What's the deal with Elite/Solo hit points? / Simplifying Combat

[robsenworldaccount]

I will put this very nicely

Combat is running slow because you (or your group) doesn't know how to play, or how to DM.

If combat is taking too long, stop looking at the monsters, and start looking at your tactics.

This is not 3.5 this is now a team game.

Enjoy

 

[Derulbaskul]

He's been built as an 8th-level skirmisher with the rogue template added on top. Here's a basic 8th-level skirmisher with the same ability scores:

Level 8 Skirmisher
Medium Natural Humanoid XP 350
Initiative +9 Senses Perception +11;
HP 86; Bloodied 43
AC 22; Fortitude 19, Reflex 20, Will 19
Speed 6

Str 12 (+5) Dex 16 (+7) Wis 15 (+6)
Con 14 (+6) Int 13 (+5) Cha 10 (+4)

I would say the designer has then added +2 to Reflex for the rogue template and +2 to AC, Fortitude and Reflex to give the defences that you see in the adventure.

Frankly, that's also the way I do my NPCs mainly because I use the DDi Monster Builder to provide the "base". As for verisimilitude, it all comes down to your narration of the combat.

With a high hit point skirmisher like this, the ideal place to fight Oskar would be in his shop. The loss of hit points could then be described as part of a mobile battle: yes, he is being worn down by the party's attacks but the full effect of those attacks is being blunted as he grabs things off shelves, knocks weapons into his stock etc....

 

[James McMurray]

First, Hit Points. I get it: An Elite monster is supposed to be able to stand up to three PCs of the same level, a Solo against five PCs (or something like that; I'm too lazy to go look it up). But the inflated hit points just seem...artificial, and so extremely gamist that anyone with a simulationist bone in their astral body will cringe in horror (Don't get me wrong, I'll all for the holy tenet of Game Balance, but think it has to be, ah, balanced with other factors, such as a sense of internal consistency, narrative potency, etc).

An elite's hit points are only unrealistic if you describe them that way. Sure, if he takes 10 arrows to the forehead, it's a bit crazy. But if he barely dodges all but the last, which grazes his arm and leaves him bleeding, that's 4E.

For example: I'm running Scions of Punjar and there is an 8th level Elite human rogue (Oskar), owner of a pawnshop and somewhat wormy and cowardly, but happens to have 172 HP--about as much as a 20th level fighter (!). Why would a pawnshop owner with 172 HP have anything to fear? And, more importantly, how does that make any kind of sense? What happened to verisimilitude? And what happened to just making NPCs NPCs and not in the Monster type paradigm? Why can't he be an 8th-level rogue with appropriate HP, which for him would be 61 (level 8 rogue = 12 base + (7 lvls x 5) + 14 CON)? (And where did the number "172" come from, anyways? On page 185 of the DMG it says that Elites have twice the normal HP, including the CON score, which would give Oskar only 122...typo?). So why make Oskar a Monster at all? Why not just make him, as a leveled human, an NPC with 61 HP? Is this a flaw in the system or bad adventure writing or just me?

Without knowing his reason for having stats in the first place it's impossible to tell.

And it isn't always just the Elites and Solos; in the same adventure, which is for PCs level 4-6, there is a scene where a horde (29) skeletons and zombies attack the PCs; 8 of them are minions with 1 HP, one is a boneshard with 78 HP, but twenty of them have 40 or 46 HP, meaning they cannot be killed with a single attack, even with a rogue sneak attack. How is that a manageable combat? Now I must admit that the party was all 3rd level with one 4th level character, but still...even if they had all been 4th level that would have been a ton of HP they would have to dole out. I ended up reducing the skeleton and zombie HP by half, sometimes a third--I decided to go for dramatic effect so that when the swordmage did solid damage (I think 13 HP) to a bunch of them with Flame Cyclone, he killed those he damaged; the same with the wizard and Shock Sphere (which I think was about 15 HP).

What kind of 4th level encounter has that much firepower in it?

It just seems anticlimactic for the wizard to cast Shock Sphere, roll to hit 11 times and hit 8 of them, then only do about a third total damage to a bunch of skeletons and zombies (And yes, I'm one of those folks that think the wizard is underpowered, even with the nice burst spells).

Seems like you're getting distracted by the class name. If you want big damage from a spellcaster, check out the sorcerer and invoker. The wizard is a controller, not a striker.

Confusing powers leading to many players having to look up and discuss their power during their turn, and

It's not the game's fault if your players can't or won't learn their powers.

Tons of tactical exceptions that are impossible to keep track of but seem to exist in almost any situation.

Such as? 4e has fewer corner cases than 3.x did. Which ones are troublesome?

 

[DracoSuave]

Alright, some things that need explaining first.

1) If a monster is not a minion, it's not -meant- to be a one-hit wonder. Level 1 monsters -start- at 30 hps.

2) I don't know why the NPC has stats. If it's designed to be a combatant, then I can understand that. If not, than it's stats are the fault of the scenario designer, not the system. The system out-right tells you: If it's not a combatant, don't stat it out!

