[D&D 4e] Balance Issues
Alfryd:
Quote from: Natespank on February 28, 2011, 08:39:21 PM
The ranger just excels in large open areas. Ship to ship is good for him, as are plains. Just a good build for that.
I take it this was some form of continuous hit-and-run attack, always dancing out of the way of potential retaliation thanks to a higher movement rating? This would a very sim-lish hack, but perhaps limiting ammunition could put a crimp in that style? Or, is there any kind of semi-randomised 'charge' action that melee opponents could take to potentially overtake (and maul) this guy, thus introducing an element of risk in having to run+shoot minus backup?
Quote
The dwarf bloodrager thing... level 2 or 3, regen 6, 23 AC (partially due to items), 4-8 temp hit points per attack. Like I said, at higher levels I think it'll be far less effective, but for low levels he's a god.
Yeah, that problem seems to have been mentioned elsewhere, actually... You might consider restricting the benefit to once per round, which seems fairer, or basing the temporary HP off character level, rather than con bonus? There are lots of tweaks you could toy around with, rather than banning the concept outright, but I agree the math here is definitely outta whack.
Chris_Chinn:
Hi Nate,
Quote
I need to save my campaign, partially for my own sake. A few more episodes like this and I'll just stop DMing.
So, here's the thing, the big problem is you're not having fun. We can recommend a lot of house rules and stuff, but, it really sounds like the last thing you want is -more- work. I was going to suggest playing the game for awhile and seeing if you learn any new insights about tactics, etc. when you're not having to do all the leg work of building encounters, etc.
Strategy is tough! As a player, you only have to think about your character, and you have the entire campaign to master your abilities and teamwork with the other players. As a GM, you have to constantly learn new monsters, their powers, and how to work with terrain, because the monsters are almost always going to be throw-aways- you're not going to keep using the same monsters in the same mixes, so you never gain the same level of mastery.
You're going to need to be honest with yourself if you want to put in that kind of work. If the answer is no, nothing anyone is going to say or do can change that - it's like knowing your favorite flavor and flavors you dislike- you can't make yourself -like- something you don't. If not, you probably should let someone else run 4E and see if they can do a better job and take notes. (and if it's still not fun, don't play. It's ok, you can be friends with people you don't play with.)
That said, here's what I can say generally:
1) Battleragers are a known problem. Either outlaw them or houserule them down.
2) Hazards! Consider one-off hazards that make things hard for the players. "We're fighing in a blizzard, -2 to all ranged attacks, everyone is Slowed, and monsters that aren't Yetis take 2 damage a turn!" Change these up, they force the players to constantly re-evaluate how to deal with problems and make the best of bad situations. Players who find a winning formula find they can't do it the same way anymore.
3) Delay hazards. Pits, heavy sacks of grain that fall on you, a deep bog, things that you can set up that force players to lose one action or turn. This is an excellent way to delay the players and incapacitate the heavy hitters a bit. It adds frustration to the players, so try to spread it out. It also makes them wary of terrain.
4) Bad choices. "The easiest place to fight the monsters is in the magic circle. But in the magic circle, if killed, they rise up as undead versions. Crap."
5) Divide requirements. "Someone has to go open the gate on the left path while some one else disables the trap mechanism on the right path, within 2 rounds of each other, otherwise they both reset." This splits up the party within the same encounter, and also might be a fun skill challenge along with the fight.
6) Pain in the Ass combos. Get monsters together that really combo well. Some of the monster groups in 4E do this, but a lot don't. If you have someone who creates a damaging zone, you want someone else who pushes targets into it, and someone else who immobilizes them there. A useful trick is to look across the monster board and see if someone has a power that does it, and reskin them appropriately or just pull the power- that way you don't have weird stuff like, "Wait, why is an Aboleth working with these goblins?"
Like I said, this kind of stuff is a lot of work to think about, and you tend to either be the kind of person who goes, "I get to build wacky tactical puzzles? AWESOME!" or "Wow... that's a lot of work..." The good news is that while builds play a role, you don't actually have to master each players' set of powers- following the general guidelines and looking at the general tactics of the players works just as well using a lot of the stuff above.
4E is very much built around players working as a team and mastering their powers and abilities, and, funny enough, it ranges across the board in skill level. For a lot of groups, the stuff in the published adventures is fine, because a lot of groups haven't bothered really coordinating their abilities. The groups who have, though, all that kind of stuff needs to come in to really keep up the challenge.
The hardest part of "versus" gamism, that is, a GM producing challenges for everyone else, is that you have to constantly challenge the group, which isn't easy if you're not the most tactical minded and power-nitpicky of the bunch.
Chris
Erik Weissengruber:
Quote from: Eero Tuovinen on February 27, 2011, 09:49:53 PM
"... instead of trying to provide the players with level-appropriate challenges, what I do is I provide them with a selection of various challenges and allow them to choose for themselves. This way I don't have to know whether the group is powerful enough to face that troll or dragon or whatever, as I can just tell the players that there is a troll in that cave, and it'll be on their own heads if they choose to go into a combat they can't handle. And of course it's a given that I'll be able to populate my setting with something that'll provide a challenge."
