D&D 4E Is it me or are 4E modules just not...exciting?

[S'mon]

Eh, that fight is sloggy though. The giant has basically one trick, move to melee range and thump with club. Meanwhile AC25 (reflex is 23) means you've got PCs hitting on around a 17, maybe 15 at the very best. It will be a long slow process. If the PCs play fairly optimum tactics you're looking at around 4 rounds of full up everyone aiming at the giant to kill. I agree, you can make a successful encounter out of that, but it is far from ideal. It has a club doing 3d10+11 damage (average 27.5 per hit and with a +11 it will be getting in some hits).

Typical 11th level Brute AC is 23. It worked fine with 4th level PCs IMC, they were hitting it on a 12 or 13 I think, and I seem to recall some buffs/nerfs being deployed. The goblin allies kept things lively too. The Controller PCs put plenty of effort into locking down the giant & nerfing it so it couldn't splat the melee PCs.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Typical 11th level Brute AC is 23. It worked fine with 4th level PCs IMC, they were hitting it on a 12 or 13 I think, and I seem to recall some buffs/nerfs being deployed. The goblin allies kept things lively too. The Controller PCs put plenty of effort into locking down the giant & nerfing it so it couldn't splat the melee PCs.

Just going by the Hill Giant stat block (which appears to now be revised to the MV version in Compendium. I didn't compare it to the MM1 version, but the defenses are IIRC AC 25, FORT 27, REFLEX 23, WILL 25. Club damage was upped from 2d10+5 to 3d10+11in MV. I guess it is a bit hard for me to imagine a level 3 controller doing much to slow down the giant for long, but at the same time I don't imagine the giant was ultimately super threatening by itself, just tedious to hit enough times to wipe out. I mean level 3 fighter should be in the high 40's hit points. Assuming AC around 20 he should just about last 4 rounds toe-to-toe, maybe 5 (this is assuming some minor leader support). Obviously I don't know what the goblins were, so I'd assume it was a challenging fight.

However, there's a point here, which is that it isn't a fight that would challenge a higher level party. This fight was built specifically to challenge a level 3 party or thereabouts. I've done a few fights that weren't too far off from this either, but I did find that if I was making a fight specifically for lower level PCs it was more interesting if the monster was deleveled and promoted to elite or solo.

My original point kind of got lost, but it was really that 4e is pretty tight on the levels of encounters you can handle. The range is pretty level+0 to level+4. Anything beneath your level is pretty much trivial, anything over level+4 you can run from (which is a plus) but you will NOT win, at least not without some clever strategic plan etc, and even then you're not ever going to win a level+7, unless we're talking really high level play. Now, in 1e I've seen higher level parties laugh off weak encounters, and then roll a couple bad saves and TPK. I've seen parties do the opposite and win much higher level encounters with a bit of luck. It is just the inherent swinginess of AD&D. Didn't make it better for sandbox play, but it did make for some crazy and interesting results. Overall I think 4e really almost demands a modified sandbox, or at least not a strict one.

 

[S'mon]

Just going by the Hill Giant stat block (which appears to now be revised to the MV version in Compendium.

I used the 11th level Hill Giant Smasher in MM3 - AC 23, Fort 24 Ref 20 Will 23, 137 hp, ATT +16 for 2d10+10 (& cleave 7), brutal smash 'recharge if miss' 4d10+14, whirling crush (enc, burst 2) 2d10+8.

The 'default' hill giant in the MM is 14th level and didn't look like a good encounter for 4th level PCs, but this guy was excellent.

The Cleric, Invoker & Wizard hit him with AIR Astral Seal and so many other nerfs he was I think -4 or -6 to hit, maybe -4 AC. AIR at one point though he critted the Dwarven Hammerer NPC (soldier-5) with the party for 54 damage on a Brutal Smash, taking the dwarf from max hp to just off dead.

Edit: The goblins were Sharpshooter art-2s and warrior skirm-1s. There were enough of them to make it around EL+2 AIR.

 

[S'mon]

However, there's a point here, which is that it isn't a fight that would challenge a higher level party. This fight was built specifically to challenge a level 3 party or thereabouts. I've done a few fights that weren't too far off from this either, but I did find that if I was making a fight specifically for lower level PCs it was more interesting if the monster was deleveled and promoted to elite or solo.

