[D&D 4e] Balance Issues
Natespank:
Quote
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.
I can typically out-game them in a competitive framework; I love tactics.
They went to the center of an island of halflings and attacked everything in sight. 3 attack waves of minions/thieves/a solo/ranged attackers converged and every one of them died. Logically, the PCs should have been slaughtered- they faced the equivalent of 8 "standard encounters" all at once. By the way, it was only 2 PCs. In my design phase I couldn't have predicted that given what the books say about how the game works...
I think I need to throw out the DMG and Monster Manual and come up with everything from scratch. I can use the "monster builder program" or something. Run the game off the Player's Handbook and previous knowledge.
Chris_Chinn:
Hi Nate,
Can you give us some specific questions on what advice you feel would help?
From your reply, it still doesn't tell me what would/could help you have a better game. 4E is set up that each encounter is supposed to eat up 25% of a party's resources, so 3 waves is 75%, still do-able. On top of that, you mention waves of monster types that are low hitpoints (minions, artillery, strikers) and one Solo. And no mention if there was anything to debilitate player movement, attacks, or actions.
The 4E advice on core encounters is solid- you want a good mix of monsters, you want a good set of terrain. The two places the core books fall down are:
1) MInions. Most folks on various boards have argued they should be rated 6:1 or 8:1 instead of 4:1. But basically, minions take next to no time to take out, and usually don't inflict enough damage to be worth it unless you have some kind of effect they stack up upon.
2) Solos. Solos are generally underpowered in terms of damage, owing mostly to the fact that players get 4x the amount of actions a Solo does. There's a good series of posts on that here:
http://angrydm.com/2010/04/the-dd-boss-fight-part-1/
As I mentioned before, 4E is a lot of work, but there is a lot of good info to be found on Enworld, or the WOTC/D&D boards. You'll probably be best off searching already existing threads.
What advice in specific are you looking for?
Chris
Callan S.:
Hi Nate,
I don't want to lead you on why you want to save your campaign, but you didn't really say why before - just what was in the way, or what wouldn't save it? Is just dropping a campaign a bit like taking a half drawn picture and instead of completing it, tearing it in half and throwing it away? You'd just like to finish the creative process you started, rather than stuff it in a bag along with a brick and throw it in a river? Just what I was thinking, I don't want to lead your answer on that.
Just on this
Quote
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.
I just want to note that people are generally taught that words have only one meaning, so people are taught to think that the meaning they have for a word is what that word means in physical terms. Douchebag & personality are two of these words - they really communicate jack, but people are so certain they have a set in stone meaning they will bust up social relations because of that certainty. I'm just second guessing that this option will prove popular with folk and seem (because of the commonly taught perception I just described) to have no flaw to it.
Natespank:
Okay, I can use a lot of this stuff come to think about it. There's been some great replies. I think I can specifically ask a few questions.
Quote
4E is set up that each encounter is supposed to eat up 25% of a party's resources, so 3 waves is 75%, still do-able.
Where's it say that? Anyway, using normal rules an extended rest negates the effect of attrition upon the party. I find I need to give quests time limits to still affect the PCs with attrition. Is there another way?
I've also considered the house rule where they begin with 2x the normal number of surges, but regain only 1/extended rest (2 if a defender class). Opinion?
Quote
At all points we chose our risks. I liked it
A free-flowing, player driven structure like that's great, but it means I can't use the time limits or victory conditions I want to introduce! Or, not easily. Again, could you elaborate on that campaign a little? Do you think it's best to tell the PCs the level of the enemies they're fighting, or to let them find it out by experiment and observation?
Quote
The 4E advice on core encounters is solid- you want a good mix of monsters, you want a good set of terrain. The two places the core books fall down are:
1) MInions. Most folks on various boards have argued they should be rated 6:1 or 8:1 instead of 4:1. But basically, minions take next to no time to take out, and usually don't inflict enough damage to be worth it unless you have some kind of effect they stack up upon.
2) Solos. Solos are generally underpowered in terms of damage, owing mostly to the fact that players get 4x the amount of actions a Solo does. There's a good series of posts on that here:
Nah, most monsters are pretty weak, the players have more damage, defenses and range; they make far better use of *most* terrain than most crappy monsters can. Still, I could use some tips for creating interesting terrain.
As for minions and solos, after experimenting a lot this campaign, I'm pretty much in agreement. What's your advice for using them? Instinctively I'm wary about using minions- especially ogre minions (1hp? seriously?!), but I'd like to incorporate them somehow.
Quote
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?"
I'll give em a try this sunday. What do you mean by one-off hazard?
Speaking of hazards- river crossing. How dangerous is it/should it be? How much does armor affect it? I want to use bridge/river crossing battles but it's hard to believe the PCs couldn't just swim or ford. How wide should these rivers be?
Quote
I think in chess when the king is surrounded, can't move in any direction and is threatened as well, it's ridiculously unbalanced. I'd actually say winning is about one player taking balance and breaking it over his or her knee.
Well, I've talked about the whole 0-1000 winning track thing. I know it's a pain because you expect to be able to just deligate that responsiblity to the written rules, instead of having bought a product and then write your own game anyway. But I think you don't want things to be balanced forever and ever - you have to determine how they can finally unbalance things and take the king, so to speak.
