How to make challenging fights

[Jesse Booth]

New DM here. I've been running a game for a few weeks now, and I'm having a little trouble making encounters that properly challenge my PCs. There's five of them: a swordmage, a blackguard, a ranger, a bard, and a fighter. Two of them are pretty optimized, and one of them has somehow figured out how to be a striker, a tank, and a controller all at once (long story short, Minotaur with molotovs). What can I do to make encounters that aren't going to dissapoint or get a tpk?

Edit: they're all around level six or seven. Forgot to mention that.

[Gilphon]

The simplest answer is to just increase the encounter level. See what happens if you try a level 10 encounter, and then if it's still too easy, try a level 11 encounter.

[Mandrake]

I always prefer when (some of) the encounters have a purpose beyond killing or being killed. If your players defeat encounters easily, use terrain or characteristics of the situation to both challenge them more greatly and add a sense of importance and urgency to the encounter.

For example, they might be fighting creatures that are amphibious in a room that is filling with water. Of course, if the water level becomes too high, the enemy will have a tremendous advantage. There are ways (mundane and magical) to reduce the water flow. Your characters might be forced to spend their actions to pull levers or use arcana/spellcraft checks to prevent the water from rising, which makes their damage output limited and their defenses reduced.

There are other similar ways to effectively incapacitate certain characters from actively participating in combat, while still enabling them to take actions and not feel blocked by DM (for example, the rogue and the fighter are using checks to try and disable a soon to be sprung trap, while the others keep enemies at bay for them to be able to work).

I could add different advice, but I think this is enough from me; others will certainly have good ideas as well. Hope it helps, though. Good luck and have fun. :smallsmile:

[Yakk]

There are two parts to every encounter. Threat, and Soak.

Soak is basically the damage the players have to deal in order to defeat the encounter. Often as the encounter Soaks the player's attacks, Threat goes down.

Threat is the part of the encounter that tries to defeat the players.

In the end, if Threat overcomes the players before Soak, they lose.

A fun 4e encounter has enough Threat that it risks dropping 1 or more players prior to the players defeating enough Soak that they win the fight.

The structure of a typical 4e fight is a pyramid. At the start, the monster's threat is maximized (as all are alive). They Soak damage and monsters drop. This reduces their Threat. So the damage flux at the start should be enough to make the players worried that they will lose a character to it; then, the dropping monsters reduce the Threat, and they emerge victorious.

Encounter, recharge, bloodied, death, and recharge-when-bloodied powers all help to move some of the Threat to the last half of the fight.

You can tweak with the threat:soak balance of a fight with a few transformations. One approach is to halve monster HP, and leave damage alone, and drop monster XP by a level (or 33%, or increase encounter XP budget by 50%). This reduces soak while boosting threat.

Also, many elite/solos gain more soak than they do threat. Modern elites/solos also have large amounts of extra back-ended threat (with when-bloodied abilities), which can flatten the encounter threat curve.

Generally, avoid throwing over-leveled foes against the party. Adding more monsters is a better idea than leveling them up, because leveling them up over-rewards accuracy optimization. (Accuracy optimization is already really strong: if you always fight Level+4 to Level+6 foes, it becomes ridiculously dominant over every other choice that non-accuracy optimized characters become nearly useless.)

[MoutonRustique]

To add a tiny bit : as Yakk has said, the power of PCs sort of goes in a "V" pattern (starts at top, drops a bit and bounces back) while monsters typically go as " \ " (starts at top and then slopes down).

Which can produce the feeling of anti-climax.

The goal then becomes to change that " \ " into an inverted " J " - give the foes a little "we're back!" moment towards the end.

This isn't always easy to figure out... (sadly)

One possibility is to use "waves" (ideally, the last wave is high-output, low-resilience) :
1 - with undead, it's easy to have the death of an "important" one trigger the return or appearance of old/new foes (often high damage minions are a good idea here)
2 - with elites or solos, have the bloodied status really change the nature or power of the foe
3 - extra foes that were a bit to far to actively participate finally make it to the show
4 - with demons, same kind of deal : explodes into minions that use the corpse as a portal, body parts that -just- -wont- -DIE!-
5 - something else ...

Also (as has been said), different encounter objectives can go a long way.

Things to AVOID :
- increasing defenses
- increasing hp

[Laserlight]

Generally, avoid throwing over-leveled foes against the party. Adding more monsters is a better idea than leveling them up, because leveling them up over-rewards accuracy optimization. (Accuracy optimization is already really strong: if you always fight Level+4 to Level+6 foes, it becomes ridiculously dominant over every other choice that non-accuracy optimized characters become nearly useless.)

Quoted for truth. I've been in a couple of campaigns where the DM felt that he wasn't challenging us enough, so we were continually facing L+4 to +6. And if you reward "optimized accuracy"--if, in fact, "optimized accuracy" becomes the main thing keeping the party alive--then guess what the players are going to get more of? (Hint: if you guessed "interesting feats that broaden their capabilities and provide roleplaying hooks"....no).

Another point is that "we failed this encounter" doesn't necessarily mean "and so we all die". Consider "You have to defeat the enemy in X rounds or Bad Things happen"--the hobgoblins get the gate closed, for example, or the scout gets off a warning.
Or "you don't have to defeat them, you just need to get to Point X".
Or they have to do an escort quest and get a squishy NPC to safety.
Or a striker has to do a skill challenge while the leader fights.

[Tegu8788]

To add to this. Make the encounter a higher level challenge, but don't use over leveled monsters too throughly. Look at the XP budget. I used to regularly move two or three steps up on that chart. Add more low, equal, or slightly above monsters in greater numbers.


And all that other advice too. That's really good.

[NomGarret]

i agree that more monsters makes for a better threat if you're adding pieces than tougher monsters. A little focused fire and some lucky rolls and the bard is going to have to burn a majestic word on a dropped ally.

Also make sure to spend some time on your maps. Even if it's not underwater, the layout of the area can play to different strengths and weaknesses. Are there good charging lanes? How about cover vs ranged attacks? Sometimes it's judicious use of difficult terrain.

Don't forget fantastic terrain and traps, either. Due to the likelihood of actually triggering them, I tend to count traps at half their xp value, but a battlefield full of tripwire is trickier than one without.

[Jesse Booth]

Thanks for the suggestions, everyone. These are all useful tips, and I'll be sure to keep this thread in mind when I'm making encounters.

[Leewei]

Yakk, that was very well-put and insightful.

This also hints that there are ways of changing up fights to make them interesting and fun by turning that threat and soak upside down. Some monsters, such as the Black Pudding, do exactly this. Beat it to bloodied and you get a "bonus" enemy.

[barnmaddo]

+1
Generally, avoid throwing over-leveled foes against the party. Adding more monsters is a better idea than leveling them up, because leveling them up over-rewards accuracy optimization. (Accuracy optimization is already really strong: if you always fight Level+4 to Level+6 foes, it becomes ridiculously dominant over every other choice that non-accuracy optimized characters become nearly useless.)

Fighting over leveled monsters just penalizes the non-min/max players in your group, makes some of the mechanics more effective than others, forces the players to cheese fights more and for the DM to play dumb more to avoid TPK's.

Not sure if you're doing this but a couple of things my DM's often do that combine to make combat a lot easier:
1) They focus the tank too much. A mark only lowers your hit by -2, depending how min/max everyone's armor is, hitting the wizard will still be easier, the tank can only interrupt once a round and that doesn't always prevent the attack.
2) They let us rest to much. Encounters are a lot easier if you only need to go through two or three before getting your dailies back or if the party is always fresh right before the boss fight. Or letting a party rest several times in a row to re-use encounter healing spells.
3) Sometimes they forget to take advantage of the monsters special abilities or traits.
4) They usually ignore stuff like vision and cover.
5) Spreading out the attacks to avoid killing anyone.

Also might want to double check your players aren't making some mistake like stacking same type bonus's to make themselves really hard to hit.

[Jesse Booth]

+1

Fighting over leveled monsters just penalizes the non-min/max players in your group, makes some of the mechanics more effective than others, forces the players to cheese fights more and for the DM to play dumb more to avoid TPK's.

