Has anyone considered cutting non-minion monster HP in half?

78 posts / 0 new
Last post
Seems like if I throw more than one or two non-minions at the party in one encounter, they simply don't produce enough damage output to deal with monsters in a timely fashion. The battle lasts incredibly long.

Has anyone house-ruled a method for speeding up combat, but keeping the players on their toes? I want the battle to last long enough for the PCs to feel some hurt, but not so long that the battle gets tiresome...

The higher in level we get, the longer the battles seem to take. Not because of too many character options, things to track or whatnot, but simple mathematics. The monsters have tons of HP...
I'm not sure if halving monster HPs is the best solution, but a reduction seems in order. My group has been experimenting with 4E in four oneshot adventures (at levels 2,4,6 and 8) and we've found that what players can do is nicely balanced when compared to each other, but that monsters hit as easy, for big damage, and that monsters have way more hitpoints than the PCs. So that seems like a problem.
Last week, we took a vote and decided to go with half HPs for all monsters.

Granted, we don't yet know if it will do what we think it's going to do, but we're going to try it out. We can always change it again later.
I'm not sure if halving monster HPs is the best solution, but a reduction seems in order. My group has been experimenting with 4E in four oneshot adventures (at levels 2,4,6 and 8) and we've found that what players can do is nicely balanced when compared to each other, but that monsters hit as easy, for big damage, and that monsters have way more hitpoints than the PCs. So that seems like a problem.

PC's have superior in-combat HP recovery skills when compared with most monsters. The higher HP totals on the monsters helps to make up for that.

t~
We generally manage to get through two to three encounters in a 4-hour session. Our DM doesn't make extensive use of minions, although they're generally present (and we're only level 2 at this point). That's with standard HP for monsters.

We're not even particularly fast, although we do all have fairly good gaming experience (although our Rogue seems to be stuck in earlier editions... we're trying to break her of that). Generally, though, everyone has a decent idea of what they want to do when their turn rolls around.

What's the party composition like? How many players? Are they taking more than about 30 seconds to determine a course of action each time they act? Are they hoarding their higher-damage daily powers 'just in case'? Do they use action points in combat, or do they hold onto those for emergencies?

What levels are they, and what magic items do they have? Especially at higher levels, 4e tends to assume that players will have level-appropriate magical gear... if they're behind the power curve on that, that can contribute to the feeling of slow combats.
We generally manage to get through two to three encounters in a 4-hour session. Our DM doesn't make extensive use of minions, although they're generally present (and we're only level 2 at this point). That's with standard HP for monsters.

We're not even particularly fast, although we do all have fairly good gaming experience (although our Rogue seems to be stuck in earlier editions... we're trying to break her of that). Generally, though, everyone has a decent idea of what they want to do when their turn rolls around.

What's the party composition like? How many players? Are they taking more than about 30 seconds to determine a course of action each time they act? Are they hoarding their higher-damage daily powers 'just in case'? Do they use action points in combat, or do they hold onto those for emergencies?

What levels are they, and what magic items do they have? Especially at higher levels, 4e tends to assume that players will have level-appropriate magical gear... if they're behind the power curve on that, that can contribute to the feeling of slow combats.

Well, these are all good questions. I'll try and answer them.

Firstly, we play around 6 hour sessions, but they are heavy in roleplaying. Instead of saying how many encounters we get through in a session, I'll say on average how long ONE of our encounters takes.

On average, our encounters last 1 1/2 to 2 hours - a SIGNIFICANT portion of our time. I find that combat bogs down our games and tends to slow everything to a crawl as soon as the first couple rounds of initiative are over. This slows the whole game down, making everyone lose their "drive" during the session.

Right now, we just finished up 4th level with 5 PCs:

Eladrin "Spear" Fighter
Human "Trickster" Rogue
Halfling "Archer" Ranger
Half-Elf "Leader" Cleric
Tiefling "Blaster" Wizard

When we were lower levels (1st and 2nd) the battles seemed not to last as long and they seemed more upbeat. Nowadays, they seem to get bogged down after 5 rounds or so. I won't say we're all experts at taking only 30 seconds to determine what we do, but I do know I have gotten into a habit of letting whoever is "on-deck" know they need to be deciding what to do in order to speed things up slightly. It hasn't seemed to help. Like I said, it's not that people are slow calculating, tracking, or anything. It's simply that the monsters are punching bags FULL of HPs... Meanwhile, the average PC attack is doing 1dX + X damage - and it doesn't amount to much. SURE, when they blast off their ONE daily it makes waves, but then it's back to the grind of 1dX + X.

I'd say the party is pretty active in using action points and their dailies right off the bat. They're not shy about it and don't really hoard their powers.

Magic Items might be the issue. I just handed out quite a few as we ended the first Act of our story, but I wouldn't say they were starved for items or anything. And I don't see even a +2 to attack and damage helping THAT much.

Thanks for the responses so far. Any more suggestions/ideas would be fantastic.
I love just how in touch the OP is with these forums, that he knew that he had to specify "non-minion HPs"
I love just how in touch the OP is with these forums, that he knew that he had to specify "non-minion HPs"

I'm sorry - is this a jab? I don't get it. Care to clarify? Thanks.
Well, these are all good questions. I'll try and answer them.

Firstly, we play around 6 hour sessions, but they are heavy in roleplaying. Instead of saying how many encounters we get through in a session, I'll say on average how long ONE of our encounters takes.

On average, our encounters last 1 1/2 to 2 hours - a SIGNIFICANT portion of our time. I find that combat bogs down our games and tends to slow everything to a crawl as soon as the first couple rounds of initiative are over. This slows the whole game down, making everyone lose their "drive" during the session.

Well, like I said, we're only at 2nd level just now. It's possible we'll start to slow down, too, but even tough encounters (which our DM loves to throw at us) generally don't take us more than an hour to get through. We've generally been facing +1 and +2 encounter levels so far... how tough (in terms of XP budget) have the fights been for your party recently?

