Armor and Extended Rest

[KarinsDad]

I think the DM is this case is trying to play the wrong game. If the Tank is doing everything he can to pull agro and the dm ignores the fact that that is his hole purpose in the game and focuses on the strikers just because, then he's just being evil. This game is designed around combat roles, if you are just going to ignore them, i suggest all of your players roll defenders or they're all going to die anyway.

It depends on your group.

Many of my players actually enjoy having their PCs attacked, regardless of role. It allows them to participate in ways other than "I hide in the back and snipe".

I have one player who every single time an attack hits his Warlock, he says "Cool.". Whether or not he means that he likes it when his PC is hit, or whether he enjoys taking his fair share of the load, or whether it's just a habit, I cannot say.

But I probably wouldn't stay long in a game where the DM mostly targets the defender. How boring is that? There are 5 PCs, that means that there are 5 legitimate targets and it's up to the players to protect the PCs that are less durable or who are more injured. That's not the DM's job.

The DM's job is to challenge the players and if there is a bloodied PC on the board, it doesn't matter who it is. Most NPCs in my game that can safely attack that PC will do so like sharks on piece of meat (NPC dependent, stupid zombies tend to attack the closest foes, only semi-intelligent NPCs pay attention to things like the bloodied condition or disadvantaged PCs).

We even had a game where the PCs were running out of time and the Fighter was totally out of healing surges just before a major battle. So, they put the Fighter in the back and gave him javelins to throw. He didn't go unconscious in round three because he wasn't up front taking a lot of hits, and was able to participate in the entire lengthy encounter.

We've had a lot of encounters over the years where one of the high defense PCs who were almost out of healing surges were shifted to the back of the group and lower defense PCs with a ton of healing surges were shifted closer to the front. That way, the team could handle more encounters that day. Yes, the party might be able to use Comrade's Succor and keep the high defense PCs in the front, but sometimes, that's not the best option (e.g. the PCs don't have enough time, or the group is really low on healing surges, has to do the ritual two or more times for two or more PCs, and they don't want to waste 2+ healing surges, or they just don't have the ritual, or they don't have a ritual caster, etc.).

 

[Gondsman]

I'm not saying the dm should only target the defender, I'm saying that completely ignoring the defender and everyone targeting a single striker all at once isn't going to make friends with anybody.

I just finished an encounter where we were defending a palisade from the kobolds we stole it from. the rest of us had ranged attacks and were attacking over the wall from towers, the defender didn't have anything ranged and so for the majority of the encounter he waited inside while our two strikers were making attacks and taking most of them. But they had cover and the attacks were spread out over them and taking down the gates, so it wasn't that bad.

Point is, while the defender is designed to survive every enemy attacking it in the same round, the other members of the party aren't and will most likely die right away. Let the defender soak up what he can, take the majority of the heat off, but ultimately it is all about balance and variety, give a little, take a little.

It's okay now and then to create unique tactical situations like the defender being without armor, but i think that in every one of these situations there should be some unique tactics or other to compensate, or a very specific plot device. Maybe the secret police needs the PC's for a mission and can't expose themselves so they ambush the PC's in bathhouses, and maybe even the DM gives them the opportunity to try and fight back unarmed.

That sounds fun, once. If every night I'm getting pulled out of the bathwater, I'm gonna stop coming back. or I'm never again going to roll anything other than Unarmed, Unarmored Monks.



IMHO if you are going to create a house rule that makes things seem more realistic (because Fantasy isn't Fantasy unless the mundane parts match our world exactly) and it hurts a specific group of characters, I think you need to come up with a benefit or incentive to go along side it, since i don't believe in this idea of "if we're screwing the Armored Tanks, how are we gonna screw everyone else to make up for it."




And just to add, remember, 4e is a different game. In 3e, the higher level casters were a very unique threat, and had usually no melee range offense, so you got in close and took them out as fast as possible (and they did the same). In 4e, almost every class has abilities similar to that 3e caster. Every PC in the party is an equal threat. Tactically it makes better sense to attack the guy who marked you most (not all) of the time. Focus fire on the mage, or swarming him with minions isn't as tactically sound as it was in 3e (the caster may be deadlier when swarmed for instance). Healing classes don't have the same ability to heal that they did in 3e so taking them out first while the strikers and defender thin the herd isn't as advantageous as it once was, so when i see people talk about hitting the casters and healers first, i wonder if they still think they are playing 3e.

