D&D 4E Throwing ideas, seeing what sticks (and what stinks)

[AbdulAlhazred]

Well, you could do a SWSA-like 'track' and get a similar result. That is you'd keep one pool of hit points, but have conditions that are applied when certain amounts of damage or certain damage thresholds are achieved. So taking 25% of your hit points in one attack might 'daze' you, and taking 75% in one hit might 'stun' you (maybe not those literal 4e conditions, and being some sort of 'track' the exact details will be a little different from 4e, but generally similar).

Conceptually its nice. You could make imposition of these things be class-feature based too, so if you build a 'big bruiser' type martial striker of some sort, then he can 'knock back' opponents with extra effectiveness, regardless of the specific power being used. This would also allow various classes/builds to have specific 'shticks' where they can get extra bennies from psychic, cold, poison, whatever damage.

I think I gotta put a version of this down as an idea to toy around with in my hack. It could work well, though it tends to undermine the centrality of the power concept.

 

[thanson02]

I got an idea the other day which I would like to get some feedback on. How would the 4th Edition game work if the HP pool was split into a physical damage pool and one life/psychic pool (radiant, necrotic and psychic damage). Maybe with a split of 3/4 vs. 1/4 or 2/3 vs. 1/3. Battles would go faster and potentially be mere deadly. Negative HP in the life/psychic pool might not result in death but rather a dazed condition? Would it fly? Would it be greatly unbalanced? Could it be improved further? Any ideas or suggestions

/Myrhdraak

I think that would make it more complicated than need to be. If you're looking to make combat more deadly, that can easily be taken care of by increasing player damage options and increasing damage produced by monsters. I am personally a big fan of the idea of attack Powers as minor actions which I feel 4E was lacking. You could also drop the monsters hit points to three-quarters of their standard if you want combat to move faster.

As for things like attacking ones mind or will, there are plenty of options to use such as diseases that attack the will or the Gloom cards from the Shadowfell box set. You could also come up with something that attacks healing surges so they're unable to recover from injuries as easily which is also something that attacking the psyche would cause.

A house rule that I have in my home games is that when a player runs out of healing surges they automatically receive the dazed condition (due to exhaustion) and the condition cannot be removed unless they take a short rest.

I guess the point I'm trying to make is that there's a lot of different options available.

Sent from my XT1096 using Tapatalk

 

[MoutonRustique]

You could get greater detail by having damage thresholds as well as damage types mattering, at the 'cost' (it's the point, really, I suppose) of added complexity & bookkeeping. Some general thing based on a fraction of regular hps might not work so well, since monsters can tend to have huge hp pools.

Bookkeeping is a weird sort of beast in 4e - on the DM side (of course) if you pay attention, you can minimize it to almost nill. If you don't, you can end up having every single monster have either a recharge, a (save ends) effect on regular attacks, marks that only last a round, etc, etc.

As with all things - when you get a lot of options, you get a lot of options to hurt yourself with...

For my part, I dislike minor (save ends) and such effects from monsters - so I weed those things out. Hence I have very, very little bookkeeping to do other than hp - all this to say: having a side pool of hp isn't something that's likely to be a great hindrance to me. But I understand that may not be the case for all.

Having the side-pool as opposed to just getting damaged on a round per round basis has a big consequence that can be pretty cool: you add another "bloodied" status. So you get an opportunity to play with all those kinds of effects more often.

Another thing is that, in some situations, this side-pool is opt-in for the players, so they get to have a bit more control over whether they want to "invest" in that effect. (I say some situations since not every party can just choose to do large amounts of type [X] damage... or NOT do type [X] damage.)

This mechanic could work as another lever around which to build encounters tailored to the group : they keep spamming [radiant] all over the place? This creature gets a massive bonus after suffering 50% of it's hp from radiant! It's more interesting than He resists 10 of you attack... in any case.

On the flip side, if you want to be a bit of a [genitalia]: you offered them a great deal on a bunch of single use items dealing [damage type X] they don't readily have access to and they "threw it back in your face" - [fake sad face] the next creature would have been nerfed into the ground after only 25% of it's hp from said source... If only they'd taken your generous offer... [vindictive bastard smile]

I know there are already a few things in place to do those kinds of things - but this is one more that I could see myself using. Plus, IME, it's easier to keep track of binary switches that happen for the whole encounter as opposed to every round.