We usually manage to get a good bit of roleplaying in as well, although we generally don't sit around for an hour at a time discussing things in character. (My Human Wizard keeps trying to make the overly-serious Dragonborn Fighter crack up with dirty jokes in Draconic. So far, no luck.) :D

Right now, we just finished up 4th level with 5 PCs:

Eladrin "Spear" Fighter
Human "Trickster" Rogue
Halfling "Archer" Ranger
Half-Elf "Leader" Cleric
Tiefling "Blaster" Wizard

When we were lower levels (1st and 2nd) the battles seemed not to last as long and they seemed more upbeat. Nowadays, they seem to get bogged down after 5 rounds or so. I won't say we're all experts at taking only 30 seconds to determine what we do, but I do know I have gotten into a habit of letting whoever is "on-deck" know they need to be deciding what to do in order to speed things up slightly. It hasn't seemed to help. Like I said, it's not that people are slow calculating, tracking, or anything. It's simply that the monsters are punching bags FULL of HPs... Meanwhile, the average PC attack is doing 1dX + X damage - and it doesn't amount to much. SURE, when they blast off their ONE daily it makes waves, but then it's back to the grind of 1dX + X.

Okay, so they're in the 'neither fish nor fowl' category; i.e., they've got a couple of encounter powers, a utility, and their beginning daily. Our party is one larger, with a Warlord in the extra slot, but otherwise fairly similar. Their next level gets them a second daily, which should help out a bit... gives more alpha-strike capability.

Overall, the party composition looks good. (Of course, depending upon stats, they might not be particularly effective in their chosen role... but you plays your cards and you takes your chances.)

I'd say the party is pretty active in using action points and their dailies right off the bat. They're not shy about it and don't really hoard their powers.

Good to see, although they don't have much in the way of things to 'hoard' just at the moment. (S'okay, neither do we.)

Magic Items might be the issue. I just handed out quite a few as we ended the first Act of our story, but I wouldn't say they were starved for items or anything. And I don't see even a +2 to attack and damage helping THAT much.

Thanks for the responses so far. Any more suggestions/ideas would be fantastic.

Well, +2 items wouldn't generally be appropriate at this stage of their career (well, maybe one in the party), but everyone should have a couple of +1 items appropriate to their character and a potion or two. Does everyone have an item with a Daily power they can use? Or at least with properties beyond an enhancement bonus? Those can often turn out to be force multipliers when used correctly. If most of their items are just vanilla +1 weapons, though, they're not as much help.

I'm just wondering if it boils down to tactics... but that's pretty hard to judge from forum posts. Do the strikers focus-fire, trying to bring down one bad guy at a time? Is the Wizard trying to get maximum effectiveness from his AoEs? (Does he even have any AoEs?) Can the Fighter effectively 'hold the line'... and is the Cleric a front-line combatant? Does the Rogue mostly hold back, firing a hand xbow or throwing shuriken, or does he try to get in close and stick a dagger somewhere sensitive? Do the players try to use terrain features to their advantage, such as bottlenecks in dungeon corridors?

There's a million other questions that could be asked, but I think I'll leave you with those for the moment.
I'm sorry - is this a jab? I don't get it. Care to clarify? Thanks.

Not at you, but at the general literalist snarkiness of these forums, to which I occasionally contribute. In any rational gaming society, (if such a thing exists) there would be no need to clarify that proposing cutting monster hit points in half excluded 1 hp minions.
Not at you, but at the general literalist snarkiness of these forums, to which I occasionally contribute. In any rational gaming society, (if such a thing exists) there would be no need to clarify that proposing cutting monster hit points in half excluded 1 hp minions.

Heh, sometimes it's just someone trying to be funny and failing.

Besides, if you cut 1 hp in half, then round normally, they still wind up with one hp.
> and that monsters have way more hitpoints than the PCs. So that seems like
> a problem.

Are you possibly making one of the more common mistakes? PCs add their Con *score* to their base hit point value, not their Con *modifier*. A lot of people skim over that and add the modifier because that's how it was done in 3E.
> and that monsters have way more hitpoints than the PCs. So that seems like
> a problem.

Are you possibly making one of the more common mistakes? PCs add their Con *score* to their base hit point value, not their Con *modifier*. A lot of people skim over that and add the modifier because that's how it was done in 3E.

Gah, good catch ND. I didn't even think of that.
> and that monsters have way more hitpoints than the PCs. So that seems like
> a problem.

Are you possibly making one of the more common mistakes? PCs add their Con *score* to their base hit point value, not their Con *modifier*. A lot of people skim over that and add the modifier because that's how it was done in 3E.

I don't know who this is directed at, but we do not play using the 3rd Edition method. We are following the rules.
I don't know who this is directed at, but we do not play using the 3rd Edition method. We are following the rules.

I think it was directed at Oorlof.
PC's have superior in-combat HP recovery skills when compared with most monsters. The higher HP totals on the monsters helps to make up for that.

t~

While this is absolutely true, I think it is also part of the problem. Because PC's can heal quicker, monsters have more hit points. Because monsters have more hit points, combat is slowing down as it scales up in level.

I've been running a Dungeon Adventure level 12 for several sessions now and we are getting in 1-2 encounters in (only). The combats just go on and on and on.

I've voiced concerns over the scaling of this game and I still have my doubts.
I haven't made any adjustments to HP's...but it is an idea to consider.
Heh, sometimes it's just someone trying to be funny and failing.

Besides, if you cut 1 hp in half, then round normally, they still wind up with one hp.

In 4e you always round down not up, even when the number is 1.
@the OP: I must say, your Party looks to be about the lowest damage-output Party I could imagine...your best Striker (the Ranger) decided to be small?? That practically halves the usefulness of Twin Strike (which I'm praying the Halfling took ), as a Medium creature can use a Greatbow, which does d12 base damage. This type of damage output speeds things up immensely. Your Rogue isn't a Brutal Rogue (who are also more damaging than Tricksters), but that's not SO bad, except for the fact that he can't flank with your Fighter for CA! The guy's an ELADRIN FIGHTER. I also pray he's multiclassing...? Please? *Cringe* This means he's probably not the most heavy-weight guy out there. Even your Cleric seems more like a Laser Cleric, as there isn't a single person on your Team who has a natural +2 Racial Bonus to Strength! The Human COULD, but I suspect it went into Charisma. Lastly, your Tiefling Wizard (who I'm going to assume is like me and is just using Fire Spells with Hellfire Blood) seems like he could put out the best damage on your Team! It definitely feels as if your Parry's damage output is the reason your battles take so long. Your Party's best bet is probably to use Tactics, Ambushes, or anything else they can to gain advantages over their enemies outside of basic Combat Powers.