 

[Dice4Hire]

In 4E, I would call this handwaving territory. It is too minor of a thing to worry about, and is IMO, like counting arrows.

 

[KarinsDad]

Point is, while the defender is designed to survive every enemy attacking it in the same round, the other members of the party aren't and will most likely die right away.

Err, not really. On average, a defender will survive 5 enemies attacking him for a single round if the defender is at full hit points (30% to 45% chance to hit per foe = 14.5 to 20 average points of damage at level one). But, 3 or 4 foes out of 5 hitting him will usually make him unconscious (27 to 36 average damage level one).

Although this gets slight better at higher levels, the enemies average 1 more point of damage each per level if they hit (5 foes = 5 more damage per level if they all hit), defenders only get 6 to 7 more hit points per level. It takes quite a few levels for that 1 or 2 extra hit points per level to help.

So, all 5 foes hitting will often take out a mid-Paragon level Defender shy of interrupts or other specialized defenses stopping some of it. All 5 NPCs hitting tends to be rare, but not all attacks are against AC either.

Many PCs have ACs only slightly lower than a Defender and hit points 3 to 7 less at first level, so most PCs will survive 2 successful hits in the same round, but like the Defender, 3 successful hits tends to take them down. The odds are just a little better that 3 will hit.

And just to add, remember, 4e is a different game. In 3e, the higher level casters were a very unique threat, and had usually no melee range offense, so you got in close and took them out as fast as possible (and they did the same). In 4e, almost every class has abilities similar to that 3e caster. Every PC in the party is an equal threat. Tactically it makes better sense to attack the guy who marked you most (not all) of the time. Focus fire on the mage, or swarming him with minions isn't as tactically sound as it was in 3e (the caster may be deadlier when swarmed for instance). Healing classes don't have the same ability to heal that they did in 3e so taking them out first while the strikers and defender thin the herd isn't as advantageous as it once was, so when i see people talk about hitting the casters and healers first, i wonder if they still think they are playing 3e.

You assume that in round one, the Defender marks the foes before the foes attack. In my experience, more NPCs win initiative than PCs, so it's best to attack the most lightly armored PCs. It doesn't make sense to melee attack PCs in Scale or Plate (and possibly a shield) if an NPC, especially a range NPC, can attack foes in Cloth or Leather, typically without shields. On the other hand, Reflex and Will attacks are generally (but not always) best against PCs in heavy armor.

But, taking out PC Leaders is still key to any encounters. If the DM plays fair, the NPCs typically do not know who the PC Leaders are until they start doing leadery type things (like buffs, debuffs, and/or heals and the first two could be a controller). The number one advantage PCs have over NPCs is healing, so if the NPCs can sniff out a healer, they should smoke him. Just like PCs should smoke NPC healers (rare, but we had one in today's game).

 

[S'mon]

But, taking out PC Leaders is still key to any encounters. If the DM plays fair, the NPCs typically do not know who the PC Leaders are until they start doing leadery type things (like buffs, debuffs, and/or heals and the first two could be a controller). The number one advantage PCs have over NPCs is healing, so if the NPCs can sniff out a healer, they should smoke him.

I tend to assume Leader effects are not generally that obvious, just as it's not obvious that PCs lying dying can pop back up again like a weeble with a healing word (etc). So my NPCs tend to target Defenders, Strikers, and flashy Controllers. If I ran it differently my already high PC mortality rate would go way up.

 

[KarinsDad]

I tend to assume Leader effects are not generally that obvious, just as it's not obvious that PCs lying dying can pop back up again like a weeble with a healing word (etc). So my NPCs tend to target Defenders, Strikers, and flashy Controllers. If I ran it differently my already high PC mortality rate would go way up.

Interesting. Our PCs never die anymore, even though the DM often throws N+1 through N+3 encounters at us.

The trick is to have well designed PCs that work as a team, but also to take advantage of striker capability.

