PDA

View Full Version : 4e: Player Death and a sense of Danger



Myatar_Panwar
2008-08-11, 06:02 PM
In my campain, I have a sense that my players are getting bored. And I think it has to do with the difficulty of my encounters (standard for their level, yet they are still overcoming them with ease). I have givin it some thought, and came to the realization that non-one has yet died, let alone even come into serious danger (level 5 people).

In 3e, death was common, and usually swift and without warning. In 4e, when I learned that it was much more difficult to die, I thought it a good thing, but now it appears that there isn't even the slightest hint of fatal danger, something which keeps the PC's going in my opinion. No more insta-kill traps abilities until the high levels when you can revive people with a potion, and with so many hit points and a leader nearby you are usually never in any real danger. Especially since the threat of little hit-points after an encounter is also no longer an issue (healing surges). Also the removal of ability drain, yet another way the new edition is protecting the players.

And kind of as a side note: the complete removal of non-combat traps. I dont think there is one trap which can be used effectivly out of combat, because of healing surges.

I just want to hear your guys' opinion on that sense of danger in 4e. What you do to make danger, if you think danger is not important, whatever. This is NOT a 4e bashing thread. I do like the system, but this is just one problem I've been having with it.

A quick example of the importance of that sense of danger:
I was sporting combat on a flying castle. During the fighting, every one seemed kind of bored. No one was in trouble, the healer was close, and the enemies were dying. But then, when the rogue fails an athletics check and goes tumbling down (luckily there was another flying device close to catch him), everyone found themselves on the edge of their seats as we picked up the dice to decide if he lived or died.

Duos Greanleef
2008-08-11, 06:05 PM
Homebrew a trap that takes away healing surges!
That'll get em going!

Covered In Bees
2008-08-11, 06:05 PM
I guess you haven't heard about all the parties that TPKed at Irontooth in Keep on the Shadowfell.

4E can and will kill you--it just won't kill you because of a single failed roll, like 3.5's save-or-dies, just like 3.5 did away with System Shock checks.

Pushing someone off a cliff is still going to be scary.

Myatar_Panwar
2008-08-11, 06:13 PM
I guess you haven't heard about all the parties that TPKed at Irontooth in Keep on the Shadowfell.

4E can and will kill you--it just won't kill you because of a single failed roll, like 3.5's save-or-dies, just like 3.5 did away with System Shock checks.

Pushing someone off a cliff is still going to be scary.

Oh yeah, I did hear about all of those. I just assumed a non-level apporpriate encounter. Which leads to another question: How much, is TOO much? Meaning, its easy to find out an exact level appropriate encounter using XP, but to make it more difficult without TPK? I was thinking maybe a 20-40% increase in the XP pool you give for monsters, but wonder if anyone has figured out an exact amount.

As a side note, I have another question: Do player debuffs stack or no? I only ask because I recently had a dragon encounter which was a total flop when my players decided to totally debuff him using -2 to attack powers. I think in the end he had a -6 to attack the tank, a -8 to everyone else. :smallmad:

The New Bruceski
2008-08-11, 06:13 PM
We had a fight yesterday against a solo that, while short, nearly killed two of us. It was certainly tense. Other moments that day have been tense too, and now we're running low on healing (though as the Warlord I'm hanging onto one trick that should help) and we still need to finish raiding the hobgoblin fort for supplies before our distraction stops working.

(Orc Berserker with an elite template and a fighter template. Only 15 AC at level 3 so we could hit easily enough, but the guy was a glass bazooka.)

fractic
2008-08-11, 06:17 PM
As a side note, I have another question: Do player debuffs stack or no? I only ask because I recently had a dragon encounter which was a total flop when my players decided to totally debuff him using -2 to attack powers. I think in the end he had a -6 to attack the tank, a -8 to everyone else. :smallmad:

According to page 275 of the PHB penalties never have types and allways stack unless they are from the same power.

MammonAzrael
2008-08-11, 06:22 PM
I've had to fudge quite a lot to keep my players alive in several encounters. The most notable was the young white dragon at the end of the DMG module, and Irontooth from KotS.

I had to "forget" about the dragon's breath recharging on a 5 or 6 and two players still died. And Irontooth took out all but one player before going down. That was with me not taking advantage of his double attack option, or the regeneration he gains when bloodied. And even then two players were permanently dead.

So I think 4th can be plenty deadly enough. (Of course, my players aren't exactly optimized, so that's probably part of it.)

Oracle_Hunter
2008-08-11, 06:22 PM
Oh yeah, I did hear about all of those. I just assumed a non-level apporpriate encounter. Which leads to another question: How much, is TOO much? Meaning, its easy to find out an exact level appropriate encounter using XP, but to make it more difficult without TPK? I was thinking maybe a 20-40% increase in the XP pool you give for monsters, but wonder if anyone has figured out an exact amount.

In my experience thus far, +2 EL above party level is a hard fight - any more is going to risk a TPK. Keep in mind this assumes you follow the other guidelines in the DMG (no monsters X above or below party level, etc.).

