players have and reward them for having them by giving them opportunities to use them. I'm very happy that one of my players seems to be finding a new use for Phantom Steed every week (casting it three times and then harnessing them all up to pull the party's ship out of an entangling kelp sea was especially brilliant).
Lot of stuff there, Karinsdad. For starters, I'd say that I absolutely believe the risk of death has to be present and that an occasional PC death is good for the game. It provides drama and meaning, and depending on the situation, can either provide a player with the chance to try a new character or give a good sidequest to raise the fallen character (or you can just use Raise Dead too).
Following on from that, the "hard encounter" school does definitely increase the chance of death. I don't think it increases it quite as much as you're worried though. Let's break down my history of kills - 3 on the Irontooth encounter in KotS - I'm not the only one who ran into some deaths there, and that encounter has rightly become semi-legendary as a 4e rite of passage.
Then a TPK accounting for 3 more deaths in the finale of KotS - that one's all my fault - I was running two groups through KotS, and they both hit the finale down a couple of players - the first group I scaled the fight down too much and it was a cakewalk, so I overcompensated when the 2nd group hit - by the time I realized I hadn't scaled it down enough, it was too late to fudge anything - in 2 rounds they just got devastated. It ended up being great for the campaign though - the replacement party had to deal with the zombified versions of the old party, and they made great villains (one of whom is still in play harassing the party 5 levels later).
The other TPK was a result of me laying a nasty ambush for the party in the first session - I saved the campaign by having the bad guys knock the party unconscious and imprison them instead of killing them and it all worked out okay. The other 3 kills were just the result of tough encounters, and I'm perfectly fine with all of them.
Still, even throwing out the extenuating circumstances, that's 6 sessions with kills over 9 months at 2 sessions a week (about 70 sessions) for about one session with kills every two months. I'm perfectly fine with that, and my groups are enjoying it.
keterys
First Post
That said, swordmage AoE is good for damaging things, clearing minions, etc. I've been grouping with a promise of storm lightning weapon-ed swordmage who can do quite good damage.
Fwiw, I actually use an infernal pact warlock as a defender in one game... and my damage is quite good by those standards
You definitely want the warlock in melee, triggering OAs, Armor of Agathys going, etc... I do hope that Arcane Power will help address the # of powers disparity for Con-based warlocks, but I'm not sure that Dark Pact is really all that great for avoiding grindspace... Star is good, though!My inspiring warlord's warlord strike (sometimes twice, via power jewel) and inspired belligerence are _very_ anti-grind. Resourceful Warlords can add considerable damage to an attack on hit with an action point...
I also have a personal belief that all Rogues should be Brutal Scoundrels, and I hate Orb Wizards because they keep putting my big bad boss monsters to sleep, but those are more matters of personal taste.
I like trickster rogues for being more willing to risk themselves, moving enemies and allies into better positions (like positioning an enemy into a damaging zone)... but brutal certainly is good too. Hard to argue with more damage
Since a lot of the ones you listed use Charisma, I'll also note that a Charisma user who can Intimidate bloodied enemies can also help with preventing grind.
Vayden
First Post
Precisely, a defender not a striker. On your larger point though, you're right, all of the "problem" builds I listed have their uses, and having 1-2 in a group can work out just fine. It's just that if you start to get half the group or more tending towards those types, don't tell me I didn't say so.
And to whoever recommended I add Battlerager Fighter to the list - DMing for a warforged battlerager fighter who also happens to have the Undying Warrior epic destiny is rapidly bringing me around to your point of view.
I'm not too worried about it.
I just could not rationalize my experience as a player with even moderate encounters when the dice go cold with a DM who says he uses this system and PCs have yet to die, so I responded. I suspect some extenuating circumstances like he has only used the system for a few sessions, or he fudges the dice, or he fudges the NPC actions, or something. Cold player dice can make even an easy encounter semi-tough and many players have probably experienced that. If nearly every encounter is tough, cold player dice should be a potential issue depending on the makeup of the players. In the case of your one player, hot DM dice was the alternative yet similar issue. It's just a matter of probability. If the probability with the normal system is one death per 50 sessions, the probability with your system is one death per some number significantly below 50 sessions, even though there are probably fewer encounters per session.
Not worried about it though. In fact, I am starting up as DM again in a few weeks and will be using several of the suggestions from this thread in my campaign. This thread is very informative.
Well, to not make the game completely unrealistic, and to break away from the nagging feeling that even if outdoors, you're still running a claustrophobic dungeon encounter... I'm considering using a houserule that allows ranged fire at longer than "long range":
Add another -2 penalty for each "range increment" (as determined by the "short range" of the weapon) up to five range increments, the new maximum.
(This rule effectively incorporates long range into the general rule, and extends the range of ranged weapons to five times the short range. You can then shoot a longbow 100 squares at a -10 penalty; hardly useful against well-matched opponents but then again, D&D characters are epic heroes, their skills surpass mortal bounds, and by the way, 166 yards is actually lower than what real life archers could manage)
In contrast; 20 yards - that's a distance everybody covers in less than two rounds. Where's the advantage of being at a distance if you only get to make one or two shots before you're jumped?
At least with this rule, you would have approximately 10 rounds to shoot unopposed at any melee combatants trying to close with you. (If you're backing up 6 squares a round and the enemy running 16 squares a round; that means a relative distance of 100 squares takes about 10 rounds to cover)
Thanks. Yes, something like this would probably be worthwhile to add to your guide.
I didn't like the standard 2 increment rule either so I tried something like the above and it was too much.
As a happy medium I developed the following rules:
All ranged weapons now have 3 increments. The 1st increment is the normal short range, the 2nd increment is the normal long range, 3rd increment is added as the 1st and 2nd.
The distance of the 3rd increment is as the 1st and 2nd.
For instance: a normal crossbow has a range of 15/20. Just add a 3rd the same size as the other increments such that the range is now 15/30/45
Now the long range (2nd) increment has a -2 penalty. My rule is that the 3rd (and subsequent increments if allowed) have a penalty equal to their increment number.
So the 3rd increment penalty is -3. This adds cumulatively to the previous increments such that the total penalty to hit a target in the 3rd increment is -2 + -3 = -5. (1st increment doesn't add a penalty.)
If you had a 4th increment it's penalty would be -4 and when added to the previous penalties would give -5 + -4 = -9 to hit a target in the 4th increment.
5th increment would be -9 + -5 = -14.
I tried to look over the various feats and powers that affect ranged weapons and it seems to work well with them. YMMV.
I'm thinking that only the 3rd increment should be allowed and the 4th only in extreme circumstances or perhaps under the influence of a to be developed ritual.
Anyways that's it.
