How Can I Make 4e Into A Gritty Survival Game?

4e D&D is a game of dramatic, dynamic heroes...but it can also be a game of gritty, nail-biting survival tension. INCONCEIVABLE, you say? Baby, I believe at least six impossible things before breakfast. I've got three little tricks that turn this ruleset into my obedient little spaniel. Come watch it beg for treats.

4e D&D is a game of dramatic, dynamic heroes...but it can also be a game of gritty, nail-biting survival tension. INCONCEIVABLE, you say? Baby, I believe at least six impossible things before breakfast. I've got three little tricks that turn this ruleset into my obedient little spaniel. Come watch it beg for treats.




Less Explosions, More Slow Burns
One of the more controversial steps 4e took toward its vision of a heroic fantasy game was to embrace the idea of an exciting, compelling, up-and-down pace to the game, one that emphasized coming close to death, and snapping victory from its jaws in every encounter. The game was designed from the ground up to have an ebb and flow of character HP and monster HP such that every combat, at every level, would follow a similar arc of challenging the party until they healed up and eventually emerged victorious.

This was controversial in part because previous editions had embraced a high-tension dungeon survival style that emphasized strategic resource management and a preponderance of caution in a world that was slowly whittling your life-force away until you could return from the wilderness and heal. The up-and-down roller-coaster style wasn’t always a change for the better, and 4e never really embraced this style.

Rules reinforce experience. A lot of people weren't fond of the experience 4e's rules were selling.

By default. Because this is D&D, and because we are all tinkerers, default is only one mode to run on. The possibility of a grittier, more survival-oriented style was always there. One of the amazing accomplishments of 4e is a truly tight, symmetrical, well-integrated math system, and this gives 4e the quality of being remarkably hackable. Though official publications haven’t delivered much on this promise, a canny observer will see a lot of potential within 4e’s structure. A lot of oh so exploitable structure.

What this means is that, regardless of what kind of game it insisted on being in the official material, a lot of different kinds of games can run on 4e’s math-chassis quite well. Even if you think Rob Heinsoo and James Wyatt shot your dog back in 2008, you can use that mathematical underpinning they developed for your own nefarious purposes. It might not be entirely obvious how to do that, but it’s entirely possible, and that’s what I’m here for today: to show you a few strategies to make 4e’s math work for your games like a well-trained seal, performing tricks for your amusement.

In particular, I’m here to tell you how you can rather easily play 4e with an experience closer to that of early-edition dungeon survival than of 4e-style heroic near-death-and-resurgence. It really only involves three major steps that, when combined, create a game where your characters will hoard HP’s closer, spend their resources more wisely, and ultimately adopt a more cautious, tempered style of play than 4e normally encourages.

mcclane-shoes.jpg

This....is not going to heal in 5 minutes.

Step 1: Rip Out Healing Surges
A concept that 4e introduced into the core was the idea that your HP pool doesn’t represent all of your HP. In addition to your typical HP pool, you have a second pool of “healing surges” that can be used to replenish your HP. They are meant to be used in combat whenever you are healed, and out of combat whenever you want to top off your current HP. They’re similar to “reserve points” from 3e’s Unearthed Arcana. They help account for long-term attrition in 4e, while keeping every encounter balanced assuming that the PC’s have full HP.

But let’s say you hate them and want them to die in a fire. Let’s say you’re a big fan of “Your HP is your HP, and when it is gone, you are gone,” and imagine healing surges in D&D work about as well as “Sanity Surges” would work in Call of Cthulu. Or, that you just don’t want to deal with the added complexity. Thanks to 4e’s tight math, it’s not a big deal. There’s actually a few ways you can do it. Here’s one.

Each healing surge is considered to be ¼ of your character’s HP. So the easy way to get rid of them is just to take your character’s number of surges, and take ¼ of your character’s HP, and multiply them together. Add the total onto your max HP.

As an example: you’re a first-level Fighter with a CON of 14 (+2). You normally have 29 hp and 11 surges, with a surge value of 7. To get rid of surges, just convert all of your surges to HP (77) and add them to your HP total (29 + 77). Your fighter now has 106 HP. A first-level Wizard with a CON of 8, in comparison, has 38 HP.