Have you just been sending party-level encounters at your PCs? If so, that's why everything is so easy! Send a few equal-level encounters first and then throw in a +1 or +2 EL when the party gets low in Dailies and Healing Surges. Not only will your PCs be more conservative with resources (and thus, more anxious!) with those easy patrols, but it makes the later encounters far more potent.

EDIT: And Solos! If you send a fresh party against a Solo, they're just going to dump their Dailies and waste the sucker. Never let your PCs face a Solo Encounter at 100% - use patrols, traps, or what have you to drain a few healing surges and dailies out of the party first.

Myatar_Panwar
2008-08-11, 06:25 PM
Ok maybe I'm just doing something wrong. Or my players are doing many things right. I'll try beefing up my encounters a bit more, see what happens.

Edit: And yes Oracle, I think thats why my dragon encounter was such a flop. My PC's were at 100% during the fight, allowing for those who had attack debuff powers to use them persistantly. I think I'm still carrying the mindset that 3.5 gave me on encounters. Time to change.

Covered In Bees
2008-08-11, 06:25 PM
Oh yeah, I did hear about all of those. I just assumed a non-level apporpriate encounter.
Well--yeah. It was. Are you sentimentally attached to the idea of killing players accidentally? 4E's encounter design mechanic is pretty solid (few exceptions, like the Needlefang Drake Swarm); that's a feature. If you want an encounter to be difficult, go ahead and make it difficult. Up the risk on as many or as few as you want.


Which leads to another question: How much, is TOO much? Meaning, its easy to find out an exact level appropriate encounter using XP, but to make it more difficult without TPK? I was thinking maybe a 20-40% increase in the XP pool you give for monsters, but wonder if anyone has figured out an exact amount.
This will vary by player skill and build. Encounter level = party level +2 is generally very hard.


As a side note, I have another question: Do player debuffs stack or no? I only ask because I recently had a dragon encounter which was a total flop when my players decided to totally debuff him using -2 to attack powers. I think in the end he had a -6 to attack the tank, a -8 to everyone else. :smallmad:
Depends on the debuff. What were they using? Only one Mark applies at a time.

Prophaniti
2008-08-11, 06:28 PM
Well, in the one game I played, we were not devoid of danger. There were a couple of close calls, but no deaths. Not as dangerous as some of our 3.5 games, and nowhere near as dangerous as our WFRP or Dark Heresy games (that system is downright brutal with combat), but it was there. Sorry I can't be of much more help, the DM for that game made most encounters from scratch using the guides in the DMG and MM, but I don't know if he changed anything.

I totally understand what you're saying though. My group has the same problem. If we're walking through everything, combat gets boring pretty quickly. Funny thing is, often in our games, encounters the DM intended to be easy to moderate end up being brutal, while encounters intended to take us to the brink of death end up being easy. Happens in every system we've used, including 4e. Just goes to show you can't rely too heavily on those 'suggested encounter level' type guides.

wodan46
2008-08-11, 06:28 PM
Make sure that the you have encounter levels that are 1-3 higher than that of the players. Encounters at the same level are good for whittling down healing surges and furthering the plot, and then once you are ready, BAM, out comes an encounter where the enemy has some real nasty to deal with.

Tadanori Oyama
2008-08-11, 06:32 PM
I'd say finding the right level is rough in 4E and it has ALOT to do with the players.

Second fight of H1 against a group of Kobolds my group lost two players, one directly killed by Dragonshield shortswords, another to death saving throws. A third was down but the Warlord managed to make a Heal Check (he'd used all his Inspiring Words), and stablize.

The party got ripped in the above instance because they used bad tactics and I used very good ones. Since then they've been amazingly conservative, I'm having trouble coexing them to actually go adventure. Much like 3E they run out, blow their dailies on the way to to "dungeon" and then go back and rest. Aggrivating.

A fresh party is more than capable of laying waste to an encounter leveled considerably over their heads once you get a few levels. When everybody in the group can throw out two dailies plus any encounter tricks, they can destroy alot of junk.

Conversly, if you hit them after they've shot all their big bullets, even a properly leveled fight can given them a rough time. Using at-wills against a big brute monster doesn't cut it alot of the time.

In most cases, I see one of two things: players dominate or monsters do.

I'm working on finding a middle ground.

Myatar_Panwar
2008-08-11, 06:33 PM
Depends on the debuff. What were they using? Only one Mark applies at a time.

I think it was a combination of a level 5 ranger daily, the paladin spamming enfeebling strike, and the paladins mark. So unless I'm forgetting something, the - to attack was only 4 for the tank, and 6 for anyone else. Which is still pretty big.

