PDA

View Full Version : Is 4E too easy?



Danin
2009-12-24, 01:23 AM
Title says it all, but the reason I started wondering is this:

Last night my players (Level 9, playing through The Last Breaths of Ashenport adventure, 5 of em) were ambushed by a level 8 solo. Usually not too tough a fight, but it had quite the advantage terrain wise. So they retreated into the caves, straight into the arms of the next encounter (EC 10), even setting off the waiting trap. Nothing could have set this encounter up for the bad guys better, everything went in their favor... and they got trounced. What's more, they got trounced hard.

The players killed virtually everything without difficulty and were even considering rushing forwards to trigger the next encounter so their daily powers (rages and the like) wouldn't wear off. Most of them still had at least an encounter or two left, barely tapped into their dailies. The monsters were played more intelligently than recommended. The players aren't too optimized. I know, I rolled up 3 of them myself as some of my players asked me to due to time constraints.

So, thoughts? Opinions? Nintendo Tricks?

The Glyphstone
2009-12-24, 01:26 AM
Published adventures, as a rule, are lame. I'm playing in a 4-person group going through the Troll Warrens adventure path, and we've made it a rule that no one ever burns their daily powers except on boss battles (indicated by the fact that they get flavored box text and a name). We're still destroying every encounter we run across, and it's rare anyone even gets bloodied...the only time anyone even came close to dying was when my Sorcerer got infected with some odd poison that immobilized (save ends), then did ongoing Necrotic 10 (save ends). He failed 8 saving throws in a row, ended with less than 15 HP.

3e was like this too.

UserClone
2009-12-24, 02:05 AM
3e was like this too.

This statement makes it obvious that you've never played through modules written by Gary Gygax or Monte Cook as written.

Reinboom
2009-12-24, 02:15 AM
This statement makes it obvious that you've never played through modules written by Gary Gygax or Monte Cook as written.

Or The Shackled City. :smalleek:



Though, I have also gotten the above sense with 4E. Of not feeling like I'm at any risk.

Artanis
2009-12-24, 02:21 AM
But is the lack of risk due to the adventure, or due to the system?

UserClone
2009-12-24, 02:27 AM
Or The Shackled City. :smalleek:



Though, I have also gotten the above sense with 4E. Of not feeling like I'm at any risk.

You know, I was just thinking I should have said that module too. To be fair, it's hard to never ever die in 3e between levels 1-20.

Shyftir
2009-12-24, 02:32 AM
You know the too easy question has two answers?

a) Yeah, its way too easy to make characters, DM and play. Not nearly complicated enough! Why I bet a guy who flunked Algebra 2 could play no problem!

b) Nah, man. Difficulty in any DnD game is a function of creative Dungeon Mastering. Ya gotta strike a balance between real threat and not killing the party. It's tough. But for pointers may I suggest looking up Tucker's Kobalds?


Answer (a) is the answer from edition snobs. (I like and play both editions. Deal with it.)

Answer (b) is my actual answer to the question.

jmbrown
2009-12-24, 02:36 AM
But is the lack of risk due to the adventure, or due to the system?

Both. You'll notice that some monsters in the MMs weren't built using the guidelines in the DMG and those that were are noticeably more effective. Monsters were designed with a low damage/high hp output in mind and simply altering their damage output will cause a noticeable increase in lethality. My friend runs a campaign where monsters deal 1.5x extra damage and the party usually go through 4 encounters before all their dailies and magic items are spent.

As for adventures, they're mostly weak as they're usually designed based on a 5 party setup of 2 defenders, controller, striker, and leader using the 22 point buy. If you change the point buy or party layout then you'll set yourself up for failure when running by-the-book.


You know, I was just thinking I should have said that module too. To be fair, it's hard to never ever die in 3e between levels 1-20.

Yes, but an ECL 9 party ambushed by an adult black dragon, a gray slaad, and a green slaad doesn't help.

Danin
2009-12-24, 02:37 AM
With healing surges so readily available, the lack of damage coming from monsters, the ease of making saves, the general lack of lethality from... anything. Well, I'm inclined to say the system.

sonofzeal
2009-12-24, 02:39 AM
You can make 4e more deadly with ease. I mean, even if level 8 character trounce CR 10 encounters regularly, you can always throw CR 11 or 12 stuff at them to challenge them. The question is, how consistent is the CR system, and how big a range can you allow before you hit either "boring" or "impossible"?

jmbrown
2009-12-24, 02:42 AM
With healing surges so readily available, the lack of damage coming from monsters, the ease of making saves, the general lack of lethality from... anything. Well, I'm inclined to say the system.

Oh, there are deadly monsters... brutes, solos, artillery, and soldiers just aren't it. The MM solos are pretty laughable because they have the hp of 4 monsters or whatever but lack the means to attack like 4 monsters.

You'll find the deadliest 4E monsters are the ones that reduce player actions and the ones that hit hard then vanish. Swarms, controllers, and lurkers will get the most bang for your buck simply because they're mobile, they usually get multiple actions, they usually attack multiple people, they usually carry debilitating conditions, they almost always hit, and they keep opponents from acting.

Nightson
2009-12-24, 02:44 AM
Solos in 4e were not balanced right at the start of the game. Although I am surprised your group had that easy a time at it, was good luck on their part and bad luck on the enemies part a factor? Streaks of luck can very easily turn normal fights into grinders and hard fights into cakewalks.

Thajocoth
2009-12-24, 02:57 AM
You've got level 9s against level 8 & 10 encounters? I never plan encounters below 2 levels above the PCs. I average 3 above. Generally, each encounter burns 1-3 of the PC's dailies.

Gralamin
2009-12-24, 03:17 AM
Title says it all, but the reason I started wondering is this:

Last night my players (Level 9, playing through The Last Breaths of Ashenport adventure, 5 of em
That adventure is made for level 8 PCs.

I would say, no it isn't too easy. I have run H1 to H3, and many of my own campaigns. While I as a DM error on the side of caution (Figuring I can always buff the monsters in mid fight if needed), H1 to H3 were deadly. So deadly that H1 was eventually Nerfed, and plenty of H2 and H3 could stand to be.


On Shackled City, Monte Cook Adventures, and Gary Gygax adventures: I find those incredibly easy, with exceptions to Tome of Horror type game play. Shackled City's biggest problem was the same as all of Paizo's adventures: Some encounters are cake walks, the others are really hard for your level. Both can be easily won with good tactics.

Mystic Muse
2009-12-24, 03:30 AM
I have never died once in 3.5

I have died twice in 4.0

There's my answer (been playing both games for about a year)

Ikkitosen
2009-12-24, 04:18 AM
I play a lot of LFR and we *always* play on hard mode. We're not playing particularly optimised characters, although they're largely well built. I have even run a L6 through an LFR 7-11 module on hard mode and managed.

So, 4e is not too easy, but if you set a group who work together and know each others' strengths and weaknesses against a group of monsters the DM has just read then they're likely to do well.

Also, I think the challenge ratings are written to not butcher the group of little kids playing - for more tactically-minded players always go up a level or two!

tcrudisi
2009-12-24, 04:36 AM
It definitely depends on the DM. In one home game that I play in, we have a player who averages 1 death a session. Yes, one death a session. It is not uncommon for him to die two times in a single session. Why? Because he doesn't understand teamwork.

The rest of us? Well, none of us have managed to escape death completely over the year and a half of playing. Most of us have died twice, though one guy has managed to only die once.

I played 3.5 for a few years and seeing players die was a very rare occurrence. In fact, I only remember it happening in specific player vs. player campaigns.

Also, I've played quite a bit of LFR. I also always play up as I enjoy the challenge. However, the difficulty is mostly determined by the DM. In one module, I was playing a Str/Con based Barbarian (so I had a lot of healing surges). The DM focus fired on me (the only striker and I had the lowest defenses) that I went into the last combat slightly below max hp and with no healing surges remaining. Yes, I went unconscious in the last fight and the party nearly wiped without my damage output.

Most of the time, however, I play LFR with friends and our superior tactics will wipe the floor with most modules.

In summary, difficulty in 4e is just as it was in 2nd and 3.x -- it is completely dependent upon the skill of the players and the style of the DM.

jmbrown
2009-12-24, 04:51 AM
On Shackled City, Monte Cook Adventures, and Gary Gygax adventures: I find those incredibly easy, with exceptions to Tome of Horror type game play. Shackled City's biggest problem was the same as all of Paizo's adventures: Some encounters are cake walks, the others are really hard for your level. Both can be easily won with good tactics.

For Gygax's AD&D modules, are playing by RAW where 0 hp kills you? Because that's pretty much the deciding factor between most deaths in D&D. Eliminating the -10 hp death rule without a doubt increases the deadliness of D&D.

Gralamin
2009-12-24, 04:54 AM
For Gygax's AD&D modules, are playing by RAW where 0 hp kills you? Because that's pretty much the deciding factor between most deaths in D&D. Eliminating the -10 hp death rule without a doubt increases the deadliness of D&D.

I was talking about the 3.5 Rewrites. I do not play 2E (Lack of DM's / ability to fully understand the rules without playing).
That said, I was never in a situation in any 3.5 rewrite of them where that would matter.

Danin
2009-12-24, 05:06 AM
The adventure is, yes, geared for 8th level characters. The players have, by this point, also leveled up.

I've never seen a death in 4.0, apart from one due to player stupidity and he more or less wanted to commit suicide so he could role a new character.

I've seen sporadic deaths in 3.5. It's not too common, but it's not super rare either.

The fight in question ended up being a level 8 solo, 2 level 9 skirmishers, 3 level 9 lurkers, a level 10 controller and a level 9 warder trap. The controller hit virtually every time and dazed on a hit against all enemies in burst 5. Luck was not a factor and tended in the favor of the bad guys. What else should I do? Make the fights harder? I'm rather tempted to make the final encounter far harder than it is, mostly because I'm worried about a let down.

Reinboom
2009-12-24, 05:18 AM
I have died on numerous occasions with 3.5 (and even more so with 2E).
With 4E I've played through many parts of dungeon delve, quite a few custom adventures, a bunch of official adventures (though, do not remember which), and ran numerous game days.

The only death I have seen is from a repeating stun trap in one of the game days. Which was assisted by two not-so-bright players. I've also seen a single player be within a couple hit points of death due to all but one enemy in an encounter suddenly all ganging him. A healing effect, second wind, and a mark later and...


On Shackled City, Monte Cook Adventures, and Gary Gygax adventures: I find those incredibly easy, with exceptions to Tome of Horror type game play. Shackled City's biggest problem was the same as all of Paizo's adventures: Some encounters are cake walks, the others are really hard for your level. Both can be easily won with good tactics.

You've, at the very least, never had a problem with the at-will, extremely high level, Blasphemy from the caged demon in shackled city? Or with the players not discovering that you had to put the collar around the explosive device before that with the 'BBEG' and his 'try making the players waste time'? :smallconfused:

ken-do-nim
2009-12-24, 05:20 AM
I've never played 4E, but I have played enough D&D to understand that a good game has a character death every 4-6 sessions. That's enough to keep the feeling of risk real, but not often enough to discourage players from even trying.

That said, the rule about death only at -10 and bleeding down slowly and allowing allies to bandage you up very quickly generally means that if characters die, it is caused by a TPK or the party fleeing. It can actually be hard to kill just one character every now and then with that rule (in 2E and 3E and often misunderstood and implemented that way in 1E).

Leolo
2009-12-24, 05:41 AM
Are we talking about the wrath of dagon encounter?

I do not think it is the most dangerous encounter for a lvl 9 group, but i do think that it is possible to kill some characters with this monster.

For example one of its pheromones could let the PCs fall asleep. Also it is possible that the PCs are either prone from the tide or climbing the cliffs when the attack starts.

It has a +17 Attack, and assuming it is an ambush it would attack with combat advantage with a surprise round. The players will have arround 60-70 HP at this lvl, but the monster could do 4d6+12 damage +ongoing damage every round and could even autocrit a sleeping target for 18+2d6+6 damage + ongoing and attack it twice with its next actionpoint on the next turn for additional up to 8d6+24 damage. This does not have to happen, of course.

A lvl 8 encounter is supposed to be easy for a lvl 9 group. And there are more dangerous monsters at this level. But as long as the monster is able to kill a character without too much luck the encounter is dangerous enough.

Gralamin
2009-12-24, 05:49 AM
You've, at the very least, never had a problem with the at-will, extremely high level, Blasphemy from the caged demon in shackled city? Or with the players not discovering that you had to put the collar around the explosive device before that with the 'BBEG' and his 'try making the players waste time'? :smallconfused:

It's been a while since I played the whole thing, but I happened to be playing an evil character, so the Blasphemy didn't get me (Did a number to the rest of the party though). And I caught on to the collar around device fairly quickly.

Somebloke
2009-12-24, 06:43 AM
I've been running as a DM through levels 1-6, and I think that if you go by the guidelines in the DMG then the game will be too easy.

I've instituted the following house rules/encounter ideas into my game:

- Reduce the hp of both the players and the monsters by one quarter, to shave off the 'buffer hp' that seem to slow down combat and remove a sense of danger from high-damage attacks/traps.

