D&D 4E Does 4E lead to longer/deadlier combats?

[Ydars]

I haven't played 4E properly but have got KoTS and ran through a few of the encounters to test out the system, playing all the characters and monsters myself. I ran the first three encounters 3-4 times, trying out different tactics, adding in monsters occasionally to gauge the effect.

A few thoughts;

1) Low level combats go on a long time compared with those for 3.5E (I mean in terms of number of rounds); some encounters were lasting 8-15 rounds and though I have seen many combats this long in 3.5E, they were all at much higher levels. Some of this was the fact that the PCs missed alot.

Those people who have played many encounters; do you think the battles go on longer than the average 3.5E encounter?

The battles feel more like chipping away than epic somehow because the HPs are so big. This might lead to the temptation to use daily powers at the wrong time......................

2) Concentrating attacks on one character is LETHAL. In 3.5E, this rarely occured because many of the monsters were solos. In 4E, it can be the reverse of the "whole party attacks the lone monster" syndrome.

I would not like to be playing the cleric or Palladin in this game; though everyone can heal, the soundest tactic for a monster appears to be to drop those two PCs as fast as possible (I mean kill outright) so that the party cannot heal more than once (using second wind). Once they are dead, the party becomes alot more fragile.

I proved this to myself by adding in two extra slingers in the first KoTS encounter and killed 3 PCs; the other 2 had to run (fighter and Rogue) and had both used all their encounter and daily powers. Only the slingers survived out of the monsters (I had them use a round to climb onto the rock stacks before combat began and also allowed the monsters surprise to see the effect) but it was purely down to killing the cleric and Palladin. If I didn't kill them then the party always won.

I cannot see how people can say that 4E is less lethal than 3,5E; if a PC is down then they are much more likely to be killed because of the automatical critical hit rule. I also feel that, despite second winds etc, PCs will go down more frequently if the monsters concentrate their attacks. I also feel that missile weapon wielding monsters are much more deadly than the strict XP cost would suggest, when used in combination with a few melee monsters.

I am not complaining, as I like PC death; it just seems that one of the design goals falls apart if you use any sort of tactics or am I missing something? I guess some might say it is GM metagaming, but since the players do this sort of tactical gaming all the time, I don't really see that this is a valid argument.

I guess that one thing against this is the idea that although the monsters "win" the fight (PCs dead etc) the monsters themselves have been pasted and so realistically they would not behave like this. Yet, if they don't kill the PCs, there is much more chance that they will die.

Any thoughts on this from those of you lucky enough to have played a few actual games?

 

[AuraSeer]

I would not like to be playing the cleric or Palladin in this game; though everyone can heal, the soundest tactic for a monster appears to be to drop those two PCs as fast as possible (I mean kill outright) so that the party cannot heal more than once (using second wind). Once they are dead, the party becomes alot more fragile.

This is not new. The same thing has been true for every edition of D&D. In fact, it has been true for every RPG ever made that includes a healer class.

Healers keep people alive. If you want to kill the people, you take out the healer first.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

I haven't played 4E properly but have got KoTS and ran through a few of the encounters to test out the system, playing all the characters and monsters myself. I ran the first three encounters 3-4 times, trying out different tactics, adding in monsters occasionally to gauge the effect.

A few thoughts;

1) Low level combats go on a long time compared with those for 3.5E (I mean in terms of number of rounds); some encounters were lasting 8-15 rounds and though I have seen many combats this long in 3.5E, they were all at much higher levels. Some of this was the fact that the PCs missed alot.

Those people who have played many encounters; do you think the battles go on longer than the average 3.5E encounter?

In terms of rounds, yes. Also, while minions are time-savers compared to using "real monsters", an encounter with a lot of minions takes a lot of time, especially if you're using a battlemat to track how far they can move.

I was running KotS yesterday, and the kobold lair encounter took a long time because of that.

The battles feel more like chipping away than epic somehow because the HPs are so big. This might lead to the temptation to use daily powers at the wrong time......................

This isn't something that has come up, IMO... except the final boss of Raiders of Oakhurst. Solo monster encounters seem quite boring.

I've seen solo powers get wasted, but it only seems to happen in big encounters.

[sblock](In the kobold lair encounter, a warlock wasted a daily Dark Dream attack on a wyrm priest that only had 3 hit points left.) However, a couple of rounds earlier, almost the entire party expended dailies on Irontooth. The rogue used a power that blinded him for a round (which had a brutal effect) and the warlord hit him with a daily that gave everyone +4 to hit against him. For a round, Irontooth could hardly hit anything and everyone was getting +6 to hit, plus more bonuses from the warlord when they used action points for extra actions -- which they used on encounter powers. Irontooth didn't even live long enough to use his AP (he was blinded right away, and wanted to save the AP for when he wasn't blinded). He almost made it to a round of unrestricted attacks.[/sblock]

2) Concentrating attacks on one character is LETHAL. In 3.5E, this rarely occured because many of the monsters were solos. In 4E, it can be the reverse of the "whole party attacks the lone monster" syndrome.