As for only 1 mark at a time, does that apply to different classes? Because their party consists of both a paladin and a fighter, and I was under the assumption that only marks under the same class dont stack, and thus had to pick the punishment for my monsters (AoO with -2, or radiant damage with -2....). It would be very good to know that marks of all kind do not stack. Also, a related question: How do monster marks work? Under several soldier classes, it will mention that the PC is marked upon being struck. Yet I cant find anywhere in the MM which talks about this. I have just assumed that it meant the fighters mark, but couldent find proof anywhere, thus just avoided it.

fractic
2008-08-11, 06:36 PM
Marked is a simply a status condition (see page 277) but new marks allways override old marks. Fighters and paladins add extra goodies on top of this simple marking.

wodan46
2008-08-11, 06:47 PM
I'd say finding the right level is rough in 4E and it has ALOT to do with the players.
Stuff


This is something I've been curious about, which is why some parties get pummeled so badly.

In order to test the system, I had a friend control the entire PC party, whereupon he happily slaughtered the same encounter you described in about 3 rounds. Out of the first 5 encounters or so I was able to knock a PC unconscious 3 times, once by a triple sling attack, and two to Irontooth using his Action Point while Bloodied. In both cases, they were healed back to functioning immediately by the Cleric, not even missing a beat.

shadow_archmagi
2008-08-11, 06:52 PM
Wait, was irontooth the orc in the kobold cave? Because our party killed him. There were 3 of us, fighter, paladin, wizard. We used the premade characters. I believe the wizard kept using the slow-you-down laser and everyone else ran away and shot him.

Like hunters in WoW. Not that I'm saying 4e is wow or anything, just that the same tactics applied well.

Jerthanis
2008-08-11, 06:52 PM
I'm playing the Fighter in a continuing game that jumped off Keep on the Shadowfell as the starting point, and I've kissed dirt more times than I can count on one hand. I haven't died yet, but that is entirely due to good rolls on death saves and having both a Warlord and a Cleric in the party.

However, in the first few sessions after the Module, our DM had a lot of trouble keeping the difficulty up, and we walked through several fights with no trouble at all, and the DM began bumping up levels on his monsters until at one point we fought and defeated a level 10 Elite Soldier, two level 8 brutes and four level 7 minions at level 4. (It was extremely difficult, and I went down twice, and about 4 healing potions were used up over the course of the battle)... Finally, we realized the problem: Monsters need to be played like PCs, and that means having every role filled. Put artillery in a place that's hard to get at, so the Defender can't lock them down, include Soldiers, particularly the kinds that can mark PCs, have Brutes gang up on Strikers, and have Controllers keep the Defender from protecting his allies, opening up the Lurkers to gank people and get a Leader to counter the abilities of the Controller.

Unfortunately, this usually means you can't easily play to type... Orcs and Gnolls have mostly soldiers or brutes, so an all orc or all Gnoll fight will be a little hard to balance well... so you either have to homebrew your own Gnoll Controllers, or "reskin" existing controllers to be gnolls instead.

Oracle_Hunter
2008-08-11, 06:53 PM
The party got ripped in the above instance because they used bad tactics and I used very good ones. Since then they've been amazingly conservative, I'm having trouble coexing them to actually go adventure. Much like 3E they run out, blow their dailies on the way to to "dungeon" and then go back and rest. Aggrivating.

The trick here is that you need to do a lot more planning of encounters as a whole (so, in relation to each other) to have the desired effect.

For instance, random encounters between town and the dungeon are not going to be productive, unless you have a sidequest planned.

Perhaps the PCs have to fight through a couple of scouting parties before getting ambushed by the BBEG's Lieutenant and a strike force. The PCs might turn back, or they might go hide in the woods and try to avoid the patrols next time.

When you're inside a dungeon, don't forget to throw wandering monsters if the PCs decide to camp in a dangerous area. It'll force them to think more carefully about where they want to camp, for one thing!

Finally: time is your friend. Maybe the PCs know they don't have time to camp for a week before actually reaching the BBEG - he may be getting more reserves, or maybe his Master Plan is close to being complete.

4e is not a game of hammers, it is a game of tiny cuts. Slowly bleed your PCs, and encourage your PCs to do the same to their foes. It only takes one virgin sacrificed because the PCs putzed around doing 1 encounter per day instead of rescuing her right off for them to get the message :smallamused:

Tadanori Oyama
2008-08-11, 07:01 PM
4e is not a game of hammers, it is a game of tiny cuts. Slowly bleed your PCs, and encourage your PCs to do the same to their foes. It only takes one virgin sacrificed because the PCs putzed around doing 1 encounter per day instead of rescuing her right off for them to get the message :smallamused:

That's what I'm trying to build at the moment. Problem is I have to find something they actually care about, which is little, and I don't like plain rail roading them into action. Maybe I should put the treasure in a big pile hanging over a bottomless pit with a candle slowly burning away the rope. They'd strint through a half dozen fights to get to the end then.