My Party in one of my games, for instance, consists of only four players: a Dwarven Fighter with an Executioner's Axe, a Sword-and-Board Human Fighter, a Tiefling Star Pact Warlock, and myself, a Dragonborn Bardlord with a Fullblade. Our DM is very hard, running us against Encounters much higher than our levels (Kobold Camps, Dire Wolves, etc.), but we have enough Powerhouses that we can usually end these battles in at least an hour, if not faster. I would suggest that, if your Party isn't the Powerhouse type, they revert to being Sneaky. A lot.
Resident Logic Cannon
I've fudged monster health in the past two battles my party has had. Composed of a Dwarf Fighter, Eladrin Warlock, Dragonborn Warlord, Elf Rogue, and Eladrin Wizard (soon to be an Genasi Swordmage . . . what a tactical nightmare, 4 melee-based PCs), my party takes AGES to fight enemies. We've got our power cards, they flank & abuse sneak attack and whatnot like crazy, and I make my monster attacks quickly, but battles really drag once the first few enemies go down and it's obvious the PCs won't lose.

Normally I don't mind, but we don't have a huge amount of time to play (five hours every two weeks), and when I start to see every player's eyes glaze as "I use my at-will . . ." for the fourth time in a row, suddenly the mobs are bloodied and they go down faster.

I find the best battles include a whack of minions, and one or two standard monsters. I've had a few battles that lack minions and they just drag on and on and on. Minions are exciting, can still threaten the party, and more importantly, they go down in groups with an at-will or Dragonbreath. When the Wizard changes to a Swordmage . . . I guess I'll just include less minions, because then it'll just be the same length, but with more mini moving.

While I love the PCs out-of-combat restoration, so that they feel like they can die in combat but they can fight several battles, monsters all feel like tanks. Even the weaker artillery mobs have enough ways to avoid attacks or just keep surviving. While I love the tactics of it, it eventually bores the hell out of everybody.


So for now I've been fudging health values lower once the battle is basically decided, but I've been considering an NPC wide drop (with a few exceptions, of course) of 33% or so.
one thing that is notable, and you (I) don't really think about. Is encounter difficulty from DMG 104. Those fights where the players know they are going to win should only happen 3 times per level, where slightly harder encounters should happen another 3 times, and one battle that really taxes the group should happen once. then one encounter that is just a cakewalk (make them feel strong, its fun too).

With encounter difficulty variance is used, it should make a lot of encounter time actually in the air opposed to players knowing they're going to win.
I believe the designers have stated that as a standard house rule: halving monster HP for quicker combats.
The idea of halfing monster HPs seems worthwile if you want to preserve the fast pacing of earlier editions. Fastpaced, that is, if you don't take the time into account when you had to find a certain spell or look for the grapple rules...

My group 'as yet to encounter large numbers of HP-heavy sods, having only reached Lvl 2 last session, but the Lvl 3-4 monsters I had 'em encounter dropped rather easy once the PCs got their act together.
The only time an encounter dragged on was when the last Lvl 1 Soldier creature was standing in a corner, denying the PCs the advantages of flanking it.
Another solution 'd be not to use healing surges for monsters and reduce other healing abilities. These are the things that may frustrate players more.

If your group is rp-heavy, well so is mine (that and lots of OOC talk, running off when it's their turn...), I 'd suggest using and allowing out of combat mechanics to deal with it.

The last fight ended with the main enemy, a lvl 4 controller (with 2 soldier creatures, 2 skirmishers and 3 minions in tow) being singled out by the PCs, and then being bullied (intimitated) into surrendering. I had the rest of the combatants roll saving throws to see whether they 'd continue and it ended with the soldiers (being mechanic creatures) shutting down (receiving orders contrary to their programming) and the 2 human skirmishers fleeing to get reinforcements. So the whole encounter ended in a roleplay encounter (skill challenge) and a chase.

I believe the designers have stated that as a standard house rule: halving monster HP for quicker combats.

Could you please point us to the source of this statement? (Not that I 'm against it), I guess it 'd help knowing who said that, as well as knowing the where and when...

Cheers!

Captn M.

Better to fight windmills than become a miller!

I haven't seen any reason to cut the monsters HP in half. I don't think I'm gifted with tactical geniuses, but they seem to buzz saw every encounter we've had and they are just now getting to 4th level.

my group is rather large as well, six PC's and i try to get them enough XP to level every two gaming sessions. Most of the encounters have been lvl +2/+3/+4 with fewer creatures. So these mobs have even more HP's and still they do fine against them.

Normally we play for four/five hours every two weeks with 3-5 encounters and at least an hour/hour and 1/2 of role playing.
I don't think this was asked either, but what kind of monsters are the DM using most? Brutes are designed to have high HP and Damage, but not much else. There are exceptions (young Dragons), but for the most part Brutes are 'Hulk Smash!' kind o monsters. This makes them have the shortest stat blocks which might make them first picks for the level by a newer DM.

Try to mix up the monster types. The most common ones I use are Skirmishers so far, good damage, mobility, but can only take a few strong hits in comparison. Also keeps the battle more mobile.
@the OP: I must say, your Party looks to be about the lowest damage-output Party I could imagine...your best Striker (the Ranger) decided to be small?? That practically halves the usefulness of Twin Strike (which I'm praying the Halfling took ), as a Medium creature can use a Greatbow, which does d12 base damage. This type of damage output speeds things up immensely. Your Rogue isn't a Brutal Rogue (who are also more damaging than Tricksters), but that's not SO bad, except for the fact that he can't flank with your Fighter for CA! The guy's an ELADRIN FIGHTER. I also pray he's multiclassing...? Please? *Cringe* This means he's probably not the most heavy-weight guy out there. Even your Cleric seems more like a Laser Cleric, as there isn't a single person on your Team who has a natural +2 Racial Bonus to Strength! The Human COULD, but I suspect it went into Charisma. Lastly, your Tiefling Wizard (who I'm going to assume is like me and is just using Fire Spells with Hellfire Blood) seems like he could put out the best damage on your Team! It definitely feels as if your Parry's damage output is the reason your battles take so long. Your Party's best bet is probably to use Tactics, Ambushes, or anything else they can to gain advantages over their enemies outside of basic Combat Powers.

My Party in one of my games, for instance, consists of only four players: a Dwarven Fighter with an Executioner's Axe, a Sword-and-Board Human Fighter, a Tiefling Star Pact Warlock, and myself, a Dragonborn Bardlord with a Fullblade. Our DM is very hard, running us against Encounters much higher than our levels (Kobold Camps, Dire Wolves, etc.), but we have enough Powerhouses that we can usually end these battles in at least an hour, if not faster. I would suggest that, if your Party isn't the Powerhouse type, they revert to being Sneaky. A lot.