3) Humanoid creatures do not automaticly get character classes. Classes are -one way- to give a creature eliteness. They are not the only way, and are not always appropriate. Character classes are first, and foremost, a player thing.

4) If your players can't keep track of their powers I don't know what to say. Even the most complex powers are pretty straightforward compared to 3.x spells. They all have the same format, and it's pretty simple to apply.

One suggestion I can make is to have your players -write a copy of their powers, with all the math pre-done- somewhere. Could be on a card, could be on their sheet, but it saves a -lot- of time when they can see at a glance what they need to roll and what damage it does, and other effects.

If your players are recalculating their attack bonus from scratch every time it is their turn, you're doin' it wrong.

5) I too am interested in these tactical corner cases. 4e is -very- straight forward.

 

[Skallgrim]

1. Overly high HP totals for monsters,
2. Confusing powers leading to many players having to look up and discuss their power during their turn, and
3. Tons of tactical exceptions that are impossible to keep track of but seem to exist in almost any situation.

The easy solutions that come to mind are:

1. Reducing most monster HP by 50-75%; look at Elites and Solos on a case-by-case basis, but many will get cuts (e.g. Oskar above and other NPCs).
2. Make sure players have their power ready and are responsible for knowing what it does; if they don't they either have to pick something that they do or they lose their turn (kind of harsh, though).
3. Ignore all the exceptions, unless they are easy and glaringly obvious, and just roll dice. DM's discretion trumps all.

Thoughts?

On Power usage I'm just confused. At the level you are talking about, the PCs should have 2 At Wills, 2 Encounter Powers, and 1 Daily Power (as well as a Utility and possibly a racial power). That's 7 Powers. They might have a few powers from Magic items. Lets say 3 each. That's 10 powers total.

It just doesn't seem too overwhelming to me. We used index cards for powers, then went to pregenerated cards (Grandpa's--awesome) then finally to Character Builder cards. I still like the way Grandpa's look the most, and I liked the flavor text, but I like having the math already done.

On picking powers each turn to use, here's the simple metric I suggest:

1) Do you already have an clever idea? Use that.
2) Eliminate everything you can't use.
3) Use a Daily if no one else has.
4) Use an Encounter power.
5) Use an At Will.

That's not a hard and fast rule, but it will capture most circumstances. I think too many people are trying to 'overthink' their turn, and pick "the very best" action each turn. To me, if it isn't OBVIOUS that you need a daily power, or an awesome combo, then it's probably OK to just use an At Will Power. They aren't bad, and they should probably see a good bit of use.

Again, I don't see "tons of tactical exceptions", as much as I see "tons of tactical OPTIONS". If your players don't want to use cover, or shift, or stealth, or push/slide/pull opponents, they don't have to. However, choosing to use terrain and movement allows the game to be much more interesting and dynamic. Removing those options can make the game more boring and "samey".

My other suggestion is that perhaps you need to run a few "below level" encounters for the PCs at the start of each level. This wil let them "feel out" their new powers or feats in a fight that isn't Life or Death. Then, once they have had the chance to use their new abilities and see how they work, they can be expected to use them more intelligently and quickly.

Finally, Power Cards are, again, amazingly useful. I still have two 3.5 players who keep starting to figure their bonuses out in their heads each time, before remembering to just READ THE CARD.

 

[Mercurius]

Consider this: If he was a PC, he had around 6 to 12 Healing Surges, and a friend that would allow him to trigger approximately two to four of them.

PCs have a lot more hit points than it might seem at first. But they can't access them as easy as the NPC.

I hadn't thought of it that way--monsters having their healing surges "folded into" starting hit points.

As for "tactical corners," page 277 of the PHB for starters--all the different conditions, but also cover, concealment, etc. I understand that there is a learning curve but I guess I'm realizing that my stylistic preference is more ad hoc than look-up-the-appropriate-rule.

But my "problem" comes from two sources, I think:

1) I need to read more of the DMG; there are some key sections, like monster design, that I've only skimmed. From what people have said here there are some very conscious design decisions that go into a lot of what I'm talking about. My approach has been to learn-as-we-go; I did some reading prior to playing, but evidently not enough!

2) My own personal DMing stylistic preference, which is ad hoc. What I mean by this is that I prefer to think up a difficulty class or modifier as makes sense to me at the moment; there are a ton of rules in just about every edition of D&D that I feel are unnecessary (e.g. Coup de Grace; that should simply = death, unless we're talking about an extremely powerful or large creature). When these situations arise and the official rule is not known, the options are either to A) Consult the books or B) Make something up. My default is the latter, although in certain situations I'll do the former. I guess this makes me "Old School"

 

[Mercurius]

On Power usage I'm just confused. At the level you are talking about, the PCs should have 2 At Wills, 2 Encounter Powers, and 1 Daily Power (as well as a Utility and possibly a racial power). That's 7 Powers. They might have a few powers from Magic items. Lets say 3 each. That's 10 powers total.