- Run a small (2-3) series of encounters from lvl+1 to lvl+3 (or lvl+4/5, assuming that the players have time to prepare defences/it's meant to be a fleeing encounter/etc) rather than 4-5 x lvl encounters.

- Generate a single open ended scenario with level=4, 5 or 6 and let the players know the threat is large- let them figure out how to deal with it, with the unspoken threat of a tpk if they act rashly.

- Favor brutes, artillery, skirmishers and other high damage dealers over soldiers or elites.

I find it helps and gets the players in the right frame of mind.

Saph
2009-12-24, 07:34 AM
Having played and DMed both systems a fair bit, yes, 4e is definitely easier than 3.5 if you use by-the-book enemies. There are two main reasons:

Solos are too easy: Traditionally, D&D's named boss fights are supposed to be the hardest (at least, they're the ones that module designers WANT to be the hardest). However, 4e solos are simply too weak to be a threat to a competent party. They have the hitpoints of about 4 normal monsters, but only have the damage output of about 2 normal monsters, meaning that the PCs can easily weather out their attacks and batter them slowly to death.

Regular monsters are less dangerous: Some 3.5 monsters are just plain nasty; they can take out a party member in a single turn or incapacitate several party members at once. 4e monsters are much less threatening; the most they can do to you is knock off some HP and maybe stick you with a status condition that'll go away in a round or two. Now, HP damage can be dangerous, but it's also something that everyone has several ways of dealing with. This means that the only way 4e monsters can be a serious threat is if they manage to overwhelm the party with more damage than the party can absorb, and that's not generally going to happen unless:

a) the monsters are doing way more damage than usual,
b) the party's split up and can't protect each other,
or c) both.

The last is the only time I've ever seen characters die in 4e. In both cases the PCs were facing enemies that did more damage than the DMG guidelines said they should be doing, and were split up (due to terrain or due to fighting two encounters at once).

To be honest, I think it was a deliberate design choice on the part of WotC. If the DM is running encounters by the official guidelines, PCs should pretty much always win unless the DM uses good tactics and the players use terrible tactics.

Gamerlord
2009-12-24, 07:39 AM
It is easier, but not too easy.
For one, it is alot harder to screw up your race/class choice, that makes everything rock and makes it hard to choose your race/class combo choice.
I heard that Keep on the Shadowfell is a real meat grinder though, try that next time you start up a campaign.

Also, the lethality of monsters drops, as everyone now has more HP, however, it is balanced out by the fact that the monsters also have more HP, also, you can make truly ridiculous things inside the XP budget for your characters.
However, you can make 4e a meat grinder, but only if you try to make it a meat grinder.

There is a reason 1st level is my favorite in 3.5, it is such a freaking meat grinder.

Zeta Kai
2009-12-24, 07:41 AM
To be honest, I think it was a deliberate design choice on the part of WotC. If the DM is running encounters by the official guidelines, PCs should pretty much always win unless the DM uses good tactics and the players use terrible tactics.

So, in brief, you are saying "Yes, 4E is too easy". Do I have that right? Because that's the gist of what I'm reading here, & that jives with my own play experience. Unless I'm throwing monsters at my party that have CRs 2-3 higher than the party's average CL, then there's little risk of failure.

Which of course bothers me, because No Risk = No XP, in my mind.

Reinboom
2009-12-24, 07:52 AM
It's been a while since I played the whole thing, but I happened to be playing an evil character, so the Blasphemy didn't get me (Did a number to the rest of the party though). And I caught on to the collar around device fairly quickly.

Reread through Adimarchus.
Misremembered that at-will. Only 1/day.
However, he still has a CL 30 Blasphemy AND Word of Chaos, and given that he's intended for level 17-20, mass "-or-Die" (no save) is... yeah.


So, in brief, you are saying "Yes, 4E is too easy". Do I have that right? Because that's the gist of what I'm reading here, & that jives with my own play experience. Unless I'm throwing monsters at my party that have CRs 2-3 higher than the party's average CL, then there's little risk of failure.

Which of course bothers me, because No Risk = No XP, in my mind.

They are still at risk there, however little. I also consider it to be Challenge to XP, otherwise, you can have weird little semantic issues with XP giving.
That said, I see it as Little Challenge = Little XP.

Saph
2009-12-24, 07:56 AM
So, in brief, you are saying "Yes, 4E is too easy". Do I have that right?

Kind of. It does mean that you don't need to worry about getting brutally killed by something you have no chance against. On the other hand, the lack of threat takes a bit of the excitement out.

Leolo
2009-12-24, 08:48 AM
I believe that a 4E DM needs some kind of different tactic than a 3.5 DM.

3.5 does encourage more the "have a wizard - win the game" tactic. It does not have to be actually a wizard, but the most time a single character can make the difference. The strength comes from the character itself. But to kill the wizard does not really weakens the other characters. It just prevent him from doing more nasty things.

4E Groups rely heavily on teamwork. To win a 4E combat you have to hinder the teamwork. If you kill or disable the healer the players will have far less hitpoints than the monsters. If you kill or disable the controller or the defender the monsters will move to the weak characters or surround one of them and take them down fast.

Without a striker the group may do not enough damage to kill the monsters without taking serious damage or hindering effects. Because of the short term durations of 4E effects it is more important that the PC do their job during the whole encounter.

So there are two ways to kill a group of 4E characters. Kill one or two fast enough to start a downward spiral to the point where the group is no longer good enough. Or separate the characters from each other with terrain, obstacles or traps or many opponents.

Solo monsters most likely have only option a), so it is important to place the first attack(s) wisely. If the characters can make their tactic work it is obviously that they shouldn't have a hard time winning the fight.

Starsinger
2009-12-24, 09:01 AM
Despite what the DMG says, I rarely ever use a solo of PC level, I tend to grab one a level or two below, and shove some minions or other monsters with it.

Hal
2009-12-24, 09:47 AM
So, thoughts? Opinions? Nintendo Tricks?

↑ ↑ ↓ ↓ ← → ← → B A Start.

Gives your players 30 action points.

Gamerlord
2009-12-24, 09:49 AM
↑ ↑ ↓ ↓ ← → ← → B A Start.

Gives your players 30 action points.

B+A+A+/+V

Restores all dailies.

Kurald Galain
2009-12-24, 09:54 AM
The players killed virtually everything without difficulty and were even considering rushing forwards to trigger the next encounter so their daily powers (rages and the like) wouldn't wear off.
First, a group of level-X PCs are intended to easily defeat a level-X encounter.

Second, most published adventures by WOTC are pretty easy, and that includes the vast majority (though not all) of RPGA adventures.

And third, the system is intentionally much less lethal than previous editions (e.g. lack of save-or-dies, short duration of negative effects, suggestion that players get the exact items they want, etc). So according to that definition, yes, 4E is easy.

Of course the end result depends on your DM.

Deepblue706
2009-12-24, 10:37 AM
I wouldn't say 4E is too easy. It is easy in some ways, but to a reasonable degree. Easy enough, perhaps, for this to be a game where you enjoy extended adventures with the same PCs - which I think is what we all want, anyway.

Some encounters can become too easy, I think, if the DM does not incorporate teamwork between enemies. And, if the DM manages that and is able to spend time customizing them (I mean without going nutty), the difficulty can swing around to "Although this isn't a complete nightmare, I really hope my character doesn't die". I've experienced that a number of times.

Also, while it may seem a bit strange to use monsters of higher levels as regular enemies, that too can keep a game from seeming too tame. Enemies equal to the level of PCs are generally not much of a fight, unless there are Elites, Solos or some impressive tactics are at play.

Higher-Level, Tactical Custom Monsters can actually provide a big challenge, but since they're still bound by the basic rules that accompany their Roles (despite powers there are appropriate attack bonuses, appropriate HP amounts) I don't think you have to be as afraid as with say, 3.5 Templates. Unless your DM is insane and refuses to use current monsters as precedence and just throws as many ridiculous powers as he can to screw you over.

It's not fun being a Fighter who goes from 59 HP to 11 HP and there are still two enemies left in the initiative order that go before him...

Actually, it's kind of exciting.

UserClone
2009-12-24, 10:38 AM
You've, at the very least, never had a problem with the at-will, extremely high level, Blasphemy from the caged demon in shackled city? Or with the players not discovering that you had to put the collar around the explosive device before that with the 'BBEG' and his 'try making the players waste time'? :smallconfused:

W.T.F.?? I'm kind of in the middle of this adventure. Spoiler tags much?

Demonix
2009-12-24, 11:05 AM
I dunno, it can be kind of a crapshoot.

At the end of a war scenario, i was using a monster I created that just kinda got destroyed by the PCs, but that could have been my own fault. (rated hard per the encounter builder)

I had to cheat on the end-boss encoutner of one dungeon I made because the party rogue practically one-shotted the guy (rated hard by the encounter builder)

On the other hand, the party damn near got TPK'd by a green slime and 2 grey oozes, and that encounter was rated as easy.

Still, this is the same party that triggered 4 different encounters (2 traps and 2 monster groups) and lived, but just barely. (they lapped the dungeon, basically. the benny hill theme started playing in my head after round 2 :) )

Party composition was level 3 rogue, fighter, bard, and invoker/wizard hybrid.

So yeah...it does seem easier, but i think its because all the classes get special powers now and they are all on the same level, as opposed to the melee/casting divide that existed in previous editions.

-edit-

I will say though, that it was a lot easier running a campaign in 2nd edition than anything since then. There were a lot of published adventures that were fairly well balanced to be challenging and you could have the 'band of adventurers looking to make a name for themselves that do almost anything for money'

3rd edition brought in the CR system, which needlessly complicated encounter creation and I never found any good published adventures for 3rd edition, even in wizards own store. Besides, CR could be horribly horribly broken i.e. that damn crab.

4th edition, the adventures all sound too easy, and I dont have the same amt of time I used to to go through electronic versions of dungeon magazine.

If I still had my 2nd ed books, I would consider going back to that; I still have a lot of 2nd adventures in my gaming trunk.

Asbestos
2009-12-24, 11:16 AM
I suggest that DMs look up my 'brutal monsters' thread. Anyway, if you want to really challenge the PCs your monsters need to have some synergy, look for monsters that really play well together. Post the PCs current level and party makeup and I'm sure we can figure out something good and tough... So long as they aren't above level 25, I've found that things get stupid in high-Epic.

Reinboom
2009-12-24, 11:43 AM
W.T.F.?? I'm kind of in the middle of this adventure. Spoiler tags much?

After the fact, I tend to forget of adventures as discoverable, I apologize. Though, you should also spoiler tag your quote - and - I would recommend using "W.T.F.??" to open a line, it gives off a harsh tone. Which isn't so wise when you are trying to persuade someone to do so something over the internet.

UserClone
2009-12-24, 12:42 PM
Sorry about that. Just a knee-jerk reaction. It really does cheese me off to have an adventure mod spoiled, even more so than a book or movie because I am partially in control of what happens so it takes away some of the accomplishment. :smallfrown:

Jack_Banzai
2009-12-24, 12:58 PM
A lot also depends on the tactical savvy of the DM. If you risk high-damage opportunity attacks or allow the PCs superior positioning, encounters can indeed become quite cakelike.

That being said, try the Pyramid of Shadows module. Brrrrr. Three characters died in that one. Partially because our DM is a dedicated wargamer with a superior grasp of tactics.

Reverent-One
2009-12-24, 12:59 PM
I wouldn't say 4e combat is too easy. It's more survivalable for the PCs though, thanks to the lack of Save or Die effects and more hit points on a character, though this affects the monster's lifespans as well. An average, even level combat in 4e is less about risk of dying right then and there, but how many resources it costs you to win and whether you may use too many to succeed in the long run.


Kind of. It does mean that you don't need to worry about getting brutally killed by something you have no chance against. On the other hand, the lack of threat takes a bit of the excitement out.

*Makes note*

*bumps up level of future encounters*

...What?

Hzurr
2009-12-24, 01:04 PM
The published materials all depend on how the DM is playing the monsters. My group did H1-H3 and just finished up the Madness trilogy. The campaign has lasted roughly a year and a half; and so far we've had...7 PC deaths?

This is about on par with what I had for my 3.5 games

The Glyphstone
2009-12-24, 01:12 PM
Or The Shackled City. :smalleek:



Though, I have also gotten the above sense with 4E. Of not feeling like I'm at any risk.

Irony abounds, because Shackled City was the only adventure path I've ever 'played'. 'Played' in the sense that it was basically a non-stop railroad from start to finish, with at least two epic-level NPCs who were the DM's old PCs from previous campaigns popping in during every major fight to kill things and keep us alive, so that he could tell the awesome story included with the adventure path. The only fight we did straight was Adimarchus at the end, and while he never even tried to do anything but melee (certainly no Blasphemy), he was able to bypass the Ironguard I had cast on the party because his metal was some sort of special metal that didn't count as metal except when it did.I don't play in his D&D games anymore.