So my players have to be a bunch of min-maxers in order to "compete" with monsters and not bore ourselves to death during combat? ... Blah.
I've fudged monster health in the past two battles my party has had. Composed of a Dwarf Fighter, Eladrin Warlock, Dragonborn Warlord, Elf Rogue, and Eladrin Wizard (soon to be an Genasi Swordmage . . . what a tactical nightmare, 4 melee-based PCs), my party takes AGES to fight enemies. We've got our power cards, they flank & abuse sneak attack and whatnot like crazy, and I make my monster attacks quickly, but battles really drag once the first few enemies go down and it's obvious the PCs won't lose.

Normally I don't mind, but we don't have a huge amount of time to play (five hours every two weeks), and when I start to see every player's eyes glaze as "I use my at-will . . ." for the fourth time in a row, suddenly the mobs are bloodied and they go down faster.

I find the best battles include a whack of minions, and one or two standard monsters. I've had a few battles that lack minions and they just drag on and on and on. Minions are exciting, can still threaten the party, and more importantly, they go down in groups with an at-will or Dragonbreath. When the Wizard changes to a Swordmage . . . I guess I'll just include less minions, because then it'll just be the same length, but with more mini moving.

While I love the PCs out-of-combat restoration, so that they feel like they can die in combat but they can fight several battles, monsters all feel like tanks. Even the weaker artillery mobs have enough ways to avoid attacks or just keep surviving. While I love the tactics of it, it eventually bores the hell out of everybody.


So for now I've been fudging health values lower once the battle is basically decided, but I've been considering an NPC wide drop (with a few exceptions, of course) of 33% or so.

This is damn near exactly how I feel DMing lately.
I believe the designers have stated that as a standard house rule: halving monster HP for quicker combats.

I heard this as well. A very popular houserule in WotC proper. I'm considering it myself as I'm sick of "all the minions/lesser enemies are dead and now the fight is dragging as they try to wear down the last creature oh god why can't this end?"
fo diggity Twitter: www.twitter.com/fodigg Comic Books You Should Have Read: http://tinyurl.com/ycxe9l7
I haven't seen any reason to cut the monsters HP in half. I don't think I'm gifted with tactical geniuses, but they seem to buzz saw every encounter we've had and they are just now getting to 4th level.

my group is rather large as well, six PC's and i try to get them enough XP to level every two gaming sessions. Most of the encounters have been lvl +2/+3/+4 with fewer creatures. So these mobs have even more HP's and still they do fine against them.

Normally we play for four/five hours every two weeks with 3-5 encounters and at least an hour/hour and 1/2 of role playing.

Doesn't seem like the norm... Can you post some example encounters you've ran for us to examine and make sense of?

Thanks!
I heard this as well. A very popular houserule in WotC proper. I'm considering it myself as I'm sick of "all the minions/lesser enemies are dead and now the fight is dragging as they try to wear down the last creature oh god why can't this end?"

Agreed. While I've only had a few problem cases with it (still in low levels, and I like using minions quite a bit), I avoid Elites and Solos entirely because of the "Bog Down" nature of their hit points.

If people have tried it with half the hit points, I'd love to hear how it's going for you, so that I, and others, can make a more informed decision about it.
Feedback Disclaimer
Yes, I am expressing my opinions (even complaints - le gasp!) about the current iteration of the play-test that we actually have in front of us. No, I'm not going to wait for you to tell me when it's okay to start expressing my concerns (unless you are WotC). (And no, my comments on this forum are not of the same tone or quality as my actual survey feedback.)
A Psion for Next (Playable Draft) A Barbarian for Next (Brainstorming Still)
one thing that is notable, and you (I) don't really think about. Is encounter difficulty from DMG 104. Those fights where the players know they are going to win should only happen 3 times per level, where slightly harder encounters should happen another 3 times, and one battle that really taxes the group should happen once. then one encounter that is just a cakewalk (make them feel strong, its fun too).

The problem is that we aren't necessarily talking about "difficult" encounters, just long ones. You can have an easy long encounter or a hard short encounter, or any combination thereof. But even in a hard encounter that's supposed to be long, once there's only two non-minions left alive, it takes forever to bring them down. Or at least, it feels like forever. The excitement of danger has gone, most of the encounters have been used up (on both sides of the table), and what's left is an At-Will brawl, which isn't fun for anybody.
And don't even get me started on cakewalk battles. IMO, they're just a total waste of time. My PCs feel powerful when they smite a minion in half or turn him to a crisp, not when it takes them four rounds to kill a goblin . . . and there's been two other goblins firing at them, occasionally hitting.

The most exciting encounter my party has had was against nine minions and three standard monsters, as well as a trap that could be used against the monsters. Without the trap the battle would have been a bit of a brawl and would've ended badly ("I use my at-will"), but because the PCs were able to use it effectively, the battle ended much sooner than it otherwise would have. That said, it was also used against them, heightening the sense of danger.

With encounter difficulty variance is used, it should make a lot of encounter time actually in the air opposed to players knowing they're going to win.

Again, a short battle doesn't necessarily mean that it's easy. The next battle my PCs face is against a solo monster with fairly high damage output, but he's got fairly low health. The battle is intended to be short, but at the same the PCs are in serious danger if they don't keep this guy in check.
I don't want encounter time in the air and high; I want it much lower.
The problem is that we aren't necessarily talking about "difficult" encounters, just long ones. You can have an easy long encounter or a hard short encounter, or any combination thereof. But even in a hard encounter that's supposed to be long, once there's only two non-minions left alive, it takes forever to bring them down. Or at least, it feels like forever. The excitement of danger has gone, most of the encounters have been used up (on both sides of the table), and what's left is an At-Will brawl, which isn't fun for anybody.

The most exciting encounter my party has had was against nine minions and three standard monsters, as well as a trap that could be used against the monsters. Without the trap the battle would have been a bit of a brawl and would've ended badly ("I use my at-will"), but because the PCs were able to use it effectively, the battle ended much sooner than it otherwise would have. That said, it was also used against them, heightening the sense of danger.

Again, a short battle doesn't necessarily mean that it's easy. The next battle my PCs face is against a solo monster with fairly high damage output, but he's got fairly low health. The battle is intended to be short, but at the same the PCs are in serious danger if they don't keep this guy in check.
I don't want encounter time in the air and high; I want it much lower.

I agree with everything Athzar has said. Long encounters DO NOT equate to "challenging" encounters.

I feel like the monsters in 4E have too LITTLE damage output, and too MUCH HP...

