(Psi)SeveredHead
Adventurer
The opposite of the 15MD problem?
I personally don't want to end up in a situation, either as a PC or a DM, where PCs are too afraid to adventure due to accumulated long-term damage. I've gone through that in too many systems, and it's not fun.
I can agree with having a problem with the cavalier attitude toward dropping and bouncing back up, but IMO if PCs are just absorbing damage to trigger a trap, you're designing a trap wrong.
A trap shouldn't be a "resource soak", I wish that style of gaming had not been encouraged and wouldn't be encouraged now. A trap should be part of an encounter. Stepping on a bear trap in the woods only costs hit points, healing spells or healing surges; stepping on a bear trap outside the cabin of the crazy survivalist "militia" you're taking on is something else. Now the victim is taking damage and grabbed until they spend a move action to escape (and they can of course fail this check), and being immobilized and taking extra damage in the middle of a raging combat is not a small penalty. Even if the cleric spends Healing Word to pump up your hit points, that's an encounter-level resource they're losing that they didn't need to. (And no, a bear trap is probably not the greatest example; I would recommend sticking something beyond just damage on your traps, and I hope you're not just using them by themselves.)
As an aside, I saw a disappointing use of a "resource soak" in a 2e adventure I was reading (along with a good example of a trap). It's the first Illithiad adventure, set for 7th to 9th level.
The good: the thieves' guild encounter. The door into the warehouse where the thieves hang out is a trap (unlevelled, as this was 2e), and it's nasty. It released a poisonous gas which paralyzed PCs and (explicitly pointed out) left them vulnerable to backstab, of which a lot was coming. There were 8 5th-level thieves within, using some poisoned crossbow bolts, sitting atop some 25 foot tall piles of boxes that gave them some sort of concealment (+20% to Hide in Shadows) although they preferred to use their crossbows rather than trying for backstabs.
That's an example of how to use a trap as part of an encounter. The trap would have been just as terrifying if it did no damage at all; being paralyzed (can't move or attack) and being made vulnerable to sneak attack is a lot scarier than something that can be wiped away with a healing action. No need for a long term consequence. Once you win (if you do!), take 5 minutes to breathe out, and check the next door more carefully!
The bad: In the sewers, there's a hazard that consists of a gas pocket. It can cause PCs to feel woozy, even fall unconscious (into the liquid muck, which is dangerous, and not just because they can drown, although that's certainly possible!) and, oh yeah, it can explode if exposed to fire damage. I thought that was pretty cool, and pretty reasonable in a sewer. Alas, that was all there was to the encounter.
The next encounter involved a pair of neo-otyughs, who I presume were transformed when they ate a mind flayer. (It's quite possible the PCs will not have figured out the villains are mind flayers at this point; the encounter could give them information.) There wasn't much to recommend here. Two monsters. Go get 'em.
What if they had been combined? I can picture neo-otyughs not being bothered too much by a gas pocket (eg not becoming woozy and falling unconscious; the gas pocket is tilting the encounter in the neos' favor). The PCs could use the pocket as a resource, perhaps blowing it up and damaging the neos before they close to melee; alternatively, they might fail to notice, and when someone throws a Fireball the whole place goes up, dealing damage to the PCs and the neos. (And, now, there's no risk of being poisoned by the pocket.) Another example of using traps properly and not as "resource soaks".
But I think the writers of the adventure figured if the PCs messed up, there'd be resources expended on healing from the effects of the gas pocket, then the PCs might walk wounded (or low on spells) into the neo encounter. IMO, that was a disappointment. If I were to convert the adventure, I would combine several sets of disconnected encounters like that.
Speaking of resource soaks, I think I understand another reason DMs want this kind of thing. In previous editions, a "boss battle" was a series of encounters, not just one. You broke into his castle, fought encounters, triggered traps, lost hit points, spent healing spells, and finally took on the boss, who is happy that you're weakened. Except sometimes you weren't. The characters were often healed to full anyway (especially in 3.x), but spells were down. (And sometimes the PCs just refused to go further; if so, the villain should be getting more reinforcements.) 4e already simulates that pretty well, in that your dailies are likely to be lower by the time you fight "the boss", and even your healing is tapped (though I've literally never seen a PC run out of surges). IMO, if you want those previous encounters to be worth more, instead of trying to sap healing surges or (worse!) force an early extended rest, for each encounter the PCs have trouble with, give the villain more/better reinforcements, as he's either getting more time to deal with trouble, or getting more information about the PCs, or something along those lines. In other words, "narrative" costs (that work their way into gameplay). You can even secretly use the "rubber band" method; if the PCs are running into trouble, you can remove monsters or traps in the final encounter "behind the scenes" (or add stuff if the PCs are really kicking butt, to enhance the challenge).
I disagree with this to much extent. Monsters got more powerful, but more to the point, if the DM is having trouble challenging PCs due to splats, BAN THE SPLATS.
In my next campaign, I am literally going to ban the Character Builder as a direct result of having trouble keeping splats out of my game. Only one player seems able to find the "PH1-only" button on the CB. (I went to great lengths to ensure all PCs are heroic and willing to adventure, but alas spent little time on banning splats, which meant at least two broken PCs got so badly nerfed after the fact the players retired them.) It would also mean the one player who has an incredibly slow laptop and keeps forgetting to print out his character sheet wouldn't be able to slow down games that way. (He's not doing that deliberately, he's just addicted to the tech.)
To my mind, this is a DMing problem.
Back in 2e, there were lots of kits. Some were weak. Some were flagrantly broken. And (worse) sometimes one player applied a broken kit and another player took a weak one or none at all. In such a situation, suddenly using long-term resource draining isn't a good solution. I would have banned the broken kits instead.
4e isn't really more balanced than other editions of D&D, at least since 3.x. 4e has more transparent balance. This does mean the DM can at least in theory balance anything in any splatbook, but that's a heavy load. It's easier to talk to the players and limit sources.
So if you're running into this problem, why aren't you limiting sources?
And, personally, even if all my PCs starting getting "broken" (eg at paragon, where I will certainly face a shock at their increased capabilities), there are plenty of better ways of dealing with problems than sucking away fun at the table.
Last edited:
