D&D 4E What Doesn't 4E Do Well?

[AbdulAlhazred]

I think the most important advice given (and explained in a nice example) is too keep the situation constantly evolving , otherwise skill challenge become stale...

This is really the key and its been expounded on quite a bit in the Dragon article series on SCs. Just like in ANY other situation the DM has to present the situation as it exists for the characters and show them the way. When a PC acts the environment has to react and the circumstances of the challenge evolve. The tally is just the DM's way to keep track of the progress through the challenge.

 

[CovertOps]

4e does not handle a wide range of character and monster levels.

From the start I remember reading that the designers claimed that monsters "could be viable opponents for more levels" and according to DMG1 you can use creatures of PC level - 4 to PC level + 7 as viable encounters.

While it is possible for a DM to do this, according to Stalker0's anti-grind thread/article there are serious side-effects if you do. I have seen this in my own game and for this reason I now generally follow his encounter building guide from that thread.

The only way I can see under their system to accommodate their claim and prevent the problems caused is to lower the underlying scale of the game from it's current +1/level. We can debate how much this should/could be lowered without having other serious changes to flavor (100 1st level's can beat up a 20th level dragon easily...etc.), but I recommend as a minimum going with + .5/level which then allows creatures of up to +/- 4 levels for only a 10% swing in to hit chances. If we replace the current + 1/2 level with + 1/4 level and keep the current +6 enhancement bonus and lower the number of stat bumps to just 2 stats at 5/15/25 and the +1 all at 11/21 then you wind up with:

+7 (1/4 level)
+6 (enhancement)
+2 or 3 (+5 max to one stat and the +3 only applies to a stat that started below 18 at some odd value - stat bumps)

+15 Total

The other choice could be to get rid of scaling in to hit completely and move to + 1/2 level or even + level damage and scale HPs accordingly. This messes with a ton of things including what to do about enhancement bonus and stat modifiers in the to-hit calculation. And really....what would D&D be without magic weapons and armor?

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

4e does not handle a wide range of character and monster levels.

From the start I remember reading that the designers claimed that monsters "could be viable opponents for more levels" and according to DMG1 you can use creatures of PC level - 4 to PC level + 7 as viable encounters.

While it is possible for a DM to do this, according to Stalker0's anti-grind thread/article there are serious side-effects if you do. I have seen this in my own game and for this reason I now generally follow his encounter building guide from that thread.

The only way I can see under their system to accommodate their claim and prevent the problems caused is to lower the underlying scale of the game from it's current +1/level. We can debate how much this should/could be lowered without having other serious changes to flavor (100 1st level's can beat up a 20th level dragon easily...etc.), but I recommend as a minimum going with + .5/level which then allows creatures of up to +/- 4 levels for only a 10% swing in to hit chances. If we replace the current + 1/2 level with + 1/4 level and keep the current +6 enhancement bonus and lower the number of stat bumps to just 2 stats at 5/15/25 and the +1 all at 11/21 then you wind up with:

+7 (1/4 level)
+6 (enhancement)
+2 or 3 (+5 max to one stat and the +3 only applies to a stat that started below 18 at some odd value - stat bumps)

+15 Total

The other choice could be to get rid of scaling in to hit completely and move to + 1/2 level or even + level damage and scale HPs accordingly. This messes with a ton of things including what to do about enhancement bonus and stat modifiers in the to-hit calculation. And really....what would D&D be without magic weapons and armor?

Well, one question would be is this really different from other editions? I mean even if it isn't that doesn't say that 4e doesn't do it poorly but it puts it more in the category of "D&D or level based systems in general do it poorly". Having gone over the math some on various creatures with this in mind I think that 4e's power curve is based less on items and more on intrinsic attributes of the character, so in that sense it IS a bit harder to take on much higher level creatures. A 1e party of say 3rd level with a few good items can take on a giant and with some luck win. A 4e party would be less likely to win, but its still not impossible.

I have used a level+7 monster BTW and had a good encounter with it, so clearly its not entirely crazy. I wouldn't recommend it as a standard practice but if the DM understands the rules and the party well enough and the encounter is designed properly it can work and even be pretty fun.