Step 2: Healthy, Wounded, Bloodied, and Critical
Having a large pool of HP does change the arc of each combat pretty dramatically. Characters in this system won’t get bloodied very easily, and they’ll stay bloodied for longer when they do. They’ll also be less at-risk in each encounter of falling unconscious, which makes them slightly more survivable overall. If you construct encounters as recommended, you may find your players not really in need of much healing or at risk of dying until 2 or 3 encounters into the day.

Healing might need to change a bit, too, if you’re using this. For one, you can’t heal HP with a short rest (you’ve already “spent” your surges, so to speak). You do heal all of your HP with an extended rest.

For two, abilities that let you heal in combat (like second wind or the various leader abilities) suddenly are a lot less potent – anything that enables you to “spend a surge” essentially doesn’t contain that step anymore, and so you don’t regain that HP. Leaders are now far less important to the party’s survival, and you could even play without a party healer, and be completely fine. Healing that doesn’t rely on surges is still viable, but it becomes virtually the only source of big healing in a game where the cleric only restores 1d6 HP, twice per encounter.

Encounter-based healing raises a bit of a different issue, too: there’s nothing stopping that cleric from “spamming” Healing Word out of combat and just healing everyone up to full 1d6 HP at a time. You can just put in a hard limit on the number of times that a character can benefit from that (say, four times per Milestone), but this might be a little too similar to healing surges, and is at any rate a little arbitrary and clearly meta-game.

There’s a way to fix both the issue with being bloodied and the issue with spamming minor healing abilities, and it involves stealing an idea from 5e: there are HP thresholds that you can’t heal up above once you pass below them. Bloodied (ie: ½ hp) is one, but we’ll add two more: one at about ¾ HP (let’s call it Wounded), and one at about ¼ HP (let’s call it Critical). Once you’ve passed below that threshold, you can’t heal up above it, except with Daily abilities. To calculate this, let’s just divide the character’s new Max HP by 4, round it down, and consider that the amount of damage they need to take before they cross a threshold. Our example Fighter crosses these thresholds every 26 HP (Wounded at 80 HP, Bloodied at 54 HP, Critical at 28 HP). Our example Wizard crosses these thresholds every 9 HP (Wounded at 29 HP, Bloodied at 20 HP, Critical at 11 HP). Rather than be precise about the fractions, we just take any remainders that total to a full HP, and add them onto Critical (when you need them most anyway).

Crossing one of these thresholds is the new equivalent of “when you are bloodied.” After crossing one of these thresholds in an encounter, you can be considered “bloodied” until the end of that encounter. So a Dragonborn Fury kicks in for the rest of an encounter, after you become Wounded, Bloodied, or Critical. An ability that triggers when you become bloodied now triggers when you become Wounded, Bloodied, or Critical.

Step 3: A Little Rest and Relaxation
So, now you have characters who, over time, suffer injuries and gradually lose their HP, without getting it back. It’s a slow slide to 0 rather than the up-and-down experience of most of 4e. You can use that modification simply as-is, without any further alterations to the 4e game, if you want.

But, we still have a situation where a character recovers all of their HP with a night’s sleep. One good rest, and every wound and injury just goes away. There’s a few things we can do to make those injuries last a little longer.

The first is to make getting that rest a little more difficult. We can do this by making a distinction between areas where you can easily take a rest, and areas where it might be a little riskier. Going to sleep in the middle of a dungeon or out in the monster-infested wilderness is going to be a much different experience from bedding down at an inn and eating a hearty dinner. We can reflect that by making certain areas in the world Sanctuaries.

A Sanctuary becomes a place where the party can take an extended rest. If they are within a Sanctuary, they can sleep all night and gain the full benefits from that rest. If they are not in a Sanctuary, a night’s rest won’t recover them above their current threshold (wounded, bloodied, or critical), and you do not get Daily abilities back. A sleep out in the wilderness won’t help you much more than the cleric spamming Healing Word, and won’t bring back the big cures, either.