Nightson
2009-12-24, 01:15 PM
Well with save or dies out of the system 4e should be less lethal then 3.5 in terms of character death. I mean if someone fails a save against say a beholder first round and dies, and then the party pops the beholder the next round, that wasn't really challenging or hard, but it did score a kill, which just doesn't happen in 4e.

I find availability of healing to be one of the most important factors in determining how hard a group perceives encounters to me. Knock a player down into quarter health range with no healing left available and see how easy they think the encounter is now.

List of deaths in my 4e campaign.
-Level 2 party rogue decides to run around to see if he can get flanking on a pack of kobolds in a bottleneck, he can get flanking, except there's nothing stopping the kobolds in the back from focusing on him. Three kobolds versus a rogue equals goodbye rogue.
-Level 4 party goes into sewers to fight some cultists and a green dragon wyrmling, two party members die trying to escape, three make it back out, one of whom has one hit point left.
-Level 6 party gets split in two, dwarf gets sucked into a gelatinous cube, it moves off to digest him, ranger and rogue unable to get to him, he proceeds to whiff all his athletics rolls to escape and is forever left with postdeath jelly trauma.

Cronag
2009-12-24, 01:32 PM
Well the system seems to be made in such a way that "easy to balance, easy to play is the core tenet" of course there'll be issues for a while - but temporarily, nothing that can't be fixed with a little bit of intelligent DM'ing varying with the proficiency of the players. :smallsmile:

Tequila Sunrise
2009-12-24, 01:40 PM
I'm a 4e DM, and certainly from my side of the screen 4e seems too easy for my taste. Especially MM monsters, who all seem to do way less damage than the DMG guidelines suggest.

In my current Exalted campaign, I've been homebrewing every single monster I use, which has helped a lot. I use DMG damage guidelines, but not its hp guidelines. I increase ability scores much like PCs do, instead of at the 1/2 level rate, so that my monsters don't have 1/2 their level in extra hp on top of everything else. The only comment I've gotten from my players so far is that my monsters have less hp, but deal too much damage.

Whether I'm using as-wrriten monsters or my own though, I've found that I have to use 1-1/2 normal monsters per PC to create a moderately challenging fight. Though that might just be my DM evilness talking.

Tough_Tonka
2009-12-24, 01:52 PM
I wouldn't say combat in 4e is less deadly, its just PCs are less likely to die from one attack. I've found the amount of near deaths and deaths in my 4e campaigns to be the same as it was in my 3.5 ones.

In general encounters within one or two levels of the PCs Lv tend to be pretty easy. One trick I do to bump up encounters that turn out to be too easy is have some back up monsters prepared. Not too many usually just enough to bump the encounter up a level or two. It usually adds a kick to any encounter and can get PCs to tap into their dailies after using up all their encounters on their initial fight.

Reinboom
2009-12-24, 01:55 PM
I don't play in his D&D games anymore.

Good. :smalleek:
What a terrible way to ruin an appropriately brutal module.

In general, I see a lot of common "Ah, ___ wasn't that difficult!" due to not playing to its full strengths. Constantly, I'm even more astonished because I see these modules played not to their full strengths on my end, and... they are still vicious. :smalleek:

Doug Lampert
2009-12-24, 02:06 PM
Also, while it may seem a bit strange to use monsters of higher levels as regular enemies, that too can keep a game from seeming too tame. Enemies equal to the level of PCs are generally not much of a fight, unless there are Elites, Solos or some impressive tactics are at play.

The DMG recommends using monsters of at least Party Level -4 and no more than Party Level +7. Note the assymetry. Higher level, even much higher level, is fine BtB, much lower level isn't fine BtB.

If we assume the "middle of the allowed range" is the best spot for encounters, then your monsters should average 1-2 levels higher than the PCs. Ancilliary evidence. The available monsters start at level 1 but go up to level 36 (so far, the XP table goes up to 40). Some of those higher than level 30 creatures are non-unique types, and could presumably go the usual +/- five levels, so I can throw a level 38 elite Beholder Eternal Tyrant Essence at the party without designing anything (but I should probably restrain myself to level 37).

Thus, the rules seem to EXPECT frequent higher level monsters.

Similarly you can use up to roughly double the normal XP budget and still be considered a reasonable patrol encounter.

If you want a hard encounter, try an equal number of standard level + 4 foes. Then have them concentrate fire. BtB this is a perfectly reasonable patrol encounter, it does count as two encounters for milestones, but it's well within the recommended guidelines and doesn't really push the envelope.

Even using straight equal level monsters or even lower level monsters and a standard XP budget my players are horrified if I find a way to put on time presure and they need to face 4 fights in a day. Much worse than 4 equal CR encounters in 3.5 ever was. This group isn't really good at optimization or group tactics, but that was true in 3.5 as well.

4th doesn't have the constant fear of death by one bad roll that 3.x had, but it's plenty dangerous enough, and if you think your players are having it too easy, you're the GM, add two more levels to all the foes, it's easy to do.

Arbitrarity
2009-12-24, 02:07 PM
Naah. My PC's are close to death in essentially every encounter, whether of level, level +2, or whatever. It's based on synergy, abusing monster level up/down rules, terrain, tactics, and being EEEEVIL.
As an example, I sent my 6 person 7'th level 4e party against an Umber Hulk (leveled down 3 levels), Aboleth Slime mage (-5 levels), Foulspawn Farseer (-3 levels), and Eladrin Twilight Incanter. Total XP value: 2200. Expected XP value: 1800. Estimated level: +1ish.
What happened? Umber Hulk locked down all the characters, because of a chokepoint + Slime Mage difficult Terrain. All the melee characters were slid out of melee, dazed, and the Warden was constantly immobilized by the Incanter. The Barbarian spent the entire fight Dominated (daze from the Umber hulk made it easy), but failed at hitting his allies for some reason, while the cleric and Psion both failed two death saving throws because they were being torn up by the Hulk. Seer provided a nice passive +2 to hit (effectively), and backup dazing for when the Umber Hulk missed.
They managed to run away (wasn't easy, let me tell you), only to return a while later with a portable wall. Combined with the decision to drop the Slime Mage's Dominate as being waaaay out of level, 3 crits in one round, some liberal DMing (I wanna break through the wall! Ok, Action point, and encounter power) and 2-3 daily powers, they managed to win. Barely.

Oooohaloophole
2009-12-24, 02:29 PM
Title says it all, but the reason I started wondering is this:

Last night my players (Level 9, playing through The Last Breaths of Ashenport adventure, 5 of em) were ambushed by a level 8 solo. Usually not too tough a fight, but it had quite the advantage terrain wise. So they retreated into the caves, straight into the arms of the next encounter (EC 10), even setting off the waiting trap. Nothing could have set this encounter up for the bad guys better, everything went in their favor... and they got trounced. What's more, they got trounced hard.

The players killed virtually everything without difficulty and were even considering rushing forwards to trigger the next encounter so their daily powers (rages and the like) wouldn't wear off. Most of them still had at least an encounter or two left, barely tapped into their dailies. The monsters were played more intelligently than recommended. The players aren't too optimized. I know, I rolled up 3 of them myself as some of my players asked me to due to time constraints.

So, thoughts? Opinions? Nintendo Tricks?

Pfff, 4e is so piss poor stupid that dialys work only for 1 F****ing encounter!

Even If you turned it on for only one round, it ends the second you step through the door.

Asbestos
2009-12-24, 02:36 PM
Pfff, 4e is so piss poor stupid that dialys work only for 1 F****ing encounter!

Even If you turned it on for only one round, it ends the second you step through the door.

Well then, you can just rule that they last 5 minutes OR 1 encounter, which is generally how every other "until the end of the encounter" power works out of combat.

Deepblue706
2009-12-24, 04:56 PM
If you want a hard encounter, try an equal number of standard level + 4 foes. Then have them concentrate fire. BtB this is a perfectly reasonable patrol encounter, it does count as two encounters for milestones, but it's well within the recommended guidelines and doesn't really push the envelope.

Last session I think my DM did this (he was boasting at +6 if I recall correctly). My Fighter went from 59 HP to 11 HP before his first turn's actions. And, there were still two other baddies yet to go.

It was exciting, but like you say, it doesn't really push the envelope. My character was the only one to get knocked unconscious, and he didn't even have to make a death saving throw. Although our Cleric was indeed very busy...

Oooohaloophole
2009-12-24, 06:23 PM
Well then, you can just rule that they last 5 minutes OR 1 encounter, which is generally how every other "until the end of the encounter" power works out of combat.

I meen the EPIC is gone
"IM An AL POWERFULL ARCHMAGE, THAT MEENS I CAN FLY FOR 5 MINUTES!"
In real fantasy life everybody is not equal. Nobody sits next to a wizard telling him "Dont pick that spell, its too strickerish)

Plus I noticed a huge loophole in the Implement system. For example I roll a 8d6 for meteor storm adding +6 to each roll which is 32(Total of the +ses) +17(Avarage roll) which is more than maxed out. So the more dice I have AKA 10d4 (60+10=70) the more damage I do.
Bravo Wizard, youv made all spellcasters even more overpowered that they where before.

Leolo
2009-12-24, 06:23 PM
It is far better to kill the cleric before the fighter. But there are many ways to kill a character fast.

For example i have made a test encounter with a bloodkiss beholder (lvl 9 solo controller) choosing one character and attacking it.

He has done 6 attacks in the first round, each worth 1d8+13 damage. Also he gets 2 extra attacks when a target becomes bloodied and when a target starts its turn adjacent, one of them stronger than the initial attacks. And it could let the character be stunned as a minor action, too.

Half of its attacks hit (technically it had a better chance, but hey...it was sufficient) and it has done about 80 points of damage.

There is no character in the group who has this amount of hitpoints of course, and it could be more damage if i would have hit more often.

The monster does even heal damage it has taken before. And it has two action points, so after the first round where it spends one for this attack series it could do it again. Even without that it is capable of doing 4 or more attacks per round.

Not unbeatable of course, at least if you are at the same level or above and not already injured by previous encounters. But dangerous.



Plus I noticed a huge loophole in the Implement system. For example I roll a 8d6 for meteor storm adding +6 to each roll

You do not add the damage bonus to each roll, you add it once.

Shardan
2009-12-24, 06:29 PM
in 3.5 the encounter can be won before it starts from permanent buffing/god spells. So in this way, 4e is harder.

in 4e there are no 'instant win/auto kill/one shot' ways to die. Hit points are higher and damage is lower. In this way its easier.

If the players are well optimized and geared and have good teamwork and tactics the encounters need to be much harder. If the players are new, not optimized, etc. they will find it harder. Likewise if the mobs don't have good teamwork or the DM is new at using them or the terrain, the fights will be cake.

Zeta Kai
2009-12-24, 06:32 PM
Irony abounds, because Shackled City was the only adventure path I've ever 'played'. 'Played' in the sense that it was basically a non-stop railroad from start to finish, with at least two epic-level NPCs who were the DM's old PCs from previous campaigns popping in during every major fight to kill things and keep us alive, so that he could tell the awesome story included with the adventure path. The only fight we did straight was Adimarchus at the end, and while he never even tried to do anything but melee (certainly no Blasphemy), he was able to bypass the Ironguard I had cast on the party because his metal was some sort of special metal that didn't count as metal except when it did.I don't play in his D&D games anymore.

I'm glad that you got away from that poor excuse for a DM. He should have his screen stripped from him & be forced to play solo through the original Tomb of Horrors. Tosser.

Gamerlord
2009-12-24, 06:35 PM
I meen the EPIC is gone
"IM An AL POWERFULL ARCHMAGE, THAT MEENS I CAN FLY FOR 5 MINUTES!"
In real fantasy life everybody is not equal. Nobody sits next to a wizard telling him "Dont pick that spell, its too strickerish)

Plus I noticed a huge loophole in the Implement system. For example I roll a 8d6 for meteor storm adding +6 to each roll which is 32(Total of the +ses) +17(Avarage roll) which is more than maxed out. So the more dice I have AKA 10d4 (60+10=70) the more damage I do.
Bravo Wizard, youv made all spellcasters even more overpowered that they where before.

So you are saying it is good stuff is broken in 3.5, and it sucks that in 4e you can play a fighter in an optimized group and not suffer?

Alteran
2009-12-24, 07:36 PM
So, in brief, you are saying "Yes, 4E is too easy". Do I have that right? Because that's the gist of what I'm reading here, & that jives with my own play experience. Unless I'm throwing monsters at my party that have CRs 2-3 higher than the party's average CL, then there's little risk of failure.

Which of course bothers me, because No Risk = No XP, in my mind.

I wouldn't say that 4e is too easy. D&D is not the kind of game that has a fixed difficulty level. The default level of difficulty (that is, having enemies of equal level to the party) is definitely aimed at newer players, so that they don't get crushed by DMs who don't know to adjust the difficulty for their less experienced players. The default difficulty could be set at the other end of the scale, but it makes more sense to require less DM fiddling at the point where a DM is likely to have a less thorough understanding of the game.

