PDA

View Full Version : 4e - Stuff I've Learned So Far (For DMs)



Saph
2008-08-17, 06:00 AM
So, I started my new 4e campaign yesterday, with me as the DM. It went very well, and everyone had a lot of fun. It probably helped that there were only 3 players, as that meant everyone got a lot more screen time and there was more time to look up rules.

Stuff I've learned so far, for those planning to DM 4e games:

Fights seem to be less dangerous to the players the longer they go on for. In general, if the players can survive the first 2-3 rounds, they're probably going to win. (Players have lots more ways to gain back HP than monsters, and a downed PC generally gets up, while a downed monster generally doesn't.)
The best way to run Skill Challenges is not to. Just call for a skill roll whenever the PCs are in the right situation, and improvise. I had two major 'skill encounters' in the session, one involving chasing down a pickpocket, and one involving negotiating with kobolds, and both would have dragged horribly if I'd tried to turn them into a 4e skill challenge, complete with initiative and everyone being forced to roll in order. Just roll with it and work out consequences for reward/failure and XP awards later.
Assuming there's a leader in the party (and the PCs are in big trouble if there isn't), the PCs WILL stop for 5/10/15 minutes after each encounter and queue up to be healing worded by the cleric. In fact, my players figured out pretty quickly that you never want to use second wind or spend healing surges normally unless you're in serious trouble - getting heals from the cleric gives you about twice as much HP per surge.
I used a houserule saying that every player got 1 free skill not covered by the 4e skill system - ie, make up any skill you like, count it as trained, and write it on your character sheet. It worked pretty well and I recommend it for DMs who'd like 4e characters to be fleshed out a bit, since as soon as the skill was written down the PCs immediately started finding ways to use it. :)

Probably the most amusing bit was the final encounter. I was using a modified version of the 'Kobold Hall' adventure in the back of the DMG. The PCs managed to turn the first encounter (which is supposed to be a kick-in-the-door-kill-the-kobolds fight) into a conversation that went on for more than an hour. The 8-Int dragonborn cleric convinced the kobolds to bring out their boss, who had the sword they'd been sent to retrieve, and the cleric and the kobold then had a discussion about giving the sword back, which progressed into a discussion about ethics and what 'bad behaviour' meant. The cleric rolled so well on his Diplomacy checks that he ended up making friends with the kobold, but the kobold convinced him that the kobold should have the sword after all, at which point the cleric agreed, said goodbye, and walked out. Much entertainment followed as the other two PCs tried to talk the cleric into fighting his new 'friends'.

Reactions to the new edition were mixed. The players liked the extra toughness and options that 1st-level 4e PCs have, but weren't keen on the 'everything is HP damage' combat mechanic. Oh, and one player was upset mostly because he couldn't play a druid. I'm a bit hesitant about recommending the upcoming 4e druid to him, though, because I'm not sure if he'll like what they'll have done with it . . .

Overall, though, good session.

- Saph

nagora
2008-08-17, 06:05 AM
Are/were you playing with the errata'd skill challenge rules?

Saph
2008-08-17, 06:10 AM
Are/were you playing with the errata'd skill challenge rules?

After previous experience with skill challenges (which bored me to death), I didn't use the skill challenge rules at all. Link to the errata? I can't remember if I've read it or not.

- Saph

nagora
2008-08-17, 06:13 AM
After previous experience with skill challenges (which bored me to death), I didn't use the skill challenge rules at all. Link to the errata? I can't remember if I've read it or not.

- Saph

http://www.wizards.com/dnd/files/UpdateDMG.pdf

Covered In Bees
2008-08-17, 06:16 AM
Nagora's on point here. The errata improved skill challenges a lot.

For my group, they run smoothly. The couple of players that would normally wonder what they should roll have gotten into the "narrate-and-roll" swing of things and are getting creative.

Saph
2008-08-17, 06:20 AM
http://www.wizards.com/dnd/files/UpdateDMG.pdf

Ugh, that was a pain to read. Delete this paragraph, alter this number . . .

Well, as far as I can tell, they're saying that the basic format's the same, except with alterations to the complexity/failure rules and they've got rid of initiative.

That's an improvement, but I've been bored too many times by skill challenges as a player to be very keen on giving them a fourth chance, especially given how much better ignoring the rules altogether proved to be.

- Saph

Totally Guy
2008-08-17, 06:42 AM
Skill challenges are good for giving out XP too. They count as level appropriate encounter but only take commentary and 12 dice rolls. The problem I had was getting them to make checks without it becoming some other kind of encounter.

I did a "chase the thief" one but it started to become all about movement per round, and grapples. And of course I don't want to say, "no you can't do that" it's a skill challenge and I don't want to say "it's not over yet, you still need 3 more arbitrary success in something..." I only allowed the grapple attempt as I thoght it was fair for a natural 20 in the previous check.

Saph
2008-08-17, 06:49 AM
Skill challenges are good for giving out XP too. They count as level appropriate encounter but only take commentary and 12 dice rolls. The problem I had was getting them to make checks without it becoming some other kind of encounter.

You can give out XP whenever you like, though.

Seriously, as an experiment, try just cutting out skill challenges and replacing them with skill checks whenever they're appropriate or when players choose to make them. Then at the end of the session, work out a roughly appropriate amount of XP for the skill-challengeness. I've found it works SO much better, and the game flows much more quickly.

- Saph

Emperor Tippy
2008-08-17, 07:07 AM
Yeah, I agree with Saph on the skill challenges. I mean 3.5 didn't exactly have the best skill system of all time (massive understatement here) but skill challenges (as presented) are not an improvement.

Totally Guy
2008-08-17, 07:13 AM
You can give out XP whenever you like, though.

Neato, I have a feeling the party is going to level up if they roleplay putting up their tent. And bonus points if they recall they bought a red one.

Don't tempt me or they'll all be on paragon tier before they find the second dungeon.

Saph
2008-08-17, 07:57 AM
Neato, I have a feeling the party is going to level up if they roleplay putting up their tent. And bonus points if they recall they bought a red one.

Don't tempt me or they'll all be on paragon tier before they find the second dungeon.

Don't forget to give them treasure for the tent encounter. Maybe there's spare change of evil in one of the sleeping bags.

- Saph

The New Bruceski
2008-08-17, 09:20 AM
My main issue with skill challenges is how my DMs have handled them:

"She seems willing to give you guys the map, but says you need to prove you're capable of retrieving the artifact. Skill challenge!" *stares at players*

What am I supposed to do for non-social skills? Flex at her? Hold my breath for a surprising amount of time? There is nothing there that can't be handled with a single roll. Meanwhile, right afterward I heard a guy sneaking around outside and a chase ensued through a hedge maze, with the party splitting up and trying different ways of getting after him (track, find a way through the maze faster, climb on top of the hedges, figure out the exit the sneak's going to...) THAT'S a skill challenge, but he just played it straight, with the guy getting away partially because though I could use Perception just fine to follow his footprints at first, once inside the maze I *had* to do int checks instead.

I don't have the DMG, so I don't know if this is as written or not, but while I approve of an initiative set for skill challenges and negotiations, so if someone wants to act they can, forcing someone to act seems silly. What's the point of having a party Face if every time a situation happens where he'd be useful the Big Dumb Fighter needs to figure out how to apply doing push-ups to the situation? My character is definitely the type to stand back and let someone else do the talking (ex-enforcer for a syndicate, he would no sooner try to do the social-work than step on the safe-cracker's toes).

ghost_warlock
2008-08-17, 09:33 AM
Don't forget to give them treasure for the tent encounter. Maybe there's spare change of evil in one of the sleeping bags.

- Saph

This happened to me the last time I went camping. I've still got the slow-healing spider bites as proof.

Oracle_Hunter
2008-08-17, 07:26 PM
I'll agree with Saph on Skill Challenges to a point: the best way to use 'em is to not tell the PCs you're using them. The Errata basically encourages you to do this by scrubbing all references to initiative and telling the PCs what skills to use. That said, do plan some of these in advance - at least to make sure you've thought about the Complexity. I'm not sure about the new failure rules, but the revamped DCs seem more on the money to me.

As for the rest, it seems to be like how 4e should be played. PCs don't worry about healing themselves unless it's an emergency, and they progress carefully through the dungeon. The fact that healing is simpler, and also more limited, means you need to plan your adventures with that in mind.

If you want a classic dungeon crawl, expect your players to be up to full HP before each conflict, and for them to camp in the dungeon if they run low on Surges, just like their 2e forefathers did (though there, it was magic, often healing magic).

If you want to pressure the PCs, you'll have to make time an issue. Maybe the PCs have to get the artifact back to town before the Eclipse, or maybe they need to rescue the Princess before the full moon sacrifice, or maybe they need to get into the Castle before the Dread Lord finishes changing the guard and pulls up the drawbridge. Use weaker encounters than normal (so at-level, or maybe -1 or -2) so that the PCs don't have to turn back, but so that they'll still be strong enough for the PCs to have to make sure every-hit-counts.

Finally: don't count out the Bloodied Powers of many monsters to swing the battle back around after those first few rounds. The Berserker Strike that drops the Rogue to 0 might force the party to adapt quickly!

Saph
2008-08-18, 03:41 AM
If you want to pressure the PCs, you'll have to make time an issue. Maybe the PCs have to get the artifact back to town before the Eclipse, or maybe they need to rescue the Princess before the full moon sacrifice, or maybe they need to get into the Castle before the Dread Lord finishes changing the guard and pulls up the drawbridge. Use weaker encounters than normal (so at-level, or maybe -1 or -2) so that the PCs don't have to turn back, but so that they'll still be strong enough for the PCs to have to make sure every-hit-counts.

I'm not sure there's much point, honestly. The 4e encounters all assume that the PCs are on full HP at the start of each fight anyway. Forcing them not to use their resources effectively (ie, queue up in front of the cleric/warlord) doesn't seem like a good idea to me.


Finally: don't count out the Bloodied Powers of many monsters to swing the battle back around after those first few rounds. The Berserker Strike that drops the Rogue to 0 might force the party to adapt quickly!

Nah. Once a few of the monsters are down, then unless the PCs are crippled the battle's basically over. I noticed this right from when I started playing 4e. One or two bloodied powers doesn't come anywhere close to matching what the party can inflict over a long fight.

- Saph

Corrin
2008-08-18, 09:23 AM
Fights seem to be less dangerous to the players the longer they go on for. In general, if the players can survive the first 2-3 rounds, they're probably going to win. (Players have lots more ways to gain back HP than monsters, and a downed PC generally gets up, while a downed monster generally doesn't.)

Usually true, but not always. I ran a meat-grinder of an encounter this weekend where a group of hobgoblins were hammering the PCs - a couple timely crits in rounds 4-6 knocked out the hobbo leader and things were looking up, but the footsoldiers kept on fighting and managed to kill the ranger out-right and knock two other pcs unconscious before the heroes finally won.

Hzurr
2008-08-18, 10:02 AM
I agree that the first few rounds don't really decide the outcome of the fight. I DMed my first few game early this week, shere what should have been a moderately encounter (ECL+1) almost got a few of the party members killed, and severely drained the party resources (They were at full when they went in, first encounter of the day, and by the 7th or 8th round, they were having to spend dailies on some run-of-the-mill kobalds). Most of it can be blamed on poor party tactics and those stupid dragonsheild kobald's shift-as-a-reaction ability.

We didn't get to a skill encounter yet (next session, I hope), so I can't really comment on how they work, but I'll keep y'all's comments in mind.

stainboy
2008-08-18, 11:56 AM
Skill challenges strike me as a hamfisted way of getting DMs used to the idea that situations involving a lot of skill checks are "encounters," and thus a meaningful part of the game and worth XP. I've never used them, or even bothered to look at the rules twice. Rolling initiative for skill checks seems awkward, since usually the action is going to go in order of who has the relevant skill anyway.

I'd disagree that short fights are the most dangerous though. My players are pretty good at picking out the biggest threat and focus-firing it into oblivion with daily powers. Fights get dangerous when party can't decisively end the battle and the monsters have time to crowd-control healers or maneuver focus-fire targets into bad positions. That may just be about how I run encounters though.

Stuff I've Learned So Far

Monster defenses are too high.
The guideline in the DMG is 12+monster level for defenses, which pretty quickly outscales the party's ability to reliably hit targets. The result is frustrating fights that are decided more by the dice than good tactics - nobody likes having their daily powers miss 2/3 of the time. I've been mostly using homebrew monsters with lower defenses and more HP and ways to break crowd control, and I think it's working better.

Defenders are awesome, but only in long fights.
For a defender to make a meaningful contribution, enemies have to (1) not have so many mobility and crowd control abilities that they're untankable, and (2) live long enough for tanking them to matter. Years of 3.x have taught me that the only way to threaten the party is by blitzkrieg: if a monster hasn't dropped the wizard to negative hitpoints by Round 3, the monster might as well not be there. I'm having to unlearn that, and try to figure out how to make keeping enemies under control a challenge for a fighter without making it impossible.

Line-of-Sighting healers is freaking brutal.
The most dangerous encounter I've run so far was a 5-person party vs 3 ghosts. One was a poltergeist who could pick party members up and throw them (damage + slide 3 squares), the second had sneak attack, and the third had a burst fear attack that prevented its targets from moving toward it. The party's ranger runs through a doorway to unload into the poltergeist, the poltergeist picks up the ranger and throws him around the corner, the sneak-attacker follows up with a fistful of d6's, and the ranger is bloodied and out of line-of-effect for healing. On the next round the ranger is all by himself being attacked by two enemies, and the third enemy (with the fear attack) is in position to keep the cleric from running in to save him. The situation happened more or less by accident, but it's a brutally effective tactic. None of the ghosts did particularly high damage but isolating a party member with shifts and crowd control made him incredibly vulnerable. Not something to use in every fight, but a good way to challenge the players.


Anyone else had similar experiences?

Tormsskull
2008-08-18, 12:01 PM
and managed to kill the ranger out-right

Could you provide more details for this death? So far, in my experience and from other DMs who I have talked to that have run 4e, character deaths are virtually nonexistant. In the rare occasion it has happened, it was a result of poor player tactics (charging the enemy when very low in health, ignoring warning signs, attacking creatures obviously too powerful for the party to defeat in combat, etc.), and I am curious to see if that is the same for this situation.

Starbuck_II
2008-08-18, 04:05 PM
Stuff I've Learned So Far

Monster defenses are too high.
The guideline in the DMG is 12+monster level for defenses, which pretty quickly outscales the party's ability to reliably hit targets. The result is frustrating fights that are decided more by the dice than good tactics - nobody likes having their daily powers miss 2/3 of the time. I've been mostly using homebrew monsters with lower defenses and more HP and ways to break crowd control, and I think it's working better.


Level 1: Aiming for 13 AC/Reflex, etc.
Level 4: Aiming for 16 AC/Reflex, etc.

Level 1 (assuming 18 in attack stat):+4 or +7 (if weapon) possible
Level 4 (assuming 18 in attack stat): +7 (+1 implement) or +10 (+1 weapon)

Now, Guideline follows the to hit line very well. You have at least a 50% chance to hit (usually higher).

ColdSepp
2008-08-18, 04:43 PM
Line-of-Sighting healers is freaking brutal.
The most dangerous encounter I've run so far was a 5-person party vs 3 ghosts. One was a poltergeist who could pick party members up and throw them (damage + slide 3 squares), the second had sneak attack, and the third had a burst fear attack that prevented its targets from moving toward it. The party's ranger runs through a doorway to unload into the poltergeist, the poltergeist picks up the ranger and throws him around the corner, the sneak-attacker follows up with a fistful of d6's, and the ranger is bloodied and out of line-of-effect for healing. On the next round the ranger is all by himself being attacked by two enemies, and the third enemy (with the fear attack) is in position to keep the cleric from running in to save him. The situation happened more or less by accident, but it's a brutally effective tactic. None of the ghosts did particularly high damage but isolating a party member with shifts and crowd control made him incredibly vulnerable. Not something to use in every fight, but a good way to challenge the players.


Anyone else had similar experiences?

That sounds like very poor player tactics to me...

Dausuul
2008-08-18, 04:55 PM
Could you provide more details for this death? So far, in my experience and from other DMs who I have talked to that have run 4e, character deaths are virtually nonexistant. In the rare occasion it has happened, it was a result of poor player tactics (charging the enemy when very low in health, ignoring warning signs, attacking creatures obviously too powerful for the party to defeat in combat, etc.), and I am curious to see if that is the same for this situation.

As the party face, I botched a couple of Bluff checks rather badly; our choice to talk first rather than fight ended up just giving the hobgoblins time to gather their forces. In addition, when combat broke out, the party fighter was next to a well, the hobgoblins beat him on initiative, and one of them bull rushed him into it. (Fortunately, he was able to return the favor later.) Finally, while I don't know the exact stats, I'm pretty sure the encounter was at least two levels above us.

