Are encounters too easy?

[OnlineDM]

If you're running older published adventures exactly as written in the original publication, then yes, you're going to find things to be too easy for most parties, especially at higher levels. If you're creating your own encounters, then the difficulty level is totally up to you.

If no more than one or two PCs was bloodied in a battle, then it was an easy encounter. If almost everyone was bloodied and one or two fell unconscious or came close, and some daily powers were used, then it was a good challenge. If nearly everyone fell unconscious at some point and the PCs pulled out all the stops, burning every daily, every action point, and just barely prevailed, then it was a really hard encounter.

Note that the use of encounter powers doesn't make a difference in my perception of encounter difficulty. I assume that PCs will be using lots of encounter powers in every battle - that's what they're there for!

 

[Rhenny]

As DM, I feel that the encounters are not as difficult as I intend, but the players are having fun. That's the most important factor. My players are new to 4e, but 30 year veterans to D&D and wargaming in general, so they often play tactically. At first, since we have only 4 PCs in the party, I scaled down encounters slightly based on DMG encounter building guidelines, but after seeing how my players manage the combats, I've decided to keep encounters balanced for 5 even though they only have 4. This has made them more challenging.

So far, in our short campaign...6 sessions (about 10 combats and 4 or 5 skill challenges), the Tiefling Wizard has been dropped to 0 hp twice (both in the same combat), and the Dragonborn Cleric has been dropped to 0 hp once. Many times PCs have been dazed or immobilized, which often adds to the difficulty level and dramatic tension of the combat. The Eldadrin Rogue, and the Dwarven Fighter have been bloodied scores of times, but they have not gone down yet.

The combats that are most dangerous are the ones when the PCs are outnumbered in a large area with terrain that hampers movement or provides the opportunity for PCs and foes to fall into pits, off bridges into water, down pit traps, etc.

Since we play an episodic type game (2 hours a week Maptool online) and accomplish 1 or two combats per week, it feels as though it isn't dangerous, because it may take 3 sessions for players to reach the point where they need to take an extended rest, but the players feel like each encounter is a challenge no matter how easy or difficult. Remember, not all encounters should be as challenging as the next. Variety also makes the game more interesting.

Cheers.

 

[Randomthoughts]

How do you perceive encounter difficulty?

I approach this in two ways. My first approach uses crunchy metrics already mentioned by other posters, like the consumption of healing surges, healing potions (if available), dailies and action points. I also track who has been bloodied and/or reduced to 0 hp.

My second approach is much more subjective, but it focuses on the player's perception of the encounter, not mine. What I've found is that sitting on the other side of the screen - being a player - makes encounters seem much more threatening than they are, at least on paper. And the perception of threat IME is less based on the # of healing surges and dailies used, but more on whether PCs were placed into dangerous situations like being surrounded or isolated from the group or placed in vulnerable situations (like casters/ranged PCs attacked by melee monsters) or confronting a monster group who uses superior tactics against them.

I guess my point with my second approach is that the PC's perception of the challenge of the encounter is just as important, if not more so, than the actual consumption of character resources.

 

[KarinsDad]

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?

Encounter difficulty is situationally dependent and it is very dependent on the tactical abilities of the players and the capabilities of the PCs.


I had what I considered a fairly difficult encounter yesterday as the first encounter.

The five second level PCs had in the previous session wiped out everything in an underground "bunker" below a fallen tower (long story, won't bother you with the details). They had had to lower a rope down into a pit that led to the bunker, but after an extended rest, they got back and their rope was gone. The room they were in was 10 feet tall and the sides of the pit leading down to the room were 20 feet and in the center of the room. So, they had to lift PCs up so that they could climb up. The sides of the pit were hard packed dirt and vertical, so a pretty difficult climb because the dirt could pull away.

The first PC out of the pit was going to lower a rope, but was ambushed by 4 necrotic werewolves (1 Frenzied Brute 6th level, 3 refluffed Wererat Skirmishers 3rd level), the monsters that had taken the rope.

I expected this to be a tough fight. The encounter was N+1, but the pit would split up the party and could/should have made it tougher. I knew that the Eladrin could teleport up and bring someone with him, but the first PC was going to be bloodied after the ambush (and that's what happened) and the other two PCs were going to still be in the room below. I expected a 4 on 3 fight with the monsters regen-ing, the PCs in the pit having at least a few rounds before they managed to climb out (with some possible falls back into the pit and taking damage), and the bloodied PC being in serious trouble in round one.

