I think a lot of us are starting to find that 4E is pretty swingy. One table's cakewalk is another table's TPK. Every thread where someone says a mod is "unfair" or "too easy" resulted in someone saying they had the opposite experience. Playtesting and/or running the same mod x times shows huge differences in which was the hard encounter, the good encounter, the fun encounter, the challenging encounter, the RP encounter...
A lot of this suggests what I have heard our global admins saying of late: The DM has the ultimate responsibility. The mod, it seems, really cannot cover everything the way it once did. Something in 4E gives it a lot more swing and play, and that means the DM should come in expecting to really have the reins in their hands. As DMs we should be reading the encounters with an eye towards that possible variability and how we will handle it. From the story side, we want to think of possibilities, the way you would if this were an adventure you wrote and were deploying. Don't let this be some author's fault, but rather own it. Very few of the recent adventures have any true flaws... there might be an arguably bad decision on a monster or some element of construction, but outside of 1-2 examples, I can't think of an encounter that can't be tremendous fun and a challenge. (And, sometimes, in fact often, the proper challenge is for the heroes to prevail without too much trouble).
I think a lot of us are starting to find that 4E is pretty swingy. One table's cakewalk is another table's TPK. Every thread where someone says a mod is "unfair" or "too easy" resulted in someone saying they had the opposite experience. Playtesting and/or running the same mod x times shows huge differences in which was the hard encounter, the good encounter, the fun encounter, the challenging encounter, the RP encounter...
A lot of this suggests what I have heard our global admins saying of late: The DM has the ultimate responsibility. The mod, it seems, really cannot cover everything the way it once did. Something in 4E gives it a lot more swing and play, and that means the DM should come in expecting to really have the reins in their hands. As DMs we should be reading the encounters with an eye towards that possible variability and how we will handle it. From the story side, we want to think of possibilities, the way you would if this were an adventure you wrote and were deploying. Don't let this be some author's fault, but rather own it. Very few of the recent adventures have any true flaws... there might be an arguably bad decision on a monster or some element of construction, but outside of 1-2 examples, I can't think of an encounter that can't be tremendous fun and a challenge. (And, sometimes, in fact often, the proper challenge is for the heroes to prevail without too much trouble).
First, it's not nearly as mysterious as you are making it out to be. There are modules and encounters that are generally challenging and that are rarely reported to be cakewalks. The opening and "Mystra" encounter in Dale 1-1 are among these, as is the combat version of the final encounter of barrow of the ogre king, the ogre encounter in Moon 1-2, and pretty much every encounter in Spec 1-2. Unfortunately, a lot of these encounters (all of the ones mentioned except for the opening encounter of Dale 1-1 and the ogre encounter from Moon 1-2 tend very heavily towards grind and frustration. There are also modules and encounters that tend very strongly towards being underpowered and non-challenging (most of Corm 1-1 falls into this category). Please do not allow an admirable desire to defend the efforts of the authors and campaign staff to blind you to what can be learned from the way the campaign has played out thus far.
Second, the factors that cause 4e in general to feel swingy don't need to be mysterious either. There are a number of factors involved.
1. Probabilities. For PCs, 4e is based around pretty much 50/50 odds of anything you do working. Sometimes characters who have optimized, taken care to get combat advantage and to stack any modifiers they can get can improve that. Sometimes, the best an optimized character can manage is 20-30% (I'm thinking of attacking AC on certain monsters in East 1-4, East 1-5, and Impi 1-5 among others). But in general, the odds are around 50%. 50% odds ensure a very wide bell curve such that it is not unlikely for a party to go an entire round without hitting. Monsters attacking AC generally have slightly better odds but they are still in a zone where wide variation in results is to be expected. (Attacking NADs, they seem to have 65-95% odds of hitting PCs which should actually make the system less swingy though it has other disadvantages). The combination of these two factors ensures that simple statistics will make the same encounter difficult or a cakewalk on a semi-regular basis.
2. The powers system. Powers work very differently for PCs and for monsters and they do so in a way that exacerbates the inherent swinginess caused by 4e's choice of probabilities. A large portion of the PCs' power is tied up in encounter and daily powers which generally depend upon hitting for their effectiveness. Now there are ways to use them together in order to maximize your odds, but there is still a signficant chance that a party will either hit with a higher than average number of encounter powers or miss with most of them. Once those powers are gone, PCs are stuck with at-will powers that are generally significantly less effective than their encounter powers and encounter power combos. Since all attacks are not equal and a significant portion of the PCs' power is front-loaded into a few encounter powers, this exacerbates the swingy effects of the 50/50 odds discussed earlier. While four consecutive hits followed by four consecutive misses is a 50% hit rate that matches the odds, if the four hits are on encounter powers and the misses are on at-wills, the combat will be significantly easier than it would be if all encounter powers missed and the at-will powers hit.