We have 8 players, 5 or 6 who generally show up at a game. 5 are strikers. 1 is a hybrid leader/leader. 1 is a hybrid defender/controller. 1 is a defender. I play the hybrid ardent/bard, hand out quite a few temporary hit points, and don't heal anyone until they go unconscious (part of his personality which helps force the other players to not do stupid things because I might not be close enough to help them). The strikers tend to mow through foes and the DM has a tough time really challenging us shy of making the monsters so high level that it's not feasible to expect us to win.

You should, however, assume that the NPCs know that a PC has healed his allies though. It might not be a Leader. It might be a Paladin or a PC that has a single Daily heal through multiclassing. Monsters should take out bloodied PCs first, leaders second, strikers or controllers third (targeting strikers or controllers first, but switching to a leader if one is found), and defenders last. Controllers and strikers tend to be pretty even, depending on how well the controllers are controlling. If the controllers are sucking, then definitely switch to the strikers. Obviously, if a defender has a foe (or foes) marked, it makes sense for those foes to concentrate on the defender most of the time if it means that the defender is going to do a lot of damage if they do not.

And, I agree with you that it's generally bad form to target unconscious PCs. But, I would do so for a re-occurring villain that has seen the PCs in action multiple times. He should learn that killing the PCs is the only way to win, and it also makes the players come to hate the re-occuring villain even more.

But I've found that if you let players fail, they tend to get better at playing the game tactically than if you make poor decisions by the NPCs. If you are going to do that, you should drop the difficulty of the encounters (e.g. from N+1 to N or N-1) and play the NPCs to the best of their abilities. As the players get better, slowly up the encounter difficulty back up.

And, players that succeed using their own abilities and wits appear to enjoy the game more than players who rely on the DM to bail them out via poor NPC target selection. Regardless of whether the DM thinks that he is being clever and hiding the fact that he could run the monsters a lot more ruthlessly, not all players are stupid. Some of them will usually figure that out and that makes the game a bit less enjoyable for some players, even if they never mention it. Other players, on the other hand, might like the fact that the DM protects them, but most people like to succeed on their own.

The fact that my ardent/bard refuses to heal anyone until they go unconscious has really upped the game of everyone else at our table. I now often see them using novel ways to use Action Points, or maneuvering their PCs so as to avoid bursts and blasts, etc. By being stingy with healing, I've forced the other players to succeed on their own and it has made our game a lot more enjoyable for everyone.

The game has really devolved into striker territory. Groups that figure this out are the ones winning Lair Assault. Every role has its place, but strikers (and by extension, leaders that hand out free attacks to strikers) are the ones that allow the PCs to win quicker, especially now that the monster damage has been upped so that taking foes out quickly is so important. Part of the reason you have a high PC mortality rate is probably because of the increased monster damage from last year. Your players have to adapt, especially to hot DM dice and cold player dice, or they will continue to have a high PC mortality rate.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

LOL, OK, I kinda skipped ahead here at a certain point, forgive me, but I think there are valid points on all sides of this one. Maybe I can inject a bit of a middle way perspective here, although I don't honestly have (or think there really are) any perfect answers within the parameters of 4e as it now stands.

Any mechanics which encourages removal of armor is going to suck for heavily armor dependent PCs. That's just all there is to it. The game is balanced around everyone having their equipment, and the heavier the armor you wear generally the more important it is to your character's numbers. You could extend penalties to light armor as well (after all I doubt sleeping in a hardened leather suit with arm and leg protection, heavy padding, shoulder pieces, etc is going to be a lot more pleasant than if it is plate armor). That would still hurt the heavy armor guys more and even if it didn't you still can't expect the party to perform like usual without their equipment, especially at epic where most of your AC and a large chunk of your other defenses comes from equipment bonuses.

One thing that HELPS is to go with inherent bonuses. At least that gets rid of the enchantment bonus part of the problem. It also means if the PCs are say in the 'get out of jail' scenario where they pick up some random equipment off guards or whatever they aren't quite so hosed as normal, which makes the DM's job a bunch easier.

