PDA

View Full Version : The 4E equivalent of That Damn Crab?



Kurald Galain
2009-09-08, 03:55 PM
Well, I'm sure you've heard about how Needlefang Drake Swarms are nasty monsters in 4E; this thread is not about those. Rather, in a recent thread it was suggested that kiting appears to be highly effective in 4E combat. For those unfamiliar with the term, it means staying at long range and pelting the enemy with missiles. If he moves forward, you move back and pelt him again. Repeat until he's dead.

A nastier variation involves two groups of enemies standing on opposite sides of their target. If the target moves towards one group, the other gets to attack unhampered, and vice versa. Either way, it works whenever you're faster than your opponent (if the enemy runs, so do you), and have a long ranged attack. It gets positively obnoxious if you're flying, or otherwise can interpose some terrain that hampers enemy movement but not your arrows. Of course, this is a pretty good strategy in real life as well.

Now ignore for the moment that some DMs may prohibit you from walking "off the battle mat" - that's a silly metagaming construct; the world doesn't end just because your table does.
On the one hand, this tactic can be used by players, albeit not very well. A longbow has an effective range of 40 squares, and e.g. a javelin can get up to 20. The problem is that unlike the ranger, most classes cannot use their powers with these weapons. Powers with a range over 10 squares are pretty much nonexistent below epic levels, unless you're a wizard. This leaves basic attacks. However, (1) basic attacks are substantially less effective than class powers, (2) they key off strength and dex, which are dump stats for quite a few classes, and (3) most of them have limited ammo.

On the other hand, there's the monsters. I'm just looking at heroic for now, but the problem gets worse in paragon, which has more flying monsters, as well as ranged critters that daze, prone or otherwise hamper you on a hit.

First, there's monsters that aren't very fast, but just have an obnoxiously large range, like dwarf bolters, human guards or mages, satyr pipers, or even level-1 decrepit skeletons. Special mention goes to the deathlock wight, which is faster than you because its attack immobilizes. Then we get the fun stuff like L5 gnoll huntmasters, L8 sahuagin priests, and L10 medusa archers. All three are faster than nearly every heroic adventurer, and the latter has a nasty at-will area petrification attack should you manage to catch up.

And then there's That Damn Elf. Or rather, a group of them. Clocking in at a lowly level 2, the Elf Archer is faster than most adventurers, has a range-40 attack, can reroll once per combat, and gets an attack bonus for running away from you. It would seem that a group of these can massacre most heroic-level parties without breaking a sweat.

So my question is, what should a heroic-level adventuring party do to prevent Death By Elf? Or should a fight against a bunch of hippie bowmen in the forest be off-limits for its TPK potential? Am I overlooking something? Thoughts welcome.

Pharaoh's Fist
2009-09-08, 04:02 PM
Who says bows aren't used? Effectively EVERY character in my game carries a bow as a last ditch backup weapon. Some of them have trouble hitting the broad side of a barn since they aren't proficient or dex based. But in the open they have an attack with 30 or 40 square ranges that still hits on a 20.

As for flying monsters. You're assuming large numbers of flying monsters with usable hands that could win an archery duel against anyone they couldn't easily defeat hand to hand exist. Care to name these monsters?

Since you are big on archery being "real world", care to name any creature that can do that in the real world? Otherwise the claim that a "real world" tactic is being ignored is provable nonsense. There never has been a real world tactic based on using a bow while flying.

As for the claim that powers are limited to 35'. No one actually said that except people "reacting" to the claim. What was said was that most powers are limited to charge range, and charge range a double move in both 4th ed and 3.x. And most powers << all powers. Consider weapon powers using a bow or a wizards magic missile, there are any number of ranged powers with ranges of more than 35', which is one reason flying archery doesn't rule the world, almost everyone has something they can still do even at such ranges.

I would be interested in hearing these counterpoints addressed.

Oslecamo
2009-09-08, 04:15 PM
I would be interested in hearing these counterpoints addressed.

Sure.
Who says bows aren't used? Effectively EVERY character in my game carries a bow as a last ditch backup weapon. Some of them have trouble hitting the broad side of a barn since they aren't proficient or dex based. But in the open they have an attack with 30 or 40 square ranges that still hits on a 20.
Considering how fat monster HP gets, the character will probably run out of arrows before the monster runs out of HP.

As for flying monsters. You're assuming large numbers of flying monsters with usable hands that could win an archery duel against anyone they couldn't easily defeat hand to hand exist. Care to name these monsters?
You really don't need hands. Droping rocks also works fairly well. If the monster can't pick a rock, he probably isn't much of a threat anyway.


Since you are big on archery being "real world", care to name any creature that can do that in the real world? Otherwise the claim that a "real world" tactic is being ignored is provable nonsense. There never has been a real world tactic based on using a bow while flying.
Nowadays we call those monsters "chopters". And bombers. And fighters. I never heard about anyone sticking an army knive in a flying machine, but there's plenty of people sticking machine guns, missile launchers and even tank cannons on them.


As for the claim that powers are limited to 35'. No one actually said that except people "reacting" to the claim. What was said was that most powers are limited to charge range, and charge range a double move in both 4th ed and 3.x. And most powers << all powers. Consider weapon powers using a bow or a wizards magic missile, there are any number of ranged powers with ranges of more than 35', which is one reason flying archery doesn't rule the world, almost everyone has something they can still do even at such ranges.
It still doesn't explain how monsters wich commoners with horses and bows could easily defeat are a threat to anyone.

Kurald Galain
2009-09-08, 04:17 PM
Those are good counterpoints, let me see what I can do about them.



Who says bows aren't used? Effectively EVERY character in my game carries a bow as a last ditch backup weapon. Some of them have trouble hitting the broad side of a barn since they aren't proficient or dex based. But in the open they have an attack with 30 or 40 square ranges that still hits on a 20.
Anyone's "Adventuring For Dummies" manual should point out that yes, you must carry a ranged weapon as a backup, that should go without saying. On the other hand, the characters in your game appear to be smarter than average: I say this because I have seen numerous adventurers that do not have ranged weaponry, and see them as potential nominees for a Darwin Award.

Still, being not proficient is a problem (in the PHB, only fighters and rangers are proficient with the longbow), as is having a class not based on dexterity (most classes aren't); combined, that's easily a -7 to hit, more once you get a good primary magic weapon. If you can't hit the broad side of the proverbial barn, and your opponent can, that makes you the proverbial pincushion.



As for flying monsters.
Flying isn't necessary, it just aggravates the problem. I found no flying archers in the heroic tier in the MM1; nevertheless, kiting can be performed by any monster with a mobility advantage and a ranged attack. Five dwarves on the other side of a chasm. Eight deathlocks in the dark. You name it.


Otherwise the claim that a "real world" tactic is being ignored is provable nonsense.
As above. The only real-world part that is arguably nonsense is the flying part. Everything else is basic hit and run (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hit-and-run_tactics) tactics, as covered in Wikipedia.


As for the claim that powers are limited to 35'.
I'm having trouble parsing what you're trying to say here, or where the 35 feet comes from. However, the fact is that 4E has very few powers with a range over 17 meters (10 squares) except for classes that can use a bow effectively (most can't) and for wizards, and these very few powers appear at level 15 and up. Also, magic missile is generally considered one of the weakest wizard at-wills, so may not be all that common. So it is patently false that "almost everyone" has something they can still do at long ranges.

Kylarra
2009-09-08, 04:25 PM
Surprisingly, I'm not going to argue how ridiculous it is. We recently pointed out to the DM just how absurd the range (relative to the game board) our ranger's Greatbow has.

Admittedly, we rarely get terrain where she can take full advantage of its 50 square range (and/or kite), but it is rather depressing to sit there with my range of 10 "spells" while the archers are just plinking things off for two rounds.

kc0bbq
2009-09-08, 04:28 PM
This is all predicated on a world that is either a blank space painted with squares having no features, or one single large feature that impedes only the players.

It doesn't work that way. Very little gaming happens on large featureless plains with perfect LOS and LOE.

On top of that you have to get rid of three quarters of heroic fantasy tropes that prevent situations like this from even being an issue.

Kurald Galain
2009-09-08, 04:34 PM
This is all predicated on a world that is either a blank space painted with squares having no features, or one single large feature that impedes only the players.
Nope. It works perfectly well in any kind of regular outdoors terrain, including a forest (or, for the sahuagin, a lake). Also, "elf archers in a forest" is such a common fantasy trope that you can hardly blame a DM for staging such an encounter. What if the DM just employs common tactics and learns only through TPK that no counter to those tactics exists in the party?

Kylarra
2009-09-08, 04:39 PM
Okay every class except for: Rogue, Wizard, Barbarian, monk, shaman has the simple ranged proficiency (or greater).

Rogue has hand crossbows (10/20)
Monk has Sling (10/20)

Now for everyone not on that list, you can either wield a longbow or take a +1 distance crossbow and have the same or greater range as those elven archers. You'll probably not win because you're not dex based, but at least you can try to plink back.

FoE
2009-09-08, 04:43 PM
kc0bbq has a point. Since half the game takes place in cramped dungeon quarters and, when it doesn't, there's plenty of blocking terrain, range is less a factor.

Nevertheless, it's an issue. Hardly game-breaking, though. A wise DM learns not to wreck game with unbalanced encounters; this is no different.

kc0bbq
2009-09-08, 04:45 PM
Nope. It works perfectly well in any kind of regular outdoors terrain, including a forest (or, for the sahuagin, a lake). Also, "elf archers in a forest" is such a common fantasy trope that you can hardly blame a DM for staging such an encounter. What if the DM just employs common tactics and learns only through TPK that no counter to those tactics exists in the party?Conveniently ignoring the LOS/LOE part of my post...

It's only as simple as you make it out to be on a featureless battlefield.

magellan
2009-09-08, 04:47 PM
There are no trees in this forest?

Kurald Galain
2009-09-08, 04:53 PM
Conveniently ignoring the LOS/LOE part of my post...
I mentioned the word "forest". Obviously, some parts of forests block LOS/LOE.

However, that doesn't actually help. On the one hand, it means the elves can't hit you every turn, and have to move around to find an opening. But on the other hand, it means you can't reach the elves easily either, so that works both ways.

Furthermore, now they get to make stealth checks. They've got +10 in stealth. Oops, looks like elves in the forest are even nastier kiters than elves on a featureless plain.

Kurald Galain
2009-09-08, 04:56 PM
Now for everyone not on that list, you can either wield a longbow or take a +1 distance crossbow and have the same or greater range as those elven archers. You'll probably not win because you're not dex based, but at least you can try to plink back.
The distance crossbow is a decent counter. The party might not win, but it gives them a fighting chance.

Now you just might encounter Those Damn Elves before you can afford one though :smallbiggrin: Well, that explains why they won the war against the Dwarven Empire...

Pharaoh's Fist
2009-09-08, 04:58 PM
Fistbeard Beardfist resents that statement.

Kylarra
2009-09-08, 05:02 PM
The distance crossbow is a decent counter. The party might not win, but it gives them a fighting chance.

Now you just might encounter Those Damn Elves before you can afford one though :smallbiggrin: Well, that explains why they won the war against the Dwarven Empire...
Well they are only level one weapons, so they're affordable pretty early on.

avr
2009-09-08, 05:04 PM
It's also worth mentioning that trees don't generally block LOS in 4e (without GM fiat). They usually don't have trunks wider than the 5' squares, and if your elven enemy is not directly in line with you horizontally or vertically on the map this means they can get a shot off at you.

