Length and difficulty of combats

[keterys]

Right.

At 1st level, at At-Will does 1[W] + bonuses
At 19th level, an At-Will does 1[W] + Bonuses

Assuming I'm actually trying to deal damage, instead of something a bit more utilitarian...

My bard went from 1d6+4 damage at 1st to 1d6+20 damage at 14th.

From 1st to 11th level, my fighter went from 1d10+4 damage to 1d10+26 damage.

Barbarian was 3d6 + 6 at 1st and 5d6 + 36 at 17th.

Warlord went from 1d8 + 4 to 1d10 + 13 at 14th on his at-will, but I barely get a chance to use them.

So each about tripled their at-will except the warlord who more typically hits for 2d10 + 13. Which isn't enough to counterbalance the hp gap from 1st to that level, but it's a very sizable chunk. And it is enough to balance the hp gap from, say, 4th to those levels.

But, I also didn't have Sweeping Blow or Come and Get It at 1st, and those make a big difference when I can hit multiple guys. Or Menacing Thunder to hit multiple enemies and give my allies +2 attack. Nevermind the action point to give all my allies +6 attack and damage for a round. Or the warlord whose minor actions tend to give people +5 or +6 damage against an enemy and standards tend to give +6 or +7 damage. Warlord's Attrition or Strike plus Inspired Belligerence and stuff just dies very, very quickly.

And I've got similar results from other folks I know. In the house rules forum, the truly solo thread has one DM whose giving something resist 30 because all the partys at-wills do over 20 and he doesn't want the at-will to pierce, plus Mesh Hong suggesting bumping hp of a solo by 60% so that it gets to last more than two rounds.

I do know some people who dealt, say, 1d12+4 at 1st level and deal 1d12+9 at 18th level, though, and sure - get enough of those together and things will go slower. So I'd suggest taking proactive steps to get those people dealing more damage.

But, yeah, my biggest problem _hands down_ is with individual people who are slow. I actually tracked it on one game that was going slowly, compared to the other two paragon games I play, and the DM regularly takes 12 minutes to figure out what monsters are doing while everyone of the 17th level PCs finish up their stuff in a minute or less.

 

[Iron Sky]

Stuff

^^^ What keterys said.


In our game, my ranger went from doing:

1d10+4/3 x 2 + 1d6 damage with twin strike (call it 15 average damage or so with my hit rate at the time) at level 6 to

1d8 + 13/8 x 2 (7 on a miss) + 2d8 + 14 to one target + 7 to another(minimum 28 damage, 35 if two targets, if I miss with everything) Average damage is more like 45-50, and that's assuming Frost Cheese isn't triggered (adds about 8-9 more damage if it is) - all of this ignoring crits, which give my range a free MBA and do +3d8 more than they did at 6.

Our rogue went from 1d4 + 15 + 2d8 at 6 to 1d4 + 20 + 3d8 or so at 16 (though add in an 18-20 crit range and crits regularly breaking 100).

Our cleric went from 1d8 + 7 or so to 1d8 + 14, but at 16 he also had a pile of AoEs and a 19-20 crit range (and enough healing to keep us up through a hurricane of razor blades).

At level 18 we took out the BBEG of the campaign - a level 22-3? solo + a trap/hazard between us and him + 2 soldier body-guards - in less than 3 rounds, 1 of which the BBEG spent dazed, the last 2 stunned.

We paused the campaign when we hit epic. My ranger's damage went up about 20% from 18, and we're short on gear compared to the DMG guidelines...


Monster HP haven't been an issue in our games.

 

[Mesh Hong]

sorry if I've come to this thread a little late.

In another thread the issue of grindiness and combat length was brought up. I decided I wanted to discuss this aspect of 4e more so here's a thread for it.

My take on this is that I think a lot of DM's wrongly assume that combat in 4e is too easy. I think a lot of DM's attempt to compensate for this by throwing large and difficult encounters at the PC's, which in turn makes combats far longer than they're generally meant to be.

An encounter is too easy, or trivial, if the PCs do not expend any healing surges or use any daily powers. My personal opinion on this is that unless it was a backdrop for revealing a major plot point it was a waste of valuable game time and design effort.

