4e Adventure Design Question

[gribble]

If I was to redesign a troll to become the "Bridge Troll", I'd do it as such.

Nice work - that's really cool. One slight critique: I probably wouldn't make "take a drink" a power - I'd just let it (along with breaking planks of the bridge out from under characters) be a stunt he could attempt in combat - i.e.: attach it to the terrain, not the monster.
In this case it probably doesn't make a lot of difference, but makes both the monster and terrain more generic and reusable.

 

[D'karr]

Nice work - that's really cool. One slight critique: I probably wouldn't make "take a drink" a power - I'd just let it (along with breaking planks of the bridge out from under characters) be a stunt he could attempt in combat - i.e.: attach it to the terrain, not the monster.
In this case it probably doesn't make a lot of difference, but makes both the monster and terrain more generic and reusable.

Thanks for the compliment.

I absolutely agree with your critique. The only reason I did it this way was because I was not building a complete encounter and just the particular monster. A pretty specific monster, by the way, the "bridge troll." It's the type of monster that I would expect to encounter only once in my campaign. I wanted to show that sometimes creating the powers for a solo goes hand in hand with building the "terrain" for the solo to fight in, as this power is completely situational. I opted for setting that up as a power because it has a recharge mechanic, which I found more interesting than allowing the troll to do it all the time as long as he was under the bridge.

For example if I had been designing a complete encounter I would have added a hazard or two to the bridge (breaking planks, getting stuck). I would have added a hazard to the riverbank (difficult terrain, acrobatics to stay standing), possibly a hazard to the river itself (swift current). In addition, a few rocks for the troll to chuck at the PCs. That would have been his ranged attack. You could also design a complete skill challenge to get past the troll without fighting him.

 

[CapnZapp]

Does the 4th ed ruleset change the way you design adventures from how you may have done it before? I know that each edition has brought changes in the way published adventures are laid out, but that's mostly cosmetic.

Yes. I find it more useful to consider 4E a game of its own than "just the latest edition" of an existing game.

Lots of things have changed, enough that you can't simply take a 3E module and convert it on the fly.

* 4E combat needs plenty of room - previous edition maps rarely cut it
* 4E combat encourages exotic terrain features (the "playground" effect) - previous edition maps rarely cut it
* 4E combat is geared for bigger fights - while stumbling upon two lone Orcs presented some risk in 3E (if they got in a crit before they were killed), such an encounter comes off awfully flat and lame in 4E - there simply is no element of risk whatsoever
* 4E combat is about the status effects - this makes a fight against a lone monster suspectible to "stunlocking". First off, you can't use a regular monster of higher level as this often leads to unsatisfactory results (once the players get the upper hand, the rest of the fight turns into a dreadful grind where the players know they will win, it just takes them half an hour to grind down all the hit points). You get much better results if you lower the level of the monster (to perhaps four levels higher than the party, tops) and instead add more monsters. Note that using an Elite or a Solo monster counts as "adding more monsters" (adding one and four monsters, respectively).

The big change I notice is the reliance on multiple opponents for each encounter. Instead of simply stopping a troll that lives under a bridge, apparently now youre supposed to stop the Troll, his pet Hellhound, and his 4 Ogre Minions. (ok, its a silly mix - but you get my point)

Great you have found out about this already. The main underlying reason is monster roles. The fight simply becomes much more exciting and tactically interesting if the opposition consist of monsters with different roles. That's a huge help in avoiding the grind.

I would recommend being careful with Elites and Solos of the party's level or higher, basically because that means a fight with few or even just the one opponent. A fight against a Solo becomes much more interesting if the Solo gets to bring along half a dozen allies as well as a bunch of minions. The only way you can accomplish that (without a TPK) is if the Solo is of a lower level than the heroes.

Assuming you're making a standard "playable-in-an-evening-maybe-2" dungeon style adventure, is there anything else you need to take into account?

Any thoughts, or design tips that aren't in the 4e rulebooks?