My original point kind of got lost, but it was really that 4e is pretty tight on the levels of encounters you can handle. The range is pretty level+0 to level+4. Anything beneath your level is pretty much trivial, anything over level+4 you can run from (which is a plus) but you will NOT win, at least not without some clever strategic plan etc, and even then you're not ever going to win a level+7, unless we're talking really high level play. Now, in 1e I've seen higher level parties laugh off weak encounters, and then roll a couple bad saves and TPK. I've seen parties do the opposite and win much higher level encounters with a bit of luck. It is just the inherent swinginess of AD&D. Didn't make it better for sandbox play, but it did make for some crazy and interesting results. Overall I think 4e really almost demands a modified sandbox, or at least not a strict one.

I think it was a high level-6 encounter, and would challenge PCs up to about 6th level, by 7th the goblins are too weak to threaten although I could have replaced them with say 9th level goblin minion archers, spread out those would stil threaten ok.

I certainly have run similar fights for higher level groups, however it was an ambush at a river bridge and if the goblins had seen a bunch of shining Paragon Heroes approach, well they might have persuaded their giant friend it was better to leave those guys alone. Or if this EL 6 encounter is well under party level I might do what I often did in high level 3e: "Dispatching a foolish giant and his underlings who sought to ambush you at the river bridge, you make good time and as dusk falls you... " - simply narrate it as part of the background scenery, like squirrels.

I agree that a relatively narrow range of ELs in 4e are worth playing, roughly Party Level -2 and up. I disagree that this makes status quo sandboxing unworkable, though. And the survivability of way-too-high EL encounters (at least with a smidgin of DM kindness) if the party know to flee (and preferably have a sacrifical NPC along!), is a very good thing.

Edit: And *my* point is that while the EL range of challenging, winnable fights is quite narrow, there are a lot of useable monsters up to around 7 levels above party level (in Heroic tier - higher in Paragon + Epic I expect). Brutes in particular, Skirmishers barely less so - Dire Wolves & Worgs are excellent vs low level PCs. Soldiers are the most likely to be grindy, and best to avoid elite & solo soldiers - unfortunately including the Red Dragon solo Soldier, when IMO red dragons should be the most fightable & exciting of all dragons.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

My original point kind of got lost, but it was really that 4e is pretty tight on the levels of encounters you can handle. The range is pretty level+0 to level+4. Anything beneath your level is pretty much trivial, anything over level+4 you can run from (which is a plus) but you will NOT win, at least not without some clever strategic plan etc, and even then you're not ever going to win a level+7, unless we're talking really high level play.

This is all a feature, not bug, to me. Which might explain my different POV on suitablity. I always thought that 1E, et. al. were tighter for my purposes, because that random variability had to be taken into account. It is one of the reasons I went to Fantasy Hero when I did ('87), though it's variability was a bit too much in the other extreme to match my preferences well.

 

[Herschel]

4e modules are just like every other edition module: they're as exciting as the DM makes them, period.

The delve format they're presented in is very informational, and even well organized. I do find that style great on one hand, but I also find it grabs my attention less as a DM reading it when it isn't in the 1E linear story format I was so used to. With stat blocks so much larger than they were back then, this would create its own set of potential issues, but I wouldn't mind seeing it tried myself at least even being rather sure they looked at numerous formats in the beginning. I find the older format inspired ME more as a DM.

 

[Imaro]

4e modules are just like every other edition module: they're as exciting as the DM makes them, period.

Sooo... are you saying that a creative/interesting premise, evocative writing, good encounter design, etc. have nothing to do with how exciting a module is? If so... I'm not buying it...

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hey all!

I just wrote an article entitled The Top 10 Flaws of 4E Adventure Design.

Some of you may find interesting and relevant to this discussion.

Article: Top 10 Flaws of 4E Adventure Design Eternity Publishing

 

[ghaladen]

That's why I running Pathfinder's Kingmaker Adventure Path modified for 4e. Just don't have any faith in WOTC's modules after running H1-H3.

 

[Herschel]

Sooo... are you saying that a creative/interesting premise, evocative writing, good encounter design, etc. have nothing to do with how exciting a module is? If so... I'm not buying it...

Except the WotC modules have good premises and encounter design. They don't read like a book/story is my issue with them but that's format, not a lack of actual quality.