My experience has been that character death is rare but not nonexistent, and usually happens when a party is fighting above its level. If you only ever fight encounters at your own level, and never push the limit in terms of daily resources (healing surges and so on), you're pretty safe unless the dice go freakishly against you. Which does happen sometimes. But if you're fighting above your level, or you're low on resources, the odds of dying go up significantly.

its_all_ogre
2008-08-18, 05:14 PM
i found the bloodied power of the goblin level 3 brutes pretty harsh: d10+5 damage normally becomes 2d10+5 once bloodied...
the combats i have seen have generally been close run things, in terms of most pcs end up using a second wind and the cleric/paladin/warlord using their stuff too.
charging in on your own if you roll high on initiative is not a good thing either; dwarf ended up entirely encircled by goblins minions...not a good thing!
(dwarf fighter won initiative but minions went second)

Oracle_Hunter
2008-08-18, 05:49 PM
I'm not sure there's much point, honestly. The 4e encounters all assume that the PCs are on full HP at the start of each fight anyway. Forcing them not to use their resources effectively (ie, queue up in front of the cleric/warlord) doesn't seem like a good idea to me.

Actually, it's a tactic listed in the DMG. Plus, it helps provide a little extra sense of urgency, if your players get bored because they start every battle out at full.

It's a gimmick to shake up the pace, to be sure, but that's half of DMing, no? :smallwink:

Saph
2008-08-24, 09:05 AM
4e - Stuff I've Learned So Far (Session 2)


Session 2 was yesterday. I think I'll keep posting these till I run out of new stuff to write.

The only essential role in a PC group is Leader. Anything else you can get by without, but if the PCs don't have a healer, they're in big trouble. Yesterday's party was 2 fighters, a ranger, a warlock, and a wizard, and the only way they survived was by going through healing potions like cans of soda. :)
Fire beetles are far and away the nastiest level 1 monsters. Their fire spray power hits most level 1 PCs about 60% of the time, does 3d6 damage, and burns a 3x3 area. A pack of fire beetles, 1 per PC, actually has a decent chance of causing a TPK.
You really have to work hard to justify the "600 XP per encounter" model. It's easy to divide the goblins or kobolds into packets of 600 XP (or whatever your budget is) but once the fighting starts you have to put a lot of effort in to explain why the monsters don't just run, sound the alarm, and team up, instead of coming in easily defeatable groups. Goblins have an 8 Intelligence, but that's smart enough to know to gang up on enemies. Unfortunately, having 2 encounters at once coming at the PCs is almost guaranteed to TPK them, so . . . you just have to live with it, I guess.
Players have the weirdest habit of saving their dailies. Even when party members are down and they're obviously in danger of losing, they still keep using at-wills. Does anyone else find this, or are my players just strange?

- Saph

Edea
2008-08-24, 10:19 AM
[B]
Players have the weirdest habit of saving their dailies. Even when party members are down and they're obviously in danger of losing, they still keep using at-wills. Does anyone else find this, or are my players just strange?

- Saph

No, this is -exactly- what happens, and it's one of the many reasons I hate, HATE 4e's power system. I see it constantly in -most- of the 4e games I play; that and AP. (One of the ones I'm in right now we're not so shy about it, but the DM's much more lenient on letting the chars take a break. Any DM that anally adheres to 'at least 4 enc/extended rest' is going to encounter this phenomenon).

Knaight
2008-08-24, 10:21 AM
I never see people saving their dailies, once things get bad they start dropping.

Yakk
2008-08-24, 10:28 AM
4e - Stuff I've Learned So Far (Session 2)


Session 2 was yesterday. I think I'll keep posting these till I run out of new stuff to write.

The only essential role in a PC group is Leader. Anything else you can get by without, but if the PCs don't have a healer, they're in big trouble. Yesterday's party was 2 fighters, a ranger, a warlock, and a wizard, and the only way they survived was by going through healing potions like cans of soda. :)
A leader generates about 4 healing surges worth of damage per fight, plus contributing a decent share of offense from attacks and "buffing other folks attacks".


Fire beetles are far and away the nastiest level 1 monsters. Their fire spray power hits most level 1 PCs about 60% of the time, does 3d6 damage, and burns a 3x3 area. A pack of fire beetles, 1 per PC, actually has a decent chance of causing a TPK.

Ya -- much of the MM isn't build following their own rules in the DMG.

The baseline level 1 to-hit is supposed to be Level+3, or +4.

+2 if vs-AC, +2 if a soldier or artillery, +1 if a controller vs non-AC, -2 if the attack is from a Brute, -2 if the attack is an AOE attack.

So the _base_ Brute AOE attack for a level 1 Brute against non-AC should be about +0 against Reflex. Not +4.

The Bite is low damage for a Brute, so it having as good of a to-hit is a good idea.


You really have to work hard to justify the "600 XP per encounter" model. It's easy to divide the goblins or kobolds into packets of 600 XP (or whatever your budget is) but once the fighting starts you have to put a lot of effort in to explain why the monsters don't just run, sound the alarm, and team up, instead of coming in easily defeatable groups. Goblins have an 8 Intelligence, but that's smart enough to know to gang up on enemies. Unfortunately, having 2 encounters at once coming at the PCs is almost guaranteed to TPK them, so . . . you just have to live with it, I guess.

Yes, if you have an enemy fortress, having the Goblins clumped into 500 XP per encounter per room, and then making it reasonable for them to combine, is probably a bad idea.

You could instead clump them into 300 per room, and have help come running reasonably often.

However, a single Goblin fortress that is alert and has a plan to respond to attacking humans, with a total of 2000 to 4000 XP in it, should slaughter the humans unless the humans pull back, or there is some situation that screws with the Goblins.


Players have the weirdest habit of saving their dailies. Even when party members are down and they're obviously in danger of losing, they still keep using at-wills. Does anyone else find this, or are my players just strange?

When you are afraid that the next encounter will contain 5 over-con beetles, I could understand where they are coming from. It is an easy habit to get into to be afraid that the DM is going to screw you if you use up your resources.

An over-reluctance to use dailies does mean that if you throw a "too hard" fight against the party, the party dies.

If this turns out to be a serious problem, try out this:
http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=87689
in which players get healing surges/"inspired" powers back by going on adventures instead of staying in bed and sleeping.

That encourages players to burn inspired (ie, daily powers), because if you don't use the power, you don't get a roll to get it back. . .

...

A decent way to deal with scaling difficulty (oops, this was too hard) is to play the monsters optimally or sub-optimally depending on the current level of danger the party is in. When the players are doing well, have the monsters work hard to take out the most open, weakest defense, highest offense player. When the players are doing poorly, have the monsters spread out and attack each player individually.

The New Bruceski
2008-08-24, 10:35 AM
4e - Stuff I've Learned So Far (Session 2)


Session 2 was yesterday. I think I'll keep posting these till I run out of new stuff to write.

The only essential role in a PC group is Leader. Anything else you can get by without, but if the PCs don't have a healer, they're in big trouble. Yesterday's party was 2 fighters, a ranger, a warlock, and a wizard, and the only way they survived was by going through healing potions like cans of soda. :)
Fire beetles are far and away the nastiest level 1 monsters. Their fire spray power hits most level 1 PCs about 60% of the time, does 3d6 damage, and burns a 3x3 area. A pack of fire beetles, 1 per PC, actually has a decent chance of causing a TPK.
You really have to work hard to justify the "600 XP per encounter" model. It's easy to divide the goblins or kobolds into packets of 600 XP (or whatever your budget is) but once the fighting starts you have to put a lot of effort in to explain why the monsters don't just run, sound the alarm, and team up, instead of coming in easily defeatable groups. Goblins have an 8 Intelligence, but that's smart enough to know to gang up on enemies. Unfortunately, having 2 encounters at once coming at the PCs is almost guaranteed to TPK them, so . . . you just have to live with it, I guess.
Players have the weirdest habit of saving their dailies. Even when party members are down and they're obviously in danger of losing, they still keep using at-wills. Does anyone else find this, or are my players just strange?

- Saph

Re: your last 2 points.

--Isn't this the same in any edition? If you don't justify keeping a CR-appropriate encounter from getting help, the players tend to be in trouble.

--As a player I do this too. It's gotten me killed twice.

Saph
2008-08-24, 10:47 AM
Re: your last 2 points.

--Isn't this the same in any edition? If you don't justify keeping a CR-appropriate encounter from getting help, the players tend to be in trouble.

I'm noticing it more in 4e because of the emphasis on encounters with lots of monsters instead of one big one.

If you look at the adventure in the back of the DMG, 'Kobold Hall', it's a really bad example of this. The 4e Monster Manual explicitly says "Kobolds are cowardly and usually flee once bloodied". Yet the 'Kobold Hall' adventure assumes that the PCs will fight each group of kobolds one at a time, and every group of kobolds will stand and fight to the death instead of running the 50-60 feet to where the next bunch of kobolds is waiting. Each encounter is 500-800 XP or so, so two encounters at once will certainly kill a level 1 party.

- Saph

Yakk
2008-08-24, 11:31 AM
Meh, that's easy.

Each Kobold flees 1 turn after they are bloodied, after spending 1 turn semi-disengaging (shift, attack, shift).

Shifty isn't used to move faster (it is shifty, not super-fast), it is used to move sideways/around corners/etc only.

When Kobold flees to another group, they get ready. 1d3-1 Kobolds run to where the first Kobold came from for every Kobold that fled. These Kobolds will act like scouts, but if the fight is still going strong, they may join in.

The Kobolds at the next location will set up an ambush or other barriers. The may also argue about who should go and report to the next group, but will object strongly to anyone else leaving that isn't them, and will also be afraid to abandon their position. Between setting up better defenses, these arguments, and scouting what happened where the first Kobold fled from, this can easily take 5 to 10 minutes before they go and report that there is an attack.

MammonAzrael
2008-08-24, 11:37 AM
Point by point :smallsmile:


I couldn't agree more. My players ran through the DMG Kobold Hall with 2 fighters, a ranger, a rouge, and a wizard. They were nearly torn to pieces by almost every encounter. Part of that was poor tactics, but only part. At least on PC was dropped below 0 every fight, and didn't get back up thanks to the lack of a Healing Word. Hell, I had to fudge a huge amount of rolls for the dragon at the end, and pretty much forget about it's breath weapon, otherwise I could've easily TPKed them. And yes, the free healing potions I gave them were tossed back like candy.
I haven't played with those yet, and now I'm nervous to with my current players. I did find out with a 1-shot that enemies with auras can be notably nasty to low level parties, especially in small areas. (I used a Burning Skeleton with a couple brutes. It wound up TPKing them, though it did have only 1 HP left).
It can be difficult, luckily none of my players has questioned this yet. I even had on of the kobolds in the DMG adventure run away to another room, but I still gave them 5 minutes rest. In general, I think this is something the players should have to contend with, using Knowledge checks and the like, to know about their enemies, and preferred tactics (such as being easily startled, but coming back soon, in greater numbers)
It's a symptom of having that "only once" mentality, and know that if you miss, it really sucks. And yes, my players do it too. The thing I've noticed most is that they're all in the 3.5 Wizard mentality when it comes to Dailies. As soon as they are spent, the party wants to bed down for the night, even if they've only had one encounter that day.

Oracle_Hunter
2008-08-24, 11:59 AM
Man, the more I hear about people's experience with 4e modules, the more I suspect that WotC just produces lousy modules. Anyhow...

Resource misering will go away once the PCs get used to the flow of combat. If you remind the PCs that every 2 encounters they get another AP and that they lose all those extra AP whenever they take a Long Rest, they'll start spending them wisely.

Dailies are usually saved, wisely, for dire situations and/or BBEGs. If the players have a good idea of the flow of the adventure (we're knocking down a kobold warren, lead by a Boss Kobold) then they'll save their dailies for the Boss, knowing that he'll have the toughest minions around him. In a standard dungeon crawl players will probably save their dailies for as long as possible.

Also: after a party has used all its dailies, it is a good idea for them to rest, just like when a 3e wizard spent all their spells. If you find your PCs are sleeping too much (that is, spending their dailies too often) then a couple of nighttime encounters will convince them to spend less time camping in enemy territory.

Finally: encounters need to be built with the adventure in mind. If it makes sense for a fortress to be alerted by combat in one part of it, then divide up the XP budget over several rooms. If the PCs kill the fractional encounter without alerting anyone, then they'll have an easier time of it. If they do alert the other rooms, then while things will be harder, they won't be facing a TPK.

Oh, and yeah Fire Beetles are nasty. I use them as pets for my Goblin Hexers - they work much better than wolves :smallwink:

Saph
2008-08-24, 12:10 PM
Resource misering will go away once the PCs get used to the flow of combat. If you remind the PCs that every 2 encounters they get another AP and that they lose all those extra AP whenever they take a Long Rest, they'll start spending them wisely.

Dailies are usually saved, wisely, for dire situations and/or BBEGs. If the players have a good idea of the flow of the adventure (we're knocking down a kobold warren, lead by a Boss Kobold) then they'll save their dailies for the Boss, knowing that he'll have the toughest minions around him. In a standard dungeon crawl players will probably save their dailies for as long as possible.

I'm not sure if saving the dailies is such a good idea. The session I ran yesterday was mostly wilderness combat, so the PCs were getting an average of less than one fight per day. Over the first two battles, the PCs used a total of two daily powers between the five of them. They didn't even use their action points and encounter powers until I started reminding them in a non-subtle way to do it ("hey guys, 1 of you is down and the rest are bloodied, you should probably think about using your special abilities now.")

In the end, half the party never used their dailies at all. The only PCs who were free with their Daily powers were the two Fighters (probably having a Reliable daily makes you more casual about taking a shot with it).

- Saph

Oracle_Hunter
2008-08-24, 12:15 PM
I'm not sure if saving the dailies is such a good idea. The session I ran yesterday was mostly wilderness combat, so the PCs were getting an average of less than one fight per day. Over the first two battles, the PCs used a total of two daily powers between the five of them. They didn't even use their action points and encounter powers until I started reminding them in a non-subtle way to do it ("hey guys, 1 of you is down and the rest are bloodied, you should probably think about using your special abilities now.")

In the end, half the party never used their dailies at all. The only PCs who were free with their Daily powers were the two Fighters (probably having a Reliable daily makes you more casual about taking a shot with it).

- Saph

Ah, but in a Wilderness Campaign, they had no idea when or how many conflicts they'd see before the end of the day, so of course they were extremely miserly. When it comes to resource management, it's a game of expectations.

It's also possible they're not used to 4e resource management yet - I know that when I looked at Encounter powers I first thought "limited resource" as opposed to "a resources to be used every encounter."

Do keep up this thread though - I like hearing what other people are running into :smallbiggrin:

Gralamin
2008-08-24, 12:34 PM
Dailies are usually saved, wisely, for dire situations and/or BBEGs. If the players have a good idea of the flow of the adventure (we're knocking down a kobold warren, lead by a Boss Kobold) then they'll save their dailies for the Boss, knowing that he'll have the toughest minions around him. In a standard dungeon crawl players will probably save their dailies for as long as possible.


Saving your dailies usually doesn't make any tactical sense. If a power would change the course of a battle then use it (Obviously don't use it if an encounter is a cakewalk). Holding powers in reserve just in case "something worse is coming" usually causes encounters to last longer, and increases the chance of them wasting other resources, such as healing surges.


Man, the more I hear about people's experience with 4e modules, the more I suspect that WotC just produces lousy modules. Anyhow...
Certain encounters just kill certain parties. A non-rested party will have quite the hard fight against Irontooth (Which is why he basically has the highest TPK rate of everyone in that adventure). At the same time, A simple Blue Slime can almost kill a level 2 party if the rolls don't go there way.
When making your own adventures, you tend to know what your players are. When you don't know what your players are, the designers have to use the idea of a "Typical Party" whatever that is.

Zocelot
2008-08-24, 12:58 PM
I've noticed that my players don't even use their encounter powers every encounter. I'm not sure if this is because they forget, or because they are waiting for a perfect opportunity to use them.

It seems that at-wills are for combat, dailiy powers are for the BBEG, and encounter powers are used for clean-up and BBEGs.

Oracle_Hunter
2008-08-24, 01:16 PM
I've noticed that my players don't even use their encounter powers every encounter. I'm not sure if this is because they forget, or because they are waiting for a perfect opportunity to use them.

It seems that at-wills are for combat, dailiy powers are for the BBEG, and encounter powers are used for clean-up and BBEGs.

Nah, just remind your players that an Encounter Power is going to be refreshed before the next battle, so they'd better use it.

Usually, I keep an eye out for situations that would make good use of an Encounter power. I also try to position myself so that such a situation would come up. Often this is no more than making sure I have CA before firing it off, or (for Burning Hands) that I can catch a bunch of the baddies with it. I really do think it's just a matter of reminding them "you'll get this back next encounter, so don't sit on it."

RE: Dailies & Tough Situations
In a truly dire situation you need to start blowing dailies just to survive. That makes good sense, but you also don't want to waste a daily if you could have survived without it, because a truly dire situation may come up later. That's the dilemma.

