How fast does PC damage rise relative to monster hit points?

[pemerton]

My own runepriest deals around 80 dmg on a standard round (level 26) but he does use frost. Honestly, it's probably not the best choice for your group - I'm just trying to sell the runepriest

Sounds strong. The zones may not be optimal, but the floating +5 to damage could be popular! The paladin has Wrath of the Gods (+9 damage for one encounter per day), which is very popular with his friends!

I like the idea of the runepriest, but it's never come up in my game. The paladin has been there since 1st level, which was Jan 2009, so two months before PHB2 and a whole year before PHB3. (The fighter is also original. The sorcerer joined at 3rd ie just after the release of PHB2. The ranger was original, but rebuilt as a hybrid cleric at 6th, ie about 1 year in. The wizard was also original, but rebuilt as an invoker with wizard multi-class at 15th, following death and resurrection.)

is there an official ruling on how vulnerable all and vulnerable x interact? (We play it like all is its own type.)

They don't stack - use the worst - unless you are a victim of entropic slaads, in which case it all stacks!

 

[pemerton]

I was thinking of a completely-story-free challenge.

I think that could be fun, though you would want to know the system very well to get PCs built in that timeframe!

The other risk I see is that without an established context, the table mindset to support page 42 stuff may not be as strong, which means you may not get the really wild stuff that I think makes the game fun.

But if the group is already established, past experience could cover for this.

Make sure you post play reports!

 

[Manbearcat]

4e often ends up being : linear player/quadratic party - since synergies can get better and better. Party make-up not only has a big impact on play experience, it has different impacts depending upon tier of play.

From my experience (anecdotal, etc, etc)
- striker and controller party : quick and brutal at heroic, tactically proficient players will destroy paragon (tactical choices matter and less proficient players can face difficulties), quite swingy at epic*.
*Note: add-in a touch of save granting and the extra-swing is replaced by incredible monster destruction power.

...

- leader heavy group : pretty long and predictable fights at heroic, some impressive "nova buffing" going one at paragon. At epic... well, as long as the main dps is operative: some impressive sequences can play out. Loose access to that main dps and it all goes to crap*.
*By "crap", I mean that the fights become very long and very draining for the players.

...

Striker and controller parties require some party investment in save-granting/condition removal to be more enjoyable to me (I'm not a fan of "surprise=win" and extra-swing in my combats) but they will destroy encounters in a very dramatic and explosive fashion. As a DM, it took me a bit to find the fun in that (forgot not to love my "supposed-to-be-recurring-NPCs and just roll with it), but after I got with the program : it's was very satisfying.

Very good post here.

I think for your "leader-heavy group" you need to add "The Warlord Caveat." My first 4e game featured 3 PCs; a DPS/OA optimized Fighter, Twin Strike melee Ranger, and a Warlord that would enormously force-multiply both. I think that would fit your "leader-heavy group" (1/3 of the PCs). In effect, it basically turned out to be a 3 striker party with heavy melee control, skirmishing capacity, lots of survivability, short on the ranged/AoE capacity. Put them against heavy control elements, terrain, hazards, and protected artillery and they'd struggle. Short of that? Everything was a beatdown.

My second 4e game featured your striker/controller setup; Bladesinger, (Duelist) Rogue, Swarm Druid (rebuilt several times into varying specs from severe control to hybrid warlord with lots of summoning/animal companinos and force-multiplying). It was particularly nasty against everything, to be honest. And fights were not long. A level + 2 combat that lasted more than 4 rounds was out of the norm. Their SOP setup funneled the Brutes/Skirmishers/Soldiers/Minions to the Bladesinger who basically had perma-bladesong and was a supercharged, OA-riposte factory while the Rogue and Druid burned down Artillery, Leaders, and Lurkers. For the encounter budget of 3 PCs, it was an extremely difficult group to solve. All 3 PCs were extremely survivable and mobile as well. Enormous number of shifts, teleports, defense augments (minor actions, riders, and immediate actions), damage reduction (including elements), daily attack denials, etc. The best strategy for causing them problems were to ablate their collective Healing Surges through Skill Challenges and then spend a fair share of combat encounter budgets on traps/hazards that protected hard-to-get-at, heavy-hitting Artillery.

