Lethality: I don't know what I want

[Hussar]

Hang on GMforPowergamers. You have 3 strikers, a leader and a defender and you aren't having characters get smacked down? At a guess, I would say your DM is using a lot of bigger monsters in smaller numbers. Which plays right into the hands of that group.

Against a larger number of mobile opponents, that group would have a many more problems. You don't have any real area of effect abilities and not a lot in the way of controllery stuff either. It sounds like your DM just isn't taking the party capabilities into account when designing encounters.

I know that our Darksun campaign has a line up that looks almost identical to yours and we're making death saves just about every fight.

 

[howandwhy99]

I think 4E's balance is well done. I think the numbers are too large and the fights last too long, but balance-wise they are very nice.

What I'd like is more player driven challenge levels though. We're in low level territory, the combats are a breeze. In fact, they should be running from us. We're in high level territory, we should have the sense to run from them. Pursuit rules also being defined into the CR.

Actually, that's a bit bland. Let's say though that we like it when the kobolds run after we kill half of them in the first round w/o the help of the caster. Later on, deep in the dungeon, we spot a beholder and decide "maybe it's time to go..."

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Hang on GMforPowergamers. You have 3 strikers, a leader and a defender and you aren't having characters get smacked down? At a guess, I would say your DM is using a lot of bigger monsters in smaller numbers. Which plays right into the hands of that group.

inless you count things that say 1or 2 x in burst, then I think we have 2 aoes...and one is a daily. But we fought Lev+x solos, and were swarmed by minons, we never have a real problem.

the only time we had a real OMG moment was when we had an Incorpral swarm, and a few weakning monster togather... 1/2, 1/2, then 1/2 sucks... but even that we never thought we would lose someone, just that the fight would take all night

 

[Crazy Jerome]

My thought was that everything would become a 3E-style save (or 4E-style defense), with, say, a failed Ref save meaning you got hit, and a failed Fort save meaning you got hurt, and you could use your fate points after the fact to boost your roll.

Against a lucky hit from the clumsy giant, you'd use a couple fate points to dodge his tree-club. Against a hit from the goblin skirmisher, you'd use a couple fate points to shrug off his dart. Bull-rushes, disarms, and death-rays would all follow the same basic mechanics.

So no "hit points" at all, then? Or those would get tracked along with the more spectacular hit effects to show more immediate wear and tear in the current fight, but you wouldn't lose any if spending fate points caused a miss? Or more as I was saying, the hit points come off no matter what, but in your version, I guess you reimagine the hit points as almost all fatigue/morale/luck/etc. (i.e. not physical, lasting damage), and thus even dodging that giant clubs takes a lot out of you, but not nearly as severe as if it connects?

I can see a good argument for the last two. That first one might make a good system, but no "hit points" in D&D might cause a riot. Of course, at that point the "fate" points have become almost a very old-school wargaming form of "hit points" where one hit point does mainly correspond to avoiding one nasty effect.

P.S. I like some variations on your idea for a homebrew system I'm fiddling with that is half D&D-ish, half other stuff. Thanks!

 

[Hussar]

inless you count things that say 1or 2 x in burst, then I think we have 2 aoes...and one is a daily. But we fought Lev+x solos, and were swarmed by minons, we never have a real problem.

the only time we had a real OMG moment was when we had an Incorpral swarm, and a few weakning monster togather... 1/2, 1/2, then 1/2 sucks... but even that we never thought we would lose someone, just that the fight would take all night

Eurgh. Yeah, weakening and incorporeal are two things that should NEVER go together. I made that mistake once too. As I recall, wraiths attacking the party. Never, ever again.

But, yeah, if you're facing solos, even with minions, then you have the perfect party for that. Lots of damage at single targets is your specialty. It's no surprise that you'd blow through solos above your weight class.

Try the following mix: Take your xp budget plus about one, maybe two levels. Then use critters that are all one to three levels below the party and fill up your budget. Losing one level on a monster actually doesn't change that monster all that much, and since you're so striker heavy, your defenses aren't likely all that high.

Instead of the standard 5 enemy fight, use eight or nine and watch what happens. It's lots of fun. Well, I was DMing when I did this so it was fun for me...

 

[Kingreaper]

I like how 4E does death. It is not too likely, but with a bad situation and a few bad rolls, death is present. The three death saves is not a bad mechanic.

My thought: The second failed death save needs to mean something. Maybe even the first (but that would require some game modifications to work).

If the second failed death saving throw puts in a condition on the player, something like a disease track thing, or even just drains an extra surge off them, you've got risk of something, before risk of death.

 

[mmadsen]

So no "hit points" at all, then?

Well, no hit points as health points.

I guess you reimagine the hit points as almost all fatigue/morale/luck/etc. (i.e. not physical, lasting damage), and thus even dodging that giant clubs takes a lot out of you, but not nearly as severe as if it connects?

Yes, the idea is to move all the intangibles into hit points, while the more tangible qualities would go into saves/defenses. Failing the Ref save means you get hit by the giant's club; failing the Fort save means it squashes you. (Armor would boost Fort, in this case.)

Tough NPCs might have tremendous Ref and Fort scores, but no plot protection, and thus no hit points with which to modify their rolls. Weak PCs might have poor Ref and Fort scores but lots of hit points.

I like some variations on your idea for a homebrew system I'm fiddling with that is half D&D-ish, half other stuff. Thanks!

You're quite welcome!

 

[HardcoreDandDGirl]

I think 0hp should mean something, there was a time it meant draw up a new character. 4e is a little to easy for my group, but I would live with the hp system if we had things like wight level drain back, or shadow str drain.

 

[Tymophil]

It seems clear to me that lethality of an adventure/encounter belongs to the DM and the scenario design, at least it should.

If the system is too random, then noone can control the lethality and the level of the challenge. I think we need a balanced system, because it is possible to unbalance such a system, while it is impossible to balance an umbalanced system.

Encounters are easy/average/hard in D&D4 only if they are designed to be easy/average/hard. If you want lethal encounters, then design them in such a way, you have all the tool to do so. All it takes are guts (to do umbalanced encounters on purpose, knowing it will kill PCs even if they play nicely) and wit (to design the encounter with the chosen level of difficulty).

I think that people that want an umbalanced system want to impose their vision to other DM. Because, if the system is umbalanced then it is impossible to rebalance it (if you don't want to fudge throws).

Once again, it all boils down to adventures/encounters design... And WotC needs to showcase how to build them in the Dungeon Master Guide and, more importantly, in the published adventures...

 

[Crazy Jerome]

It seems clear to me that lethality of an adventure/encounter belongs to the DM and the scenario design, at least it should.

That is certainly a big part of lethalness or lack thereof, but not all of it. There's a huge difference between, for example, "the fight was borderline TPK, a real challenge, but we pulled it out in the end and everyone was fine," versus, "the fight was a borderline TPK, a real challenge, but we mostly pulled it out in the end and Joe will get better after the high priest gets him sedated."

Both of those groups want to also have the possibility of moving the challenge up or down with the scenario designs, but what that means inside the particulars of a given challenge is different in how it plays out.