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

[Markn]

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.

Yeah, its not for every group. Give it a try as a DM and see what you think.

Maybe even give the players the option of doing it or not. I'm sure after a few sessions the average damage doers would convince the others of the systems merits.

 

[Markn]

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

Fair enough. Remember though, over a days worth of combats, the players will likely roll average damage, with about half the time being more and half the time being less. Besically, the strength of the modification is that it preserves 4e in every way. It just removes the time to find dice, roll dice and add dice which is surprisingly more time than one would think.

 

[RangerWickett]

I think I'll try this.

One of my friends plans to use another rule when he runs his game. Roll 5.

At the start of each encounter, roll 5d20. You record the numbers and can use them at any time instead of a normal roll, but only one per turn. Once you use them, you roll 5 more, and so on.

If you get good rolls, you can keep them until you need them. If you get crappy rolls, you can choose to just roll at random, or use the crappy pre-rolls when it doesn't matter in order to get a new set which might be better.

 

[Markn]

I think I'll try this.

One of my friends plans to use another rule when he runs his game. Roll 5.

At the start of each encounter, roll 5d20. You record the numbers and can use them at any time instead of a normal roll, but only one per turn. Once you use them, you roll 5 more, and so on.

If you get good rolls, you can keep them until you need them. If you get crappy rolls, you can choose to just roll at random, or use the crappy pre-rolls when it doesn't matter in order to get a new set which might be better.

Another local group in out town has tried this and they weren't fans of it. It didn't speed combat up too much and its very anticlimactic knowing if you hit or miss (most of the time). But give it a try and see what you think. Just giving you feedback that I have heard about it.

 

[Pale Jackal]

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

I could be wrong, but wouldn't decreasing monster HP increase the potency of slow/immobilization effects? You're more likely to drop a monster before it hits you. I suppose it depends on the group/power selection, but it could lead to a ranged-heavy group making quick work of melee monsters, for instance.

There might be other examples, but I do think one poster mentioned that his defenders didn't like the decrease in monster HP.

 

[Markn]

I could be wrong, but wouldn't decreasing monster HP increase the potency of slow/immobilization effects? You're more likely to drop a monster before it hits you. I suppose it depends on the group/power selection, but it could lead to a ranged-heavy group making quick work of melee monsters, for instance.

There might be other examples, but I do think one poster mentioned that his defenders didn't like the decrease in monster HP.

Not that I have seen. I have problems with large massess of melee monsters but for other reasons - the fighter uses come and get it and rain of steel, the cleric pops a zone that adds 2d6 to everyones damage, the wizard pops powers that hit all enemies in the zone and the PCs pop these powers all at once mowing down every group of melee monsters. I've fouind that by 15th level if I don't include ranged monsters in every fight I get wholesale slaughtered. But in regards to your concern, I have found those effects to not be devalued in anyway.

But since you raised the point, I have found that creatures that have powers that work only at bloodied or only work when not bloodied seem to be slightly affected. But for me, the simples approach is for the DM to make changes and not the players - the DM can adjust rules without the players ever realizing it whereas players seem to groan with every change they need to make. Plus if you use the CB its such a hassle to make players make the changes.

 

[S'mon]

My preference is Level +2 fights, but halve monster hp, not PC hp. The fights are fast, but scary!

 

[Markn]

My preference is Level +2 fights, but halve monster hp, not PC hp. The fights are fast, but scary!

Wow, those fights must be lightning fast! In my experience, doing that makes abilities that work at bloodied or while not bloodied almost worthless. Plust some creatures are suddenly 1 shot kills which seems a bit too fast for me. To each their own though.

 

[Nebulous]

I've been using 3/4 hp and +1/2 level damage now, and it works well. But it can still take a while to finish a fight. Then again, recently we've had a 6-PC group and multiple NPCs, so i had to throw a lot of toughies at them to make it a challenge.

Still, i sort of wish it went even a little faster than it does.

 

[S'mon]

Wow, those fights must be lightning fast! In my experience, doing that makes abilities that work at bloodied or while not bloodied almost worthless. Plust some creatures are suddenly 1 shot kills which seems a bit too fast for me. To each their own though.

I've found that full hp elites are very tedious (eg level 5 gelatinous cube vs 1st level PCs). By contrast, 3 1/2 hp elites (eg 3 level 3 ankhegs vs level 2 PCs) made for an exciting, very tough fight.

I haven't seen any one-shot kills, even with the 19 hp giant weasels (1/2 hp reskinned wolves), but I certainly wouldn't mind, I like one-shot kills and I use a lot of minions.