Players dissatisfied with level of danger in 4e

[Lord Zardoz]

My advice then for killing PCs - use *lots* of monsters, a good mix of minions and standards, plus 1 or more controllers.

Lots of monsters are generally more deadly than higher-level monsters - this is different from prior editions, where offense went up faster than defense. In 4e, if the party are missing on a '15' they're likely to retreat. If they're ploughing through swathes of enemies they're much less likely to flee, but large numbers of same-level enemies can inflict lots of damage on them.

Secondly, use waves of monsters within the same encounter - the party will be out of position dealing with the first lot, when the second wave comes in. A few more minions don't make much difference, but the death mage controller in the second wave was really bad because it further disrupted the PCs.

One "trick" might be to have two waves of enemies. Say, the PCs enter a dungeon, and they fight their first enemies. One of them runs away, and alerts another group. The party can try to stop him. If they don't a second wave of enemies arrives in 3 rounds. If they do, a second wave of enemies arrives in 6 rounds (they still hear the noise, but it takes them longer to get what is going on and where they need to go.)

This way, you can reduce the impact of the very difficult encounter - staggering the enemies advance means effectively improving the action economy to the party's benefit. But at the same time, it makes it more important for the party to use their resources wisely, and they cannot benefit from some "tricks" - like using area effects to affect all enemies, while others become more effective - like powers with encounter long durations, sustainable powers, stances, rages.

Using enemies in waves is something I have already started doing with 4th Edition. It allows you to avoid the problems of tracking too many combatants on your turn, and it allows you to sustain pressure on your players. It will make the fight feel longer, but the payoff in terms of sustained pressure on the players, and to the perception of risk, is great.

Regarding advice to use Level X+3 encounters on a Level X party, I do have a few things I should point out. The WotC printed adventures really like using monsters of a higher level then the players. The increase in AC and attack bonus is like trying to ride a bicycle up a hill. For a small hill / small encounter, it works fine. But the longer the encounter goes, the harder it gets. I have had a Level X encounter against Level X players using Level X+3 monsters result in having the players miss very often while nearly always being hit. This will turn an encounter bad pretty fast if the encounter is scaled as being difficult for the players according to the encounter builder.

When you break an encounter up into waves, you want to be using monsters as close to the PC's level as possible. Higher level monsters will get too lethal later in the fight. Lower level monsters wont create enough pressure on the players unless you are hitting them en masse.

END COMMUNICATION

 

[Storminator]

If the DM is going to a lot of trouble to make encounters as deadly as possible, I guess not. But I expect he'll have to make encounters increasingly higher than the party level as you get into paragon.

We prefer to think of it as "as interesting as possible."

PS

 

[S'mon]

Regarding advice to use Level X+3 encounters on a Level X party, I do have a few things I should point out. The WotC printed adventures really like using monsters of a higher level then the players. The increase in AC and attack bonus is like trying to ride a bicycle up a hill. For a small hill / small encounter, it works fine. But the longer the encounter goes, the harder it gets. I have had a Level X encounter against Level X players using Level X+3 monsters result in having the players miss very often while nearly always being hit. This will turn an encounter bad pretty fast if the encounter is scaled as being difficult for the players according to the encounter builder.

When you break an encounter up into waves, you want to be using monsters as close to the PC's level as possible. Higher level monsters will get too lethal later in the fight. Lower level monsters wont create enough pressure on the players unless you are hitting them en masse.

I agree - you want lots of monsters that can both hit & be hit, that usually means they're within 2 levels of the PCs.

 

[Shazman]

Are you only running one fight a day due to time constraints, or you do you just prefer one big fight instead of a number of easier fights? If you are doing it because of limited time, you may just want to have one fight per session, but only allow the PC's to have an extended rest every 4 sessions or so. The players will have to make sure to write down and keep track of healing surges and powers used, and death saves failed, but it would more closely match the way the game is intended to be played. If you just want one big fight, I second the previous suggestions: Use more monsters in waves, and maybe reduce the healing surges of the PC's and knock the max failed death saves down to two.

 

[Dausuul]

I agree - you want lots of monsters that can both hit & be hit, that usually means they're within 2 levels of the PCs.