Shorter and deadlier. That's how encounters should be. If we want to increase the length of the encounter we should be able to add MORE MONSTERS, not A monster with lots of HP...
> and that monsters have way more hitpoints than the PCs. So that seems like
> a problem.

Are you possibly making one of the more common mistakes? PCs add their Con *score* to their base hit point value, not their Con *modifier*. A lot of people skim over that and add the modifier because that's how it was done in 3E.

Sorry for the late reply, I was at work and couln't visit the boards for a couple of hours. Anyway, we do add Con instead of Con modifier to hitpoints.

Maybe an example will help: when at 6th level, my fighter had the highest HP-total in the party: Con 16, toughness feat, for 66 HP (IIRC). We were fighting what the MM considered (and suggests as) an appropriate encounter: three harpies, three spined devils, each clocking in at 70 HP. Most party members hovered somewhere around 50 HP. Did we mess up somewhere? We are a bit light on the ranged attacks (rogue, fighter, warlock, cleric; used to have a wizard but that player can't attend anymore) but even when they landed so we could go toe-to-toe, those monsters absolutely murdered us...
I haven't had that problem, myself. There are two possible contributing factors to that. My players almost universally have 18s in the stat they use most often for damage (16 for a fighter's con tells me he doesn't have more than 16 strength, but I could be wrong). Even a point or two of damage per hit makes a difference when you expect to make 5-7 attacks to kill a target. I have a tendency to make larger encounters (in terms of number of monsters) out of monsters under the level of my players. Lower levels mean lower defenses and fewer HPs, but a more interesting encounter, because there are more threats to monitor. The first few levels are a little rough, with the limited number of powers the PCs have. That second encounter power should increase damage output significantly, though (if it hits).

Strikers and controllers are the key party members for getting through battles quickly. Your defenders should probably be doing around 8-10 damage per round (actually, per hit) with their at-wills, while the strikers should be doing more like 15 thanks to their extra damage dice and damage-focused powers (your wizard's damage depends on how many enemies he can get into a single attack). If your group's strikers have chosen lower damage powers to maintain roleplay characteristics better (and I don't know whether they have from reading this), it should take you more time to get through combats; it's a tradeoff.

That said, it's DM prerogative to change anything you want to improve the experience for your group. Half HP sounds pretty drastic to me, but the 33% might be about right to maintain the bite of the monsters while speeding up resolution of the combat. After trying them out, myself, I suggest looking at the monster creation rules in the DMG to see the reasoning behind the values monsters have for their characteristics. At least with HPs, it seems the given monsters follow the rules, exactly.
So my players have to be a bunch of min-maxers in order to "compete" with monsters and not bore ourselves to death during combat? ... Blah.

No. But they should understand that by choosing sub-optimal combat characters, they've made it so that their combat encounters are likely to take longer. There's nothing wrong with this... but it does mean they'll have to take the bad with the good.

A Halfling has weapon restrictions that keep his damage lower than other Rangers. Since a Ranger (or any Striker's) job is damage output (in combat, that is), that means your combats will take longer.

The Eladrin spear-fighter is, again, fine for roleplay purposes... but its less than optimal in terms of combat efficiency. It makes it harder for the Rogue to set up Combat Advantage, which he absolutely needs if he's going to put out the damage he's supposed to in a combat situation.

The Wizard and Cleric are probably fine, but that (again) depends upon their choices.

As other people have said... it's your prerogative as DM to change anything that you want to in your own game.
So my players have to be a bunch of min-maxers in order to "compete" with monsters and not bore ourselves to death during combat? ... Blah.

I really didn't mean any offense, and Stereotyping me is kind of a silly thing to do. The following Post means no offense either, it is simply my view on your problems.

Opinion Starts Here
Friend, my Party is far from Optimized. It's just that three out of four of us have high damage output, and the last one is a Tank. We use good tactics to take advantage of our high damage output, while your Party should take advantage of their versatility (if it's even possible. See Below) to win Battles. If I wanted to OP my party, I'd have a Glaive, the Dwarf would be using a one-handed hammer and a shield, and the Fighter would be using a Bastard Sword. EVERYONE's stats would be much more optimized, as well. But we're actually roleplaying in our game, not just trying to break the game in half or anything.

However, what I was attempting to show you was that your Party's damage is nill, especially in comparison to the HP of most monsters. Your Rogue can't gain CA, your Fighter can't hit enemies hard enough for them to fear him, and your "Ranger," who should be dealing the highest damage of the entire party, is instead dealing the lowest amount of damage possible for a Ranger to deal! Meanwhile, your Casters are forced to pick up the slack and deal some decent damage, except that your cleric is too busy healing the Fighter and the Rogue (who are getting their butts kicked), so in essence, your poor Tiefling Wizard is forced to sacrifice Controller Powers so that HE can pick up the slack of the ENTIRE PARTY. You see, you don't have to optimize every character, but someone who's actually GOOD at the job their class is supposed to be doing is usually a good idea. Right now, the Cleric sounds like the only guy who's doing what his class is SUPPOSED to be doing. And no, you don't have to be optimized at all, but efficiency is usually something an Adventuring Party strives for. Your Fighter sounds like he should be a Taclord, your Rogue sounds like he should be a Warlock, and your Ranger sounds like he should be a Rogue. In an efficient party, your Cleric would then be a STR-based Cleric, and your Tiefling Wizard would Multiclass into Cleric and take some more Healing Powers, thus giving you lots of Healing Powers, some decent damage, Battlefield Control, AND good Ranged Combat abilities. You could take advantage of these things easily, and your Party probably wouldn't have as many problems.


However, should you ignore the above entirely, yes, WotC said in one of the Dragon articles and in one of the Pre-Release reports that they had an In-House rule of half HP for all monsters to make combat go faster.

EDIT: Dang, Ninj'd Again! :P
Resident Logic Cannon
> and that monsters have way more hitpoints than the PCs. So that seems like
> a problem.

Are you possibly making one of the more common mistakes? PCs add their Con *score* to their base hit point value, not their Con *modifier*. A lot of people skim over that and add the modifier because that's how it was done in 3E.

That made me lol. In our first game, the PCs did that. I (DM) was wondering why they were having such a tough time beating what should have been easy encounters. The first 3 or 4 encounters had at least 1 PC going into negatives, and had up to 3 at one time.
This sounds like a combination of bad encounter design and poor player design.

First up, i would like to make two points:


One: It is possible to 'min-max' (i hate that term) and still roleplay. Roleplaying does not immediately discount decent character design. And example would be my Kobold Rogue Kreet, who i really enjoyed roleplaying and made a brilliant backstory for him. He was also insanely mobile (with an action point he could move up to 14 squares in 1 turn if he was lucky, and 8 of those squares were shifts.) at level 4 and thanks to said mobility he could almost always have combat advantage and thus an inane damage output.

