Playtest: managing per encounter abilities of a Rogue and Fighter

[Moon-Lancer]

What if you open with a mook, and then have the big bad guy enter combat in the middle? Having done that enough, the players will wait to use per encounter abilities. if they don't, then you use mooks to soak up these special attacks.

ether way it breaks up combat and helps to remove dull complacency or redundant fighting patterns.

 

[Hussar]

From what I'm reading here, I'm thinking that Moon Lancer has a point. I think the days of static encounters are coming to an end. The idea, I think, will be for encounters to be chained together so that you might have to deal with what would have been three distinct (or whatever number) encounters previous, either consecutively or all at once.

I know that 3e tried to do that in a number of adventures, but, because there was a pretty fine balance on encounters from ok, to overpowering, it was difficult to do. You couldn't throw three +1 EL encounters at the party all at once without expecting a fatality. I'm thinking that with the emphasis on mixed groups, and even just groups of monsters, you'll see adventures being designed to take advantage of this.

In a typical 3e adventure, you fight mooks in Rooms 1, 2 and 3 and then you fight the boss in room 4. Each encounter is more or less distinct from eachother, at least as the adventure is written. 4e will create scenarios where Rooms 1-4 are actually one encounter, stretched out with new opponents arriving at various times.

Just a thought.

 

[hong]

Like I said before: you have 5 rounds to kill this mob, or the next patrolling mob will join in. Strategically applied spike damage FTW.

 

[Bagpuss]

This line confuses me a little. Why would not using your per encounter abilities early lead to needing to use long-term resources? If you still have the per encounter resource available to you, why can't it be used later to the same effect?

Look at it this way....

Scenario - Facing 6 hobgoblins warriors and 6 archers, plus a cleric and a sorcerer (4e seems to be about facing larger numbers of opponents)

My per encounter ability could say perhaps certainly take down two or three hobgoblins in one hit.

1) I use it immediately and take down 3 warriors, it allows me to punch through the front line to quickly cut through the weaker archers with my normal attacks and get to the vulnerable arcane caster at the back.

2) I decide to save the ability for that ideal time when I get to the arcane caster so I can take him and the perhaps the archers near him with one hit.

In scenario 1 - even if the cleric 'holds' me a round later I've done significant damage early on. I've reduced the number of attackers straight away so that their is less chance of one getting a lucky hit on me. So it take me longer to take out the arcane caster than I thought, but if things get dicey I can use a daily power.

In scenario 2 - I've facing twice the number of hobgoblins warriors, they do their job of getting me bogged down in the front line, the archers and casters remain protected. I get in trouble and need to use that daily healing.

 

[Frostmarrow]

It's funny, but I think I can answer this, from experience with SW saga and Final Fantasy videogames. If you unleash a powerful attack early it causes more damage and, if focused on one opponent, there is a greater likelihood of one of your opponents dropping earlier in the fight...thus their damage potential is reduced (over time) and it's less likely they will cause as much harm. Think of it this way...


Scenario 1: vs. 3 goblins
Encounter power attack auto-kill one now only two can actually try to hit you and you take less damage on avg per round
Attack
Attack
Oh, crap! Long-term resource power attack!

Scenario 2: vs. 3 goblins
Attack If this doesn't drop one you now have to take 3 attacks against you and you're taking higher amounts of damage that are more likely to put you in a precarious position
Attack
Crap! Encounter power attack
Holy crap! Long-term resource power attack

Besides. Not using an encounter attack for an entire fight is a waste. For which you pay in blood.

If you got it - flaunt it!

 

[hong]

As for the bookkeeping created by a combo system, the trick is to not let the players know its a combo system. Looking at the example I gave, each attack functions individually. The fact that they combo isn't written into their description, its an emergent property.

I have mixed feelings about combos. On the one hand, complexity is complexity. Even if you don't know or want to know about it, it can bite you if the group contains players with differing levels of mastery of the mechanics. While Fred is gamely hitting orcs for 10 points each round, Joe is dealing (an average of) 50 points by smart use of combos. On the other hand, you do want a level of tactical richness in the game, so that it doesn't become bland after 6 months.

The implied assumption is that Fred will eventually want to smarten up, and learn about those combos so that he can match Joe. This is okay up to a certain point, beyond which it starts feeling like work.

 

[WhatGravitas]

The implied assumption is that Fred will eventually want to smarten up, and learn about those combos so that he can match Joe. This is okay up to a certain point, beyond which it starts feeling like work.

And it reintroduces a great deal of 'system mastery' into the system, a concept that spawned stuff like a certain 'toughness' feat. Bah. Spit.

Bo9S was great, because it gave us tactical variety, AND was simple enough that even an idiot could use it to make a buttkicking fighter.

And I don't play D&D to use my mathematical and logical skills, I play it to do major win (against my players). Bah for 'system mastery'.

Cheers, LT.

 

[Imaro]

From what I'm reading here, I'm thinking that Moon Lancer has a point. I think the days of static encounters are coming to an end. The idea, I think, will be for encounters to be chained together so that you might have to deal with what would have been three distinct (or whatever number) encounters previous, either consecutively or all at once.

I know that 3e tried to do that in a number of adventures, but, because there was a pretty fine balance on encounters from ok, to overpowering, it was difficult to do. You couldn't throw three +1 EL encounters at the party all at once without expecting a fatality. I'm thinking that with the emphasis on mixed groups, and even just groups of monsters, you'll see adventures being designed to take advantage of this.

In a typical 3e adventure, you fight mooks in Rooms 1, 2 and 3 and then you fight the boss in room 4. Each encounter is more or less distinct from eachother, at least as the adventure is written. 4e will create scenarios where Rooms 1-4 are actually one encounter, stretched out with new opponents arriving at various times.

Just a thought.

But this still doesn't really change anything. In fact if anything this scenario would make me want to use the per encounter ability even more quickly (assuming it's more powerful than at-will). Like I said earlier it boils down to reduction of damage vs. damage inflicted.

Think of it like this...If I have an encounter where a bunch of mooks show up...with a big bad showing up in let's say three more rounds, then using my per encounter abilities to destroy the mooks quickly is still the most advantageous tactic. It reduces the amount of damage you will be taking before facing the big bad, and allows all the PC's to focus attacks against the big bad without worrying about mooks. Oh, yeah and if the big bad is too hard to handle with at-will, just burn your per-day abilities on him and make camp.

Like I said, I hope 4e has addressed this issue, but I'm wary that this is how 95% of most fights will go, regardless of the specifics of most combat powers. The jedi in Star Wars saga ed. have a wide variety of powers, but in the end most combats can be won by unleashing these powers full force in the beginning and then cleaning up with at-will abiities...and yes Star Wars is designed for big battles as well.

 

[hong]

Think of it like this...If I have an encounter where a bunch of mooks show up...with a big bad showing up in let's say three more rounds, then using my per encounter abilities to destroy the mooks quickly is still the most advantageous tactic. It reduces the amount of damage you will be taking before facing the big bad, and allows all the PC's to focus attacks against the big bad without worrying about mooks. Oh, yeah and if the big bad is too hard to handle with at-will, just burn your per-day abilities on him and make camp.

Play Guild Wars some time.

 

[el-remmen]

As for D&D, you already the tendency of casting your best spell first...

In my experience, I have seen the opposite: People usually starting with low level or moderate powers to get a guage on the opponent(s) and deciding if they have to bust out the big guns.

The only time I don't see this happen is when PCs are fighting something they know is tough.