Mando Knight
2009-09-08, 05:13 PM
Okay every class except for: Rogue, Wizard, Barbarian, monk, shaman has the simple ranged proficiency (or greater).

Rogue has hand crossbows (10/20)
Monk has Sling (10/20)

Now for everyone not on that list, you can either wield a longbow or take a +1 distance crossbow and have the same or greater range as those elven archers. You'll probably not win because you're not dex based, but at least you can try to plink back.

The other option, for better to-hit for most characters without ranged powers (which tends to be the usually-Str-based melee characters), is to grab a Javelin, which has 10/20 range and is heavy thrown. With the distance enchantment, it gains 15/25 range (or up to 17/27 range with Far Throw), which is respectably long range for a thrown weapon. Although it doesn't get close to the world record distances for javelin throwing (~90 meters), it's probably right at the range where throwing it to hurt an armored opponent is going to cease being effective.

It's also worth mentioning that trees don't generally block LOS in 4e (without GM fiat). They usually don't have trunks wider than the 5' squares, and if your elven enemy is not directly in line with you horizontally or vertically on the map this means they can get a shot off at you.
Terrain is DM fiat. Without the DM's discretion, bushes, tables, waist-high walls, etc. won't provide you cover, and there'll never be difficult terrain, wind, rain, or other features on the battlefield.

Swordguy
2009-09-08, 05:15 PM
Against kiting, generally, the appropriate response is to sit there and let them shoot at the large, heavily-armored members of the party (who have thusly high ACs and HP totals) while your Stealthy or Invisible party members sneak around to the flank and ambush the attackers, engaging them in melee and hopefully pinning them down. While they're pinned in melee, bring the rest of the party forward ASAP.

Note: It helps immensely if your GM prefers to run NPCs as actual people who don't like getting hurt as opposed to big statistic blocks, very often the NPCs should STAY in melee as opposed to blithely turning their backs on the ambushers, soaking an attack or two, and strolling back to range. There's almost nothing more metagamey on the part of the GM or the players than hearing "oh, I'll just provoke an opportunity attack - I don't care because I know he can't drop me in one hit; I've got enough hit points to soak it; or, he's just a rogue, i know he can't keep me in melee like a Fighter can, so I'll just walk away".

Oh, and obviously this isn't 100% foolproof - the example of the guys on the other side of the chasm works well against this, for example. But if they're taking advantage of terrain (forests!) to hit and run, so can you.

kc0bbq
2009-09-08, 05:18 PM
It's also worth mentioning that trees don't generally block LOS in 4e (without GM fiat). They usually don't have trunks wider than the 5' squares, and if your elven enemy is not directly in line with you horizontally or vertically on the map this means they can get a shot off at you.It's also worth noting that well over half of the documentation in the game meant specifically for the DM is about how to creatively handle situations like this, and that there's more resources to these situations than the back of the PHB.

Mando Knight
2009-09-08, 05:19 PM
There's almost nothing more metagamey on the part of the GM or the players than hearing "oh, I'll just provoke an opportunity attack - I don't care because I know he can't drop me in one hit; I've got enough hit points to soak it; or, he's just a rogue, i know he can't keep me in melee like a Fighter can, so I'll just walk away".

And then *boom* the Rogue uses his Vorpal Double Sword on a critical hit with Heavy Blade Opportunity and Sly Flourish. Oops. :smallamused:

Kylarra
2009-09-08, 05:20 PM
The other option, for better to-hit for most characters without ranged powers (which tends to be the usually-Str-based melee characters), is to grab a Javelin, which has 10/20 range and is heavy thrown. With the distance enchantment, it gains 15/25 range (or up to 17/27 range with Far Throw), which is respectably long range for a thrown weapon. Although it doesn't get close to the world record distances for javelin throwing (~90 meters), it's probably right at the range where throwing it to hurt an armored opponent is going to cease being effective.
Well yes. I was simply going for maximum range, assuming that they were going to be strafing you from as far away as possible, but the javelin does pull the barbarian off the list.

Swordguy
2009-09-08, 05:28 PM
And then *boom* the Rogue uses his Vorpal Double Sword on a critical hit with Heavy Blade Opportunity and Sly Flourish. Oops. :smallamused:

You know, I had a GM running us though Keep on the Shadowfell say exactly what I was saying up there when my rogue moved adjacent to a kobold hero. "Oh, you're a rogue, I can just move away because you can't do enough damage to drop me and any number of HP over 1 is all good". I wholeheartedly object to that playstyle and thought process - it's a rare example of an actual difference between roleplay and rollplay (and I don't like that meme to begin with, you can bet I'm not using it lightly here).

FoE
2009-09-08, 05:33 PM
You know, I had a GM running us though Keep on the Shadowfell say exactly what I was saying up there when my rogue moved adjacent to a kobold hero. "Oh, you're a rogue, I can just move away because you can't do enough damage to drop me and any number of HP over 1 is all good". I wholeheartedly object to that playstyle and thought process - it's a rare example of an actual difference between roleplay and rollplay (and I don't like that meme to begin with, you can bet I'm not using it lightly here).

Which is sort of the issue with the scenario posed here. Yes, strafing the party is a damn good tactic. It might even win the monsters the battle. But is this a pure tactical simulation or is this a roleplaying game? Since when is the point to beat the players in a fight?

Indon
2009-09-08, 07:29 PM
Considering how fat monster HP gets, the character will probably run out of arrows before the monster runs out of HP.
Ammo isn't tracked, to my knowledge. Characters never run out of arrows.

Personally, my 4E character's backup ranged weapon is a shield of throwing - it's Strength based. Only range 10, but who cares.

I'm probably never going to see this tactic being used in my 4E game, though, as it breaks the metagame.

"Real-world tactic"? Feh. In the real world, bows have a range greater than 200 feet... er, 40 squares, that is to say. Also, no square circles.

4E is a game that is meant to be played with certain assumptions. That your DM won't send That Damn Crab against you is one of them. I mean, the DM could also beat you by sending a massively over-CR group against you. So what?


It doesn't work that way. Very little gaming happens on large featureless plains with perfect LOS and LOE.

Ah, pillars. Is there anything you can't solve?

If I ever faced the Elves of Doom, personally, I'd address the problem simply enough: I'd spam Run actions towards them! Could cover 16 squares a round with a double-run!

...Eventually... they'll run out of forest.

(At least, that'd be my Goliath Warden's response to it)

Foryn Gilnith
2009-09-08, 07:38 PM
Yes, strafing the party is a damn good tactic. It might even win the monsters the battle. But is this a pure tactical simulation or is this a roleplaying game? Since when is the point to beat the players in a fight?

From what was garnered from the original parent thread on broken spells (which was derailed), the reason strafing was used was to use hit-and-run enemies. Any ranged attacker-type IRL interested in hit-and-run would attempt strafing at some point, and a desire to reasonably simulate (which can occur in a game that incorporates far less hyperbole than a "pure tactical simulation") real-world ranged tactics may at some point lead to strafing archers.

More concisely, it's a simple and easy-to-think of tactic, and there's many a time where one is compelled to use it.


Note: It helps immensely if your GM prefers to run NPCs as actual people who don't like getting hurt as opposed to big statistic blocks, very often the NPCs should STAY in melee as opposed to blithely turning their backs on the ambushers, soaking an attack or two, and strolling back to range. There's almost nothing more metagamey on the part of the GM or the players than hearing "oh, I'll just provoke an opportunity attack - I don't care because I know he can't drop me in one hit; I've got enough hit points to soak it; or, he's just a rogue, i know he can't keep me in melee like a Fighter can, so I'll just walk away".

"Oh, I'll just provoke an opportunity attack. He doesn't look the brawny type; my chances are better if I run now and shoot once I'm a safe few dozen feet away from that big, strong fighter with the massive sword. A professional knife-fighter would skewer my archer behind in melee anyway." If I was trained as an archer, and I barely knew how to parry with my sword, I wouldn't stick around and duel the rogue until the fighter catches up. I'd run, run, run, and consider shooting back if I've run long enough.

Also, the NPCs aren't "blithely turning their backs" or "strolling back". If they're stupid enough to do that in-universe, then they suffer AC penalties - you don't turn your back on a combat-hardened adventure without getting nasty wounds. If they're doing that based on GM description, that's a bad GM. Combat is supposed to be real-time, remember. If the archer is moving back, chances are that the archer was hastily stepping back as you were approaching, and the OA you got was your last chance before he got out of your effective reach and then turned around and skedaddled. Furthermore, while the NPC will want to avoid pain, for a warrior that might mean avoiding ridicule and shame by standing to fight.

However, the point you make about treating NPCs like people is very, very valid. The same course of action can be driven by extremely different motivations. If a kobold is running and attacking because he thinks it's smart, and does this with verisimilitude, that's fine. If the same kobold is running and attacking because the GM is being a metagaming jerk and rubbing it in your face... That same action has taken on a very negative light.


If I ever faced the Elves of Doom, personally, I'd address the problem simply enough: I'd spam Run actions towards them! Could cover 16 squares a round with a double-run!

That's pretty much what you'd do in 3.5, too. And in most situations and game systems. where you can't find cover. Does it work, though? I don't have enough 4e experience to comment directly on mechanics.

kjones
2009-09-08, 07:48 PM
Which is sort of the issue with the scenario posed here. Yes, strafing the party is a damn good tactic. It might even win the monsters the battle. But is this a pure tactical simulation or is this a roleplaying game? Since when is the point to beat the players in a fight?

The point isn't to kill your players, of course.

But Kurald Galain has just argued persuasively that 4 level 2 elven archers will be an encounter of overpowering difficulty for most parties of Heroic tier. That means that in 4th edition D&D, if you want your players to have encounters against elves in a forest, and you don't want to kill them, they can't use hit-and-run tactics. There's something wrong with that.


If I ever faced the Elves of Doom, personally, I'd address the problem simply enough: I'd spam Run actions towards them! Could cover 16 squares a round with a double-run!

This doesn't handle the case in which you have two groups of elves, one on either side of you. That's not the only issue - let's say the elves are protecting something in the forest, their home perhaps. If they've drawn you away from it, they've won.

Kylarra
2009-09-08, 07:49 PM
Ammo isn't tracked, to my knowledge. Characters never run out of arrows.
Actually ammo can be tracked [they have a weight and purchase price], but if you stay within a certain number of encounters per time unit away from a town, you should be fine regardless.

We've solved this problem by our archer storing as many arrows as can fit in a bag of holding. :smallamused:

Dixieboy
2009-09-08, 07:54 PM
Fistbeard Beardfist resents that statement.

Fistbeard Beardfist is not 4e

Pharaoh's Fist
2009-09-08, 07:58 PM
He transcends editions.

Foryn Gilnith
2009-09-08, 07:59 PM
This doesn't handle the case in which you have two groups of elves, one on either side of you. That's not the only issue - let's say the elves are protecting something in the forest, their home perhaps. If they've drawn you away from it, they've won.

Well, what would you do to defeat the Elves of Doom in 3.5? Or GURPS? Or whatever your system of choice is? Pardon me if this is a stupid question, I'm getting sort of tired and might thus miss the obvious response.

Pharaoh's Fist
2009-09-08, 08:00 PM
Well, what would you do to defeat the Elves of Doom in 3.5? Or GURPS? Or whatever your system of choice is? Pardon me if this is a stupid question, I'm getting sort of tired and might thus miss the obvious response.

