Variant Encounters: Gank the Guard!

[Manbearcat]

The only issue that I have with the minion/standard toggle is that it is subversive to the expectation that PC striker classes/builds that are thematically and mechanically predicated upon maximizing surprise/stealth attack damage for just such a scenario should do it better than others. If you go with the minion/standard toggle then those archetype build choices are rendered irrelevant.

I prefer, and use, a simple scenario whereby if a PC causes enough damage to a guard/sentry to meet their bloodied value then it is an automatic K.O. or kill (player preference). This is certainly reachable on a consistent basis by those builds/archetypes that are predicated upon it while being somewhat less consistent for your standard striker (but still within reach) and not consistent at all for leaders/defenders/controllers (even those built for skirmish combat damage). Thus, the mechanics and their place in the game world properly reflect their acumen/archetype and they are rewarded by their build choices (rather than the game world and the mechanics being indifferent to them...which is effectively a relative net loss as they've invested build resources for that advantage).

 

[Tony Vargas]

I think the question here is whether you want the scenario to be a "real challenge" or a trivial one. For a trivial challenge, the guard is a minion, and either one stealthy PC makes a stealth check to sneak up on him, or several make a group check. A few rolls later, it's wrapped up and you move on. Alternately, you can just say, "as you're sneaking up, you spot a guard, do you want to kill him, or capture & question him?"

For a "real challenge" you could have the guard-ganking be part of a broader infiltration challenge. A guard (or guards) shows up if you fail the challenge or on a specific failure (like a stealth failure), and you have to gank him (or all of them) in one round or be given away. If you succeed, the failure is canceled and you can try to complete the challenge. You can use one standard guard (decidedly kill-able in one round by a typical party, particularly if he's in easy charge range) or several minions. At heroic, four minions or a standard equals 1 complexity of a skill challenge. A modest complexity SC can thus be perked up with a same-level trap and a same-level guard-ganking micro-encounter to become a meaningful challenge, overall.

 

[Primitive Screwhead]

However, using just a skill challenge framework either magnifies or minimizes the difference in skill levels... depending on how restrictive you are on which skills are needed.

With the aforementioned 3pp 'Break and Enter', this is resolved under the combat rules {with some tweaks}. The times I have been able to use these rules, they worked great. The most recent combat involved two black oozes that the group's Ranger identified as probably lurking in the rooms ahead. The PCs advanced carefully as to not alert the enemy of their presence and succeeded on 'ganking' one without the second noticing. Then the fighter, thinking the thief had cleared the way, waltzed into view. He was able to charge the remaining Ooze and almost 'ganked' it as well, but didn't deal enough damage. Had a great fight from that point as the Ooze ate the Fighters boots {and part of leg, thigh, and chain-mail for good measure}.

Highly recommend the pdf! {and only $5!}

 

[Balesir]

The only issue that I have with the minion/standard toggle is that it is subversive to the expectation that PC striker classes/builds that are thematically and mechanically predicated upon maximizing surprise/stealth attack damage for just such a scenario should do it better than others. If you go with the minion/standard toggle then those archetype build choices are rendered irrelevant.

I see your point, but I find that strikers generally have other features that make them good at this sort of scenario, also. True, their mega-damage is irrelevant - but their ranged accuracy, stealth capabilities (including Warlock teleport and invisibility powers) and so on aren't.

As an extension to what I said before, even the combat roll to hit the (minion) guard can be part of the skill challenge, with the SC XP 'absorbing' the guard monster XP entirely. Including the whole thing into a wider "infiltration" challenge - or series of challenges - is thus quite feasible.

 

[Manbearcat]

I see your point, but I find that strikers generally have other features that make them good at this sort of scenario, also. True, their mega-damage is irrelevant - but their ranged accuracy, stealth capabilities (including Warlock teleport and invisibility powers) and so on aren't.

As an extension to what I said before, even the combat roll to hit the (minion) guard can be part of the skill challenge, with the SC XP 'absorbing' the guard monster XP entirely. Including the whole thing into a wider "infiltration" challenge - or series of challenges - is thus quite feasible.

No, I read you. I'm of a mind that is a 50/50 split on the subject. However, my players (specifically the two who carve out characters such as this) are not. We long ago had the discussion of how to handle stealth/infiltration Skill Challenges and what to do with "sentry gank scenarios". They expected (understandably) the percentage of success to be close to 100 % (assuming successful stealth contest) for the rogue/assassin archetype. * Additionally, they wanted success % to be considerably less so for those outside of that focused archetype. Further, they also wanted the tension of a marginal amount of swinginess (less than absolute 100 % success due to the potential of extraordinarily bad damage rolls) to be inherent.

As such, I couldn't sell them on the minionization route so we went with the bloodied value threshold route. I have no problem deferring to my players' table preferences much of the time and especially in the scenarios where I'm relatively ambivalent.

To your second point, that is precisely how we handle sentry XP (or any monster XP) in the Skill Challenge framework; sentry/monster XP is assimilated into Skill Challenge XP.