I learn much faster by example than by reading up on rules.

Thus I can't recommend Dungeon Delve enough. Taken at face value, it might look like just a bunch of unconnected dungeon bashes with no roleplaying potential.

But I see it as a collection of great examples on encounter building. (For more insight, check out the excellent review thread by Baz King over at rpg.net, where each delve is discussed and graded)

I wouldn't use the delves as-is. However, I will be slotting them encounters into my own (more story-laden) game.

(you can have that troll, you just need to make him tougher)

Aside from the possibility of using a Troll as a Solo, you could also just pick a higher level Troll.

Be careful with this. Just picking a single high level opponent (say, a monster five or seven levels higher than the party) doesn't work nearly as good as in previous editions.

Rolling dice becomes boring: the troll always hits, the party (nearly) always misses. Because of all the misses, the troll's high hp is made into an even larger heap of hp. Despite the troll mostly hitting, a single 4E creature simply doesn't cause all that much damage.

You can hopefully see that this leads to a drawn-out grindfest, where the PCs have ample time to distribute healing surges to ensure the Troll's efforts never translate into a really dangerous situation.

When it dawns on the players the fight has been reduced to a simple comparison between the Troll's hp and the total pool of healing surges (and their triggers) you will know you have failed to create an interesting fight. This phenomenon is completely new to 4E (to me at least).

Taken to its extreme, we get those endless discussions about "my Paragon dragon should be able to wipe out a party of Heroic player characters with a single Dragon Breath". The game simply doesn't concern itself with mismatched fights like that. (A heroic party stands no chance against a paragon tier Dragon, but it will still take a dozen rounds or more for the Dragon to kill off the PCs. This is not a big design flaw because? Because he game never promised to handle that kind of disparity.)

So don't use a higher-levelled Troll. Use a Solo Troll instead. And this is where you will realize the Monster Manual simply doesn't cut it. At least, it's my experience that you will often find that the MM gives you a rather narrow selection of critters each time you turn to it - because of the monster roles and because of the Minion/Elite/Solo divide. You want a level 8 Soldier? The MM gives you a selection of only four choices. And one of those choices is an Elite. And of the three remaining, one is a beetle swarm, one is an Angel, and one is a shadow warrior. I can imagine plenty of campaigns where that leaves you with only one choice that fits the adventure and setting, or even none.

But back to the Solo Troll. The DMG gives you the impression Solos are best used on their own. Don't buy that.

Rather than experimenting with a War Troll (L14), you could solo-ify a common Troll (L9) and give it several allies (perhaps a Dark Stalker and a dozen Troglodyte Warriors) for a satisfying encounter for a level 10 party.

Each solution has its advantages and disadvantages. The common thing is that "solo" fights are often not all that interesting, at least if the monster lacks options and reactive abilities that surprise the PCs or turn the way the battle is fought.

The best suggestion here is probably to pick or create a "non-boring" monster and/or add interesting terrain features.

Ayup.

Bigger encounter areas: What might have been the area for 3 encounters in 3E can be the area for one encounter in 4E - but still including all the monsters of the three 3E encounters.

Ayup.

Skill Challenges will be a nice tool to handle situations that you don't want to resolve with a single dice roll, but still want to be affected by the player characters actual abilities. There is a lot that can be done with them, and they can be expanded a lot, too (I am sure someone will bring up the "Obsidian" system described in the House Rules forum).

Let me just say that I've ignored SC's for now. They clearly do not work straight out of the box.

Note that this does not make the rest of the game less fun!

 

[tomlib]

Dungeon Design

There are a lot of good thoughts in this thread but one I've had to deal with that I don't think has been mentioned is Dungeon Design. Healing Surges dramtically change the character of a dungeon in my opinion.

Basically, in the old system the group could continue without resting for longer than they can now. With a healing surge curing 25% of hit points I've found that on average a party can fight 3 - 4 encounters before taking an extended rest. This must be taken into account in a dungeon.