This is, specifically a player issue, not a game issue. The party "leader" and I have personaly views that conflict occationally and he doesn't seperate game and reality very well. He also doesn't care for rules. Anyway, point is I think the game handles encounters well and it's players that can throw that balance out the window.

wodan46
2008-08-11, 07:02 PM
Stuff

Exactly. Monster Encounter of all Brutes is about as effective as a PC Party consisting entirely of Fighters. While sure they might be able to take advantage of bringing an overwhelming melee beatdown, but they are still inferior to a group that uses combined arms.

shadow_archmagi
2008-08-11, 07:04 PM
Wait, you have a player that you don't get along with, dislikes rules, and can't seperate roleplaying/reality?

WHY IS HE PLAYING DUNGEONS AND DRAGONS!?

Its like saying you've been playing chess with someone who doesn't understand symbols, has poor long-term planning skills, and ADD

wodan46
2008-08-11, 07:07 PM
Unfortunately, this usually means you can't easily play to type... Orcs and Gnolls have mostly soldiers or brutes, so an all orc or all Gnoll fight will be a little hard to balance well... so you either have to homebrew your own Gnoll Controllers, or "reskin" existing controllers to be gnolls instead.

Take a look at the Level 7 Encounter for Gnolls:
1 Level 8 Brute(with subtype leader)
2 Level 6 Skirmishers
2 Level 5 Artillery
1 Level 7 Brute

You might have also overlooked that Gnolls all have the Pack Attack, which gives them a natural combined arms tendency.

Also, Orcs have the Eye of Gruumsh, a Controller, the Orc Chieftain, a Leader, and they all have the Warrior's Surge abilities.

Oracle_Hunter
2008-08-11, 07:08 PM
That's what I'm trying to build at the moment. Problem is I have to find something they actually care about, which is little, and I don't like plain rail roading them into action. Maybe I should put the treasure in a big pile hanging over a bottomless pit with a candle slowly burning away the rope. They'd strint through a half dozen fights to get to the end then.

This is, specifically a player issue, not a game issue. The party "leader" and I have personaly views that conflict occationally and he doesn't seperate game and reality very well. He also doesn't care for rules. Anyway, point is I think the game handles encounters well and it's players that can throw that balance out the window.

Huh. Um, if you don't mind me asking, why is he in your game? Or, I guess more broadly, why are you taking the trouble to DM such players?

wodan46
2008-08-11, 07:10 PM
Because a game based around social interaction that is played mainly by socially isolated nerds is a bizarre paradox eating at reality?

fractic
2008-08-11, 07:10 PM
Creating encounters to fit the group can also help. Does the party lack a controller? Minions are suddenly a lot more deadly. No Defender? What's stopping those brutes from just mauling everything? Lack of healing? Play hit and run with lurkers and artillery.

The encounter level isn't going up but the difficulty sure is.

Jerthanis
2008-08-11, 07:10 PM
Take a look at the Level 7 Encounter for Gnolls:
1 Level 8 Brute(with subtype leader)
2 Level 6 Skirmishers
2 Level 5 Artillery
1 Level 7 Brute

You might have also overlooked that Gnolls all have the Pack Attack, which gives them a natural combined arms tendency.

Also, Orcs have the Eye of Gruumsh, a Controller, the Orc Chieftain, a Leader, and they all have the Warrior's Surge abilities.

I admit to skimming! Still, making a dungeon full of one monster type and one monster type only isn't going to be easy.

Oracle_Hunter
2008-08-11, 07:15 PM
Because a game based around social interaction that is played mainly by socially isolated nerds is a bizarre paradox eating at reality?

Meh. More like the fact that RPGs, like most games, provide an opportunity for social interactions based around easily understandable rules. By restricting the scope of social interaction, those who are "less socially gifted" (e.g. nerds) can communicate and socialize without the fear of unclear social rules and untoward intimacy.

To do some Armchair Psychology, anyhow :smallwink:

But people who refuse to play a game by the rules? Why play games with them, or at least games they don't want to play?

EDIT:

I admit to skimming! Still, making a dungeon full of one monster type and one monster type only isn't going to be easy.

True, in a sense. Usually to fill the gaps, I include trained beasts (like dire wolves, beetles, and so forth) or something of the like. I'm impressed, actually, with WotC providing many different roles within a given monster race.

But yeah, you do have to keep those roles in mind... though a encounter made up of just skirmishers actually usually works out OK, if you have enough of them :smallbiggrin:

wodan46
2008-08-11, 07:18 PM
I admit to skimming! Still, making a dungeon full of one monster type and one monster type only isn't going to be easy.

1. Remember to raise or lower their level/stats to free up enemy choices.
2. Monster Flavor can be changed. How hard is it to make a Gnoll Eye of Yeenoghu?
3. Orcs might have pet monsters that they use as guards, or have it starved and behind a padlock. They might also have mercs working with them.

Remember, D&D is about getting creative, not just sticking to the rules and manuals by the letter.

wodan46
2008-08-11, 07:20 PM
Meh. More like the fact that RPGs, like most games, provide an opportunity for social interactions based around easily understandable rules. By restricting the scope of social interaction, those who are "less socially gifted" (e.g. nerds) can communicate and socialize without the fear of unclear social rules and untoward intimacy.


