Stringing together multiple encounters

Just recently had a battle where we took out some guards, and not very quietly. Healer was about to blow his heals (so we' get more then just a surge) when someone pointed out we may not have five minutes to recover. We asked the DM, who said we wouldn't know ahead of time if more guards would be responding in less than 5 minutes - we could blow our heals and try for a short rest, but nothing said we were going to get it.

I liked it. Yeah, 4e combat is balanced around encounters, but changing things up is a big part of how to keep it exciting. It could be fun terrain, or multi-form monsters, or just a simple character choice if they can afford to wait 5 minutes.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Hmm. You sound like you had a lot of fun so it's kind of moot, but I certainly wouldn't have liked being told that the encounter was over, but I wasn't going to get to spend any surges or get my big red powers back.
 

I like it when someone argues five minutes is more than enough time to regenerate all your injuries back to full so that you're no longer affected by combat, because real soldiers do that all the time. That's awesome and 'realistic'.

You don't string together multiple encounters without a short rest between them; you have one long encounter that comes in waves.

I dunno if I like it. That's a LONG time to have nothing but at-will A and at-will B as your primary combat options should you make the mistake of using your encounter powers early. That could get grindy and boring very fast.
 

I've done back to back encounters. I've done them with warning, and without warning. I've had them be optional with consequences for a short rest, letting the players know beforehand at times, and keeping them in the dark at other times.

I think it works best if the players know it's coming. Opening moves for some of my party is encounter power action point encounter power, during enemy turn immediate action encounter power. At the end of round 2 the player might be out of encounter powers. I won't discourage this, as it makes encounters go fast. But it also means I have a bored player spamming an at will for the entirety of a second encounter when they don't get a short rest.

I find ways to tax their action economy, or give them other actions they need to do when running back to back encounters. Skill challenge during an encounter puts a dampener on the encounter powers the PC's tend to use. I also will implement something in the environment that behaves like an encounter power. Perhaps a PC notices a loose branch hanging by a vine. Knocking it off might hurt a bunch of enemies and sweep them off their feat. There's an encounter power right there. A fighter might push a statue down on some enemies getting their attention, and distracting them from his allies. I also make sure these environmental options have at least the accuracy of, and do the equivalent of (or often more than) the damage of a PC's at-will powers, so they won't feel like using an at-will would be a better choice. (I utterly hate things like alchemist fire laying around for you to use that does +4 vs reflex, 1d6 damage, bleh).

I think occasional back to back encounters can add more interest to an encounter. Imagine a situation where the PC's defeat half an encounter, survivors flee, PC's chase them (quick skill challenge), upon success, they corner them, but the survivors manage to yell for their friends, making it a two wave second encounter, and upon failing the skill challenge, the survivors meet up with their friends, and the PC's have to take them all on at the same time, and have spent maybe more resources during the skill challenge like healing surges.

On the topic of "how to let the players know" it of course should use in game logic. I would shy away from telling players out of game that they will have 2 encounters back to back without a short rest. At the beginning of the encounter, I might say something like:

"As you charge the orc sentries, they raise an alarm, and you can hear heavy footsteps coming down to the gates. Sounds like they will be here within the a minute."

Or if the PC's have a time sensitive task ahead of them, I might say:

"Half the orcs retreat while the other half try to hold you off. You see a couple orcs getting ready to lift the draw bridge, If you quickly finish these orcs off, you may be able to get to the draw bridge in time, but that will put you face to face with the dozen or so orcs waiting there as well as the half dozen that just fled here."

Noticing, most the orcs are minions, the PC's may decide to go for the no rest option, hacking their way through the first wave, dashing across the draw bridge, and entering the gate way to fight the orcs there, at which point they see more orcs running to the battlements, and the PC's may realize they won't get a rest for a while.

I think the "must have short rest" constraint of 4e too heavily influences the scenarios, or "scenes" that can happen in the game. It's the DM's job to not let the scene be hindered by the mechanic. For instance, in the middle of the assault scenario above, one of the PC's may climb a tower, to knock over the orcish flag, giving everyone a huge morale boost, the equivalent of a short rest. During the fight, the orcs unleash a war troll upon the PC's hoping to weaken them, but they fear it's wild swings, and other than taking a few ranged pot shots, stay away from the fray. Once a PC knocks the troll down, boom they get the benefits (and hindrances) of another short rest. The angry orcs hesitate a moment before they charge after having witnessed the PC's prowess, which gives the PC's time to relocate and maybe take on the orcs at a bottleneck, waiting for another break to make their way to the battlements for a planned escape over the wall. This might complete their day 1 of the hit and run assault on the orc castle, leaving the half-orc rogue behind to blend with the orcs, and pave the way for the next day's sneak attack into the quarter's of the orcish commanders.

My adventure designs have so far been heavily influenced with the short rest requirements, and I really need to loosen that straight jacket and allow more flexibility. Back to back encounters (with in game warning, and environmental encounter powers) is one way, and giving the benefits of a short rest at scenario points is another.
 