Normally this means giving the dwellers of the place reactions to events by the PCs. Say, the ablity to move forward to defend key points, make sorties against parties who leave the region to rest, and offer hostages if the PCs will just leave them alone. Stuff like that. I also try to make a place in the dungeon that is good for an extended rest and defensible.

I've basically found that the massive dungeon crawl of previous editions doesn't work very well with the new system. I'm tending towards smaller dungeons with more dynamic foes.

Happy Gaming,

Tom

 

[Badwe]

Capnzapp: I wanted to address/add to some of your points.

Regarding 3e modules. First, it has been stated on these boards and elsewhere that the “maps too small” issue is really a matter of integration. What was once three rooms for three encounters should be a single encounter involving use of the nearby rooms and hallways. There are several examples of this in the first published adventure: Keep on the shadowfell. So, those 2 orcs may not be dangerous, but perhaps they alert the 3 nearby rooms full of 5 other orcs, giving players time to prepare and set up defensive positions.

Second, as far as the playground effect, it reaches a bit deeper than just encounter design. As part of trying to keep all classes interesting and avoiding the “fighting man” simplicity, many classes have powers keyed to movement and tactics (esp. the warlord and controllers). Having simplistic terrain such as one big 30x30 room limits those classes’ opportunities to shine.

Third, as far as status effects: look at the design of a solo. They have a +5 (!) to attempting roll 10 or higher, that brings them from 55% to 80% chance of success. Yes, you get a bigger effect when you shut them down for even 1 turn, but you also get a smaller effect when you get to target areas. Also in turn, when not stunned/dazed/whatever, the solo often has: a potent opportunity attack, some form of special immediate reaction, multi-attacks, effects usable with a minor action, and TWO action points. I don’t doubt that status effects are still a strong strategy vs. solos, but I don’t think it’s that bad.

As new creatures coming out like the adamantine dragon show: while things like what I’ve listed are there to help solos be more interesting, WotC has realized they were too conservative with them initially and are making them more aggressive. This is the pendulum coming back to center after the far swing away from 3 round glass cannon barrages.

As far as the dungeon delve, if you follow the advice for expanding the delve I don’t see why it can’t serve the OP’s needs. Of course they have a weak story, any story you don’t write yourself is unlikely to seem interesting.

You mentioned the danger of a grind of just taking one normal monster. See my earlier post. For a regular monster you’re looking at an imbalance of possibly 7 AC, for an elite a somewhat more manageable (but back-breaking) 5. Often a better choice is an elite at level n+3 or n+4 with only a few minor minions or cannon fodder, possibly just traps/hazards. This way the focus is on the “boss” but the challenge is still there. This was the model for the kalarel fight in KotS.

Last point, I promise. If you are desperate for monsters within a certain level and role, I encourage you to try asmor’s monster encounter template tool. 4e Encounter Planner - Asmor.com simply select the sources you have and it will help you adjust. Remember: just because you have a level 8 encounter doesn’t mean your soldiers must be level 8.

 

[Bodhiwolff]

I cut my teeth on AD&D, and converted to 2E when it came out. I stopped playing, but followed 3E (and 3.5) but realized that it was now more focused on pseudo-simulation. As that style of game, it is extremely good, but it is not the AD&D style I was used to. When 4E came along, it completely and absolutely reminded me of AD&D in its style of play and design, and that's what got me interested again.

The main thing I notice about 4E design, and the way it relates to AD&D design, is that since it accounts for larger encounters, and larger groups of opponents, you simply make the dungeon area for that encounter encompass a broader area. Thus, if the encounter is to include a squad of 10 orcs (of 3 different types) then you place it in something like a barracks, with adjoining officers' quarters, and a store-room with guards to the side, all joined by corridors, sealed off by double doors. The encounter encompasses all 3 areas (with connecting corridors), and the relevant orcs in each of the 3 areas.