In short, I'd say At-Wills should be used without a thought, Encounters should be used whenever you get a good shot with them, and Dailies need to be saved for BBEGs or "In Case of Emergency."

icefractal
2008-08-24, 02:00 PM
Depending on what the Daily is, it often makes sense not to use it on the BBEG. For instance, Sleep. If you use it on the solo BBEG, it's probably got a high Will defense, and a bonus to saves, so it'll likely have little effect. But if you run into a group of foes that are conveniently clustered, and manage to make that fight a lot easier by using it, you'll save other resources that can be more effectively deployed against the BBEG.

Gralamin
2008-08-24, 02:12 PM
RE: Dailies & Tough Situations
In a truly dire situation you need to start blowing dailies just to survive. That makes good sense, but you also don't want to waste a daily if you could have survived without it, because a truly dire situation may come up later. That's the dilemma.

In short, I'd say At-Wills should be used without a thought, Encounters should be used whenever you get a good shot with them, and Dailies need to be saved for BBEGs or "In Case of Emergency."

Merely surviving may put you in a worse position then using your daily. A truly dire situation may come up, or you may be thrusting yourself into one by expending more resources then necessary. The longer a battle goes on, the greater chance of needing to spend additional healing surges, which are a valuable defense on their own.


Depending on what the Daily is, it often makes sense not to use it on the BBEG. For instance, Sleep. If you use it on the solo BBEG, it's probably got a high Will defense, and a bonus to saves, so it'll likely have little effect. But if you run into a group of foes that are conveniently clustered, and manage to make that fight a lot easier by using it, you'll save other resources that can be more effectively deployed against the BBEG.

Exactly. Obviously some Dailies are meant for BBEG or just creatures you can't seem to hit (Lead the Attack for example), but with others it just makes more sense to use them when needed.

Saph
2008-08-30, 04:52 PM
4e - Stuff I've Learned So Far (Session 3)


Session 3 today. This time the players were all level 2, and they at last had a cleric. The other members were two fighters, a wizard, and a warlock, making for a well-balanced party.

Swarms are INSANE. Remember how I said Fire Beetles were the worst low-level monsters? Forget I said anything. Needlefang Drake Swarms make them look like wimps. Go here for the full tragic analysis (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=89516), or just take my word for it that they're the most outrageously overpowered monster of low levels. The encounter contained 1 elite pit trap, 1 goblin sharpshooter, and 2 needlefang drake swarms. The pit trap and the goblin achieved absolutely nothing except to slow the PCs down. Didn't matter. The drakes ripped the PCs to bits. The only reason the party wasn't TPKed was because I fudged the rules for the wizard and cleric, 'forgetting' to take AoO's and apply modifiers, allowing them to survive. Even so, one fighter died (the first PC death of the campaign), and the warlock only survived by passing 3 death saves in a row when she was 1 failed save away from death.
By comparison, the climactic fight against the goblins - an 800 XP battle - was a cakewalk. Goblin Elite Underbosses really aren't that tough for 350 XP. They soak up a lot of hits, but they can't do very much.
When 4e was brought out, one of the selling points was that it was supposed to prevent the caster narcolepsy issue - fight 5 minutes, sleep 24 hours. It doesn't seem to have worked all that well, because now the whole party acts narcoleptic instead. As soon as the PCs spend even one daily, there's an incentive for them to take the rest of the day off and come back after an extended rest. I can push the PCs into fighting multiple encounters, but I'm not sure if I should.

Overall, my players seem to be getting gradually less enthusiastic about 4e. They were happy to begin with with the at-will powers and the increased low-level survivability, but there seems to be a growing feeling now of 'is this it?' Levelling up just doesn't seem very exciting compared to the exponential character growth of 3.5.

Other player complaints have been that the battle system seems to encourage an adversarial relationship between the DM and the PCs, and that the at-will powers are starting to get boring after the 15th or 20th time you use them. Other players have asked if it would be possible to switch the campaign over to 3.5. I'm definitely going to keep running the campaign for at least two more sessions, but at the moment 4e's future with our group looks dicey.

- Saph

Oracle_Hunter
2008-08-30, 06:25 PM
When 4e was brought out, one of the selling points was that it was supposed to prevent the caster narcolepsy issue - fight 5 minutes, sleep 24 hours. It doesn't seem to have worked all that well, because now the whole party acts narcoleptic instead. As soon as the PCs spend even one daily, there's an incentive for them to take the rest of the day off and come back after an extended rest. I can push the PCs into fighting multiple encounters, but I'm not sure if I should.

I've noticed a bit of this as well. I really think you do have to push the PCs with some sort of story-pressure, or there really is no reason for them to take one encounter a day. Fortunately, this can be quite reasonable:
- it takes several hours to get through the forest to the goblin camp. The forest is dangerous, so you're likely to get a Random Encounter moving through it (both ways) and sleeping in the forest is also dangerous. The less you have to move through the forest, the better off you'll be.
- the baddies are on a time schedule. They have to make their sacrifice on the full noon, or they're selling the prisoners to the slave caravan that arrives in a few days.
- there is a rival party of adventurers going for the same prize. If you're lazy, they'll get it before you.

IRL, things need to get done on time for a reason. In RPGs it's easy to fall into Plot Time (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/PlotTime) thinking; that the goblins are just going to sit in their camp while you take your time getting to them. Express to your PCs that this is not the case, and make it stick. This not only should boost immersion (suddenly, plots need to get done now not just whenever) but it will also speed up your adventures.

Ifni
2008-08-30, 07:20 PM
Could you provide more details for this death? So far, in my experience and from other DMs who I have talked to that have run 4e, character deaths are virtually nonexistant. In the rare occasion it has happened, it was a result of poor player tactics (charging the enemy when very low in health, ignoring warning signs, attacking creatures obviously too powerful for the party to defeat in combat, etc.), and I am curious to see if that is the same for this situation.

My tiefling wizard died in my first 4e game (not that it mattered: it was a one-shot to explore the rules). A hobgoblin warcaster dropped a 2d8+4 area blast on the L1 party, and rolled 15+ on all the attack rolls and 19 for damage, leaving my wizard prone on 2/21 HP. She chose to spend her next action trying to take out the warcaster (and the archer standing next to it) rather than using a second wind, because I didn't think the extra 5 HP would make a difference. The cleric used his healing word on the fighter rather than the wizard (which was entirely reasonable in the circumstances), and missed on his attack vs the warcaster. The fighter was busy with the two hobgoblin soldiers. The warlock and ranger both missed with their attacks. The warcaster's turn came up again: it was now in single-digit HP and very annoyed at the wizard, so it used its Force Lure ability on her. The Force Lure hit, did 13 damage, and killed her outright.

(The encounter was a hobgoblin warcaster, two hobgoblin archers, and two hobgoblin soldiers.)

Shades of Gray
2008-08-30, 08:51 PM
The Force Lure hit, did 13 damage, and killed her outright.

I thought death was gradual over three turns, not with negatives.

Beleriphon
2008-08-30, 09:32 PM
I thought death was gradual over three turns, not with negatives.

Nah, if you're knocked into the negatives you do the save thing, if damage deals enough to bring you to 0 + your bloodied total you die. Do not pass go, do not collect 200gp.

Grynning
2008-08-30, 09:37 PM
You still die if your HP drops to the negative of your bloodied value. No saves for that, you're gibbed.

On the party narcolepsy issue - We really haven't had a problem with that...our DM generally sticks to a two combat encounter per game day model, and usually half the group uses their daily in the first fight, the other half in the second. After two fights we're all pretty low on surges so that's generally a good time to rest. Of course we have bits of non-combat stuff in between.

Kurald Galain
2008-08-31, 04:52 AM
Seriously, as an experiment, try just cutting out skill challenges and replacing them with skill checks whenever they're appropriate or when players choose to make them. Then at the end of the session, work out a roughly appropriate amount of XP for the skill-challengeness. I've found it works SO much better, and the game flows much more quickly.
I completely agree.



Level 1 (assuming 18 in attack stat):+4 or +7 (if weapon) possible
Level 4 (assuming 18 in attack stat): +7 (+1 implement) or +10 (+1 weapon)
You shouldn't assume an 18 in an attack stat. For instance, our party has a fighter with strength 12.

Regarding dailies and action points, I found out quickly that their purpose is to use them, early and often, as soon as you find a time where they're effective. For instance, if a striker can one-shot a (non-minion) enemy in the first round by using an action point, that means the enemy never does anything harmful.

ghost_warlock
2008-08-31, 05:56 AM
Session 3 today. This time the players were all level 2, and they at last had a cleric. The other members were two fighters, a wizard, and a warlock, making for a well-balanced party.

Party composition for our group: eladrin wizard, eladrin rogue (MC wizard), shifter cleric (not sure what kind of shifter it was), tiefling Cha-paladin, human sword-and-board fighter, and my own githyanki warlock (MC wizard). We started about 500 XP from 2nd (due to half the group having run partway though Kobold Hall and the DM deciding to start everyone off at the same place XP-wize). We hit 2nd two encounters into the session.

I know that some of the choices we made were sub-optimal (especially an almost total lack of crowd control due to power choices), but I'd hoped that having 6 characters would make up for it.


Swarms are INSANE. Remember how I said Fire Beetles were the worst low-level monsters? Forget I said anything. Needlefang Drake Swarms make them look like wimps. Go here for the full tragic analysis (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=89516), or just take my word for it that they're the most outrageously overpowered monster of low levels. The encounter contained 1 elite pit trap, 1 goblin sharpshooter, and 2 needlefang drake swarms. The pit trap and the goblin achieved absolutely nothing except to slow the PCs down. Didn't matter. The drakes ripped the PCs to bits. The only reason the party wasn't TPKed was because I fudged the rules for the wizard and cleric, 'forgetting' to take AoO's and apply modifiers, allowing them to survive. Even so, one fighter died (the first PC death of the campaign), and the warlock only survived by passing 3 death saves in a row when she was 1 failed save away from death.

We had the hardest time with a pair of guard drakes who almost dropped the paladin (4 hp remaining) in the surprise round. Part of that was tactics, part was the inability to pull off the DC 30 Insight check we needed to avoid being Bluffed into a terrible tactical position/ambush. :smallmad:


By comparison, the climactic fight against the goblins - an 800 XP battle - was a cakewalk. Goblin Elite Underbosses really aren't that tough for 350 XP. They soak up a lot of hits, but they can't do very much.

We actually had a similar experience with Irontooth, thanks to our much-improved tactics and positioning by the time we faced that encounter! I was actually surprised at how easy it was after hearing horror stories about it around here. We took some damage, and it did look pretty grim for the cleric when Irontooth pulled off a crit on some special when bloodied attack against him, reducing him from full to 3 hp in a single strike. The paladin managed to fix him up fairly quickly, though. Having 6 characters definitely improved our chances, though I still wish we would have had better crowd control. (And a cleric with a >8 Con! :smallsigh:)

The battle took about 3 hours real time, but the closest anyone ever came to dropping was the cleric situation, above. No one had more than 8 hp of damage by the end and we only used one healing potion.


When 4e was brought out, one of the selling points was that it was supposed to prevent the caster narcolepsy issue - fight 5 minutes, sleep 24 hours. It doesn't seem to have worked all that well, because now the whole party acts narcoleptic instead. As soon as the PCs spend even one daily, there's an incentive for them to take the rest of the day off and come back after an extended rest. I can push the PCs into fighting multiple encounters, but I'm not sure if I should.

Narcolepsy was a definite issue with our group, and the DM fed into it; although he may had done so after deciding to retcon away the TPK-slaughterfest that was the party's attempt at Kobold Hall before I arrived. I guess he was playing with kid gloves a bit after the boss of Kobold Hall offed half the party in the surprise round + first round.


Overall, my players seem to be getting gradually less enthusiastic about 4e. They were happy to begin with with the at-will powers and the increased low-level survivability, but there seems to be a growing feeling now of 'is this it?' Levelling up just doesn't seem very exciting compared to the exponential character growth of 3.5.

I've had some of the same issues. I just got back from my last "session" a few hours ago and the more I think about it the more annoyed I become and the less I like 4e. Considering I wasn't exactly thrilled with it to begin with.

I put session in quotations, above, because a better way to describe it would be 13-hour game-a-thon! :smallbiggrin: We blew through the first several encounters of KotS, clearing Irontooth and the dragon graveyard; although we did these "out of order" according to the DM. :smallsigh:


Other player complaints have been that the battle system seems to encourage an adversarial relationship between the DM and the PCs, and that the at-will powers are starting to get boring after the 15th or 20th time you use them. Other players have asked if it would be possible to switch the campaign over to 3.5. I'm definitely going to keep running the campaign for at least two more sessions, but at the moment 4e's future with our group looks dicey.

I hate encounter and dailies; they seem like nothing more than a let-down to me after consistenly failing almost every attack roll I make using them. And I know my stats aren't at fault - 18 attribute, a +1 implement at 2nd level, and the benefit of Improved Fate of the Void most of the time gave be about the best attack bonus I could hope for. The dice were simply very cruel to me. :smallfrown:

The miss effect on the daily was more like a slap in the face than it was a "cool, I get a cool effect even if I miss" (which was always the case - in 10 encounters I tried to use my daily 8 times and missed every single time). Spamming an at-will just seemed to result in less of a letdown since I didn't feel like I'd really expended anything if I missed again. Miss with an at-will and you've blown your action. Miss with your daily and you've blown your action as well as your most powerful attack. Lame. I'm seriously considering talking with the DM about removing the crappy Miss effects from all my dailies and see if he won't let them be Reliable, instead. :smallannoyed:

Kompera
2008-08-31, 06:11 AM
Other player complaints have been that the battle system seems to encourage an adversarial relationship between the DM and the PCs, and that the at-will powers are starting to get boring after the 15th or 20th time you use them.
Nice write up (both here and in the thread on the Needlefang Drake Swarm). The quoted sentence really hit me, though, and I'd like to ask if you could expand on specifically what the players who complained about the battle system making for an adversarial player/GM relationship meant, and also how the use of an at-will power can get any more boring than a Fighter or other melee class swinging their weapon (in 4e terms, making a standard attack) after the 15th or 20th time.

Saph
2008-08-31, 06:38 AM
On the party narcolepsy issue - We really haven't had a problem with that...our DM generally sticks to a two combat encounter per game day model, and usually half the group uses their daily in the first fight, the other half in the second. After two fights we're all pretty low on surges so that's generally a good time to rest. Of course we have bits of non-combat stuff in between.

I'm finding the same thing. After two encounters everybody's used a daily, so they all want to take a break.

The solution I'm coming around to now is to throw one easy and one hard encounter at the party per day. E.g. if the party's level 2, send them against one level 2 encounter and one level 4 encounter, so they get a challenging fight before they rest. (Of course, in this case it was the level 2 encounter that was the lethal one.)


Nice write up (both here and in the thread on the Needlefang Drake Swarm). The quoted sentence really hit me, though, and I'd like to ask if you could expand on specifically what the players who complained about the battle system making for an adversarial player/GM relationship meant, and also how the use of an at-will power can get any more boring than a Fighter or other melee class swinging their weapon (in 4e terms, making a standard attack) after the 15th or 20th time.

Interesting you mention that, because the Fighters were fine with their at-will powers (Tide of Iron, Cleave, etc). It was the spellcasters who were getting restless, especially the Fey Pact Warlock. I think what the Warlock really wanted was to be able to 'upgrade' her at-wills at a certain level, rather than relying on Eyebite and Eldritch Blast throughout.

I can't really expand on the 'adversarial' comment because the player didn't say much more than that, and I didn't push her on it. It might have been connected to a comparison to Descent, and the idea that the DM 'wins' by killing the PCs, but I might be mixing it up. As the DM I'm trying to be as impartial as I can be on this, so I'm just listening to what feedback the players volunteer.

I think there's going to be a conflict sooner or later, because one of the players (the Eladrin Fighter) absolutely loves 4e, two more of the players (last week's Fighter and the Wizard) are newbies and just learnt 4e, and three of the other players (the Warlock, the now-dead Fighter, and the Cleric) are ex-3.5ers and dislike 4e. So no matter which system we play, somebody's going to be unhappy. I think I'm about the only person who genuinely enjoys both.

You know, it's not the game-running part of GMing that's hardest, it's the logistics and diplomacy. :P

- Saph

Dhavaer
2008-08-31, 06:52 AM
[B]Players have the weirdest habit of saving their dailies. Even when party members are down and they're obviously in danger of losing, they still keep using at-wills. Does anyone else find this, or are my players just strange?

- Saph

I think I've seen this one in a PbP I'm in. In a combat encounter which was almost certainly going to be the only one of the day, I was the only character to use a daily, and one of two to use an encounter power. We won handily all the same, but it was a bit odd.

Tengu_temp
2008-08-31, 12:47 PM
You shouldn't assume an 18 in an attack stat. For instance, our party has a fighter with strength 12.


I'm curious of the reason behind creating such a gimped character. Most 4e characters should have 16-18 in their main stat.

Kurald Galain
2008-08-31, 01:06 PM
I'm curious of the reason behind creating such a gimped character. Most 4e characters should have 16-18 in their main stat.

I agree. In fact I would even say that they should have an 18 or 20; with the standard point buy and a +2 bonus from race there really isn't a good reason not to take at least an 18.