My recent 4e experience took this form. Our GM was explicit about the level of challenges we could face, with statements like "this is a level 3 area." We PCs made decisions where to go and took the risks of heading to those places. The GM was deliberately negating the advice of the DM guide on how to ratchet challenges up and down to make sure every encounter would be always balanced. A deft hand with monster manuals, he preped a few locales but was strict about checking for random encounters.
At all points we chose our risks. I liked it. I wanted to start GMing again so I stopped playing but it was a good gamist group.
Ron Edwards:
Hi Nate,
I wanted to follow up on Chris' first point, which might be easy to miss. In fact, I think I want to dissect one of your statements, without anesthetic.
Quote
I need to save my campaign
Now, I do get that you'd prefer to have fun, and that you're not having fun, and without the fun, you'll have to stop. What I'm about to go over isn't about that. It's kind of a blunt instrument smite-statement, and I stress that if it doesn't work or fit for you, then please simply ignore it.
Here's my point, at last: Why?
Why save it? Do you really need to, as you put it? I've seen people stuck in the circular logic of saying they need to save it because if they don't, they won't have it, although they acknowledge that what they have isn't worth saving.
Why would saving it be on your shoulders alone? Unless you see your role as utterly transitive, i.e., the GM as author of fun for everyone else, then your satisfaction or dissatisfaction is entirely equal in status to anyone else's at the table. If one of the players were flatly not enjoying himself or herself, then I'd guess you'd see that as an issue for everyone else's sympathy and expect them to contribute to solutions. Does this not apply to you as well?
Again, please ignore if none of this is relevant to you at all. But if it is, even to 51% or above, then I'm interested in what you make of it.
Best, Ron
Natespank:
Quote
So, here's the thing, the big problem is you're not having fun. We can recommend a lot of house rules and stuff, but, it really sounds like the last thing you want is -more- work.
I don't mind work. I spend hours each week working on material, but the rules are just so screwy.
Quote
My recent 4e experience took this form. Our GM was explicit about the level of challenges we could face, with statements like "this is a level 3 area." We PCs made decisions where to go and took the risks of heading to those places. The GM was deliberately negating the advice of the DM guide on how to ratchet challenges up and down to make sure every encounter would be always balanced. A deft hand with monster manuals, he preped a few locales but was strict about checking for random encounters.
At all points we chose our risks. I liked it. I wanted to start GMing again so I stopped playing but it was a good gamist group.
Could you elaborate on how he did this a little more? How were the random encounters?
I may take an approach like this. I'll make a setting that's horrendously difficult to survive in but with weak areas... let them proceed as they like.
I might have to make a bunch of my own monsters and house rule the game to hell though. For example, hard encounters blast the PCs through levels like you wouldn't believe.
I think I'm gonna have to heavily modify the game though. Sigh...
Quote
why save it? Do you really need to, as you put it? I've seen people stuck in the circular logic of saying they need to save it because if they don't, they won't have it, although they acknowledge that what they have isn't worth saving.
Why would saving it be on your shoulders alone? Unless you see your role as utterly transitive, i.e., the GM as author of fun for everyone else, then your satisfaction or dissatisfaction is entirely equal in status to anyone else's at the table. If one of the players were flatly not enjoying himself or herself, then I'd guess you'd see that as an issue for everyone else's sympathy and expect them to contribute to solutions. Does this not apply to you as well?
This sounds similar to a social contract approach.
I have 2 main groups of friends; one great, sociable group and one nerd group. I play RPGs with the nerd group. The nerd group is sort of irresponsible and selfish, but we like to play games together. They're all quite bright, in university, and avid gamers that challenge me. Nearly impossible to hang out with purely socially though.
Each other player has flatly refused to DM, and they really like it when I DM. They enjoy the current campaign. They've only played versions of D&D and are suspicious of other systems, and they love 4e. Basically, 4e is a good system- it just needs a thick layer of polish...
Finding new players would be a serious pain in the ass- all the likely candidates are similar to them but worse.
Anyway, they appreciate the problem and want to address it- it's just that they want to "fix" 4e instead of changing rules. I could change systems, since they'd have no backup DM, but I dislike *most* systems and want to avoid an RPG of the Week approach.
I had actually tried to start a game of Sorcerer but nobody read the rulebook. Same thing with a few other systems that require actual work from this group. They're sort of lazy, irresponsible and selfish- however my other friends are "too cool" for RPGS :(
The nice thing about D&D is typically you can just tell a player to show up and teach them as you go. It's also the "standard" kind of RPG, so you can sort of know what to expect from it. They'll HEAVILY invest in a system once they decide they like it, but the initial investment must be minimal.
I feel like I'm rambling. Let me cut this short and take a nap- I can't really expect the other players to "step on up" when it comes to making the game enjoyable for everyone. They ensure a basic level of enjoyment for everyone but beyond that attempt to maximize how much they can screw with stuff- each other, enemies, the rule loopholes, yadda yadda...
Besides, how would we collectively solve the issue? "G., stop making douchebag characters. K., no obnoxious builds that require 50 rounds to end a fight but can't lose. J., don't go through 1-2 characters every 3 sessions, stick with one. C., give your character at least SOME personality." It won't happen.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page