So whereas you might've seen old adventures where 1 room has 2 monsters which you fight, and miraculously the surrounding rooms remain 'unactivated', in 4E you simply have 1 room contain 2 monsters where you fight, and the commotion alerts the nasties to the left and to the right rooms as well!

So instead of just clearing one room, and having the sound miraculously never extend beyond that room to alert nearby opponents, instead you start an encounter in one room and have the remaining opponents charge in during the second round.

Indeed, the published adventures will discuss how an encounter might start off and play out differently, depending upon which room in an encounter is the first to be activated, whether various creatues are surprised or alerted, etc.

When the encounter is over, you've cleared a large chunk of terrain in the dungeon, freeing up the PCs to place guards and possibly rest up for 5 minutes. The current room is cleared, as are the corridors and rooms to one side and the other.

Thus, you can still build large dungeons and multi-level adventures. Simply acknowledge that instead of 6 rooms equallying 6 encounters, those 6 rooms now equal two encounters.

Personally, I find the whole system makes for a *more* realistic feel, and stops me from having to introduce long corridors and sound baffles to realistically keep the entire place from being alerted once a fight breaks out. Instead, you simply design little dungeon chunks, connect them, and your'e finished.

Add in areas and rooms with non-combat tests (traps, puzzles, exposition areas, exploration areas, NPC encounters, etc.) and your dungeon grows by leaps and bounds.

The published adventures I've seen usually seem to acknowledge this broader scope. You'll have an encounter emcompass a broad swatch of terrain, and the next encounter will be a distinct distance away.

It also enables me to set up each encounter as a unique story element, with its own internal consistency. The makeup of the monsters is the personnel for the entire encounter, meaning that you're free to showcase that entire area's little story.

 

[gribble]

I absolutely agree with your critique. The only reason I did it this way was because I was not building a complete encounter and just the particular monster.

Cool - that all makes sense. And I agree with your assessment about the recharge mechanic as well.

 

[Scribble]

I second the idea that terrain is important. I really like putting in various "stunt" pieces that either side can use to their own benefit. Things like:

* Walls that you can knock over for a "blast" effect.

* Large scale weapons (catapults and balistas) that the PCs and monsters can fight for control of.

* Book cases that can be knocked over to "immobilize" an enemy.

* Chandleirs that do the same.

* Crates or bags of flour that can create squares of concealment.

* Things you smash to make difficult or hazardous terrain.

Also things that are traps or hazzards that players or enemies can use to their advantage as well- I once had a wood pile that used the "Rockslide" hazard. Anyone who made a strength check of a certain DC could cause it to tumble effecting certain squares.

The thing about solos I've noticed is they seem like they're built for "multi-location" action scenes.

Like you start out with the troll on top of the bridge, and have effects that can be used to either fight the troll or the troll can fight PCs with, but they also damage the bridge... and at a certain point the bridge collapses or becomes unstead, sending everyone down into another location to continue the fight with different surrounding terrain and such.

Or have the Solo run off at some point, only to return slightly later (perhaps after PCs get their short rest) in a new location. Most monsters don't have healing surge values, so while PCs can recover a bit, the monster won't get more HP... just his encounter powers back...

Also you can do the "chase fight" scene... Where you're on top of a moving object, like a out of control coach, or airship or something, fighting the solo, but interupted with having to do skill challenge things as well to stay on top of the coach, or deal with avoiding obstacles or whatever.

 

[CapnZapp]

Capnzapp: I wanted to address/add to some of your points.

I want to believe you are trying to be helpful, but you do come across as slightly apologetic about the issues, as if there aren't any real problems or that they are minor and easily spotted.

Without extensive experience of the new edition I would say that is to underestimate the trouble you can get into if you come fresh from 3E.

I hope I am mistaken!

Regarding 3e modules. First, it has been stated on these boards and elsewhere that the “maps too small” issue is really a matter of integration. What was once three rooms for three encounters should be a single encounter involving use of the nearby rooms and hallways. There are several examples of this in the first published adventure: Keep on the shadowfell. So, those 2 orcs may not be dangerous, but perhaps they alert the 3 nearby rooms full of 5 other orcs, giving players time to prepare and set up defensive positions.