Two: Why is it surprising that in order to win in combat you need to have characters who are good at fighting? When i see people complaining about 'min-maxing' it puts me in the mind of somone putting an old man or a little girl into a boxing ring, and then complaining that they lost. Of course they lost, they're weaker than the boxer!


With that out of the way, i shall now do my best to analyse why you have a problem.


First up, an even level combat encounter should never take more than 3 - 4 rounds on average. I've run test encounters up to level 28, and they all averaged at 3 and a bit rounds to end. If your encounters are taking longer than 4 rounds on average, then you have a problem somewhere.

As we've already ascertained, your partys potential damage output is not as high as it could be, this in itself is not a problem, as it can be compensated for with good design and combat choices, which i'll now go onto.


Encounter design is a biggie. You as the DM are running a story for your players, as such you should be designing the encounters to be interesting. Sure i can just throw up a forest trail and have some random encounter pop up and attack, but that's probably going to get pretty boring pretty quickly. Instead you should put some thought into encounters, one game i'm running has two rangers (both with bow spec), a warlock, a laser priest and a fighter with some decent ranged abilities, so basically we have a mostly ranged party. As such, i've done alot of design (and redesign when i use WotC materials) to emphasize this. Many encounters involve some kind of high ground which gives a bonus to hit or damage, often i'll leave artillery creatures out as the high ranged power makes them very easy to kill, instead i try and put the players in positions where they have to avoid getting cornered, or need to block up a choke point. Interactive terrain such as ice, damaged cobbles, carnivorous flora ect all work together to make an encounter more interesting.

In general i apply a simple rule to all my encounters: What's the interesting thing that happens here? I try to have at least two interesting things in every encounter, an interesting thing can be anything from a lurker monster to a hidden trap to a magical glyph that gives a +1 to AC to some high ground that gives a +1 to hit on lower enemies to reinforcements and so on and so forth. Anything in the environment or the monsters which doesn't act as you might expect and does something different.
The DM's friend is a good thing to remember, add +1 (+2 in Paragon and +3 in Epic) to a given stat for whatever, it's enough to give the PC's a bit of an advantage (or the monsters if they're smart) without breaking the game.

The next important part about encounters is of course, monsters. The following sentance is in itself probably enough to turn your entire game around, especially if you have players who like heavy RP.

ROLEPLAY YOUR MONSTERS!

I cannot be any clearer than this, remember that your monsters are living beings too, roleplay them! Sure i can just take five Hobgoblins and throw them willy-nilly at my players, but that's no fun at all. It's much more entertaining when the monsters roleplay, maybe they shout tactics to each other, two attempt to push a character away from the rest so they can gang up on him, maybe another one calls out commands from the rear, and then when they're blooded they fall back and stage an ambush around the corner.

Think about it, how are these trained Hobgoblins going to react to two of their number getting killed while the players seem only marginally wounded? How would these untrained Goblins act differently? How about these religious fanatics or these wild animals? They're all going to do different things in different situations, work out what those things are in those situations, and then when those situations crop up, make them do those things!

The monsters should be as mobile as your players, if not more mobile, and they should act as living breathing creatures as well. Kobolds skitter between legs while shouting out orders in draconic and flee in terror at the first sign of serious resistance. Goblins dodge weapons and slide into new positions, giggling to themselves as they avoid even the strongest blow, but fleeing if things look like they're going badly. Hobgoblins line up and form an unbreakable phalanx while pushing slowly forward. An Ogre might go mad at the sight of blood and rampage through the Hobgoblin line, knocking Hobgoblins flying everywhere in it's charge to get at the PC's.

Make your monsters interesting, if they're just silent mindless things to get killed, then theres no fun at all in killing them. It's fun to fight with an opponant, somone who trades verbal insults, who searches for weaknesses and who reacts to your actions, it's not fun to fight a wooden dummy that just sits there. If your monsters are silently standing around attacking things, then they're no better than wooden dummies.


Finally, 4th edition puts alot more in the hands of the DM than 3.5 did. In 3.5 there were rules for everything, hell there were even rules for how to engage in sex (although that was a third party book). 4th takes a much simpler approach, 4th lets the DM do it.

An example would be one of my characters wanted to swing on a chandelier and kick a monster off a balcony in the process. I did a quick scan in the skills tab and found that this would be an acrobatics check to swing on the chandelier, but oh noes! There was no rules for kicking people in the face!

So i made one up on the spot, i said it'd be a strength attack vs reflex, and that he'd get a +2 bonus to hit because he was swinging through the air quite quickly. The attack would do a mere 1d6 damage, but would push the monster 1 square, if it failed it's saving throw it would get knocked off.

Sure enough, the attack hit, the monster failed it's saving throw and it fell off the balcony, taking 3d10 falling damage. That single attack (which i decided would be a move and a standard to perform) did more damage and was far more interesting than most at-wills would have been in the same situation.


Basically, don't be afraid to make on-the-spot judgements and to think outside the box. You may also need to point this out to your players, i have noticed that alot of players tend to bore themselves more than you do. The first few encounters were somewhat boring, although i had designed some great environments with all sorts of possibilities, the players were too used to being punished by DM's for thinking outside the box that the never did anymore, so i had to point out to them that maybe they could say push off this wall with an acrobatics check to give them a +1 to damage on their target and a push effect to boot (PoP2's wall attack as a reference).



Basically, it all boils down to some pretty simple steps.

Make your encounters interesting.
Make your monsters interesting.
Make your players interesting.

Ovbiously encounters and monsters are entirely up to you as a DM, but if your players are constantly just repeating "I use X on Y" with glazed expressions on their faces, try pointing out that there are other options. Somone here had a story about how they intimidated a Goblin into surrendering, i find this very sad, not because they didn't kill the Goblin but because they thought this sort of action was so rare that it warrents a story all by itself.

Non-combat solutions should always be viable, encourage your players to think outside the box and reward them when they do. Encourage your players to think tactically and reward them when they do, make the monsters interesting and different, make them really seem like enemies, maybe instead of killing this tribe of Goblins the PC's could try and befriend them instead, then they could get the assistance of a few Goblins in their later adventures. Make your environments interesting, they're in a 3D world, not a flat empty plane, and the ground should and does have an impact on what happens in that world. Make taking the high ground a real advantage, or fighting uphill a real disadvantage. Above all, make your players THINK.



