Bodaks and Harpies and Rust Monsters...oh my

Hey RC;

By using a combat engine that doesn't take an hour to resolve a single fight, I can leave out clues, use the monster, and not worry about just giving out XP.

I can't seem to wrap my head around why the length of the combat's resolution in real-time matters. Wnat to help me out here? :)
 

log in or register to remove this ad

In Monte Cook's high level 3.0 Demon God's Fane module there is a room with 8 hidden bodaks, no foreshadowing for PCs. This is an EL below the party's level and except for the gaze attacks the bodaks are easy prey and not much threat.

I did not want a fight to go "Everyone but Ragnar who has death ward going make eight fortitude saves and don't roll ones. Except Jonas as an arcane trickster who doesn't want to roll a 6 or lower. Failure is instant death." and repeat each round until they killed off the Bodaks.

I particularly did not want deaths to happen just for rolling poorly with no significant PC choices being involved. Deaths would mean stopping everything in the adventure to raise the dead PCs and emphasize the raising magic and how death is an inconvenience as opposed to the danger of the encounter.

I swapped out the bodaks for equal CR alternative undead (advanced Disease Spirits from a Green Ronin web enhancement) which worked well with a disease theme I was developing.

Later I thought it would be great to change bodaks from save or die to save or dieing, so that the PCs must make dramatic choices about continuing to attack versus trying to revive their dropped companions during the combat and the adventure could continue after normal healing with everyone feeling the dread of how close to death they came. I would then not hesitate to throw eight bodaks against them in a similar situation in the future. So I changed save or die effects in my game to save or dieing.

If you want death a possibility around every corner then save or die fits that function.

If you want to make it about knowing the foe first, countering his offenses, and exploiting his weaknesses then an investigation scenario with standard bodaks can work well.

If you are looking for a straight encounter as part of a greater whole however then save or die bodaks are a poor choice.
 

Hey RC;

I can't seem to wrap my head around why the length of the combat's resolution in real-time matters. Wnat to help me out here? :)

The more time something takes in real time, the more important it becomes that it meets a certain "threshold of interest". A system that has 20 combats per session can have a greater variety of importance on each combat (and a greater variety of combats) than one which allows only 1-2 combats per session.

To put it another way, imagine that the bodak encounter turns out to be relatively lame, as the players have put all the clues together, and they also have good rolls. That "lameness" is far less important the more encounters there are in the session. You can have a good session with 8 fun encounters and 1 lame encounter, but it is more difficult to have a good session with 3 fun encounters and 1 lame encounter, and far, far more difficult if that lame encounter is all you have time for in that session.



RC
 

Later I thought it would be great to change bodaks from save or die to save or dieing, so that the PCs must make dramatic choices about continuing to attack versus trying to revive their dropped companions during the combat and the adventure could continue after normal healing with everyone feeling the dread of how close to death they came. I would then not hesitate to throw eight bodaks against them in a similar situation in the future. So I changed save or die effects in my game to save or dieing.

That is a wonderful idea! I can't believe I never thought of this myself! When I go back to running a 3E game this is going to be the top of my house rule list.
 

I don't worry much about it either. In the old school, adventuring was a dangerous profession. And I came up through AD&D as an old school gamer.

Totally agree. Plus, as RC said, the real challenge of these monsters is in reading the clues and being prepared rather than reckless. Personally, my PCs never discovered a Medusa lair that was devoid of stoned critters and people (for example). If they saw the statues (or other clues, rumor from the townsfolk, whatever) and pressed forward without the right tactic or equipment, then they knew they were rolling the dice with fatality. Honestly, they usually never randomly "discovered" something like a Medusa anyway - they sought it out for some reason, which meant they were already prepared.

If you've got a DM that leaves no clues, then I guess it probably seems a little unfair.....

DM: So, you open the last door in the old goblin warren and.. BAM! MEDUSA! SAVE!!! MUAAHAHA!

PCs: But we never saw any indication of anything like that and it has no reason to be here..

DM: Yeah, life's TOUGH! MUAHAHAHA!!!

I mean really, who played that way? Or maybe a better question.. WHY play that way?
 

The more time something takes in real time, the more important it becomes that it meets a certain "threshold of interest". A system that has 20 combats per session can have a greater variety of importance on each combat (and a greater variety of combats) than one which allows only 1-2 combats per session.

Thanks, RC. I think this answers another question I was wresting with - building status-quo encounter tables in 4E. I think I might look into resolving some boring encounters with skill challenges.
 

Thanks, RC. I think this answers another question I was wresting with - building status-quo encounter tables in 4E. I think I might look into resolving some boring encounters with skill challenges.

If I were you, I would consider expanding the skill challenge system so as to make some interesting encounters into skill challenges. ;) After all, skill challenges (or complex skill checks) provides a great way to deal with (say) fey encounters, or hauntings, without requiring combat....provided that the system is robust enough to maintain interest and that the outcome isn't solely dependent upon die rolls.

One of the big dangers of systems where a single encounter takes a long time to resolve is that, in order to make sure that that encounter is satisfying, the GM ceases to experiment. Rather than push the boundaries, he stays within "safe" territory -- the territory of the lowest common denominator -- so as to ensure that an encounter that takes up 3 hours of real time won't bite beans. Unfortunately, while this tactic becomes increasingly necessary the longer it takes to resolve a single encounter, it also prevents the sort of experimentation that leads to brilliance.

When WotC stated that one of the design goals of 4e was to cut down on the time it takes to resolve a single encounter, I was pretty happy with that goal. Mind you, I didn't believe that they would accomplish it based on their previews, but it was a worthy goal. There are several suggestions on EN World for meeting this goal. If I were planning on playing 4e as my game of choice, would invest heavily in playtesting any means to speed encounters.

YMMV, of course.

Personally, I would consider giving minions variable (but low) hp, so as to make them worthwhile, while giving other creatures a lower hp total, so as to prevent combat grind. But I haven't playtested this, and I am not at all sure how it would work in practice.


RC
 



Pets & Sidekicks

Remove ads

Top