Wind Wall. Fireball. Fireball. Fireball.

Dixieboy
2009-09-08, 08:09 PM
The ranger has "in-forest teleportation" so he should be able to snag 'em too.

Though if you are being pelted by arrows in a forest, I wonnder why you don't just light a fire or something. :smallwink:

Tiki Snakes
2009-09-08, 08:09 PM
PC's get action points. Double move, run, charge. Or simply make some stealth checks.

Or add on as your neck item a cloak of distortion, and watch the ranged monsters wiff away.

Or send them to Sleep/immobilise/etc. *shrug*

kjones
2009-09-08, 09:32 PM
PC's get action points. Double move, run, charge. Or simply make some stealth checks.

Or add on as your neck item a cloak of distortion, and watch the ranged monsters wiff away.

Or send them to Sleep/immobilise/etc. *shrug*

First of all, if there exists a tactic that can only be countered by the use of action points or specific magic items, that's a problem. Sure, clever and enterprising players will find ways to defeat these encounters. Clever and enterprising players in 3rd Edition can find ways to defeat wizards... but that doesn't mean wizards aren't broken.

And how, exactly, are you supposed to inflict any status conditions on them if they're out of range of most ranged powers (which is kind of the point)? Unless there exists some power that lets you put your opponents to sleep with a bow. Perhaps by affixing tedious reference manuals to the arrowhead...

Pharaoh's Fist
2009-09-08, 09:34 PM
Though if you are being pelted by arrows in a forest, I wonnder why you don't just light a fire or something. :smallwink:

Someone tries it in California every year...

Colmarr
2009-09-08, 10:04 PM
Ultimately, all it takes is a move action to get within range (5/10/15) and then hit with a power that dazes, slows, immobilises or knocks prone.

Action points give the PCs a little extra advantage (either an extra move action or an extra attack).

You might be cutting down one elf at a time, but sooner or later the PCs will get them all, especially if the PCs are higher level than the elves.

kjones
2009-09-08, 10:29 PM
Ultimately, all it takes is a move action to get within range (5/10/15) and then hit with a power that dazes, slows, immobilises or knocks prone.

Action points give the PCs a little extra advantage (either an extra move action or an extra attack).

You might be cutting down one elf at a time, but sooner or later the PCs will get them all, especially if the PCs are higher level than the elves.

Unless the elves kill the PCs first.

FoE
2009-09-09, 12:31 AM
Unless the elves kill the PCs first.

So what theoretical group of PCs are we taking out here?

Kylarra
2009-09-09, 12:42 AM
Longbow has an extended range of 40, so move actions are unlikely to get you 30 squares to get within your range 10 power, or 34 or so spaces to get you within charge range.

awa
2009-09-09, 12:54 AM
ill admit im no expert at fourth eddtion but in third the spot penalties at those extreme distances are pretty harsh if their any thing similar sneaking closer might be a viable option

1of3
2009-09-09, 01:21 AM
OK, let's say there's that Elven Archer and an average melee combattant. The elf archer could use a standard action to attack every turn, then walk away for 7 squares.

The melee guy can take a double run. Grants combat advantage, but an average humanoid will cover 16 squares this way.

So the melee guy will approach 9 squares every round. That's five rounds for the archer.

And the melee guy hasn't used a single power.

Swordguy
2009-09-09, 01:38 AM
OK, let's say there's that Elven Archer and an average melee combattant. The elf archer could use a standard action to attack every turn, then walk away for 7 squares.

The melee guy can take a double run. Grants combat advantage, but an average humanoid will cover 16 squares this way.

So the melee guy will approach 9 squares every round. That's five rounds for the archer.

And the melee guy hasn't used a single power.

If I was the archer, I'd shoot for 3 or 4 rounds, and then use that nifty +10 Stealth bonus to "cloak" and sneak away, re-opening the range. Since the archer is what? A level 2 combatant (I believe this was mentioned earlier upthread)? That means I'm mostly likely engaging a level 1-3 adversary, who is most likely NOT going to have a +10 Perception bonus. I think I've got a good chance of successfully disengaging, reopening the range for a round or three, and starting the kite over again. Moreover, since I can "drop cloak" at any time and engage, the PC isn't out of combat, can't rest and refresh, and so forth.

Gralamin
2009-09-09, 01:47 AM
ill admit im no expert at fourth eddtion but in third the spot penalties at those extreme distances are pretty harsh if their any thing similar sneaking closer might be a viable option

Unfortuantely, in 4e, the modifier is listed as "More then 10 squares away +2" which means its exactly as hard to see something 500 feet away as 55 feet away.

A Few possible solutions:
Double Running - The Enemy either has to double run, or attack and single run. If the first, you won't die. If the second, your gaining on the enemy.
Ranged weapons - Give you a fighting chance.
Zones - There are a number of Zones that block line of sight, and have similar benefits, use these as a shield.
Crawling - Dropping prone is a minor action, crawling is a move. Being prone gives a bonus to defenses vs range. This does cause you to move slower, however, so it should only be used for planning.
Total Defense - Gives you a +2 bonus to all defenses as a standard action.
Splitting up - There are usually 5 PCs. Attempt to flank the archer: One runs straight towards it, the others go at angles, attempting to surround it. Through clever positioning, you can potentially manage to surround them, but do to the non-euclidean space, it will be difficult to do so. For best effects, Combine with another solution listed above.

Homebrew Angle: Is there really any reason why most ranged implement powers shouldn't have an attack range x/2x, with a -2 penalty if in the long range, exactly as weapons works?

icefractal
2009-09-09, 01:55 AM
Homebrew Angle: Is there really any reason why most ranged implement powers shouldn't have an attack range x/2x, with a -2 penalty if in the long range, exactly as weapons works?They do - most spells have either a 10/20 or a 5/10 range. Very few, however, have the 20/40 range of a longbow.

Kurald Galain
2009-09-09, 04:30 AM
Just to combat (heh) a few misconceptions, the point isn't that the DM can wipe the party, because that's always easy via Rocks Fall Everybody Dies. The point is that a DM can select a perfectly normal by-the-book encounter, play it with pretty standard tactics, and that this can unexpectedly cause a TPK. That Damn Crab is certainly defeatable - however, it's listed as a CR-3 encounter, and most level-3 parties (or even a few levels higher) can't handle it. Likewise, the Elves of Doom can be killed, but not by the average level-2 party (or level-5 for that matter), whereas they are a level-2 encounter.


Note: It helps immensely if your GM prefers to run NPCs as actual people who don't like getting hurt as opposed to big statistic blocks,
I wholeheartedly agree.


But is this a pure tactical simulation or is this a roleplaying game? Since when is the point to beat the players in a fight?
This is a matter of taste, but personally I will include combat encounters that try their best to defeat the party (noting that "defeat" does not automatically mean TPK). Most players I know prefer it that way, because it is challenging.

Note the difference between those two posts: if the NPCs act as actual people, then they will attempt to beat the players in a fight.

KIDS
2009-09-09, 04:36 AM
It's an interesting list, though in practice I found Elf Archers to lose efficiency very quickly. Because of charges, their capacity to kite is limited, so you're better off with upgrading a few of them to a respectable level so they can cause some damage, rather than making a swarm that will try to stay out of reach.

Also, I've heard that a Needlefang Drake Swarm is scary. I look forward to trying it out.

p.s. my (3 members) lvl 2 party absolutely destroyed a group of 3 lvl 2 elf archers and 3 kruthik young. I just don't think they're as deadly as described.

Kurald Galain
2009-09-09, 04:50 AM
Regarding the countertactics people bring to the table,


It's also worth mentioning that trees don't generally block LOS in 4e (without GM fiat).
Correct. This is an important point: nearly everything in 4E that gives a penalty to attack rolls, gives a small penalty. This is design philosophy.


ill admit im no expert at fourth eddtion but in third the spot penalties at those extreme distances are pretty harsh if their any thing similar sneaking closer might be a viable option
As an example to the above, they cap at -2.


Terrain is DM fiat.
Most terrain isn't. The effect of common terrain types (e.g. forest) is clearly defined in the sourcebooks, and is consistent in adventure modules.


Against kiting, generally, the appropriate response is to sit there and let them shoot at the large, heavily-armored members of the party (who have thusly high ACs and HP totals) while your Stealthy or Invisible party members sneak around to the flank and ambush the attackers, engaging them in melee and hopefully pinning them down. While they're pinned in melee, bring the rest of the party forward ASAP.
Two problems with that: first, the party members capable of "pinning them in melee" are the large, heavily-armored members, i.e. the defenders (and most defenders are not actually capable of "pinning someone in melee").

Invisibility is simply not available at that level (the earliest is level 6, but that requires a wizard in the party, works once per day, and the invisible character must remain within 5 squares of said wizard) and stealth stops working as soon as the enemy gains unobstructed line of sight to you.


But if they're taking advantage of terrain (forests!) to hit and run, so can you.
Yes, but you'll likely take a -7 to-hit while doing it (unless you've got a ranger in the party) and they don't.


Ammo isn't tracked, to my knowledge. Characters never run out of arrows.
Ammo is tracked. Arrows are bought in packets of 30, and ranged attacks explicitly require one dagger or arrow per target of the attack.


If I ever faced the Elves of Doom, personally, I'd address the problem simply enough: I'd spam Run actions towards them! Could cover 16 squares a round with a double-run!
Yes, and they can cover eighteen squares per round (and circle around you, given the way diagonals work). That means that yes, they can stay out of your reach indefinitely while still shooting you.


PC's get action points. Double move, run, charge. Or simply make some stealth checks.
Won't work. You can spend one action point per combat, which means you can cover 24 squares once (giving you a -5 to hit in the progress). Did I mention how they were 40 squares away?


Or add on as your neck item a cloak of distortion, and watch the ranged monsters wiff away.
Won't work. It's a +5 to defense, which is good but not enough. Also, it's a level-4 item so it comes up several levels after the elves do.


Or send them to Sleep/immobilise/etc. *shrug*
Won't work either, because they are well out of range of either.


Ultimately, all it takes is a move action to get within range (5/10/15) and then hit with a power that dazes, slows, immobilises or knocks prone.
As above, it won't work, because they're 40 squares away from you. Oh, and the higher level equivalent of the elves will start doing this to you.


You might be cutting down one elf at a time, but sooner or later the PCs will get them all, especially if the PCs are higher level than the elves.
No, they're still out of reach. Also, if the PCs are higher level, then the CR system means that there are more elves. Five level-4 PCs? Ten elves. Good luck.



So the melee guy will approach 9 squares every round. That's five rounds for the archer.
Still won't work, the elves can cover more squares per round than you do. Eventually this nets them enough distance to get a shot off for free.


my (3 members) lvl 2 party absolutely destroyed a group of 3 lvl 2 elf archers and 3 kruthik young. I just don't think they're as deadly as described.
That depends on what tactics the elves were using. I suspect they weren't kiting, now were they?


Though if you are being pelted by arrows in a forest, I wonnder why you don't just light a fire or something. :smallwink:
Because then they'll start shooting you with flaming arrows :)


So what theoretical group of PCs are we taking out here?
A typical party. You will need a rather well-optimized group to deal with the Elves of Doom. Note that most of the countertactics people have suggested won't actually work in 4E.

Kurald Galain
2009-09-09, 04:57 AM
A Few possible solutions:
Good suggestions, but most of them don't really help.

Double running. They are faster than you are, so if they also double run they will eventually get far enough away from you to get a shot off. Also, if they scatter, then all the ones that you aren't running to will get to shoot you.