While true, it doesn't change the fact that those players have a limited grasp of social etiquette, even within such prepared settings.

Oracle_Hunter
2008-08-11, 07:24 PM
While true, it doesn't change the fact that those players have a limited grasp of social etiquette, even within such prepared settings.

YMMV, I suppose. My players are fond of finger sandwiches and often bring fine wines to our sessions. Why, one even owns a monocle, which he wears for the sole purpose of dropping it when something surprising happens.

They're a good group :smallbiggrin:

chiasaur11
2008-08-11, 07:39 PM
YMMV, I suppose. My players are fond of finger sandwiches and often bring fine wines to our sessions. Why, one even owns a monocle, which he wears for the sole purpose of dropping it when something surprising happens.

They're a good group :smallbiggrin:

Ah, monacles.
Is there any occassion they cn't add subtle refinement to?

Prophaniti
2008-08-11, 07:50 PM
I guess my group is an oddball one, then. More than half of us are married, and we have one very definite socialite (closer to the frat-boy demographic than the monacle-wearing one, but very outgoing nonetheless).

I need a monacle...

Alleine
2008-08-11, 08:00 PM
Myatar, I think you're just too used to Joe dying at least once per session. 4E is really not conducive to Joe's playing style. Although he could've been chucked out the window with those elves when I tipped the castle...

I'm thinking you may just need to control a bit more. Don't let us get so distracted. And I'm pretty sure we'll be very interested this next session as we try to explain why the squire dude is dead with stab wounds and not dragon claw marks.

Raum
2008-08-11, 08:33 PM
Regarding the concept of gamers being socially inept, are you sure that still holds true? Perhaps it did when RPGs were in their infancy but I'm not so sure it still applies. A sample of the group I generally game with shows one entrepreneur, one part time entertainer, one manager, and a consultant or two. All require some degree of social facility.

We aren't the nerds we were in the 80s.


And kind of as a side note: the complete removal of non-combat traps. I dont think there is one trap which can be used effectivly out of combat, because of healing surges. Don't use traps that only cause damage. Alarms are good for non-combat. Anti-mobility traps are good both in and out of combat. Having a leg stuck painfully in an immobile trap makes avoiding the ambush much harder.


I just want to hear your guys' opinion on that sense of danger in 4e. What you do to make danger, if you think danger is not important, whatever. This is NOT a 4e bashing thread. I do like the system, but this is just one problem I've been having with it.In general I agree. Danger, or at least a sense of danger, is part of the fun. Boasting about killing the dragon is meaningless unless there was danger. It's even more meaningful when you mourn you lost companions at the same time...

Myatar_Panwar
2008-08-11, 08:53 PM
Don't use traps that only cause damage. Alarms are good for non-combat. Anti-mobility traps are good both in and out of combat. Having a leg stuck painfully in an immobile trap makes avoiding the ambush much harder.

That is actually some very good advice. I guess I'm just missing the old poison-tipped darts in the chest and such. But then again, things like that could always be added into a time pressed adventure. Or givin a non-damage effect, as you suggest, such as slowing poison (except for them damn saving throws each round :smallannoyed:).

Oracle_Hunter
2008-08-11, 09:05 PM
That is actually some very good advice. I guess I'm just missing the old poison-tipped darts in the chest and such. But then again, things like that could always be added into a time pressed adventure. Or givin a non-damage effect, as you suggest, such as slowing poison (except for them damn saving throws each round :smallannoyed:).

Ah, you just need to adjust your thinking. In 3e, traps were just annoying, most of the time, or they were Save or Die lethal. In 4e, they're part of a whole encounter, because having someone engage you in a hazardous area is more exciting than just rolling saves.

The old Temple of Doom traps? Much more fun if skeletons, oozes, or other guardian baddies are roaming the halls, waiting to hear a trap being set off by would-be robbers. Particularly if said trap immobilizes the party rogue, or forces the party to fight in a persistent cloud of poison gas.

Colmarr
2008-08-11, 09:07 PM
Don't use traps that only cause damage. Alarms are good for non-combat. Anti-mobility traps are good both in and out of combat. Having a leg stuck painfully in an immobile trap makes avoiding the ambush much harder.

Alternatively, if you use a trap "outside of combat", make sure it IS the combat.

The spinning blade trap in Treasure of Talon Pass (free on the D&D website) is a good example of this. It pops out of the floor and then bounces around the room like a pinball slicing up PCs.

It's as close to "poison darts in the chest" as 4E gets where traps are concerned, but it's certainly nasty enough to make a party wish they had a high-perception scout and a high-thievery saboteur...

But as for the OP's original question, I haven't noticed a lack of danger yet (having played through Raiders of Oakhurst and now 2 encounters into KotS). My cleric ate dirt in RoO, as did our Defender, although neither died. And then as if to prove that I don't know what I'm doing, my PC almost ate dirt again in the first encounter of KotS.

only1doug
2008-08-12, 03:56 AM
to The OP's thread title


Player Death and a sense of Danger

It is Very Important that you do not kill your Players, yes I know we have all been tempted sometimes but please remember never kill a Player, regardless of the circumstances.

