D&D 4E 4E combat and non-combat timing

[CapnZapp]

OK to answer the question as it's asked...

Reduce the HP level of the mob.

Problem solved.

Thanks. Yes, reducing hp or using the "maximum damage" variant reduces the problem.

But it seems to me that a really 4E-ish way of solving this would be to simply say "a round isn't always six seconds".

And then the problem becomes one of designing a way for the players to (re)gain some measure of control over this...

I guess, that is. I don't have any ready-made solutions...

 

[CapnZapp]

I would think most guards would walk thru every 10 to 15 mins. More if there is more then one group patrolling. But if the group watched the guards for a bit, notice a pattern then went in right after they walked by, I would give it to them as they killed em off before the guards came by.

But if they didn't do those things and just ran in, then let them get attacked by the guards too.

But honestly at 6 secs and 20 rounds that's still only 2 minutes. that's not much time.

My specific example is this:

There's a fort. A square thing with four guard towers in the corners. If somebody calls for help in one tower, this will alert the guards in all the rest. (This is not your ordinary room-by-room dungeon)

My initial idea would be that the party successfully sneaks in or bluff their way. Then they attempt to take out guard post after guard post. Sooner or later, other guards will catch on. Then it becomes a matter of dispatching guards faster than reinforcements have a chance to appear. (That, and trying to play a cat-and-mouse game of hide-and-seek)

Problem is, with 4E, reinforcements will have plenty of time to arrive before each squad of guards have been killed off. That is, compared to, say, 3E, you can move much longer in the same timeframe it takes to kill a creature.

If I follow the design guidelines and make the guard commander a Solo, then it becomes effectively impossible to "take out the commander, then escape into the sewers" or whatever. Before the party manages to mow down those hundreds and hundreds of hit points, all the soldiers of the entire fort will have had time to rush to the scene. In other words, a strategy that sounds almost-reasonable in most other rpgs will in 4E become a TPK.

Solutions such as "double the size of the fort" briefly went through my head... but only briefly...

It would seem natural for the DMG to discuss how defeating a Solo doesn't necessarily take a long time. But apparently not.

 

[Dracorat]

Or perhaps, you treat a round as six seconds and find other devices for maintaining timing. Throw the extra group in at them. Have the ceiling fall in. Have a guard run out but trip and knock himself unconscious on the way. Have a whole wing say "screw this, I'm not getting paid enough".

Have the goblin who's cocky change his tune once he's whacked a few times.

There are a mulititude of solutions. And if you ask me, the DMG does address it. It addresses it in the more general advice of "be creative".

If there's an absolute need for combat to be a prescribed number of rounds and for the enemies to be dead at the end, then you make it so. Pretend to track HP, but don't. I've done this on more than one occassion and my players have never been none-the-wiser.

The hardest part of doing so is tracking "bloodied" and making sure that if a monster dies with only one hit, it seems reasonable. (Minions help)

 

[Rughat]

My question is, how do you handle the fact that sometimes, a combat that's taking a good number of combat rounds, for story purposes must be regarded as being over fairly quickly? What are your thoughts on the fact this doesn't seem to be discussed by the DMG, even though it provides excellent advice on many other plot-related issues?

I see two different types of complex encounters here:

1) Encounters where it makes sense there would be reinforcements: Attacking the gate, guards outside the guards' barracks, etc. My suggestion is to factor the reinforcements into the encounter - but then there is the question of what effect the delayed entry of a foe has on an encounter. Attacking 12 goblins is different from attacking 4 goblins with one more goblin showing up for the next 8 turns, even though both are the same XP. I don't know - scale the XP of foes that are delayed in showing up? Or just ignore it - like a bit of terrain that automatically favors the PCs?

2) Adventures where the point is to sneak past the roving guards because if you don't, something bad will happen. In this case, I think the best call is to figure out what the "something bad" will be, and create that encounter. Then consider that encounter to be an event driven encounter - when they are noticed, this encounter occurs. If you want, you can then figure out separate encounters with parts of the event encounter: these 4 goblins are in the barracks until the alarm sounds - if you fight them in there, and kill them without sounding the alarm, then they won't be in the big event encounter.

Does that make sense? I'm not sure how well that will actually work for adventure design - I'm worried that the XP scaling will make it hard to split up a large encounter into smaller encounters and still have it challenging.

 

[disarray2]

Or only have the guards in the tower there that day. Have the rest of the guards be off doing training in a near by field but to far to hear their guy's screams. But yeah if the guards are paying attention they will notice.