That really depends on your PCs. I tend to run "once-per-day" encounters, often with solo monsters, and my party includes a taclord with Lead The Attack. So he piles on every possible bonus on his Lead The Attack roll to ensure he hits, and from then on the entire party gets +5 to hit the monster.

Last Saturday I put the 13th-level party up against an 18th-level solo, and they won, though I made them work for it. (Heh. At-will basic attack that deals ongoing 15 necrotic damage, no save... I remember when he'd tagged three party members with it, and the players were debating what he'd do next, the player of the fourth PC said with heavy sarcasm, "I think he's got a system.")

 

[Ourph]

It may more to do with in-game plot. They're likely not kicking in the door of a dungeon, fighting one room and leaving. It's more likely "We go to see the king, and there's an assassination attempt. Once it's dealt with, we rest. The next day we go out on a caravan and the caravan is attacked - once. Then we rest for the night. Etc."

In my games there's been a lot of "one combat per day" because of the in-game pacing of the adventure - there's no one else to FIGHT that day.

I have also had that happen on occasion, but I try to plan a way to get around it for exactly this reason. For example, if the PCs foil an assassination attempt, the day doesn't end there. They might do a skill challenge to find more information, then go investigating in a dangerous part of town (have another encounter), then set up a stake out (they can't rest, they have to stay on watch), then ambush another set of bad guys before finishing up for the day.

It took some work at first to convince the players to fit more into one day, because they were accustomed to a different kind of resource management from other games, but once they got in the habit of adventuring until their healing surges started to run low it became second nature.

 

[ArcaneSpringboard]

3. While I rarely kill PCs, I regularly threaten death. I call these "oh s#$^" moments. I define these as situations where absent immediate and decisive action somebody(or everybody) is going to die. You let them taste death, and then you let them take action to prevent it, and I find it provides the same excitement and suspense as actually being able to die. You don't have to die to fear death.

To me, this is the big thing.

It's like hockey. It's not lots of goals that's important...it's lots of scoring _chances_.

You want the players to get to the edge of dying, but then using their Awesomeness to avoid it.

But you do need to get to the edge.

 

[Ketjak]

The error is the DM's. One encounter per day is almost meaningless and speaks to no time pressure. Time pressure should drive the PCs forward and convey urgency to make several encounters per day reasonable. Think "the virginal sacrifice occurs at midnight" and it's happening behind several groups of armed guards and a locked door for the skill challenge.

Suddenly healing surges per day will matter. Items and powers that consume them for some benefit really eat them up, as do the short rests between encounters. Powers and items that don't use surges (cleric's utility 2 CLW) become valuable when the fighter or barbarian or avenger has no more surges in the battle with the BBEG.

Also, death saves are a limited resource. Use three between extended rests and... Dead. Sure, you're really only out 50GP... And their powers. Not sure why the player thinks they can lay there for 7 rounds - maybe I have it wrong, but I thought the PC stabilizes on a save.

I have killed four PCs in the last year, two to failed saves (not consecutive) and the others to hit point loss from AoE and ongoing damage. I have created other reasons to balance the damage output on marginal encounters to avoid a TPK, but don't let my players know.

Ket

 

[Oldtimer]

Also, death saves are a limited resource. Use three between extended rests and... Dead.

Short rests... it's short rests...

 

[JohnSnow]

Y'know, it occurs to me that we might be overthinking this. Just take a glance at the encounter tables in the DMG (pp. 58-59). If there's only one encounter in a day, the DM just needs to make sure that single encounter plays like the climax of a regular adventure. Which means the DM should probably stick to "hard" encounters. Some of those use creatures MANY levels higher than the PCs. It goes as high as +3 for a Solo, +6 for a commander with +1 level troops, +5 for controllers and artillery/lurkers, or +7 for (fewer) skirmishers.


What does that mean? Well, here's some appropriate 1st-level encounters (for 5 PCs):

1st-Level
- 4 dire wolves - (level 5 skirmisher) - a little weak, actually.
- 3 ogre skirmishers - (level 8 skirmisher) - umm...ow?
- 6 orc raiders - (level 3 skirmisher)
- Young Black Dragon (level 4 solo lurker)

I don't think any of us would argue that those look HARD! I'd say most PC groups would be hard-pressed by those encounters.

It may scale less well at higher levels...but...