Kill their Characters as often as you like, but never kill your Players, that would get you in trouble with the police

Saph
2008-08-12, 05:00 AM
In my campain, I have a sense that my players are getting bored. And I think it has to do with the difficulty of my encounters (standard for their level, yet they are still overcoming them with ease). I have givin it some thought, and came to the realization that non-one has yet died, let alone even come into serious danger (level 5 people).

It's a problem I've noticed too.

Basically, in all the 4e games I've played, I've only seen players die once - and that was because we were fighting two above-our-level encounters at the same time. Even then, after the emergency was over, the surviving PCs completed the adventure with minimal fuss.

I think it's a natural consequence of the lowered randomness of 4e combat. Since the damage-per-action cap is so much lower and healing people up is so much easier, then as long as the PCs aren't totally incompetent, it's very hard for them to be in serious danger. A wounded PC can always fall back and get healing worded or whatever.

However, since randomness is lower, this also means that an over-difficult encounter is more likely to kill everyone, since lucky rolls won't make so much difference either way.

The conclusion I'm coming to is that the 'just right' band of encounter difficulty in 4e is pretty narrow. Too low, and it's a speedbump; too high, and it's a potential TPK.

But I'm going to be DMing over the next few weeks, so I'll have some chance to test it out personally.

- Saph

Totally Guy
2008-08-12, 06:33 AM
Well--yeah. It was. Are you sentimentally attached to the idea of killing players accidentally? 4E's encounter design mechanic is pretty solid (few exceptions, like the Needlefang Drake Swarm); that's a feature. If you want an encounter to be difficult, go ahead and make it difficult. Up the risk on as many or as few as you want.

I threw a couple of needlefang drake swarms at the party (except I told them they were undead bees) and that was scary. The Eladrin warlord was prone and on 3 hit points and I was certain there would be a death saving throw needed within the next 2 rounds. The player could not think of anything to do and said he'd pass when I suddenly remembered Fey Step and suggested that.

Eventually they killed them with the paladin, as I'd said they were undead bees he decided to lay on hands them. I couldn't find the rule for this so I made things up. I said it was an auto hit as it was a swarm, touch attack isn't right for swarms... then I said damage was healing surge value plus 5 for vunerable radiant which I also made up.

Without the undead property I added on they'd have been toast. But the paladin still used all his healing surges.

Covered In Bees
2008-08-12, 06:42 AM
I think it's a natural consequence of the lowered randomness of 4e combat. Since the damage-per-action cap is so much lower and healing people up is so much easier, then as long as the PCs aren't totally incompetent, it's very hard for them to be in serious danger. A wounded PC can always fall back and get healing worded or whatever.
Assuming he's not, you know, going to provoke AoOs for doing that, or prone or slowed or...


However, since randomness is lower, this also means that an over-difficult encounter is more likely to kill everyone, since lucky rolls won't make so much difference either way.
"Lucky rolls" applies to enemies as well as PCs. An over-difficult encounter isn't more likely to kill everyone. My group's been taking on some pretty tough encounters. We've had a couple of death, but mostly we're competent enough to pull through.

Saph
2008-08-12, 07:00 AM
"Lucky rolls" applies to enemies as well as PCs. An over-difficult encounter isn't more likely to kill everyone.

What did you say the death rate on Irontooth was, again? Or on the black dragon in the preview games?

- Saph

Covered In Bees
2008-08-12, 07:06 AM
What did you say the death rate on Irontooth was, again? Or on the black dragon in the preview games?

- Saph

Probably comparable to a similarly too-tough encounter in 3E.

shadow_archmagi
2008-08-12, 08:16 AM
to The OP's thread title



It is Very Important that you do not kill your Players, yes I know we have all been tempted sometimes but please remember never kill a Player, regardless of the circumstances.

Kill their Characters as often as you like, but never kill your Players, that would get you in trouble with the police


I lol'd.


@Covered in Bees:

I believe the "lucky roll" discussion meant that in 3e, and overly difficult encounter could still be saved with a some luck. In 4e an overly difficult encounter is more likely to kill the players because of the different save/damage system; damage has nearly doubled but HP has gone up way faster.

With higher HP and lower damage, individual attacks matter less, individual rolls matter less; its the average to-hit that matters. Its your average dpr that counts when battles last 6-20 rounds. Ergo luck matters less, and an overpowered encounter with a higher to-hit and dpr will be almost garenteed to kill the players.

Dausuul
2008-08-12, 08:20 AM
In my campain, I have a sense that my players are getting bored. And I think it has to do with the difficulty of my encounters (standard for their level, yet they are still overcoming them with ease). I have givin it some thought, and came to the realization that non-one has yet died, let alone even come into serious danger (level 5 people).

