D&D 4E How to build encounters in 4e (aka Only you can prevent Grindspace!)

[kilpatds]

2) Infernal Pact Warlock - this is a trap. Not only do warlocks in general do less damage, the Infernal Pact Boon is defensive and grindy (temp HP are inherently

I personally don't find the Hexhammer build to be grindy, but that may be because after choosing Infernal Warlock and Armor, everything else goes to offense, that they generally run into Melee despite being in theory a ranged class, and that their Ref and Will NACDs are all really weak.

3) Bow Ranger - this is a bit of mixed bag. The bow ranger does fantastic amounts of damage, but it is grindy in 2 ways - if the bow ranger is constantly staying out of range, they're in less threat and there's less drama, and the ranger class in general has a tendency to fall into "move - twin strike - repeat" which can be a little boring for some players. This is less grindy than the first two, but I still think melee ranger makes for more excitement.

I see your point, but this is also perhaps the easiest class for the casual gamer to use ... for exactly the same reason.

I'd also add Battlerager fighters to your list.

 

[KarinsDad]

Interesting and informative thread. I haven't read it all, but I really like a lot of what I have read.

One counter comment though.

Early on, you mentioned having fewer tougher encounters rather than the core suggested ones to avoid grind. This suggestion has two issues that I can see:

1) If the DM does this all or most of the time, it is just a different type of grind. It's a stressful challenge grind that the players must always be on their toes and the smallest mistake can turn deadly or into a TPK. Although I like to be challenged and thrive in that environment, I can see mistakes in this environment eventually resulting in PC death or TPK or even player conflict. DND is a game and games are meant to be fun, but almost always challenging players can be just as much unfun as rarely challenging players.

2) I have seen even relatively easy encounters take a long time and use up a lot of resources, just due to bad player die rolls and/or good DM die rolls. If most or all of the encounters are on the higher end, an unbalanced die roll encounter (which does happen once in a while) will result in death or TPK more often, just because the dice are not being cooperative. Adding to this the fact that earlier encounters were designed to use up party resources can exacerbate the situation.


Not to say that the DM should go way out of his way to avoid PC death, but higher EL encounters most of the time will cause this eventually, regardless of player decisions and PC design.

I do see where a lesser number of higher EL encounters can avoid grind or the perception of grind more than a greater number of lower EL encounters, I just also see that there are pros and cons with the approach.

 

[Vayden]

1) If the DM does this all or most of the time, it is just a different type of grind. It's a stressful challenge grind that the players must always be on their toes and the smallest mistake can turn deadly or into a TPK. Although I like to be challenged and thrive in that environment, I can see mistakes in this environment eventually resulting in PC death or TPK or even player conflict. DND is a game and games are meant to be fun, but almost always challenging players can be just as much unfun as rarely challenging players.

In my experience, the players enjoy being challenged. And they'll surprise you often enough by steam-rolling something you thought was tough. This doesn't mean you shouldn't throw in the occasional change of pace easy encounter, but by and large the tough ones are more fun for everyone in my opinion.

2) I have seen even relatively easy encounters take a long time and use up a lot of resources, just due to bad player die rolls and/or good DM die rolls. If most or all of the encounters are on the higher end, an unbalanced die roll encounter (which does happen once in a while) will result in death or TPK more often, just because the dice are not being cooperative. Adding to this the fact that earlier encounters were designed to use up party resources can exacerbate the situation.

(Doing some math in my head) Let's see . . . since I started 4e - killed 3 PCs from one group in the KotS Ironwhatever encounter - TPKed one party of 3 at the end of KotS, killed 2 other PCs in that campaign (though one was a paladin sacrificing himself, so I won't count that one); TPKed the 3-person paragon group; killed 2 people in the paragon group, leaving the 3rd with 3 hp . . . almost TPKed the group(s) 3-4 times . . .

So, 2 TPKs, total of 12 PC kills unless I'm forgetting any. So yes, it can be a deadly style. Most of those kills though were the result of the party missing key components due to absences - the defender didn't show up for the first TPK, the warlord didn't show up for the 2nd, etc. Still, if you're uncomfortable with ever having PC death, this may not be for you.

**Edit** I should add that those 12 kills are over 9 months of DMing twice a week. And four of them are one player, who my dice hate. So it's not quite as deadly as this post made it look. **/Edit**

 

[Vayden]

And, once again, Penny Arcade says it all so much better and more concisely:

Penny Arcade! - The Old Ways

 

[Wraith Form]

1) Cliffs - the old classic. Simple, and easy to understand - if you push/slide/bull-rush someone off, they're ****ed. Some variations you can throw in to spice them up - multi-level cliffs/ledges, so that being knocked off just moves the fight up or down, and various types of railings/parapets on the edge (provide a +2 situational bonus to the save vs falling off, but get destroyed the first time someone gets knocked into them).