Sanctuaries become places you can place as a DM, or places that the characters can make – a skill challenge or a feat to be able to make someplace a Sanctuary, if only for one night, can be extremely compelling. With them in the game, we now have a way to limit where the party can heal up to full – only in a place that allows it. This might be a local inn, the character’s home, a druid’s grove, a thief’s safe-house, an ally’s farm, or any other location the DM decrees to be safe enough to rest fully in.

That’s the first prong: make the restoration of all HP dependent on being in the right place.

The second prong is this: extend the time it takes to get a rest.

It’s really trivially easy. You define a “short rest” as one night’s sleep, and an “extended rest” as a longer period, let’s say one week, of rest and relaxation and recuperation. You can take Short Rests anywhere by spending the night. You recover your “encounter” powers (which now come back every day) and up to your current HP threshold. You can take Extended Rests only in Sanctuaries, where you recover all HP and all “daily” powers (which now come back every week), but only if you take a week’s vacation there.

This does change the pacing of the game a bit: your encounter XP budget is really your “daily” XP budget, and the PC’s are expected to get through two (maybe three) days before taking a week off. Every two days, they get a Milestone. If you want to break a given “day” up into more than one encounter, it might pay to use more minions and fewer “standard” monsters.

Full Life Consequences
Ultimately, the effect of these three steps is to make your game more about the slow attrition of HP over time, rather than the constant up-and-down process that 4e players are familiar with. As an add-on effect, it makes the “someone must play a Leader” effect much less pronounced, since you don’t need to heal up in the middle of a combat anymore. A Leader can contribute a lot to this group, but isn’t as essential.

Naturally, with less ability to recover, the creeping demise facing your party will be much more intimidating. Every wound and hit and failed save will bring you inexorably closer to the reaper standing at 0 HP, and though the slide is slow, it is all the more frightening for being part of the cost of being a hero. Recovery is difficult – only possible after resting for a full week in a Sanctuary. A night’s sleep can help (it’ll recover Encounter powers and some HP), but it will only slow the slide. This might be attractive to games with a strong survival vibe.

And yet, the balance and math of the game remain practically unchanged. You can use any monster, any adventure, any challenge, and it will work as expected.

So, what do you think? Want to use this in your 4e games tomorrow? Think a 4e game using this rule might be a little more fun than a typical 4e game? Excited for the versatility of games this might offer you? See any problems I missed? Let me know down in the comments!
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Garthanos

Arcadian Knight
I'm also not even suggesting "fantasy vietnam."

The fiction talks about terrors in the night; demons; things man was not meant to know, and how hard the world is, but I dont feel the mechanics often do a good job of supporting that.
That latter is the reason the world needs heros, not why the heros are supposed to be afraid and small ... to me the majority of the world are akin to minions, ie lacking the heroic luck, esp and divine providence and desperate arcane shielding... etc.. all that stuff Gary used to explain advancing hit points.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Garthanos

Arcadian Knight
Another thing I would personally do if I were trying to make 4E gritty would be to ditch the default save system as much as possible and replace it with what would essentially be the disease track. I feel that is a 4E idea which should have been used a lot more, and there are a lot of things which can be handled with it. An injury might be a "disease" which is treated by heal checks to set the bone or wrap bandages or whatever the case may be; success gets you closer to being healed, but doesn't heal you completely. This can be handled in a way similar to some of the ideas suggested by the OP, but without needing to fiddle with HP or surges at all. Instead, different types of injuries can take different amounts of time. A twisted ankle or a stress fracture may be something which can be cured with a few checks over a short amount of time. In contrast, something like a compound fracture may take several checks, and the amount of time between checks would be greater.

I'd even go so far as to look for ways to use the disease track to handle things such as crafting. Success would move you closer to creating the product desired; a failure might stagnate your progress; bad enough failure would take you further away.

Using the disease track is a common idea for adding a sense of long term implication ... I think its appropriate for Frodo to be able to have his long term injury.

Lancelot is even presented sometimes as having recieved an injury that never quite healed (Though he was also one of the only Round table knights who was never truly defeated - save in visions).