The reason? Well, wanting to do something outside the box. In this case, a defensive fighter, that focuses on constitution (for hit points and healing surges) and dexterity (for armor class). Turns out this isn't all that effective.

Oracle_Hunter
2008-08-31, 01:09 PM
I agree. In fact I would even say that they should have an 18 or 20; with the standard point buy and a +2 bonus from race there really isn't a good reason not to take at least an 18.

The reason? Well, wanting to do something outside the box. In this case, a defensive fighter, that focuses on constitution (for hit points and healing surges) and dexterity (for armor class). Turns out this isn't all that effective.

:smallconfused:
A defensive fighter should be wearing Heavy Armor and carry a Heavy Shield. Neither of those allow INT/DEX to give a bonus to AC. If he really doesn't want to use any of his powers, he should at least have a high WIS to get those OAs (Combat Superiority), though to be honest there should have been enough points leftover for a 14 STR, which should be fine if you stick with +3 Proficiency Weapons.

Edea
2008-08-31, 01:12 PM
I guess all of those Orbizards we see floating around on CharOp have got it wrong. I find myself agreeing, though; since virtually everything you do in combat is a to-hit (unless it's Utility, in which case it probably doesn't even need a stat), naturally the stat that controls to-hit will be used constantly. Someone did the maths on Elven Accuracy, I forget what the results were (that racial is...jeebus, it's good).

Oracle_Hunter
2008-08-31, 01:15 PM
I guess all of those Orbizards we see floating around on CharOp have got it wrong. I find myself agreeing, though; since virtually everything you do in combat is a to-hit (unless it's Utility, in which case it probably doesn't even need a stat), naturally the stat that controls to-hit will be used constantly. Someone did the maths on Elven Accuracy, I forget what the results were (that racial is...jeebus, it's good).

Some of those maths were a bit specious. Elven Accuracy is often used to set off an "infinite reroll" chain, which I really don't think is correct, even under RAW.

But yeah, the primary stat for your character is important. Wizards really do need high INT, and Fighters really do need high STR. I think the 18 bar is a bit high - my PCs do OK with just 16s, which a Standard Array (what I use) gives out to everyone.

EDIT:
Oh, and Orbizards? :smallsigh:

Edea
2008-08-31, 01:20 PM
You've heard of the term? It gets bandied around quite a bit back on Crapmax...

Oracle_Hunter
2008-08-31, 01:27 PM
You've heard of the term? It gets bandied around quite a bit back on Crapmax...

Oh, I have, but all the Sound and Fury about them is silly.

Yes, being able to give minuses on saving throws is huge (and when combined with the Paragon Feat Spell Mastery, can get huger) but they only apply to the Wizard's own spells and he can do it only one save per encounter.

Yes, there's a very nice combo with Sleep, but it's not exactly Candle of Invocation territory. Orb spec is probably the best of the three spec choices, but not by more than a few degrees.

Edea
2008-08-31, 01:29 PM
I find myself preferring the Staff, to be honest. Probably the only reason my current Wizard doesn't get thwacked in half the moment combat starts (usually in concert with the Shield utility).

Oracle_Hunter
2008-08-31, 01:35 PM
I find myself preferring the Staff, to be honest. Probably the only reason my current Wizard doesn't get thwacked in half the moment combat starts (usually in concert with the Shield utility).

I agree. I think the ordering goes Orb>Staff>Wand, but that's only because Wizards don't have many good single-target spells. Now, a Wand Wizard/Warlock would be nasty...

Plus, I love my Dwarven Battlemage. He has Leather Armor, a Staff, and Thunderwave/Scorching Burst. He is always in the face of his enemies :smallamused:

Akvad_Dunchadt
2008-08-31, 01:42 PM
I have to say that I haven't had too much of the narcolepsy issue with my characters. Typically they are eager to continue even when half or more of them have used their daily power, preferring to rest only when their healing ability runs low (expected). I guess it really depends on the attitude of your players and, more importantly, their characters. If everyone is playing cautiously, or cautious characters, then ya, the action will drag and they will rest a lot. Perhaps reminding them of their characters' personalities might help to encourage them to be bold adventurers and not meek or timid explorers.

As for missing with daily or encounter powers.. I had one character roll 4 or 5 successive 1s. Both encounters, his daily, and utility, were gone.

Oracle_Hunter
2008-08-31, 01:53 PM
As for missing with daily or encounter powers.. I had one character roll 4 or 5 successive 1s. Both encounters, his daily, and utility, were gone.

I think this comes down to strategy, actually. Combat advantage always gives a +2 to hit, so if you're going to be unloading a limited resource, you might as well try to get into flanking first. Sure, you can still roll low, but I'm sure that +2 is going to up the averages.

For Ranged characters, you have fewer options here, but you can always just wait until someone dazes/blinds/stuns a baddie and nuke 'im then with your Daily.

Just my 2 cents on that matter. :smallbiggrin:

Douglas
2008-08-31, 02:08 PM
The cleric used his healing word on the fighter rather than the wizard (which was entirely reasonable in the circumstances), and missed on his attack vs the warcaster.
Why not use it on both? Healing Word is 2/encounter and move or standard actions can be downgraded to minor. Spend his minor action to heal the fighter, move to heal the wizard, and standard to attack. If he's a melee focused cleric and needed to move before attacking, spend an action point. You get another AP every two encounters, so you really should be using them pretty frequently.

Kurald Galain
2008-08-31, 02:11 PM
Why not use it on both?

Because you can use it only once per round.

Kompera
2008-09-01, 05:21 AM
As for missing with daily or encounter powers.. I had one character roll 4 or 5 successive 1s. Both encounters, his daily, and utility, were gone.Ouch and all. But really, 4 or 5 successive 1s is bad no matter what actions you're taking, and no matter what version of D&d you're playing. Just a really bad day.

Yakk
2008-09-01, 02:14 PM
My tiefling wizard died in my first 4e game (not that it mattered: it was a one-shot to explore the rules). A hobgoblin warcaster dropped a 2d8+4 area blast on the L1 party, and rolled 15+ on all the attack rolls and 19 for damage, leaving my wizard prone on 2/21 HP. She chose to spend her next action trying to take out the warcaster (and the archer standing next to it) rather than using a second wind, because I didn't think the extra 5 HP would make a difference. The cleric used his healing word on the fighter rather than the wizard (which was entirely reasonable in the circumstances), and missed on his attack vs the warcaster. The fighter was busy with the two hobgoblin soldiers. The warlock and ranger both missed with their attacks. The warcaster's turn came up again: it was now in single-digit HP and very annoyed at the wizard, so it used its Force Lure ability on her. The Force Lure hit, did 13 damage, and killed her outright.

(The encounter was a hobgoblin warcaster, two hobgoblin archers, and two hobgoblin soldiers.)

So it was 5 level 3 monsters, against a level 1 party. *nod*, if things go poorly, you die.

MartinHarper
2008-09-01, 07:54 PM
The 4e DMG suggests moving monsters together, as groups. I've been doing that, and rolling attacks together. It does save time, but it has a big gotcha, as I found out this weekend.

Scenario: the PCs are fighting zombies. The fighter is bloodied, and has marked both remaining zombies. The zombies shift next to her and attack, which feels reasonable. Unfortunately, they both hit, roll high for damage, and leave her two points away from instant death. A narrow escape.
If I had been managing my zombies individually, the first would have knocked her unconscious, and then the second would no longer be marked, and would just whack on whatever's closest to it. So handling monsters as groups increases the risk of instant kills, and for some reason that wasn't obvious to me.

Also, I'm not quite sure how I should handle zombies (and other semi-mindless creatures) and marking. Should they pursue the PC who marked them? Or should they just whack on the closest target?

Marty
2008-09-02, 03:46 PM
As soon as the PCs spend even one daily, there's an incentive for them to take the rest of the day off and come back after an extended rest. I can push the PCs into fighting multiple encounters, but I'm not sure if I should.


You should definitely push more encounters. Another poster mentioned using the story to create urgency, but I don't think it even needs to go that far.

I'm assuming the PCs are in a dungeon or wilderness area used by their adversaries as a home. What are the monsters doing during those 6 hour rests?

How about patrols? Or just any daily activity that might cause the PCs to be discovered in their rest area? Won't another goblin/kobold/orc notice that Grak hasn't been heard from in a couple hours... and neither have the other 3, 4, 5 ... 10 guys that are on point. Perhaps someone should investigate?

Of course, this is an issue I have with most published dungeon crawls in any edition -- monsters just standing around waiting to be slaughtered. In "reality", at some point an alarm should be raised and the PCs should realize that they can't take on a complex/encampment that is now aware and prepared for their invasion.

In any case, the party might get away with a 5 - 15 minute rest break, but staying in one place for too long in an area where the enemy is very active is a sure fire way to get a lot of unwanted, pointy attention.

Yakk
2008-09-02, 05:11 PM
Or, you can do away with dailies being refreshed by long rests.

At each milestone (which should happen 5 times per level, or every two "even level" encounters -- biased towards plot points), you roll 1d6 for each Daily power expended. On a 456 it recharges. You also gain back 1/2 of your healing surges (round up), and gain 1 action point.

If you take a long rest, you may make an endurance check against DC 10. If so, you gain back a single healing surge. You gain back an additional healing surge for every 10 points you beat the DC 10 by.

In addition, as a trained use of the heal skill, a player may make a roll against DC 20. On a success, they can heal 1 additional healing surge to one other player. Every 10 you beat the DC by you heal 1 additional healing surge.

Finally, you lose all action points if you "back off" and take a long rest (but not if the long rest "just happens" -- this only happens if the players say "we wait around and do nothing in order to take a long rest"). Players who have hit 2 milestones since their last long rest can back off and not lose action points.

Edea
2008-09-02, 06:56 PM
I believe perhaps one reason there is no recharge mechanic for players is that the designers might have thought it'd get annoying to repeatedly throw d6s every turn to see if they come back, but I personally -would not mind- :D.

Also, with Yakk's suggestion, while it's a nice one, there is the problem that some players will get their powers back...and others won't; while in and of itself that certainly doesn't have to be a bad thing, it does run the risk of leading to pissy players (being rather immature myself, I know I'd be feeling more than a bit pissy if I rolled a 3,1,1,3 and Ms. Mary Sue over there rolled a 4,4,6,5 at a milestone prior to a BBEG).

Either way, extended rests equaling 'Final Fantasy Inn,' as it does now, really is stretching it, and it's much too strong of an allure atm to not take them as often as possible (like I said elsewhere, trying to lay ambushes and/or ganking them during the rest period is just going to either lead to deaths/frustration or defeat-the-enemy-and-go-right-back-to-sleep/frustration; trying to use the railroad tracks to stop players from sleeping will almost certainly fail, and -hard-).

Homebrew crap ahead...


If I ever DO try DMing a 4e game (probably not gonna happen, but it's nice to think about it), I'm changing the rules for powers/power recovery and seeing what happens as far as balance/playability. The system I had in mind was:

1) Each class would have full access to their respective at-wills, and they'd take the place of the character's Basic Attacks. I'd readjust some of the at-wills so that we didn't have classes relying on different numbers of to-hit stats (I'd get it so that each class had one stat, or perhaps two, for the at-wills; I think I'd prefer one, in my case). They'd still be able to use a non-typed Melee or Ranged Basic Attack if they wanted to, provided they had the correct weapon in hand.

2) Encounter Powers would gain a recharge mechanic. For a quick fix, just have it be 'recharge on 4,5,6 of a d6,' but if I got the gumption to do so, I would give each encounter power individualized recharge potential (so one encounter power might do less than another, but it's far more likely to be recharged, as an example). The recharge would take place at the start of a character's turn, after taking ongoing damage (if any, obviously), and you'd have to be alive to use recharge rolls. Not sure if I'd have the player roll for each one used, or just roll once and then, on a success, pick a used power to regenerate, or on a success get all used ones back, etc.).

3) Daily Powers would turn into Encounter Powers as they are now; they'd require a short rest to recharge.

4) Rituals would become the Daily Powers. Strip away the gold costs and the casting times, maybe twiddle around with the required skill checks (if any). Leave them as non-class specific; you'd just pick however many your class said to give you when you leveled, and then you'd prepare a certain number per day, and you'd be able to prep more than one copy. I -hate- the Power Roulette effect (not that it pertains to Rituals as they are now, but it does apply to the rest of the power system).

5) Get rid of the Ritual system entirely (blessed be).

Obviously some PPs/feats would have to be accounted for (as well as accessibility of at-wills by various class archetypes), but I've already at least tried it with the PHB and I didn't find it to be that difficult. I wonder just how much this would break the game/maths. It would certainly speed things up, and frankly I think it'd get rid of the psychological effect around Daily power usage and extended rests (which I loathe utterly).

fractic
2008-09-02, 07:02 PM
2) Encounter Powers would gain a recharge mechanic. For a quick fix, just have it be 'recharge on 4,5,6 of a d6,' but if I got the gumption to do so, I would give each encounter power individualized recharge potential (so one encounter power might do less than another, but it's far more likely to be recharged, as an example). The recharge would take place at the start of a character's turn, after taking ongoing damage (if any, obviously), and you'd have to be alive to use recharge rolls. Not sure if I'd have the player roll for each one used, or just roll once and then, on a success, pick a used power to regenerate, or on a success get all used ones back, etc.)

By the time the characters get a 3-4 encounter powers, this will mean that they can use an encounter power allmost every single turn. Even with just a recharge on a 6 it's a 50% chance of recovering any of your 3 encounter powers.

Edea
2008-09-02, 07:07 PM
By the time the characters get a 3-4 encounter powers, this will mean that they can use an encounter power allmost every single turn. Even with just a recharge on a 6 it's a 50% chance of recovering any of your 3 encounter powers.

That's my intention. Once you get 3-4 encounter powers, you shouldn't have to fall back on your lower-powered at-wills unless you've had a HORRIBLE run of bad luck, or...something's preventing you from recharging (which I forgot to mention as an inclusion to the mechanic; see things like a Beholder's eye rays, one of them might shut off your recharging abilities for a period of time or until you succeed on a certain number of saving throws). The basic attacks would be used for things like Warlord Abilities/Bracer Boosters/OAs/etc.

TwystidMynd
2008-09-03, 10:43 AM
Narcolepsy in characters
As a player, I played under a DM who gave us various time-sensitive goals. Our characters would frequently run low on Daily powers, but push on because we still had some strength left (healing surges) and rely on our At-Will/Encounter powers for the remaining battles. This kind of perseverence is important when you're trying to track down your fallen companion before he's sold into slavery!
As a DM, I tried running the Kobold Hall module, and was perturbed by the fact that, when one character was down to half his healing surges, and one character had used her daily, the party wanted to return to town and rest. And they had defeated every room except for the dragon! I realized, then, that I should have worked in some time-senstive goal that ensured the characters would want to press on, and that was my own fault for not doing so.
If I supply a world where everything can be assumed to be static while the characters sleep, it's really not the edition's fault, but my own.
I resorted to DM fiat to keep the characters going, which I wasn't happy with it at all, but everyone understood it was a one-shot while I got my feet wet in the 4e DMing pool, so they forgave me =P


Or, you can do away with dailies being refreshed by long rests.

At each milestone (which should happen 5 times per level, or every two "even level" encounters -- biased towards plot points), you roll 1d6 for each Daily power expended. On a 456 it recharges. You also gain back 1/2 of your healing surges (round up), and gain 1 action point.

If you take a long rest, you may make an endurance check against DC 10. If so, you gain back a single healing surge. You gain back an additional healing surge for every 10 points you beat the DC 10 by.

In addition, as a trained use of the heal skill, a player may make a roll against DC 20. On a success, they can heal 1 additional healing surge to one other player. Every 10 you beat the DC by you heal 1 additional healing surge.

Finally, you lose all action points if you "back off" and take a long rest (but not if the long rest "just happens" -- this only happens if the players say "we wait around and do nothing in order to take a long rest"). Players who have hit 2 milestones since their last long rest can back off and not lose action points.

A lot of people are very unhappy with 4e, and many of them cite the 6-hour rest being a major reason why they dislike it. "Instant heal!" silliness and whatnot. I tend to like 4e, but agree pretty severely with this point. If a group presses so hard that they run out of healing surges, are low on HP, and out of daily powers, then I imagine that a simple night in a cave won't really restore them to full power. This was also a bit of a problem in 3.x, but not such a big one, since the Cleric could theoretically spend any unspent spells to heal the party, and that sort of made sense, but still didn't sit well with me.

I like Yakk's theme with this houserule, and I may adopt it with some tweaking. I think that resting in a hostile environment should restore some amount of fighting power, but not necessarily all of it.

Obviously, Dailies and Encounters should be restored. Since Healing Surges and HP are so closely linked, and HP represents damage taken, I don't think damage should necessarily heal during a rest, but getting Healing Surges after a rest makes sense to me.
I'll probably houserule that Endurance check mechanic into my games, but change it so that a rest gives you 4 Surges + 1 er 5 points above 10, so a 15 Endurance check gives 5 healing surges back.