Ranged weapons give you a fighting chance, assuming your ranged weapons can match their range. Problem is, they're most likely better at ranged combat than you are.

Zones are not effective at this level. The earliest sight-blocking zone is the level-5 stinking cloud, and unless your suggestion is for the party to hide in the cloud, the elves can simply move around it.

Crawling - gives only a +2 bonus to defense, which is not enough.

Total defense - likewise, +2 to defense is not enough, and standing still does nothing against the problem you're facing.

Splitting up - unless the party is level one (in which case, good luck), by the CR system there are going to be equal or more elves than party members. So that's not going to help. And they're still faster than you are.



Homebrew Angle: Is there really any reason why most ranged implement powers shouldn't have an attack range x/2x, with a -2 penalty if in the long range, exactly as weapons works?
There's not really a reason for that. However, it won't help: unless you're a wizard, you won't get any implement powers with a range more than 10 (at least, until you're level 15 to 20), so doubling your power range gives you 20 squares, against the elves' 40 squares.

This is why the Elves of Doom are really like That Damn Crab: by the rules, nearly nothing that an average heroic party can do against them will actually work.

KIDS
2009-09-09, 05:21 AM
The elves were in a sewers tunnel, about 4 squares wide and a whole lot long. They moved back and etc. for some time, but the party barbarian caught them with Combat Sprint and Howling Strike + Swift Charge. Once they tried to run again, it wasn't enough to get out of run + ranged weapon reach, and they were killed fast.

The theorethical reasoning of why a monster is invincible is correct in theory, but only in theory.

sofawall
2009-09-09, 05:27 AM
The theorethical reasoning of why a monster is invincible is correct in theory, but only in theory.

Pun-Pun. He's actually less invulnerable in theory. (only slightly)

Kurald Galain
2009-09-09, 05:41 AM
The theorethical reasoning of why a monster is invincible is correct in theory, but only in theory.
Not at all. Remember, the question is not whether a party exists that can beat the Elves of Doom. The question is whether they are overpowered for their level rating of two.

Note that this is about mobility. Your fight takes place in a narrow sewers, which severely hampers mobility and is therefore not a good example.

Movement-boosting powers are a decent counter, but are not exactly common at this level. However, how far did the barbarian move: 6 (speed) + 6 (charge) + 4 (combat sprint once per encounter) = 16 squares, or 24 if he used an action point (which you didn't specify). The elves still have a range of 40 squares, and can move 18 at-will. Note that you can't use run or combat sprint on a charge, and neither does combat sprint stack with running.

Killer Angel
2009-09-09, 05:59 AM
The elves were in a sewers tunnel, about 4 squares wide and a whole lot long. They moved back and etc. for some time, but the party barbarian caught them with Combat Sprint and Howling Strike + Swift Charge. Once they tried to run again, it wasn't enough to get out of run + ranged weapon reach, and they were killed fast.

The theorethical reasoning of why a monster is invincible is correct in theory, but only in theory.

In theory and also in practice, an elven archer, breed to fight in the forest, don't gives his best in a tunnel, even if very long (where they can't move in different directions and can't hide with their +10 Stealth bonus).
It's the same if you fight some flyers in rooms 10' high: their efficacy is hampered, so of course they became a not so big threat.

KIDS
2009-09-09, 06:04 AM
There were some pillars around and the lighting of light sources determined where the battle would start, which was at a distance of 20 squares. Still plenty for everyone's purposes, but they're just not radars. They can't be expected to always start at 40 squares and keep that distance no matter what, and a long range penalty makes them much less dangerous.

Anyways, I don't feel the point of this thread is to actually examine whether the monster is overpowered so I don't have anything further to say here.

Killer Angel
2009-09-09, 06:08 AM
They can't be expected to always start at 40 squares and keep that distance no matter what.


THis, I can concede (at least the starting distance), but still they seems to me to be pretty difficult to deal with, for their CR.

Foryn Gilnith
2009-09-09, 06:10 AM
Note that this is about mobility. Your fight takes place in a narrow sewers, which severely hampers mobility and is therefore not a good example.
Well, then, there's your non-GM fiat use of terrain to fight elven archers, eh?



Movement-boosting powers are a decent counter, but are not exactly common at this level. However, how far did the barbarian move: 6 (speed) + 6 (charge) + 4 (combat sprint once per encounter) = 16 squares, or 24 if he used an action point (which you didn't specify). The elves still have a range of 40 squares, and can move 18 at-will. Note that you can't use run or combat sprint on a charge, and neither does combat sprint stack with running.

This seems to be an interesting point, and I'm curious to know how the archers didn't just run away (I'm a bit fuzzy on 4e mechanics)

Kurald Galain
2009-09-09, 06:10 AM
They can't be expected to ... keep that distance no matter what,
It has been shown that they can, because they're faster than you.


and a long range penalty makes them much less dangerous.
No, that's only a -2 to hit.

Denial is not an argument.



This seems to be an interesting point, and I'm curious to know how the archers didn't just run away (I'm a bit fuzzy on 4e mechanics)
By the rules, they could have. Taking an opportunity attack and double-moving (for 18 squares) is better tactics for them than standing still and getting attacked anyway.

The New Bruceski
2009-09-09, 06:15 AM
If the elves are keeping at max range, run the other direction. If you're in the open forest that people insist on, you can circle around them if they don't pursue. If they *do* pursue, they don't get chances to shoot you, and your stealthed friend waits for them to walk on top of him.

If they're guarding a Macguffin so you have to fight them, they are unable to retreat. If they retreat, grab the Macguffin and do a little dance.

Why must everything be "defeated" by charging at it and killing it?

Yora
2009-09-09, 06:20 AM
Because this is essentially a forum mostly for character optimizer. :smallwink:

Killer Angel
2009-09-09, 06:25 AM
If the elves are keeping at max range, run the other direction.

We are talking about the difficulty of an encounter. If your solution is to avoid the encounter, Kurald Galain's point is proved.
(otherwise, That Damn Crab is not a problem. I teleport away.)


If they're guarding a Macguffin so you have to fight them, they are unable to retreat. If they retreat, grab the Macguffin and do a little dance?

Because they never never follow you, using you as target for archery practice...
Leaving someone hidden behind you, could not work, if you're not certain of their path. And even in this case, your hidden comrade ambush them, kills one elves, the others spread all around an kill him all alone.


Why must everything be "defeated" by charging at it and killing it?

Because we are discussing their CR, so combat is the point. Of course not all the challenges must be faced with "destroy it!".

lesser_minion
2009-09-09, 07:57 AM
With the whole thing about elves kiting, there is actually no reason to expect that encounter to be within reach as a combat encounter - you are, after all, attacking an opponent who is on their home ground and trying to fight on their terms.

This is not the favoured technique of successful military leaders for a good reason, and the players should probably be aware of this, and try to come up with a way out that involves something other than trying to kill people who have a clear tactical advantage.

If they have to fight the elves for some reason, then clearly they need to figure out a way to get the elves out of the forest. Or a way to get the advantage in those situations. Even 4e PCs are allowed to be resourceful.

Basically, this sort of encounter is something that has to be resolved by thinking and noncombat methods. It's not suitable for every gaming group, and a little more warning that this could happen might have been nice, but it isn't too much of a problem.

The fact that it is better for a character to soak an AoO rather than stand around and fight is a problem, however. Bear in mind that the 'classic' elves in the Elves Of Doooom encounter are not the sort of people who don't know how to use a sword.

AllisterH
2009-09-09, 08:29 AM
I'm not sure where the problem is though...I kind of _like_ this encounter as it requires the PCs to think their way through.

However, there _ARE_ a couple of things that favour the elves.

1. This assumes that the elves CAN move away. For example, we've been using elves in their home but how does kiting protect their home/macguffin if the PCs can simply take a few hits, smash the home/macguffin and walk the hell away.

2. The terrain favours the elves in a big way. As others mentioned, any non-open/plain terrain pretty much nukes this (a simple hill between the elves and the PCs neuters this).

Thus, the DM _WANTS_ you to think your way around it.

In a lot of ways, this is liking fighting waterbreathers in a swamp setting. Using the obvious tactic of firing from range/fighting underwater

I'm not sure this is like "That Damn Crab" since once you get the mobility aspect covered (either by being ranged yourself or by drawingt he elves into closer combat), you're going to tear them to shreds more or less.

That Damn Crab had no weakness thus there was no way to "trick" it into getting "weaker" so to speak...

re: Pre 4th edition

You know, at levels 2 and 3, you don't have Windwall or Fireball so I'm curious, how would this work in other editions as well? (then again, given that at levels 1-3, a normal damage roll can outright kill you, wouldn't the forest elves of Doom spank a 1st/2nd/3rd edition party as well?)

lesser_minion
2009-09-09, 08:58 AM
re: Pre 4th edition

You know, at levels 2 and 3, you don't have Windwall or Fireball so I'm curious, how would this work in other editions as well? (then again, given that at levels 1-3, a normal damage roll can outright kill you, wouldn't the forest elves of Doom spank a 1st/2nd/3rd edition party as well?)

In 3rd edition, it would be much easier to take advantage of the cover offered by the trees to stay out of line of effect long enough to engage the archers in melee. At 1st or 2nd level, you wouldn't want to soak melee attacks either - without cheese, a meatshield could still conceivably drop in one or two hits.

3rd edition also required a lot less work to have a relevant missile attack at low levels - even 'plinking' with a crossbow is a valid contribution.

AllisterH
2009-09-09, 09:09 AM
In 3rd edition, it would be much easier to take advantage of the cover offered by the trees to stay out of line of effect long enough to engage the archers in melee. At 1st or 2nd level, you wouldn't be able to reliably soak most melee attacks (and we're talking about S&B d8+2 damage melee attacks here, not 3d12+39 greataxes).

3rd edition also required a lot less work to have a relevant missile attack at low levels - even 'plinking' with a crossbow is a valid contribution.

Er no...I thought we were ignoring Cover. 4e DOES have cover as well so I assume we were ignoring that...Otherwise the easiest thing to do is simply say

"Is there any tree or rock that is solid enough to hide behind"? and then just do the same thing?"

Hal
2009-09-09, 09:12 AM
A GM who sets up such an encounter (ranged enemy that plinks at you from afar and works to stay out of your reach) has a few things going on. He is either:


Creating an encounter you have to approach from a different angle
Trying to create a "plot barrier" that will deter you from a given path
Actively trying to aggravate his players


If you're the former two and you're in danger of a TPK, don't be that guy ("Whoops! Didn't see that coming. Oh well, let's roll up new characters!"). If it's the latter . . . still don't be that guy.

lesser_minion
2009-09-09, 09:14 AM
Er no...I thought we were ignoring Cover. 4e DOES have cover as well so I assume we were ignoring that...

The point is that in 3e you would be allowed to duck almost completely out of sight when shooting - gaining an obscene bonus to AC in the process. If you didn't want to shoot, you could make that into total cover with no chance to be hit at all.

The actual shooting would degenerate into a stalemate, with nearly everyone readying actions - with the exception of the people casting spells or trying to sneak around.

In 4e, the cover bonuses have been toned down a little, so it would be rare to see people suffering more than a -2 to hit because of cover.

And, as before, the PCs would do quite a bit of damage shooting back - the 3e equivalent of the 2nd level elf archer might have as many as 7 hitpoints, so they aren't going to be soaking much damage.

