Are encounters too easy?

[Kzach]

One of the complaints about 4e that I see quite often is that combats are too easy. And yet, whenever I see this complaint from a GM or group, I'm often taken-aback by it because I perceived the combat as being quite difficult.

It took me awhile to realise the reason behind this and I believe it has a lot to do with perception and one's understanding of the underlying mechanics of 4e. On the surface, a group can walk away from a combat with little to no difference from before they entered the combat. This gives a false perception that the encounter was easy. Added to that that the more that is used during the encounter, the more impressive that the characters seem to be.

Yet the truth of the matter is wholly different. If a party expends all of their encounter powers in a combat, they may have looked impressive and done big damage numbers and pulled off all sorts of whacky effects that made it seem like they 'breezed' through an encounter, but the fact of the matter is that they expended a massive chunk of their total resource pool in doing so, ie. all their encounter powers.

So, sure, they walk away from the encounter down a few healing surges and not much else, but that still qualifies as a decent encounter.

The way I perceive encounter difficulty is based more on this method of viewing combats. If the party hardly expends any encounter powers and only one or two healing surges across the entire party, then that was an easy encounter. If the party had to expend a few healing surges each and used all or most of their encounter powers, then that was about average. And if they had to expend all their action points, encounter powers, daily powers and item powers and burned through several healing surges each, then that was a near TPK, 'cause if it had gone on much longer, they wouldn't have had any resources at all to draw on.

How do you perceive encounter difficulty?

 

[DracoSuave]

Encounter difficulty is wholy in the hands of the DM. Any discussion of it is strict YMMV.

Note: This is exactly as it should be.

 

[the Jester]

I perceive it based on surges and daily powers expended.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

I find them (as a DM) often too hard.

The last two combats I ran pounded the PCs into dust, and neither were more than half a level above the PC level.

The first of the two, it was an impromptu battle with no terrain or traps as such. The bad guys used a psionic version of arcane gate to attack the PCs. One was a psion of level +1 (an elite controller), one was a soldier-type (with a marking ability like a weak paladin) and the soldier's mount. Much damage was had by much of the party, and the psion nearly got away too. The PCs used Stinking Cloud to great effect, but this did keep the melee fighters away from the psion for several rounds.

The second of the two was a set-piece, with lots of difficult terrain and two traps (they had to destroy a portal, and the portal was a warder trap which pushed PCs past difficult terrain; the other trap was a turret trap, modded to do less damage; one did AoE fire damage, one did very little AoE cold damage but also slowed the targets on a hit; a turret trap gets two turrets as one monster's worth of XP). That left a single 5th-level opponent to face them, but it took the PCs about three rounds to even reach him due to the nastiness of the traps and terrain. Near the end of the fight a 6th-level brute was summoned, which meant the PCs had a pretty good advantage against most of the encounter. The PCs ended up taking control of the turrets and using them on the enemies. The dice were really hot for me, and really bad for the barbarian. Still, 3/4 of the PCs were next to dead, and if I'd focused fired a bit more, it would likely have been a 3/4 TPK. (There were only four players, so I set the XP budget that way.)

The second one was a "boss battle" of sorts, but it was only half a level ahead, although in practice a bit harder due to the generous terrain set up to benefit the villains. Quite a few surges were lost (everyone but the wizard lost at least two surges, and the paladin had to use both of his Lay on Hands, so that was another two lost). I'm pretty satisfied with how it went, but it does mean I can't increase the XP budget by more than one more monster for deliberately difficult encounters.

I rigorously control what gets into the game, so there's very little in the way of OP combos. I wonder if the MM3 damage boosts were designed to take on cheesy PCs or something. But I suspect the real hurt is because I give most monsters a non-AC attack option (many are custom, and quite a few non-custom ones might have an attack changed to target an NAD, with the -2 to hit penalty because it's no longer targeting AC). In the last encounter, the only thing that could attack AC was the brute, and even then its recharge ability targeted Reflex. One of the PCs had really good NADs and was only getting hit on about half the attacks. It might be time to allow some NAD Expertise feats into my game. (But not Armor Expertise, their AC scores are still quite a bit ahead of the curve.)

Party composition:

1) Goliath berserker. Fairly well optimized given the limits (can't use stuff beyond PH1 or PH2 except for some charging helm).
2) Elf wizard, specializes in control and tries very hard never to get targeted. He was only hit once in the last battle, and it turned out he could have countered that with some ability of his, so should have taken none.
3) Dwarf cleric, a heal bot. He doesn't have the Pacifist Healer build/option/feat, I don't even know what book that's from. He's taken everything he can to boost the amount of healing he can get through Second Wind. He just reached 6th-level (after that last fight) and is multiclassing into warlord, mainly for the Inspiring Word. He also has a minor action daily that restores a healing surge, not to mention Healing Strike, Cure Light Wounds, and another daily from the PH1 that does damage and some healing too. Being a dwarf, he can use Second Wind as a minor action, and his magic armor gives him some good healing too. (He used to have that cheesy power that gives DR 5/- for the entire combat unless he's dazed or stunned, but I took that away. Silly splatbooks!) Even with all that healing, he was literally tapped out of healing that fight.
4) A paladin. (On Athas? I reflavored the class.) High AC and NADs. He's a Chaladin.

 

[AdmundfortGeographer]

I'm finding encounters in the upper Paragon levels to be cakewalks. But I believe this is mostly because we have 6 PCs (most nights) running through WotC published adventures as is. We rarely have to spend healing surges.