Since Fighters are more likely to have Endurance as a trained skill, it's expected that they would regain 5 healing surges per rest, which would mean a fully spent fighter (unconscious and at 0 surges) would be able to rest to full in roughly 3 days.
Other classes with no Endurance Training would expect to rest for 4 days or so.

*shrugs* Just brainstorming out loud.

Colmarr
2008-09-03, 05:45 PM
HP represents damage taken

No they don't. At least not in any mandatory sense.

They represent ability to continue adventuring and fighting. Only when you hit 0 hp do they in any way reflect damage taken, and even then not always in the "oh! decapitation!" way.

Let me give an example:

"Somehow Corrin managed to duck out of the direct line of the swing, but the greataxe connected solidly with the pauldron of his plate armour and the force of the blow lifted the halfling bodily and threw him against the stone wall. Corrin’s head struck with a sickening thud and he fell limply to the ground, sliding a few steps down towards us before he came to rest."

That's an actual example of "reduced to 0 hp" from one of our sessions, but it is a situation from which a heroic paladin might have recovered after a short rest and a bit of healing.

There's nothing inherently wrong with healing surges once you disconnect hp from physical damage. The real beef seems to be that 4e PCs are action heroes (ie. they take a licking and keep on ticking without the intervention of magic) and some players don't want the game to feel that way.

Crow
2008-09-03, 05:50 PM
No they don't. At least not in any mandatory sense.

They represent ability to continue adventuring and fighting. Only when you hit 0 hp do they in any way reflect damage taken, and even then not always in the "oh! decapitation!" way.

Let me give an example:

"Somehow Corrin managed to duck out of the direct line of the swing, but the greataxe connected solidly with the pauldron of his plate armour and the force of the blow lifted the halfling bodily and threw him against the stone wall. Corrin’s head struck with a sickening thud and he fell limply to the ground, sliding a few steps down towards us before he came to rest."

That's an actual example of "reduced to 0 hp" from one of our sessions, but it is a situation from which a heroic paladin might have recovered after a short rest and a bit of healing.

There's nothing inherently wrong with healing surges once you disconnect hp from physical damage. The real beef seems to be that 4e PCs are action heroes (ie. they take a licking and keep on ticking without the intervention of magic) and some players don't want the game to feel that way.

So an injury which had you on death's door, one death saving throw away from dying, should have no ill effects on the character as long as he gets some first aid and 6 hours of rest.

Colmarr
2008-09-03, 07:12 PM
So an injury which had you on death's door, one death saving throw away from dying, should have no ill effects on the character as long as he gets some first aid and 6 hours of rest.

This is a good example of what I like to call the "rules create reality" fallacy. In other words, because it is possible that the PC might die then they must therefore be dying.

In actual fact, it's entirely possible that the rules simply represent possibility, and that game-reality changes with the result of the dice.

Being at or below 0 hp simply means that the PC has encountered an event (as opposed to injury) that has a risk of killing them. In this case having his head thrown against a wall.

If Corrin had failed his three death saving throws, or the damage from the attack was enough to instantly take him to 'negative bloodied' then the result of the event was that he cracked his head open and died of shock and/or blood loss and/or brain damage.

If his first saving throw is a 20 and he gets up, it wasn't really such a bad knock and he's good to go almost immediately.

If he stabilises but doesn't regain consciousness until after an extended rest then the injury was somewhere in between.

quick_comment
2008-09-03, 10:23 PM
Swarm of teeth is a standard action not a basic attack as such the NFS can't use it when the player gets their turn. That reduces the damage enough that I think they're pretty managable.

Saph
2008-09-04, 08:20 AM
This is a good example of what I like to call the "rules create reality" fallacy.

Why on earth does everyone keep using the word "fallacy" these days? An argument you disagree with is not a fallacy.


In other words, because it is possible that the PC might die then they must therefore be dying.

A 4e PC on negatives IS dying. Barring great luck (a 20 on his save) he is guaranteed to die within a minute or two unless treated.

The solution you're proposing is the "Quantum Damage" approach; the PC's condition doesn't exist until it's been resolved. The problem with it is that it doesn't take into account what's happening NOW. If a character's on negative HP, the GM should be ready to describe what his condition is, not what his condition might or might not be in several rounds.

- Saph

TwystidMynd
2008-09-04, 08:22 AM
This is a good example of what I like to call the "rules create reality" fallacy. In other words, because it is possible that the PC might die then they must therefore be dying.

In actual fact, it's entirely possible that the rules simply represent possibility, and that game-reality changes with the result of the dice.

Being at or below 0 hp simply means that the PC has encountered an event (as opposed to injury) that has a risk of killing them. In this case having his head thrown against a wall.

If Corrin had failed his three death saving throws, or the damage from the attack was enough to instantly take him to 'negative bloodied' then the result of the event was that he cracked his head open and died of shock and/or blood loss and/or brain damage.

If his first saving throw is a 20 and he gets up, it wasn't really such a bad knock and he's good to go almost immediately.

If he stabilises but doesn't regain consciousness until after an extended rest then the injury was somewhere in between.


OK, so here's a hypothetical scenario:
Corrin get's knocked to 0 HP, and tossed against a wall.
Player B goes over, rolls a 50 on a Heal Check and asks, "How's Corrin looking?"

Do you say
A) (Rolled a 20) "He just had a bad knock. He'll be up again soon."
B) (Rolled 3 fails on his death saves) "His head is split open, there's no way to save him without a powerful ritual."
C) (Not rolled a 20, nor 3 fails)"Future hazy. Ask again later."
D) (zomg, Shroedinger!) Some other response that I'm not clever enough to come up with that encompasses the possibility of him being dead AND not dead at the same time, until he rolls that 20 or the 3 failures?

IMO, the Death saving throws really only make sense to describe as the PC fighting off death. Just like any other save, the PC is fighting as hard as they can to remove that effect... in my mind the PC is dying and will likely die unaided. If you can open my eyes, though, perhaps I'll see things differently.

On a separate topic that you presented earlier, I recognize that HP are an abstraction... but so is damage. When a Fighter has 100 HP, and is at full HP, then they take 10 damage, I don't really care what you want to describe it as. He still takes 10 damage. And in that way, HP loss represents damage taken. It's almost a tautology, since that's how the relationship between HP and damage is defined. Nit-picking really won't change that.

Edit: CURSE YOU SAPH! CURSE YOU AND YOUR NINJA CLAN!

nagora
2008-09-04, 08:41 AM
One possible way to look at damage rolled is that it is the amount of physical damage a normal person would have taken.

This is all 1e, but it might still have relevance or interest:

A non-heroic character (eg, a normal soldier) has a maximum of 7 or 8 hp. A longsword does 1-8 damage so, not unreasonably, a single hit with a longsword can kill any normal person. If you've ever struck a side of beef with a longsword, you'll know that this is realistic enough.

A fighter, say, with 16 hp who suffers 8 points of "damage" from that same longsword is not injured in any meaningful way. In other words, that 8 points of damage represents an attack that would have killed a normal person, but something about the character means that it failed to have an effect - they ducked at the last moment or managed a frantic parry or whatever. In all probability the blow didn't even land due to the hero's luck, skill, or whatever.

In 1e, once a character gets down to single figure HP, I generally describe it as actual wounds with blood and so on. Above that, the only question that might arise is whether the attack made even a scratch, which is what a save Vs poison partly represents. Thus, a fighter worn down from 100hp to 20 is a bit tired, perhaps has a scratch or two, but generally does not even feel "injured". After all, they are still able to survive two attacks which would decapitate a normal person; why would they feel battered?

Negative hit points mean "I'm dying now; please bring help".

Hoggmaster
2008-09-04, 08:48 AM
That is something that I had not considered. If the party presses on through multiple combat encounter those precious surges tend to not be there. Caveat: my only 4e experience was at the game day before the official release. In that session, playing the dwarven fighter, I was brought close to death several times before the final battle, I had two surges left. A rest would not have brought him out of bloodied status. IIRC the cleric was low on them as well.

Trying to 'force-march' your way through the dungeon's encounters would be suicidal (at least at first level, note caveat above.).

HPs in D&D (any ed.) are too abstract to even attemp to rationalize. If you want a real wound system play WHFRP, Rolemaster, GURPS, Burning Wheel et al.

Oracle_Hunter
2008-09-04, 09:33 AM
Why on earth does everyone keep using the word "fallacy" these days? An argument you disagree with is not a fallacy.

QFT

Seriously, the word does not mean what people think it means. Go on, look it up (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/fallacy).

The Mormegil
2008-09-04, 09:53 AM
On the subject of daily powers: I have been experiencing the opposite up till now. In fact, people continue to waste them in useless ways. Such as, for example, using Wall of Fire in an encounter with 4 fire archons and an eladrin. Or throwing a Hit on the Run on a bunch of minions. Or using Jaws of the Wolf on one of the 12 godsdamn identical skeletons in the first encounter of the day, and regretting it horribly when they found out I had (what a surprise) a dragon on the bottom of the dragon lair...

Being stupid is part of my PCs, as it seems...

LotharBot
2008-09-04, 12:31 PM
Players have the weirdest habit of saving their dailies. Even when party members are down and they're obviously in danger of losing, they still keep using at-wills. Does anyone else find this, or are my players just strange?

I found the same thing with Dailies and AP's... for about one and a half sessions. There's a bit of an adjustment period where the players just aren't sure what to expect. I had my DMPC use his daily and his AP's on occasion, my wife used hers, and pretty soon the players started to pick up on it. By session #3, players were using action points like candy and bringing out their dailies when appropriate.

(My wife painted some poker chips to make cool action point markers, so people can dramatically toss them on the table when they use them.)

Another thing to keep in mind is that, at level 1, most characters only have one daily power. Once you reach level 3, a lot of characters have picked up a new daily in the form of a utility or an item power, and once you reach level 5 everyone gets another daily. People will be freer with them when they have a couple more...

Colmarr
2008-09-04, 06:28 PM
A 4e PC on negatives IS dying.

I disagree.

The rules provide that it is possible (however improbable) that a character on negative hit points can in certain circumstances (a roll of 20 with 3 chances - an approx 14% overall chance) jump back up and continue fighting with no adverse repercussions other than having taken a short nap.

One response to that is to decry the system as unrealistic because the PC was dying and now isn't.

The other approach is to accept that the PC was never dying in the first place. And that takes you back to my possibilities post above.


The solution you're proposing is the "Quantum Damage" approach; the PC's condition doesn't exist until it's been resolved. The problem with it is that it doesn't take into account what's happening NOW. If a character's on negative HP, the GM should be ready to describe what his condition is, not what his condition might or might not be in several rounds.

Semantics aside in terms of what you call my approach, it in no way prevents the DM being "ready to describe what his condition is". However, using my approach, the DM's description is "he's taken a serious knock to the head and is unconscious." The import of that unconsciousness will only be known when the PC either wakes up or dies.

Colmarr
2008-09-04, 06:55 PM
Do you say
A) (Rolled a 20) "He just had a bad knock. He'll be up again soon."
B) (Rolled 3 fails on his death saves) "His head is split open, there's no way to save him without a powerful ritual."
C) (Not rolled a 20, nor 3 fails)"Future hazy. Ask again later."
D) (zomg, Shroedinger!) Some other response that I'm not clever enough to come up with that encompasses the possibility of him being dead AND not dead at the same time, until he rolls that 20 or the 3 failures?

Assuming answers A and B are meant to be given after the relevant saves have been taken, I agree with them. Leading D aside as something I'm not sure I was meant to seriously address, let's deal with C.

Jozan runs over to Regdar, who is lying unconscious on the dungeon floor. There's a break in his scale armour and blood is seeping out onto the stones. Jozan has 6 seconds to diagnose the injury and give a prognosis for Regdar.

In those circumstances, it is entrely appropriate that the DM's answer is "the wound looks pretty bad. He could die unless you do something".


Just like any other save, the PC is fighting as hard as they can to remove that effect... in my mind the PC is dying and will likely die unaided. If you can open my eyes, though, perhaps I'll see things differently.

I can't quote the source, but the designers have said on at least one occasion that 4e saves are intended more as a duration effect than a 3e saving throw. Death saving throws are IMO no different. They a measure of how long you're out of the fight: 1 round, 2 rounds, 3 rounds or forever. There's no inherent implication in the mechanic itself of "fighting off death".

That implication comes from the DM description. If the DM says "the goblin jams its dagger into your throat", then the player is fighting off death.

If they say "the goblin stabs out at your throat but the blade glances off your pauldron. Unfortunately the hilt slams again your throat, making it hard for you to breathe. You double over gasping for breath", then the death saving throws reflect the fact that the PC is in a tough situation and could die.

I'll admit that my approach doesn't allow for frequent* super-gory descriptions of killing blows on PCs, but the rules for D&D in 3e or 4e have never really allowed for such descriptions. In both editions, PCs can spontaneously recover without aid from whatever ailment knocked them out of the fight. With that possibility present, the "ailment" can't reasonably be a crushed skull, severed jugular or decapitation.

*Regardless of which approach you take, you can still use those super-gory descriptions on blows that actually kill things (ie. attacks that drop monsters to 0 hp or PCs to negative bloodied hitpoints)


On a separate topic that you presented earlier, I recognize that HP are an abstraction... but so is damage. When a Fighter has 100 HP, and is at full HP, then they take 10 damage, I don't really care what you want to describe it as. He still takes 10 damage.

No he doesnt. He loses 10 hp. What does that mean? He has lost 10% of the resource that keeps him in the fight. Nothing more. That might be physical health, mental fortitude, sanity, courage or anything else that might be appropriate to a character in combat. As I said earlier, the only attack that needs to have some measurable and visible effect in-game is the attack that reduces the fighter to 0 hp.

Colmarr
2008-09-04, 07:04 PM
Semantics sidetrack re: fallacies.


Why on earth does everyone keep using the word "fallacy" these days? An argument you disagree with is not a fallacy.


QFT. Seriously, the word does not mean what people think it means. Go on, look it up.

I agree with Saph's last sentence and OH's first, but I did not call Saph's argument a fallacy simply because I disagree with it.

From Merriam Webster:

Main Entry: fal·la·cy
Pronunciation: \ˈfa-lə-sē\
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural fal·la·cies
Etymology: Latin fallacia, from fallac-, fallax deceitful, from fallere to deceive
Date: 14th century
1 aobsolete : guile, trickery b: deceptive appearance : deception
2 a: a false or mistaken idea <popular fallacies> b: erroneous character : erroneousness
3: an often plausible argument using false or invalid inference

My bolding.

My interpretation of Saph's argument was and is that "because an attack puts a PC in a condition from which they will likely die then they must at that point be dying".

That argument is based largely on inferring current condition based on future possibility without regard to the outcomes of lesser possibilities, an inference that I maintain is false or invalid. Hence I consider Saph's argument (as I understand it) to be a fallacy.

Helgraf
2008-09-04, 07:40 PM
The other approach is to accept that the PC was never dying in the first place. And that takes you back to my possibilities post above.



The solution you're proposing is the "Quantum Damage" approach; the PC's condition doesn't exist until it's been resolved. The problem with it is that it doesn't take into account what's happening NOW. If a character's on negative HP, the GM should be ready to describe what his condition is, not what his condition might or might not be in several rounds.

Semantics aside in terms of what you call my approach, it in no way prevents the DM being "ready to describe what his condition is". However, using my approach, the DM's description is "he's taken a serious knock to the head and is unconscious." The import of that unconsciousness will only be known when the PC either wakes up or dies.[/QUOTE]

In short, in the thick of battle, you don't have the insta-discernment to determine if the limp body over there is alive or dead with a less than six-second glance.

Also, if you dislike the natural 20 recovery rule, it's easy enough to rule it as 'he's at 1 hp but unconscious, and the unconscious conditional cannot be allieviated until some effect that restores hit points is used on him'.

That way the 'dying' character isn't leaping back into the fray 5% of the time (at 1/4 max hp at best, barring high level powers that kick in so fast that the situation doesn't really ever come up).

Oracle_Hunter
2008-09-04, 07:41 PM
Semantics sidetrack re: fallacies.





I agree with Saph's last sentence and OH's first, but I did not call Saph's argument a fallacy simply because I disagree with it.

From Merriam Webster:

Main Entry: fal·la·cy
Pronunciation: \ˈfa-lə-sē\
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural fal·la·cies
Etymology: Latin fallacia, from fallac-, fallax deceitful, from fallere to deceive
Date: 14th century
1 aobsolete : guile, trickery b: deceptive appearance : deception
2 a: a false or mistaken idea <popular fallacies> b: erroneous character : erroneousness
3: an often plausible argument using false or invalid inference

My bolding.

My interpretation of Saph's argument was and is that "because an attack puts a PC in a condition from which they will likely die then they must at that point be dying".

That argument is based largely on inferring current condition based on future possibility without regard to the outcomes of lesser possibilities, an inference that I maintain is false or invalid. Hence I consider Saph's argument (as I understand it) to be a fallacy.

I think you're grasping at straws.

