D&D 4E How have PCs died in your 4e games?

[eamon]

Every group I play with lets the 'make a melee attack against three targets' acceptable for marking purposes, so it makes some things easier in that respect. I do wonder how much of WotC thinks one way or another on that ruling, though. I'm pretty sure certain monsters would have been designed differently if they'd been thinking about it that way.

To be sure, I see that argument for some monsters (essentially; those are design errors). However, the monsters' attacks are clearly labelled as being melee, ranged, area or close by means of symbols, and the PHB specifically addresses melee attacks that target multiple enemies in the grey box on p. 270:

Targeted: Melee attacks target individuals. A melee attack against multiple enemies consists of separate attacks, each with their own attack and damage roll.
​

By contrast close attacks talk of an area of effect which may contain multiple targets and share a damage roll.

So if you get a bonus (or whatever) on your next attack, then that bonus applies to only a single melee attack but possibly several targets of a close attack. And if you're marked, then the mark penalty is separately evaluated for each attack individually.

So, while there are monsters where the usage of multiple attacks doesn't make sense (rule 0 those), in the general case it's all rather explicit: multiple melee attack targets are resolved as separate attacks. And in the hydra's case, that makes perfect sense: that hydra really is making fully independent attacks with the advantages (he can focus fire, PC imposed penalties to a single attack apply only to one target) and disadvantages (marking) that implies.

 

[keterys]

Actually, it's easier to get a revenant killed. Stay up when you get knocked negative as much as possible.

 

[Gradine]

As a player, should I grow bored with my current character but don't want to just abandon it and get a new one, does anyone have any tips for arranging my own death while making it look like an accident?

I don't mean the character RPing away his own accidental death, I mean "accidentally" dying through normal combat - something that looks like it wasn't planned.

Say "Hey guys, let's split up!"

Choose the party without the healer.

Prepare baked goods for your fellow players as a way of saying "I'm sorry."

 

[Aulirophile]

Every group I play with lets the 'make a melee attack against three targets' acceptable for marking purposes, so it makes some things easier in that respect. I do wonder how much of WotC thinks one way or another on that ruling, though. I'm pretty sure certain monsters would have been designed differently if they'd been thinking about it that way.

? A melee attack, regardless of how many times it is made, targets one creature per attack, and has one damage roll. If the creature attacked isn't the marker, the attack violated the mark. Ditto ranged.

Area/Close have multiple attack rolls, but one damage roll. They attack all targets simultaneously.

All in the PHB, cross reference "how to read a power" with pages 270-273 that detail each attack type. It is pretty clear.

An attack is defined on PHB. 269 as rolling to see if you hit. So rolling a d20 is "an attack." Not be confused with Attack Power, etc., page 57, not all attack powers have attack rolls, therefore not all attack powers attack.

I realize it is spread out across 9 pages in the front and back of the book, but that is the RAW.

 

[keterys]

Yes, it is RAW. I'm almost positive that many people at WotC don't realize it works that way - which puts RAI in doubt, and as I said, _every_ group I play with - which is five groups - does not play that way.

In at least two cases, I'm sure if I tried to explain the RAW they'd think I was nuts.

I know a few prominent monster builders outside of WotC who clearly don't work that way too. It's very easy to find monsters from WotC or elsewhere that just aren't designed with that in mind.

 

[eamon]

Yes, it is RAW. I'm almost positive that many people at WotC don't realize it works that way - which puts RAI in doubt, and as I said, _every_ group I play with - which is five groups - does not play that way.

In at least two cases, I'm sure if I tried to explain the RAW they'd think I was nuts.

I know a few prominent monster builders outside of WotC who clearly don't work that way too. It's very easy to find monsters from WotC or elsewhere that just aren't designed with that in mind.

I disagree (on the intent), but this discussion does seem familiar. I'll update there to avoid further derailment...

 

[Otterscrubber]

Well 7 pages of character deaths, so it does appear folks do die in 4e. Here are some that I recall:

1) Fight in the underdark, our party was crossing a bridge into a duergar fort. The ranger decided to stay on the bridge, which was just a stone archway with no railings, and got blasted off the side by some duergar bolters and suffered severe decceleration trauma when he hit the ground. At least we assumed so, it was a long fall and we never saw him again.

2) Wizard, 9th level died, in the final fight of our heroic campaign against 2 Heralds of Hadar and a mind flayer. Those are tough and prevented us from using healing surges. The wizard rolled particularly badly and didn't do a great job of keeping himself out of the beat zone. Although we did a great job, got a little lucky and took out the mind flayer quickly, it was not enough to save all of us.