And in the end, if it's still not working, if your players are resolutely ignoring your environment, or if you just can't think of interesting encounters, or maybe you just can't bring yourself to let them try and talk their way out of this threat, you might just be playing the wrong game.

DnD is all about creating your own fun, it's more like a toy than a game, it gives you some guidelines and basic rules, and from then on it's up to you to make it interesting. If your players aren't equipped for combat then ovbiously they're going to need to find a different way to achieve their objectives. I just started running a fun little short campaign involving a party of Doppelgangers, a murder mystery and a big castle. It's actually great fun and combat so far has basically amounted to a couple of failed assassination attempts and a tussle with the castle guards. The players have spent most of their time coming up with clever ways to get into various areas without killing anyone.



I know i have repeated myself several times, but i'm trying to hammer some points home. I have seen dozens of games fail because the DM didn't think outside the box and just mechanically moved things around. The DM is a person for a reason, a machine can run a DnD game just fine, it can follow the rules, but a person can elaborate upon those rules, and that's why the DM exists, to elaborate, to change, to be alive. And i've also seen dozens of games fail because the players didn't think outside the box and just mechanically walked forward slashing at enemies. Again, a machine can do this, you are a person, a human being, be creative!

If all else fails, remember that 4E is much more 'heroic action' based than 3.5. Go watch some action movies, play some action games like Prince of Persia, see all those rediculous stunts, those incredible environments that provide all sorts of interesting opportunities to do fun things like swing from ropes and run along walls? That is what 4E is trying to be. Help it along, take some ideas from the movies, let a player grab onto this thin column and spin around with his sword out, attacking all the enemies around it. Make a monster grab onto this rope and swing across the room, attacking everyone in a line. Make a monster that stands on the high ground and taunts the PC's, laughing at their pathetic attempts, and maybe let the PC's take him out with a single arrow, just like in the movies.
Let the heroes BE heroes! Let them do heroic things, encourage the players to do incredible feats of daring and strength, hell, i have a library of downloaded youtube videos that show 10 - 20 second clips of various movies with fun fights and moves, and i often break those out on my laptop for the extra pzaz, and the players do the same.


Be differerent, fun is found in inginuity and originality. Be clever, be original, but above all, be human. DnD has people in it for a reason, and that reason is not so they can mechanically follow the rules to the letter and be people shaped machines.

That is all.
I haven't noticed the problem. Of course, I'm in a larger party, with two strikers, so there's no lack of DPS.

I have actually noticed the reverse on occassion. Someone will throw down a cool power or daily with some nifty effect beyond damage - and be disapointed when the target just dies. I've done that a few times with Hammer & Anvil (What, /my/ damage killed it? bummer.)

 

 

Oops, looks like this request tried to create an infinite loop. We do not allow such things here. We are a professional website!

I am also interested to hear some anecdotal evidence about how this affects the gameplay. We just finished a game that we ended prematurely because various time constraints allowed us only a single 2 hour encounter each week. I know that some of that problem is the time allotted to the game (~3 1/2 hours), but if halving monster HP really does speed combat up, we'll have to try it the next time we get together.

-E-
I kinda brought this up on another thread but kinda got shot down in it (4th ed is perfect etc and way better than 3.5 yadda yadda). We more or less threw in the towel with 4th ed as combat whole fun at 1st was boring by level 4 as it was all about the damage. Fights went something like this.

encounter, power, encounter power, maybe daily, at will until dead. Slight exaggeration but not by much as classes with minor actions were using them as well. It seems you have to optimise your whole party as well which doesn't seem newbie friendly as alot of the hardcore 4th ed fans claim.

I like 4th ed but this was a major buggin point for our group. Combat= hackfest more or less. More tactics than3.5, less strategy it would seem.

 Fear is the Mind Killer

 

This sounds like a combination of bad encounter design and poor player design.

First up, i would like to make two points:


One: It is possible to 'min-max' (i hate that term) and still roleplay. Roleplaying does not immediately discount decent character design. And example would be my Kobold Rogue Kreet, who i really enjoyed roleplaying and made a brilliant backstory for him. He was also insanely mobile (with an action point he could move up to 14 squares in 1 turn if he was lucky, and 8 of those squares were shifts.) at level 4 and thanks to said mobility he could almost always have combat advantage and thus an inane damage output.

Two: Why is it surprising that in order to win in combat you need to have characters who are good at fighting? When i see people complaining about 'min-maxing' it puts me in the mind of somone putting an old man or a little girl into a boxing ring, and then complaining that they lost. Of course they lost, they're weaker than the boxer!


With that out of the way, i shall now do my best to analyse why you have a problem.


First up, an even level combat encounter should never take more than 3 - 4 rounds on average. I've run test encounters up to level 28, and they all averaged at 3 and a bit rounds to end. If your encounters are taking longer than 4 rounds on average, then you have a problem somewhere.

As we've already ascertained, your partys potential damage output is not as high as it could be, this in itself is not a problem, as it can be compensated for with good design and combat choices, which i'll now go onto.


Encounter design is a biggie. You as the DM are running a story for your players, as such you should be designing the encounters to be interesting. Sure i can just throw up a forest trail and have some random encounter pop up and attack, but that's probably going to get pretty boring pretty quickly. Instead you should put some thought into encounters, one game i'm running has two rangers (both with bow spec), a warlock, a laser priest and a fighter with some decent ranged abilities, so basically we have a mostly ranged party. As such, i've done alot of design (and redesign when i use WotC materials) to emphasize this. Many encounters involve some kind of high ground which gives a bonus to hit or damage, often i'll leave artillery creatures out as the high ranged power makes them very easy to kill, instead i try and put the players in positions where they have to avoid getting cornered, or need to block up a choke point. Interactive terrain such as ice, damaged cobbles, carnivorous flora ect all work together to make an encounter more interesting.

In general i apply a simple rule to all my encounters: What's the interesting thing that happens here? I try to have at least two interesting things in every encounter, an interesting thing can be anything from a lurker monster to a hidden trap to a magical glyph that gives a +1 to AC to some high ground that gives a +1 to hit on lower enemies to reinforcements and so on and so forth. Anything in the environment or the monsters which doesn't act as you might expect and does something different.
The DM's friend is a good thing to remember, add +1 (+2 in Paragon and +3 in Epic) to a given stat for whatever, it's enough to give the PC's a bit of an advantage (or the monsters if they're smart) without breaking the game.