* Just as a defender might feel marginalized if an at-will marking mechanism was built-into the combat framework for all participants. Defenders have plenty more to offer outside of the marking mechanism (enhanced survivability, melee control embedded in their suite of powers outside of the marking system, striker or leader secondary role.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

The only issue that I have with the minion/standard toggle is that it is subversive to the expectation that PC striker classes/builds that are thematically and mechanically predicated upon maximizing surprise/stealth attack damage for just such a scenario should do it better than others. If you go with the minion/standard toggle then those archetype build choices are rendered irrelevant.

I prefer, and use, a simple scenario whereby if a PC causes enough damage to a guard/sentry to meet their bloodied value then it is an automatic K.O. or kill (player preference). This is certainly reachable on a consistent basis by those builds/archetypes that are predicated upon it while being somewhat less consistent for your standard striker (but still within reach) and not consistent at all for leaders/defenders/controllers (even those built for skirmish combat damage). Thus, the mechanics and their place in the game world properly reflect their acumen/archetype and they are rewarded by their build choices (rather than the game world and the mechanics being indifferent to them...which is effectively a relative net loss as they've invested build resources for that advantage).

Actually a decent rogue should be able to clean kill an equal-level standard monster without too much problem from surprise, if he gets the initiative. Consider, surprise round, use a daily, round 1 encounter power, AP, at-will/encounter power. All of these will automatically have CA. That's nominally "6 dice" plus 2x SA dice, plus whatever other effects. Rogues are fairly accurate, you can expect to hit with 2 out of the 3 attacks. Even if the target isn't dead outright it isn't going to be in good shape. Granted there's a decent chance of your guard surviving, but them's the breaks. Of course you CAN cut that down to almost a sure thing with your half damage rule, but I'm not sure it is absolutely needed. Of course at higher levels the PC will do better than this as well, and once you figure that many guards are going to be lower than PC level it seems OK (and of course even non-strikers can help out).

 

[Manbearcat]

Actually a decent rogue should be able to clean kill an equal-level standard monster without too much problem from surprise, if he gets the initiative.

Yup. I agree and have stated as such in another thread similar to this. The issue here was one of reliably versus near 100 % confidence (using an encounter power or an at-will as it needs to be able to be pulled of more than once or twice in a day). Exceeding bloodied threshold provides a less swinginess, still provides a modicum of tension (in that an extremly anomalous, bad set of rolls can result in failure) and still rewards the build choices relative to other choices/roles.

 

[Tequila Sunrise]

Glad to hear I'm not the only one making guidelines for this! I'm not crazy about minionizing guards just for the purpose of ganking -- I like monster caste to be the result of power and/or training, rather than moment-to-moment circumstance -- but these are some interesting ideas. Similarly, there's something about SCs that never clicked with me but kudos to those who make them work!

Bluffing a Guard: Rather than sneak, a PC might opt to bluff a guard. A bluffing PC must come up with some kind of pretense for approaching the guard. If the pretense makes no sense at all given the situation, the DM can decide that the Bluff attempt simply fails. Drawn weapons ruin any chance for bluffing in most situations, so a bluffing PC should keep his weapons sheathed.

After approaching the guard, a bluffing PC explains himself to the guard and then rolls a Bluff check against the guard's passive Insight. Note: Most ruses will only distract one guard at a time, so multiple guards usually require multiple PCs to successfully bluff.

Failure: The guard isn't fooled. A surprise round is immediately initiated. Other PCs can act during this surprise round, but the bluffing PC can't.

Success: The guard is fooled and distracted from his duty. His passive Perception is reduced by 5 for the PCs' next round of Stealth checks. A new bluff check must be rolled every round of Stealth checks to maintain the bluffer's cover and keep the guard's Perception lowered. A successful bluffer can begin and act in any surprise round triggered by his allies.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Yup. I agree and have stated as such in another thread similar to this. The issue here was one of reliably versus near 100 % confidence (using an encounter power or an at-will as it needs to be able to be pulled of more than once or twice in a day). Exceeding bloodied threshold provides a less swinginess, still provides a modicum of tension (in that an extremly anomalous, bad set of rolls can result in failure) and still rewards the build choices relative to other choices/roles.

I'd say the chance of failure to do 50% damage is probably right about 25%, though if you're willing to burn an AP to finish the job if needed you can cut it back to around half that. Honestly the chance is not that much better than against the full HP ironically, it just requires a consistently lower resource outlay (IE you won't need to use a daily and probably won't need to use an AP). I think both techniques can work fine. I've tended to just use minions, sometimes with a mix of one standard in there, often a couple levels lower than the party. Makes it a bit tricky, but not too bad. Tends to be a lot of ways to do these things in 4e though.

 

[Manbearcat]

@AbdulAlhazred

My sentries/guards are always 1 or 2 levels lower than party level. Couple that with the fact that I give all PCs and creatures + 1 damage/2 levels and the rate is much closer to 90 - 95 % (perhaps a failure on once or twice in 20 efforts). That works out nicely for my players' expectations.

If I didn't have any strikers built for assasination/ganking damage output I would likely go the minionization route. Its more elegant and has less overhead. My players' concern is strictly a Gamist one.