I'm not sure what you mean about solo monsters in 3.x... Solo monsters wouldn't last long in 3.x.

Concentrating attacks on one PC is lethal. When I'm using intelligent opponents (eg not beasts) they tend to focus on the most injured PC within their "range". However, that's also a 3.x tactic, a 2e tactic, a real-life tactic, etc.

I would not like to be playing the cleric or Palladin in this game; though everyone can heal, the soundest tactic for a monster appears to be to drop those two PCs as fast as possible (I mean kill outright) so that the party cannot heal more than once (using second wind). Once they are dead, the party becomes alot more fragile.

Same as in 3.x. Note that in 4e PCs can drink potions as a minor action.

I also feel that, despite second winds etc, PCs will go down more frequently if the monsters concentrate their attacks.

I simply do not see how this is different from 3.x.

I also feel that missile weapon wielding monsters are much more deadly than the strict XP cost would suggest, when used in combination with a few melee monsters.

Focus fire is deadly. Ranged attackers do more damage now. I've nearly killed PCs with a quartet of four kobold minions throwing javelins (or whatever it is they throw).

I am not complaining, as I like PC death; it just seems that one of the design goals falls apart if you use any sort of tactics or am I missing something?

As I've said above, how is this different from 3.x?

 

[ExploderWizard]

I have not had a chance to play yet, looking forward to Game Day this weekend. The longer number of rounds was an actual design goal, if I remember correctly, to prevent some of the swingy one hit one kill combats of previous editions that happened a lot at low levels.

Right now its too early to tell what all the effects of this will be once higher level combats reallly get going. On one hand, not dying due to a single bad round has some appeal but to balance that it looks as if everyone is fighting with ankle weights on. Time and many combats will tell if the overall idea will work, and then how well it works will still vary from group to group.

 

[phil500]

As I've said above, how is this different from 3.x?

I think its less deadly, actually.

Everyones "negative bloodied" was -10 in earlier editions. Things did more damage, too.

so a DM was more likely to kill someone rather than knock them unconscious.

 

[Ydars]

Severed Head; I have never seen or run a 3.5E encounter with as many monsters as is the norm in 4E and looking at published adventures, I don't think I have been alone in this; heck even the designers acknowledge the fact that there are many many more monsters per encounter in this edition than 3.5E. You migt have been doing this already in your game but I don't think most people were. The sheer number of beasties in 4E (often outnumbering the party by a wide margin) means that if the monster get surprise, the number of actions/attacks against them really stacks up. This is made worse by the fact that monsters are much more likely to hit PCs now. Hence, I think focussed fire is actually way more deadly in 4E than it ever was in 3.5E.

I agree that every edition of any RPG does encourage healer-killing but because potions only allow you to spend finite healing surges in 4E, the cleric becomes much more of a target than in 3.5E because he is the only way past this limit; in most of my 3.5E games, wands/potions were used to heal alot more than clerical spells because they could do so many other interesting things with their magic. With limited healing surges, this option is now out and so the cleric becomes a much more substantial member of "the order of the concentric circle".

I think what is actually different is my attitude; I was assuming that PCs would be harder to kill and was more "no holds barred" in my strategy and it turns out that this is as deadly in 4E as it was in 3.5E (where, as someone pointed out, it was very easy to kill a PC unintentionally). I think the feel of 4E leads to more tactical gaming by the DM and so it is more likely to lead to PC death (if unchecked).

 

[Gothmog]

I've played 5 4E sessions now, and here is what I've noticed:

1. Combats to take more rounds to resolve, but less total time than a 3.x combat. Once we got the hang of how to use powers, its actually really fast.

2. The PCs are much tougher and more sturdy than in previous editions. Its nearly impossible to take someone down in one hit now, which reduces the randomness of PC death common to 3.x due to massive crits.

3. However, combat in general is MORE deadly to PCs. Because there are more monsters per encounter, flanking and tactical advantage play a big role, and a PC who gets surrounded is in BIG trouble.

4. Movement is king on the battlefield. Staying in one place and slugging it out is something only a fool would do. As long as you're mobile and moving for an advantage, you'll be ok. I really like this aspect- 4E combats feel very dynamic and frantic compared to 3.x combats.

5. Healer killing could be a problem, but most monsters won't know which PC is a healer until an obvious display of such a power is used, and if the healer PCs are smart, they don't expose themselves to more than one enemy at once.

6. I've found as a DM, I have to hold back much less than in previous versions of D&D. The characters are now 2nd level, but they can take a pretty severe beating and still keep going.

7. Minions are NASTY. No, individually they won't be able to do much to a PC. But with flanking and using their special abilities, they can really cause a lot of damage in a hurry. Also, since minions seem to have decent ACs, they aren't completely throwaway enemies, and ignoring minions completely in favor of more powerful monsters can be a serious mistake.