2.5 Monsters do not generally work on an encounter power system but generally have recharge powers instead. This contributes to the swinginess of combat in two ways.
First, it enhances the swinginess that is caused by the interaction of the 50/50 odds with encounter powers. Monsters in general do not get weaker as combat progresses. In round 4 and 5, they are likely to have the same powers available to them as the did in rounds 1 and 2. Thus, while a 25th percentile aggregate result for PCs in the opening rounds of combat (lots of misses on encounter powers) puts them at a significant disadvantage, a similar opening for the monsters does not put them at a corresponding disadvantage. Thus the effects of bad luck for the PCs are not mitigated by bad luck for the monsters. (Good luck for the PCs _is_ somewhat mitigated by good luck for the monsters since monster encounter and recharge powers are generally equivalent to PC encounter powers).
Secondly, the recharge mechanic itself contributes to swinginess. It is not particularly unusual for a powerful recharge 6 ability to recharge three rounds in a row, nor is it particularly unlikely that a recharge 4-6 ability might not recharge for three consecutive rounds. This introduces another random element into combat that will contribute to vastly different difficulties based on chance.
3. Fourth edition parties, perhaps even more than previous editions vary greatly in their abilities. In general, the range capability of parties is extremely varied. A fighter (unless he is a str/dex fighter) cannot simply pull out a bow and be effective at range (without dex, he won't hit and even if he does, he won't do appreciable damage). He has to use a javalin. A charisma paladin or most laser clerics do not even have that option. Likewise, warlocks and many wizards are completely helpless at any range greater than 10 squares. Put the monsters 11 squares away and it will not be unusual for the only effective attacks the party possesses to be a fighter and a warlord with javalins. (And that uses a rather generous definition of effective). On the other hand, put two archery focused rangers in that party and an encounter that would otherwise be a TPK could turn into a cakewalk.
To some degree, this has always been true in D&D, but in 4th edition it is more true because the ways for characters to replace the abilities brought by other classes are much more limited (in heroic tier, for instance, you pretty much need a grasping javalin or an item with a daily power (like an ebony fly) in order to deal with the monster who is attacking at ranged and even those may not work (since there is some ambiguity in whether a grasping javalin can pull a flying target adjacent to the PC). There are no potions of fly or scrolls that are accessible with use magic device. There are also far more character classes to fill each general role, some of which may not bring the same capabilities to the table and characters who choose unusual power options generally cannot fall back on consumables to supply the standards that they passed over. (For instance, a previous edition wizard could pack a scroll of fly and a wand of magic missile, but a 4th edition wizard who chose all range 10 and close powers can't make it through a long range combat on the strength of a master's wand of magic missile. (And said master's wand represents a significant resource investment and therefore is not really standard equipment anyway)).
So, if you want combats to be less swingy, there are ways to do it.
1. Focus on monsters with lower defenses and more hit points (or just more monsters). If you increase the PCs odds of hitting, you minimize the swing that comes from PCs hitting or missing with an unusual number of encounter and daily powers. (Focusing on higher defense monsters also makes the encounter more predictable but increases the swing caused by an unusual number of early hits).
2. Focus on monsters who rely on at-will powers or auras rather than recharge powers.
3. Avoid encounters that demand particular unusual PC abilities. Monsters that are nearly immune to melee (such as a green dragon which can mobile attack and breathe forever without coming adjacent to any party member) for instance, will cause uneven results. Flying monsters are especially likely to cause this kind of swinginess.
4. Inflicting unavoidable conditions and extremely accurate monster NAD attacks will also decrease the swinginess of combat (and generally makes it challenging) but will often turn it into a frustrating encounter that highlights the worst aspects of fourth edition.
have you ever sat at a table and thought to yourself, "i wish that character over there sucked more"?
how many times have you grumbled in frustration when the player with the eladrin barbarian with 14 strength joins your party? or the deva rogue? or the half orc wizard?
i guess what i am trying to say is maintaining a degree of optimization is a courtesy to your fellow players. on this, like every subject, there are shades of grey but at a very least have an 18 or a 20! dont do it for me, dont do it for the op, do it for the other people at the table with you.
you can still have fun and be effective at the same time. trust me.