The next important part about encounters is of course, monsters. The following sentance is in itself probably enough to turn your entire game around, especially if you have players who like heavy RP.

ROLEPLAY YOUR MONSTERS!

I cannot be any clearer than this, remember that your monsters are living beings too, roleplay them! Sure i can just take five Hobgoblins and throw them willy-nilly at my players, but that's no fun at all. It's much more entertaining when the monsters roleplay, maybe they shout tactics to each other, two attempt to push a character away from the rest so they can gang up on him, maybe another one calls out commands from the rear, and then when they're blooded they fall back and stage an ambush around the corner.

Think about it, how are these trained Hobgoblins going to react to two of their number getting killed while the players seem only marginally wounded? How would these untrained Goblins act differently? How about these religious fanatics or these wild animals? They're all going to do different things in different situations, work out what those things are in those situations, and then when those situations crop up, make them do those things!

The monsters should be as mobile as your players, if not more mobile, and they should act as living breathing creatures as well. Kobolds skitter between legs while shouting out orders in draconic and flee in terror at the first sign of serious resistance. Goblins dodge weapons and slide into new positions, giggling to themselves as they avoid even the strongest blow, but fleeing if things look like they're going badly. Hobgoblins line up and form an unbreakable phalanx while pushing slowly forward. An Ogre might go mad at the sight of blood and rampage through the Hobgoblin line, knocking Hobgoblins flying everywhere in it's charge to get at the PC's.

Make your monsters interesting, if they're just silent mindless things to get killed, then theres no fun at all in killing them. It's fun to fight with an opponant, somone who trades verbal insults, who searches for weaknesses and who reacts to your actions, it's not fun to fight a wooden dummy that just sits there. If your monsters are silently standing around attacking things, then they're no better than wooden dummies.


Finally, 4th edition puts alot more in the hands of the DM than 3.5 did. In 3.5 there were rules for everything, hell there were even rules for how to engage in sex (although that was a third party book). 4th takes a much simpler approach, 4th lets the DM do it.

An example would be one of my characters wanted to swing on a chandelier and kick a monster off a balcony in the process. I did a quick scan in the skills tab and found that this would be an acrobatics check to swing on the chandelier, but oh noes! There was no rules for kicking people in the face!

So i made one up on the spot, i said it'd be a strength attack vs reflex, and that he'd get a +2 bonus to hit because he was swinging through the air quite quickly. The attack would do a mere 1d6 damage, but would push the monster 1 square, if it failed it's saving throw it would get knocked off.

Sure enough, the attack hit, the monster failed it's saving throw and it fell off the balcony, taking 3d10 falling damage. That single attack (which i decided would be a move and a standard to perform) did more damage and was far more interesting than most at-wills would have been in the same situation.


Basically, don't be afraid to make on-the-spot judgements and to think outside the box. You may also need to point this out to your players, i have noticed that alot of players tend to bore themselves more than you do. The first few encounters were somewhat boring, although i had designed some great environments with all sorts of possibilities, the players were too used to being punished by DM's for thinking outside the box that the never did anymore, so i had to point out to them that maybe they could say push off this wall with an acrobatics check to give them a +1 to damage on their target and a push effect to boot (PoP2's wall attack as a reference).



Basically, it all boils down to some pretty simple steps.

Make your encounters interesting.
Make your monsters interesting.
Make your players interesting.

Ovbiously encounters and monsters are entirely up to you as a DM, but if your players are constantly just repeating "I use X on Y" with glazed expressions on their faces, try pointing out that there are other options. Somone here had a story about how they intimidated a Goblin into surrendering, i find this very sad, not because they didn't kill the Goblin but because they thought this sort of action was so rare that it warrents a story all by itself.

Non-combat solutions should always be viable, encourage your players to think outside the box and reward them when they do. Encourage your players to think tactically and reward them when they do, make the monsters interesting and different, make them really seem like enemies, maybe instead of killing this tribe of Goblins the PC's could try and befriend them instead, then they could get the assistance of a few Goblins in their later adventures. Make your environments interesting, they're in a 3D world, not a flat empty plane, and the ground should and does have an impact on what happens in that world. Make taking the high ground a real advantage, or fighting uphill a real disadvantage. Above all, make your players THINK.



And in the end, if it's still not working, if your players are resolutely ignoring your environment, or if you just can't think of interesting encounters, or maybe you just can't bring yourself to let them try and talk their way out of this threat, you might just be playing the wrong game.

DnD is all about creating your own fun, it's more like a toy than a game, it gives you some guidelines and basic rules, and from then on it's up to you to make it interesting. If your players aren't equipped for combat then ovbiously they're going to need to find a different way to achieve their objectives. I just started running a fun little short campaign involving a party of Doppelgangers, a murder mystery and a big castle. It's actually great fun and combat so far has basically amounted to a couple of failed assassination attempts and a tussle with the castle guards. The players have spent most of their time coming up with clever ways to get into various areas without killing anyone.



I know i have repeated myself several times, but i'm trying to hammer some points home. I have seen dozens of games fail because the DM didn't think outside the box and just mechanically moved things around. The DM is a person for a reason, a machine can run a DnD game just fine, it can follow the rules, but a person can elaborate upon those rules, and that's why the DM exists, to elaborate, to change, to be alive. And i've also seen dozens of games fail because the players didn't think outside the box and just mechanically walked forward slashing at enemies. Again, a machine can do this, you are a person, a human being, be creative!

If all else fails, remember that 4E is much more 'heroic action' based than 3.5. Go watch some action movies, play some action games like Prince of Persia, see all those rediculous stunts, those incredible environments that provide all sorts of interesting opportunities to do fun things like swing from ropes and run along walls? That is what 4E is trying to be. Help it along, take some ideas from the movies, let a player grab onto this thin column and spin around with his sword out, attacking all the enemies around it. Make a monster grab onto this rope and swing across the room, attacking everyone in a line. Make a monster that stands on the high ground and taunts the PC's, laughing at their pathetic attempts, and maybe let the PC's take him out with a single arrow, just like in the movies.
Let the heroes BE heroes! Let them do heroic things, encourage the players to do incredible feats of daring and strength, hell, i have a library of downloaded youtube videos that show 10 - 20 second clips of various movies with fun fights and moves, and i often break those out on my laptop for the extra pzaz, and the players do the same.


Be differerent, fun is found in inginuity and originality. Be clever, be original, but above all, be human. DnD has people in it for a reason, and that reason is not so they can mechanically follow the rules to the letter and be people shaped machines.

That is all.

What he said with sugar on top.