This is starting to sound like I'm defending myself against [MENTION=996]Tony Vargas[/MENTION] - which wasn't the point for two reasons:
1 - he didn't attack (like, at all)
2 - it makes the tone of the post "whinny"
I don't want to rewrite everything, so I'll use this final note as my excuse to avoid doing that.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I know there are already a few things in place to do those kinds of things - but this is one more that I could see myself using. Plus, IME, it's easier to keep track of binary switches that happen for the whole encounter as opposed to every round.

This is starting to sound like I'm defending myself against [MENTION=996]Tony Vargas[/MENTION] - which wasn't the point for two reasons:
1 - he didn't attack (like, at all)

Thanks, I was starting to worry you'd taken what I had to say the wrong way.

It also just occurred to me that you could totally implement an idea like this by just banging out a 'Trait' on your monster. Exception based design - 4e's version of rule 0 and DM empowerment.

"Trait
RICO (Radiant Influenced & Cleric Optimization Act) Once this monster has taken more than 100 hps of Radiant damage, it's attacks inflict an extra 4d8 cold damage and restrained (save ends) on any enemy that has used a radiant power or a power that healed or provided a bonus to an ally, since the start of it's last turn."

 

[MoutonRustique]

Thanks, I was starting to worry you'd taken what I had to say the wrong way.

No sweat. There is such as thing as being "to PC", but then again, forum posts are so very easy to create and read in a manner different than intended.

It also just occurred to me that you could totally implement an idea like this by just banging out a 'Trait' on your monster. Exception based design - 4e's version of rule 0 and DM empowerment.

"Trait
RICO (Radiant Influenced & Cleric Optimization Act) Once this monster has taken more than 100 hps of Radiant damage, it's attacks inflict an extra 4d8 cold damage and restrained (save ends) on any enemy that has used a radiant power or a power that healed or provided a bonus to an ally, since the start of it's last turn."

Exactly this - plus (bonus for me!) I hadn't thought to key-in a character relative action into the mix.

Just that last bit can add a whole lot:
[Trait]Whenever an opponent is healed, that opponent can choose to reduce the healing received by half. Jealous Fiend heals as many hp as the opponent and is weakened until the end of it's next turn.

If the healing is not reduced in this way, jealous Fiend gets a +2 bonus to hit an opponent that was healed since the end of the jealous fiend's last turn or an opponent that offered healing since the end of it's last turn. On a hit, jealous fiend deals +2d8 necrotic damage and heals as many hp as it deals necrotic damage.[/trait]

*variations on trait (because I can't not tinker with things):
- instead of being weakened, the jealous fiend is [stunned] until the end of its next turn, or until it suffers damage.
- instead of being weakened, the jealous fiend takes a -4 penalty to attack rolls against an opponent that was healed or that healed an opponent since the end of the jealous fiend's last turn.
- instead of the hit and damage bonus and stuff, the jealous fiend teleports next to either opponent and makes an attack
- instead of the hit and damage bonus and stuff, the jealous fiend gets an action point
- ...that's enough for now

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

No sweat. There is such as thing as being "to PC", but then again, forum posts are so very easy to create and read in a manner different than intended.
Exactly this - plus (bonus for me!) I hadn't thought to key-in a character relative action into the mix.

Just that last bit can add a whole lot:
[Trait]Whenever an opponent is healed, that opponent can choose to reduce the healing received by half. Jealous Fiend heals as many hp as the opponent and is weakened until the end of it's next turn.

If the healing is not reduced in this way, jealous Fiend gets a +2 bonus to hit an opponent that was healed since the end of the jealous fiend's last turn or an opponent that offered healing since the end of it's last turn. On a hit, jealous fiend deals +2d8 necrotic damage and heals as many hp as it deals necrotic damage.[/trait]

*variations on trait (because I can't not tinker with things):
- instead of being weakened, the jealous fiend is [stunned] until the end of its next turn, or until it suffers damage.
- instead of being weakened, the jealous fiend takes a -4 penalty to attack rolls against an opponent that was healed or that healed an opponent since the end of the jealous fiend's last turn.
- instead of the hit and damage bonus and stuff, the jealous fiend teleports next to either opponent and makes an attack
- instead of the hit and damage bonus and stuff, the jealous fiend gets an action point
- ...that's enough for now

That's an interesting style of monster design. I think all of these concepts can be used in various ways. Another obvious option is an item that produces an effect when you do a certain type of damage, take a certain type of damage, etc etc etc.