Instead, the Eladrin teleported up and the PCs started pushing/sliding the werewolves into the pit, starting with the high level brute. So, everyone got to participate right away and even with regen, the PCs wiped out the entire encounter in about 3 rounds. The first ambushed bloodied PC used up several healing surges, but most of the rest of the PCs used up maybe 1 each.


I see this a lot in 4E. Combats are often pretty easy unless the DM's dice get real hot and the player's dice get real cold. These are only second level PCs, but there is already no real good way for myself as DM to take into account all of the possible synergies of the PC's abilities. Yes, one could say that I should have known that the PCs could slide monsters into the pit, but as a general rule, most players know their PC better than the DM does (and in our case, we have 6 fairly consistent players and 3 other players that may or may not show up, so there are 9 PCs for me to be familiar with).

The other thing that I've noticed is that as the PCs get higher and higher level, it starts becoming more and more difficult for the DM to challenge them. Our DM typically had to throw N+3 or higher encounters at us, or have a lot of detrimental effects in an encounter to challenge our high Paragon level PCs over the summer. There were just too many ways to lock down a foe (turning the toughest one into a toad, or sending it to the feywild, or whatever), or have multiple strikers take a foe out each round, or putting up walls to slow up monsters, or whatever at higher levels.

It's not that high level PCs do not get the snot kicked out of them. They sometimes do. But, the players are not really concerned about it like at low level. The monsters do less relative damage and there are just too many options to get a downed PC (unconscious or stunned or paralyzed) back into a fight, and there are just too many go to the well abilities. Additionally, there are so many ways to get temporary hit points, damage resistance, and surgeless healing that PCs do not even go through healing surges as fast at higher levels.

And the mathematical reason for this is pretty simple, even if the DM always makes sure that he uses last year's higher damage for all monsters.

Same level monster damage single target ~= level +8.

PC hit points range from CON+10+(level-1*4) to CON+17+(level-1*7).

At first level, foes are doing 9 average damage against PCs with (assuming CON 10) 20 to 27 hit points. It takes 2 to 3 solid hits to take down a PC.
At 15th level, foes are doing 23 average damage against PCs with (assuming CON 11) 77 to 126 hit points. It takes 3+ to 5+ solid hits to take down a PC.
At 30th level, foes are doing 38 average damage against PCs with (assuming CON 12) 138 to 232 hit points. It takes 4 to 6 solid hits to take down a PC.

Higher level leaders heal a higher percentage of hit points per heal and have more heals, and PCs have more Daily powers (normal or items), so many players are more willing to use up a Daily every encounter or two.

Alternatively, a higher level party without several Strikers is at a disadvantage because monster hit points typically raise faster than PC damage for most PC classes. So, encounters are often longer which gives the monsters more of a chance to get that additional successful hit per PC. Players have to overcome this with locking down foes, focus fire, minimizing NPC mobility, etc.

But all in all, 4E is pretty darn easy as long as the encounters are N+1 or lower, or if more challenging, if the PCs are higher level.

 

[keterys]

At first level, foes are doing 9 average damage against PCs with (assuming CON 10) 20 to 27 hit points. It takes 2 to 3 solid hits to take down a PC.
At 15th level, foes are doing 23 average damage against PCs with (assuming CON 11) 77 to 126 hit points. It takes 3+ to 5+ solid hits to take down a PC.
At 30th level, foes are doing 38 average damage against PCs with (assuming CON 12) 138 to 232 hit points. It takes 4 to 6 solid hits to take down a PC.

That said, I get a _lot_ more burst attacks at higher level, so it's more frequent that I can hit twice as many people at once. I noticed this in a different way, in terms of devaluing defenders (more bursts, more teleport to avoid shifts), but it's still a factor.

