Reducing PC HP for more challenging fights? By how much? (Shorter fights problem.)

[CapnZapp]

One player thinks the fights should be shorter, since I've been running fights that were Level + 2 recently, 4 times a day. (Though I think the players could be much quicker with their decision making, but they're all new RPers, and we've been having big gaps between sessions recently.) I'm not entirely sure if I've struck the right balance there, but Level + 0 is way too easy.

First advice: whatever you do, keep it simple.

Then; after several dozen sessions I have concluded the game is intended to be run in a certain way.

If you can manage four or five encounters each session (averaging less than an hour per encounter) this is the intended way to run the game.

Then the game truly becomes a resource management game: each encounter may not be very challenging, but holding on to your dailies and surges while still defeating the opposition becomes the game's real challenge.

This works best in the classic dungeon setting (which IMHO is the only setting the game truly supports) - where encounters are close to each other, and where taking extended rests can't be taken for granted.

So you're "supposed" to manage four or five encounters (or three, or seven, but you get my point) before each extended rest. IMHO, this is where the game's balance point is - where dailies and surges have just the right impact each.

---

Me and my group fails at this miserably, being far too fiddly and slow; so don't worry if you don't recognize yourself in the above.

We only manage two encounters a night (or possibly three). Thus the game's default assumptions doesn't work for us.

If we only do two encounters a session, those two encounters better be harder than level+0, or we'd go through entire evenings without real challenges.

So you see, there is a reason for that level+0 baseline. It isn't strangely easy; it's easy because you're supposed to fit in five more of those during the same day (both in game days as well as real game sessions).

If you can't keep up that pace; you should feel free to make changes, just as I had to do. That doesn't mean you're playing the game wrong, or that the DMG guidelines are wrong.

It's just that the DMG utterly fails to explain the rather large set of assumptions the game is based on.

 

[Markn]

I'm definitely receptive to the idea, maybe I'll have my players give it a try. I know one player often has trouble grabbing the right dice! I even make sure to give him dice of different colors (e.g. blue d10s, etc.) As I remember this, I'm DEFINITELY going to try this.

Be sure to have the DM do this too. It saves time everywhere.

Also, as an added layer of complexity for the DM if you still want some variant in damage I'm considering using an online dice roller and pre rolling 2d6 (but with seperate value) about 100 times. Then just go down the chart every hit. If the first d6 is 1-3 then I will subtract the second number from the averge damage. if the first d6 is 4-6 then I will add the second d6 to the average damage.

Not sure if its worth the effort but I will try it out next session.

Edit: Just wanted to add that we actually roll the extra dice from a crit so there is still some fun there.

 

[Markn]

What an interesting idea! I'm definitely going to suggest this at my next group. Basically you just have to write static numbers on your damage cards from now on (of course you will need separate values for critical and normal hits). But what an idea. I suppose attack rolls add enough variation that damage rolls are kind of redundant. Moreover, this could eliminate the need for any die other than a D20 (other than some special powers, and maybe if you let the players roll extra damage dice for critical hits).
PS
Brutal 1 weapons deal on average 1/2 extra damage per [W]
Brutal 2 weapons deal on average 1 extra damage per [W]
Brutal 1 weapons with 2 damage dice (mordenkrad etc) deal on average 1 extra damage per [W]
Vorpal weapons the average damage per die is:
D4: 3.3
D6: 4.2
D8: 5.1
D10: 6.1
D12: 7.1
So the average damage on a vorpal falchion is 3.3 + 3.3 = 6.6 per [W]
and the average on a vorpal greataxe is 7.1
If you use your house rule further you might want to alter the rules on rounding fractions or alter vorpal/brutal specifically.

You got it! The static number are great. It does take a bit away because there is nothing random and it makes it easier for players to understand when to use power A or power B but for us, the upside of quicker fights is a greater boon that it is a detriment.

Your chart looks bang on. Our dwarf battlerager pit fighter is using a mordenkrad and we estimated with brutal 1 that it adds an extra 1 to each die roll.

Eyeballing the others look about right to me.

 

[Markn]

First advice: whatever you do, keep it simple.

Then; after several dozen sessions I have concluded the game is intended to be run in a certain way.

I agree. There does SEEM to be a requirement to play a certain way. I'm not saying it can only be played one way but it certainly goes against the grain and it is noticeable when you play outside the intended guidelines.

I kind of wish the DMG spoke about the expected norms. How many fights should a party make it through in an average day, for example. I often wonder if PC's are supposed to pop dailies every fight or less than that. Obviously, you play to taste, but the designers certainly had a playstyle in mind when they created 4e and if they spoke about what the "standard" adventuring day was like it would be great.

 

[Markn]

Another reason I'd prefer not to fiddle with monster HP is that impacts the effectiveness of controllers. I'll keep an eye out for my PCs and see how often they'd hit the 20% KO zone.

I'm curious about the controller statement. Can you elaborate?

BTW, anyone trying out the average damage option I suggested, please provide your groups results with it. I'm curious if you like it and what kind of impact it had on your game.

 

[keterys]

I've been considering switching to average damage for monsters, but not for PCs. I think certain players (mind you, some of the slowest ones) would revolt if they didn't get to roll their dice.

 

[CapnZapp]

Average damage seems a bit too fiddly for me. After all, it is not quite as easy to calculate than, say, maximum damage.

Maximum damage also has the benefit you don't need to lower PCs hit points; which is much simpler too.

Of course, the best would be if the players did max damage too (then you wouldn't need to change monster hp either), but for my own campaign, I couldn't convince my players to give up their random rolls (the actual rolling of damage dice).

 

[CapnZapp]

I agree. There does SEEM to be a requirement to play a certain way. I'm not saying it can only be played one way but it certainly goes against the grain and it is noticeable when you play outside the intended guidelines.

I kind of wish the DMG spoke about the expected norms. How many fights should a party make it through in an average day, for example. I often wonder if PC's are supposed to pop dailies every fight or less than that. Obviously, you play to taste, but the designers certainly had a playstyle in mind when they created 4e and if they spoke about what the "standard" adventuring day was like it would be great.

Yeah. Obviously, it would have to be delicately worded, so it doesn't come across as "there is one true way".

But these assumptions are there regardless, so yes, it would help to bring them out into the open.

Likewise; it would be great if the DMG discussed possible rules variants for overland campaigns, where having extended rests each day wrecks havoc with how resources are meant to be spent.

 

[erf_beto]

Also, as an added layer of complexity for the DM if you still want some variant in damage I'm considering using an online dice roller and pre rolling 2d6 (but with seperate value) about 100 times. Then just go down the chart every hit. If the first d6 is 1-3 then I will subtract the second number from the averge damage. if the first d6 is 4-6 then I will add the second d6 to the average damage.

Hmmm... how about using just the attack roll for this added variety? Like, if it's an even number, add 1d6; if it's odd number, subtract 1d6. Maybe scale it per tier (either 1d6 per tier or H:1d6, P:1d8, E:1d10). You could even roll this damage variation only once per round, encounter, day or session instead of every hit.

 

[Markn]

Hmmm... how about using just the attack roll for this added variety? Like, if it's an even number, add 1d6; if it's odd number, subtract 1d6. Maybe scale it per tier (either 1d6 per tier or H:1d6, P:1d8, E:1d10). You could even roll this damage variation only once per round, encounter, day or session instead of every hit.

Good idea. Again, not sure if this is worth doing at all, but the 1 session we played showed that if you have multiple creatures of the same type it quickly becomes apparent that the DM says take X damage over and over where X is the same. It's not so bad for PCs since they have a variety of powers.