Players can fit within a very wide scale of game familiarity and tactical skill, and so challenge ratings can't always be appropriate. The way WotC arranged it for 4e, yes, more adjustments will need to be made for better players. My group hasn't found this to be a problem. This is because as players become more skilled, the DM does as well. We're at the point where our DM wants to have more personal input into what he throws at us, so the fact that it's becoming more necessary isn't a problem. And if he didn't want to do that, he could just ramp up the level of enemies relative to the party until he finds a good distance.

In short: Yes, to keep challenging more skilled players, you will need to give them foes that are more powerful relative to the party. This isn't a fault of the system, it's always necessary to give better players a harsher challenge.

DragonBaneDM
2009-12-24, 08:17 PM
As a general rule, I always use +3 encounters, a trap during combat, and lots and lots of soldier monsters. Soldiers rock, and solos by themselves get owned everytime. The name lies.

Lunix Vandal
2009-12-24, 11:28 PM
A lot of the difficulty is hit-or-miss, in my opinion.

Exhibit A: My group's unoptimized five-man Level 7 party curbstomping roughly-CR-appropriate dragons.

Exhibit B: An assassin-type opponent with Sneak Attack, a recharge-4-5-6 invisibility power, and an on-hit effect that halves your healing and gives you a -2 to attacks (save ends). Also, the clerics helping her? Yeah, they hand out that effect like candy on Halloween. And if you already have it, you get immobilized or blinded, depending on who hits you, with a separate save. Also also, a field effect on a third of the battlefield that halves your healing surge value. Also also also, the soldiers escorting them have troll-like come-back-from-unconscious-at-will regeneration negated only by radiant or necrotic damage (and the only people in the party that can pull that out are the (unconscious) ranger and the pacifist healbot cleric). Also^4, you've already had enough encounters that the party is down to two healing surges per person, on average. Fun times, and surprisingly none of us died. (Though by the end only one person had surges left, we had all spent half the fight bloodied, and the cleric had exhausted all of his considerable encounter-power healing for the fourth or fifth time that day.)

Exhibit C: Bahamut, a la Draconomicon II. His (reach 3) melee basic burns off two of your healing surges on every hit, and his disintegration breath weapon inflicts 15 ongoing untyped damage (on top of the 4d12+lots base damage on most/all of his attacks). (Followed by another 10 ongoing after your first successful save.) Tack on all of his other at-will "-or-lose, save might end" effects, and there is only "you lose." Unless you're the Draconomicon I Tiamat, in which case you win only because of your combination of superior action economy, higher starting HP, prismatic aura/resistance/damage, nonreliance on healing, and divine save bonuses.

tcrudisi
2009-12-25, 04:17 AM
I meen the EPIC is gone
"IM An AL POWERFULL ARCHMAGE, THAT MEENS I CAN FLY FOR 5 MINUTES!"
In real fantasy life everybody is not equal. Nobody sits next to a wizard telling him "Dont pick that spell, its too strickerish)

Plus I noticed a huge loophole in the Implement system. For example I roll a 8d6 for meteor storm adding +6 to each roll which is 32(Total of the +ses) +17(Avarage roll) which is more than maxed out. So the more dice I have AKA 10d4 (60+10=70) the more damage I do.
Bravo Wizard, youv made all spellcasters even more overpowered that they where before.

Yikes. Here's a few rebuttals from someone who actually plays 4e:

1) My Sorcerer has Fly, all-day long. I got it via a power and it doesn't last for just 5 minutes. It lasts all-day. I'm level 16 (half-way through paragon tier and still 5 levels away from epic). Heck, if I wanted to, I could allow an ally to fly all day instead of me.

2) If I see a new player picking a "strikerish" spell for a Wizard, I will take them to the side and ask them what they want to do with their character. If their answer is "damage", then I politely show them the Sorcerer class which can do it 5x better and has the otherwise same flavor as a Wizard.

3) Meteor Swarm is a terrible daily. It's a burst 5 that hits all creatures in burst. Congrats, you've just nuked your own party. A much better choice is Legion's Hold: it hits the same area but hits enemies only. It does a lot less damage, but it stuns(!!!) until save ends, which at this level is really hard for monsters to do. The difference? Meteor Swarm does good damage to everything (allies included). Legion's Hold takes every enemy out of the combat for a few rounds while your allies get free attacks on them. Legion's Hold therefore saves your allies consumables, healing surges, hit points, and basically insta-wins the combat for your party. (Note: there are ways to make Meteor Swarm miss your allies, but even if you are utilizing them, Legion's Hold is much better).

4) The problem you were trying to make with Meteor Swarm has to do with multi-attacks and not with implement attacks or Meteor Swarm itself. In fact, the two worst abusers of multi-attacks don't know how to use implements: Rangers who can typically get typically get 4+ attacks in a round (and always 2) and Barbarians who have the two nastiest multi-attacking powers in the game.

5) In real fantasy life? This oxymoron is very confusing to me.

6) More dice != more damage. One of the strongest at-wills in the game does 1d4+modifiers. Why is it the strongest? It has the most modifiers to go with it.

Kurald Galain
2009-12-25, 07:15 AM
1) My Sorcerer has Fly, all-day long. I got it via a power and it doesn't last for just 5 minutes.
Which power would that be? Are you a dragonborn with the one paragon path that lets you, or is it one of those powers that lets you fly each turn as long as you land each turn? Or am I overlooking some splatbook?

tcrudisi
2009-12-25, 07:20 AM
Which power would that be? Are you a dragonborn with the one paragon path that lets you, or is it one of those powers that lets you fly each turn as long as you land each turn? Or am I overlooking some splatbook?

Dominant Winds from Arcane Power. It's a level 16 at-will utility power that lets you, as a move action, let either yourself or an ally within 5 fly equal to your Dex modifier as a free action.

Gamerlord
2009-12-25, 07:47 AM
Anyway, people are criticizing 4e way too early, give it at least another year before you criticize it, it was released just a year ago IIRC.

Kurald Galain
2009-12-25, 07:49 AM
Dominant Winds from Arcane Power. It's a level 16 at-will utility power that lets you, as a move action, let either yourself or an ally within 5 fly equal to your Dex modifier as a free action.
Okay, but that power requires you to land at the end of the move action; being airborne for two seconds is, in layman terms, called "jumping" rather than "flying".

So I'm afraid that underlines Oooohaloophole's point. At least, his point about 4E being not really epic, even at epic levels. His point about meteor swarm appears misunderstand how the power works.

Leolo
2009-12-25, 07:51 AM
An epic archmage could fly all day without any power.

Kurald Galain
2009-12-25, 08:02 AM
An epic archmage could fly all day without any power.
Really? How?

tcrudisi
2009-12-25, 08:10 AM
Okay, but that power requires you to land at the end of the move action; being airborne for two seconds is, in layman terms, called "jumping" rather than "flying".

All the rules that I can find about flying say that as long as you move at least 2 squares, you remain airborne. Since it is an at-will, you can continue to fly every round and therefore not fall.

Or am I missing an obscure rule somewhere? Both the DMG (p. 47) and MM (p. 281) both seem to confirm this. The compendium reads the exact same as the DMG.

AllisterH
2009-12-25, 08:15 AM
Er, given that in SLAYERS, you only have overland Flight I'm not sure why "combat flight" is an indication of epicness.

And Slayers is one of the most epic level medieval fantasy stories around.

Kurald Galain
2009-12-25, 08:18 AM
All the rules that I can find about flying say that as long as you move at least 2 squares, you remain airborne. Since it is an at-will, you can continue to fly every round and therefore not fall.
I could be wrong about this, but I believe that the rule about moving two squares refers to creatures with an actual fly speed (i.e. the movement mode of flight, such as possessed by a dragonling familiar, or granted by the "Fly" wizard spell). A power like Dominant Winds is an instantaneous effect, it doesn't have a duration.

Likewise, the rules make a difference between powers that let you teleport (e.g. Fey Step or Ethereal Sidestep) and having teleportation as a movement mode (e.g. Stride of the Gallant stance). The latter can be used in combination with anything that lets you move, the former does not.

On the other hand, as a DM I would have no problem with flying PCs anyway, certainly not at level 16.


Er, given that in SLAYERS, you only have overland Flight I'm not sure why "combat flight" is an indication of epicness.
Imho it's an indication of epicness (although just barely: combat flight is pretty easy in several non-epic fantasy stories I could name) but surely not the only indication of epicness.

Leolo
2009-12-25, 08:24 AM
Items? Rituals? Mounts? Class abilities?

Choose and be happy.

Flying all day with mounts comes available at heroic tier. Flying with rituals is more difficult but you will have a greater benefit, because a mount can be killed and you will loose what you have paid for it. You will have to find a new one, too.

Items that grant flight are rare and i do not believe they can compete with the other options. It is far better to have a rimefire griffon, a phantom steed or even overland flight than a flying carpet. But hey - flight is flight. You have already mentioned the paragon path that grants overland flight.

From my point of view the best choice are phantom steeds casted by a high level wizard. You get a fly speed of 20 and can fly during combat. The most opponents you will face will not be able to catch you, at least where you have the ability to use your flight. And it has low costs, you could even cast it twice if you miss the DC. But hey...if you are an epic archmage, you will have an high enough arcana bonus and the ability to roll again. Opponents are able to hit your mount and let it disappear but it is a wasted action, does not harm you and is unlikely because of you will be out of range most of the time.

tcrudisi
2009-12-25, 08:34 AM
I could be wrong about this, but I believe that the rule about moving two squares refers to creatures with an actual fly speed (i.e. the movement mode of flight, such as possessed by a dragonling familiar, or granted by the "Fly" wizard spell). A power like Dominant Winds is an instantaneous effect, it doesn't have a duration.

Likewise, the rules make a difference between powers that let you teleport (e.g. Fey Step or Ethereal Sidestep) and having teleportation as a movement mode (e.g. Stride of the Gallant stance). The latter can be used in combination with anything that lets you move, the former does not..

Then what is the point in the Sorcerer feat "Storm Spellfury"? It lets you fly 2 squares as a free action after hitting at least one enemy with an at-will attack. Flying two squares is completely pointless unless it is there to let you continue to fly around the battlefield, albeit slowly.

I'll have to e-mail custserv about this. I realize they aren't exactly the best rules people around, but at least they are legit for LFR which is what I care most about anyway.

*edit* On the subject of flight, there's also the Ornithopter from AV. It's the same price as a level 8 magic item and allows the players to fly around. So, really, that's obtainable by the DMG's standards by level 4.

Leolo
2009-12-25, 08:42 AM
If the power does not tell you that you have to land on a surface (some of them do) you do not have to.

Kurald Galain
2009-12-25, 08:48 AM
Then what is the point in the Sorcerer feat "Storm Spellfury"? It lets you fly 2 squares as a free action after hitting at least one enemy with an at-will attack. Flying two squares is completely pointless unless it is there to let you continue to fly around the battlefield, albeit slowly.
Well, the feat still gives you free movement, ignoring pits as well as most kinds of difficult terrain. There's plenty of feats that tack riders onto an at-will attack.

Flying on a mount seems to be the best approach, but has its disadvantages. I don't recall any flying items lasting more than five minutes per day.

It just bothers me that there's all these stupid limitations on flight. For instance, phantom steed has the weird restriction that you can only fly as long as you stay within 50 feet of the ground. Why on earth is that necessary?


If the power does not tell you that you have to land on a surface (some of them do) you do not have to.
You don't have to land, but you'll fall if you don't. That's because if the power doesn't state you continue flying afterwards, then you don't.

UserClone
2009-12-25, 09:30 AM
in 3.5 the encounter can be won before it starts from permanent buffing/god spells. So in this way, 4e is harder.

in 4e there are no 'instant win/auto kill/one shot' ways to die. Hit points are higher and damage is lower. In this way its easier.

If the players are well optimized and geared and have good teamwork and tactics the encounters need to be much harder. If the players are new, not optimized, etc. they will find it harder. Likewise if the mobs don't have good teamwork or the DM is new at using them or the terrain, the fights will be cake.

...mobs? Teehee, your WoW is showing.:smallbiggrin:

Leolo
2009-12-25, 09:37 AM
Flying on a mount seems to be the best approach, but has its disadvantages. I don't recall any flying items lasting more than five minutes per day.


Flying carpet.



It just bothers me that there's all these stupid limitations on flight. For instance, phantom steed has the weird restriction that you can only fly as long as you stay within 50 feet of the ground. Why on earth is that necessary?


Hey, it is powerfull enough as it is. One of the best rituals at heroic level at all. I have even a wizard who has a arcana check high enough to get his fast flying mount at low paragon levels. It is optimized to have such a high arcana check, but that does not make it less powerful.

Overland flight would be a complete waste if there is a cheaper ritual, lasting longer and granting you better flight for every problem. I would call it a trap even now, because hey - 50 ft from the steeds is sufficient. Also it has some nice fluff as the steed is only "flying over the earth fast as the wind" not "flying through the air like a eagle" fluffwise. You have to learn flying or ride an actual eagle to accomplish this.