In 3e, death was common, and usually swift and without warning. In 4e, when I learned that it was much more difficult to die, I thought it a good thing, but now it appears that there isn't even the slightest hint of fatal danger, something which keeps the PC's going in my opinion. No more insta-kill traps abilities until the high levels when you can revive people with a potion, and with so many hit points and a leader nearby you are usually never in any real danger. Especially since the threat of little hit-points after an encounter is also no longer an issue (healing surges). Also the removal of ability drain, yet another way the new edition is protecting the players.

And kind of as a side note: the complete removal of non-combat traps. I dont think there is one trap which can be used effectivly out of combat, because of healing surges.

I just want to hear your guys' opinion on that sense of danger in 4e. What you do to make danger, if you think danger is not important, whatever. This is NOT a 4e bashing thread. I do like the system, but this is just one problem I've been having with it.

A quick example of the importance of that sense of danger:
I was sporting combat on a flying castle. During the fighting, every one seemed kind of bored. No one was in trouble, the healer was close, and the enemies were dying. But then, when the rogue fails an athletics check and goes tumbling down (luckily there was another flying device close to catch him), everyone found themselves on the edge of their seats as we picked up the dice to decide if he lived or died.

The very first 4E session I ran, the party fighter got eaten by rats. Since then, we've had one more PC death, a couple of near misses (one averted only by a natural 20 on a death save), and several occasions where the party was teetering on the brink of a TPK. So my group... uh... hasn't had this problem.

What it comes down to, I think, is pushing your party's limits. Encounters one or two levels above the party's level will help. Another thing that makes a big difference is healing surges or lack thereof. A party that goes into a fight low on surges is going to have a much tougher time - my last session had four 4th-level PCs going into a fight against a young black dragon, with the fighter down to one surge and the rogue at none. (They considered stopping to rest, but they were on a timetable and decided they'd better press on.) It was pretty hairy.

Obviously, given the tactical nature of 4E combat, some parties will perform above their level and others below. Once you get a feel for the level your party can handle, you can make encounters tougher or easier as appropriate.

AKA_Bait
2008-08-12, 08:53 AM
Ah, monacles.
Is there any occassion they cn't add subtle refinement to?

Playing pool in a bar. :smallwink:


Regarding the concept of gamers being socially inept, are you sure that still holds true? Perhaps it did when RPGs were in their infancy but I'm not so sure it still applies. A sample of the group I generally game with shows one entrepreneur, one part time entertainer, one manager, and a consultant or two. All require some degree of social facility.

Honestly, I have to pretty much agree with this. Most of my group (there are one or two exceptions) are quite social people with real jobs involving interactions with other human beings. Around a third are married, engaged on in long term relationships. Most were theatre people at some point and I think play D&D partly as a less time consuming outlet for that same brand of creativity.


Don't use traps that only cause damage. Alarms are good for non-combat. Anti-mobility traps are good both in and out of combat. Having a leg stuck painfully in an immobile trap makes avoiding the ambush much harder.

Yeah, if you look at some of the traps in the recent whatshisfacethebookwormghost Manor/keep/whatever prefab up on the WotC site they are pretty good for immobilization etc.


It is Very Important that you do not kill your Players, yes I know we have all been tempted sometimes but please remember never kill a Player, regardless of the circumstances.

Kill their Characters as often as you like, but never kill your Players, that would get you in trouble with the police


Well there goes my Friday night plans... and all that money I wasted on a wood chipper and black garbage bags too.


Obviously, given the tactical nature of 4E combat, some parties will perform above their level and others below. Once you get a feel for the level your party can handle, you can make encounters tougher or easier as appropriate.

Also, despite claims to the contrary, the optimation of the party really does make a difference. When the party has powers and build focuses that compliment eachother well, encounters are much easier than when they are all built for maximum personal power. The four somewhat optimized characters that went through the early bits of KoS when I played it walked through stuff. When I played the all the PCs in the first playtest I ran with JaxGaret there was much death.

OneFamiliarFace
2008-08-12, 09:02 AM
I threw a couple of needlefang drake swarms at the party (except I told them they were undead bees) and that was scary.

I LOVE Undead Bees. Is it weird that that's a thing? Undead Bees. I know it's from Munchkin, but it just settles well with me, as I love Undead, and I love Bees. This is one thing (like spinach and lemon juice) that only gets better by adding them together.

Man, I could go for some spinach and lemon juice right now. And some of those finger sandwiches Oracle was mentioning.

Totally Guy
2008-08-12, 09:11 AM
I LOVE Undead Bees. Is it weird that that's a thing? Undead Bees. I know it's from Munchkin, but it just settles well with me, as I love Undead, and I love Bees. This is one thing (like spinach and lemon juice) that only gets better by adding them together.

Man, I could go for some spinach and lemon juice right now. And some of those finger sandwiches Oracle was mentioning.

Oh man, I thought I'd come up with something original.:smallfrown:

OneFamiliarFace
2008-08-12, 09:23 AM
Oh man, I thought I'd come up with something original.:smallfrown:

Hey man, you did. I do that all the time (have an idea that I later found someone else already had). If you had never played the Munchkin card game before (specifically one of the later expansions, I think), then there isn't really anyway you could have known. I am still a lover of undead bees, and a fan of you for not only implementing them but scaring your players with them as well. Kudos! Heck, they were just a joke in the card game (literally). You turned them into a threat.