AllisterH
2009-09-09, 09:18 AM
The point is that in 3e you would be allowed to duck completely out of sight, move and then attack the opponent from somewhere else. It would be rare for anyone to ever get a shot.

4e merely has 'cover' and 'superior cover' - it would be quite rare for LoE to actually be broken, if I remember correctly.

???

I'm not seeing how the 4e party can't do the same thing as the 3e party? Exactly where am I reading the rules differently?



And, as before, the PCs would do quite a bit of damage shooting back - the 3e equivalent of the 2nd level elf archer might have as many as 7 hitpoints, so they aren't going to be soaking much damage.

Conversely, the 4e party isn't going to be one shot by a couple of attacks....

Arakune
2009-09-09, 09:22 AM
However, there _ARE_ a couple of things that favour the elves.


Here is the point, since he is comparing the elves witht the crab: in their standard environment they have massive advantages making the task to defeat them nearly impossible.

That's most like that for the crab: he surprise the group, take one of the party members and retreat. It's not even a tactic too advanced for him, but because of his massive grapple bonus and lack of means to follow him it was either a TPK or at least one PC got down without effort.

Of course if you change the environment or the encounter settings the elves will have their effectiveness dropped, but what about a by the book normal standard encounter? What if the DM just look at the encounter and want to try it by the first time?

The point is to get an unintentional TPK from something nearly simple. If the DM have to 'dumb down' the enemy, of course the encounter is too tough for the PCs.

Killer Angel
2009-09-09, 09:26 AM
A GM who sets up such an encounter (ranged enemy that plinks at you from afar and works to stay out of your reach) has a few things going on. He is either:

Creating an encounter you have to approach from a different angle
Trying to create a "plot barrier" that will deter you from a given path
Actively trying to aggravate his players



Knowing the potential of that kind of enemies, you can use them against a stronger party, in the appropriate settings, and be equally a credible threat, while not so deadly.
Let's face the Tucker's elven archers!

AllisterH
2009-09-09, 09:30 AM
The point is to get an unintentional TPK from something nearly simple. If the DM have to 'dumb down' the enemy, of course the encounter is too tough for the PCs.

But that's the point though...

This ISN'T a standard encounter. A standard encounter for 4e involves lots of terrain features and is NOT usually a plain featureless surface (see both DMG and even now DMGII which emphasizes terrain features)

Tyger
2009-09-09, 09:30 AM
Sorry, but breaking line of effect in a forest is only challenging if your DM has never been in a real forest. There are fallen logs, hummocks, piles of debis... which leaves out your wizard or other controller tossing up a wall, or some fog, or just about anything.

If they do not have line of effect (which is quite easy in any forest), they can not target you. Plain and simple. Now, if your DM is saying that you have none of that, and all that there is are trees, which would likely provide only cover rather than breaking line of effect, then yes, you may have a problem. But find me a forest anywhere with no fallen logs in it, and I'll show you a movie set. :smallsmile:

lesser_minion
2009-09-09, 09:38 AM
???

I'm not seeing how the 4e party can't do the same thing as the 3e party? Exactly where am I reading the rules differently?

Conversely, the 4e party isn't going to be one shot by a couple of attacks....

The AC bonuses for cover are smaller in 4e than in 3e - a 3e character could easily be almost impossible to hit when shooting around a tree or from behind an object. The same character in 4e might be difficult to hit, but the shot would not be impossible.

In both cases, it would be up to the DM how the terrain worked and what its effects were, but as a general rule, 3e characters would be claiming larger bonuses and would spend more time simply immune to attack.

The same would probably be the case for AD&D and OD&D.

You are right, however, that it is possible in 4e to end up with LoE blocked. It would, however, happen less often.

Tiki Snakes
2009-09-09, 09:49 AM
Elf Archer, level 2. Speed 7, bow long-range, 40 squares.
We have several, in a young forest (So many squares have small trees, but non have square-filling large trees).

He can move 7 squares in a round, and attack. He can run twice to move a total of 18 squares, and not attack at all.

First round, they are at 44ft from the party exactly, and take their shot after moving 4 squares closer, to get their bonus. It cancels out their -2 penalty for firing at long range. HOWEVER, this is a forest, so the pc's also have concealment (-2) and are likely in tree-squares, because this is a young forest, (certainly have trees in the way), so cover as well (-2)

The Elf Archer is currently attacking with his +7 vs ac, with a -4 penalty. at level 2, most characters will likely have something like a 17 in their AC. Elf hits on a 14+.
If they are more concerned about keeping their distance, they could simply attack from 40ft and THEN move, losing their bonus to attack at needing a 16+ to hit the least armoured party members. Tougher characters quite likely have 19 at least, meaning that with their bonus they still need to roll 16+, or 18+ without it.

If the DM is using the suggested 'item wishlist' then the cloak is a very real possibility, because it is well within the range for a found item. in such a case, they practically need natural 20's to hit (probably at least one party member.)

Let's assume they wanted to actually hit the party. They are currently exactly 40ft away from them, and it's their go.

Rogue makes a stealth check, he's gone at this range. I tend to take the utility power that lets' rogues move at full speed whilest hidden, and he essentially has at least concealment through this entire place, so it's all good. He moves 12 squares towards the elves every turn, and they don't have a hope of spotting him without sacrificing actions to find him, really.

Fighter likely has 19 to 20 ac, move of 5. He runs twice, makes it 14 squares towards the elves, and will continue doing so.

and so on. The elves basically take the choice of maybe hitting for 1d10+4, or staying away from the party who will pretty much destroy them when they get there.
#

nb, sleep is a lvl1 daily, targets the elf's will of 12, area burst 2 within 20 squares. On a miss, it slows the elves till they can save, (which means NO bonus, because they can't move 4 squares and still attack) and if it hits, and they fail the first save, they fall unconcious.

So, two turns in, Wizard ends the encounter, pretty much. Chances are good that some of the party gets to act before the elves, short of dm fiat/elaborate ambush, as they only have a +5 to initiative.

It would be a tough encounter, because the DM has set it up to be so. Favourable locations and so on should and do factor into difficulty. If you put your archers at maximum range and have them ruthlessly kite at all costs, you'll do some damage and probably get the pc's to throw in some daily resources. But unless you are doing everything you possibly can to tpk, the party will likely prevail.

Really, if you are talking about using Elf Archers in such a tactically aware way, you are not talking about the average encounter however, which opens up tactically aware pc's, or even particularly optimised ones. *shrug*

Killer Angel
2009-09-09, 09:51 AM
Sorry, but breaking line of effect in a forest is only challenging if your DM has never been in a real forest. There are fallen logs, hummocks, piles of debis... which leaves out your wizard or other controller tossing up a wall, or some fog, or just about anything.


I agree with your post, but RAW is very different from “real life”.
The effects of terrain types (forest) are defined in the sourcebooks: trees don't generally block LOS in 4e. They usually don't have trunks wider than the 5' squares, and if the enemy is not directly in line with you, this means he can shoot you.
And (if I’m not wrong) cover gives only a +2 to defence.

Tiki Snakes
2009-09-09, 09:56 AM
I agree with your post, but RAW is very different from “real life”.
The effects of terrain types (forest) are defined in the sourcebooks: trees don't generally block LOS in 4e. They usually don't have trunks wider than the 5' squares, and if the enemy is not directly in line with you, this means he can shoot you.
And (if I’m not wrong) cover gives only a +2 to defence.

Compendium say, you can share a square with a small tree. Large tree, he fill square. :)
ANY cover gives you +2 to defence. GOOD cover gives you +5. (Shooting through arrow-slits and grates, a window, or portcullis.)

Arakune
2009-09-09, 10:05 AM
But that's the point though...

This ISN'T a standard encounter. A standard encounter for 4e involves lots of terrain features and is NOT usually a plain featureless surface (see both DMG and even now DMGII which emphasizes terrain features)

I guess it's you who is missing the point. The point of the elves is long range + higher mobility. A florest isn't always dense enough to make it impossible to make ranged attacks from 30~40 squares away. The features of the terrain can be exploited by both parties, but that still don't solve the range and mobility problems, expecialy at those levels.

Tiki Snakes
2009-09-09, 10:14 AM
I guess it's you who is missing the point. The point of the elves is long range + higher mobility. A florest isn't always dense enough to make it impossible to make ranged attacks from 30~40 squares away. The features of the terrain can be exploited by both parties, but that still don't solve the range and mobility problems, expecialy at those levels.

In the forest that isn't too dense, you're already likely to be packing cover and concealment. -4 to attacks against you. Fight defensively as well, to make it -6 (or more if you've spent a feat on it). That'd reduce the ranged attacks in question to barely more than straight rolling, even without trying. If you're a fighter, or a staff wizard, you're not really going to get hit much at this point, and can practically stand still.

Indon
2009-09-09, 10:18 AM
This doesn't handle the case in which you have two groups of elves, one on either side of you. That's not the only issue - let's say the elves are protecting something in the forest, their home perhaps. If they've drawn you away from it, they've won.

In the situation that the Elves are trying to protect their home, I simply ignore them, find said home, and proceed into their houses and systematically murder their civilians. Eventually they'll either come in, or I'll take a series of short rests in their ravaged and broken homes. It's way better than chasing them!

...I'm in an Evil campaign.


Though if you are being pelted by arrows in a forest, I wonnder why you don't just light a fire or something. :smallwink:

A Forest Fire! Even better!

It should be noted that, in practice, kiting should work excellently if the enemies have over 6 speed. You can attack and lose squares on the opponent one round, and then double-run for a few rounds to gain that distance back and do it again.

So long as you have space to run down, you're good, unless your DM decides to implement long-range exaustion rules, in which case the party Defender is going to be able to engage the elves (or other kiting mobs) sooner or later.

A player could counter this with a feat that increases their speed when running, however. Said feat's only heroic tier, too. In fact, an elf with that feat could out-kite those NPC elves.

Ultimately, 4th edition is not meant to be played on battlefields remotely that large - thus why the longest ranges in the game are 200-250 feet. 4th edition as it's meant to be played has the elves running out of battle-mat a couple rounds into combat. :P

Arakune
2009-09-09, 10:22 AM
In the forest that isn't too dense, you're already likely to be packing cover and concealment. -4 to attacks against you. Fight defensively as well, to make it -6 (or more if you've spent a feat on it). That'd reduce the ranged attacks in question to barely more than straight rolling, even without trying. If you're a fighter, or a staff wizard, you're not really going to get hit much at this point, and can practically stand still.

And how that work to actually kill the oposition? Can't they take time to aim if they found out you're only standing still?

Indon
2009-09-09, 10:28 AM
And how that work to actually kill the oposition? Can't they take time to aim if they found out you're only standing still?

Well, if the game really does track ammo, then you could concievably run them out of it.

Level 2 mobs aren't going to have bags of holding for their arrows.

Tiki Snakes
2009-09-09, 10:29 AM
And how that work to actually kill the oposition? Can't they take time to aim if they found out you're only standing still?

On it's own, it wouldn't, really. The point is more that it's quite easy to make it very hard for said elves to hit you, if that's the goal. Really, you're better served by simply having the fighter charge them down, because he really can. (14 move a turn till he's within charging range), all he has to do is tie one or two down for a moment to let the rest of the party catch up and slaughter them.

If we're not talking standard, average party members though, there are of course lots of fun options.

FoE
2009-09-09, 11:05 AM
In the situation that the Elves are trying to protect their home, I simply ignore them, find said home, and proceed into their houses and systematically murder their civilians.

Richard Rahl? Is that you?

