Pregens vs Lvl 6 Gnoll Marauders (pics inside!)

[Rechan]

BTW, thanks for doing this. I forgot totally how it's XP total = Encounter, not level. Given the way there are some sweet monsters around Level 6-8, I can throw them at younger parties.

(It also means that at an Elite can stand in as a solo for a younger party, or a regular monster for a real baby party).

 

[UngeheuerLich]

i think i should also try it out^^

 

[Rechan]

Also I'd say that if faced with foes this tough, SOMEONE might have used their daily. Especially the ranger, after it was clear these guys were nasty, and Kathra and Erias were getting the stuffing knocked out of them.

 

[drjones]

I am still a bit concerned about the high HPs both for monsters and starting characters. A recent playtest showed: 30 HP are much if you just use basic attacks.

None of my playtests have shown this. The pally, the fighter, the wizard, the warlock, the ranger all pretty much drop like a sack of hammers if you have several even low level mobs concentrating fire on them. I even found myself going easy on the players in some cases where the monsters could have really stuck it to them tactically.

Going the other way the only targets the players had much trouble with were solider types where a lot of the PCs could only attack AC so they ended up grinding against each other. i think this is good though, soldiers should be good at stopping PC movement and not going down in 1 round and from what I have seen they do that well.

And why would you only use basic attacks unless you are forced to?

 

[Chibbot]

I think this would have been a challenging battle, but a survivable one, in a real RP session. I'm not yet sure how I feel about the slower power curve of 4e, but at least it gives the DM more flexibility in planning encounters.

From what I've seen in the few 4e games that I've run so far, the PCs are really able to stand up to a significantly challenging encounter.

I ran a game which pitted 7 PCs (the 6 DDXPregens and a rogue elf) first against 3 gnoll clawfighters, then a short rest later against 2 marauders, 2 huntmasters, and a claw fighter.

After an extended rest, then went out and fought 2 gnoll marauders, 1 gnoll clawfighter, 1 gnoll huntmaster, 3 hobgoblin soldiers, 1 hobgoblin warcaster, and 1 gnoll demonic scourge. They didn't survive the encounter, but they managed to bring all but 2 or 3 of the baddies down by the time the tpk hit.

 

[Rechan]

I'd also like to see some interesting mixups or mashups. Like, a level 6 monster + 2 leven 2s.

Or a level 4, a level 3, a level 1 and 3 level 1 minions (I propose a Cavern Choker and a Hobgoblin Warcaster, + Human Guard and 3 kobold minions).

And since 500 xp = hard fight for 4 1st level characters, then wouldn't a Chuul (10 level soldier, Xp 500) qualify?

I want to see THAT fight. Even against 5 pcs.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

None of my playtests have shown this. The pally, the fighter, the wizard, the warlock, the ranger all pretty much drop like a sack of hammers if you have several even low level mobs concentrating fire on them. I even found myself going easy on the players in some cases where the monsters could have really stuck it to them tactically.

Going the other way the only targets the players had much trouble with were solider types where a lot of the PCs could only attack AC so they ended up grinding against each other. i think this is good though, soldiers should be good at stopping PC movement and not going down in 1 round and from what I have seen they do that well.

And why would you only use basic attacks unless you are forced to?

You are probably right: now the default assumption is the coin flip chance of hitting, making hp more like stamina points. So you are hit on a regular basis.

Still: i am concerned... i am mostly sure my concerns are unfounded... still i need some time to get used to it. Also I am concerned about the lack of bard, because I recently play a lot with girls, who favour them... (and also they are my favourite class... yes, i have been mocked enough for that, thanks^^)

So I believe in the new edition... but I think i still need some time to get used to it. I played 3.5 a lot. I always preferred LVL 2-7 and fights versus multiple enemies, I began to hate 3.x npc building... but without houserules (only variants from 3.0 DMG), 3.5 worked fine in these low levels. I just had to watch a bit over my players and remember them from time to time, that balanced chars are more fun than minmaxed (either with words or deeds - minmaxed monsters anyone).

My main concern is: loss of one important roleplaying part: no need for "healers" because of too abstract hp (they go up and down a lot - probably no possibility for lasting wounds). High HP for starting chars are an indicator.
When I first read bloodied, i thought about a condition, when you start receiving real wounds... With 24 HP at the beginning but with some penalties once you reached half of that, I would have been more pleased... Still, i think my concerns are mostly unfounded but they are there...

 

[Rechan]

As I look for possible scenarios, what irks me is when I have an extra 75 or 25 that I can't just plug in with something. A minion just doesn't seem worth it to toss into the action, and if I upgrade to a higher level, I don't get the monster I WANT.

But this, I suppose, is where changing/leveling monsters comes in.

 

[Rechan]

None of my playtests have shown this. The pally, the fighter, the wizard, the warlock, the ranger all pretty much drop like a sack of hammers if you have several even low level mobs concentrating fire on them. I even found myself going easy on the players in some cases where the monsters could have really stuck it to them tactically.

This is the nature of a fight, in any tactical game. If you have 4 vs. 4, the best tactic is to have one side concentrate all their fire on one member of the other team. Usually that guy will go down fast, and then it's 4 x 3. So to defend against this, you have to draw fire, protect targets, etc.

Another way you can drive this point home is if the monster team is organized or not. If it's a well organized "team", they concentrate their fire, go after the squishy ones, etc. But if they're disorganized, not all in cahoots, or are just chaotic (like say, demons), then they're just a bunch of individuals together, and will just go toe-to-toe against whoever.

Going the other way the only targets the players had much trouble with were solider types where a lot of the PCs could only attack AC so they ended up grinding against each other. i think this is good though, soldiers should be good at stopping PC movement and not going down in 1 round and from what I have seen they do that well.

I'm looking through the "Monsters and More" packet, and I'm wondering, do all soldiers mark? Because I don't see anything that makes a soldier a good soldier, except their high DEFs. Where's the OAs/"Stickiness"/Marking?

 

[Mirtek]

I'm also fairly certain that if your ranger takes a successful spear hit, even Fox’s Cunning as an immediate reaction won't prevent him from taking damage (there is no time phase between being hit and taking damage to be interrupted).

I see it the same way, because the power doesn't talk about the attack being negated.

I also think that the gnoll A in round 1 should have been able to make the follow up attack against Erais.

PS: Nice description and nice pics.