IMHO back to back encounters can be a nice change of pace, especially when the pcs have the option of resting in return for accepting some kind of tactical penalty (the bad guys have time to sound the alert and man their positions or whatever). I often will have a "recharge condition" in an extended superencounter like this; for example, there was one encounter where the pcs had to rescue one guy who was about to have some stuff implanted in his head while waves of bad guys came at them; I told them up front that once they destroyed these two guys and over half of the rest, each of them could recharge an encounter power. (I think the basic idea comes from DMG2.)
 

So regular humans don't need 5 minutes with appropriate training (adventurers would call this "adventuring"), but super humans do. Buh?

Show me where in the rulebooks it says you can't keep fighting without a 5-minute rest. A 4E adventurer can fight all day without a break if need be. Give her 6 seconds to catch her breath (take a second wind), and she'll do it better. Give her 5 minutes (short rest), and she'll do better still. Naturally, a full night's sleep (extended rest) is best of all.

I think this makes perfect sense. The idea that 30 seconds of rest is just as good as 5 minutes seems silly to me.
 
Last edited:

I like it when someone argues five minutes is more than enough time to regenerate all your injuries back to full so that you're no longer affected by combat, because real soldiers do that all the time. That's awesome and 'realistic'.

hit points and armor class can stand for a lot of different things. for some groups, being at 10% hit points might mean that they have lost a limb and might be feeling faint from all the blood loss; while for another group being at 10% hit points might mean that the repeated strikes against the hero's armor have tired him greatly and should he come under further assault he might actually be wounded. spending healing surges might mean a limited supernatural healing factor (growing back limbs and rapidly stopping bleeding), or it might just be a representation of the hero catching his breath and getting back his composure.

in the former case i agree, five minutes might not be enough time for a rest. but in the latter case, five minutes is plenty of time to recover from a rattled helmet and singed hair - for a battle-hardened soldier. realism when it comes to recovery doesnt really come into play in d&d as far as i am concerned. you could have a PC who is knocked unconscious every 10 minutes and still functions perfectly fine, as long has he gets 5 minutes to rest between each instance; meanwhile in the real world you might not recover from a harsh blow that knocks you unconscious in a lifetime.
 

Something I will actually be using in my next session.
Storming room-to-room in the enemy's airship. Must reach and kill the mind flayer pilot and bypass his formian thralls. There are three options when they clear a room

Storm through (takes no time, +4 bonus to next initiative)
Take a breath (1 round, recover second wind and one encounter power, spend a healing surge)
Quick rest (5 rounds, short rest)

Edit: I should mention that the players can move to each room seperately. If one player wants to hang back an extra round to recharge a sweet encounter, they can. If another really needs to spend 4 surges, they can do that to. The party has about 10 armed warriors at their sides so they can afford to enter an encounter 1 or 2 members short.
 
Last edited:

@eriktheguy, and to everyone.

What's the benefit of doing this over just saying, okay you get everything back, next encounter? Is having any players sitting out for even 1 round worth any amount of attempt at simulation in the world of D&D? If so, why? And do the player's agree?

As a player, it just means I have less cool stuff to do, (edit: or that I'm sitting around bored if using the above situation) and the narrative can be the same either way. "You rush to the next encounter pumping with adrenaline, gaining back your encounter powers." "You rush to the next encounter pumping with adrenaline, not gaining back your encounter powers." I really don't see a story difference, so why not go with the one that the player's have more fun with?

That said, I have something suggested by Gabe from Penny Arcade, that is to spread the XP of a single encounter (generally a tough encounter, level of party +2-3) over a few different rooms and not having an extended rest in between. That felt more like a traditional D&D dungeon crawl, that is, weaker discrete battles, but vaguely maintaining the Things-to-do:Experience-of-encounter ratio.
 

What's the benefit of doing this over just saying, okay you get everything back, next encounter? Is having any players sitting out for even 1 round worth any amount of attempt at simulation in the world of D&D? If so, why? And do the player's agree?
Well, let me turn that question around: Is having any player(s) sitting out for any length of time worth the "attempt at simulation" that results from their characters being dropped to zero hit points or even killed?

IMO it's not all about the PCs doing cool stuff. Or, if it is, you don't need a DM. I'm not saying that you have to like this kind of play, and it shouldn't be forced on you, but personally - yes, I think there's some value there. You're changing things up, creating challenge, and enforcing the idea that not everything that happens in the game is 100% predictable and/or comes without any consequences.

As I mentioned before, personally I prefer the consequences bit. But in either case I think that some players might stand to benefit from backing away from the stance that stuff like this is purely negative and can't hope to have any positive effects. Not everyone, some players just don't want to deal with this sort of thing, and that's fine. But I think there's some room to put some trust or even faith in the DM, and maybe even accept that not everything in the game has to be strictly beneficial to the PCs to benefit the players.
 

Pets & Sidekicks

Remove ads

Top