Beyond that I dunno. There is a good argument for a troupe of adventurers tromping around every minute of their waking lives in full gear being a BIT hokey. You don't see anything close to that in the real world, and it just strikes me as very odd to say the least.

I'd also like to comment on the RP aspect of this. Forbidding/discouraging PCs from being fully equipped every minute has a whole raft of RP implications. It just creates a more interesting dynamic. The characters will really value a safe secure base location they can operate from. That castle or town is something they might now actually CARE about because that's where they want to be when they're vulnerable. It goes a long ways to tying them into society by a strong tie, mechanics (and lets face it, nothing whips players more than a mechanical consideration).

It is good for all kinds of plot hooks and things. Nobody realistically or dramatically is at their most prepared all of the time. It aught to be quite possible for the PCs enemies to be able to catch them when they're vulnerable. Sometimes that's what happens, that's life. The evil King's soldiers break into your character's house and haul him away to prison. Yeah, he could beat the pants off them, but he's sitting out on his deck in his bathrobe enjoying breakfast. When else logically WOULD the bad guy go for you? It goes on and on.

Not every DM or style of play is going to want to go there, and that's fine, but it makes perfectly good sense as an aspect of play. The DM could simply fiat "when you're home you aren't equipped" but it would be NICE if the players had reasons of their own to want to do that. Personally I can handle that with non-mechanical RP kinds of reasons, up to a point. It is just a lot cooler if the player says "Eh, OK, I'd rather not get dinged in some way, I'll leave the armor at home when I go down to the market to buy eggs." I just don't know an ideal way to do it. I can think of some but they basically involve heavily rewriting the core rules, and that ain't going to happen...

 

[S'mon]

Interesting. Our PCs never die anymore, even though the DM often throws N+1 through N+3 encounters at us.

I've mostly run lower Heroic Tier where PCs are more fragile, but recently I did wipe out 2/3 of a 3 PC 7th-8th level group in 1 round of attacks. They had cunningly positioned themselves all in a 3x3 square when waiting for their fire giant enemy & his minions to arrive, so when the fight broke out and 3 monsters (modified hellhounds) breathed on them, all 3 were in the 3 blast-3 AoEs... 2 PCs (Invoker & Cleric) went down, the third was a Monk, and thanks to some low rolling by me and his fantastic Reflex defence, he survived and ran for it.

Relevant factors:

Multiple Monsters with powerful AoE.
Only 3 PCs
Some iffy tactics by the players.

Variants on these are what normally lead to PC demise IMCs - more powerful than anticipated enemies, a smaller than average PC group (though I've also seen a 6 PC group lose 4 members fighting orcs; 2 escaped), and mistakes or marginal choices in the tactical play. Bad luck is also often a factor.

 

[S'mon]

play the NPCs to the best of their abilities.

I always play the NPCs to the best of their abilities. I don't necessarily play them to the best of my abilities. Put it another way - I play the NPCs organically, I think "what would this Orc/Drow/Bandit do in this situation" which doesn't necessarily correlate 100% with "how best do I defeat the PCs" - especially when the answer is RUN AWAY!!!

So (4e) Orcs have simple, aggressive tactics. Bandits are often tricky, and may have poor morale. Drow are clever and deadly, but they'll hit and fade rather than slog out a losing battle. Cowardly villains may hang back rather than optimally supporting their minions. Red dragons will be very aggressive, but smarter than most orcs. Etc. Players who assume that the way I DM a poorly led small band of orcs is the best tactical play I can manage, or that an orc warband well led by an experienced chief will behave the same way, are in for a nasty surprise.

Edit: Also I won't necessarily have monsters coordinate missile fire or attacks vs a single foe, just as players don't always coordinate well, or at least not perfectly. I try to avoid the 'hive mind' approach to NPCs, unless maybe they have a strong Leader coordinating them - in which case the PCs can try to take him out.

Edit 2: BTW I halve monster hp, but I'll use EL+4 quite often, and EL+2 routinely.

 

[S'mon]

Other players, on the other hand, might like the fact that the DM protects them...

If any of my players think I protect them, I would be very surprised. And in general I see a pretty high level of tactical skill from my players. It's not their fault I'm a bit of a killer DM.