Death in 4e

[TerraDave]

So, you know how boxing gloves actually made it easier to punch hard...

4E plays differently then it reads. And this is one of the best examples.

-DMs see PCs as tougher (especially at low levels), and feel that they don't have to "hold back", and are encouraged by official guidance not to.

-(as Mustrum_Ridcully explained) Thanks to healing surges and per encounter powers the baseline for encounters has went from "not quite a cake-walk" to "almost even". Probably the bigest factor.

-(as Meric noted) do not underestimate ongoing damage. This is what really stuck out in my own limited experience as a player. Its part of the pattern noted above of "being able to see death coming", and with two or three ongoing effects, it will.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Raven Crowking has come up with the startling (to me) suggestion that 4e has been designed so that characters won't die.

Not sure how you got that from what I said.

I certainly said that I don't find healing surges to be a good mechanic, due to simulation problems, and I offered some alternatives. And I certainly responded to Hussar's outrage that he should have to have his "fun" abrogated by the consequences of his decisions.

Saying that the game he seems to want seems to be Candyland =/= saying 4e is Candyland.

If you examine my posts concerning the 4e combat system, even going back before the release, based upon what was revealed as it was revealed, you will see that I have said that I expect (once the initial shine of 4e wears off) that it will be deadlier than 3e. This is because the shift in paradigm narrows the window of what a "challenging" fight is. Once players get used to the system, they are bound to see that anything outside that window is meaningless in terms of the game, pushing the DM to create ever more deadly encounters to engage them.

Conversely, 4e hasn't gotten rid of the "prop the players up" meme that appeared in 2e. Like 3e, the design paradigm seems to have goals that are sometimes in conflict with each other. The result is that it is quite easy (in either system) to create games that offer no real challenge to the players.

The binary nature of "Really deadly or really easy" is made worse by a move away from the attrition-based paradigm, which limits the amount to which less dire consequences than death affect the PCs. Likewise, clear-cut encounters (as opposed to the chance of wandering monsters extending an encounter beyond PC expectations) limit the amount to which less dire encounters affect the PCs.

Ultimately, I believe that once the "shine" has worn off 4e, it will tend to produce campaigns that are either overwhelmingly deadly or overwhelmingly safe. The design seems (IMHO) to offer very little middle ground between these extremes.

Of course, I may be wrong. The future will tell. It always does.


RC

 

[Storminator]

If an encounter is tough enough that it can send two characters quickly into the negatives, then either:
- The PCs have launched themselves into an encounter too difficult for them or without enough caution or good tactics.
- The DMs playing hardball
- The PCs were just plain unlucky.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

In our last session we had a lot of players go down repeatedly, and at least 2 moments when 2 PCs were down. But we have 7 PCs, so 1) it's easier to get left on the end of the line and ganged up on, and 2) it's easier for the group to recover.

In both cases the party healed the cleric who healed the second PC.

PS

 

[TerraDave]

"really deadly or really easy"

4E RAW is probably the edition for which this is least true.

 

[Raven Crowking]

"really deadly or really easy"

4E RAW is probably the edition for which this is least true.

As I said, I could be wrong. Time will tell.

Just so we're clear, though: I don't think 4e is Candyland. The opinion attributed to me in the OP is wrong.

Out of curiosity, why do you believe this is so? A blanket statement is hardly going to make me see "the error of my ways", as it were.


RC

 

[Dausuul]

The campaign I run has seen two deaths and one near-death (averted only by a natural 20 on a death save). The campaign I play in recently had a TPK, except for the guy who didn't show up to play that day.

So, I agree with the general sentiment. There's less arbitrary insta-death, but there is certainly still death.

 

[Nebulous]

After a good amount of games we've only had one death, and that was a rogue against Irontooth. The fighter nearly died too.

My opinion is that accidental death in 4e is very unlikely. A DM with a good grasp of the rules can usually control the situation, and if necessary, easily manipulate an encounter to be lethal if he wants it to be. Sure, you can do that in 3e also, but there was also a lot more "Whoops. Sorry. Didn't think that would have killed you."

 

[lin_fusan]

We are playing 'Keep of the Shadowfell'. The DM is a veteran to gaming but new to running games. (This is his first campaign.)

We have been finding the fights really easy, except in three instances. One was a kobold ambush, and the other was Irontooth.

However, each of the three instances were mostly because he failed to adjust the encounter strength due to certain factors, ie. we didn't have one of our players and so was 1 character down, and/or a replacement character/player was only level 1 in an encounter that assumed level 2 characters.

However however, I felt that these three instances were the only times I was really engaged in the fight. After about 3 to 5 rounds into the fight, I realized that we would get our collective arses kicked, so I took up my Warlord mantle and directed each player to "do this" and "do that"! With teamwork and use of Action Points and Daily Powers, we managed to scrap by each of these tough fights.

I don't know if the easiness is because our DM is new and new to the system. There were a couple of times that he made odd tactical choices, but he might have been going easy on us.

Lastly, my group is incredibly NOT tactically minded. We tend to all run around doing our own thing. One Striker complains that the Defender doesn't defend, even after I point out that he never asks the Defenders to do defense; he automatically assumes people are backing his play. In that way, my group seems to welcome my 'fascist Warlord' mode.

 

[Raven Crowking]

We have been finding the fights really easy, except in three instances. One was a kobold ambush, and the other was Irontooth.

<snip>

However however, I felt that these three instances were the only times I was really engaged in the fight.

If I am correct, we will be hearing more from people who have had experiences like yours. Especially in about a year or so, when the "shine" has worn off 4e.

And then we will hear more of "Your problem with 4e doesn't really exist" until 5e is announced, in which case it will suddenly be something "everybody knew".

RC

 

[Jürgen Hubert]

In the two adventures I have ran, none of the characters died. But it was a close thing - at two occasions, a character failed his death saving throw two times.

I find that I like the new setup - instead of a narrow band of 10 hp between life and death (which is little more than a speed bump at high levels), the characters have the potential to linger for longer. But the death saving throws mean that this situation is still very risky, encouraging one's fellow PCs to do something about the situation.

Kind of reminds me of the hit point system in GURPS, to be honest.