The condition in question is called "dying" for a reason. You assertion of the "rules create reality" fallacy seems to be that someone who is in a status labeled "dying" is not, in "reality" dying. Many rules, in fact dictate in-game reality. For example, when you fail 3 Death Saves or are at negative bloodied HP, you are dead, according to RAW - this is also death in "reality" too, even if you are later rezzed. If I understand your "fallacy" correctly, the "false or invalid reference" is that in-game rules dictate in-game reality, which while may be true in some instances, cannot be true when the in-game rule is one that directly correlates to an in-game condition. Otherwise, you could argue that someone who is at negative HP is able to move around and fight, because being unable to move and fight only happens when you are "dying."

Now, if your argument is that the dying rules is not the only way to depict dying, then I suppose I must agree. You need not say that the man who is dying of old age has to make Death Saves until he dies - dying of old age is not covered by the rules, and therefore is covered by DM fiat. However, dying of wounds is covered by the rules, and if you ignore those rules, then you are exercising Rule 0, not RAW.

Colmarr
2008-09-04, 08:27 PM
More fallacy fun.


You assertion of the "rules create reality" fallacy seems to be that someone who is in a status labeled "dying" is not, in "reality" dying

That is my assertion, yes. The nomenclature of the condition is irrelevant. A creature at less than 50% hit points is "bloodied" but despite the name there is no requirement that they actually be bleeding at that point.

Although it's not related to the fallacy discussion I'll clarify something so that we don't go off on a tangent. I'm not asserting that none of the conditions have concrete or determined narritive effects from the moment they apply. The combat conditions (dazed, immobilised, slowed etc) by-and-large are spot on.

My assertion is that narrative effects of "dying" are not as clear cut as some would argue.


If I understand your "fallacy" correctly, the "false or invalid reference" is that in-game rules dictate in-game reality, which while may be true in some instances, cannot be true when the in-game rule is one that directly correlates to an in-game condition. Otherwise, you could argue that someone who is at negative HP is able to move around and fight, because being unable to move and fight only happens when you are "dying."

Not quite what I meant. The specific fallacy I was referring to was as described in my post. The false or invalid reference is the assumption that a future possibility must automatically establish a current fact. The character could die, therefore they must now be dying.

Moving away from that specific example, the 4e rules contain a number of examples that suggest that the rules mechanics do not directly reflect in-game reality until they are conclusively and irrevocably resolved.

The elven accuracy power doesn't actually allow the in-game elf to make their attack again. Narratively, the first roll never occurred.

The halfing Second Chance power works exactly the same way, but affects enemies. Narratively, the first roll never occurred in-game.

The Ranger power split the tree allows you to attack two targets and apply the highest attack roll to both targets. Mechanically the attack rolls are different but narratively, both shots are of the same quality.

The fallacy I refer to is the argument that the process of applying rules always and immediately establishes in-game actions in any direct or causitive manner. That argument is a fallacy, because it assumes a relationship that can be clearly demonstrated not to exist.

To steal a quote from Saph, D&D is somewhat of a "quantum" game from a narrative point of view. You cannot narrate the outcome of an event beyond what is conclusively established by the event. To take things step by step:

When the elf shoots his bow, narratively he pulls back the bowstring and fires. The act of making the attack has been conclusively established and can be narrated.

His attack roll is 8, which the DM knows is a miss. At this stage, the narrative has not advanced. It's possible that the elven accuracy power will be used, but it might not be. We have a "quantum arrow" in flight.

Option A: The player then announces his intention to not use Elven Accuracy. The missed attack is now conclusively established and can be narrated.

Obtion B: The player announces his intention to use Elven Accuracy, re-rolls the dice and gets a hit. The hit is now conclusively established and can be narrated, or alternatively the DM might choose to wait until after damage is rolled.

Dying is no different. The event of dropping below 0 hp, does not conclusively establish anything other than that the PC is out of the fight for a variable period of time and might die. It does not conclusively establish that they are dying or that they have suffered some form of mortal wound.

After all that, I will admit that the fallacy could probably do with a better name ("mechanics immediately and irrevocably reflect in-game reality fallacy" just doesn't have the same ring to it), but my point stands.


Now, if your argument is that the dying rules is not the only way to depict dying, then I suppose I must agree. You need not say that the man who is dying of old age has to make Death Saves until he dies - dying of old age is not covered by the rules, and therefore is covered by DM fiat. However, dying of wounds is covered by the rules, and if you ignore those rules, then you are exercising Rule 0, not RAW.

That wasn't my argument, so I'll only respond to it briefly. These comments are entirely unrelated to the fallacy discussion and I make them with regard more to rebutting a "4e sucks because you can come back from dying too easily" argument. I understand that you do not personally espouse that argument. I'm merely using your comment as a convenient launching point.

I agree that the rules do cover "dying of wounds", but I think it does a disservice to the game to assume that anyone reduced to 0 or less hit points must have suffered a mortal physical wound. All that the mechanics establish is that (1) the creature is unable to take part in the world around them, and (2) there is a possibility (probability) that they will die.

The exact extent of their injuries does not need to be (and perhaps should not be) determined until the rules have run their course. In this case, once the final death saving throw has been failed.

It isn't even strictly necessary for the mortal blow to be the final one. It's entirely possible that the slash to the PC's leg earlier in the combat has been bleeding steadily unnoticed for the past 5 rounds and now the blood loss puts them out of action.

Yes, I'm being creative in my descriptions and my explanations. No, it's not as simple as a "hp loss means physical damage has been suffered" system, but D&D has never really been such a system .

EDIT: I've edited this post quite heavily since first posting it. Apologies to anyone who replied while that was in progress.

Oracle_Hunter
2008-09-04, 08:48 PM
More fallacy fun.



Not quite what I meant. The specific fallacy I was referring to was as described in my post. The false or invalid reference is the assumption that a future possibility must automatically establish a current fact. The character could die, therefore they must now be dying.

Moving away from that specific example, the 4e rules contain a number of examples that suggest that the rules mechanics do not directly reflect in-game reality. The elven accuracy power doesn't actually allow the in-game elf to make their attack again. In-game, the first roll never occurred.

The halfing Second Chance power works exactly the same way, but affect enemies. The first roll never occurred in-game.

The Ranger power split the tree allows you to attack two targets and apply the highest attack roll to both targets. Out-of-game the attack rolls are different but in-game, both shots are of the same quality.

The fallacy I refer to is the argument that the rules always establish in-game actions in any direct or causitive manner. That argument is a fallacy, because it assumes a relationship that can be clearly demonstrated not to exist.

Ah, but then you are in error: the dying status is, in fact, what it says.
Your examples refer to possibilities. Elven Accuracy gives you the potential to hit when you would have missed (by the dice) but in-game you make only the single attack. You have neither hit nor missed until Elven Accuracy is resolved.

But dying is not like that. It is a condition, that is governed by specific rules. As soon as you are reduced to 0 HP, you begin making Death Saves - you are dying, though whether or not you are dead is not determined until later. Dying has specific rules that it follows (you cannot move or act, you make Death Saves every turn). There are only two ways to get out of Dying - either you become Dead or you become Alive, under 4e anyhow. This is distinctly different from 3e where you could "stabilize" without outside medical attention, and thus remain "dying" for an indefinite period of time.

But back on point. You cannot establish a fallacy on a "fact" which, while not always true, is in fact true for a specific case. For example, the statement that "all four-legged mammals are cows" is clearly fallacious, but it does not mean that a particular four-legged mammal cannot be a cow. Merely citing a so-called fallacy (usually held up to be a commonly made logical error) does not resolve every particular situation, unless a particular assumption is, in all cases, wrong.

The Rule Zero Fallacy, IIRC, is that a system that can be fixed by DM intervention is not broken. This is a fallacy because it assumes that regular DM intervention is not a "fix," and the fact that such intervention is always needed does not mean that the system is "broken." In any system where a given rule is constantly ignored, that system is broken - in the sense that it does not work as intended - even if the system has a "Rule Zero" that "allows" the DM to fix it.

However, rules are typically written to mirror in-game reality; they are written to convert player input into in-game results. I can see how someone may interpret a re-roll as getting a second attack, or a re-roll miss implies that the first attack hit, but was stopped before it landed. These are merely due to a misperception of what a "re-roll" means, not that the player is somehow gripped with a bout of flawed logic.

Colmarr
2008-09-04, 09:11 PM
More fallacy stuff.


But dying is not like that. It is a condition, that is governed by specific rules. As soon as you are reduced to 0 HP, you begin making Death Saves - you are dying, though whether or not you are dead is not determined until later. Dying has specific rules that it follows (you cannot move or act, you make Death Saves every turn). There are only two ways to get out of Dying - either you become Dead or you become Alive, under 4e anyhow. This is distinctly different from 3e where you could "stabilize" without outside medical attention, and thus remain "dying" for an indefinite period of time.

This is probably about to devolve into a semantic argument, but I disagree. "Dying" is a process whereby someone or something gets physically closer and closer to the moment and condition of death.

That doesn't happen in D&D. In D&D, you narratively fall unconscious and then eventually you die. There is no period of time in which you are necessarily narratively progressing towards death. The PC of a player who has failed 2 death saving throws is not "closer" to death than the PC of a player who has only failed 1. Probabilities are yet to play out (the first PC could make the next 4 saves in a row), and until they do the narrative is uncertain.


But back on point. You cannot establish a fallacy on a "fact" which, while not always true, is in fact true for a specific case... Merely citing a so-called fallacy (usually held up to be a commonly made logical error) does not resolve every particular situation, unless a particular assumption is, in all cases, wrong.

I agree and accept your point. I edited the post that you quoted in that regard while you were preparing your post. My naming of the fallacy made my assertions appear wider than they in fact are. Ironic really, given the argument that revolves around the naming of the "dying" mechanics.

magellan
2008-09-05, 07:21 AM
After having heard so much about skill challenges i decided to glance through the description in the DMG

The example given is extremely contrieved. For me it reads like this "I attack him the duke with diplomacy!" "I attack him with history!" "I attack him with intimidate!" "No dont!" "Why?" "Dukes are immune to intimidate!" "... but thats all i have... can i attack him with herbalism?"

... is it me? I've been playing for 25 years. Have i forgotten the difficulties I had when i started? do new GMs really need a set of rules for a conversation with a duke? A set of rules for giving non combat XP? A set of rules for monsterstrength and frequency?

Knaight
2008-09-05, 07:45 AM
A set of rules for monster strength and such is nice in a system as complicated as D&D. Rules for non-combat XP also makes it much easier, and encourages roleplaying, its no different from combat XP. And skill challenges have their use, although as far as I'm concerned its more like navigating through jungles, or chases, than conversation, which would have been a much better example. Sure new GMs can get around not having rules consistently, but in D&D as it is it takes a while. In a rules light system you often don't see this, because stuff is much easier to understand, and thus much easier to manipulate. That and a lot of systems have thrown away combat and non combat large chunks of XP, and just give a few points out at the end of a session, which is then applied directly to skills and such.

Saph
2008-09-05, 07:53 AM
That doesn't happen in D&D. In D&D, you narratively fall unconscious and then eventually you die. There is no period of time in which you are necessarily narratively progressing towards death. The PC of a player who has failed 2 death saving throws is not "closer" to death than the PC of a player who has only failed 1. Probabilities are yet to play out (the first PC could make the next 4 saves in a row), and until they do the narrative is uncertain.

Honestly, this is getting a bit hard to take seriously. A player who's failed 2 death saves IS closer to death than a player who's failed 1, because the first player is one failed save away, while the second is two failed saves away. It doesn't matter that the probabilities haven't played out. This insistence of yours that you aren't allowed to say that a "dying" PC is dying is completely counter-intuitive and hideously confusing to new players.

Regarding fallacies, I'm getting frustrated with the use of the word because people make no effort to distinguish a "fallacy" from "an argument I personally disagree with". For instance, it's completely acceptable (and, in fact, normal) to interpret the 4e "dying" condition as meaning that a PC is dying. I mean, why do you think they picked the word "dying" in the first place, as some sort of cunning trick? For you to say that this is a fallacy is effectively declaring that your interpretation of the rules is the only correct one - which is irritating. Gaming discussions are generally about preference, not logic, and attempts to present opposing views as fallacies are always annoying and almost always wrong.

- Saph

TwystidMynd
2008-09-05, 08:13 AM
Assuming answers A and B are meant to be given after the relevant saves have been taken, I agree with them. Leading D aside as something I'm not sure I was meant to seriously address, let's deal with C.

I guess you're allowed to feel free to make any assumption you want, as long as it makes my argument trivial?
The labels were meant to describe what happens *after* the Heal Check was made.
The question is what do you tell the player who makes that Heal Check BEFORE the outcome is determined?




No he doesnt. He loses 10 hp. What does that mean? He has lost 10% of the resource that keeps him in the fight. Nothing more. That might be physical health, mental fortitude, sanity, courage or anything else that might be appropriate to a character in combat. As I said earlier, the only attack that needs to have some measurable and visible effect in-game is the attack that reduces the fighter to 0 hp.
As you're so fond of saying, "semantics aside," why do you insist on distinguishing between "damage" and "the resource that keeps him in the fight." If you're not willing to view damage as an abstraction, then... uh... welcome to D&D?

Eorran
2008-09-05, 09:33 AM
Honestly, this is getting a bit hard to take seriously. A player who's failed 2 death saves IS closer to death than a player who's failed 1, because the first player is one failed save away, while the second is two failed saves away. It doesn't matter that the probabilities haven't played out. This insistence of yours that you aren't allowed to say that a "dying" PC is dying is completely counter-intuitive and hideously confusing to new players.
- Saph

But a character cannot necessarily tell by looking at someone how many saves they have left between life and death.
I think it's prefectly acceptable to describe a "dying" PC as dying, but it isn't the only acceptable way, especially since it is possible to be dying one moment and up & fighting a few seconds later. It may be best to simply leave the description vague until the ultimate condition of Alive or Dead is resolved.

Saph
2008-09-05, 10:23 AM
But a character cannot necessarily tell by looking at someone how many saves they have left between life and death.
I think it's prefectly acceptable to describe a "dying" PC as dying, but it isn't the only acceptable way, especially since it is possible to be dying one moment and up & fighting a few seconds later. It may be best to simply leave the description vague until the ultimate condition of Alive or Dead is resolved.

Sure, there are various ways to do it. But the most natural one (and the one which nearly everyone is going to use whether you like it or not) is to read "dying" as dying.

Leaving the description vague is not a good solution, IMO. It's something of a cop-out and unsatisfactory to players. "What's happening to my character right now?" should not be an unanswerable question.

- Saph

Eorran
2008-09-05, 10:50 AM
Sure, there are various ways to do it. But the most natural one (and the one which nearly everyone is going to use whether you like it or not) is to read "dying" as dying.

Leaving the description vague is not a good solution, IMO. It's something of a cop-out and unsatisfactory to players. "What's happening to my character right now?" should not be an unanswerable question.

- Saph

If the characters player asks "what's happening to my character now?", I would tell him "You are at negative HP, you're fighting to stay alive." If I was asked by another character's player, I would use the "he's down, looks unconscious maybe" answer. However, most of my group don't worry too much about description. In a group that uses more detail, I can't think of a way to describe this without it sounding wierd either way.
Method 1: "You are fighting to stay alive after that vicious blow to your head."
[Player rolls 20 on save]
"You got better"
Method 2: "You took a blow that leaves you reeling on the floor."
[Player fails his saves]
"You drop dead"

If you can suggest a description that allows the player to either be ready to fight again in a moment, or stone dead, I'd love to hear it.

TwystidMynd
2008-09-05, 11:03 AM
In the movies, there are countless examples of people getting knocked unconscious, and then getting back up.

The most recent one that I can name is in Vantage Point, where a bomb goes off. Many bystanders are killed outright. Some are knocked unconscious. The ones knocked unconscious are "out" for different periods of time; they don't all get up at once.

Some of the people who are knocked out are groggy and can't get their bearings. They simply can't function after going unconscious. I imagine this is the type of realism some DMs strive for, and is the reason they don't like the "Nat 20 and you're good to go!" interpretation.

There are other people - the main characters, unsurprisingly - who are able to come to, get their bearings very quickly, and do the things that need to be done. These are the models by which DMs who are perfectly fine with the "Nat 20 and you're good to go!" view their game.

It's not unimaginable for someone to get up and start fighting again after they've been knocked unconscious. My proof of this statement is above, and in many other movies. Some people may not appreciate the "dying" system in D&D 4e, and it doesn't really mean anything to debate tastes on a forum. For those people, go ahead and houserule the "Dying" system and describe it however you want.

Saph
2008-09-05, 11:06 AM
If you can suggest a description that allows the player to either be ready to fight again in a moment, or stone dead, I'd love to hear it.

I don't think there is one. There's no realistic, consistent way to interpret the rules of 4e within our understanding of physics and biology. The easiest way to deal with it, IMO, is to not worry about it in the first place. The rules of 4e weren't designed with realistic descriptions in mind - they were designed to make the game play a certain way. Trying to use descriptions in the way you're doing is adapting the rules to something they weren't really designed to do.

