D&D 4E Dave Noonan on his 4e Playtest

Dave Noonan has posted on the fate of his 4e Eberron game:

WotC_Dave said:
...And you get to my Thursday night game. Our Eberron campaign, which has run for about a year and a half, reached an ignominious conclusion. The PCs were working their way through a fortress in the Demon Wastes--a fortress infested with conspirators of Mu Tahn Laa, The Inescapable Madness. Mu Tahn Laa, who's been imprisoned by Gatekeeper seals for millenia, has grown restive and is trying to break the seals that bind him. Naturally, the PCs have been trying to stop him, because they don't see the upside in a world that gibbers and capers before the death-dealing tread of an ancient demon-king.

But in the heart of the fortress, the heroes were overcome. Overcome as in a total party kill. And nobody's getting those bodies back. So Hammer, Karhun, Isidro, and Dessin are dead, done, finito.

So what happened? As with many TPKs, it was a confluence of events. They made a couple of tactical errors. They let the bad guys spread them out. They didn't focus fire enough. They took some needless damage (some of the conspirators of Mu Tahn Laa have heads that explode when they first take damage, so you want to soften the bad guys up with a ranged attack first, rather than drop an ice storm that'll make a whole bunch of heads explode right next to the paladin and rogue. And they were slow to realize that they were in over their heads, and the monsters happened to have good countermeasures for fleeing PCs in any case.

It was a great, epic fight. It probably ran for more than an hour and had 20 rounds, easy. But for a lot of it, everyone at the table could see things slowly slipping away.

But that's all on their side of the screen. They were also done in by something I learned about 4th edition. Fighting two encounters simultaneously is far more lethal than it used to be. That's probably good for the game on balance, but it does impose some new caution in my adventure design (or it should have, at any rate).

In 3rd edition, it wasn't necessarily a big deal if two rooms' worth of monsters attacked you at once. The CR 12 monster in room A4 and the CR 12 monster in room A5--well, that's still just an EL 14 encounter and only incrementally more difficult than those two rooms tackled separately. But in 4th edition, it really feels like something that's twice as hard. Which isn't to say it's impossible--my Thursday guys might have pulled out a victory with a little more luck and a little more foresight. But you can't blithely kick open door after door, that's for sure.

You don't want to eliminate the possibility of kicking in two doors at the same time, of course. And it's rarely worth the effort to bend over backwards during adventure design to protect the players from themselves. But you can bet that I'm going to include more doors rather than doorways, more ambient sound, and more "baffle space" between encounters in my site-based adventures in 4th edition.

So what do I do now? What's the post-TPK plan? Well, the Thursday night gang has been instructed to make up a 21st-level character for a week from tonight. Anything is fair game, but their back story must include something that's put them metaphorically "on ice" for the last hundred years. They're going to get thawed and told: "A thousand mad years of demons running amok have rendered Eberron almost unrecognizeable. Your job: Fix it."

That ought to be sufficiently epic. And it'll keep them (and me) busy for a while.

Out of Context: "The thing about the name 'Cubiclewild' is that there's so much tension built into the name itself."

I think he underestimates what could happen in 3.5 if a party accidentally combines two encounters though.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

To be sure, many of the TPK I've DMed in 3rd Edition occurred when the pcs combined encounters, or made too much noise during a fight ... or got caught behind enemy lines.

The kicker in 4th edition is that by combining encounters, you only get half as many uses of your per-encounter powers.
 

Shawn_Kehoe said:
The kicker in 4th edition is that by combining encounters, you only get half as many uses of your per-encounter powers.
You also "lose" a bunch of hit points. That is, if you fought the two encounters separately, you'd have a chance to use a bunch of HS to get your HP back to full. Without the break, you have a harder time getting those HP back. Of course, I think this is probably a good thing.

Really though, I'm curious how 4e feels when you end up over your head, and what kind of resources the party will have to deal with it. Certainly in 3e, you could know if you were over your head quickly, but unable to do anything about it (because half the party failed their save and died) or have almost no clue. I do hope that smart groups will have time to see that they are over their heads while still being able to retreat.
 

Shawn_Kehoe said:
To be sure, many of the TPK I've DMed in 3rd Edition occurred when the pcs combined encounters, or made too much noise during a fight ... or got caught behind enemy lines.

The kicker in 4th edition is that by combining encounters, you only get half as many uses of your per-encounter powers.

