The Temple Between - Grand Cathedal Combat


log in or register to remove this ad

Generally, having three sides in a battle with two of them controlled by the DM is a PITA. It barely matters what system you use, though some might do it better than others.

I think overall it's better to handwave NPC vs NPC fights, or create some shortcut, like a mini-skill challenge or something like that.
 


Ari, thank you for responding. That sort of stuff makes me consider the products under discussion (though Scales of War will likely be my next campaign anyways).

Generally speaking, there are encounters I have ran in the past where I had to have missed the intention of the writer, either making things too easy or too hard. I really like the Tactics block that many adventures have included in 4e and some 3e adventures. Of course, that does chew up some word count...
 

The second group did show up in the third round but our GM gave us a Surprise Round so we had four actions (we all used our Action Points).
I thought that a PC is only allowed to use 1 AP per encounter, unless a short rest is taken.

DDI Compendium said:
Once per encounter: After you spend an action point, you must take a short rest before you can spend another. Some monsters can spend more than 1 action point per encounter.
 

Yep. Since writing that adventure, I've learned the dangers of using too many soldier-types. (And of course, the elites in that fight were created under the old rules, with the defensive bumps.) So I'll fully claim a mea culpa on that one.
Ari -- would you be willing (or could you) post what you think the encounter should look like right now, if you were to tweak it?

Also, how should the elites look with the correct rules?

I am running SoW and we will be hitting that adventure relatively soon.
 

I would recommend against giving the players control of the NPC's on their side. You would be adding an extra turn for every monster run. Also the players will have to become familiar with them 'on the fly'.

Probably not a problem for many groups, but it will tend to slow things down.
 

Ari -- would you be willing (or could you) post what you think the encounter should look like right now, if you were to tweak it?

I probably wouldn't change much, since any dramatic changes would require rewriting the entire encounter. What I would do is add some additional advice to the DM. Basically, if you're still worried about the fight taking too long, then whenever you have a monster attacking a monster, assume it uses an at-will attack (not a recharge or an encounter), and assume it hits successfully, without rolling. Then use average damage, as mentioned. The results won't be 100% "realistic," but they'll work for making things go swiftly.

Also, while letting the PCs run the monster would work in some cases, it really won't in this one. As written, it's not so much that the PCs ally with one group against another, but more than it winds up as a three-way combat, with each group battling both the other two.

Also, how should the elites look with the correct rules?

Choose three of the elite's four defenses and reduce them each by 2.
 

I probably wouldn't change much, since any dramatic changes would require rewriting the entire encounter. What I would do is add some additional advice to the DM.
Thanks.

If you could rewrite the encounter again, though, would you be willing to show us how you would do it? If you can't due to some WOTC contractual requirement, I understand.
 

If you could rewrite the encounter again, though, would you be willing to show us how you would do it?

Truth is, I don't know how, or how much. Obviously, the encounter didn't work well for Tom, but I know of other groups that really liked it. And in terms of the adventure's plot, it's sort of necessary.

I'd swap out a few creatures, maybe--replace the soldiers with something else, just to speed things up a bit more--but beyond that, I truly don't know.
 

Remove ads

Top