Sorry WOTC, you lost me with Essentials. So where I used to buy every book that came out, now I will be very choosy about what I buy. Can we just get back to real 4e?
1. Wizards fight dirty. They hit their enemies in the NADs. -- Dragon9 2. A barbarian hits people with his axe. A warlord hits people with his barbarian. 3. Boo-freakin'-hoo, ya light-slingin' finger-wigglers. -- MrCelcius in response to the Cleric's Healer's Lore nerf
i guess what i am trying to say is maintaining a degree of optimization is a courtesy to your fellow players. on this, like every subject, there are shades of grey but at a very least have an 18 or a 20! dont do it for me, dont do it for the op, do it for the other people at the table with you.
I've never had anyone complain about my half-elf paladin. Who started with a Str 17. But hey, what do I know.
First, it's not nearly as mysterious as you are making it out to be. There are modules and encounters that are generally challenging and that are rarely reported to be cakewalks.
Outside of the first half of SPEC1-2, I've had easy rounds of all of the ones you mentioned. (I've had challenges with some of those as well, due to replaying, and I do know what you mean. Your point is valid).
That aside, the rest of your post was really interesting. I've been thinking on it off and on. I find probabilistic analysis to often fail in the face of human nature and actual play, but the rest of the argument was really very thought provoking. I'm mulling it over. It's a different type of thinking than I employ, and I suspect I'll be thinking on it for a while, if I ever grock it fully.
What do you think in terms of module construction? Is it realistic to say that LFR authors can aim to significantly reduce the swinginess and not hurt other aspects by limiting their construction? (Simple example: a lot of cool monsters have 2-3 rechargeable powers in the higher tiers of play). Should LFR authors aim to do so? Or should we just live with swinginess?
Instead of running the monsters like passive and indesicive bags of HP, all DMs need to do is run the monsters the same way they would run a PC. On a player's turn, they generally think about how to get the most effect out of their actions. The PCs team up on monsters, avoid tactical hindrances, work as a team, focus-fire, take out the biggest threats, etc. What would happen to a party of PCs if they just sort of randomly wandered around and attacked, didn't understand their own powers, didn't work together, and (god-forbid) rolled a dice each turn to see which of the monsters they would attack? They'd get wiped, and this is what happens to the enemies when the DM runs them that way.
Most GMs I know at least attempt some verisimillitude in monster knowledge - i.e. that pack of wolves with Int 3 are not going to have the tactical nous to play this way, or to tactically ignore marks, or whatever. Intelligent monsters, OTOH, are fair game to co-operate and gang up on PCs.
The trouble with this approach is that it is often unfun for the one player who is the target. Let's face it, the melee striker is definitely number 1 priority for most GMs, given (usually) poor defences and high damage. But if you end up ganging up on the same PC every encounter, although it may be best from a tactical POV, you may well end up with an annoyed player. Some players don't mind, but some will get cross if they perceive you to be ganging up on them.
i guess what i am trying to say is maintaining a degree of optimization is a courtesy to your fellow players. on this, like every subject, there are shades of grey but at a very least have an 18 or a 20! dont do it for me, dont do it for the op, do it for the other people at the table with you.
My Dwarf fighter started with a Str of 16, and I've never had any complaints about her ability to do her job as defender.
2. The powers system. Powers work very differently for PCs and for monsters and they do so in a way that exacerbates the inherent swinginess caused by 4e's choice of probabilities. A large portion of the PCs' power is tied up in encounter and daily powers which generally depend upon hitting for their effectiveness. Now there are ways to use them together in order to maximize your odds, but there is still a signficant chance that a party will either hit with a higher than average number of encounter powers or miss with most of them. Once those powers are gone, PCs are stuck with at-will powers that are generally significantly less effective than their encounter powers and encounter power combos. Since all attacks are not equal and a significant portion of the PCs' power is front-loaded into a few encounter powers, this exacerbates the swingy effects of the 50/50 odds discussed earlier. While four consecutive hits followed by four consecutive misses is a 50% hit rate that matches the odds, if the four hits are on encounter powers and the misses are on at-wills, the combat will be significantly easier than it would be if all encounter powers missed and the at-will powers hit.
What you say is true at lower levels, but once PCs get to about level 7 or so, I find they rarely use at-wills at all. My level 11 warlock has four encounter attack powers and four dailies (if you include item powers), and played through the last mod without using an at-will power once, or even running out of encounter powers.