This is probably the only situation that I have come across as being the definition of grind. Going through the motions with no threat or motivation other than the abstract notion of xp gain.

I don't think most DM's realise that 70% or so of combats SHOULD be easy for the PC's. Combats are a stepping stone in a process of investigation and story building. They should form a part of that process and be obstacles that the heroes need to overcome. They shouldn't, however, dominate the play experience.

By my definition 0% of combats should be easy, not 70%, but I do realise that our definitions are not the same.

Combat should be part of the story, usually the business end. Combat is part of the exploration or resolution phase of an adventure. The investigation and decision phases usually do not include combat, or if they do they are probably so low key that they can be decided with a bit of description and a skill challenge.

I agree that combat shouldn’t dominate the play experience, but it will usually decide the outcome.

Combats serve many purposes but ideally, most combats are merely hiccups, and shouldn't be the cause of indigestion. They provide rewards, XP, and further clues to help the story progress. 70% of combats are stormtroopers, with a few battle droids and the odd AT-AT.

Then you rescue the princess, steal the battle plans, and run for your life.

I do see what you are saying but if a combat is easy then why do you need to “rescue the princess, steal the battle plans, and run for your life”? Why don’t you just stand your ground and kill everything. Surely you would be more inclined to get the job done and leg it if you were facing an overwhelming or serious threat?

It's only when you face off with an important NPC that a combat should ever be deadly or difficult. An important question DM's should ask themselves when building large or very tough encounters is, "What purpose does this encounter serve and how does it drive the story forward in a meaningful way?"

It’s a fair point, but a DM should be asking themselves that question when designing any encounter or story element.

As I have previously alluded to I believe that any combat should be meaningful and have a story point, no combat should be trivial.

If every encounter is at the level of Darth Maul and his entourage, then the DM is doing something very wrong. I mean... if everyone is having fun with that style of play, then sure, whatever, but if they're complaining that combats are taking too long, even if they defeat them all (and even if the combats are fairly tough, the odds are still in the PC's favour, it just means things take much longer and they have to rest more often), then the DM really has to take a step back and adjust both his expectations and his understanding of the game's mechanics.

At least, that's what I think. What do you think?

Here is where it gets interesting. My own experience is that the whole style of play changes depending on what tier the PCs are in.

1: Heroic: Lots of encounters, many as you say at standard level or even 1 below with encounters rarely being deadly.

2: Paragon: Less encounters, many still at standard or level +1, but with more deadly and a few potentially lethal encounters.

3: Epic: Fewer still encounters, all encounters are at least dangerous, lots are deadly and some are potentially overwhelming.

In my game my 6 PCs are close to level 25. I have pretty much abandoned the encounter design and monster creation guide, I have had to as Epic characters really have to face Epic threats. Everything my PCs do has an impact on the game world, some of those impacts are massive and long reaching. The stakes are high and they have everything to lose…..

In conclusion I pretty much agree with you in designing a Heroic tier story. But I think your approach becomes less relevant as you progress through Paragon tier and is redundant in Epic tier.

Of course this is only my opinion and experience. The beauty of roleplaying games is that everyone interprets their world and game experience in their own way.

 

[Jhaelen]

By my definition 0% of combats should be easy, not 70%, but I do realise that our definitions are not the same.

Combat should be part of the story, usually the business end. Combat is part of the exploration or resolution phase of an adventure. The investigation and decision phases usually do not include combat, or if they do they are probably so low key that they can be decided with a bit of description and a skill challenge.

I've been thinking recently that 4e is lacking something that Ars Magica uses:
In Ars Magica there's a standard combat system to be used for the majority of (minor) combat situations and an epic combat system for the times when things are getting messy.

Currently, 4e combat is always 'epic'. It's why I no longer really use random encounters. 'Epic' combat simply takes to long for my taste to waste it on ultimately inconsequential encounters. I'd currently rather use some kind of skill challenge.

