Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Riastlin" data-source="post: 5526815" data-attributes="member: 94022">Personally, I think there's a couple of issues at work.  The first (and likely the biggest) is just a matter of DMs wrapping their heads around the idea.  4e definitely provides a lot more flexibility in this regard than earlier editions did.  After all, in earlier editions, most monsters were similar to the 4e solo (i.e. one monster of the party's level was considered a standard encounter).  So the idea of having these ranging, dynamic battles over multiple decks of a ship, or multiple floors of a tower, etc. is something new and if you've been doing it differently for 10+ years, it takes a while to get used to it.Second, don't forget the earlier slogan "Don't split the party!"  Sure, that was a slogan directed at the players, but DMs have often joked about splitting the party, knowing that the whole of the party is greater than the sum of its parts.  So there's the natural tendency to an extent to not go out of our way to screw with (or over) the party.Finally, there's the issue of metagaming.  Metagaming can't really be completely avoided no matter how hard we try.  However, one thing I've always noticed is that whenever I tell the players to place their minis for instance, they always end up within a few squares of each other, regardless of how the narrative has been going.  If Bob said he was checking out the room down the hall, Ted says "well I wouldn't have let him go alone", etc.  Sure, from time to time if need be a DM can put his or her foot down, but more often than not, this is going to lead to arguments at the table which immediately ends the fun for everyone. All that being said, I am definitely interested in hearing ideas about dynamic encounters like these.  It is certainly something I'm trying to add to my game to get away from the typical "formation fighting" that so many combats devolve into.  Additionally, I think 4e really lends itself well to alternative combat goals as well, which can really help with the dynamics a bit.  In an upcoming session, I have the PCs trying to get the city gates opened so that the resistance army can get into the city.  I have a battle with plenty of enemies planned for that encounter, but the real goal of the encounter is simply to get the gates open.  Once that is accomplished, the resistance will quickly push through the gates and the party can move on.  The fight will be much harder if the party just tries to stand and kill all the enemies first.  This to me is the true advantage of 4ed in terms of combat.  There are so many different ways to enable the players to think outside the box in order to get around obstacles, and part of that, I think, has to do with the increased numbers in the combat (or the fact that you can have both a major trap and monsters that are a significant threat in the same encounter, etc.).  When I play (as opposed to DMing) I am very much the curious sort "Can I jump up here, or what if I cut the cable to the chandelier, etc.", and to me its that impromptu stuff that keeps the game fun so I'm always looking for ways to get my players to do the same.Now the cool thing about the ship battle that was described is that it in particular allows certain characters to really shine.  The elven avenger with all kinds of movement options can quickly reinforce some allies, while the wizard with a bunch of forced movement options can simply push others into the water.  Hopefully the party quickly realizes that its not just about dropping all the monsters to 0.</blockquote>

Verification