Note to Self - Do NOT use an 'All Soldiers' encounter again....

[mattdm]

I've been finding that "mopping up" after a fight, when there's still a few enemies left on the board, but the PCs have undoubtedly won the battle, can get sort of tedious. Especially when seeming fodder like goblins or kobolds can still have many hit points in 4e.

I'll probably just start letting these guys die like a minion once the fight reaches that point.

Or, surrender, or try to run away. There's nothing my players seem to love more than killin' my bad guys when they try to run away. (They're not bloodthirsty per se: they just want the loot. "We're lawful good! Honest!")

 

[Leatherhead]

I consider brutes to be far more boring than soldiers, mostly because brutes get hit all the time and are more subject to the secondary effects of powers (such as daze), and also because they don't connect quite as often. I will concede that brutes have the potential to knock out someone in a single round, but I don't consider that to be fun.

 

[Runestar]

Seems like the xp budget of 4e is little better than the cr of 3e when it comes to designing appropriate encounters.

 

[Riley]

In my first 4e adventure, I made the mistake of running three characters versus a bunch of soldiers, backed up by a couple of artillery. It was a level +2 encounter - so I intended it to be tough - but it took forever.

Next time, I'll use just a couple level-appropriate soldiers, and see how it goes.

 

[Gort]

I find that it's usually the artillery that deals the real damage in 4e. Brutes have great damage, but crap attacks. Soldiers have great attacks, but crap damage. Artillery has it all, and if the party can't/doesn't prioritise them and shut them down quickly, they're going to get pasted.

Skirmishers and lurkers are harder to classify, as their powers tend to be more esoteric. The goblin skirmisher who just has to move 4 squares is a good skirmisher, while the deathwing zombie (who doesn't even work properly - his party piece is a flying attack, and he has clumsy maneuvrability when flying so he gets a -5 penalty while doing it) is a poor skirmisher. Some lurkers are total rubbish, like dark stalkers.

But in general, I think the encounters that will be most difficult for a party will be soldiers teamed with artillery. Controllers are great fun, though. They tend to have the most interesting powers.

 

[Anthony Jackson]

Using the DMG rules for monster design, a soldier has an AC of level+16 and level*8 hit points, a brute has an AC of level+12 and level*10 hit points. As PCs tend to have attack bonuses floating around level+6, that's about a 55% hit chance vs same-level soldier, vs 75% vs same-level brute, but since the brute typically has 25% more hit points, the soldier is only about 10% tougher on attacks vs AC, and the brute is superior vs non-AC attacks.

The problem comes on attack: if you give a brute High damage and a soldier Medium damage, the soldier's +4 to hit is substantially better. You have to push soldiers down to Low damage to make them balanced vs brutes.

I don't have my MM with me at the moment, but it's also possible that hobgoblin commanders are simply stronger than average. If nothing else, hobgoblin tactics tend to make them hard to hit.

 

[Holy Bovine]

What was your party makeup, out of interest? Often when these "combat takes too long!" threads come up it turns out the party has no strikers at all.

Lets see;

Elf Rogue
Xeph Ranger
Warforged Paladin
Human Fighter
Goblin Warlord
Human Cleric

These guys can dish out tons of damage and with the fighter now multiclassed as a Warlord the healing power they possess is amazing. What seemed stop them is the fact that the Hobgobs could get such an awesome AC (23) vs their +9 or 10 attack. That and the fighter & Warlord player's complete inability to roll above 9 the whole fight. Even the Rogue had terrible luck with the dice rolling 6 or less for 4 rounds! She can usually be relied on for a crit per fight and 75%+ hit ratio.

Except for the lack of a Controller it is a well balanced team overall.

 

[Holy Bovine]

<Mythbusters> Well, there's your problem. </mythbusters> A Commander isn't just a L5 soldier. It's a L5 soldier (leader)!

You put six leaders in the same fight. That's like a party made up entirely of clerics! Of COURSE the battle took forever! Commanders don't have ridiculous AC for their role and level, but their Phalanx power boosts it, and then they're practically immune to save-ends conditions, constantly shifting around, and giving each other a constant +2 to attack and damage...

Yeah, try that with some non-leader soldiers and you won't have this kind of problem. Soldiers and brutes, in my experience, last about the same duration in a fight (though hobbos do tend to be tougher than average), but a full leader party is gonna be a mess no matter what kind you pick.

They (the hobgobs) were meant to be an elite strike team sent to kill the PCs. Obviously they were a little too elite in some areas and not enough in others! To be honest I kind of ignore the stuff like "leader" in their descriptions (except for elite or solo). I need to re-read those write ups in the MM & DMG a lot more closely in the future. At least no one actually died (although the first round had the Paladin down 40+ hp)

 

[Holy Bovine]

Seems like the xp budget of 4e is little better than the cr of 3e when it comes to designing appropriate encounters.

Oh its miles better than that mess was. Miles and miles better.

 

[Runestar]

Oh its miles better than that mess was. Miles and miles better.

How so? Both are simply guidelines aimed at suggesting just how tough a certain creature is expected to be against a party of a certain level. But clearly, as is the problem with any 1-size-fits-all rule, there are bound to be exceptions to this rule which fall through the cracks.