8. Concentrated attacks are the biggest worry of a PC on the battlefield. This goes along with staying mobile, but allowing 2 or 3 attacks at the same time to be performed on you is going to result in a bloodied or dying PC very quickly.

So far, I REALLY like the changes that have been made in 4E. Combat in 3.x was either brutally short with high PCs casualties/deaths, or a cakewalk for standard CR encounters. Now, a "level appropriate" fight is a serious threat to the PCs, but good tactics and teamwork can see the PCs through without being too banged up.

 

[Spenser]

You're right, fights are longer and deadlier in 4e -- those were stated design goals. Rather than wearing down 1/4 of the party's resources, each 4e fight is truly meant to challenge the party. And fights are designed to go multiple rounds, hence higher HP and fewer save/die effects.

I proved this to myself by adding in two extra slingers in the first KoTS encounter and killed 3 PCs; the other 2 had to run (fighter and Rogue)...

Really? Huh. With the drakes gone (since obviously you wouldn't just "add two extra slingers" and expect the PCs to survive), the PCs could essentially "charge the hill" and take out the slingers. They might lose 1 guy on the way, but after that they should be able to neutralize the slingers pretty effectively, especially if you got a "sticky" fighter up there. Can you explain what tactics your PCs used? Or did they just roll really poorly?

I would not like to be playing the cleric or Palladin in this game; though everyone can heal, the soundest tactic for a monster appears to be to drop those two PCs as fast as possible (I mean kill outright) so that the party cannot heal more than once (using second wind). Once they are dead, the party becomes alot more fragile.

That's fine, the monsters should do whatever is best tactically (and appropriate for their personality/intelligence).

Paladins are meant to take hits, and they should be able to survive concentrated fire from a bunch of monsters, barring A) a really nasty ambush or B) just plain too many monsters. If your paladin is getting dropped in one round, he should... start wearing a shield? Seriously, at first level, 19 or 20 AC should be plenty to handle incoming fire from a bunch of at-level monsters. [Edit: not that you won't take a horrendous beating at times, but with good teamwork & a heal from your friendly warlord, you'll survive to respond in kind.]

. I also feel that missile weapon wielding monsters are much more deadly than the strict XP cost would suggest, when used in combination with a few melee monsters.

That's exactly right. Just like striker PCs are much more deadly than their strict level would suggest, when used in combination with defenders.

 

[Blackbrrd]

There is a reason you want the hits on the fighter or paladin, because they have the most hit points, and therefore heal the most from healing surges. The paladin and fighter should mark as many enemies as they can.

A 1st level halfling paladin can easily have 28hp, ac 22 while fighting 2+ opponents. In addition he can make an attacker re-roll an attack once per encounter. He can use lay on hands 2+ times a day in addition to his second wind. If there is a cleric backup he should be able to take heal (5 healing surges +2d6+8) 50 damage in one combat, and with 28 starting hp, he can take 50+28-1=77hp damage before going down. This number goes up drastically as he levels. At level four he has 52hp, he can probably use his lay on hands 3 times per day, taking a feat that adds his cha as he does so, healing himself for 3x13+3x5=54hp...

 

[Lore Raithbone]

Really? Huh. With the drakes gone (since obviously you wouldn't just "add two extra slingers" and expect the PCs to survive), the PCs could essentially "charge the hill" and take out the slingers. They might lose 1 guy on the way, but after that they should be able to neutralize the slingers pretty effectively, especially if you got a "sticky" fighter up there. Can you explain what tactics your PCs used? Or did they just roll really poorly?

He just ran a sample encounter by himself, he added two additional slingers to see just how quickly the fight could turn deadly, and "(I had them use a round to climb onto the rock stacks before combat began and also allowed the monsters surprise to see the effect)" - they had situational advantage as well. Basically, the fight was stacked against the PCs in order to test if it was really a deadly situation, and it was - but with the conditional that the slingers had to kill the paladin and cleric first.

Even with an AC of Plate + Heavy Shield (20), concentrated fire on the Paladin -will- take him down, especially if the relatively lower AC cleric is killed first.

Paladins are meant to take hits, and they should be able to survive concentrated fire from a bunch of monsters, barring A) a really nasty ambush or B) just plain too many monsters. If your paladin is getting dropped in one round, he should... start wearing a shield? Seriously, at first level, 19 or 20 AC should be plenty to handle incoming fire from a bunch of at-level monsters. [Edit: not that you won't take a horrendous beating at times, but with good teamwork & a heal from your friendly warlord, you'll survive to respond in kind.]

Monsters got a surprise round (the first encounter in KOTS is, really, a nasty ambush, Ydars made it deadlier to test the system). Essentially, if you increase the amount of monsters by 2-3, or the amount of minions by 4-6, you are looking at a serious TPK.