Armor and Extended Rest

[KarinsDad]

I've not done this yet, but I did just pre-roll init for a planned climactic encounter; we'll see how it works. I'm less concerned about lethality - monsters can always choose to Delay so they all act together per RAW - more about the DMing load of running 5 different monster types all in one go.

Yeah, I typically will not use more than 3 different monster types, but that doesn't mean that two monsters of the same type should always go at the same time.

This is a bit of a re-occurring theme with my current DM. He's a bit of a powergamer, so if there are two same type foes, they'll have the same init. He then has one foe move up and ready an action. The other foe then moves up and gets flank. The first foe's readied action goes off, so that foe now get CA. The other foe's action goes off with CA.

I consider this gaming the system. With a more normal even distribution of monster inits with PC inits, the first foe in this example might have one or more PC inits occur before the second monster's init occurs. So sure, he could set up flank, but that doesn't mean that the flanked PC will remain in flank or that the other PCs might not kill or disable that foe first.

I'm a big fairness proponent. I think that DMs shouldn't "game the system" like this and by having monster inits all over the place (abet often in the top half of inits due to their generally good bonuses), the game becomes more equitable. JMO.

 

[mneme]

The lessons learned were:
(1) For the wizard player, Catherine - she learned that winning init and going right before the monsters, you may not want to move up and put yourself in a vulnerable position before you know what you're up against

Actually, assuming she was (as I thought you implied) 2nd level, she could have handled it with the right utility. Wizards aren't tanks, but they can do temporary strikery tanking impressively if they're kitted out for it. My favorite power for defense after the "I'm going to waltz out in front of the monsters and close blast/burst" tactic -- something that wizards are actually quite good at given that they have some impressive close blasts/bursts is Moonstride. Shield may be more likely to be useful every combat, but when it looks like all the monsters are gunning for you, getting a shift (which may simply invalidate the enemy's attack, particularly if enemies ready attacks for a flank--and can take you from "in front of the paladin" to "behind the paladin") -and- becoming insubstantial turns you into a defensive powerhouse for a turn.

You'd think that sorcerers shouldn't tank, too -- but between resistance, the ability to spend the her resistance for a +4 to a defense, Second Chance, and the utility that gives you +1 to all defenses Dragonflame Mantle (immediate interrupt, +1 to all defenses and 1d6 punishment) my halfling storm sorcerer can be a -very- annoying target. And that's without using resources to up her AC.

(2) As DM, I learned that turning monsters into Elites was maybe not the best way to level-up an encounter, after all. I still Elite-ify 'named' leader monsters. But in general, adding more monsters seems to work better for a more balanced fight.

Um. No. I wouldn't add more monsters either (as a general rule; downlevelled extra monsters can work). Levelling up and down monsters makes a much more balanced and smooth shift than adding extra monsters or levelling them up or down. Alternatively, adding extra waves of monsters can work well, with extra monsters set to enter the fray after some of the initial monsters are down.

 

[mneme]

I consider this gaming the system. With a more normal even distribution of monster inits with PC inits, the first foe in this example might have one or more PC inits occur before the second monster's init occurs. So sure, he could set up flank, but that doesn't mean that the flanked PC will remain in flank or that the other PCs might not kill or disable that foe first.

Sure, but the PCs can play the same tricks; the monsters going at fewer individual initiatives tends to make both PC and NPC tactics a little simpler. I tend to roll initiative for a bunch of identical monsters at the same time; I tried separating them for a while, but it's a lot less work to only keep track of one monster card for a type of monsters in init than to keep track fo each monster individually, so I've backslid.

 

[S'mon]

Um. No. I wouldn't add more monsters either (as a general rule; downlevelled extra monsters can work). Levelling up and down monsters makes a much more balanced and smooth shift than adding extra monsters or levelling them up or down. Alternatively, adding extra waves of monsters can work well, with extra monsters set to enter the fray after some of the initial monsters are down.

Changing monster level takes far more work, though.
My most common approach is to add a bunch more minions, possibly in waves.

 

[S'mon]

Sure, but the PCs can play the same tricks; the monsters going at fewer individual initiatives tends to make both PC and NPC tactics a little simpler.

Yes - if all monsters go on one init, then effectively all PCs go on one init too and are free to delay to set up flanks etc.

 

[KarinsDad]

Sure, but the PCs can play the same tricks; the monsters going at fewer individual initiatives tends to make both PC and NPC tactics a little simpler.

Yes, but if neither side can play the tricks without losing their spot in the initiative, then both sides will focus a little less on the "most optimum" tactics.

I also think that bunching up initiatives makes combats too easy for the players.

5 PCs focusing fire on the first bad guy, and then the second bad guy, etc. without the NPCs having the ability to react to that results in easy kills. Ditto for the monsters.