The only issue I have with a wounding mechanic that it be careful to not create too much of a Death Spiral.
 

Argyle King

Legend
That latter is the reason the world needs heros, not why the heros are supposed to be afraid and small ... to me the majority of the world are akin to minions, ie lacking the heroic luck, esp and divine providence and desperate arcane shielding... etc.. all that stuff Gary used to explain advancing hit points.


I get that, but it was still a bit anti-climactic when the group I game with (I was a player at the time) stomped Strahd into the dirt so hard that I don't believe he even got off an offensive move during the encounter. That's really not even the point I'm trying to touch on though. I'm getting off track.

As I said earlier, my experience with the older editions is limited. When I look at the adventures, they seem to be written in such a way that worldly concerns are still concerns. That is to say that I'm given the impression (which may very well be wrong) that the gondola encounter I mentioned earlier would have taken a little more work than a few at-will encounters. When I say that 4E PCs have the potential to break the world around them, I mean that quite literally. In time, I had gained enough of an understanding of the game to find ways to tweak the experience, but it was a bit of a shocker when I was first learning the system.

I have a weird relationship with 4th Edition. Despite what many of my posts may sound like, I do enjoy it. However, I still tend to have a love/hate relationship with it. I feel that there truthfully are things it fixed about D&D, and fixed them so well that I really can't go back to 3rd. At the same time, there are some odd problems that 3rd didn't have that 4th does. As an aside, I'll say the one thing that worries me about 5th Edition is that I believe the designers don't understand what someone like me didn't like about 4th... I didn't hate it; I just think there were things that were "fixed" that didn't need fixed, and (much like what I see from 5th now) a lot of early ideas that were abandoned in favor of a direction I didn't care for.

Using the disease track is a common idea for adding a sense of long term implication ... I think its appropriate for Frodo to be able to have his long term injury.

Lancelot is even presented sometimes as having recieved an injury that never quite healed (Though he was also one of the only Round table knights who was never truly defeated - save in visions).

The only issue I have with a wounding mechanic that it be careful to not create too much of a Death Spiral.

A death spiral is always hard to judge in D&D. In GURPS I don't mind it because I have active defenses. I have a chance to dodge, parry, or block. In D&D, if my opponent beats my AC, I have to take the hit, so mechanics which make my passive defenses worse (in my experience) turn out to be especially harsh and unfun in D&D.

For me, what I had in mind for the condition track was just having conditions that last longer than a simple save. I also believe that some of the broken ways to manipulate 4E saves (like the original version of the Orb wizard) would work better in a system where success and failure weren't such a binary thing.

When I was running 4E, I handled skill challenges in a similar fashion. Often, I didnt have a set number of failures in mind. Instead, I might have a set number of rolls in mind, and the margin or success or margin of failure would determine results. It was more of a sliding scale instead of pass/fail.
 

Garthanos

Arcadian Knight
I get that, but it was still a bit anti-climactic when the group I game with (I was a player at the time) stomped Strahd into the dirt so hard that I don't believe he even got off an offensive move during the encounter. That's really not even the point I'm trying to touch on though. I'm getting off track.
How challenged players are is highly dependent on various elements but largely a choice 4e has made it less up to random chance than previous editions of D&D but obviously still influence by it far more than some other rpgs, That choice is neither just dm or the players some can be attributed to tactical skills but definitely not all (even paying attention to focus fire some may not find heroic), an example unrelated to skill = my players are anti-optimization (they want all around competence from a perceptual angle so even though you can bury the dump stat and concentrate on 1, 2 or 3 stats nope not really acceptable to my players).

At low level the math is geared so level 1 and 2 adversaries even the non-minons are actually lower level than the pcs... in effect it allows you to have a broader range of adversaries in the starting game... similarly at the highest levels prior to the so called math patch feats (which we refuse to use)


It occured to me some of your statements ring in on the man vs machine angle.