- Saph

Yakk
2008-09-05, 11:10 AM
After having heard so much about skill challenges i decided to glance through the description in the DMG

The example given is extremely contrieved. For me it reads like this "I attack him the duke with diplomacy!" "I attack him with history!" "I attack him with intimidate!" "No dont!" "Why?" "Dukes are immune to intimidate!" "... but thats all i have... can i attack him with herbalism?"

... is it me? I've been playing for 25 years. Have i forgotten the difficulties I had when i started? do new GMs really need a set of rules for a conversation with a duke? A set of rules for giving non combat XP? A set of rules for monsterstrength and frequency?

Monster Strength and Frequency rules, with some hope for monsters being balanced, make things much easier. As many have noted, you can whip together 4e encounters much faster than 3e encounters. You can do the same with 4e monsters instead of 3e monsters.

And this is with the system being brand new.

As for the non-combat stuff... 4e seemed to be taking a page from some new-fangled narrative/thematic indie games.

What are the stakes of a skill roll? How should a failure be, and how good a success? These things change massively how a non-combat encounter goes. 4e attempted to provide some rules.

In short, how hard is it to convince the Duke? X successes on skill rolls. How hard is it to piss the duke off? Y failures. What are the consequences of failure?

That framework doesn't have to veto the roleplaying -- but it does give you an idea of "how much impact should a single diplomacy roll have in this situation".

...

I'll toss out an example. This isn't a 4e skill challenge, but I think you'll see the same base mechanics.

The players are in a room, when the floor disappears. There is a cone that drops them into quicksand.

Level+8 vs Reflex. Hit: Fall down into quicksand. Miss: brace yourself and don't fall in. Get a +5 bonus to defense if you have Athletics or Acrobatics trained.

Level +3 vs Reflex. Hit: Drop weapons. Miss: Nothing.

At this point, players are either braced on the edge of the pit, or in the quicksand pit (25' under the bottom of the cone).

The doorway is 15' above the top of the cone.

Each round, Players on the cone take a Level+0 vs Reflex attack, or slip and fall down. (Same +5 if you have acrobatics/athletics trained)
Each round, Players in the Quicksand take a Level+4 vs Fort. attack, or lose a healing surge or action point to prevent them from going under. +3 bonus for Athletics, minus your current armor check penalty.

Players under the quicksand take drowning rules, and are harder to rescue.

It takes 2 skill successes to rescue a person from the quicksand. The base DC is 15+Level/2, or something complicates it. Generally a failure doesn't make things that much worse, but often erases the previous success on that player.

Per-encounter powers that are used to rescue someone generate 1 to 2 successes. Per-day powers generate 1 to 4 successes. At-will powers either grant a bonus to a skill check, or require an attack against a defense of 15+Level (+2 if the power targets AC) to generate 1 to 2 successes.

Repeated use of the same tactic often has a harder DC, or less impact, as the "low hanging fruit" was presumed to be picked for that tactic. (Ie, if you are freezing the quicksand to help someone out, you are presumed to be freezing the sand near the person who would get the most benefit from it first.)

People under the quicksand require 1 success to bring them back to the surface, and 3 successes to get them out of the pit, as they are in bad shape.

Creative use of props and tools and skills can give a +5 to -5 modifier on the DC. Some uses will be "hard", and take a +5 penalty on the DC in exchange for 2 successes if it succeeds. Some uses will be "high stakes", and cause a penalty on failure and generate 2 successes if it succeeds.

It takes 1 skill check per person to move from the base of the cone to the doorway out.

Note that the Level in the above refers to the Level of the trap. Higher level versions of this trap have quicksand that sucks harder, shaper cone sides, fewer things to grab onto, etc etc.

---

Now all of that structure isn't needed. But what would be a relatively arbitrary trap and pile of skill rolls now has a base structure. The power of a skill roll, base the consequences of failure (more checks to be pulled under, burning resources), and the like are planned ahead of time. In the above case, I didn't even say what skills and powers the players can use -- I just generated a general point-based impact of a power or skill based on the power's "power level".

And the result looks a hell of a lot like a 4e skill challenge, doesn't it?

Saph
2008-09-05, 11:30 AM
What are the stakes of a skill roll? How should a failure be, and how good a success? These things change massively how a non-combat encounter goes. 4e attempted to provide some rules.

In short, how hard is it to convince the Duke? X successes on skill rolls. How hard is it to piss the duke off? Y failures. What are the consequences of failure?

That framework doesn't have to veto the roleplaying -- but it does give you an idea of "how much impact should a single diplomacy roll have in this situation".

I understand the theory of where they got Skill Challenges from, and how they were designed. It's just that, as written in the DMG, I've found Skill Challenges every time to be frustrating and boring to play. The errata helped a little, but also made the chapter almost unreadable by errata-ing practically every number and every page!

I think Oracle Hunter's solution is the best one (at least beyond 'don't use them at all') - roleplay it, and only work out the successes and failures afterwards to decide the outcome. Otherwise it feels like a game of 'roll high', except worse, because you have to justify every roll before making it.

DM: "The duke looks at you expectantly."
Player: "I use Diplomacy. I got a 13."
DM: "You can't just say you use Diplomacy. You have to explain what you're saying."
Player: "Please, for the love of God, just tell me if a 13 succeeded or failed and let us get out of this thing."
DM: "No. You have to roleplay it."
Player: "Fine. <Insert long forced in-character speech.> And I got a 13."
DM: "That was really good!"
Player: "Was it a success?"
DM: "No."

- Saph

nagora
2008-09-05, 11:34 AM
Funnily enough, I had high hopes for SCs. As I think Matthew mentioned, the idea has been knocking around for a long time, even before there were skills (and so ability scores were used). I've seen several versions and written one myself. They never quite captured the roleplaying side properly, IMO, so I was hoping that WotC, with all the time and resources they had, might have found the magic formula.

Totally Guy
2008-09-05, 12:18 PM
In our last session I have used several skill challenges and had mixed results.

Let's see if I can recall how they all went.

Player's Warlock and Ranger chasing a Halfling. This skill challenge ceased to be a skill challenge after a couple of rounds as it became combat. I was using the post erratta rules so they had to roll for initiative, then that was the end of the skill challenge and the start of combat.

The party try to carry a box full of children out of a hive of undead bees. This went better but I had to think on my feet to provide description which prompted different skills being used as I'd anticipated.

Player Ranger chases a goblin back to it's hideout. This went well but I ran out of description before the end of the chase but he wanted to stealth up to the door so I incorporated that into the challenge.

The players from their starting positions needed to spot a sniper's position and manoeuver from their chosen starting positions to the sniper's house. This was pretty good but I did the action on one character for a couple of checks then the next character for a number of checks rather than ask for contributions.

So far I've been finding that because the structure of the skill challenge is fluid I don't always know just what quite will happen and therefore I've been resorting to the standard difficulty table post erratta and at level 2 I think it's 5 easy, 10 moderate, and 15 hard, but everyone sticks to their trained skills and they keep succeeding.

The other thing I'm doing is ruling that if the players think of a way to end the skill challenge way early by putting me into a position where the objective has clearly been fulfilled before all the rolls are made I simply rule it a success and carry on. XP is awarded after the whole scene so they feel some acomplishment towards the roleplaying and mechanical aspects of the event.

Yakk
2008-09-05, 12:38 PM
I understand the theory of where they got Skill Challenges from, and how they were designed. It's just that, as written in the DMG, I've found Skill Challenges every time to be frustrating and boring to play. The errata helped a little, but also made the chapter almost unreadable by errata-ing practically every number and every page!
And I don't think they got it right even in the revision. :-)

You can still use the structure of skill challenges to generate some interesting encounters. It just takes far more effort. I think eventually they'll get it right, but ... they haven't yet.


I think Oracle Hunter's solution is the best one (at least beyond 'don't use them at all') - roleplay it, and only work out the successes and failures afterwards to decide the outcome. Otherwise it feels like a game of 'roll high', except worse, because you have to justify every roll before making it.

DM: "The duke looks at you expectantly."
Player: "I use Diplomacy. I got a 13."
DM: "You can't just say you use Diplomacy. You have to explain what you're saying."
Player: "Please, for the love of God, just tell me if a 13 succeeded or failed and let us get out of this thing."
DM: "No. You have to roleplay it."
Player: "Fine. <Insert long forced in-character speech.> And I got a 13."
DM: "That was really good!"
Player: "Was it a success?"
DM: "No."
Your DM sucks? No, really? I mean, unless that DM was trying to do an ironic-bad-DM-joke.

And yes, you should roleplay it. The success/failure count is there as a narritive aid to help the DM work out how close the players are to success or failure -- ie, how big the impact should be. If you are saying "this is a complexity 5 skill challenge, you need N successes before Y failures, and your DC's are 15 for Diplomacy and 20 for Bluff. Go!" -- yes, it can and should suck.

A bad diplomacy roll might mean that the Duke just needs more convincing. Or maybe the Duke got bored and distracted and was thinking about his mistress during the speech -- ie, through no fault of the players. Or maybe he's heard the same pitch before, and the last guy was useless.

Look up at that pseudo-skill challenge trap. I didn't say what failure was, because I expected that the DM could figure out "well, it takes 2 successes to get someone out of the pit. So if they drop a rope down and brace themselves to pull that person up, some other success is needed... a failure means no real progress occurred, that needs to be narrated..."

Roleplay it. Use the current success/failure ratio as a tool for the DM to determine what should happen next, how the Duke or the Castle guards or the chase should progress next, or what happened with that action.

Have you played Tiny Adventures on facebook? Note that the "failure" there can simply mean "it wasn't a good enough success".

*sigh*

And yes, the math needs more work in that chapter.

Akvad_Dunchadt
2008-09-05, 12:46 PM
Other thing about taking constant extended rests, I believe (and will have to look it up later) that the rules even say that you have to wait at least 12 hours between extended rests. But definately putting a time-sensitive aspect on it is best, but not quite as demanding as Red Hand, or at least give them some chance for crafting/etc between sojourns.

Saph
2008-09-05, 12:51 PM
And yes, you should roleplay it. The success/failure count is there as a narritive aid to help the DM work out how close the players are to success or failure -- ie, how big the impact should be. If you are saying "this is a complexity 5 skill challenge, you need N successes before Y failures, and your DC's are 15 for Diplomacy and 20 for Bluff. Go!" -- yes, it can and should suck.

A bad diplomacy roll might mean that the Duke just needs more convincing. Or maybe the Duke got bored and distracted and was thinking about his mistress during the speech -- ie, through no fault of the players. Or maybe he's heard the same pitch before, and the last guy was useless.

The problem is that, RAW by the DMG, the actual roleplaying does just about nothing to affect whether you'll succeed or fail. This is why roleplaying skill challenges is so frustrating - it doesn't matter whether you do a brilliant job or a terrible one in describing what you're about to do, it still comes down to a dice roll. In cases like Diplomacy, this makes the roleplaying feel pointless.

To a certain extent this is a permanent problem with social skills, but the Skill Challenge format makes it worse by setting strict guidelines for the DM (which new DMs tend to follow slavishly - hence my example, which is cribbed from actual play). This is why my preferred way of dealing with skill challenges is just to let players solve problems in their own way over the course of the session, judge success or failure on the fly, and only at the end tally up how many 'challenges' they did and how much XP they should gain from it.

- Saph

Yakk
2008-09-05, 02:08 PM
The problem is that, RAW by the DMG, the actual roleplaying does just about nothing to affect whether you'll succeed or fail. This is why roleplaying skill challenges is so frustrating - it doesn't matter whether you do a brilliant job or a terrible one in describing what you're about to do, it still comes down to a dice roll. In cases like Diplomacy, this makes the roleplaying feel pointless.
What? The DM is explicitly told to apply +2/-2 (or greater, if justified) circumstance bonuses.


To a certain extent this is a permanent problem with social skills, but the Skill Challenge format makes it worse by setting strict guidelines for the DM (which new DMs tend to follow slavishly - hence my example, which is cribbed from actual play). This is why my preferred way of dealing with skill challenges is just to let players solve problems in their own way over the course of the session, judge success or failure on the fly, and only at the end tally up how many 'challenges' they did and how much XP they should gain from it.I'm guessing skill training and skill focus are not very popular feats in your group. :-)

I assume you just wing it when you determine what the DC should be for a task, how much impact a success or failure should be, and the like?

Do you vary the DCs that the players have to attempt based on the player's skills (ie, if someone is a really good thief, do thief DCs tend to creep upwards?) Do you decide what the DC is after they roll and decide what they get, which tends to devalue characters who accumulate modifiers in a skill?

(The classic example of this is the "oh, you rolled a 2. That sucks", when a player has accumulated a +15 modifier to that roll, and then someone else rolls a 18 (with a -1 modifier) and gets a better result...)

I do agree -- you shouldn't use the 4e skill challenge mechanics as written. They are about beta quality at this point (alpha when they published it) -- ie, seriously sub-par. But you shouldn't throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Build mechanical encounters around skill success/failure counts. Use the description of what the player does to influence the mechanics of the die roll. Have defined consequences for each failure and each success, and a defined number of successes to advance.

That kind of framework gets rid of a bunch of problems with winging it, and if done right can leave lots of flexibility to embrace player creativity and roleplaying!

MartinHarper
2008-09-05, 04:40 PM
If you can suggest a description that allows the player to either be ready to fight again in a moment, or stone dead, I'd love to hear it.

"Corrin is lying on the ground. He's not moving or making any noise."


Player B goes over, rolls a 50 on a Heal Check and asks, "How's Corrin looking?"

"Corrin has a pulse and is breathing, and should be up and about after a few minutes rest."
Stabilising the dying is a standard action DC15 heal check.

Saph
2008-09-05, 05:07 PM
What? The DM is explicitly told to apply +2/-2 (or greater, if justified) circumstance bonuses.

The bottom of Page 74 of the DMG has a two-line section mentioning that you can add a +2 or -2 circumstance bonus for "particularly creative" uses of skills, or to "penalise the opposite". That's the only mention of the subject. By comparison, the success/failure rules and DC lists go on for pages.


I'm guessing skill training and skill focus are not very popular feats in your group. :-)

Well, sure. Why take Skill Training when you can take a multiclass feat and get skill training and a freebie ability as well? :P (In my group, Warrior of the Wild is an extremely popular feat, as it gives you free damage and the all-important Perception skill.)


Build mechanical encounters around skill success/failure counts. Use the description of what the player does to influence the mechanics of the die roll. Have defined consequences for each failure and each success, and a defined number of successes to advance.

But why keep the whole 'number of successes' system at all? Why build encounters around success/failure counts? If winging it requires less work and is less restrictive, why not do it that way instead?

- Saph

Oracle_Hunter
2008-09-05, 05:27 PM
The bottom of Page 74 of the DMG has a two-line section mentioning that you can add a +2 or -2 circumstance bonus for "particularly creative" uses of skills, or to "penalise the opposite". That's the only mention of the subject. By comparison, the success/failure rules and DC lists go on for pages.

How much do you really need to write about that? I, for one, don't know how useful a chapter on "when to give +2 or -2 on a check" would be :smalltongue:

In all seriousness, this just comes down to whether or not you like Social Skills. If you subscribe to the "I check the ceiling" school of RP, then basically player skill, nor character skill, is the most important determinant of success. Here, Skill Challenges are going to look silly, because you don't really care how good a character is at making an argument, you want to hear the player make the argument and decide if it's convincing.

The other school of thought, the "I roll Search" school, character skill is paramount. No matter how sly your patter, if you roll a 1 on your Diplomacy check, you're just not going to convince the Duke. Naturally, this downplays player skill (at best a +2 bonus) and at extremes, it can result in player frustration if the dice just aren't working.

Sure, these are extremes, but they are the poles we're working between. However, for the "ceiling checkers" out there, the Social Skill Challenge exists to add luck to social situations in the same way that it exists in combat. Sometimes well-made lines will just strike a character badly, and clumsy lines may catch a person's whimsy. Not everyone likes to think conversations are luck-based, but it is true that, say job interviews, turn almost as much on body language and presentation as on what is actually said.

The question with Social Skill Challenges then becomes as follows: how much do you want luck (and character skill) to play a role in determining success?

If the answer is "not much" then you can just RP most everything, calling for the occasional roll for things like Bluff or weak Diplomacy-based statements. If you'd say "very much" then Skill Challenges are perfect for you.

LotharBot
2008-09-05, 06:59 PM
Why take Skill Training when you can take a multiclass feat and get skill training and a freebie ability as well?

You can only multiclass once. And there are prereqs -- many clerics would love to have perception with their high wis, but won't necessarily have 13 STR or DEX to get into ranger. So skill training is still an option, as is skill focus.

I recently built an entirely custom level 28 character (aasimar sorcerer/fatespinner/architect of fate with almost entirely homebrewed powers) as a remix of a level 18 character from 3.5. I took 3 skill focus feats with him. Now, I'm not planning on playing him; the build was an exercise. But I really did feel skill focus was a good feat for him to take.