In a distributed init situation, the 5 players can still focus fire. But, the monsters can react to that as well with tactics (ditto for PCs). The only way where the players can force the tactic without the monsters being able to react is if they ready or delay actions and then, they lose their spot in the initiative. If all 5 PCs do that, sure, they'll bunch up their inits. But, they give up two things doing this: a) a few free attacks by the monsters because PCs readied or delayed, b) they give the monsters a better opportunity to focus fire without the PCs being able to react.

Being able to react is important. If one PC goes unconscious, the team really wants to have someone, anyone, go over and give a potion or do a Heal to the unconscious PC before a monster can do a coup de grace on him. So yes, if the players want to game the system, then the DM can do so as well. Not that I have ever tried to do a coup de grace, but if a group started bunching up inits to gain CA and other advantages, and I had a re-occurring villain observe that, I'd have him instruct his NPC allies to coup de grace. It only makes sense.

Personally, I prefer the semi-evenly distributed model where both sides can react to combat and neither side can try to use super optimal tactics.

 

[mneme]

Yes, but if neither side can play the tricks without losing their spot in the initiative, then both sides will focus a little less on the "most optimum" tactics.

I also think that bunching up initiatives makes combats too easy for the players.

Agreed, but this belies your earlier comment about it being about fairness.

It's not about fairness (except that monsters, all things being equal, have better initiative checks than most non-striker PCs). It's about interest and variety, as well as overall lethality.

Personally, I prefer the semi-evenly distributed model where both sides can react to combat and neither side can try to use super optimal tactics.

Sure. I do too, but there's a tradeoff between this and juggling too many separate monster inits.

What do you do for minions?

 

[KarinsDad]

Agreed, but this belies your earlier comment about it being about fairness.

It's not about fairness (except that monsters, all things being equal, have better initiative checks than most non-striker PCs). It's about interest and variety, as well as overall lethality.

Well, it is somewhat about fairness because the monster's inits do bunch up at the beginning of the encounter more if the DM rolls for each group as opposed to rolling for each monster.

If I roll for each monster, they will almost never totally bunch up together as per S'mon's example. Hence, I won't totally wipe out a Defender in the front row (or any other PC) before s/he even gets to act.

I find it a bit unfair to knock unconscious, or otherwise incapacitate a PC without the player getting to at least try to react to it or at least get one round of actions in. This is one of the reasons that petrification in 4E typically occurs after the second failed saving throw.

If it happens, it happens. Stun is a prime example. But, I don't prefer to use rules that might have a tendency to result in these types of situations.

Sure. I do too, but there's a tradeoff between this and juggling too many separate monster inits.

What do you do for minions?

I give minions each their own initiative. We used to use 3x5 cards for init that we'd rotate through, but for the last year now, we've been using a magnetic board with individual magnetic strips with NPC and PC names on them. The NPC magnetic strips are a different color than the PC strips. It has worked out pretty well if the player controlling that board sits next to the DM. The DM can just glance and see which NPC is coming up next and it's made it pretty darn easy. As for players, there's a little magnetic token next to the current PC or NPC, so it's pretty easy to see (even from the furthest chair down the table) whether the token is anywhere near your PC's name. Minimally, players tend to know the approximate location of the magnetic strip for their PC, even if they cannot read the writing on it from far away. If a player rolled a lousy init, it's easy to tell when the token gets near the bottom of the list.

So, 3 monster inits or 12 monster inits, it doesn't really matter. In 3.5, I had upwards of 25 inits at a table on occasion, so it is doable.

I'm of the school of thought that players shouldn't definitively know that a foe is a minion. It breaks verisimilitude for me. So, each minion having their own init and each minion rolling their own damage allows players to eventually figure it out, but not automatically know 100% which NPCs are minions and which are not. I also bring in "tough minions" that take one hit to bloody and two hits to kill (and even more variable minions that might die in 1, 2, or 3 hits depending).

And before some people start complaining that I'm not playing minions right, too bad. I prefer a game with mysteries, even in combat. Players shouldn't know that a foe is a minion, anymore than they should know that a given foe is a brute, or a leader, or an elite, or a solo, or what the AC of the foes are, or anything else. Some players already metagame the system too much. If players make the monster check roll, they get the info supplied by the PHB rules, but they don't get main or specialty role info. They can deduce all they want and might often be correct, but I don't hand it out.

 

[S'mon]

I find it a bit unfair to knock unconscious, or otherwise incapacitate a PC without the player getting to at least try to react to it or at least get one round of actions in. .

Killing a PC before they can act is harsh (thoug s**t happens), but taking one unconscious is not. At very worst, in a Leaderless group, someone has to take a standard action to make a DC 10 Heal check to activate the PC's second wind. More commonly, a Leader will heal them up as a minor action.

 

[S'mon]

Players shouldn't know that a foe is a minion, anymore than they should know that a given foe is a brute, or a leader, or an elite, or a solo, or what the AC of the foes are, or anything else.

I'm happy for players to know all that stuff, at least after a round or two of combat. I tend not to reveal monster hp until they're in single digits, though: "1 hp left. Too bad..."