I see people talk about the slog of 4e regularly. I've never seen it in person. Part of that is because I've only played with 3 PCs (+ 1 companion). Part of that is because my players are decisive and quick on their feet (as am I) and we don't do the deliberate excessively on your turn Curiously enough, whereas people always say that off-turn actions slow the game down, I've actually found the inverse. Part of that is because of the prevalence of off-turn actions (used decisively) for the Fighter/Bladesinger/Rogue that worked out to be considerable supplementation of the round's aggregate damage output for team PC. I think I said before that each turn of the PCs would take somewhere around 45 second - 1 minute to declare action and resolve. I might take 1.5 - 2 minutes for the entirety of enemy actions and book-keeping. 5 minutes per round (max) * 4 rounds is a typical 20 minute fight. Drawing the map would take 5-10 minutes (less if I had them help). Big time, set-pieces with huge encounter budgets would be 2 - 2.5 * that amount of time and the far end of the spectrum in time for setup...so maybe 50 minutes to an hour.

Haven't witnessed a low DPR, high # of PC, heavy deliberation of each action groups where off-turn actions bog down play. I can conceive it...just haven't seen it.

 

[MoutonRustique]

They don't stack - use the worst - unless you are a victim of entropic slaads, in which case it all stacks!

I thought as much... well I'll keep playing it as stacking : I find it strange that if you deal ALL x, only x applies but as soon as there is a 1 point of something else, both apply...

Especially when juxtaposed to x and y vulnerable which do stack.

That was one of the major mistakes of 4e for me - having untyped damage. It just leads to weird stuff...

[MENTION=6696971]Manbearcat[/MENTION]
That first party was a very strong group indeed!

It'd be curious to compare all martial Vs all primal, Vs all divine, etc parties in terms of feel and capabilities... My gut feeling is something along the lines of :

All martial : very strong. Requires a few items against specific foes to make life easier, but other than that... very strong.
- Fighter : great tank, high damage
- Ranger : great damage, nice utility
- Rogue : great damage, nice utility
- Warlord : good healer, immense synergy with melee classes
- Knight : meh, good enough
- Slayer : for those who really need the top of the sheet to say fighter and don't want to tank
- Scout : a slightly lower damage ranger, but with a wider variety of competing options in play (only played this one once)
special note: will require some characters to invest in some items or builds to avoid too much overlap and to cover some deficiencies (energy damage, AoE, ranged damage, mobility, social encounters, etc.)

All divine : pretty strong. Might require some more system mastery to get a party as effective as all martial. Stupid strong against some foes (undead? don't bother friend, you're better off staying in your crypt...) Damage might be a bit harder to come by, but there are very strong leader, tanking and control options. Feels like it might lead to a "slow and steady" kind of group.
- Paladin : ok tank, nice secondary leader, some interesting utility
- Cleric : very good leader (potentially ridiculous healer), good utility (rituals and +)
- Runepriest : ok leader, good synergy with low-mobility allies, potential utility
- Avenger : a very mobile striker, can work as a form of off-tank
- Invoker : very strong control and utility (rituals)
- Warpriest : a strong leader (I'm told) with off-tanking capabilities
special note: a high ratio of radiant damage - which is almost always very good. Some excellent social skills. Could have some troubles with stealth... Awesome roleplaying hooks built-in.