2) Rivers, Lakes, and other bodies of water - again, quick and simple to understand, but they can get brilliant with creative use. For instance, in the paragon game I'm playing in, we recently ran into an army of elementals (the nasty minions I mentioned), led by two huge elemental lords. Feeling safe because we were on the other side of a swift and hazardous river, we opened up on elemental lords from range. At that point, one of the two lords submerged himself in the river and froze the entire river into a solid surface, allowing the other lord and the army to attack us. Thanks to Wall of Fire, we survived long enough to kill the elemental lord attacking us, at which point the first lord became enraged and rose out of the river (unfreezing it and drowning his army) to attack us. It provided a great changing environment and forced us to adapt our tactics repeatedly (including eventually retreating) as the battle shifted into different phases with the changes to the river.

3) Lava - another classic. One of my highest level characters ever (16-17 or so in Iron Heroes) died ignominously at the end of the campaign when the Goddess of the Underworld hit him with an attack that knocked him 100 feet out into a lake of lava. I'm a strong believer in the simplified Lava rules floating around the web, so I took it like a man.

First, as a fledgling DM in 4th edition, this thread will be invaluable as I craft adventures, so...thank you!

I'd really enjoy hearing more terrain options and how they'll effect the flow of combat. Heck, it might even be worthwhile to create an additional thread for it if people get inspired..!

 

[KarinsDad]

(Doing some math in my head) Let's see . . . since I started 4e - killed 3 PCs from one group in the KotS Ironwhatever encounter - TPKed one party of 3 at the end of KotS, killed 2 other PCs in that campaign (though one was a paladin sacrificing himself, so I won't count that one); TPKed the 3-person paragon group; killed 2 people in the paragon group, leaving the 3rd with 3 hp . . . almost TPKed the group(s) 3-4 times . . .

So, 2 TPKs, total of 12 PC kills unless I'm forgetting any. So yes, it can be a deadly style. Most of those kills though were the result of the party missing key components due to absences - the defender didn't show up for the first TPK, the warlord didn't show up for the 2nd, etc. Still, if you're uncomfortable with ever having PC death, this may not be for you.

**Edit** I should add that those 12 kills are over 9 months of DMing twice a week. And four of them are one player, who my dice hate. So it's not quite as deadly as this post made it look. **/Edit**

Assuming you play over the holidays, that's 1 death every 6 sessions.

Seems a bit harsh.

I have no problem with PC death, but this does seem excessive.

It would appear that my issue #2 might be the cause (especially for the player who your dice hates).

It's important for people who read this thread to understand how brutal this can be before they use it. Thanks for posting your experiences using it.

 

[AbelCodeMonk]

3) Bow Ranger - this is a bit of mixed bag. The bow ranger does fantastic amounts of damage, but it is grindy in 2 ways - if the bow ranger is constantly staying out of range, they're in less threat and there's less drama, and the ranger class in general has a tendency to fall into "move - twin strike - repeat" which can be a little boring for some players. This is less grindy than the first two, but I still think melee ranger makes for more excitement.

This depends a lot on Ranger build.

Eg, I'm playing a wood elf archer ranger with a maxed attack stat, superior crossbow, preference for encounter powers over dailies, and roge multiclass. At 4th level, I had +11 attack bonus (with one elven attack reroll) and could deal some serious damage. One interrupt attack, for 13.5 avg damage. One attack as a minor action, for 13.5 avg, and one standard action attack for 30 avg, plus hunter's quarry and sneak attack. (Plus a few more encounter powers for more damage in later rounds - but I can, and routinely do, drop all of the above in one round.) At 4th level, I was dealing 67.5 avg damage in an early round, when everything hits (and a really good chance of that happening). By itself, that can really help avoid grindspace - an elite -67 HP is no longer such an HP pool.

Also, an archer ranger is dex focused. That means acrobatics. And nimble strike deals almost the same damage as twin strike (as long as you've got a high attack bonus). Combination means a lot of movement options. So there's always something interesting to do. Even when dumping at-wills for a round, I'm to be found running along the tops of book cases, leaping down chasms to get into position, and generally stunting.

So, I'd say that a good archer ranger build has a lot of options every round that beat "stand here and use twin strike".

Also, my AC from a distance is obscene (Cloak of Distortion), so the baddies always try to get in real close after I draw aggro in the first round. Which requires a lot of scampering on my part.

 

[Nail]

I should add that those 12 kills are over 9 months of DMing twice a week.

TWICE

A


WEEK?



.......You lucky b@$!@&)!!!

 

[KarinsDad]

TWICE

A


WEEK?



.......You lucky b@$!@&)!!!

No wonder he is posting about avoiding the grind.

 

[Nail]

No wonder he is posting about avoiding the grind.

I'd love to have that kind of problem.

(Twice a week gaming? Great-goggly-moggly! I feel lucky if a group meets twice a month!)