We agree then? Of course, you can't always lump several encounters together. And that assumes you think of the idea in the first place...

Generally, I find "3E maps are too small for 4E" to be a useful and truthful summary of the situation.

Second, as far as the playground effect, it reaches a bit deeper than just encounter design. As part of trying to keep all classes interesting and avoiding the “fighting man” simplicity, many classes have powers keyed to movement and tactics (esp. the warlord and controllers). Having simplistic terrain such as one big 30x30 room limits those classes’ opportunities to shine.

Though you make it sound like its a given to have non-simple (often called "interesting" room designs). To some, such rooms only give off the impression you're playing pinball, or a video game. Certainly the view that if the game doesn't handle realistic (i.e. "boring") rooms then there's something wrong with the game, not the room, is a perfectly understandable one.

Third, as far as status effects: look at the design of a solo. They have a +5 (!) to attempting roll 10 or higher, that brings them from 55% to 80% chance of success. Yes, you get a bigger effect when you shut them down for even 1 turn, but you also get a smaller effect when you get to target areas. Also in turn, when not stunned/dazed/whatever, the solo often has: a potent opportunity attack, some form of special immediate reaction, multi-attacks, effects usable with a minor action, and TWO action points. I don’t doubt that status effects are still a strong strategy vs. solos, but I don’t think it’s that bad.

Some Solos can make saves both at the beginning and end of their turn. These are suitably resistant to stunlocking strategies. For the rest, status effects that shut down the entire monster are probably too powerful.

But my advice ("don't solo your Solos") is more based on what creates a dynamic and fun combat than any concerns the Solo might be defeated too easily. Unless that Solo is very special, it will look to the players like they just stand there trading blows, with no variation on what target to choose. Then the high hp totals of a Solo ensure any problems (such as any tendency to the fight degrading into a grind) will get noticed.

Not saying you should never run a Solo solo - only I think it's better newbie advice to supplement low-level Solos with allies and minions; and set up "true" Solo fights when you have gotten into the system.

As new creatures coming out like the adamantine dragon show: while things like what I’ve listed are there to help solos be more interesting, WotC has realized they were too conservative with them initially and are making them more aggressive. This is the pendulum coming back to center after the far swing away from 3 round glass cannon barrages.

No need to defend WotC... Let's hope you agree to my strategy of giving advice based on existing material, rather than flawless future such!

As far as the dungeon delve, if you follow the advice for expanding the delve I don’t see why it can’t serve the OP’s needs. Of course they have a weak story, any story you don’t write yourself is unlikely to seem interesting.

Well, I did recommend it myself. Just wanted to be upfront with what it is not.

You mentioned the danger of a grind of just taking one normal monster. See my earlier post. For a regular monster you’re looking at an imbalance of possibly 7 AC, for an elite a somewhat more manageable (but back-breaking) 5. Often a better choice is an elite at level n+3 or n+4 with only a few minor minions or cannon fodder, possibly just traps/hazards. This way the focus is on the “boss” but the challenge is still there. This was the model for the kalarel fight in KotS.

Well, I happen to think KoTS is best forgotten as soon as possible, so I won't use it as any kind of "model supplement".

An Elite at level n+4 is much like a lower-levelled Solo (perhaps n-1). Except. It won't shake status effects as easily, and it is unlikely to have much in the way of making several attacks like a true Solo. And its strong defenses will mean the whiff factor is much higher than for the Solo. I think that your XP budget can be better spent, that's all.

Last point, I promise. If you are desperate for monsters within a certain level and role, I encourage you to try asmor’s monster encounter template tool. 4e Encounter Planner - Asmor.com simply select the sources you have and it will help you adjust. Remember: just because you have a level 8 encounter doesn’t mean your soldiers must be level 8.

I believe this was directed more to the OP than me? (Anyway, thanks for posting that link)


Cheers,
Zapp