Starbuck_II
2008-08-12, 07:16 PM
I've had to fudge quite a lot to keep my players alive in several encounters. The most notable was the young white dragon at the end of the DMG module, and Irontooth from KotS.

I had to "forget" about the dragon's breath recharging on a 5 or 6 and two players still died. And Irontooth took out all but one player before going down. That was with me not taking advantage of his double attack option, or the regeneration he gains when bloodied. And even then two players were permanently dead.

So I think 4th can be plenty deadly enough. (Of course, my players aren't exactly optimized, so that's probably part of it.)

Yes, I agree. I did the same with te dragon. I even lowered his level to the Monster Manual one (one in DMG is stronger/higher level). Still a party of 4 1st were pretty badly beaten. I also "forgot" to recharge breath weapon.

The Ranger kept forgetting to use his quarry ability so that might have factored into the toughness.

potatocubed
2008-08-12, 08:05 PM
Also, despite claims to the contrary, the optimation of the party really does make a difference. When the party has powers and build focuses that compliment eachother well, encounters are much easier than when they are all built for maximum personal power.

I think tied in to this is the idea that the relative tactical skill of the PCs vs the GM is rather important - this is true of pretty much any version of D&D, but it feels more pronounced in 4e. I don't know why, although my tentative theory is that 4e is balanced with a certain expectation of encounter teamwork that was lacking in previous editions; if that teamwork is lacking, the balance starts to slide. Or I could be totally wrong.

Aron Times
2008-08-12, 08:13 PM
Teamwork is very important in 4E.

In one encounter, we almost lost the paladin due to lack of teamwork; everyone chose one zombie to attack and didn't even bother to move to a more defensible position. We managed to save the paladin by focus-firing on the zombies surrounding him, but only after I told the party to do so.

Having a party member who is good at RTS or TBS games (me) helps a lot.

The New Bruceski
2008-08-12, 08:54 PM
Teamwork is very important in 4E.

In one encounter, we almost lost the paladin due to lack of teamwork; everyone chose one zombie to attack and didn't even bother to move to a more defensible position. We managed to save the paladin by focus-firing on the zombies surrounding him, but only after I told the party to do so.

Having a party member who is good at RTS or TBS games (me) helps a lot.

Similar thing resulted in my death to a wraith in an ambush. Fighting 2 wraiths (half damage, can Weaken making us do half damage, and regenerate), two guys who could blind us (gloomblades?) and two guys with large sneak attack damage and mobility for flanking. We split our attacks like crazy, not focusing our radiant damage on the undead, and they just completely had the upper hand because we weren't doing anything to stop it.

Contrast to a fight later when we were attacked in an inn. Three of us (2 were away and we found it easier to right them out) attacked by a different wraith with a nasty daze aura, and a couple of melee (one phantom knight or something, two shadar-kai chainfighters). The daze was >nasty< but we focused fire, and once the wraith went down we could clean up the other three guys much more easily.

Tactics are critical in this edition. You can shine, but it's often shining by aiding your friends, rather than "I removed the need for any of you to even show up today."

Oracle_Hunter
2008-08-12, 08:55 PM
Teamwork is very important in 4E.

In one encounter, we almost lost the paladin due to lack of teamwork; everyone chose one zombie to attack and didn't even bother to move to a more defensible position. We managed to save the paladin by focus-firing on the zombies surrounding him, but only after I told the party to do so.

Having a party member who is good at RTS or TBS games (me) helps a lot.

This is true. The good news is that players learn very quickly how to work together as a team. This can take longer if they are experienced 3e players, since positioning and teamwork mattered very little for most of the classes.

Mercenary Pen
2008-08-13, 01:05 AM
It has to be said, in one of my tests I pushed the encounter system beyond what it was ever designed to take...

SIDE A:
1x Level 8 Warlord
1x Level 8 Wizard
4x Level 4 Artillery
8x Level 4 Soldiers

Total XP: 2800

SIDE B:
1x Level 13 Paladin
20x Level 6 Minions
4x Level 4 Artillery

Total XP: 2760

Basically, the side with the minions got whitewashed until, with only the evil paladin remaining against ten guys from the other side, I called it quits. My lesson: The minions had nothing beyond a basic attack, and were pitiful because of it... the non-PC stuff on the other side could at least mark stuff or, in the case of the artillery, use a recharge 6 double ranged attack power.

My rule of thumb: More powers= better able to succeed in an encounter of equal level.


@the dude who wanted to change an Orc Eye of Gruumsh into a gnoll Eye of Yeenoghu... this should be easy enough to achieve by just swapping out the racial trait, but I'd go for a Fang of Yeenoghu, and make certain you take pack tactics off the Gnoll Huntmaster so that it works for ranged attacks too.