I'm not sure if this means 4e doesn't do it poorly or exactly where we would draw the line between OK and poor. One could as well say that it is a strength of D&D since the opposite situation is sort of like playing Call of Cthulhu were no matter what you do any old monster may well eat your face off and fighting is thus VERY risky. That's the problem with flattening the curve, pretty soon level advancement stops meaning much and your 10th level fighter may just be felled by a goblin.

 

[CovertOps]

@Abdul:

I agree that no edition of D&D has done this well (or level based systems in general), but no edition prior to the current has claimed such. Based on the designers "claim" I then put forth that 4e does not do what they "claim" it does at all well.

I also want to point out that it could, but as I posted above you'd have to change how you scale (by using damage and HP's instead of chance to hit). A single creature of higher level that hits at the same rate as a lower level creature simply does more damage per swing to make up for the fact that it is the only one instead of 5. This is still balanced and instead of becoming a fight about "can we hit it", it becomes a fight about "can we kill it before it kills us?"

Under the current balanced via to-hit system creatures become trivial at about 3-4 levels below party level and almost impossible at about 6-7 above. I think I'd like to see something between the current and your example (...playing Call of Cthulhu were no matter what you do any old monster may well eat your face off...). Ten orcs may not be dangerous at level 10, but 100 sure ought to be.

 

[Fanaelialae]

@Abdul:

I agree that no edition of D&D has done this well (or level based systems in general), but no edition prior to the current has claimed such. Based on the designers "claim" I then put forth that 4e does not do what they "claim" it does at all well.

I also want to point out that it could, but as I posted above you'd have to change how you scale (by using damage and HP's instead of chance to hit). A single creature of higher level that hits at the same rate as a lower level creature simply does more damage per swing to make up for the fact that it is the only one instead of 5. This is still balanced and instead of becoming a fight about "can we hit it", it becomes a fight about "can we kill it before it kills us?"

Under the current balanced via to-hit system creatures become trivial at about 3-4 levels below party level and almost impossible at about 6-7 above. I think I'd like to see something between the current and your example (...playing Call of Cthulhu were no matter what you do any old monster may well eat your face off...). Ten orcs may not be dangerous at level 10, but 100 sure ought to be.

I was under the impression that their claims in that regard were in reference to minions, elites, and solos. A group of level 10 characters will be more challenged by a horde of level 10 minions than by a horde of level 1 orcs. The minions have normal odds to hit and be missed, whereas the level 1 orcs are in the nat 20/ nat 1 range.

I could be mistaken though.

 

[Nifft]

I was under the impression that their claims in that regard were in reference to minions, elites, and solos. A group of level 10 characters will be more challenged by a horde of level 10 minions than by a horde of level 1 orcs. The minions have normal odds to hit and be missed, whereas the level 1 orcs are in the nat 20/ nat 1 range.

I could be mistaken though.

This is pretty much what I was going to say. Monster role types change as you level up, but the monster level itself remains near the PC's level.

For example, orc barbarians:

• PCs are level 1-5, a raging orc barbarian is a L4 Elite Skirmisher
• PCs are level 6-10, a raging orc barbarian is a L7 Skirmisher
• PCs are level 11-15, a raging orc barbarian is a L12 Minion (based off a Skirmisher)
• PCs are level 16-20, a raging orc barbarian never appears alone, but may appear in a huge swarm or hostile terrain feature, representing really quite a lot of orcs in formation

You go from fighting one HELLA TOUGH raging barbarian to swatting them like flies -- an effective exponential power increase -- but not because your damage expression becomes exponentially larger. Rather, your damage increases linearly, but your opponents lose HP as their defenses increase. You should get the effect of exponential power, yet fights should remain interesting challenges.

Cheers, -- N

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

@Abdul:

I agree that no edition of D&D has done this well (or level based systems in general), but no edition prior to the current has claimed such. Based on the designers "claim" I then put forth that 4e does not do what they "claim" it does at all well.

I also want to point out that it could, but as I posted above you'd have to change how you scale (by using damage and HP's instead of chance to hit). A single creature of higher level that hits at the same rate as a lower level creature simply does more damage per swing to make up for the fact that it is the only one instead of 5. This is still balanced and instead of becoming a fight about "can we hit it", it becomes a fight about "can we kill it before it kills us?"