Mando Knight
2009-09-09, 11:05 AM
In the forest that isn't too dense, you're already likely to be packing cover and concealment. -4 to attacks against you. Fight defensively as well, to make it -6 (or more if you've spent a feat on it). That'd reduce the ranged attacks in question to barely more than straight rolling, even without trying. If you're a fighter, or a staff wizard, you're not really going to get hit much at this point, and can practically stand still.

And if you're a Paladin or Swordmage, they might as well just give up. Especially if there's an Elf Predator Druid on your team. (8 move, for a total of 20 on double-run, proficient with Longbow and decently good at using it for an RBA)

Myrmex
2009-09-09, 01:13 PM
So what kind of forest lets you shoot stuff 200 feet away? A forest that also happens to be a featureless plain?

Also, whatever happened to running away?

kc0bbq
2009-09-09, 01:49 PM
And how that work to actually kill the oposition? Can't they take time to aim if they found out you're only standing still?Why does winning require killing the opposition?

And again, DM documentation is all about dealing with situations like this, and they're RAW, too.

Grumman
2009-09-09, 06:27 PM
Why does winning require killing the opposition?
Because one of the minor benefits of killing the opposition is that it prevents them from killing you, as soon as you come out of hiding?

Tyger
2009-09-09, 06:48 PM
I agree with your post, but RAW is very different from “real life”.
The effects of terrain types (forest) are defined in the sourcebooks: trees don't generally block LOS in 4e. They usually don't have trunks wider than the 5' squares, and if the enemy is not directly in line with you, this means he can shoot you.
And (if I’m not wrong) cover gives only a +2 to defence.

Big trees are blocking terrain, they block line of sight (page 61 of the DMG). So trees, upright or fallen down, blocking LoS and thus LoE, is RAW. Wow, that's a fair number of acronyms for one sentence!

Thus, said elves may be able to get off one or two shots, and then they lose sight of the targets. All their speed avails them naught as their targets take cover and make a plan. Probably one that involves the rogue (who can now make his stealth checks unhindered) moving into an advantageous position, and then everyone unleashing hell.

Yes, these elves, and anything that can "kite" do present an interesting challenge. But they are by no means impossible, or even particularly difficult to work with. Unless a) the DM is being an arse, or b) the players have no idea about basic tactics. If either of those is true, then yes, this sort of scenario is nasty and could lead to a TPK. But there are millions of possible combinations that make encounters more challenging than it should be, all based on the circumstances of the encounter rather than the monster's abilities.

Killer Angel
2009-09-10, 06:56 AM
Especially if there's an Elf Predator Druid on your team.

Well, this is becoming a little specific. After all, even That Damn Crab is not a threat, if he's targeting a Cleric with travel domain...



Yes, these elves, and anything that can "kite" do present an interesting challenge. But they are by no means impossible, or even particularly difficult to work with.

Yep, they are very good for their CR, but i agree that they aren't SO uber (as TDC). But definitely, they are interesting, especially if they start with hit and run tactics, firing for some rounds and then hiding...
Players had to think some good countermeasure.

Mercenary Pen
2009-09-10, 07:24 AM
Fairly simple solution to the problem actually:

Purchase Lv1 Riding Horses. Speed per move action=10. Suddenly, the elves have to double-move rather more frequently, and you don't even have to take any run actions (unless of course you want to).

Perfectly within wealth by level, perfectly suitable to all potential classes and the only thing it'll probably prevent you doing is hiding.

Kurald Galain
2009-09-10, 07:31 AM
Again, there are numerous solutions proposed here that don't actually work in the 4E ruleset. A large part of the problem with the Elves of Doom is that the ruleset makes them more effective than they would be in other games, or in real life.

For instance, Tiki Snakes suggests fighting defensively, and Ryuan suggests taking aim - but neither action exists in 4E combat. AllisterH suggests taking cover, but the point is that in 4E, cover simply doesn't penalize attack rolls all that much.

While it is true that the encounter becomes easy "once you get the mobility aspect covered (either by being ranged yourself or by drawingt he elves into closer combat)", the problem is that covering the mobility aspect is simply not a plausible option for many heroic-tier characters.

Indon suggests a feat that increases your running speed. That feat would indeed counter the Elves, but it's also pretty useless in nearly every other situation. I've never seen any PC take this feat since there are so many better feats.


Basically, this sort of encounter is something that has to be resolved by thinking and noncombat methods. It's not suitable for every gaming group, and a little more warning that this could happen might have been nice, but it isn't too much of a problem.
Yes. I think this is an excellent answer: in many gameworlds, not every problem is expected to be solved by charging at it with a sword.


If it's the latter . . . still don't be that guy.
Yes. However, in this case, a DM can be "that guy" by accident.


(a simple hill between the elves and the PCs neuters this).
In real life, maybe. In 4E rules, no. For starters, the elves will move around the hill.



This ISN'T a standard encounter. A standard encounter for 4e involves lots of terrain features and is NOT usually a plain featureless surface
Since this thread isn't discussing a plain featureless surface in the first place, that is not relevant.


Level 2 mobs aren't going to have bags of holding for their arrows.
Correct. They have 30 arrows each, according to their MM entry. I think that should be plenty.


Sorry, but breaking line of effect in a forest is only challenging if your DM has never been in a real forest.
This is one of those situations where 4E rules differ from real life. A 4E forest simply doesn't block line of effect all that often. Also, while it would be quite reasonable by RAW for a forest to give both cover and concealment, no forest I've encountered so far in printed adventures actually does that.


Big trees are blocking terrain, they block line of sight (page 61 of the DMG).
Sure. Elves also can move around big trees to get a clear shot, so that doesn't really help unless your forest literally consists of walls of adjacent trees (in which case it isn't really a forest any more).


All their speed avails them naught as their targets take cover and make a plan. Probably one that involves the rogue (who can now make his stealth checks unhindered) moving into an advantageous position, and then everyone unleashing hell.
Neither part of that actually works (they can't take cover because the elves can circle, and the rogue "moving into an advantageous position" only nets him a single sneak attack unless said position involves being next to the rest of the party).


OReally, you're better served by simply having the fighter charge them down, because he really can. (14 move a turn till he's within charging range),
He'll never get to charge range, because the elves move 18 per turn.


And if you're a Paladin or Swordmage, they might as well just give up.
No, because they're well out of range of your marking powers.


Especially if there's an Elf Predator Druid on your team.
That could work. However, it does put the druid in solo combat with all the Elves for a few rounds, which is dangerous of its own.

Kurald Galain
2009-09-10, 07:48 AM
First round, they are at 44ft from the party exactly, and take their shot after moving 4 squares closer, to get their bonus. It cancels out their -2 penalty for firing at long range. HOWEVER, this is a forest, so the pc's also have concealment (-2) and are likely in tree-squares, because this is a young forest, (certainly have trees in the way), so cover as well (-2)
While it's certainly plausible for a forest to give both cover and concealment, no forest I've seen in a printed module actually does that.


Tougher characters quite likely have 19 at least, meaning that with their bonus they still need to roll 16+, or 18+ without it.
I think these required to-hit numbers are slightly higher than they will be in practice, although of course this depends on party optimization.


If the DM is using the suggested 'item wishlist' then the cloak is a very real possibility, because it is well within the range for a found item.
It is plausible that one party member would have that cloak, but not really that more of them do. In this case, the elves could drop the rest of the party and then they take care of the last guy.



Rogue makes a stealth check, he's gone at this range. I tend to take the utility power that lets' rogues move at full speed whilest hidden, and he essentially has at least concealment through this entire place, so it's all good.
This hinges on the assumption that the forest gives concealment everywhere, which frankly is not a given. But if it does, then the first problem is that the elves also get to make stealth checks (which makes the encounter much worse, and rogues do not have a wisdom focus so will likely have trouble finding them).

The second problem is, what exactly is the rogue going to do when he gets there? He can make one sneak attack, which usually isn't sufficient to bloody an enemy, but that breaks his stealth. Then the elves get to gang up on him.


Fighter likely has 19 to 20 ac, move of 5. He runs twice, makes it 14 squares towards the elves, and will continue doing so.
This is a problem, because then the elves get to move 18 squares backwards, so they're also moving away from the rogue even if they hadn't spotted him.


The elves basically take the choice of maybe hitting for 1d10+4, or staying away from the party who will pretty much destroy them when they get there.
Or (c) do both. Or (d) do both and make stealth checks.


nb, sleep is a lvl1 daily, targets the elf's will of 12, area burst 2 within 20 squares.
Yes, but the elves are 40 squares away, and likely not all standing in a 5x5 area. So no, sleep won't win the encounter for you.


Chances are good that some of the party gets to act before the elves,
Granted.



Really, if you are talking about using Elf Archers in such a tactically aware way, you are not talking about the average encounter however,
I do not believe that "hit and run" constitutes advanced tactics.


Fairly simple solution to the problem actually:

Purchase Lv1 Riding Horses.
That's actually much simpler than most other proposed solutions, and it looks like it will work. Good call.

Mercenary Pen
2009-09-10, 08:27 AM
That's actually much simpler than most other proposed solutions, and it looks like it will work. Good call.

Well, I had a day-worth of lurking on the thread to think about it, and I was referencing books as I posted.

Tyger
2009-09-10, 08:27 AM
But if the forest contains "big trees" or if the scenario offers any other sort of cover like them, then the PCs aren't tied to that one single part. And even if they were, the elves have to move a significant number of squares to get around the tree, as they are 40 squares out. The PCs on the other hand can probably simply shift one square each round... And a forest with no "big trees" in it isn't a forest.

Also, is this forest floor a perfect plane? There are no rises or hills? No little streams? Nothing??? There is nothing for 200 feet in any direction you can hide behind??? I've lived on the prairies the majority of my life, and that may well be the flatest place on the planet, but even I would be hard pressed to find any two points 200 feet apart that there was no cover in... unless it was paved that is. :smallbiggrin: If the pre-printed modules you are talking about don't factor cover or concealment in their forests, that is the fault of the module writer, not the rules. The rules specifically allow for, and encourage, breaking line of sight by using natural terrain. See the DMG section on just that.

And sure, that rogue may only get one sneak attack in. But that is all he needs to take out one elf. With a paltry AC of 15, and a HP total of 32, it is eminently possible for a level 2 rogue to take an elf out in one hit. Combine that with a move action to re-gain concealment, and the rogue is hiding again just fine. That also discounts the rest of the party using longbows as well... even untrained, they will hit the elves on a 17, that assumes no DEX bonus as well... and the majority of them will likely have at least a +1 or +2 to hit. Add in that the ranger and the fighter (sticking just to the PHB) also have military ranged proficiency, and that makes it more like hitting on a 13, for just as much, or close to as much, damage as the elves are hitting for... 1d10+Dex... and the PCs have healing surges, healing potions, and other healing abilities, which the elves lack. And the warriors at least, have about the same hit points, and likely higher AC.

Yes, they're a challenge, and if your team doesn't have ranged weapons (which often seems to be the case) or if they don't think their way through the encounter, they'll be a potentially deadly challenge. But they just aren't that big a challenge...

Kurald Galain
2009-09-10, 08:40 AM
Also, is this forest floor a perfect plane? There are no rises or hills? No little streams? Nothing???
This is one of the reasons why kiting archers are more dangerous in 4E than they are in real life, yes. Hills and streams are usually modeled as difficult terrain (which halves your speed but does nothing else) and penalties for concealment cap out at -2 (which reduces accuracy by 10%, no more).