In heroic fantasy your heros have "person adversaries" that can be villianized so a trap becomes a mere tool of attrition which may bring the competition between the hero and the living enemy in to a tighter focus in a sense it looses its bite becomes a lesser thing de-emphasided, (an active adversary needs to be interfering with your attempts to break that Gondola)....I think this means you need red-shirts to die for the Indiana Jones while he gets to run away from traps he does trigger like rolling boulders.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Garthanos

Arcadian Knight
For me, what I had in mind for the condition track was just having conditions that last longer than a simple save. I also believe that some of the broken ways to manipulate 4E saves (like the original version of the Orb wizard) would work better in a system where success and failure weren't such a binary thing.

When I was running 4E, I handled skill challenges in a similar fashion. Often, I didnt have a set number of failures in mind. Instead, I might have a set number of rolls in mind, and the margin or success or margin of failure would determine results. It was more of a sliding scale instead of pass/fail.

Binary success and failure is kind of what skill challenges were meant to umm NOT be.. its the same kind of "Yes, but..." mechanic of hit pionts.

I handle skill challenges fairly free form myself awarding multiple successes for ideas that seem just right and similar things but I best like SC with things where progress was visible and obvious like in a chase scene.

I have had some ideas to make longer term character disabling conditions more palletible and stave off... ye old party death spiral. (using the allies are inspired to greater potential by a fallen comrade trope and allowing the player to manage that inspiration to keep them in the game).
 

Argyle King

Legend
How challenged players are is highly dependent on various elements but largely a choice 4e has made it less up to random chance than previous editions of D&D but obviously still influence by it far more than some other rpgs, That choice is neither just dm or the players some can be attributed to tactical skills but definitely not all (even paying attention to focus fire some may not find heroic), an example unrelated to skill = my players are anti-optimization (they want all around competence from a perceptual angle so even though you can bury the dump stat and concentrate on 1, 2 or 3 stats nope not really acceptable to my players).

At low level the math is geared so level 1 and 2 adversaries even the non-minons are actually lower level than the pcs... in effect it allows you to have a broader range of adversaries in the starting game... similarly at the highest levels prior to the so called math patch feats (which we refuse to use)


It occured to me some of your statements ring in on the man vs machine angle.

In heroic fantasy your heros have "person adversaries" that can be villianized so a trap becomes a mere tool of attrition which may bring the competition between the hero and the living enemy in to a tighter focus in a sense it looses its bite becomes a lesser thing de-emphasided, (an active adversary needs to be interfering with your attempts to break that Gondola)....I think this means you need red-shirts to die for the Indiana Jones while he gets to run away from traps he does trigger like rolling boulders.

In the case of my gondola encounter, the PCs won initiative. They targeted the suspension cable and the mechanism which supported the gondola. The encounter was over.

I was not upset they used that as a tactic. I expected it would be one. However, as a new 4E DM at the time, I expected to have at least a round or two of fighting back and forth across the two gondolas.

To touch a little more on what I meant when I said I started to run 4E as though it wasn't fantasy, I'd have to fast forward to the last 4E campaign I GMed. I completely ditched the Points of Light concept and much of the assumed D&D world. Instead, I created a world which embraced many of the "problems" I saw with 4E. I built a world in which some of the gonzo powers and concepts of 4E were part of rather than creating a world that is/was seemingly unaware of what someone like a PC could do. It was common for some red shirt type enemies to have magic wands; I fluffed them as arcane powered sci-fi laser blasters. I had a chase seen what was pretty blatantly ripped off from the old Battle Toads video game; the PCs were riding hover bikes powered by a magic. The plot somehow involved one of the PCs being both the hero of the story and the villain of the story... offhand, I forget the exact details. I had an excellent time running that game, and the players highly enjoyed it. I believe -based on that game- I've had the most success with 4E when I went with a vision which is not how I usually imagine fantasy. That's not a knock on the system; just my observation of how things played out for me.