Of course there is another reason why flight is limited. Because it is powerful. Many monsters and even player characters could not reach a wizard who is fighting from the air. If such a powerful ability is granted without limitations there would be no balancing at all. (That is why flight was always limited in some way)

AllisterH
2009-12-25, 09:52 AM
re: Protagonists with all day personal combat flight in fantasy fiction.

You know,I'm kind of blanking on this.

Peter Pan is perhaps the most famous example I can think of, but Peter Pan isn't the star of the actual storyline. It's supposed to be Wendy and the other Darling children.

I know many a fantasy story/myth where people fly...but it's always either by device (Daedalus, Harry Potter), creature (Gandalf, Bellorphon) or they transform themselves into a winged creature (most gods such as Zeus and Loki).

Similarly, in most fantasy novels post LotR, I can't think of protagonists who actually fly all the time at will.

Kurald Galain
2009-12-25, 10:28 AM
re: Protagonists with all day personal combat flight in fantasy fiction.
I think that's from another thread, so I'm sure you can look up the responses from there.

It's also rather beside the point: Peter Pan, Daedalus, Harry Potter and Lord of the Rings are nothing like 4E D&D. A better comparison would be between 4E to other fantasy RPGs and/or epic RPGs. If we do so, we find out that there are many RPGs that make personal unrestricted flight available at high levels or sometimes even for beginning characters. And that's just one example, there are several other powers freely available in many fantasy/epic RPGs, but not in 4E.

So yeah, compared to those other fantasy/epic RPGs, 4E isn't very epic at all, not even at level 30. And that was the point made earlier.

Leolo
2009-12-25, 10:55 AM
It depends. Raise land looks very epic to me, even compared to older editions.

Be aware if someone anywhere in the world talks to his god and ask questions about you? It has something that does not cry "mundane". Also the epic destinies have very good and epic background.

But in general the power level is much lower than before. I like it that way, even if i miss some high level spells of former editions (wish for example)

It is a matter of comparation, of course. Things like "i teleport myself to anywhere in the world and travel through the multiverse" would not be considered as "not epic" if the power level of former editions wasn't even higher, and such abilities would not be something that mid to low level characters could do.

Oooohaloophole
2009-12-25, 02:53 PM
It is far better to kill the cleric before the fighter. But there are many ways to kill a character fast.

For example i have made a test encounter with a bloodkiss beholder (lvl 9 solo controller) choosing one character and attacking it.

He has done 6 attacks in the first round, each worth 1d8+13 damage. Also he gets 2 extra attacks when a target becomes bloodied and when a target starts its turn adjacent, one of them stronger than the initial attacks. And it could let the character be stunned as a minor action, too.

Half of its attacks hit (technically it had a better chance, but hey...it was sufficient) and it has done about 80 points of damage.

There is no character in the group who has this amount of hitpoints of course, and it could be more damage if i would have hit more often.

The monster does even heal damage it has taken before. And it has two action points, so after the first round where it spends one for this attack series it could do it again. Even without that it is capable of doing 4 or more attacks per round.

Not unbeatable of course, at least if you are at the same level or above and not already injured by previous encounters. But dangerous.



You do not add the damage bonus to each roll, you add it once.

THAT MAKES IT WORSE! + weapons do not feal like a treasure its like "Meh its not like I CANT go without it, so meh" Its no longer magical since you are OBLIGATED to get it.

Gamerlord
2009-12-25, 03:21 PM
THAT MAKES IT WORSE! + weapons do not feal like a treasure its like "Meh its not like I CANT go without it, so meh" Its no longer magical since you are OBLIGATED to get it.

I think you quoted the wrong post :smalltongue: . Nevermind.

Theodoric
2009-12-25, 03:28 PM
THAT MAKES IT WORSE! + weapons do not feal like a treasure its like "Meh its not like I CANT go without it, so meh" Its no longer magical since you are OBLIGATED to get it.
Yes, because having shiny weapons (at level-appropriate strength) is so opposite to everything that DnD is. :smallannoyed:

Cybren
2009-12-25, 03:29 PM
The issue is more that the math makes it required.

I wouldn't really have a problem if as a DM i didn't have to constantly doll out loot to keep the numbers in line. Especially with the rate of level advancement with the standard XP awards

UserClone
2009-12-25, 05:07 PM
You could always play Iron Heroes. Then you never need magic items at all.

AllisterH
2009-12-25, 05:22 PM
The issue is more that the math makes it required.

I wouldn't really have a problem if as a DM i didn't have to constantly doll out loot to keep the numbers in line. Especially with the rate of level advancement with the standard XP awards

Um, why not use the inherent bonuses from DMG2 (they are in the character builder last I checked).

Leolo
2009-12-25, 05:24 PM
THAT MAKES IT WORSE! + weapons do not feal like a treasure its like "Meh its not like I CANT go without it, so meh" Its no longer magical since you are OBLIGATED to get it.

I do not really know what you want to tell.

Why does getting one bonus once for one action make anything worse? And worse compared to what? It looks like a very simple pattern.

Treasure is not really obligated but it makes you stronger. And you have to be stronger sometimes. But what makes you stronger is not really relevant. You could grow stronger because you have found the mighty sword of Sir Cedric the dragonslayer. Or because of you have found a powerful horse from the bloodline of Sir Cedrics famous steed and befriend with it.

Or because of you have been teached by Sir Cedric himself. Or because you have bathed in the blood of a slain dragon if you like the old school style. Or because of...finish the sentence by yourself.

There are many types of rewards that you could get during your adventures, and all are something that could be needed to face a new quest you would not be able to accomplished without it. That does not make them obligated.

Jack_Banzai
2009-12-25, 05:49 PM
Um, why not use the inherent bonuses from DMG2 (they are in the character builder last I checked).

They certainly are, and they work beautifully. Also, if you have a party with both magic items and inherent bonuses, the bonuses don't stack. This is actually a pretty good option for DMs who don't want to worry about keeping the party's loot current.

Tehnar
2009-12-25, 06:34 PM
The things with magic items in 4e is that they provide a substantial bonus other then the inherent one. Its a nice idea, too bad it doesn't work well in practise.

Back on topic: one of the things that makes 4E easy, is the ease of healing. As you gain levels it gets easier to heal your self and others. So even focusing on the healer is not really doable, even if he is knocked out, on allies turn he is back up.

Another thing is that if you use monsters which are a much higher level then the party, while it might not be easy, it will be boring. Once our level 7/8 party faced 2 umber hulks. While we did beat them, it was pretty boring, as we practically couldn't hit them, and were waiting for the auto damage effects to wear them down. Monster design is one of the poorer parts of 4E, IMO.

Reverent-One
2009-12-25, 08:03 PM
The things with magic items in 4e is that they provide a substantial bonus other then the inherent one. Its a nice idea, too bad it doesn't work well in practise.

That's not really the case. All Magic weapons/armor/implements give a bonus to attack and damage, and most have bonus to crit damage and some sort of power. The crit bonus and powers really aren't essential, just nice. The inherent bonus system allows a DM to not have to give out a weapon or implement, set of armor, and neck piece to everyone just to let the math keep up. A dm can then give out magic items at his or her own pace to provide the crit damage and powers.


Back on topic: one of the things that makes 4E easy, is the ease of healing. As you gain levels it gets easier to heal your self and others. So even focusing on the healer is not really doable, even if he is knocked out, on allies turn he is back up.

That really depends on the party. If they have another healer or a class that's a secondary leader, sure they can bring your main healer up, but not every party is going have one of those.


Another thing is that if you use monsters which are a much higher level then the party, while it might not be easy, it will be boring. Once our level 7/8 party faced 2 umber hulks. While we did beat them, it was pretty boring, as we practically couldn't hit them, and were waiting for the auto damage effects to wear them down. Monster design is one of the poorer parts of 4E, IMO.

Well, assuming your DM used the level 12 umber hulks from the MM1, you were facing two elite soldiers that were at the upper limit of the suggested levels for monsters facing a given party, which is generally at most 5 levels above the parties level. And even though it was at this limit, he used a couple creatures that were elites, which have higher health than most monsters, and soldiers, which means they'll have high defenses but aren't so hot in the damage dealing department. So your group fought a pair of really hard to hit enemies with tons of hit points that didn't have comparable offensive capabilities. The issue with that fight isn't really the monster's fault, your DM pretty much set up a long slugfest from the get-go. If he used, say, a pair of high-level skirmishers, then it would have been very different, as their defenses would have been lower and more hittable, but they'd be dealing notably more damage to you, making a shorter but more dangerous battle.

ericgrau
2009-12-25, 10:07 PM
So, in brief, you are saying "Yes, 4E is too easy". Do I have that right? Because that's the gist of what I'm reading here, & that jives with my own play experience. Unless I'm throwing monsters at my party that have CRs 2-3 higher than the party's average CL, then there's little risk of failure.

Which of course bothers me, because No Risk = No XP, in my mind.

That's standard for 3e. CR = CL is supposed to burn resources, not have much risk of failure. Challenging is CR = CL + 2, and overwhelming (maybe or maybe not win) is CR = CL + 4.

Thurbane
2009-12-26, 12:48 AM
Answer (a) is the answer from edition snobs. (I like and play both editions. Deal with it.)
Both? What about the rest (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Editions_of_Dungeons_%26_Dragons)? :smalltongue:

FWIW, my limited 4E experience was that the adventurers get it too easy, especially with a bucketload of HP at low levels. It's a personal preference, but a big part of the appeal for low-level adventuring for me is that sense of vulnerability, and having to play smart to make sure you don't die unnecessarily.

Tehnar
2009-12-26, 03:36 AM
That's not really the case. All Magic weapons/armor/implements give a bonus to attack and damage, and most have bonus to crit damage and some sort of power. The crit bonus and powers really aren't essential, just nice. The inherent bonus system allows a DM to not have to give out a weapon or implement, set of armor, and neck piece to everyone just to let the math keep up. A dm can then give out magic items at his or her own pace to provide the crit damage and powers.


It works out if the DM doesn't hand out any items. However, if there are magic items, they make your character a whole lot effective. Bloodcut armor, acrobat boots, various energy resistance gear, cloak of displacement,...I can really give a lot of examples that make a character much more effective then what just the inherent bonuses (boni?) provide. In fact a lot of time, magic item powers will trump your own character at will and sometimes encounter powers.

Monster design is also pretty much a fail, at least those I came in contact with. The said umber hulks can grapple you which deals a amazing 10 points of ongoing damage; they cant make attacks at that time. Once my fighter realized that he let himself be grappled, as that was a much less threatening way of getting hurt, then letting the umber hulk bash you.

FatR
2009-12-26, 06:27 AM
In my limited 4E experience, it all depends on a) the list of allowed sources, b) willingless of players to comb through them for good stuff and c)willingness of GM to play the monsters as if they want to win. Core-only 4E against GM striving to defeat PCs with focus fire can be very murderous, unless players realy know what they are doing. There aren't many overwhelmingly strong builds besides orbizard or useful tactics. If supplements are on the table, things change. Wizards do not need orbs anymore to win DnD, and about half of the classes have builds strong enough to be practically untouchable for any supposedly level-appropriate challenge, even if GM still plays to the best of his tactical abilities.

Leolo
2009-12-26, 08:58 AM
Monster design is also pretty much a fail, at least those I came in contact with. The said umber hulks can grapple you which deals a amazing 10 points of ongoing damage; they cant make attacks at that time. Once my fighter realized that he let himself be grappled, as that was a much less threatening way of getting hurt, then letting the umber hulk bash you.

I think this is a good example. The monster does have a good ability, but they neither used it clever (it could end the grapple as a free action at every start of its turn, hitting you twice, grapple again to inflict 10 additional damage - additional to the 4d6+10 if it hits you twice), nor was it the right tactic anyway for this encounter. Because your character does not want to be anywhere else.

Imagine the umber hulk would have had some brute buddies. Your fighter is grappled, and they have fun with the wizard, while you are trying to free yourself.

The umber hulks aren't weak, too. They will hit with low dice rolls and could do 4 attacks without action points, 8 with them. If 6 attacks will hit, and you would take the grapple damage only once this is an average damage of 82. Does your lvl 7-8 characters even have this amount of hit points? And this does not even count in the fact that they have burrowing speed, and could take a grappled target with them.

Itamarcu
2009-12-26, 09:01 AM
Well, I have died once in 3.5, and never in 4e.
On the other hand, I never played Finished a 4e Campaign.....Only DMed.

Orzel
2009-12-26, 09:10 AM
Typically they are only so many ways to die:
-Bad Luck- The monster uses it's special killer spell/attack and it hits.
-Stupid Move- You do something dumb and get yourself killed
-Swarmed- Too many weak hits in a row without healing
-Lucky Shot- A normally weak attack crits for a lot/deals max damage
-Weakness- The monster can target your weaknes.
-Too high- The fight was flat out overleveled

I find that 4E removed most of the bad luck kills and lucky shots are less fatals. Therefore outside of a unfair fight, only way to die is to "kill thyself".

... oh and most solos are weak.

AllisterH
2009-12-26, 09:50 AM
Most of the MM1 solos are weak. (Not enough actions I find).