But skill challenges aren't a perfect fit, either. What I'm looking for is something that is more tactical and actually (potentially) depletes powers as well as healing surges.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I've tended to both make individual encounters less beefy but also to create pathways around them. There are PLENTY of these encounters but either the party can at least partly avoid the encounter, get a big advantage by some cleverness, etc. They need to figure those things out because if they fight all those things then they're going to come to the nasty level + 4 encounter that is someplace in there where they just plain have to win the day without a margin for victory.

For instance the first encounter in my next adventure (for a level 9 party) will start with a level -2 encounter. However the monsters can create a significant obstacle (destroy a rope bridge) if the PCs don't work quickly. If they search a body nearby they can also find an item that will drive off the most significant monster. So I figure all this encounter will do is get them revved up and eat a surge off someone IF they aren't dumb.

The next encounter is level + 1 but the monsters arrive progressively and the PCs can use the basic loop design of a cave area to control the engagement. I'll give them a couple decent potions if they kill off all the monsters.

The third encounter can be mostly neutralized by properly operating a puzzle. It is in any case a level equal encounter and they just need to get past it.

After that is a nice dynamic terrain based encounter. That one can be level + 2 but again proper use of the terrain should allow the PCs a nice advantage.

Beyond that I was planning on a level built as a teleporter maze/puzzle where figuring out how to use the teleporters strategically will let them get past the defenders in several short fights at good odds. If they're dumb, then they get to fight a couple of equal level encounters one right after the other with no rest.

No doubt the rest of the adventure will go about the same. I haven't had a chance to populate all of them yet.

I also think that things will be driven plenty well by story. The PCs have a grudge on one of the bad guys and background reasons for wanting to succeed in the whole mission. There is also a puzzle associated with the whole adventure that leads to uncovering an artifact that ties into another PCs background AND the current artifact one PC is carrying can make a cinematic exit. Combat is a major theme of the adventure, but 30% of the XP can come from quests and having massive DPR isn't a mandatory focus for the PCs. The players simply need to use good tactics and be smart.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I've been thinking recently that 4e is lacking something that Ars Magica uses:
In Ars Magica there's a standard combat system to be used for the majority of (minor) combat situations and an epic combat system for the times when things are getting messy.

Currently, 4e combat is always 'epic'. It's why I no longer really use random encounters. 'Epic' combat simply takes to long for my taste to waste it on ultimately inconsequential encounters. I'd currently rather use some kind of skill challenge.

But skill challenges aren't a perfect fit, either. What I'm looking for is something that is more tactical and actually (potentially) depletes powers as well as healing surges.

Sorry for the double post... Like I said in my above outline of a new adventure I think the element that has to be there is a bit of more strategic element to the combats. Flood the pond and you cut off a group of enemies before they can attack you (a couple ranged minions aside). The encounter can be fought and its not a HARD encounter, just an unnecessary one to fight. Its not a skill challenge per-se. There is a minor skill challenge to crank a winch and if they're slow then a couple minions get an extra shot at them is about all. Likewise in a later battle all the terrain is quite dynamic and the PCs can gain a real advantage by using it right.

I didn't actually mention skill challenges in the last post either, they are there. Their XP value isn't all that high but they can represent a chance of losing a couple surges or not getting some advantage if the party fails.

 

[jbear]

I understand what Kzach is saying and agree in so far as not every encounter should be deadly and vexing for the PCs.

But i'm also inclined to agree with most of what Mesh Hong says.

It is difficult to build encounters on the basis of 70% of these encounters should be easy for the pcs, mere hiccups in their path towards where the real action lies.

I try to prepare the upcoming adventure based on the pcs decisions/actions, be they wise or be they reckless. I try and place the degree of danger/difficulty in line with how dangerous/difficult I believe that course of action should be.

I like a game to build a sense of tension and drama which increases towards a climax, but if the PCs knock the bucket down the well while they are sneaking through the depths of Moria... even though that was not meant to be the climactic moment where the pcs come face to face with the villain, well, they are going to have a seriously hard time of it before the ever get to stand back to back and fight the finale before the mighty gates of Mordor. Trolls, hordes of goblins and a Balrog to name a few things. And if it hadn't been for that bucket, it would have been quite a relaxing and enjoyable trip all things considered.