Not sure if you're doing this but a couple of things my DM's often do that combine to make combat a lot easier:
1) They focus the tank too much. A mark only lowers your hit by -2, depending how min/max everyone's armor is, hitting the wizard will still be easier, the tank can only interrupt once a round and that doesn't always prevent the attack.
2) They let us rest to much. Encounters are a lot easier if you only need to go through two or three before getting your dailies back or if the party is always fresh right before the boss fight. Or letting a party rest several times in a row to re-use encounter healing spells.
3) Sometimes they forget to take advantage of the monsters special abilities or traits.
4) They usually ignore stuff like vision and cover.
5) Spreading out the attacks to avoid killing anyone.

Also might want to double check your players aren't making some mistake like stacking same type bonus's to make themselves really hard to hit.

I've had a problem with forgetting a monster's special abilities a few times, but I've started spending half an hour before games looking over any stat blocks of monsters ahead of time.

[ScrivenerofDoom]

There is a lot of great advice already but I would add that I found the easiest way to get more bang for your buck (aka XP budget) is to use minion artillery with good terrain. My players are actually more scared of minion artillery than solo monsters.

I also rarely use solos in my encounters; my favourite combination involves standards and minions but I also custom build all of my monsters so most of my minions also have a chance of avoiding dying on the first hit. Interesting terrain is vital and all you really need are a few high spots that are difficult to access (but which an eladrin can easily bamf to) and a few places where a PC or creature can fall and your encounter has the potential to rock. Of course, a little of imagination will make your terrain much better but those two things should be considered the bare minimum.

And if you have access to a decent monster builder - online Adventure Tools, Masterplan - consider building your own monsters. I have found that the monsters I build myself are more focussed (fewer powers) than those produced officially (that's not a criticism as mine are purely for my use) and that makes running them easier and I am much less likely to forget something in play. Also, the process of building them and thinking about what you are doing and why tends to result in monsters that you're much more comfortable using in play.

[Yakk]

"Interesting terrain" in the above post reads to me as "hostile terrain": terrain that puts the other side at an advantage.

Sure, that makes things harder. You can, with terrain, make an encounter infinitely hard, without touching the XP budget value at all (as terrain does not count for XP!)

"Interesting terrain" for me is terrain that goes *both ways*; it contains elements that both help the PCs and their foes.

[Leewei]

"Interesting terrain" in the above post reads to me as "hostile terrain": terrain that puts the other side at an advantage.

Sure, that makes things harder. You can, with terrain, make an encounter infinitely hard, without touching the XP budget value at all (as terrain does not count for XP!)

"Interesting terrain" for me is terrain that goes *both ways*; it contains elements that both help the PCs and their foes.

Tiles with special effects can really make an encounter fun. I'm toying with the idea of an encounter in Mechanus that is played out on Robo Rally boards.

[UrielAwakened]

Just increasing encounter level does 1 of 2 things:

1) More monsters, meaning an amount of hp to slog through that is not consistent with design goals of a battle.

2) Higher-level monsters, meaning more misses, meaning a longer battle where less happens.

Instead of upping level, up the damage. MM3 damage is just too low vs. a party that has any idea what it's doing.

http://dmg42.blogspot.com/2012/02/boot-on-face-of-level-1-damage-forever.html

[georgie_leech]

Just increasing encounter level does 1 of 2 things:

1) More monsters, meaning an amount of hp to slog through that is not consistent with design goals of a battle.

2) Higher-level monsters, meaning more misses, meaning a longer battle where less happens.

Instead of upping level, up the damage. MM3 damage is just too low vs. a party that has any idea what it's doing.

http://dmg42.blogspot.com/2012/02/boot-on-face-of-level-1-damage-forever.html

Worth noting that as you level you face more, better conditions, have to deal with more types of movement, and strong Resistances and even outright Immunities become more common. Bumping up the damage flatly ignores that.

[Yakk]

4e optimization usually revolves around increasing player damage output.

So a more optimized party will plow through HP faster.

If you add 50% more monsters, there is 50% more HP to plow through.

Suppose before it took 4 rounds to kill the monsters, each round killing about 25% of them. You take 4+3+2+1 = 10 monster-rounds of damage.

