Standard encounter budget - too easy?

[ST]

My understanding of how the math works out is that PCs get a pretty significant boost in effectiveness as soon as they get into Paragon Tier. So I do think that's a factor.

If you're using standard encounter budgets, I'd guess that a lot of those monsters come from high heroic or just into paragon, and the monsters right on either side of that split seem to have a noticeable difference in effectiveness.

There are some low-paragon creatures that are just way deadlier (such as the ghaele of winter), even though they're not many levels higher. So you might fiddle with monster composition a bit (pulling maybe smaller encounters that show some paragon 'oomph' and synergize well), and see how that goes.

Sometimes it's just a matter of the players coming up with tactics that largely neutralize the nastiest part of an encounter, which is cool, since they're getting a payoff for their efforts. So unless they seem like they're not trying as hard because it's too easy, you may not have to bump difficulty much, it may be more a matter of the back-and-forth between you and the players tactically.

 

[wedgeski]

When putting together encounters, I tend to favor having a lot of quick 'brutal' encounters at the PCs level, often featuring skirmishers, artillery, minions, and other enemies that will hit hard but then fall fast. That way those fights are over quickly, but still drain away key resources. Even if the PCs make short work of them, they definitely feel they've been in a fight.

Ditto, and this highlights one of the strengths of 4E for me as well. Otherwise, yes, I've found the standard encounter budget to be a little lenient and have adjusted accordingly.

 

[Victim]

PCs have often struggled with encounters meant to be fairly easy, and breezed through harder ones IME. If something seems like it's going to be tough, PCs can use powerful abilities early. On the other hand, an encounter that doesn't seem special can still turn sour (especially with bad luck), but generally won't prompt a Daily/AP response.

 

[OchreJelly]

Thanks for the feedback. It sounds like a lot of people are seeing that "normal" budget leads to a few surges spent with minimal other resources spent. To me that sounds "easy" but maybe I'm just hung up on the nomenclature. I just need to adjust my precepts a bit and I'm good.

I am not saying it's that cut-and-dry though. There have been some encounters where terrain definitely tips the scales - Like where the defender may be hindered from doing their job, and the "normal" encounter bloodies a softy or two. I think this also is fine, and keeps the game interesting.

I should mention that since our playtime is typically limited (3-4 hour sessions), that I think I will go with the more short / deadly approach that some have mentioned. Now with the encounter builder I will level up some skirmishers / lurkers to change things up.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

The less time you have, the less likely it is you can really manage to run several encounters per day. It's just natural to assume an extended rest happened between encounters. SO picking tougher fights is a good choice. Besides - assuming they live, they will level faster and that will probably be to the liking of at least some players, because it leads to new toys.

 

[Cadfan]

I'm finding a similar effect. Most encounters of my group's level get steamrolled. We are also low paragon tier.

Its worth noting that my group is very tactically adept, and very carefully makes sure to use daily powers instead of saving them for a future that never comes. And they're very good about selecting daily and utility powers with full-encounter effects, and using about one per encounter per character (plus their dailies that are not full-encounter effects).

The upshot of this is that every single encounter involves the use of at least one, and possibly two or more, completely game changing abilities.

For example, we just fought Skalmad in his second incarnation. The fight was supposed to be two levels above ours, so difficult but not impossible. The group immediately used an ability that gave everyone in the party +5 damage for the whole encounter on every single attack roll made including our wizard's area effects (though our ranger who was outside of the effect), and our cleric used an ability that granted everyone in the group Resist All 5. So the whole fight occurred with our characters taking five points less damage per hit, and our enemies taking five points more. Needless to say the encounter was shredded.

This is not an atypical outcome to a battle. Had they chosen different abilities, they might have granted +3 to all defenses for the whole party for the whole encounter, the ability to heal large amounts of damage (15 or so) whenever they succeeded on an attack in the front lines, a reduction in the damage dealt by the largest enemy to the tune of -10, or a number of other effects.

Meanwhile the group has two defenders, one paladin and one fighter, and is quite adept at matching each up to the optimum foe, leaving them largely in charge of the flow of battle.

At times I feel like this is a flaw, but at other times I feel like my group earned the right to demolish things through sheer skill and tactical acumen. I guess that's the inevitable result of creating a game in which combat tactics can contribute heavily towards victory- tactically skilled players can shift the difficulty curve significantly in their favor.