This even applies to Elites I find.

That said, later Solos are much more of a challenge.

Contrast the Mordant Hydra from MM1 (level 18 solo brute) vs the Heroslayer Hydra from MM2 (level 20 solo brute)

The Latter, even when you downlevel it to 18, is STILL going to much more of a threat to a party as a SOLO creature than the Mordant.

For Xmas, my SO bought me Plane Below and I'm looking at the primordial blot (level 26 Solo artillery) and just comparing it to the closest MM1 solo artillery (primoridal naga) and even though the latter has an extra 200 HP, the primordial is way more dangerous.

At best, the naga can do 5*(3d6+9+1d6) as a standard action plus as a minor action, 3d6+11 (focus fire on one character and you're looking at 60 damage) but that's it. It does nothing when it isn't its own turn to bump up its threat so an unlucky roll for initiative can have the naga being torn up without getting much attacks in.

versus the blot (3d6+7d8+36 plus being slowed, knocked prone, blinded and immobilized) plus damage for simply moving next to it, opportunity attacks and some auto damage when its get bloodied and reduced to 0.

Even the latter product elites are more dangerous than the solos of MM1 IMO.

Theodoric
2009-12-26, 09:51 AM
I find that 4E removed most of the bad luck kills and lucky shots are less fatals. Therefore outside of a unfair fight, only way to die is to "kill thyself".
Well, that's the point, isn't it? If people screw up, they lose. I'd rather play a game that depends on skill than one that depends purely on chance.

Philistine
2009-12-26, 10:26 AM
Both? What about the rest (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Editions_of_Dungeons_%26_Dragons)? :smalltongue:

FWIW, my limited 4E experience was that the adventurers get it too easy, especially with a bucketload of HP at low levels. It's a personal preference, but a big part of the appeal for low-level adventuring for me is that sense of vulnerability, and having to play smart to make sure you don't die unnecessarily.

How do you "play smart" enough to ensure that no opponent with a spear, longbow, or axe (to name three very common high-crit weapons) ever gets to make an attack roll against any member of your party? Because the first time they do, the target's survival is determined completely randomly - "smart play" or no.

Leolo
2009-12-26, 11:02 AM
Most of the MM1 solos are weak. (Not enough actions I find).

This even applies to Elites I find.

That said, later Solos are much more of a challenge.


Yes, there was a change in the design of solo monsters. But it is a little confusing that your examples are showing 2 monsters that have 6 or more attacks per round. Both could do about 20 attacks during the first two combat rounds. Are this really not enough actions? It looks dangerous to increase the amount of actions even more, because it is frustrating if a solo monster is able to kill every character it focus on in the first rounds. (and the most are able enough now)



At best, the naga can do 5*(3d6+9+1d6) as a standard action plus as a minor action, 3d6+11 (focus fire on one character and you're looking at 60 damage) but that's it.


3d6+9+1d6 are at average 23 damage, multiplied by 5 this would be 115 damage. Plus 3d6+11 (~21 damage) plus 10 aura damage plus 15 ongoing damage this would be 161 damage if all attacks hit. 60 damage with focused fire means the naga is only hitting with 2 of its 6 attacks and is not doing better than average damage. This is possible, but i would not rely on it.

Orzel
2009-12-26, 11:06 AM
Well, that's the point, isn't it? If people screw up, they lose. I'd rather play a game that depends on skill than one that depends purely on chance.


I agree. I hate "Roll high, you die" most of the time.

AllisterH
2009-12-26, 11:32 AM
3d6+9+1d6 are at average 23 damage, multiplied by 5 this would be 115 damage. Plus 3d6+11 (~21 damage) plus 10 aura damage plus 15 ongoing damage this would be 161 damage if all attacks hit. 60 damage with focused fire means the naga is only hitting with 2 of its 6 attacks and is not doing better than average damage. This is possible, but i would not rely on it.

Divide the rolled damage by 2 (monster only has a 50% chance to hit) and don't factor in the 15 ongoing since that kicks in the NEXT round.

My mistake though with regard to my terminology. While both the Naga and the Mordant Hydra have enough actions to be a threat on THEIR turn, it's the "do nothing" in between their turns which I think is the problem.

I think the problem with Solos (and not just 4e but any edition) is that the battle itself was boring once the solo's turn was up as well as the battle having no ebb or flow (basically what you did the 1st round is what you get the 2nd round) .

The Primordial blot even when it's not its turn is making attacks, reactions and being a true Solo and the Heroslayer while not being as interesting gets the Many Headed effect whereupon it actually grows MORE dangerous as the fight goes on.

Leolo
2009-12-26, 12:50 PM
Not the next round, but the start of the characters turn. But that does not make it ignorable.

50% means the targeted character has AC 40 (monster hits with a rolled 11)

Some characters will have this at lvl 25, but not all. And you still could have simple bad luck. The monster is supposed to live more than one round, you will not always face it alone, and you will not always face it with your best abilities still available.

A level 25 Character could have about 130-180 hit points. That is within the reach of said naga without even taking a action point. Of course, epic characters have enough countermeasures. But i would not say the naga has to few attacks per round. It could kill every character within one round if those character is missing the right countermeasure (like teleporting away after the first hit).

It lacks movement. No flight, no burrowing, no swimming...and most important no good stealth check.

No surprise round therefore. And nothing that really helps it to use the terrain for its advantage.

I would expect the players to simple stay out of reach or surprise the monster. But simple encounter design could make it a meat grinder if the players are not able or not willing to use this tactic. Let the naga guard a portal behind the small bridge over an acid pool in a small cavern and push someone into the acid before focusing the attacks on another opponent.

It will not be a total party kill necessary but 1 or 2 player characters doing funny death saving throws are sufficient to imply that there is some danger. Also the naga has a reach 20 attack, and some characters will find it difficult to reach the naga if there are obstacles. One more point where it is missing a special movement, of course. It would make it far more flexible.

There are monsters that are much more threatening (for their level) in the monster manual.

Reverent-One
2009-12-26, 02:42 PM
It works out if the DM doesn't hand out any items. However, if there are magic items, they make your character a whole lot effective. Bloodcut armor, acrobat boots, various energy resistance gear, cloak of displacement,...I can really give a lot of examples that make a character much more effective then what just the inherent bonuses (boni?) provide. In fact a lot of time, magic item powers will trump your own character at will and sometimes encounter powers.

I'm not trying to say the inherent bonus system is better than magic items though, just pointing out that the inherent bonus system will allow a DM to run a low-magic item campaign without throwing off the math, which is exactly what it was meant to do.

Thurbane
2009-12-26, 05:28 PM
How do you "play smart" enough to ensure that no opponent with a spear, longbow, or axe (to name three very common high-crit weapons) ever gets to make an attack roll against any member of your party? Because the first time they do, the target's survival is determined completely randomly - "smart play" or no.
*shrug* I've managed to get plenty of 1st level characters up to higher level without dying, but obviously some have perished. Like I said, the sense of danger (especially at low levels) is an aspect of the game I enjoy.

Smart play is more than just about combat, it's about character choices, where you are and what you do, how you fit in with the rest of the party, gauging the danger of opponents and situations, and much more. In my personal experience, a character played smart is much more likely to survive than one that isn't. YMMV.

Crow
2009-12-26, 07:44 PM
"Smart Play" includes many of the aspects of play that some people seem to think 4e invented, like utilization of terrain and teamwork, just to name a few, and using those things to your advantage even before combat begins. Just those two things, combined with what Thurbane is talking about can make a world of difference.

Decoy Lockbox
2009-12-27, 02:28 AM
I only use homebrew monsters, and I give monsters 75% of their normal HP and about 150% damage (to make fights faster and more lethal). My solos get three standard actions per turn, and my elites get two. I'd describe my campaign as fairly dangerous :smallbiggrin:

I've been a player in two 4e campaigns playing straight by the book rules, and both of them are quite challenging. So it seems that DM skill is a big factor here (but of course we already knew that).

Oooohaloophole
2009-12-27, 04:49 AM
Yikes. Here's a few rebuttals from someone who actually plays 4e:

1) My Sorcerer has Fly, all-day long. I got it via a power and it doesn't last for just 5 minutes. It lasts all-day. I'm level 16 (half-way through paragon tier and still 5 levels away from epic). Heck, if I wanted to, I could allow an ally to fly all day instead of me.

2) If I see a new player picking a "strikerish" spell for a Wizard, I will take them to the side and ask them what they want to do with their character. If their answer is "damage", then I politely show them the Sorcerer class which can do it 5x better and has the otherwise same flavor as a Wizard.

3) Meteor Swarm is a terrible daily. It's a burst 5 that hits all creatures in burst. Congrats, you've just nuked your own party. A much better choice is Legion's Hold: it hits the same area but hits enemies only. It does a lot less damage, but it stuns(!!!) until save ends, which at this level is really hard for monsters to do. The difference? Meteor Swarm does good damage to everything (allies included). Legion's Hold takes every enemy out of the combat for a few rounds while your allies get free attacks on them. Legion's Hold therefore saves your allies consumables, healing surges, hit points, and basically insta-wins the combat for your party. (Note: there are ways to make Meteor Swarm miss your allies, but even if you are utilizing them, Legion's Hold is much better).

4) The problem you were trying to make with Meteor Swarm has to do with multi-attacks and not with implement attacks or Meteor Swarm itself. In fact, the two worst abusers of multi-attacks don't know how to use implements: Rangers who can typically get typically get 4+ attacks in a round (and always 2) and Barbarians who have the two nastiest multi-attacking powers in the game.

5) In real fantasy life? This oxymoron is very confusing to me.

6) More dice != more damage. One of the strongest at-wills in the game does 1d4+modifiers. Why is it the strongest? It has the most modifiers to go with it.

Ok ill qiet down. Just everything in 4e Is SOOO balanced that the slightest overpowerment smashes the whole thing into pieces, becuase whatever you pick, demigod is still more powerfull than all, a life recharger, +2 to 2 ability scores and practicaly infinite amount of encounter powers making short rests useless (cause I turn on a dialy and just let it contingue into the next encounter, like regenaration.)

if in real life we had magic nobody would sit next to us and say "dont pick hurl through hell, its only for worlocks"
And say what you want about 3e but at least it didnt go halfway through the year and say Whoops lower the monster hp...

Kurald Galain
2009-12-27, 04:55 AM
Ok ill qiet down. Just everything in 4e Is SOOO balanced that the slightest overpowerment smashes the whole thing into pieces,

...that's not actually true, you know.

Many people on forums assume that 4E balance breaks down the instant you make a slight change somewhere, but in reality you can fiddle around quite a bit with it. Want to make Lay On Hands an encounter power? Give all humans +2 to the skill of their choice? Give casters +1 to hit with single-target spells? Go for it. None of that will break, or even noticeably affect, game balance.

Oooohaloophole
2009-12-27, 04:06 PM
...that's not actually true, you know.

Many people on forums assume that 4E balance breaks down the instant you make a slight change somewhere, but in reality you can fiddle around quite a bit with it. Want to make Lay On Hands an encounter power? Give all humans +2 to the skill of their choice? Give casters +1 to hit with single-target spells? Go for it. None of that will break, or even noticeably affect, game balance.

EXCUSE ME? Who is the person who played 3 level 30 campians with ALL the rulebooks? Who is the person for whom 4e was the first RPG so it technicaly im supposed to be biased towards it. Like the wizard power that could do 7d10 if used last, + its a burst 2.Or the druid 5d10 dmg encounter power? Or the epic balance destiny that could technicaly give you 1000 hp in temp hp?

Its bad if your obligated to get a weapon because its not like "Will I ever get a magic weapon this campian" Its more like "Alright Dm hand over the magic item, I cannot fight any monster without it"

Plus they did not solve the problem about a caster bieng necacary.
"Who has the highest Arcana score (most checks are based apon it), the wizard"

Leolo
2009-12-27, 04:29 PM
It is kind of weird to believe that you can not fight monsters without your magic stuff because of your character will be too weak, if this criticism is within a "the game is too easy" thread.

As have been said before neither of it is true. You can fight monsters without any magic item (it is just more difficult at higher levels) and there are many ways to kill the characters.

Somebloke
2009-12-27, 04:30 PM
I've always held the view that magic weapons etc should be rare and powerful as well as dangerous, but this is my view, reflecting a low-magic taste, and nothing else. 4th edition is the first edition in DnD history to actively supply rules to make this easier and more interesting by supplying a coherent set of rules in a core book.So it is ahead in the stakes.

Skill challenges are set by the dm; outside of official books, which assume a mixed party, they have no real requirements other to reflect party makeup.

4th edition is unbalanced only when failing to compare it to previous editions.

Pramxnim
2009-12-27, 04:33 PM
It would be nice to see an actual reference to the powers you're listing, Oooo, and please name that particular epic destiny that effectively gives you 1000 temp hp (I'll keep it in mind when designing my next character :P). Also, it would help your arguments if you made the effort to polish the grammar and spelling in your posts. I don't get the feeling that your points are getting across because it's rather difficult to make sense of the words and sentences within.