The PCs have access to anything and everything in the CB. So. Yeah.

 

[marelion]

In my homebrew campaign my players tend to find the encounters challenging, yet satisfying. I`ve basically been tweaking monster damage, by about +3 on average. Our Warlord sometimes complains that my skirmishers/brutes deal more damage than he can restore with an Inspiring Word, but I have to do it that way because the characters are extremely sticky and dish out some serious damage due to nice party synergies (two strenght-based melees in conjunction with a Warlord, `nuff said, right?!).

Í try to maneuver around action denial as much as possible, since being dazed/stunned is not fun for any player. Instead I try to make my encounters more challenging by adding a monster or two or by upping global damage. That way my players do feel challenged due to constantly being low on HP.

Most important for judging the difficulty of an encounter is the terrain, especially if there are:
a)monsters with nasty auras or
b)controllers with zones around. Some of those can easily be turned into a TPK if the GM places the zones/monsters wisely while the same encounter with the very same monsters might feel like a piece of cake if the GM makes the zones or auras too easy to circumvent.

My favourite advivce to adjust the perceived difficulty of an encounter is to forgo the use of effects that reduce the characters` to hit-probability. A -2 penalty to hit turns encounters into slogfests and makes encounters feel static and dull since monsters take more time to take down and feel less pressure to move out of the range of the party`s strikers/controllers.

And a little hint: If you want to upset your players go for Dracoliches! Yeah, area stun powers that can be recharged Nothing is more important for my personal perception of an encounter from a player perspective than stunlocks. Taking damage equal to the value of two healing surges while standing around doing nothing simply freaks me out. Big numbers of damage sure get noticed, but if I get to hack back at the baddies I`m fine with that. After all, adventuring is not for the faint of heart and an encounter should be challenging.

All in all, it is not so much the numbers the GM throws at the players that catch the attention of the players but their capability to engage in a fair and square combat situation. That`s why I went to such lenghts to stress the importance of terrain and action denial.

So my two guidelines for judging an encounter really are:

a) terrain and
b) the frequency of action denial I/my players have to deal with.

The loss of Healimg Surges and Daily Powers is definetely the more `crunchy`approach but after all I´m there to have a good time with some friends that`s why I care more about the flair of an enconter than actual numbers.

BTW: Instead of waiting for something like MM 4 I would rather see the wizards show up with a guideline for judging terrain and creating it accordingly. The way the wizards have implemented terrain into their encounter-balance system so far hasn`t really convinced me and it is by far too crucial an element not to implement it into an official guideline. Why not make a terrain manual for the GM with a quick guide to creating exciting encounter maps with pc-based tools and battlemats. Selling Dungeon-Tiles was an imteresting place to start but it´s no place to end imho.

 

[Dice4Hire]

To me it is all about the tactics, terrain and luck.

Last night we had a short game of two encounters.

The first was Encounter +0, and it was a cakewalk, with the fighter spending two surges and the rest of the party spending nothing, or indeed rarely getting hit. I think one other character spent one.

The second was level +1 and the fighter took a fearsome pounding. All the party's healing was poured into him and he barely survived, spending 8 surges. One other player spent one surge and the other three.

Part of the problem with the second fight was the ranger could not kill the flying creatures to save his life. He probably missed at least 80% of the time and only needed a 6 or 7 to hit on average. Bad luck only. The ones beating on the dwarf were hitting about average, not well, luckily for him.

Encounters in 4E can be very swingy. But they are usually quite fun.

 

[Riastlin]

I haven't had trouble challenging (or even killing for that matter) PCs in the games I've run. As [MENTION=55066]Dice4Hire[/MENTION] says, tactics and luck have a lot to do with it. One instance also was the result of an admittedly poorly designed encounter which was made worse when that encounter was triggered during the previous encounter. A couple of brutes that team up on a PC can quickly turn the PC to mush. If any other monsters join in on the fun on that PC it can be deadly in a hurry.

Of course, in my last session, the party learned the value of taking the combat out when its offered and not having two members go off and chase the purple worm that is running away. The worm ate well that night.

That being said, when the PCs get on a roll, there's very little that can stop them short of just stacking the deck against them. Also in that last session, the party managed to defeat an encounter in the second round -- before any of the monsters were able to get off a second turn. High initiative + dailies + action points can turn a balanced encounter into a slaughter.

 

[S'mon]

I don't think encounters are too easy; and if the PCs are spending Dailies, Action Points and lots of Healing Surges, then that's a tough encounter. If a PC or two is taken to 0 hp, then it's a tough encounter. So I agree with the OP.

I've seen reports that encounters get easier at high Paragon & Epic, that it becomes harder to challenge the PCs. I have no personal experience on this though. I certainly have no trouble challenging my players, IMO - eg 2 out of 4 6th level PCs were brought to 0 hp in the battle with orcs last night.

 

[Pentius]

I haven't had any trouble challenging PCs, personally. I have had a much easier time making encounters as hard as I want them to be. But if I want to put the fear of God into my players, I find this is still pretty easy. Unlike previous editions, though, it only happens when I want it to.

As a PC, I've seen it both ways, which only reassures me that encounters are as deadly as the DM wants them to be. I've had a DM who makes brutal encounters. Winnable, but you have to think or die. And I've had cakewalks. Both used the same level of encounters, just with differing composition and tactics.