And sure, that rogue may only get one sneak attack in. But that is all he needs to take out one elf. With a paltry AC of 15, and a HP total of 32, it is eminently possible for a level 2 rogue to take an elf out in one hit.
Level 2 rogue does e.g. 1d4 (weapon) + 2d8+4 (sneak attack, assuming the subpar Backstabber feat) + 4 (dexterity) damage. I'm having a hard time getting to 32 with those numbers, even on a crit.


Add in that the ranger and the fighter (sticking just to the PHB) also have military ranged proficiency, and that makes it more like hitting on a 13, for just as much, or close to as much, damage as the elves are hitting for... 1d10+Dex...
Certainly. Elven archers in the party will beat elven archer enemies.


Yes, they're a challenge, and if your team doesn't have ranged weapons (which often seems to be the case) or if they don't think their way through the encounter, they'll be a potentially deadly challenge. But they just aren't that big a challenge...
Solutions certainly exist. I nevertheless assert that they are significantly bigger a challenge than other enemies of level two.

Tyger
2009-09-10, 08:54 AM
This is one of the reasons why kiting archers are more dangerous in 4E than they are in real life, yes. Hills and streams are usually modeled as difficult terrain (which halves your speed but does nothing else) and penalties for concealment cap out at -2 (which reduces accuracy by 10%, no more).

You have a page reference for that? DMG page 61 is all about terrain, and the description of blocking terrain is right there...


Certainly. Elven archers in the party will beat elven archer enemies.

Yes, right along with their dwarven allies, their human allies... anyone armed with a longbow can do what the elves from the Monster Manual are doing... minus the +2 to hit if they move more than 4 squares.



Solutions certainly exist. I nevertheless assert that they are significantly bigger a challenge than other enemies of level two.

Sure, I've agreed to that, so long as your players are not thinking about tactics. In a very specific and unrealistic environment. Where your party is not also prepared for long range combat.

They are by no means the issue that the "damned crab" is in 3.5. Not even close.

Colmarr
2009-09-10, 09:14 AM
Ultimately we're all dancing around the very simple fact that Kurald is positing an "unrealistic" tactic in an "unrealistic" situation.

Kiting really only exists in artificial scenarios like rpgs because in the real world:


ranged weapons have such significant reach that it's next to impossible to safely remain in range of your weapons but out of range of their weapons; and
if you get hit by someone's ranged weapon, you're more than likely dead or incapacitated. You can't kite something that's already dead.


If a DM (or a player) "kites" for more than a few rounds, then he's taking an abstract system and abusing it.

If a DM specifically places an encounter in a never-ending environment with no immediate boundaries (rivers, roads, villages etc) and where one side has no objective other than to pursue and exterminate the other (eg. the PCs retreating is not enough), then ultimately that's bad DMing.

Kurald is right. With a bad DM who plays solely by RAW and who does not attempt to include verissimilitude in his encounters, Elf Archers are exceedingly dangerous.

However, and to answer the original question, the set of circumstances in which they are that dangerous is sufficiently narrow that I don't believe it justifies them being a higher level.

Wulfram
2009-09-10, 09:33 AM
I don't see what is unrealistic about wood elves fighting in a large forest using hit and run tactics. From a fluff point of view that is exactly what I would expect.

Retreat out of the forest should usually be a way of escaping the encounter with your lives, unless you've really pissed them off, but it's certainly not a way of winning - and may not be practicable if the encounter is taking place near the center of the forest.

Kurald Galain
2009-09-10, 09:36 AM
You have a page reference for that? DMG page 61 is all about terrain, and the description of blocking terrain is right there...
Are you asserting that hills and streams should block movement and line of sight?


Yes, right along with their dwarven allies, their human allies... anyone armed with a longbow can do what the elves from the Monster Manual are doing...
The key is speed. Dwarves and humans lack the speed.



Sure, I've agreed to that, so long as your players are not thinking about tactics.
The point is that most tactics that people in this thread have suggested do not actually work that way in 4E.


Ultimately we're all dancing around the very simple fact that Kurald is positing an "unrealistic" tactic in an "unrealistic" situation.
Yes, because elven archers in a forest is not a fantasy trope at all :smalleek:



If a DM (or a player) "kites" for more than a few rounds, then he's taking an abstract system and abusing it.
That's only restating that the system cannot handle hit-and-run tactics, and they should therefore not be used.



If a DM specifically places an encounter in a never-ending environment with no immediate boundaries (rivers, roads, villages etc) and where one side has no objective other than to pursue and exterminate the other (eg. the PCs retreating is not enough), then ultimately that's bad DMing.
That's a cute exaggeration, but the tactic doesn't require any of that to function.

Tiki Snakes
2009-09-10, 09:44 AM
Just to note, if the elves are moving 18, then they are not attacking. if they are attacking, they really need to move 7 at most.

Kurald Galain
2009-09-10, 09:50 AM
Actually, I'm surprised by the angry-sounding reactions in this thread. I asked pretty much the same question in the WOTC charop forum, and while several people point out that a DM shouldn't run this encounter, nobody is denying that it would be a very dangerous one.

What's up with that? If people point out that needlefang drake swarms (a creature that doesn't even exist out of 4E, to my knowledge) are a potential TPK that many parties can't deal with, nobody minds. If people point out that elven archers in the forest (an exceedingly common trope) are very dangerous (which, according to that very trope, they are supposed to be) then people get upset.

Tiki Snakes
2009-09-10, 09:57 AM
Actually, I'm surprised by the angry-sounding reactions in this thread. I asked pretty much the same question in the WOTC charop forum, and while several people point out that a DM shouldn't run this encounter, nobody is denying that it would be a very dangerous one.

What's up with that? If people point out that needlefang drake swarms (a creature that doesn't even exist out of 4E, to my knowledge) are a potential TPK that many parties can't deal with, nobody minds. If people point out that elven archers in the forest (an exceedingly common trope) are very dangerous (which, according to that very trope, they are supposed to be) then people get upset.

If played in such a way as to absolutely maximise their potential, they are quite dangerous at that level, assuming the pc's are walking cross country, have no ranger taller than 5 foot and all have shocking AC scores.

If played in a more believable way, (where they don't attack the second their quarry is at their absolute maximum range and sprint for the hills the second the party advances), they are no more difficult than any other such encounter.

KIDS
2009-09-10, 10:18 AM
Well, I happened to see other thread(s) about the problem and you're asking this, so I'll jump in with my opinion. The difference, is not in the question but in the style.
Out there, you posted a question and some opinions came up about the thread (as here). But out here, you are dominating the thread by picking at everyone who doesn't share your opinion, and you use excessive quotes to take arguments out of context. In short, the thread doesn't sound like it's about TPKs, it sounds like it's about you. Sorry, but that's the impression that I got.

I have myself ran several battles that involved Elven Archers, and have seen others run similar battles too. Kiting existed in those situations, and they proved fast and dangerous, but never more than any other artillery. While I can see this theorethical situation in which they might be a problem, it's a stretch to assume that all battles against them will always look like that.

Tyger
2009-09-10, 10:23 AM
If played in such a way as to absolutely maximise their potential, they are quite dangerous at that level, assuming the pc's are walking cross country, have no ranger taller than 5 foot and all have shocking AC scores.

If played in a more believable way, (where they don't attack the second their quarry is at their absolute maximum range and sprint for the hills the second the party advances), they are no more difficult than any other such encounter.

This. Any creatures, if put in their maximum capacity situation, taking away any advantage the party would ordinarily have, is problematic. I recently almost wiped out a party of characters using Chillborn Zombies. The encounter was nominally an easy one, but the PCs were forced by circumstances outside their control, to fight the zombies toe to toe, when the zombies were all clustered together. The zombie's cold aura stacking nearly killed the entire party. If the party had been able to step back and se ranged attacks, the zombies would have been very, very easy.

Circumstances always determine challenge. I am surprised the DMG doesn't factor this in to XP awards. For the record, I do though. If circumstances make an encounter easier or more challenging than its posted value, I alter the XP accordingly, unless those circumstances were the result of good PC planning, in which case they deserve the easy fight for being smart, and the XP shows that.

And to answer your questions Kurald, yes, hills and the natural channels that streams cut through the land, do in fact break line of sight. They are naturally ocurring "walls" which, per the DMG, break LoS.

And while the elves do move at 7, which is faster than anything non-elf at that level, they are only moving at 7... not 14. If they move 14, they don't attack. Any round in which they don't attack is a free round for the party to seek cover, launch counter attacks, etc, etc, etc.

Round one: (Lets assume elves have initiative) Elves are 40 squares away. They move 4 closer to get their +2 to hit, then shoot. Targets run toward the elves, averaging 16 squares. Elves are now 20 squares away. Assuming none of the party uses action points to use their long range attacks, we proceed to round 2.

Round two: Elves fire and move 7 squares. Party moves up another 16 squares. Party is now 19 squares away. Lets pretend no one uses action points again.

Round three: Elves are nervous, enemy is closing... they run for both actions. Party follows suit. Elves, owing to their superior movement, gain 2 squares on the party, total distance 21 squares (note, this is within range for crossbows, short bows and longbows, almost every class has these available to it)

Note that from the end of round two until the end of the combat, the elves have to choose between staying out of range, or firing at the enemy. Sure, they'll get a few rounds of free shots off, but by no means can they kite indefinitely. They have to spend they standard actions shooting, which means the party can close the distance so long as the elves continue this pattern... if the elves want to maintain any significant difference, they have to spend 2/3 rounds running full out. Granted, this would likely work, but eventually they are going to run up against some sort of obstacle or run out of arrows. :) And if they do run to the point where the PCs are going to be outdistanced, the PCs can turn and run in the other direction. The elves have to double move in order to keep up... they only have an extra 2 squares of distance on the PCs after all.

Kurald Galain
2009-09-10, 11:10 AM
the natural channels that streams cut through the land, do in fact break line of sight. They are naturally ocurring "walls" which, per the DMG, break LoS.
If you're arguing that people can't look across a river, then I don't think you have any right to complain about lack of verisimilitude in my posts :smallbiggrin:

Kylarra
2009-09-10, 11:20 AM
I'd like a page citation on streams blocking LoS. Best I can find is Hindering Terrain with deep water cited as an example or Difficult Terrain for shallow water.

Note that fallen trees are also [normally] difficult terrain and not blocking terrain, per page 61.

Edit: naturally lower areas like that sound more like cover terrain than blocking terrain to me.

kc0bbq
2009-09-10, 11:41 AM
{Scrubbed}

FoE
2009-09-10, 01:05 PM
Actually, I'm surprised by the angry-sounding reactions in this thread. I asked pretty much the same question in the WOTC charop forum, and while several people point out that a DM shouldn't run this encounter, nobody is denying that it would be a very dangerous one.

What's up with that? If people point out that needlefang drake swarms (a creature that doesn't even exist out of 4E, to my knowledge) are a potential TPK that many parties can't deal with, nobody minds. If people point out that elven archers in the forest (an exceedingly common trope) are very dangerous (which, according to that very trope, they are supposed to be) then people get upset.

:smallsigh: Were I take a guess, Kurald, it isn't so much "people" pointing out the problem as it is YOU pointing out the problem.

You're one of the more vocal critics of the system, and this sounded like another attack. So if a few people here sound a bit defensive — myself included — it's just that we've been dodging bombs for too long.