This brings us to another thing I've learned as a 4e DM:

- it's really easy to build custom stuff. In 3.5, it took a long time to build by-the-book monsters (like, a high-level cleric or even a dragon), and even longer to customize. In 4e, it only took me a few hours to create a homebrewed race, class, paragon path, and epic destiny with about a dozen total custom powers that would likely need only minor balance tweaks. Most of that time was spent thinking in terms of "what makes this 3.5 character special" and "how can I capture it in 4e". It's so refreshing after 3.5 where I had to get the saves, hp, AC, SR, attacks, and damage output all in the right range while dealing with HD and worrying about treasure values. Did I mention the custom powers? I didn't have to worry about which saves to allow (if any), SR, immunity, what attack rolls to require, how broken it'd be with certain metamagic feats, etc. Just attack vs defense, damage, and other effects -- which is fairly easy to balance by looking at the spectrum of other powers at the same level.

And more stuff I've learned for DMs:

- beware monster synergies, especially when you have artillery or skirmishers focusing fire. What looks like an easy fight on paper could turn ugly otherwise, at least for whichever PC you focus on.

- the way treasure parcels are set up, you should always have 1 fewer item than player over the course of one level. Once the game gets going and there are a fair number of magic items out there (and players can make their own), this is just fine, but at low levels this means you're likely to have one player with some great gear and another player with all nonmagical stuff. Since the treasure parcels never include level 1 items, consider adding one or two in the first level and a half (and removing a bit of gold to compensate slightly) so nobody gets left out.

horseboy
2008-09-06, 03:12 AM
The players are in a room, when the floor disappears. There is a cone that drops them into quicksand.

Level+8 vs Reflex. Hit: Fall down into quicksand. Miss: brace yourself and don't fall in. Get a +5 bonus to defense if you have Athletics or Acrobatics trained.

Level +3 vs Reflex. Hit: Drop weapons. Miss: Nothing.

At this point, players are either braced on the edge of the pit, or in the quicksand pit (25' under the bottom of the cone).
Wow, at that point, my players would be pointing out that you can't die from quicksand, as you stop sinking around your knees. Stupid red necks and their trained Nature skill. :smallamused:

Saph
2008-09-06, 03:21 AM
You can only multiclass once. And there are prereqs -- many clerics would love to have perception with their high wis, but won't necessarily have 13 STR or DEX to get into ranger. So skill training is still an option, as is skill focus.

I'm not saying Skill Training isn't an option, but nearly all PCs have either a 13 Str or 13 Dex, which makes Warrior of the Wild a generally better choice. So usually, the only reason to take Skill Training is if you're really going crazy on the skills.


the way treasure parcels are set up, you should always have 1 fewer item than player over the course of one level. Once the game gets going and there are a fair number of magic items out there (and players can make their own), this is just fine, but at low levels this means you're likely to have one player with some great gear and another player with all nonmagical stuff. Since the treasure parcels never include level 1 items, consider adding one or two in the first level and a half (and removing a bit of gold to compensate slightly) so nobody gets left out.

I think this is a good idea. The treasure parcel system means you can get level 2 parties with a level 5 item that no-one can use. While this isn't necessarily a bad thing, I've been finding it works better to split the items up into multiple smaller ones, and just the occasional big one. Easier to share out that way.

- Saph

The Mormegil
2008-09-06, 07:52 AM
You know, I don't really think SCs are that bad: I played some and the results were... varied.

Let me explain this: the first skill challenge I ran was a social one, and it... sucked. Ok, it WAS my fault, rules were just out, it was the 7th of June, so it's not that I had that much of a time to prepare it. I just wanted to see how it worked out. They tried to find out informations in a city about a certain bishop. The out come was a: "Yeah, this is a skill challenge right? I use Streetwise to ask people. I rolled a 19. I roll again and again and again. End of story, what I learned?". Horrible.

But then, it got beter: I played an Into the Wild one (modified, of course, I don't understand why Stealth isn't in the skills you can use...) and it was nice, everyone contributed in a way or another. They failed, but only out of bad luck. And here comes a little trick I worked out:

You see, they could have got 1600 XP for the challenge. They didn't. They were attacked for 2600 XP of an encounter, and almost died. If they did, they'd found a 1200 XP encounter, and had more XP (but not that much of a difference, of course they'll never know) with a sweet, simple win.

So, making the difficulty of the encounter depend on the outcome of the skill challenge is a good idea, in my opinion.


And the second good idea is to use skill challenges inside a fight. You are right, magellan, when you say that it's like attacking. It's GOOD for that, in a way. It is a system that lets you integrate your combat encounters with skill ones, making for great, varied encounters with multiple objectives. And lots of XPs (which is good, for me, since my players were used to a 1 session/1 lvl ratio, which is insane, but correct by RAW in an overwhelming cheesy 3.5 edition).

Tobrian
2008-09-06, 09:42 AM
If this turns out to be a serious problem, try out this:
http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=87689
in which players get healing surges/"inspired" powers back by going on adventures instead of staying in bed and sleeping.

That encourages players to burn inspired (ie, daily powers), because if you don't use the power, you don't get a roll to get it back. . .

Computer game designers learned this lesson only some years ago. Many games had (or still have) "special attacks" or attack/spell combos or whatever that did massive damage but could only be used once and then didn't refresh until after resting (Baldur's Gate) or only refreshed very very slowly. It was probably meant to keep things "balance", but it only succeeded in being annoying. The game then got around that problem by introducing special potions that would repower a combo instantly (i.e. Sacred did), but the consequence was that players started hoarding those potions in their inventory. Great. :smallannoyed:

When Dungeon Siege II came out, the game programmers had finally grasped the idea that if you give player characters rare special abilities, these powers should be available when needed, otherwise you could well leave them out completely. What they did was they linked refreshment rate of the special to the rate of attacks and damage that a character was dishing out on enemies. Meaning that if you had used your special power near the end of a combat and then just walked around the cleared area or teleported back to town without getting into new combat encounters, the special refreshed extremely slowly, because you didn't need it. But once you started fighting again, the special would refresh quickly, within seconds.

D&D is such a mechanical system, more concerned with tactical combat and dungeon crawling than anything else, that I'm not bothered if a game mechanic seems too convenient to be "realistic". 4E to me feels like a computer MMO anyway. *shrug*


And lots of XPs (which is good, for me, since my players were used to a 1 session/1 lvl ratio, which is insane, but correct by RAW in an overwhelming cheesy 3.5 edition).
Er, sorry, what? If I remember correctly, in 3.5, the game designers intended a ratio of approximately 7 challenging encounters = 1 level-up. That would be seven sessions. Can't remember if I read that in an article at Wizards website or in the DMG, though. I mean, how would you cram (tenth of) thousands of XP worths into one single game session? :smallconfused::smalleek:

nagora
2008-09-06, 10:47 AM
(which is good, for me, since my players were used to a 1 session/1 lvl ratio, which is insane, but correct by RAW in an overwhelming cheesy 3.5 edition).

I'm pretty sure even 4e hasn't gone that far down the "You turned up for the session? Have a level!" road, and 3e is slower, albeit still too fast.

Starsinger
2008-09-06, 08:51 PM
I'm pretty sure even 4e hasn't gone that far down the "You turned up for the session? Have a level!" road, and 3e is slower, albeit still too fast.

Well I'm sure in 3.5 if you're regularly casting ... What's that dexterity damage spell from spell compendium that batman Wizards use to take out dragons? on enough dragons, you can get enough XP in a day to level, since the monster's XP value changes based on your level...

The Mormegil
2008-09-07, 04:19 AM
Well I'm sure in 3.5 if you're regularly casting ... What's that dexterity damage spell from spell compendium that batman Wizards use to take out dragons? on enough dragons, you can get enough XP in a day to level, since the monster's XP value changes based on your level...

You got that right (sort of). The thing is, when people 'round the table go on making 3000 damages a round at lvl 17 (and that's not counting the full-caster, who's me, usually; I don't like this and that's why I started playing 4th, well not only that but mainly that) you GOT to come out with something difficult. And when people come saying "hey, that guy got down at 100000 damages, counting a DR 100/-! That's not a lvl 17 encounter, it's a greater deity, it is!" the chances are good that a (stupid) DM will say, ok, guys, you right, you level. When I DM, I simply say "yes, it is. If it's not, then tell me how come YOU are." But I stopped DMing 3.5 a while ago, saving my ideas for 4th edition.

Anyway, that's not the point. The point is, my PCs want to level fast. That's fine with me, so more XPs is good enough. Maybe it's not your cup of tea, you'll simply place less monsters in the fight and the XP outcome will be the same. That's up to you. I only said that SCs are a good way to mix skills and fights. Anyone read the "disrupt the ritual" preview on WotC boards, months ago? That's what I mean.

Helgraf
2008-09-07, 04:25 AM
I'm not saying Skill Training isn't an option, but nearly all PCs have either a 13 Str or 13 Dex, which makes Warrior of the Wild a generally better choice. So usually, the only reason to take Skill Training is if you're really going crazy on the skills.



I think this is a good idea. The treasure parcel system means you can get level 2 parties with a level 5 item that no-one can use. While this isn't necessarily a bad thing, I've been finding it works better to split the items up into multiple smaller ones, and just the occasional big one. Easier to share out that way.

- Saph

Well, except that the DMG advice suggests strongly you not often (or even regularly) give out items that are useless to the party precisely to avoid this rather unpleasant issue. This, incidentally, is also where the 'wish list' idea comes in handy, since you at least then have a variety of magical items to choose from when selecting your L+4, L+3, L+2, L+1 items that significantly reduces the odds of having to random guess and possibly give them something useless that has to be sold or disenchanted for 1/5th its value.

LotharBot
2008-09-08, 01:19 AM
nearly all PCs have either a 13 Str or 13 Dex

Really? That's pretty hard to do under the current point buy system if neither are key attributes for you. The only reason my dwarf cleric has 13 Dex is for WotW, and that was a pretty tough choice.

And, again, multiclassing only gets you ONE trained skill; I can see plenty of reason to want more than one. And there's still skill focus.

Saph
2008-09-08, 04:41 AM
Well, except that the DMG advice suggests strongly you not often (or even regularly) give out items that are useless to the party precisely to avoid this rather unpleasant issue. This, incidentally, is also where the 'wish list' idea comes in handy, since you at least then have a variety of magical items to choose from when selecting your L+4, L+3, L+2, L+1 items that significantly reduces the odds of having to random guess and possibly give them something useless that has to be sold or disenchanted for 1/5th its value.

Typo, sorry. I meant that you end up with more items than PCs. So 1 PC has a level 4 item, one PC has a level 3, and the other 3 members of the party have nothing. What I was trying to say was that at least to begin with, it might be better to give a bunch of level 1 and 2 items (that people can use) instead.


Really? That's pretty hard to do under the current point buy system if neither are key attributes for you. The only reason my dwarf cleric has 13 Dex is for WotW, and that was a pretty tough choice.

Strength is the king stat for 4e (more classes use that than any other), and Dex is one of the better runner-ups - they're your basic attack stats. So nearly all PCs will tend to have a 13+ in at least one.

For instance, it's a bit unusual to have a cleric with no Str - that means you're relying completely on Sacred Flame/Lance of Faith for your attacks. What happens if you get forced into melee?

- Saph

Starsinger
2008-09-08, 05:12 AM
For instance, it's a bit unusual to have a cleric with no Str - that means you're relying completely on Sacred Flame/Lance of Faith for your attacks. What happens if you get forced into melee?

- Saph

Then like any good white mage, I withdraw my trusty hammer and if I hit do about 4 damage. :smalltongue:

Kurald Galain
2008-09-08, 09:07 AM
Strength is the king stat for 4e (more classes use that than any other), and Dex is one of the better runner-ups - they're your basic attack stats. So nearly all PCs will tend to have a 13+ in at least one.

I agree. Those that don't (e.g. wizards) have other multiclass feats that are better than taking skill training (e.g. the cleric's or warlock's).

After last night's session, I also concur with the earlier analysis that after the PCs survive the first two, maybe three, rounds of combat, the rest is mop-up.

I've also learned that it's good to allow characters some retraining (stat-swapping, feat-swapping, or whatnot) after the first session, because there are a number of very poor choices you can make at character generation, that novice players would not notice in advance.

I note to some dismay that several DMs in the area have picked up on the idea that if a character tries to do something cool and unusual, the default answer is "no, you can't do that" because the rules don't state that you can. The PHB and DMG appear to encourage the line of thought that you can't do anything that isn't spelled out on your character sheet. If this is a thread for things DM should learn or have learned, I would point out that the game is more fun if they do allow original approaches.

Hzurr
2008-09-08, 09:52 AM
After last night's session, I also concur with the earlier analysis that after the PCs survive the first two, maybe three, rounds of combat, the rest is mop-up.

Hmm....I think I disagree. It's tended to be the long combats that have really brought my PCs trouble. When the cleric has used up his healing words, and nearly everyone is bloodied, that's when things start getting tense. Now, with some of those combats, it's because it took a couple of rounds for the enemies to really get their tactics rolling (the irontooth fight in KotS, for example. That 3 round delay til the 2nd wave shows up lulled the party into thinking the fight was going to be much easier than it was. In addition, I've noticed that PCs don't really start bringing out the dailies (and encounter powers, for that matter) until it's almost too late. That feeling of "Oh crap, we're in trouble, I should use my daily power" should happen before half the party is down, and the other half is bloodied.

Charity
2008-09-08, 10:06 AM
The PHB and DMG appear to encourage the line of thought that you can't do anything that isn't spelled out on your character sheet. If this is a thread for things DM should learn or have learned, I would point out that the game is more fun if they do allow original approaches.

I didn't get this impression from reading them, in fact I'm fairly sure the DMG's advise is exactly what you are suggesting (bolded for clarity)... I'm sure you've read them, they don't leave you with that impression surely?

Colmarr
2008-09-08, 10:30 PM
Hmm....I think I disagree. It's tended to be the long combats that have really brought my PCs trouble. When the cleric has used up his healing words, and nearly everyone is bloodied, that's when things start getting tense.

QFT. In my (admittedly limited and low-level) experience, 4e gets deadlier the longer combats drag on. Although PCs have more ability to heal themselves than monsters, if the monsters are still standing once those abilities have been used, things get increasingly dangerous.

Irontooth is a particularly nasty example, because his damage output goes UP just as the PCs reach the point that they are struggling to keep pace with his normal damage output.


Fallacy stuff

Noted. I think we've each put our positions and the discussion has been "done to death".

alfredbester
2008-09-09, 12:55 AM
Also, I'm not quite sure how I should handle zombies (and other semi-mindless creatures) and marking. Should they pursue the PC who marked them? Or should they just whack on the closest target?

I don't think of marking as some sort of magical effect on a monster but rather the fighter or whoever singling out and attentively engaging the monster and saying, "You're mine!" I don't think people generally know that they're marked.

Oracle_Hunter
2008-09-09, 01:02 AM
I don't think of marking as some sort of magical effect on a monster but rather the fighter or whoever singling out and attentively engaging the monster and saying, "You're mine!" I don't think people generally know that they're marked.

That creates the problem that monsters are going to be exceptionally vulnerable to marking attacks... particularly Paladin marking. Plus, since I presume you let the PCs know when they get marked, you give the PCs a huge informational advantage.

No, I think marking can be visible without resorting to metagaming. A Fighter's Mark is the fighter paying particular attention to you, and that added attention is easily visible by the monster - the Fighter throws feints if the monster tries to move, and positions himself to take advantage of the smallest gap in the monster's defense.

Personally, I like to think of a Paladin's Mark as a sense of impending divine wrath descending over the monster. It'd probably feel like you were suddenly charged up with static electricity, just waiting for you to ignore the Paladin's challenge...

Mindless creatures can be dealt experimentally. Whatever animates the undead gives them enough brute intelligence to be able to fight effectively and cause OAs, so it probably can notice things like a Fighter's Mark. Or maybe they see a few of their fellows get smacked by CC and they learn.

Thrud
2008-09-09, 02:23 AM
Funnily enough, I had high hopes for SCs. As I think Matthew mentioned, the idea has been knocking around for a long time, even before there were skills (and so ability scores were used). I've seen several versions and written one myself. They never quite captured the roleplaying side properly, IMO, so I was hoping that WotC, with all the time and resources they had, might have found the magic formula.

In my 3.0 games I used to just assign challenge ratings to certain non combat situations, and I didn't care what skills they used to get there as long as they made sense. I would just work out what the final result needed to be, and a couple of red herrings along the way for bad rolls, and worked out the rest as they came up with the rolls. Sometimes for particularly difficult encounters I would jot down a combination of skills required. On the whole this is a much more sensible solution than having to have a mechanic for it, but in 4ed letting the DM do his job and ajudicate seems to have fallen out of vogue. They have decided to put in a mechanic for everything. Then all of this is tied together with roleplaying. They roleplay themselves to a situation where a skill roll would make sense, then the result of the roll is modified by how well they RPed. All of this, however, requires some pretty extensive homebrewing, and is not something that can be quantified. That is why it is the DMs job. Non combat stuff should always be more freeform that combat stuff, in my opinion, and that is where the DM comes in.