That said, I've played in epic level games as well as low level ones, and 4e is not as easy as people think it is. A DM may choose to use monsters that work well together (such as those that generate combat advantage and others whose attacks have additional benefits with combat advantage) as well as creative terrain to pose a challenge to players. An example of a well-designed encounter can be found within the Thunderspire Labyrinth adventure module, where creative use of terrain and traps made a solo monster fight not only difficult, but enjoyable for the players (a review of that particular encounter may be found here (http://squarefireballs.blogspot.com/2009/12/fun-with-dragons.html)). I ran a similar encounter, using one of the traps (the Doom Sphere) and a level 11 Mithral Dragon against a party of 6 optimized level 11 characters and they had quite a bit of trouble killing it.

I believe the fluff issue many people have with handing out magic weapons can be easily fixed by using the inherent bonuses option in the DMG 2. That way, you can have one magic weapon that will remain relevant throughout your career, since it won't affect your attack and damage, and only provide its property and power. It also makes getting magic items more exciting.

I really don't see how casters are necessary. A simple multiclass feat or Skill Training can give you Arcana, and non-caster classes use Intelligence as well (The Tactical Warlord, for example). Plus, an Arcana check is just a skill check. If the DM goes out of his way to present difficult Arcana checks to a party without anyone trained in Arcana, what's to stop him from doing the same to other untrained skills? In this way, other skills will become necessary, and people will start gravitating towards those classes. An all-martial party can function just fine, or even all-melee (a group consisting of a Fighter, Barbarian, Warlord and Avenger are doing fine in the Thunderspire Mountain module I'm running and they don't have a caster with them).

In conclusion, 4e is not anywhere near perfect, but I like how WoTC is taking the time and effort to correct rules issues as they come up (in the form of updates and errata) and tweak the balance of the game. That's more than can be said for 3.5, where glaringly broken rules (mostly spells and how metamagic worked) could not or would not be fixed because it would require too much meddling with the system.

4e is still a very flexible system, and I've seen a lot of houserules that work well with it. Like Kurald said, minor changes won't shatter the balance of the game, and things like giving out higher point buy or more feats still won't do earth-shattering stuff to the game as we know it.

jseah
2009-12-27, 04:38 PM
As have been said before neither of it is true. You can fight monsters without any magic item (it is just more difficult at higher levels) and there are many ways to kill the characters.
What happens when strange otherworldly monsters appear then?
Ones that can't be hurt without magic?

Like an all-enemies-are-flying-controllers encounter. Or incorporeal?
(I've never actually seen incorporeal in action, so I can't tell how devastating that would be)

Some things can't be bypassed without magic items. Or special abilities which the party may not have.

Evard
2009-12-27, 04:41 PM
Title says it all, but the reason I started wondering is this:

Last night my players (Level 9, playing through The Last Breaths of Ashenport adventure, 5 of em) were ambushed by a level 8 solo. Usually not too tough a fight, but it had quite the advantage terrain wise. So they retreated into the caves, straight into the arms of the next encounter (EC 10), even setting off the waiting trap. Nothing could have set this encounter up for the bad guys better, everything went in their favor... and they got trounced. What's more, they got trounced hard.

The players killed virtually everything without difficulty and were even considering rushing forwards to trigger the next encounter so their daily powers (rages and the like) wouldn't wear off. Most of them still had at least an encounter or two left, barely tapped into their dailies. The monsters were played more intelligently than recommended. The players aren't too optimized. I know, I rolled up 3 of them myself as some of my players asked me to due to time constraints.

So, thoughts? Opinions? Nintendo Tricks?

If the monsters are to easy then put them up against higher level monsters or fudge some rolls, give monsters more action points to use for specific actions, give them bonuses to defenses, or my personal favorite... roll their defenses instead of taking 10. I rolled for their defenses and the players had a harder time hitting the monsters but the fight wasn't 1 sided.

Leolo
2009-12-27, 05:02 PM
What happens when strange otherworldly monsters appear then?
Ones that can't be hurt without magic?

Like an all-enemies-are-flying-controllers encounter. Or incorporeal?
(I've never actually seen incorporeal in action, so I can't tell how devastating that would be)

Some things can't be bypassed without magic items. Or special abilities which the party may not have.

The same as when another task is too hard for the characters to accomplish.

You will have to find alternative ways or you won't succeed. (Which may be fine, because it implies that the task was dangerous). The important thing is: If you are not strong enough and there are tasks that are too dangerous it does not mean there are no tasks at all.

As said before, there are ways to provide you boni without handing out an item, but even without inherit boni, grandmasters training or divine boons or whatever equivalent, even without anything that provides you a benefit you are still able to play the game, fight some opponents and do whatever adventure you like.

You're just not strong enough to face every monster that you could face with the magical sword of XYZ. Because it makes you stronger.

But it wouldn't be much magical if this isn't the case.

Oooohaloophole
2009-12-27, 05:20 PM
You know what. Ill keep quiet. Dnd4e is not bad, just it killed a better edition.
It would be a great Teching tool for larning 3e. But no it killed its elders.

zoobob9
2009-12-27, 06:51 PM
the best thing to do: lie. sometimes make an 18 attack rool against the pc's a critical, make a monster make a saving throw, add another de8 damage, something like that.

Evard
2009-12-27, 09:39 PM
the best thing to do: lie. sometimes make an 18 attack rool against the pc's a critical, make a monster make a saving throw, add another de8 damage, something like that.

exactly cause this will make your players have a better time and really that is the DM/GM's biggest role i think. To help make the player's time as enjoyable as possible (note that the players are responsible for that too).

To challenge them put them up against a monster that they should not be able to beat (5 levels higher than them) with the only way of getting out of the battle alive is to run away (that will put the fear of DM in them) but of course don't do that to often -_-, i had a DM that basically made us run away from something the entire game...eww

Sir Homeslice
2009-12-27, 11:20 PM
You know what. Ill keep quiet. Dnd4e is not bad, just it killed a better edition.
It would be a great Teching tool for larning 3e. But no it killed its elders.

Good lord, it's like you're not even trying to be civil.

Meek
2009-12-28, 01:05 AM
You know what. Ill keep quiet.

Yes, please. Your commentary will not be missed.

As for 4e being easy, in my experience is easy if you don't play it a certain way. 4e's challenge is about the long term – do I have enough resources going into the next fight my DM will try to force me into that I can win? Any single fight in 4e will be completely trashed, no question. It's the adventuring day as a whole which challenges you. By the final fight if you're going into it without a lot of resources it will be much harder.

So with 4e by the book, you make fights hard to force your players to waste their stuff on them, so the subsequent fights will get harder and harder as they have to waste more of their non-replenishable stuff on it. You use as many fights as you feel will drain PCs of their dailies, surges, and items. Personally I'm not a huge fan of this because I don't really like running a bunch of fights in a row, and if the PCs find any nook or cranny to hide in and rest, they will, and the plan is hosed. And if you attack them while they rest or something to continue the meatgrinder against their will, they'll probably not be very compliant after that.

When I want to run less fights (nearly all the time) and still have them be anywhere near approaching fun, I use higher level critters but with lower defenses. This way, PC's aren't disadvantaged in hitting back (so they don't FEEL like they're outclassed and helpless), but they're being hit for higher damage nearly all the time, and they have to pull out more resources to deal higher damage. This is all anecdotal, of course.

tcrudisi
2009-12-28, 04:44 AM
Like the wizard power that could do 7d10 if used last, + its a burst 2.Or the druid 5d10 dmg encounter power? Or the epic balance destiny that could technicaly give you 1000 hp in temp hp?


It would be nice to see an actual reference to the powers you're listing, Oooo, and please name that particular epic destiny that effectively gives you 1000 temp hp (I'll keep it in mind when designing my next character :P).

In conclusion, 4e is not anywhere near perfect, but I like how WoTC is taking the time and effort to correct rules issues as they come up (in the form of updates and errata) and tweak the balance of the game. That's more than can be said for 3.5, where glaringly broken rules (mostly spells and how metamagic worked) could not or would not be fixed because it would require too much meddling with the system.

Not everyone takes Demigod. Is it one of the best epic destinies? Absolutely. But it's not really broken until level 30. It's not as if you can go past level 30. Being able to constantly fire off 7d10+modifiers encounter powers every round is exactly what I would expect to be able to do when taking on the gods. Is it the most powerful? Heck no. Just off-hand I can think of a level 30 build which does 3d10+50ish damage in a burst 1 (maybe 2) or blast 5, ignores allies, and does this 4 times every round. So if all the attacks hit, you are looking at 12d10+200ish damage and this could hit up to 25 targets (haha - yeah right. More realistically you can get 2 or 3). This build is more powerful and doesn't even think about taking Demigod. Then again, some very broken (at level 30, mind you) builds do abuse Demigod. And I'm not really complaining... considering the character is literally moments away from ascending to demigod status? Yeah, it's appropriate. And still not close to being as powerful as the level 21 epic spellcasting from 3.x.

The power that Oooohaloophole is talking about is Balanced Sum from the Lord of Fate epic destiny. Formerly, when you dropped 0 hp you could gain temp hp equal to your attacker's current hp value. Now, you gain temp hp equal to the damage that dropped you (both were shortened, but this was the important part). While I'm not sure when this was errata'ed, I do know that it occurred before the December update (as in the Dec. update it's located in the "old errata" section.)

Which brings up something I love: the fact that WotC cares enough about the game to go back and fix their mistakes. I agree with you 100% about this, Praxmnim.


if in real life we had magic nobody would sit next to us and say "dont pick hurl through hell, its only for worlocks"

Please tell me how this is different than any other version of D&D. In most editions of D&D (perhaps all, I have not played OD&D and my memory on first is very hazy), there are class lists. Wizards have a list, Clerics have a list, Psions have a list, etc. Even in 3.5, Warlocks had a much different list, as they didn't use spells but rather invocations.

In real life, the best of the best specialize. Sure, there's a demand for people who can do all things fairly well, but nobody draws the same price as the person who specializes. Who makes more money: the family doctor or the brain surgeon? (And even the family doctor can be said to be a specialist, since they have to spend 8+ years learning their trade... but that just brings the point home even more). My point is this: if I had magic and knew I could learn a spell that continued to allow me to specialize, I would take it, realizing that it makes me stronger and more focused (and therefore more valuable) than if I were to spread my abilities out too thin.

Since you enjoy 3.5, I'll use it as an example. If you wanted to make an ideal party, what would it be? Many would say Fighter, Cleric, Wizard, Rogue (to cover all the skills and abilities, but each one specializes in what they do: beat stuff, heal, blast, skills). Optimizers might say Cleric, Druid, Wizard, Beguiler (or some such, since this party can do everything the above party can do, except better and with more abilities). Would some people take 4x Cleric or 4x Wizard? I'm sure some would, but most would want diversification of specializations (or, we want each person to be really good at certain things, and as a whole the party can do everything). Compare this to something like 4x Bard where the Bard can do everything decently. My point is that if I have a friend who can cast spells, I would not tell him, "Don't learn that spell -- it's only for Warlocks." Instead, I would tell him, "Don't learn that spell -- it's not playing to your strengths." (unless they are trying to be as diverse as possible, but then if that were the case, they'd be an Eternal Seeker since you mentioned an epic level power).

Leolo
2009-12-28, 09:18 AM
the best thing to do: lie. sometimes make an 18 attack rool against the pc's a critical, make a monster make a saving throw, add another de8 damage, something like that.

Sometimes this will be the best way to provide your players a funny session. But frankly you do not have to lie to make the game more dangerous in general.

Sometimes i have to make it easier in fact. I will have a session with five lvl 1 characters next week. The adventure i have prepared includes a fire beetle trap, where the players could be surrounded and surprised by five fire beetles.

At worst this could be 15d6 for everyone, at least if the group will stay together. This is too much, although it is a level appropriate fight.

There is also another trap, a level 3 trap that may put someone down a cliff. I have checked it, it is nearly impossible for my characters to find out what the trap is doing before it is activated. At this moment only two dice rolls stand between the character and a free fall down to the ground. The attack roll of the trap (about 60% success, depending on the character it could be higher) and a saving throw to do not fall down the cliff.

And there are more dangerous encounters in this dungeon. So i will warn them to be cautious. Place hints when something awaits them, so they wont be surprised. But i will not say this every time, and more important they will not listen every time. ;-)

So it is very unlikely that no one dies when this campaign will be continued.

Pramxnim
2009-12-28, 09:45 AM
@tcrudisi: Are you by any chance talking about the Dragonborn Sorcerer who took Ninefold Master and then multiclassed Swordmage to get the Arcane Sword Epic Destiny so that at level 30, he or she could dole out 4 Dragon Breaths (now an at-will arcane attack power belonging to both Sorcerer and Swordmage) in a Blast 3 (or 4, or 5, or 6 depending on your feats) or Burst 2 within 10 squares (or 3, again depending on feats)? ^^ Yep yep, that one's quite bad, and it doesn't even touch Demigod (although the pure Sorc Demigod version is less likely to get you hit by the DM and provides a more challenging experience even at level 30 :p).