All primal : hard control might be an issue... but then again, maybe not. Damage output certainly isn't. Haven't had a chance to play many of the classes...
- Barbarian : ARGGHHHHH!! DAMAGE! (hehe) with the possibility of very strong minion destruction and good physical challenge utility
- Druid : good control (but harder to build right) and some leader possibilities, excellent utility
- Seeker : controller - but is considered weaker than others (too much soft-control), offers impressive versatility in play though.
- Shaman : good leader, potential off-tank, excellent utility
- Berserker : a cool idea - starts encounter as tank, finish as striker
- Warden : a very strong tank (melee control)
special note: versatility of damage types is a non-issue, undead could prove challenging and control can be a bit more challenging. Travel-type challenges will be laughed at

All arcane : oohh, this one's for me! (as a personal prefence) These groups would probably always be on the move and create some very dramatic fights - unless they hard-control everything... Single-large foes might take a bit more time to go down, but groups vulnerable to AoE would explode! This would probably more tactically-savvy players as they would be pretty squishy if allowed into bad positioning... (An excellent shielding swordmage would do wonders in this setup.)
- Wizard : excellent control, excellent utility
- Swordmage : can be a very strong tank, tends to have lower damage, high combat utility but has a fairly high system mastery/game play power variance (but SO much fun)
- Artificer : a good leader with excellent utility
- Sorcerer : things will go boom. A lot. (also has a fairly high power variance)
- Warlock : dripping with story. Mechanics wise, ok damage and potential control. Some cool variants.
- Mageblade : strikery-control. Very, very cool. Some options much stronger than others (high power variance)
special note: versatility of damage types is a non-issue. Most classes are fairly squishy : tanking, mobility and action-denial are critical assets. Excellent out-of-combat utility. May be easy to dupe (low insight scores... hehehe). Could tend to have lower single-target damage output, but control options can cancel that draw-back. Groups of enemies will be obliterated.

All psionic : my greatest regret is not having played this game yet! While I don't like the psionic fluff, their mechanics look like so much fun! (And they're easy to re-fluff into arcane!) I have NO way of knowing if it would work, but I'm pretty confident it would.
special note: On paper, this reads like the one with the greatest breath of tactics.

All shadow : yeah... IMO that's a stupid power source. Somebody else do this one.

[will be continued]

 

[Manbearcat]

[MENTION=6696971]Manbearcat[/MENTION]
That first party was a very strong group indeed!

It'd be curious to compare all martial Vs all primal, Vs all divine, etc parties in terms of feel and capabilities... My gut feeling is something along the lines of :

I'll try to keep this, in part, along the lines of your evaluation by power source theme.

Curiously enough, the second group was definitely more powerful than the first due to their versatility. I know CharOP "common sense" says:

- Fighter best defender
- Twin Strike Ranger best/most damaging striker
- Warlord best force multiplier, especially with the aforementioned two.

However, in a smaller group, there needs to be at least 1 "swingman" and there needs to be a breadth of resources to handle the varying situations that are going to come up in play. That group curb-stomped stuff in their sweetspot like no other. However, there were several holes that I can think of off the top of my head:

- Reflex saves
- Bursts/Blasts
- Elemental damage (which typically comes in the form of Ref saves and Bursts/Blasts!)
- Aura damage
- Battlefields with heavy control by way of hazards/traps (especially that attack Ref) or challenging terrain
- Well-protected, ranged Leaders that would augment Skirmishers or well-protected Artillery
- Minion heavy fights (especially coupled with a ranged ArtilleryController//Leader that would force-multiply them or make life difficult for the PCs)

Comparatively, the second group had a relatively small number of "holes in their game."

To your "evaluation by power source them", they also had a much more complete, aggregate suite of noncombat resources. This is definitely, in part, due to the Arcane, Martial, Primal setup of the group. In every sort of noncombat conflict that needed to be resolved, they had, at least, two of the three characters that had strength. Further, where Group Checks were needed to be made, they had enough overlap in competency, if not outright strength, to make 2 of the 3 required successes.

Finally, also due to the Arcane, Martial, Primal setup of the group, their swathe of stunting/terrain interaction capabilities was much more broad than the first group (which is no small thing in a game like 4e where stunting and interaction with mundane/fantastic terrain is meant to play a large role in combat resolution).

 

[MoutonRustique]

Indeed!

I was only seeing numbers in my head with your first group - but you're quite right that in a "standard" 4e game, having a breath of options goes a very long way.