Under the current balanced via to-hit system creatures become trivial at about 3-4 levels below party level and almost impossible at about 6-7 above. I think I'd like to see something between the current and your example (...playing Call of Cthulhu were no matter what you do any old monster may well eat your face off...). Ten orcs may not be dangerous at level 10, but 100 sure ought to be.

Well, I certainly think it would be great if a system could do all that, but I'm not sure its possible. If you were to switch from scaling to-hit to just scaling damage then the problem is that combat gets VERY swingy as you go up in levels. Yes, you have more hit points as well but if a few of these ultra-high damage monsters hit you or one just hits you 2-3 times you can get insta-ganked, which doesn't really fit well with level based power curve concepts. The flip side is that the lower level monsters STILL cease to be a threat. It doesn't matter much if an N-10 monster needs to roll 20 times to hit you or 2 if it still needs to swing 100 times before you die.

And in all fairness some sort of ideal might be met by tweaking the system to let you be in danger from 100 low level orcs when you're 20th level, but no standard set of RPG combat rules can handle 100 enemies anyway, so its moot. Better to tweak the system to give the best results with encounters that will actually happen. The DM can always create some kind of special rules for the 100 orcs scenario since he'll never be able to run it by the standard ones anyway. In that case he can make them some sort of hazard or whatever that is appropriately threatening for the situation. At that point it really is again moot what 100 actual mechanically distinct orcs would do.

And as Nifft says the way to keep a particular type of monster relevant is to scale it up to fit the situation anyhow. Sure, technically its not literally the same monster as what you faced at lower levels, but its an 'orc' and from the in-game perspective that's all that matters.

 

[KidSnide]

And in all fairness some sort of ideal might be met by tweaking the system to let you be in danger from 100 low level orcs when you're 20th level, but no standard set of RPG combat rules can handle 100 enemies anyway, so its moot.

And as Nifft says the way to keep a particular type of monster relevant is to scale it up to fit the situation anyhow. Sure, technically its not literally the same monster as what you faced at lower levels, but its an 'orc' and from the in-game perspective that's all that matters.

I think 4e handles this problem fairly well. WotC doesn't provide many examples of this now, but a couple dozen Orc Berzerkers are a perfectly reasonable swarm for a 20th level PC.

Personally, I think we've seen limited support for this type of enemy from WotC because WotC is saving that kind of encounter for a mass combat supplement.

-SS

 

[CovertOps]

I was under the impression that their claims in that regard were in reference to minions, elites, and solos. A group of level 10 characters will be more challenged by a horde of level 10 minions than by a horde of level 1 orcs. The minions have normal odds to hit and be missed, whereas the level 1 orcs are in the nat 20/ nat 1 range.

I could be mistaken though.

I want to say it was Mearls who made the claim (in one of the podcasts?) that (paraphrasing here) "Monsters would be viable threats for more levels". I'll have to go back and re-listen to last years podcasts to see if I can find it and get the exact quote. My only real comment here is in regard to what the DMG considers a valid encounter combined with their claim and saying hogwash...it's a bunch of hooey that don't work anywhere near as well as advertised.

 

[Fanaelialae]

I want to say it was Mearls who made the claim (in one of the podcasts?) that (paraphrasing here) "Monsters would be viable threats for more levels". I'll have to go back and re-listen to last years podcasts to see if I can find it and get the exact quote. My only real comment here is in regard to what the DMG considers a valid encounter combined with their claim and saying hogwash...it's a bunch of hooey that don't work anywhere near as well as advertised.

If that's the claim, then I'd say he's correct. Monsters ARE viable threats for more levels.

You might fight a single Solo Orc Myrmidon at level 1, then a pair of Elite Orc Assassins at level 5, followed by a squad of Standard Orc Berserkers at level 9, and finally an entire tribe of Minion Orc Warriors at level 13. That's 13 levels of use right there. So while, no, an individual orc statblock may not be useful for more than a 9 level range (party level +/- 4), orcs remain viable over a great many levels.