Now you change it to 6 monsters. Now you take 6+5+4+3+2+1 = 20 monster-rounds of damage.

Combat length increased by 50%, but total damage taken increased by 100%.

Now look at 8 monsters. Your party now takes 8+7+...+2+1 monster-rounds of damage, or 36 monster-rounds.

Let's double player damage output, and have them win initiative. 4 monsters deal 2 monster-rounds of damage and last 2 player-rounds.

6 monsters deal 6 monster-rounds of damage and last 3 player-rounds.

8 monsters deal 12 monster-rounds of damage and last 4 player-rounds.

The threat per-round goes up and the total threat goes up *faster* than the combat length goes up.

---

Now, this doesn't work if the players optimize defence instead of offence. In that case, yes, boosting only monster damage output (or nerfing defence while keeping offence the same) is needed to keep the game playable.

---

You need to balance threat and soak of your encounters. Soak for enough length for cool things to happen, threat to maintain at least the illusion of a challenge.

[UrielAwakened]

Worth noting that as you level you face more, better conditions, have to deal with more types of movement, and strong Resistances and even outright Immunities become more common. Bumping up the damage flatly ignores that.

Yeah but PCs also get ways to mitigate all of that PLUS having more hp.


...

The threat per-round goes up and the total threat goes up *faster* than the combat length goes up.

---

Now, this doesn't work if the players optimize defence instead of offence. In that case, yes, boosting only monster damage output (or nerfing defence while keeping offence the same) is needed to keep the game playable.

---

You need to balance threat and soak of your encounters. Soak for enough length for cool things to happen, threat to maintain at least the illusion of a challenge.


The point is that by that approach, combat length DOES still go up. Maybe not as fast as the arbitrary expression of "threat" but it is going up regardless.

The goal is no combat length extension, not some. 4e encounters are already more than long enough for cool things to happen.

[georgie_leech]

Yeah but PCs also get ways to mitigate all of that PLUS having more hp.




The point is that by that approach, combat length DOES still go up. Maybe not as fast as the arbitrary expression of "threat" but it is going up regardless.

The goal is no combat length extension, not some. 4e encounters are already more than long enough for cool things to happen.

Considering the number of times I've had players come close to death at high levels, and that I didn't notice any particular lengthening of combat (post MM3), I have to disagree with the fix offered being necessary. If you're experiencing problems with combat duration, consider finding ways to get through turns faster, or encourage your players to put more focus into offensive abilities to end combats quicker.

[Yakk]

An encounter's worth of MM3 monsters will drop a character if everything hits them and does average damage.

Hit rates should be roughly 50% if the monsters arrange for advantage. That is only a ~1/32 chance to drop the player, and a 50% chance to bloody them. Being bloodied round 1 should at least feel like threat.

On rounds after that, the monster count goes down, but ususlly there are some leftover wounds.

Try to focus fire, attack the most vulnerable, and bypass the beefy high defence defender.

It is only when the players over-defend -- they all have out of band defences, a defender you can never bypass, perfect mass healing -- that there is no threat from team monster.

If you up the encounter to L+4, the expected focus fire damage is to drop a PC, and the slightly unlikely is to kill them.

This can be done without more monsters by doubling the monster damage expressions.

So I guess if your monsters are never tactically capable of attacking anything except a huge HP high defence defender, or if you consider bloodied to be insufficient threat, a damage increase without monster count increase is justífied.

[Terdarius]

While I agree with pretty much everything that has been said, I would like to add that making an encounter dynamic is a great way to increase difficulty and also increase the fun of an encounter.

I often build encounters in several phases where the tactics of team evil change to represent the "oh **** this isn't going well for us" mentality of team evil.

I also find that it is perfectly alright to put certain players at a disadvantage during 1 of the phases.
Think about what your players strenghts and weaknesses are and build around that. (if it makes sense in the encouter)
Every phase in an encounter should create a new situation that forces the players to take a different approach. This increases the dynamic of a combat and also presents the challenge of figuring out a new tactic that works for the players.

I often get inspiration from boss fights or mechanics from MMO games like WoW and such. It's worked very well for me so far.

Also a good read is the angry DM blog about boss encounters. i would link but i'm not allowed :(