D&D 4E How to build encounters in 4e (aka Only you can prevent Grindspace!)

[Vayden]

Interesting advice, but...

...What about encounters where you spot the enemy several hundred yards away?
...What about outdoor encounters in "normal" terrain (no lava, no chasms: just forests, villages and rolling hills)


(Not all adventures can be a dungeon roller-coaster with Gygaxian disco effects...! )

Thanks for the responses and additional tips everyone! I was a little worried the thread was going to die at first! To answer Zapp's questions:

Encounters that start at a long distance - it's been a while since I've run one of these, I usually handle this one of two ways; for both ways, it helps that the maximum attack range I've seen in 4e is 20 squares (100 feet)

1) Let people decide if they're going to try and close, or try and avoid the encounter. If the PCs and the monsters are both trying to close, just assume that they're heading towards each other and start the combat with about 20 squares of distance between them - this gives you the nice situation Whimsical mentioned where the party spreads out as they determine how to use their first turn to advance. If both sides are trying to avoid combat, just have each side melt away. If one side is trying to close, and one is trying to avoid, then I'd run a skill challenge to see if the PCs can either escape (if they're trying to avoid) or catch up (if the monsters are trying to avoid.

2) In some situations, where there's a possibility one or both sides might split up, I'll just use a piece of scrap paper to track distances - I may pull out the battlemap if more than two people get into close combat, or I may run the entire encounter on the scrap paper and feverishly track distances for everyone involved. It's kind of a pain for you as the DM, but it can work in some situations.


Fights on "generic" terrain like plains or hills - obviously if you're fighting outside in a situation where the terrain is relatively harsh (a cliff, lots of trees to climb/hide behind etc) then you already have interesting terrain. If you really are setting your fight on a relatively feature-less plain, then my advice it to use mobile monsters. Without any terrain that the PCs can use to their advantage, fast, agile monsters can easily slip by the defender(s) and screw with the backline of the party. Just have your monsters be constantly moving and pursuing - the party will either have to move in response or get hammered into the ground. Again, this isn't something I would do very often, but it can be just as good of a fight if you have the right monsters and go for the PCs throats.

In addition, even the most feature-less of plains and hills may have a bit of terrain to make use of - some boulders jutting out of the ground here, a fallen tree or steep slope there. It won't be as big of a player as normal, but it can still factor in.

 

[CapnZapp]

Encounters that start at a long distance - it's been a while since I've run one of these, I usually handle this one of two ways; for both ways, it helps that the maximum attack range I've seen in 4e is 20 squares (100 feet)

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)

In addition, even the most feature-less of plains and hills may have a bit of terrain to make use of - some boulders jutting out of the ground here, a fallen tree or steep slope there. It won't be as big of a player as normal, but it can still factor in.

Thanks. Yes, something like this would probably be worthwhile to add to your guide.

 

[James McMurray]

Vast increases in the distance of ranged attacks breaks the balance between melee and ranged combat that currently exists. Sure, it's more realistic, but it's less fun. D&D ain't about being real, and never has been.

 

[Nail]

Great thread, and great tip compilation, Vayden! This should be required reading.

...but this quote is the best of 'em all:

The essence of grindspace is predictability.

 

[Vayden]

Vast increases in the distance of ranged attacks breaks the balance between melee and ranged combat that currently exists. Sure, it's more realistic, but it's less fun. D&D ain't about being real, and never has been.

I agree. The 100 foot distance cap does a lot of good things for the game - it helps you keep the fight on a realistically sized battlemap (and I for one love playing with miniatures), and if you have a villain that you need to stay alive for story purposes, having it fly 200 feet above the party is a great, easy way to do so.

None of that, of course, is to say that you can't use the proposed house-rule if that fits your playing style better.

 

[Jhaelen]

Well, to not make the game completely unrealistic

Why do you keep insisting on trying to make 4E into something it isn't?

Realism isn't on the agenda (and actually never was [in D&D])!

Encounters should start at a maximum distance of about 20 squares because that's the kind of encounters that are the most fun and because it's hard to use battlemaps for much longer distances, i.e. for _gamist_ reasons.

If the encounter doesn't lend itself to make an exciting encounter, handwave it!
If you're worried about boring wilderness encounters, turn the overland travel into a skill challenge and then use a prepared set-piece that IS interesting, adjusting it for the results of the skill challenge (or don't have a combat encounter at all).

 

[Vayden]

Why do you keep insisting on trying to make 4E into something it isn't?

Realism isn't on the agenda (and actually never was [in D&D])!

Encounters should start at a maximum distance of about 20 squares because that's the kind of encounters that are the most fun and because it's hard to use battlemaps for much longer distances, i.e. for _gamist_ reasons.

If the encounter doesn't lend itself to make an exciting encounter, handwave it!
If you're worried about boring wilderness encounters, turn the overland travel into a skill challenge and then use a prepared set-piece that IS interesting, adjusting it for the results of the skill challenge (or don't have a combat encounter at all).

