Making Pregens 'Fair and Balanced'
- Thread starter ourchair
- Start date
Pick good race/class combos with ability score, feat, and racial power synergy. Go with simple but useful feats -- things like Toughness, Expertise, etc.
I think leaders are going to be tough to match, though, in a PvP setting, simply because of their ability to trigger 3 healing surges per encounter -- two with their Word power, one with second wind.
Otherwise, I think at levels 1-3, since you haven't brought in paragon paths, many magic items, or paragon-tier feats, you won't have much trouble generating a series of relatively comparable PCs.
I think leaders are going to be tough to match, though, in a PvP setting, simply because of their ability to trigger 3 healing surges per encounter -- two with their Word power, one with second wind.
Otherwise, I think at levels 1-3, since you haven't brought in paragon paths, many magic items, or paragon-tier feats, you won't have much trouble generating a series of relatively comparable PCs.
I wonder what kind of a fight an artificer would put up, considering he has that and the ability to reuse magic items and confer a +2 bonus on a pre-charged weapon's attack roll.
A tip? Don't run PvP battles, not even non-lethal ones. I'm not sure your goal of "fair and balanced 4E PvP combat" is possible.
Remember that 4E doesn't design monsters the same way it designs PCs; monsters and NPCs are designed to "blow their wad" within one encounter, while PCs are designed to last all day. I don't know what all the effects will be if you face two PCs against each other, but suffice to say it will be much more difficult to balance or predict the outcome (since conventional encounter-building logic won't be applicable). In other words, PCs weren't meant to fight other PCs.
Remember that Daily powers are just suped-up Encounter powers when characters only have one encounter per day. This has implications for balance. Make your combatants fight more than once per day, and make sure they know they will.
Remember that 4E intends for PCs to be used as a part of a team. In one-on-one combat, Strikers rule supreme, Leaders are screwed, and Controllers and Defenders become fairly redundant (except that Defenders still have good hp and defenses). If you insist upon PvP combat, I recommend you let PCs fight as teams of at least three, especially if you don't want all your winners to be rangers.
Remember that combat between PCs is the type of D&D game with the most potential to kill somebody's fun. It's way too easy for one player to take it personally, especially since D&D is otherwise a cooperative (rather than competitive) game.
Remember that PvP combat can be addictive; once players have a taste for proving themselves against each other, you may have trouble getting them to play a campaign without it -- and its group-destroying tendencies.
If you must continue, I recommend switching to a system better designed for PvP than 4E is; 3.5E would be a slight improvement, for example.
Consider yourself warned! (And don't take my dire tone too personally.
)
Remember that 4E doesn't design monsters the same way it designs PCs; monsters and NPCs are designed to "blow their wad" within one encounter, while PCs are designed to last all day. I don't know what all the effects will be if you face two PCs against each other, but suffice to say it will be much more difficult to balance or predict the outcome (since conventional encounter-building logic won't be applicable). In other words, PCs weren't meant to fight other PCs.
Remember that Daily powers are just suped-up Encounter powers when characters only have one encounter per day. This has implications for balance. Make your combatants fight more than once per day, and make sure they know they will.
Remember that 4E intends for PCs to be used as a part of a team. In one-on-one combat, Strikers rule supreme, Leaders are screwed, and Controllers and Defenders become fairly redundant (except that Defenders still have good hp and defenses). If you insist upon PvP combat, I recommend you let PCs fight as teams of at least three, especially if you don't want all your winners to be rangers.
Remember that combat between PCs is the type of D&D game with the most potential to kill somebody's fun. It's way too easy for one player to take it personally, especially since D&D is otherwise a cooperative (rather than competitive) game.
Remember that PvP combat can be addictive; once players have a taste for proving themselves against each other, you may have trouble getting them to play a campaign without it -- and its group-destroying tendencies.
If you must continue, I recommend switching to a system better designed for PvP than 4E is; 3.5E would be a slight improvement, for example.
Consider yourself warned! (And don't take my dire tone too personally.
)No worries. I get what you're saying.A tip? Don't run PvP battles, not even non-lethal ones. I'm not sure your goal of "fair and balanced 4E PvP combat" is possible.
Remember that 4E doesn't design monsters the same way it designs PCs; monsters and NPCs are designed to "blow their wad" within one encounter, while PCs are designed to last all day. I don't know what all the effects will be if you face two PCs against each other, but suffice to say it will be much more difficult to balance or predict the outcome (since conventional encounter-building logic won't be applicable). In other words, PCs weren't meant to fight other PCs.
Remember that Daily powers are just suped-up Encounter powers when characters only have one encounter per day. This has implications for balance. Make your combatants fight more than once per day, and make sure they know they will.
