D&D 4E 4E Dragons - Where's the beef?

[Regicide]

In other words: For PCs, regardless of edition, dumb = dead.

In 4E, the flukes have been minimized a bit.

Yes, lemmings can throw themselves off cliffs in any edition, that doesn't argue against the fact that 4E is less deadly.

3E was great when you write up your new sorcerer, and the very first encounter on the very first round you get scorching ray-ed and fall over dead. Lets see... 1000G which you don't have for a reincarnate and change to some race you don't want and lose a level or some con, or make a new character. Okay... new character, lets put a "II" after the name! Round 2... Okay... lets put a "III" after the name! How many scorching rays left? Oh, lets just put a "VI" after the name and say it's now round 7? Okay.

 

[Lauberfen]

I suspect 4th is a bit less deadly, but the main thing is a much bigger gap between losing characters and getting a TPK.

In third, a 1st (or even second) level character could die instantly at the hands of an orc with a big axe. This is rarer in 4th (although I've seen it happen once to a wounded fighter- 20+ damage on a critical).

However in 4th it tends to be all or nothing- once your using heal checks as standard to keep people from dying, it's often game over, as you're no longer attacking. Hence why combat medic is actually quite good. In my experience (with a group of DM-grade players [i.e. they're all experienced DMs for many years]), a group can be at risk of death with any encounter at level +3 or above, even if you play perfectly (although this assumes a killer DM too- that's the only type we have).

So 4th has lost the random fatality, but I've seen just as many TPKS.

 

[Lauberfen]

As for Dragons and templates, this is a very cool idea, if you want extra options.

I think the clue is with the HP- for a normal monster, a template doubles the HP, and also the XP. For a Solo, it adds about another 20%, so probably the XP increase should be similar. The only thing to watch out for is defences- these are allready good, and pushing them higher might make the critter too strong. Perhaps the answer is to add a template minus defence bonuses (and probably cut the AP as well), and add 20% more XP. Obviously the whole monster will need checking, as stacking templates can do wierd stuff.

 

[Silverblade The Ench]

In other words: For PCs, regardless of edition, dumb = dead.

hehe, how true, and, famous quote time!!!

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t9FsfibJsKU]YouTube - "Good is Dumb" - Spaceballs Lipsync Animation[/ame]

 

[Herschel]

Yes, lemmings can throw themselves off cliffs in any edition, that doesn't argue against the fact that 4E is less deadly.

Tell that to the group that got TPK'd in their first encounter today.

Then got TPK's AGAIN in the third.

I played plenty of early edition wizards and yes, they were squishy. They also didn't have to get anywhere near as close to the melee combatants as they do in 4E.

Each edition is as deadly as the DM. No more, no less.

 

[Cadfan]

4e is less erratic. That makes it less deadly because you can see yourself getting whipped, and run away, or be saved by an ally. If one character in a fight is getting slaughtered, and the others aren't, they can often save the character who's getting demolished.

If you get your fun from tactical decisions and both sudden dangers and heroic recoveries, you will like this more.

If you get your fun from a gambler's thrill of knowing that every dice tossed could mean the difference between success and death, you will like this less.

 

[Scribble]

As for Dragons and templates, this is a very cool idea, if you want extra options.

I think the clue is with the HP- for a normal monster, a template doubles the HP, and also the XP. For a Solo, it adds about another 20%, so probably the XP increase should be similar. The only thing to watch out for is defences- these are allready good, and pushing them higher might make the critter too strong. Perhaps the answer is to add a template minus defence bonuses (and probably cut the AP as well), and add 20% more XP. Obviously the whole monster will need checking, as stacking templates can do wierd stuff.

I suppose you could always drop the dragon's stat block first down to an "elite" then add the template from there right? (Instead of just adding a template to a solo.)

 

[Krensus]

I don't think anyone's mentioned a dragon's Frightful Presence ability. Likely chance to stun everyone in 10 squares, move to wherever you want, action point to claw/claw/bite. Oh, it's my turn again? Breathe or claw/claw/bite, action point, claw/claw/bite again.

The Adult White Dragon could attack 9 times at +14 vs. AC with combat advantage on a stunned target (probably a striker or a leader), total damage if all hit would be 9d8+3d10+45. Now of course, not all of the attacks would hit depending on the target, but average damage on that is ~101. That's plenty to kill party member, and probably a key one, within the first round of combat while no one can act to save that character.

Depending on the outcome of the first attacks, it could breathe to weaken the party and increase it's longevity, but I really don't see how that isn't pretty dang beefy.

 

[jorrit]

I don't think anyone's mentioned a dragon's Frightful Presence ability. Likely chance to stun everyone in 10 squares, move to wherever you want, action point to claw/claw/bite. Oh, it's my turn again? Breathe or claw/claw/bite, action point, claw/claw/bite again.

I made an encounter simulator in python. This program calculates average damage output of two parties in 4e. I put 4 level 3 PCs (a cleric, fighter, ranger, and wizard) against a young green dragon. Before I added 'frightful presence' to the simulator the PCs did bad against the dragon on average. But after I added that feature it was a *lot* worse. This power really makes a big difference in potential outcome.

Here is the result of the fight without frightful presence:

100 encounters, players don't go nova (don't use dailies and action points) and no surprise round: players got a 65% chance to win the encounter.
100 encounters, players go nova (dailies and action points) and surprise round: players got a 90% chance to win the encounter.

Then I added frightful presence:

100 encounters, players don't go nova and no surprise round: 22% chance to win the encounter.
100 encounters, player go nova and no surprise round: 37% chance to win the encounter.

So that power alone makes the encounter from a hard to a nearly impossible encounter.

Greetings,

 

[KarinsDad]

I made an encounter simulator in python. This program calculates average damage output of two parties in 4e. I put 4 level 3 PCs (a cleric, fighter, ranger, and wizard) against a young green dragon. Before I added 'frightful presence' to the simulator the PCs did bad against the dragon on average. But after I added that feature it was a *lot* worse. This power really makes a big difference in potential outcome.

A 4 PC level 3 party against a young green dragon level 5 solo is an n+3 encounter. This is considered hard. So by definition, a TPK is a likely outcome.

Does your program heal unconscious PCs, have PCs stay out of range of area attacks, have a defender try to hold down the dragon while the other PCs either pot shot it or aid the defender in some way, allow the PCs to use Daily items, etc.?

One has to take such results with a grain of salt unless the program is designed to seriously emulate player equipment, tactics, and racial abilities.

Your "do not go nova" results seem to not less newsworthy. Players will almost always go nova against a dragon, so those results seem interesting, but not important.

Every dragon encounter in our campaigns has resulted in the PCs winning and sometimes winning quickly. Sure, they will be beat up, use up a lot of resources, and it is definitely a challenge. But, we have not run into the string of bad luck rolls that would result in a TPK. We have done that with lesser encounters, but because they were lesser encounters, it still did not result in a TPK. Just a lot of resources because the dice are cold.

I have noticed that during the beginning of a campaign when the players are not as familiar with their powers and the abilities of their fellow PCs, that they are merely a set of numbers on the character sheets. Everyone more or less does their own thing. As they get experienced with each other, there is a teamwork that is greater than the sum of the parts where PC tactics start getting seriously stronger. I suspect that your program does not take this into account and just compares damage and conditions.