Anyway, speaking in those terms I'd consider instead of trying to faff about with banning classes, just put a cap on damage output. Also a cap on the number of rounds you can kite, before the enemy automatically closes with you. It's just too hard to try to find and fill in all the little holes, so just put a bigger bag around the whole thing. But still at some point there needs to be a king taker move.
Okay, this post pissed me off, but today I find it very insightful. Thanks for posting it.
I think I've stumbled upon a problem where I'm trying to build a campaign instead of an adventure or string of adventures. When they find a king-taker move and I have them in a campaign, they win the campaign- no good, right? However, if I made my adventures more discrete I could allow them to utterly thwart them without ruining the campaign- next adventure I could adjust things appropriately.
I've also considered time constraints and other victory conditions for both battles and adventures. I'm foggy on how to use them but I think there's a lot of potential there- and besides, even if a PC does get way overpowered, they still may fail the quest or battle condition...
That being said, to play like that isn't as player-driven as I had intended.
Chris_Chinn:
Hi Nate,
Healing Surges
If players are already having an easy time with encounters, giving them MORE surges is a bad idea, even if the surges come back slower. Leave Healing Surges alone, and consider stuff like Skill Challenges or Hazards that reduce Healing Surges.
Terrain
If you're saying "players can use terrain better than monsters", you're doing Terrain wrong.
For example, you're planning on a river fight. Why not put in aquatic monsters who have full movement and mobility in water? Instantly the terrain favors the monsters.
If anything, terrain should be neutral, if not helpful to the monsters. This could be stuff like having 3-4 minions behind a wall with crossbows and arrowslits they shoot through- the players can't even target them until they break down a gate, and deal with the defenders outside. It provides a hazard and forces HP attrition.
If you have anything that is damaging by virtue of location ("A raging bonfire"), a fun combination is a monster that can immobilize or slow a character, and another monster that can Push/Slide PCs into the damage zone. The combination of damage and possibly being stuck there more than a few rounds from status effects is a nasty trick.
Also, "One Off Hazards" are things like: "The Orcs roll a barrel down the stairs if anyone comes up, it will do X damage, and leave the person prone for 1 round". It's a "one-off" because it's a trick that works once in the fight- the barrel is rolled, then it's down the stairs and either broken or too big of a hassle to get back up the stairs.
These kinds of things let you give monsters options to do more damage than they normally do as well as inflict status effects they don't normally have - page 42 is the DM's godsend when it comes to this stuff. You want it to be a one-off because it a) avoids becoming frustrating and annoying to the players and b) the players can't easily turn around and use it back on the monsters.
All of these things don't have to magical or weird, really. "The goblins drop the tapestry over you- you're blinded and immobilized until you make a Strength check", "The Gelatinous Cube starts knocking over bookcases as it plows forward, attack vs. Reflex and you take x damage and you're pinned", "The dragon has set fire to the town. If you use anything as cover, there is a random attack from falling burning debris", etc.
Think of great action movies and videogame levels and you'll have a good set of ideas to draw upon.
Battleragers: No
Here's what a 2 second Google Search gave me:
http://www.enworld.org/forum/4e-discussion/248974-battlerager-experiences.html
When the class was first published, it was decried all around as broken, and I haven't kept up with the errata, but by your account it sounds like they're still overpowered. Take a read through that thread, there's some folks talking from experience there.
Minions
Minions are annoyance enemies. The 1-hit-1-kill rule isn't bad, actually, the thing is, as a GM you have to realize they're not good choices if you're ever trying to make an actually challenging encounter.
If you have melee focused minions, they can only really do damage if they're surrounding and laying into a single target- which usually makes them ripe for area attacks.
If you have ranged focused minions, again, they have to focus fire on a single target, which almost always puts them too close together and open for area effects, or, at least, multiple-attack powers.
If you want to make minions somewhat dangerous, the trick is to either have them be mobile enough to attack and move a significant distance away (meaning they can scatter and not get hit with an area attack) or else, they need to do some other kind of status effect rather than damage being the primary point.
For example, if you have a minion type who can Slide a PC, then you could chain them up to scoot a character halfway across the board, perhaps into some highly damaging zone. But again, this is so gimmicky that it's probably only going to be fun for one encounter at most.
Solos: Don't
If you've looked at the post I linked, and the Angry DM's series on that, basically Solos suffer from not being able to keep up in the action economy. This requires rules tweaking- but if you can't make a normal encounter challenging, you really aren't in a place to be able to know what kinds of tweaks would make sense for a Solo, anyway. Even with rules tweaks, Solos are even more terrain dependent for an interesting encounter than a normal one, so wait until you're comfortable with play, in general.
D&D is probably the most well supported crunchy-gamist game out there right now, and there's a LOT of people who have played a lot, and spent a lot of time thinking about this stuff - take advantage of it!
If you take the Battlerager out, and you're still having problems creating a challenge, then something, somewhere, is going wrong - lots of folks are playing and not having trouble giving challenges to groups.
Chris
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page