A fun tidbit about that particular build. Multiclassing Cleric gives you access to Breath of Life, which makes your DB party friendly and gives out your Str in Temp Hp every time you use it. Multiclassing Paladin nets you Draconic Challenge, which lets you Divine Sanction everyone you target. Either one of these grants you access to Radiant Breath which opens up epic Radiant feats (with Font of Radiance being a prime example, and Radiant Advantage can easily replace Frostcheese in terms of granting CA).

But I digress, and I think I'll stop there before I derail the thread any further with my ramblings. Good gaming, ladies and gentlemen!

Oooohaloophole
2009-12-28, 01:18 PM
Yes, please. Your commentary will not be missed.

As for 4e being easy, in my experience is easy if you don't play it a certain way. 4e's challenge is about the long term – do I have enough resources going into the next fight my DM will try to force me into that I can win? Any single fight in 4e will be completely trashed, no question. It's the adventuring day as a whole which challenges you. By the final fight if you're going into it without a lot of resources it will be much harder.

So with 4e by the book, you make fights hard to force your players to waste their stuff on them, so the subsequent fights will get harder and harder as they have to waste more of their non-replenishable stuff on it. You use as many fights as you feel will drain PCs of their dailies, surges, and items. Personally I'm not a huge fan of this because I don't really like running a bunch of fights in a row, and if the PCs find any nook or cranny to hide in and rest, they will, and the plan is hosed. And if you attack them while they rest or something to continue the meatgrinder against their will, they'll probably not be very compliant after that.

When I want to run less fights (nearly all the time) and still have them be anywhere near approaching fun, I use higher level critters but with lower defenses. This way, PC's aren't disadvantaged in hitting back (so they don't FEEL like they're outclassed and helpless), but they're being hit for higher damage nearly all the time, and they have to pull out more resources to deal higher damage. This is all anecdotal, of course.

Is it opposite day or something? Act like a spammer, "Welcome our brother" Act civil "God we hate you!".

Anyway there are things in 3e i dont like as well. Like the overboard on the alignment pick(Although for some classes it is suitable).

The problem with 4e is not the LACK of difficulty but the fact that the stakes are even and its very hard for an opponent to come back from loosing side like they could in 3e. Although I do worry that this pit fiend will use a powerfull attack agianst me, I do not worry that it will create a new pit fiend from 20 devil blobs or teleport and bring rienforcments.

UserClone
2009-12-28, 01:40 PM
Are you from Bizzaro World or something? In that case, please stay. I am super interested in hearing why you think that a new edition of a game will kill the game forever. Also I like to be set on fire. It tickles.

randomhero00
2009-12-28, 01:40 PM
I've only played 4e at low levels but we died a lot. It was too difficult if anything. I'm thinking its your DMs...

Doug Lampert
2009-12-28, 03:56 PM
What happens when strange otherworldly monsters appear then?
Ones that can't be hurt without magic?

Like an all-enemies-are-flying-controllers encounter. Or incorporeal?
(I've never actually seen incorporeal in action, so I can't tell how devastating that would be)

Some things can't be bypassed without magic items. Or special abilities which the party may not have.

What 4th ed monsters can't be hurt without magic? Name one?

All flying? They SHOOT IT. Longbow is one of the longest ranged weapons in existence.

All incorporial? It's half damage for melee and magic alike, no difference at all, so why does that need magic to deal with?

If you don't actually know the rules, don't try to argue them.

DougL

jseah
2009-12-28, 04:18 PM
Right, so incorporeal isn't a problem then.

Flying can be shot, yes. But lots of powers don't work with ranged weapons. (magic and rangers have no problem) Fighter powers don't work with them, I don't Cleric ones do either.

Kurald Galain
2009-12-28, 04:26 PM
Right, so incorporeal isn't a problem then.

Flying can be shot, yes. But lots of powers don't work with ranged weapons. (magic and rangers have no problem) Fighter powers don't work with them, I don't Cleric ones do either.
Sorry jseah, but Doug is right. Monsters that are immune to certain tactics or abilities essentially no longer exist in 4E. This is intentional, because being unable to do anything isn't fun. So skeletons can be sneak attacked, oozes can be mind controlled, and so forth.

Flying creatures can be brought down by any effect that throws them prone (and fighters carry thrown weapons, and clerics have several ranged powers). Also, the rules are nebulous on whether the game has a third dimension to begin with (and if it doesn't, all flying does is gets you over pits and chasms). Yes, a mean DM can cause a TPK through kiting tactics; but a mean DM can also cause a TPK through RFED anyway. The proper response is not to do that.

jseah
2009-12-28, 04:35 PM
Sorry jseah, but Doug is right. Monsters that are immune to certain tactics or abilities essentially no longer exist in 4E. This is intentional, because being unable to do anything isn't fun. So skeletons can be sneak attacked, oozes can be mind controlled, and so forth.

Flying creatures can be brought down by any effect that throws them prone (and fighters carry thrown weapons, and clerics have several ranged powers). Also, the rules are nebulous on whether the game has a third dimension to begin with (and if it doesn't, all flying does is gets you over pits and chasms). Yes, a mean DM can cause a TPK through kiting tactics; but a mean DM can also cause a TPK through RFED anyway. The proper response is not to do that.
Hover at +25 squares and shoot? I haven't seen a controller power working past 20 squares.

That said, yes, I suppose a lot of the problems have been removed.

Kurald Galain
2009-12-28, 04:41 PM
Hover at +25 squares and shoot? I haven't seen a controller power working past 20 squares.
Kiting is devastatingly effective in 4E, not in the first place because penalties from cover and so forth are so minor. However, since it's not a tactical wargame, the point is that you're not supposed to do that.

Bottom line? Yes, the DM can kill the PCs whenever he wants. That's true regardless of the system used.

jseah
2009-12-28, 05:14 PM
Actually, why would the game *not* have a third dimension? Not having 3D is just... weird.

That said, if kiting is that deadly, then I expect flying creatures have some kind of major advantage in warfare. Imagine a harpy army or some similar thing. XD
*******************

With another way to look at it, what if all enemies in 4E were built using the character creation rules? (say it's an urban campaign or somewhere that there aren't monsters)

Would it still have the same kind of problems?
- From my experience in one game, the party could quite easily kill each other in three blows or so, so it would have the lethality and variety of enemy powers to make the game difficult enough.

Kurald Galain
2009-12-28, 05:30 PM
Actually, why would the game *not* have a third dimension? Not having 3D is just... weird.
Why not? Because you generally play the game on a 2D grid, and height is not usually relevant. But yeah, of course the world has a third dimension, and many people assume that the 2D rules work the same way in 3D. The problem is that if you examine the rules, most of them clearly haven't been written with 3D in mind, so support for that varies between being good in some spots, ambiguous in others, and nonexistent in yet other places.

As a simple example, consider the first-level spell, flaming sphere. It conjures a blazing orb that you can move around. Does this orb fly or not? The rules are silent on the topic. Custserv has so far explicitly refused to give a solid answer on this, instead stating that it depends on your DM.



That said, if kiting is that deadly, then I expect flying creatures have some kind of major advantage in warfare.
4E is not a warfare simulator.



With another way to look at it, what if all enemies in 4E were built using the character creation rules?
That question is hard to answer, because a major design point for 4E is that enemies are not built on the same rules as PCs. Generally enemies don't need to, because they only exist for three or four rounds before getting killed.


- From my experience in one game, the party could quite easily kill each other in three blows or so,
PCs do way more damage than monsters, and monsters compensate for this by having way more hit points than PCs.

Leolo
2009-12-28, 05:32 PM
Flying monsters have some kind of advantage - but you are able to fly too. And most time they have to come near you anyway.

So it is not that big deal. And of course the game is 3 dimensional.

There are rules for flying and falling for example.

Artanis
2009-12-28, 05:33 PM
With another way to look at it, what if all enemies in 4E were built using the character creation rules? (say it's an urban campaign or somewhere that there aren't monsters)

Enemies aren't built using PC rules in 4e. Period. There's rules for non-"monster" enemies and NPCs that are separate from PC rules.



Edit: Man, just when I think I reply with something resembling speed... :smalltongue:

jseah
2009-12-28, 05:44 PM
Well, I was just considering the things that would need to be done in a 4E setting to not make it so easy. And given the lack of player flight, I thought making a flying race be the antagonist role could do that.
- Which got me thinking to how such a world might develop, where an innately flying race developed next to a human or elf civilization.

The other idea I had was to make NPCs following the PC creation as damage goes up and hp comes down. (EDIT: This fits with the style of game I usually run. High lethality and risky combat. ) Plus, NPCs with action points and encounter/daily powers could be used to give variety to NPC attacks.
- I know it can be done since defenses and attacks work the same both ways.

**********************
Going off topic... never mind, I blame too much dwarf fortress. >.>

Leolo
2009-12-28, 05:59 PM
NPC can use player powers. (And they could do a high amount of damage anyway)

So you would only reduce their hitpoints.

And as have been said above, flying is not that uncommon for players.

tcrudisi
2009-12-28, 06:23 PM
The earliest (that I know of) that flight can be attained per the DMG loot rules is level 4. The ealiest (once again, that I know of) that a player can attain flight via character creation is level 7. This is for all characters and not just a specific character or two. It's a level 8 item from AV called an Ornithopter.

(The Ornithopter isn't actually a level 8 magic item, but it's price is equal to that of a level 8 item, so I'm valuing it as such.)

jseah
2009-12-28, 06:45 PM
Ornithopters have a reflex defense! o.O
I wonder, can those things be SA'ed. Or knocked prone? XD

Doug Lampert
2009-12-28, 07:07 PM
Sorry jseah, but Doug is right. Monsters that are immune to certain tactics or abilities essentially no longer exist in 4E. This is intentional, because being unable to do anything isn't fun. So skeletons can be sneak attacked, oozes can be mind controlled, and so forth.

Flying creatures can be brought down by any effect that throws them prone (and fighters carry thrown weapons, and clerics have several ranged powers). Also, the rules are nebulous on whether the game has a third dimension to begin with (and if it doesn't, all flying does is gets you over pits and chasms). Yes, a mean DM can cause a TPK through kiting tactics; but a mean DM can also cause a TPK through RFED anyway. The proper response is not to do that.
Many creatures are immune to some types of damage, it's just that none of them are imune to untyped damage, the sort done by non-magical weapons, the only thing that helps against that is resist (all) [which, duh, works against the casters too]. Which means that the CASTERS are the most likely to have trouble with immunities.

Re: flying.

I think my party carries more longbows than there are characters. Seriously, those with magical bows typically stick the old ones in the bag of holding and keep going. They fight plenty of outdoor battles and KNOW I won't have a foe close if he can keep the range open and win that way or if he can fly and has longer range. I've had foes try it, repeatedly.

But anyone can make a basic attack with a weapon (even if not proficient), and the guys on the ground are far more likely to have cover or concealment (note that the +2 for ordinary cover makes up for not having +2 for proficiency). Sure they can't use their powers and some of them are using non-magic weapons. But we're talking here about heroic tier or very low paragon since we're assuming no PC flight. So basic attacks with non-magic weapons simply aren't all THAT much worse than powers, yeah, they're worse, but far from useless.

+1 vs. AC for 1d10+1 damage or +8 vs. Reflex for 2d4 + 6 damage, yeah, I'd rather have the second, but the difference isn't a killer unless the fight was pretty close in the first place, and my defenses are about +4 effective from cover and your range penalty to force the first and your powers are equally nerfed.

The fighter's big power is to force the enemy to stay away from the squishies. Congradulations. If they're kiting then the reason the fighter can't do that job is that the enemy has pre-done it for him.

Many of the wizard's big powers are to stop the enemy from surrounding someone and smashing them. Congradulations. If they're kiting then the reason the wizard can't do that job is that the enemy has pre-done it for him.

So I really can't see that flying at 150' away and sniping is going to win for anyone who can't most likely win from closer up. Even the cleric hits on a natural 20 with the longbow and her healing powers still work fine. The big edge from the baddies POV is that they can flee easily.

Somebloke
2009-12-29, 05:54 PM
As a DM for a low-ranged combat party, I would specifically introduce a flying opponent as an opportunity for the players to use out-of-the-box tactics (which turned out in one black dragon solo encounter to be many and amusing, both when they succeeded and when they failed- any way you try it, attempting to tackle a dragon with a flying leap is going to be fun, at least for the DM).

A monster sniping at them from high up sounds like an excellent setup for a skill challenge- maybe they need to make their way, via stealth and interesting use of cover, through the ruins of a city while the adult red dragon, breath weapon at the ready, circles above? hmmm....


Bwahahahahahaha......that's the next gaming session covered....

oxybe
2009-12-29, 06:24 PM
i dunno much 'bout 'thopters, but i'm guessing making one prone would involve flipping one in mid-air (thus crashing to the ground as per prone flying) and a few solid blows at key joints/gears would qualify as a SA.

slowing one would probably involve mucking up those joints/gears.