Kurald Galain
2009-09-10, 01:31 PM
You're one of the more vocal critics of the system,
Funny how people keep bringing that one up, considering I play 4E regularly and write guides for it (e.g. in my sig).

Yakk
2009-09-10, 02:14 PM
Much of the party can hunker down. Get concealment, cover, etc.

Total cover will be pretty damn common in a forest at long range. Both concealment and total concealment will be common. Jury-rigging total cover in a static position will be really easy.

The defenders can get a +6 to defence from prone, concealment, and cover. The attackers have a +9 to hit (with moving 4 squares, which, by the way, makes stealth really hard). So against a target with a base AC of 17, they hit 35% of the time (and crit 5%) for an average damage flux of 3.55.

At 40 squares, the opponents just double-move away from them, and negage your ability to attack next turn. In order to be able to attack next turn without running, the elves need to be no more than 33 squares away. (If the elves end their turn 34+ squares away, the party turns away and double-runs, thus forcing the elves to come closer. If the elves refuse to double-run, they will never close the distance, so they aren't attacking at the end of their turn.)

At 33 squares, a player can run-and-attack with a Distance Javalin. Concealment, Cover, Running and Long Range generate a -11 penalty to attack against AC 15, so the DC is 26. A level 2 character with 20 strength at a +1 Distance Javalin (level 1 item) needs a 17+ to hit, for a damage flux of 2.2 per round.

A Ranger with weapon expertise and a warbow can easily hit the elves. AC 15 +2 cover +2 concealment, 20 dex+1 bow+1 level+1 prime shot-2 range means the Ranger hits on an 13+.

.8 * 7.5 + 2.24 (HQ) + 1.15 (crit)= 9.39 damage flux (approx).

So while the defender and the ranger are skirmishing with the elves (and getting healed by the leader), a Rogue or other stealthy type is moving around to the back of the elves, and the remaining player is shoot-and-praying using a sufficient ranged weapon.

Call it 12 damage flux, with a Rogue spoiler at some point.

With 5 archers, the party is facing 17.75 damage flux.

The players ability to soak up damage is better than the archers, as they have a leader and a second wind per player. On the other hand, the players risk losing their Ranger. . .

I think this works out to a hard fight for the players, but I suspect that the group of level 2 players can defeat the archers in the archers home turf.

FoE
2009-09-10, 02:18 PM
Funny how people keep bringing that one up, considering I play 4E regularly and write guides for it (e.g. in my sig).

I calls 'em as I sees 'em.

CharPixie
2009-09-10, 02:42 PM
Fairly simple solution to the problem actually:

Purchase Lv1 Riding Horses.

That's actually much simpler than most other proposed solutions, and it looks like it will work. Good call.

Which sorta makes sense; light cavalry defeat archers, infantry defeat light cav, archers defeat infantry. Could practically be an RTS.

Yakk
2009-09-10, 03:20 PM
Let's model 1 elf and 1 player. And let's assume the player can screw the elf if the player can get within 10 squares of the elf (which seems reasonable).

If the elf is 34+ squares away, the player can just double-move away, and the elf cannot attack next round.

If the elf is 33-X (for X > 0) squares away, the player double-moves towards the elf.

The elf starts her turn 15-X squares away. As a move action, the elf extends this to 22-X squares. If the elf attacks, the player double-moves, burns an action point, gets an attack at 10-X range -- which can easily screw the elf (ray of cold, say).

Thus one elf vs a player with a range 10 slow power is biased in favour of the PC.

Multiple elves lead to a problem. An elf at 33 and 58 range, for example.

The player(s) close on the elves as a double move, closing the distance to 15 and 40 respectively.

The 15 range elf then double-moves back to 33 range, and the 40 range elf attacks, then backs up 9.

They then shadow player movement and return to the 33/58 state, and repeat.

A range of 33/41 might be better. As might a range of 33/-33 (bracketing the character), so that whichever the player double-moves towards, retreats, while the other side advances and shoots.

The party can partially counter this by spreading out, and reducing the fight back into a handful of individual fights.

Doing enough of this might attenuate the damage flux from the elven archers -- and if you have an archer(s) of your own, you can then defeat them.

Tyger
2009-09-10, 04:57 PM
If you're arguing that people can't look across a river, then I don't think you have any right to complain about lack of verisimilitude in my posts :smallbiggrin:

Didn't say the stream itself breaks LoS. For reference, what I said was:


And to answer your questions Kurald, yes, hills and the natural channels that streams cut through the land, do in fact break line of sight. They are naturally ocurring "walls" which, per the DMG, break LoS.

I'm certain you have been in a forest, or other outdoor environment. Streams, rivers and other waterways have a nasty habit of eroding the land they run over, creating minature valleys in their environment. Thus creating a naturally ocurring wall which one might hide behind, requiring an observer to pretty much be right above them to see them.

For a fantasy example, look to the scene in Lord of the Rings where the hobbits (in a forest no less) are hiding from the Ringwraith in a natural little valley.

No, I never said that the water provided the cover. That would be idiotic. Unless you were under deep enough water, and that is another topic entirely.


I'd like a page citation on streams blocking LoS. Best I can find is Hindering Terrain with deep water cited as an example or Difficult Terrain for shallow water.

Note that fallen trees are also [normally] difficult terrain and not blocking terrain, per page 61.

Edit: naturally lower areas like that sound more like cover terrain than blocking terrain to me.

For most of that, see above. But one thing in particular, which I've bolded, stands out. If a "big tree", per page 61 of the DMG breaks LoS when its standing, why wouldn't it do it when it's laying on its side???

dragoonsgone
2009-09-10, 06:08 PM
Honestly, I want to see this forest where you have clear line of sight for 200 feet. I would give it half that if it was a light forest, a quarter for medium forest and a tenth for dense.

kjones
2009-09-10, 06:48 PM
Honestly, I want to see this forest where you have clear line of sight for 200 feet. I would give it half that if it was a light forest, a quarter for medium forest and a tenth for dense.

Of course you don't have clear LoS for 200 feet in a real-world forest. The problem is that 4th Edition does not model the real world very well - nor should it attempt to. Unrealism in a game is just fine.

The point is, that if you actually draw out a forest, with big trees every 20 feet or so (for covering terrain terrain), smaller trees scattered everywhere (for obscuring terrain) and most areas covered by thick underbrush (for difficult terrain), the elves, with their high movement speed, will be able to position themselves so as to gain LoS regardless of where the players stand. This is how I actually map out forests - do others do it differently?

Kylarra
2009-09-10, 06:59 PM
For most of that, see above. But one thing in particular, which I've bolded, stands out. If a "big tree", per page 61 of the DMG breaks LoS when its standing, why wouldn't it do it when it's laying on its side???I honestly misread the implications which is why I had the edit.

And the main reason it wouldn't necessarily, is because you could then climb on it and regain LoS, and then drop behind it as they approached. Granted, then opposing forces can do the same afterwards.

Tyger
2009-09-10, 07:13 PM
I honestly misread the implications which is why I had the edit.

And the main reason it wouldn't necessarily, is because you could then climb on it and regain LoS, and then drop behind it as they approached. Granted, then opposing forces can do the same afterwards.

All too true, except if the elves (as we're discussing here) do that, they have lost any and all advantages they had, as they are now in close range, and get torn apart by your average team.

Kylarra
2009-09-10, 07:20 PM
All too true, except if the elves (as we're discussing here) do that, they have lost any and all advantages they had, as they are now in close range, and get torn apart by your average team.
Well, assuming a sufficiently tall tree remainder, they could stay on top of it and snipe people as they attempt the climb check to get up as well.

Tyger
2009-09-10, 08:05 PM
Well, assuming a sufficiently tall tree remainder, they could stay on top of it and snipe people as they attempt the climb check to get up as well.

*chuckles* Hey, if they wanna risk that, the battle is already over. :smallwink:

Kylarra
2009-09-10, 08:16 PM
*chuckles* Hey, if they wanna risk that, the battle is already over. :smallwink:
I meant walking along the tree.

========E=========


P

to

=E=============
P

not to scale by any stretch of the imagination

Sipex
2009-09-11, 11:46 AM
Level 2 rogue does e.g. 1d4 (weapon) + 2d8+4 (sneak attack, assuming the subpar Backstabber feat) + 4 (dexterity) damage. I'm having a hard time getting to 32 with those numbers, even on a crit.

I think that could be optimized a bit better:

Using an at-will attack:
1d6 (Short sword) + 2d8+4+3(STR) (sneak attack, with backstabber feat and brutal scoundrel class feature which is RAW) + 4 (dex)

Max: 6+8+8+4+3+4 = 33

So it could be done but you'd have to choose the right build and get near full damage.

Factor in better powers and you'll have a better chance though.

Colmarr
2009-09-11, 09:09 PM
Yes, because elven archers in a forest is not a fantasy trope at all :smalleek:

The situation under discussion is elven archers in a forest containing nothing that blocks LoS or LoE, that stretches for an endless distance in all directions, and that contains nothing that the elves must stand and fight to protect.


That's only restating that the system cannot handle hit-and-run tactics, and they should therefore not be used.

The tactics you suggest are not hit and run tactics. The modern day equivalent would be jogging backwards while simultaneously firing forward. I've never seen nor heard of such a real world tactic.

I stand by my position that we are discussing an unrealistic tactic and an "unrealistic situation" and I consider your pithy response to reflect either and attempt to obfuscate and continue the discussion or an unwillingess to consider the metagame issues behind the discussion at hand.


That's a cute exaggeration, but the tactic doesn't require any of that to function.

Perhaps not. And yet all of those things have been thrown up in this thread as reasons why the elves are so dangerous. They can fall back indefinitely and the PCs can't catch or corner them. They PCs can't fall back because the elves can chase them endlessly. There's no way to force the elves to stand and fight.

I mention it because any one or more of those factors take the elves out of the "unintentional TPK" zone that you were concerned about. The "tactic" may still function, but it's nowhere near as dangerous as initially suggested if the DM plays it in more limited circumstances. *shrug*

Thane of Fife
2009-09-11, 09:47 PM
The tactics you suggest are not hit and run tactics. The modern day equivalent would be jogging backwards while simultaneously firing forward. I've never seen nor heard of such a real world tactic.

I stand by my position that we are discussing an unrealistic tactic and an "unrealistic situation" and I consider your pithy response to reflect either and attempt to obfuscate and continue the discussion or an unwillingess to consider the metagame issues behind the discussion at hand.

See the Parthian Shot (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parthian_shot). Not an infantry tactic, but certainly very close to what's being described.

nightwyrm
2009-09-11, 10:00 PM
See the Parthian Shot (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parthian_shot). Not an infantry tactic, but certainly very close to what's being described.

Yes, and it was a game breaker too back in its days. Nomadic mounted archers were pretty much invincible back then.

Colmarr
2009-09-12, 10:42 PM
See the Parthian Shot (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parthian_shot). Not an infantry tactic, but certainly very close to what's being described.

I'm aware of the historical uses of these sort of tactics by light cavalry; the parthians and I believe even the mongols and japanese samurai used them quite successfully.

But in the situation under discussion, the archers are infantry.

If the sort of run & gun tactics under discussion here were viable for infantry, I think it's safe to say that we would have heard a lot about them. After all, there were many battles where heavily armoured (and thus relatively slow) foot knights fought lightly armoured (and thus relatively fast) archers. The english certainly didn't continuously fall back at Agincourt.

To restate my original point - unrealistic tactics in unrealistic circumstances are bound to cause problems in a game, but I don't think there's any great game balance discussion to be had here.