Of course some parts should be less dangerous (easy if you will, although they aren't necessarily one and the same), especially if the PCs have earned it by finding back ways in, safe ways through, well planned strategies or successful skill challenges.

I sometimes prepare skill challenges that when carried out successfully can circumnavegate large portions of combat, which is what Kzach seems to be talking about. But why draw out a battlemat to fight that lonely goblin bell ringer guard when a successful attack/dungeoneering check could bring those wobbly looking shelves full of heavy books crashing down on his head to take him out. Knotch up a success and carry on infiltrating the Hive!

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I understand what Kzach is saying and agree in so far as not every encounter should be deadly and vexing for the PCs.

But i'm also inclined to agree with most of what Mesh Hong says.

It is difficult to build encounters on the basis of 70% of these encounters should be easy for the pcs, mere hiccups in their path towards where the real action lies.

I try to prepare the upcoming adventure based on the pcs decisions/actions, be they wise or be they reckless. I try and place the degree of danger/difficulty in line with how dangerous/difficult I believe that course of action should be.

I like a game to build a sense of tension and drama which increases towards a climax, but if the PCs knock the bucket down the well while they are sneaking through the depths of Moria... even though that was not meant to be the climactic moment where the pcs come face to face with the villain, well, they are going to have a seriously hard time of it before the ever get to stand back to back and fight the finale before the mighty gates of Mordor. Trolls, hordes of goblins and a Balrog to name a few things. And if it hadn't been for that bucket, it would have been quite a relaxing and enjoyable trip all things considered.

Of course some parts should be less dangerous (easy if you will, although they aren't necessarily one and the same), especially if the PCs have earned it by finding back ways in, safe ways through, well planned strategies or successful skill challenges.

I sometimes prepare skill challenges that when carried out successfully can circumnavegate large portions of combat, which is what Kzach seems to be talking about. But why draw out a battlemat to fight that lonely goblin bell ringer guard when a successful attack/dungeoneering check could bring those wobbly looking shelves full of heavy books crashing down on his head to take him out. Knotch up a success and carry on infiltrating the Hive!

I think the key thing in my approach is that in the course of all the running around that goes on the PCs WILL expend enough resources to make the eventual harder fights quite challenging. Mesh Hong is going to hurl you into a couple of big fights, but instead I'm going to drain you of a few surges and a few powers and THEN throw you into a (slightly less big) fight.

Either way there is going to be a challenging fight or two. Either way they are going to be dangerous at the time you fight them. I'd like to think that overall the way I'm doing it will feel a lot less draggy to at least some groups. Now maybe a group of optimizing super tacticians that regularly go around taking encounters in 2 rounds are going to need more, I dunno. I can only go by the groups I've run adventures for. They enjoy an occasional really tough stand-alone encounter, but overall a lot of clever play with gradual attrition builds things up to more tension for them and gives them more pleasure.

 

[Mesh Hong]

Mesh Hong is going to hurl you into a couple of big fights, but instead I'm going to drain you of a few surges and a few powers and THEN throw you into a (slightly less big) fight.

Not necessarily, it depends what tier you are in and the type of adventure.

I read your post with keen interest and I actually think that your approach is a really nice way of doing things, and in certain situations would create a wonderfully dynamic atmosphere.

However if you were in my current Epic campaign you would probably expect a couple of hard fights, followed by a deady fight, followed by a fight that was designed with the (futile) hope of killing someone. Then back home in time for tea.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Not necessarily, it depends what tier you are in and the type of adventure.

I read your post with keen interest and I actually think that your approach is a really nice way of doing things, and in certain situations would create a wonderfully dynamic atmosphere.

However if you were in my current Epic campaign you would probably expect a couple of hard fights, followed by a deady fight, followed by a fight that was designed with the (futile) hope of killing someone. Then back home in time for tea.

Quite possible. I haven't had much chance to work on epic tier adventures either, so I'm not sure how things hold up. One thing I can imagine happening is that epic characters kind of have the cure to everything that ills them and doing stuff like getting around minor encounters could get so trivially easy that only the hard ones will really matter at all. It will be interesting to find out. I can keep making the puzzles/challenges/situations more and more diabolically tricky but there does come a limit at some point.