That's a little bit harsher than I would say it, but it does basically sum up my next tip:

Tip #7) Don't enter 4e encounter design with a 3e mindset

Combat in 4e is designed to be fast, fluid, dangerous, and yes, unrealistic. While a 3e combat in a 5x5 featureless room, or at a range of 100s of feet, or against monsters who don't really present a threat, could be fun, 4e isn't really designed for that.

7a) One of the subtle pleasures of 3e was the game of resource management - players had to assess the threat level of fights and decide whether to burn precious resources (high level spells, potions, wands, scrolls etc) or whether to save them for later. In this way, even a non-threatening fight could be interesting, because the players would handicap themselves and make a game of trying to win without wasting resources. I myself don't find that playstyle very enjoyable, but the key take-away here is that 4e was designed to mostly eliminate that style of gaming. You have it to a limited extent with daily powers/magic items, but the majority of the groups resources can be spent freely in any fight. Because of that, non-threatening encounters are even more boring than they were before. Therefore, if you build encounters designed only to wear out your player's resources (level-appropriate or lower) you're basically wasting everyone's gaming time. I think this paradigm shift was something the game designers themselves didn't fully understand, since they advise you to frequently use level-appropriate encounters. I, on the other, advise you to almost never use those. Use level+1 as your "easy", resource-grinding fights. Only use level-appropriate if you have a severely un-optimized group or have come up with a great setting for the fight.

7b) Similarly, try to avoid designing dungeons with choke-points - while it may occasionally be fun for the party to find one and dominate, leaving chokepoints everywhere drops your fights into boring territory. Always have multiple approaches available for both sides - have a side room that the monsters can detour through to hit the back-line, have multiple paths through the pile of rocks, etc. Or, if you're going to give your characters a nice defensible chokepoint, take that into account in the challenge rating and throw a hideously unfair encounter group at them. It can even be fun in this case to allow them several hours sometimes to set up there defense - however nasty the traps they have laid are, just set them off with filler monsters and bring the real heat behind - if they only actually fight a level-appropriate fight, but their traps/chokepoints have cinematically killed 4-5 encounters worth of monsters, they'll feel like the kings of the world.

7c) Minions are your friends. Ignore the 1/4 xp budget for them, especially if you have a wizard in the party. I'd treat them more like 1/16 of a monster, especially if they're melee minions. In 3e, every monster was a monster - I tend to use minions more as mobile, somewhat dangerous terrain than monsters once you get your players past levels 3-4.


Anyone else have some good paradigm switches to apply?

 

[CapnZapp]

Vast increases in the distance of ranged attacks breaks the balance between melee and ranged combat that currently exists.

I knew some fanboy would come along... Thanks for unthinkingly passing on the One True Word!

Edit: Jhaelen, don't feel left out. I would have used your quote instead if I had seen your post before posting this.

Sure, it's more realistic, but it's less fun.

Says who? Says you!

In reality, it's all about expectations.

What's fun about always being jumped by monsters; never being able to take care of them from a distance? If anything, the DMG advice to never start off any encounters more than 20 squares away fosters a real sense of... not fun!

Yes, I realize 100 squares doesn't fit any battle map. But I have news for you: you don't need battle maps when the action is about shooting foes at a distance!

If you aren't raised solely on what the D&D books tells you, you wouldn't be as much surprised or dismayed or whatever to find that, once in a while, your Dwarven Fighter will have to stand idly by, while those more well-rounded characters in the party (who actually thought of bringing along a bow, something the DMG do remind you of, btw) get to shoot at the Orcs below the Unscaleable Cliff or wherever the ranged-fight-that-stays-ranged-for-more-than-two-rounds takes place.

See?

(And if your response is "then I would only want to play a character with at least some ranged ability if I had to play in your campaign", then my response is: Great! We understand each other! )

Besides, if one player perseveres, and do stick with that Dwarven Fighter, then he'll be richly rewarded in all those close encounters that do keep coming around; probably saving the party's ass several times over if he's the only non-squishie around.

But yes I confess; if your definition of "fun" has anything to do with Wizards' mentality that "everybody must feel special all the time", then no, my DM:ing style probably won't feel like fun to you...

Take care,
CapnZapp

 

[James McMurray]

I knew some fanboy would come along... Thanks for unthinkingly passing on the One True Word!

Pointing out the obvious and restating the designer's goals is fanboyism? wow. Never realized that. Thanks for your opinion.

 

[Jhaelen]

I knew some fanboy would come along... Thanks for unthinkingly passing on the One True Word!

Edit: Jhaelen, don't feel left out. I would have used your quote instead if I had seen your post before posting this.

Don't you worry, _I_ knew exactly how you'd react

@Vayden: Thanks for the excellent elaboration and additional advice!