The real trick is that the balance level of the game can swing a huge amount at the moment, on both the PCs' and DMs' sides.
1) Build - is your 6th level druid doing 1d8+6 (10.5), or 1d10+1d8+1d6+13 (26.5), cause I've seen both. Does your epic tiefling save against daze and stun at the start of their turn at +9?
Similarly, is your DM not updating a monster, or only updating its damage, vs using newer monsters or making their own. Did they pick the monsters that slow, or deal a little ongoing damage, instead of the ones that restrain or daze? Do they have an old solo with no condition/penalty avoidance, or a new one that's only caught for a turn if that.

2) Tactics - _Immense_ difference in tactical ability, especially once things start getting messy. I know folks who'll blow a daily "and everyone in 2 gets a basic attack" when only 1 person will get it, or the triggering attack kills the target anyways... and I know people who can mentally track every hp of the monsters on the board and figure out ways to group them all for maximum AE. On the DM side, even beyond simple level of tactics there's a question of commitment. Some DMs are real carebears, just spreading damage around, and others go for the throat and focus everything on the weakest link. This is particularly noteworthy with use combat synergies - like handing out vulnerabilities, or one monster blinds, and another does double damage against blinded enemies.

3) Terrain/Features - The mod I just worked on has some interesting terrain at different points, or skill challenge checks that need to happen and it was startling how much of a difference it made per group. Some folks don't cope with getting out of their box (I have to move and make a check? But I need all my actions for my crazy nova!) and take a ton of avoidable damage to environment or allow reinforcements to show up, while others adapt fantastically, often get more benefit out of it than the enemy does.

 

[Gaming Tonic]

The new math from Monster Vault 2 makes low level 4E a bit trickier, especially where using brutes are concerned. A hit or two can not only take a PC to 0 but kill them outright. This quickly goes away after a couple of levels. It is really hard to say what is too tough or deadly. If a party is made with a single minded focus than a variety of encounters can really challenge them as they may not have the necessary resources (feats, skills, utility powers) to survive them. A party with no real range ability could be in trouble against certain encounters.

Lots of PC deaths that I have witnessed or dealt out in 4E were due to a melee striker who never really thought about defending himself, challenged a brute and his supporting melee cast and got pounded to dust. It is far less deadly than any previous editions and thanks for removing the save or die (disintegration) or save or lose control of your character for a long time (charm person) mechanic.

 

[S'mon]

My second approach is much more subjective, but it focuses on the player's perception of the encounter, not mine. What I've found is that sitting on the other side of the screen - being a player - makes encounters seem much more threatening than they are, at least on paper. And the perception of threat IME is less based on the # of healing surges and dailies used, but more on whether PCs were placed into dangerous situations like being surrounded or isolated from the group or placed in vulnerable situations (like casters/ranged PCs attacked by melee monsters) or confronting a monster group who uses superior tactics against them.

I agree - the scariest thing for me playing a Rogue was when we were attacked by archer minions in a large cavern, and the party split up with the Cleric more than 5 squares from me, the Fighter away off on the other side of the cavern. The minions were only doing maybe 4 damage/hit but I felt *extremely* vulnerable!

 

[Stalker0]

That said, I get a _lot_ more burst attacks at higher level, so it's more frequent that I can hit twice as many people at once.

I also found this to be a factor.

The problem I had was that its easy to take down a player, but killing them is much harder without coup de grace them, which just looks like you are trying to kill your players.

However, with burst damage I can target the main players, and often get the unconscious ones in the crossfire.

 

[Will Doyle]

We're now at level 12, and so far my group of 5 players has suffered 9 character deaths, and 3 prominent NPC henchmen deaths.

For what it's worth, by the same level in 3rd edition, my old group had suffered 4 character deaths. Not sure that means anything, but I certainly do find 4th edition more lethal.

Mostly due to the limits on healing. In 3rd Edition, a cleric's ability to transfer readied spells into heals plus a decent supply of potions meant that the party would get battered down, but would ultimately survive and rest up. In 4th, you can find yourself out of healing potential midway through a nasty fight - and then you're screwed.

 

[Rahlious]

In my experience, 4E encounters can be too easy, really hard and everywhere in between. And, as always, when the encounters are easy, the players may become complacent. And sloppy. That sets them for big trouble when a tough encounter comes their way.

One thing I have noticed is that it's more likely that the whole party will wipe (TPW) than a single PC to die outright. And a single PC death is more likely to come as a result of negative bloodied than failing death saving throws. Well... that's all in my experience.