 

[MoutonRustique]

I'm a big fan of "puzzle monsters"! (And "puzzle mechanics" also!)

The trick is always having them be interesting : not to constricting, not to obvious, not to difficult, not to [a bunch more adjectives]... Not easy, and not the same for everyone to boot!

Everything the players can use to feel like they "did the right thing" or "beat the encounter" is a plus in my book - the balancing factor is the potential added complexity/bookkeeping/time-to-enact. A huge revelation came from the catastrophic dragons - a huge power that players can entirely (or mostly) avoid! That was an eye-opener (as well as the advice that players "nerfing your encounter to the ground" could be an excellent result!)

Do you guys have any "puzzle monster" tricks other than the basics?

How do you balance giving your players ways to make encounters easier while not having them become boring speed-bumps?

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I'm a big fan of "puzzle monsters"! (And "puzzle mechanics" also!)

The trick is always having them be interesting : not to constricting, not to obvious, not to difficult, not to [a bunch more adjectives]... Not easy, and not the same for everyone to boot!

Everything the players can use to feel like they "did the right thing" or "beat the encounter" is a plus in my book - the balancing factor is the potential added complexity/bookkeeping/time-to-enact. A huge revelation came from the catastrophic dragons - a huge power that players can entirely (or mostly) avoid! That was an eye-opener (as well as the advice that players "nerfing your encounter to the ground" could be an excellent result!)

Do you guys have any "puzzle monster" tricks other than the basics?

How do you balance giving your players ways to make encounters easier while not having them become boring speed-bumps?

Well, SOME puzzle monsters are OK, and to an extent EVERY monster should present a 'puzzle' in the form of asking the question 'what tactics will defeat this'. The danger with 4e is in simply assembling encounter after encounter of stock monsters, which then simply demand stock tactics to defeat. So, a monster that deviates more from the norm is useful. They also tend to be things that can synergize well with specific terrain and tactical situations.

OTOH they can have issues, heavily favoring or disfavoring certain characters, simply being obtuse and frustrating if the players don't guess what sort of trick works against them (think of the old classic monsters like the Shambling Mound, 'haha you hit it with electricity you FOOL!', etc).

 

[Myrhdraak]

Bookkeeping is a weird sort of beast in 4e - on the DM side (of course) if you pay attention, you can minimize it to almost nill. If you don't, you can end up having every single monster have either a recharge, a (save ends) effect on regular attacks, marks that only last a round, etc, etc.

You are right about, book keeping. Never though about that consequence. Would be a hazzle on the DM side, i.e. not worth the effort.

 

[MoutonRustique]

Well, SOME puzzle monsters are OK, and to an extent EVERY monster should present a 'puzzle' in the form of asking the question 'what tactics will defeat this'. The danger with 4e is in simply assembling encounter after encounter of stock monsters, which then simply demand stock tactics to defeat. So, a monster that deviates more from the norm is useful. They also tend to be things that can synergize well with specific terrain and tactical situations.

[bolded] That's the goal - actually, the goal is to present situations where the players can learn/recognize an optimal strategy and be able to enact it. The last part is key!

OTOH they can have issues, heavily favoring or disfavoring certain characters, simply being obtuse and frustrating if the players don't guess what sort of trick works against them (think of the old classic monsters like the Shambling Mound, 'haha you hit it with electricity you FOOL!', etc).

That is the rub.

You are right about, book keeping. Never though about that consequence. Would be a hazzle on the DM side, i.e. not worth the effort.

Really depends upon which aspects of bookkeeping that person finds difficult.

As I said, for me, keeping track of a separate hp pool is a breeze - it's simply a column beside the regular one (I count damage taken, never hp) and having a once per encounter trigger isn't a problem: once that column hits the target number, I never need to reference it again. It's not something I have to watch out for - I'll see it immediately when I jot down the damage taken.

Marks... I strongly dislike marks from monsters. Especially those that take effect on a hit and that last only a round... (When I use [soldiers] they have an aura mark unless they have a really cool mark effect - then I don't mind, because it's awesome, and I probably chose that monster for that ability.) Also, (save ends) on basic attacks... no. Just no. Unless it's imperative to the monster's identity, that stuff goes right out the window. I tend to "replace" it with having the effect trigger only on a high roll (how high will depend upon how often I want it to come into play.)