In our STAP campaign I have to combine entire areas (2-6 encounters) at a time just to make my party sweat. Plus doubling, tripling or even quintupling hit points on key mobs just to let them get some of their signature attacks off.

And yes I could fix it by tossing in large amounts of bannage and nerfings and plain old item destruction but we're having fun so why mess too much with a good thing.
 

Scholar & Brutalman said:
I think he underestimates what could happen in 3.5 if a party accidentally combines two encounters though.
Actually, due to the importance of round per level buffs on fighter types, the large area of certain spells, and the general nova like nature of casters, so long as the encounters were only around +1 CR in the first place, it can actually be much easier to do multiple encounters together in 3.x, as opposed to encounter, 5 min, next encounter.

If it's much harder in 4e (and I can certainly see why it would be) this kind of makes some of the earlier statements about how in 4e you're expected to combine multiple rooms somewhat amusing, apparently this just means you need more monsters for any particular encounter, but after a certain point, 4e PCs have a lot of trouble with ongoing fights.
 

small pumpkin man said:
...so long as the encounters were only around +1 CR in the first place, it can actually be much...

And that's the kicker for me: a lot of published 3e encounters were a lot more than CR+1, since CR+1 encounters are usually a bit dull, but really CR+3 or so. The players usually did all the buffs so they could face one of these encounters.

You're right that it can sometimes mean very little difference to the results, but due to the vagaries of the CR system it could sometimes produce a huge change.
 

In 3rd edition, it wasn't necessarily a big deal if two rooms' worth of monsters attacked you at once. The CR 12 monster in room A4 and the CR 12 monster in room A5--well, that's still just an EL 14 encounter and only incrementally more difficult than those two rooms tackled separately. But in 4th edition, it really feels like something that's twice as hard.

I have to strongly disagree with this statement.

Firstly, the CR system was little better than eyeballing and was, in most cases, completely off. Two CR 12 critters could easily TPK a 12th-level party depending on their abilities and stats. With the variables increasing the higher the level of critter, invariably the more 'off' the system was. One appropriate CR creature for a so-called balanced encounter could end up draining the resources of the party by far more than 20%, leaving them vulnerable to any follow-up encounter.

Secondly, 4e characters have far more resources available to them than their 3.x counterparts. And many of these resources are 'at-will'. As has been evidenced elsewhere, these at-will powers are better than standard attacks, which is what most 3.x characters would be left with after a significant encounter.

Thirdly, many 4e powers and abilities last the entire encounter. Therefore, combining two encounters is actually beneficial, since the abilities continue to benefit the group whereas in 3.x it is most likely that buff durations will have expired and need to be recast.

Personally, I think this is far more a case of both the players and DM having a bad day than the system being broken.
 

Scholar & Brutalman said:
And that's the kicker for me: a lot of published 3e encounters were a lot more than CR+1, since CR+1 encounters are usually a bit dull, but really CR+3 or so. The players usually did all the buffs so they could face one of these encounters.

You're right that it can sometimes mean very little difference to the results, but due to the vagaries of the CR system it could sometimes produce a huge change.
It looks like we have to recalibrate, so that 4E "level N-2 encounter" = 3E "EL N encounter" and 4E "level N encounter" = 3E "EL N+2 encounter".
 

I'd just assume that if you two rooms close enough that the guys from one can reinforce the other in under a minute then you need to build both rooms as a single running encounter.

Maybe with a little bit of extra padding for the time lag, but I certainly wouldn't assume, in the wake of running Iron Heroes at least, that they were going to be two different encounters.

Ambient sound is a good thing to think about, though.

Might do something with a waterfall tomorrow night.
 

I thought that in 3e n + 2 was the same power as n x 2. That's how the xp charts are built.

I can see what he's saying, but I think he's worded it poorly. It is twice as hard in 3e. In addition to what others have mentioned, I think that the increase of creatures involved in an encounter in 4e also means that combining two encounters means that you have an awful lot of foes who are all capable of threatening in some fashion acting against you.

I mean, once you get a couple of levels on most 3e monsters, they're a walk in the park (or if you're using a generous point buy). The ability of 4e creatures to deal less damage with a greater chance of hitting means that the mass of creatures (who probably also have powers that synergize with each other) will be wearing the party down in short order.
 

Remove ads

Top