Also, as players get more dailies, the number of dailies used per combat goes up, and that goes a long way towards normalising the experience. At level 1, when everyone has one daily, if they all blow it in one encounter, that encounter is likely to be easily defeated. Another party may have had a hard time of it because they used no dailies. At a higher level, when you expect each PC (on average) to drop a daily per fight, that swing factor reduces. Dailies (especially controller dailies) also reduce the swing factor because they may have an encounter-long effect, so even if you miss on the initial attack, you get the benefit of the zone, rage, summons or whatever for the whole encounter.
Likewise, monsters tend to have encounter powers at low levels, but these beef up to recharge powers at higher levels, and recharges get more frequent, further balancing things.
It's partly the new crop of mods, but the only kills I've seen on LFR tables have been on 1-4 tables. I've seen some very close calls on other occasions, but by level 5 or 6 the PCs usually have enough tricks up their sleeves to resuce comrades that would have died in a similar situation at lower levels.
One thing I will note about swingyness that you missed: saving throws. It's certainly not unlikely for a monster, even an elite, or a PC, to fail a save three or four times in a row (my record is eight. And it was versus stunned), and this can markedly alter the balance of an encounter. The elite brute with melee only attacks that is immobilised (save ends) on turn one and fails to save for three rounds is basically a bag of XP, because by the time he gets involved everything else is dead. On the other table, where the wizard missed, or the save was made on round 1, he charges in and the fight is a lot harder.
i don't get why everyone is ragging on the opening post. in his situation "win" is defined as living through the entire the delve and so he is 100% right in saying that making the best character you can is the way to go to achieve this goal. i really don't see wht the huge fuss is about
Most GMs I know at least attempt some verisimillitude in monster knowledge - i.e. that pack of wolves with Int 3 are not going to have the tactical nous to play this way, or to tactically ignore marks, or whatever. Intelligent monsters, OTOH, are fair game to co-operate and gang up on PCs.
The trouble with this approach is that it is often unfun for the one player who is the target. Let's face it, the melee striker is definitely number 1 priority for most GMs, given (usually) poor defences and high damage. But if you end up ganging up on the same PC every encounter, although it may be best from a tactical POV, you may well end up with an annoyed player. Some players don't mind, but some will get cross if they perceive you to be ganging up on them.
Monster's Intelligence does have a part to play in tactics, but it's actually a pretty small part. Debilitating conditions, being marked, zones and things of that nature are specifically called out as being obvious to monsters regardless of their Intelligence score. Also, don't forget that any kind of predatory animal in real life knows how to "flank" or "ready an action." When you think about it, most predators of "animal level Intelligence" have a better understanding of toe-to-toe fighting than you or I, and have been teaching martial artists and generals tricks and tips for thousands of years.
Finally, I don't care how low a creature's Intelligence score is, if a creature possesses enough wits to defend itself at all, it's not going to attack one character, then attack a different character, then attack the first character again, then attack a third character, and yet how many times do DMs do exactly this? Seriously, the random die-roll to determine who the critter in question attacks is absurd.
"Oh shucks ... if I attack the person I should obviously attack, or attack the same person twice in a row they might get mad at me. Well gee-golly, guess I better roll a D6, after all I don't want them to think I am actually trying to kill them with this starved and rabid Ravenous Whatsit of Doom, that might upset someone."
So many of us seem soooo scared to get accused of "picking" on a character. I'm sorry, but if you're a Deva Pacifist Cleric, giving out 10 HPs a turn at-will, you're getting picked on. If you're a Two Weapon Ranger dishing out enough damage every turn to one-shot yourself, you're getting picked on. If you're a Rogue rushing into the middle of the enemies 5 or 6 squares away from your party on turn 1 to get in that sneak attack, you're getting picked on. If you're playing a Dragon Sorcerer that thinks it's a smart thing to take your cloth armor and your tiny HP pool into a group of enemies so that you can Close Blast 'em all, you're getting picked on. If you're the biggest threat or the best target, that's right ... you're getting picked on. If a player really has a problem with this, then they shouldn't make a character who is going to be the biggest threat or the best target.
Like I said, the whole Defender Role exists just to work against a DM trying to kill off a threatening character, because that's pretty much what a DM should be trying to do.
Fudging dice-rolls and covertly beefing up monsters instead of just playing them smart and aggressively as-is because you're afraid you might upset someone is just being passive-aggressive. Don't be afraid to "pick" on a PC, if it's the smart thing to do. If a PC can't handle being "picked on" and would get upset or sulk, then they're the one with the poor sport attitude, not you.
(I've had challenges with some of those as well, due to replaying, and I do know what you mean. Your point is valid).