 

[Crazy_Dragon]

The reason I didn't add DM nastiness to the equation is because I think that I am a DM who is pretty tough and the PCs still do not fall unconscious too ofent and never die.

For example, I don't fudge dice rolls (I roll in front of the players), I don't fudge which PC to attack, and two thirds or more of my encounter are N+2 or higher. Most of my encounters have some type of hindering or damaging terrain. And I play my monsters as dangerous as I can make them (for example, I used a Hydra on Sunday that was marked by the Fighter, so would attack the Fighter with one head and some other easier to hit PC with the other heads, I didn't do this in the first melee round for the Hydra, but once the Hydra couldn't really hit the Fighter, it went off in search of easier prey).

I don't use PC Passive Perception for hidden stuff (players have to explicitly look around). My theory is that if it is hidden, then one cannot spot it unless explicitly looking for it. And I don't give out Monster Knowledge checks for free (mostly because I don't think to do so and in most fights, my players don't remember to do so either).

Overall from a push over to rat bastard DM rating of 1 to 10, I'd give myself a 7 or 8. The only nice thing I tend to do that I can think of is that I don't typically use a Coup De Grace on a downed PC (I have on occasion, but it requires specific circumstances like a reoccuring villain or something), then again, the PCs are rarely down.

The problem is one of splat books IMO. As more time goes on, the PCs get more and more capable and their synergies get more and more powerful.

The monsters stay the same. Sure, the DM can go out of his way to find specific monster synergies that work well together, but that's harder to do day in and day out than it is for the players to find a good combo once and retrain into it.

You are doing it wrong

For example, if you’re walking through an area you expect to be safe and thus aren’t actively looking around for danger, you’re taking 10 on your Perception check to notice hidden objects or enemies. If your Perception check is high enough, or a creature rolls poorly on its Stealth check, you might notice the creature even if you aren’t actively looking for it.

 

[KarinsDad]

You are doing it wrong

DM perogative.

Stupid rules should be ignored.

The problem with passive perception is that the PCs either always notice something, or never notice something (shy of taking an active check).

That's a stupid rule.


If something is hidden in my game, it's hidden for a reason. It's not hidden so that the super perceptive PC always notices it, or the less perceptive PC can never notice it because his bonus for Perception is 10 or more less than the super perceptive PC.


The concept that "only the player that boosted perception out the ying yang" can notice anything is nonsense. Every PC should be able to notice the obvious stuff. Most PCs that search should sometimes be able to find the hidden stuff unless it is really hidden well.

If a book is lost under the large opaque chair and it cannot be spotted while standing in the room, no person should be able to find it without bending down and looking under the chair, even if the DC to find it is lower than the passive perception of the super perceptive PC. He does not have x-ray vision, so it doesn't matter if the DC is 5. He doesn't see the book until he looks under the chair.


Another example. I have a hidden safe. The best perception in the party is a +20 and the PC perception range in the party is +10 to +20. This is a hidden safe that I WANT the PCs to find. So, I make the DC to find it fairly low. I make it a 22.

This is still a hidden safe. One has to look for it. If the DM just arbitrary uses the Passive Perception rule from the PHB without using his brain, then any PC in the group with a +12 or better spots it the moment they enter the room. To me, this is not good story telling. It's spoon feeding the players.

Rather, after the encounter, the PCs split up and search the room and are likely, but not guaranteed, to find it. The story continues with two possible story arcs. The more likely "they find the safe" and the less likely "they don't find the safe".

If the DM just makes it a set DC and the group assumes that the super perceptive PC always searches everywhere, then the DC of the safe has to be higher than the passive perception of the super perceptive PC, but lower than his passive perception + 21 in order for there to be a chance that it is found. And once the DM does that, if that super perceptive PC is incapacitated, then the rest of the party typically doesn't have a chance. Plus, the odds of finding the hidden safe is < 50%. There is no 80% chance to find the hidden safe.

My approach does not assume that the super perceptive PC searches everywhere. I ask in my game, "Who is searching where?" when the players decide to search. We happen to have 3 high perception PCs in our current group out of 5, so they often find everything. But a few weeks back, one player rolled low and didn't find the gem hidden in the shoe of a dead foe. Oh well. I don't allow a different player to say "that player rolled low, so my PC comes over and searches for her".

In WotC's attempt to make the game simpler, they actually put in some dorky rules that don't work with certain DM story telling styles. DMs should ignore dorky rules that don't work for them.