Remember that 4E intends for PCs to be used as a part of a team. In one-on-one combat, Strikers rule supreme, Leaders are screwed, and Controllers and Defenders become fairly redundant (except that Defenders still have good hp and defenses). If you insist upon PvP combat, I recommend you let PCs fight as teams of at least three, especially if you don't want all your winners to be rangers.
Remember that combat between PCs is the type of D&D game with the most potential to kill somebody's fun. It's way too easy for one player to take it personally, especially since D&D is otherwise a cooperative (rather than competitive) game.
Remember that PvP combat can be addictive; once players have a taste for proving themselves against each other, you may have trouble getting them to play a campaign without it -- and its group-destroying tendencies.
If you must continue, I recommend switching to a system better designed for PvP than 4E is; 3.5E would be a slight improvement, for example.
Consider yourself warned! (And don't take my dire tone too personally.
But anyway, I do understand that monsters and PCs are created differently, but I'm basically setting up a premise where the players ARE going to expect PVP. I mean that's the event. If they want the coop play that comes from a 'normal' 4e game there are five other tables at the event for that.
Mind you, I'm not running this 4e Pvp to fulfill some craven inner need to force-fit 4e into a competitive mold. I just need a cheap and easy way to be able to accomodate 12 people in the span of 5 hours and ensure our event can fill up more seats and sell more drinks and food.
Those worries aside, I'm definitely taking a lot of those matters into consideration and trying to come up with some mechanics to make it play better and am merely trying to collect as much anecdotal data and tips here to ensure I've got all my problem spots looked at.
Perhaps there will be a 12-man rumble at the start and then the remaining 6 go on a chariot race and the 3 placers of the race end up in a 'final staging area' where they smack the crap out of one another while a large monster bears down on them.
keterys
First Post
One interesting option might be to start with two loose teams of 6 (decided by what side of the arena they start on), with the caveat that the 'last 6 standing - whoever those are', proceed to the next round.
Then in the next round, hand the 6 who were defeated monsters to run against those 6, with the note that the 'last 3 people standing advance, assuming you win', then the final match is those 3 against 9 monsters, with the 'last person standing... if one _is_ standing' winning a big prize.
With a pool of about 15-21 monsters deleveled to level 1 to choose from, randomly or otherwise. (so, the final fight would be 3 level 3s vs. 900 xp)
That would let fairly standard builds still work out (like leaders, or rogues) without being totally screwed by the environment.
Then in the next round, hand the 6 who were defeated monsters to run against those 6, with the note that the 'last 3 people standing advance, assuming you win', then the final match is those 3 against 9 monsters, with the 'last person standing... if one _is_ standing' winning a big prize.
With a pool of about 15-21 monsters deleveled to level 1 to choose from, randomly or otherwise. (so, the final fight would be 3 level 3s vs. 900 xp)
That would let fairly standard builds still work out (like leaders, or rogues) without being totally screwed by the environment.
ExploderWizard
Hero
Since the various party roles were meant to compliment each other rather than compete, I would suggest a party of all strikers. That way you have an apples to apples comparison.
Ahh, I understand! Well, if your goal is merely keeping some players entertained with a simple-to-operate arena format, perhaps you'll consider another suggestion: forego PCs altogether.
Rather than bother with PC pregens, you could have each player play as a small encounter group of monsters. (Running monsters isn't much different from running PCs, and tends to be a fair bit simpler, too.) Monster versus monster action is a lot more predictable than PvP, IME. Balancing the teams would be pretty simple too: just pick a level (say, 3 or 5), and then slap together a few encounter groups of that level. A few examples:
- Team "Goblin Stragglers" -- three goblin warriors and their barghest leader. (XP budget: 625): Goblin hexer (level 3 controller/leader); Hobgoblin archer (level 3 artillery); Goblin sharpshooter (level 2 artillery); Barghest savager (level 4 brute).
- Team "Circle Arcanist" -- a wizard, his two homunculi, and a summoned creature of chaos. (XP budget: 625): Human mage (level 4 artillery); 2x Stonefist defender (level 3 skirmisher); Slaad tadpole (level 5 lurker).
- Team "Children of Tiamat" -- a wyrmling dragon and its kobold servants. (XP budget: 625): Black dragon wyrmling (level 2 elite lurker); Kobold slyblade (level 4 skirmisher); 2x Kobold skirmisher (level 1 skirmisher).
I was actually thinking (after the fact, of course) that minions would be alright if all the teams were composed entirely of minions. It would go faster, that's for sure, and it would be a cool tactical game. This is a separate idea though, and I still stand by the one I posted above.
Similar Threads