It just doesn't seem too overwhelming to me. We used index cards for powers, then went to pregenerated cards (Grandpa's--awesome) then finally to Character Builder cards. I still like the way Grandpa's look the most, and I liked the flavor text, but I like having the math already done.

On picking powers each turn to use, here's the simple metric I suggest:

1) Do you already have an clever idea? Use that.
2) Eliminate everything you can't use.
3) Use a Daily if no one else has.
4) Use an Encounter power.
5) Use an At Will.

That's not a hard and fast rule, but it will capture most circumstances. I think too many people are trying to 'overthink' their turn, and pick "the very best" action each turn. To me, if it isn't OBVIOUS that you need a daily power, or an awesome combo, then it's probably OK to just use an At Will Power. They aren't bad, and they should probably see a good bit of use.

Again, I don't see "tons of tactical exceptions", as much as I see "tons of tactical OPTIONS". If your players don't want to use cover, or shift, or stealth, or push/slide/pull opponents, they don't have to. However, choosing to use terrain and movement allows the game to be much more interesting and dynamic. Removing those options can make the game more boring and "samey".

My other suggestion is that perhaps you need to run a few "below level" encounters for the PCs at the start of each level. This wil let them "feel out" their new powers or feats in a fight that isn't Life or Death. Then, once they have had the chance to use their new abilities and see how they work, they can be expected to use them more intelligently and quickly.

Finally, Power Cards are, again, amazingly useful. I still have two 3.5 players who keep starting to figure their bonuses out in their heads each time, before remembering to just READ THE CARD.

First understand that I play in a new group, all of whom (except for myself) haven't played any edition of D&D since the early 90s or even 80s. The problems we've run into with powers is that A) oftentimes, as you say, the player is over-thinking and not sure what power to use by the time their turn comes up, and/or B) they're not sure how it works so we all have to read over the card (a few of us have DDI). Maybe this sort of thing will be ironed out eventually...I hope!

Nice suggestion about the below level encounters. I also like how you frame tactical options vs exceptions...I certainly don't want more "samey" combats, but I do like to rely on my own judgement over the rulebook.

But yeah, the players tend to use their at-will power first and save their encounter or daily powers until the last moment. Maybe I should encourage them to be a bit more liberal.

 

[Bolongo]

But yeah, the players tend to use their at-will power first and save their encounter or daily powers until the last moment. Maybe I should encourage them to be a bit more liberal.

Dailies should be conserved until the right moment. When that is, is a matter of tactical judgement.

When facing an unfamiliar enemy it can be a good idea to use some at-wills first to get a feel for the opposition. But generally speaking, getting your encounter powers into play ASAP will shorten fights. If you end a fight without having used all your encounter powers, you've probably used up other resources (surges etc.) needlessly.

 

[Jack99]

2) My own personal DMing stylistic preference, which is ad hoc. What I mean by this is that I prefer to think up a difficulty class or modifier as makes sense to me at the moment; there are a ton of rules in just about every edition of D&D that I feel are unnecessary (e.g. Coup de Grace; that should simply = death, unless we're talking about an extremely powerful or large creature). When these situations arise and the official rule is not known, the options are either to A) Consult the books or B) Make something up. My default is the latter, although in certain situations I'll do the former. I guess this makes me "Old School"

Sorry, but not at all. While there was a large amount of thinking on your feet and making up "rules" or "modifiers" on the spot in the original editions (up to 2e) this was due to a lack of rules or guidelines. This is not the case in 4e, and is thus not necessary. However, if you still chose to do so, that's cool with me, but then do not blame it on the system

 

[Mercurius]

Sorry, but not at all. While there was a large amount of thinking on your feet and making up "rules" or "modifiers" on the spot in the original editions (up to 2e) this was due to a lack of rules or guidelines. This is not the case in 4e, and is thus not necessary. However, if you still chose to do so, that's cool with me, but then do not blame it on the system

Huh? How is employing an ad hoc style of DMing not related to Old School? I am not "blaming" 4e for me wanting to employ an ad hoc style, which has less to do with a specific system and more to do with a style of DMing. My point is simply that--as you say--4e has various rules and guidelines making freeform less necessary than in early editions; I like reincorporating some of that and having the freedom to either consult those rules or not. In other words, the approach advocated by both 3ed and 4ed is to know the specific rule or guideline rather than make something up on the spot; I tend to prefer doing the latter, or at "reserve the right" .

One of the problems I feel expressed in both 3ed and 4ed is that they don't take good advantage of the simplicity of the core mechanic: I would like to see D&D go to a Basic/Advanced format, where there is a very simple Basic game with numerous modular "advanced" options (I've talked about this in other threads, especially related to how D&D could become more accessible). I'm playing with the idea of stripping down 4ed to a basic structure and seeing how it looks, as long as I am able to add on whatever I want from the rest of the system. Best of both worlds, really.