In the event of the Strahd encounter I mentioned, I remember it going something like this: The GM had the party facing Strahd, a group of what I believe were some kind of minion ghouls, and two portals which generated more ghouls on their initiative count. Memory of the party composition is fuzzy, but I am pretty sure I was playing a Warlord at the time, and I believe we also had a fighter, a rogue, a ranger, and possibly a sorcerer. I remember that we didn't have a controller, but we had a lot of strikers. I remember we won initiative; I remember that because having a warlord in the party (my character) gave us a rather significant boost to our initiative. The rogue used a power which was able to hit Strahd and slow his movement. I remember stunning him somehow, and the striker heavy party pelting him while we largely ignored the minions because the fighter activated a power which did automatic damage when they got close to him. Strahd tried to turn to mist and flee, but his movement was still slowed due to an effect on him, and being insubstantial meant he took more damage from one of the characters due to a feat or a power they had, so he died before he could move. The reason I remember that encounter is because it prompted the GM of the game to start granting solos multiple initiative counts in hopes that they'd actually get to do something.

Neither of those issues are things I believe would be fixed by the suggestions in the OP. It wasn't healing and healing surges that created the problems I noticed. It was that some of the underlying math of the game seemed so heavily weighted in one direction. Later books made steps toward fixing this, but there are still some changes I would make if I were still playing the system. I had been working on a different encounter budget guideline, but I never finished it due to not playing 4E as much anymore. One of the primary reasons for the project is because I built elites and solos differently when I was running my later games. Without going into too much detail, the basic concept was that elites had the benefits of being an elite, but had HP values which were somewhere between what a normal monster and an elite would have; solos still had the benefits of being a solo (save bonuses and extra abilities,) but had HP more in line with an elite. I then just added more creatures and features to each encounter.
 

Jhaelen

First Post
So, what do you think? Want to use this in your 4e games tomorrow? Think a 4e game using this rule might be a little more fun than a typical 4e game? Excited for the versatility of games this might offer you? See any problems I missed? Let me know down in the comments!
I don't think I like it. Part of the reason why 4e is my favorite D&D edition is that I tremendously enjoy that 'roller-coaster' effect in every encounter. What I like better when tinkering with the rules is to adjust recovery rates for powers and/or healing surges. E.g. when traveling overland, you don't recover any healing surges until reaching your destination. Or having back-to-back encounters inbetween which you only recover a single encounter power and can only spend a single surge, etc.

Doing completely away with healing surges strikes me as a bad idea. Too many (excellent) game concepts revolve around it. I'm also unsure if it will help to meet the goal of feeling more 'gritty'.

I'd be more interested in exploring Warbringer's idea, although (or because?!) it would probably result in a completely different play experience.
 

LostSoul

Adventurer
I think you could run a reasonably gritty 4E game with one rule change:

PCs only get one surge back per extended rest.

There are some DMing things you need to do as well:

Set up the world so that locations have levels. Challenges and rewards are based on those levels instead of the party's level.

Use wandering monsters & random encounters to make rest in certain places dangerous.

If a PC wants to attempt an action, make sure the player describes the action. Make a judgement call to determine if that action is feasible or not. Even if the book says the DC is 15, if it's not a feasible action, the PC can't achieve success.
 

I'm A Banana

Potassium-Rich
Jhaelen said:
I'd be more interested in exploring Warbringer's idea, although (or because?!) it would probably result in a completely different play experience.

Indeed it would! The article was giving a way of getting away from that up-and-down experience, toward one that is explicitly a slow slide to zero. This is to enhance the feel of resource management and conflict avoidance that is weaker in a game with that experience.

That's not to say one is better than the other per se, just that they're different, and one can have a preference for either one. 4e sort of left those with a preference for the latter hanging.

That's also not to say that this is supposed to solve everyone's problem with all of 4e. Just that if the slow slide is an experience you're fond of, and you missed that in 4e, this can help you get to it. Or if you'd like to give it a try, you can try it within 4e like this and see if you like it.

And if you like the way 4e does it already, no sweat. It clearly does what it needs to for you. :)
 

Herobizkit

Adventurer
I haven't read the previous comments (shame on me), but wouldn't it be more efficient to attack their Healing Surges directly? This would give a sort of artificial ablative armor or Wound Points, but would make some attacks seem more spectacular. Also, you could make a Critical automatically swipe a Healing Surge in damage in addition to the regular damage. It could makes for BIG tension when the guy who just got whacked with a critical also lost his last Healing Surge...
 

Remove ads

Remove ads

Top