They could be crafty and do the wizard curtain to stop the other guards from seeing in. Could silence the guards so their yells wouldn't be heard. I'm sure there are other things I haven't thought of.

 

[LostSoul]

I've only had one combat, I think, that went for more then 10 rounds.

But anyways. I think there are a few ways to handle it.

1. Set a time limit. Tell the players. "If you don't handle this encounter soon enough, more bad guys are going to come." Tension! Decide how many rounds before reinforcements come.

2. During the combat, set up things like a gong or a bell or a closed door that the NPCs have to run through to alert the others. That gives the players more choices to make - do they want to defend the objective (the gong) even though they might get squished doing it?

3. Track the number of rounds that go by. After the end of the combat, set a DC and add some kind of modifier based on the number of rounds. Have the PCs make a check of some kind based on how they avoid the reinforcements/next patrol (Bluff, Stealth, whatever). This is probably the most boring option.

I'm sure there are more ways.

 

[CapnZapp]

I see two different types of complex encounters here:

1) Encounters where it makes sense there would be reinforcements: Attacking the gate, guards outside the guards' barracks, etc. My suggestion is to factor the reinforcements into the encounter - but then there is the question of what effect the delayed entry of a foe has on an encounter. Attacking 12 goblins is different from attacking 4 goblins with one more goblin showing up for the next 8 turns, even though both are the same XP. I don't know - scale the XP of foes that are delayed in showing up? Or just ignore it - like a bit of terrain that automatically favors the PCs?

2) Adventures where the point is to sneak past the roving guards because if you don't, something bad will happen. In this case, I think the best call is to figure out what the "something bad" will be, and create that encounter. Then consider that encounter to be an event driven encounter - when they are noticed, this encounter occurs. If you want, you can then figure out separate encounters with parts of the event encounter: these 4 goblins are in the barracks until the alarm sounds - if you fight them in there, and kill them without sounding the alarm, then they won't be in the big event encounter.

Does that make sense? I'm not sure how well that will actually work for adventure design - I'm worried that the XP scaling will make it hard to split up a large encounter into smaller encounters and still have it challenging.

Thanks.

I don't think my encounter easily fits either of these.

I guess a highpoint of the scenario is transparency. Already from the beginning the party can see where enemy guards are located, and can start guessing their responses (and response time). The adventure designer commits to his reinforcements, not bringing them out of a hat. The intervals the reinforcements arrive at become a function of the castle layout and the PC's cleverness, rather than some arbitrary measure of "dramatic appropriateness".

The problem then becomes that in 4E everybody suddenly has heaps of hp, making it impossible to populate this castle realistically and still hope the PCs can prevail.

Yes, I could make the guards low-level pushovers or even minions. But not all the guards can be minions (if nothing else, it would make the life of the wizard way too easy).

Instead, I'm thinking perhaps resisting the 4E changes isn't the right way to go. Perhaps there is other solutions that doesn't change the number of combat rounds you need to win an exiting fight against the clock?

Perhaps the solution instead is to make even time subservient to plot needs, in the same way 4E has enabled so many other elements of the story to triumph against petty details...?

 

[James McMurray]

Why not just say that rounds are 2 seconds? Or 1? Or whatever works. Make it a general house rule so there's no need to invent elaborate ways to manipulate time.

 

[CapnZapp]

Why not just say that rounds are 2 seconds? Or 1? Or whatever works. Make it a general house rule so there's no need to invent elaborate ways to manipulate time.

A great question!

My answer would be "Because that would create other, equally troublesome, problems at the other end."

Basically, I don't have any problem with the six second round. I guess you could say I'm used to it.

But a one-second round in general? Nah, movement and other stuff would be thrown out of synch.

The root of the problem, I guess, is that 4E seems to scream for a solution that allows 1) the DM to tailor the length of a combat round according to his needs 2) that this tailoring can be kept localized (that is, combat running on a different time-scale than ritual casting or simple running) and 3) that this doesn't come across as completely arbitrary to the players.

(Point #3 is important. D&D isn't a game where rules should be set aside willy-nilly. If you free-form anyway then all its balance is completely superfluous.)

Cheers,
Zapp

 

[Aenghus]

Minions specifically exist in 4e to be quickly but not automatically killed. If an encounter is supposed to end quicklly and not be a reall challenge it makes sense to use minions. Minions are specifically very good for allowing one shot kills of guards. The threat in this case is provided by the danger of the alarm being raised, and reinforcements being sent.

Challenging encounters won't be over quickly, almost by definition. (Now i do sometimes cut short the mopping up of enounters that are effectively won but with opponents left).

A skill challenge could be appropriate if the objective is to avoid roving patrols