|
3 years ago ::
Dec 17, 2009 - 1:30PM
#41
|
Date Joined:
Dec 17, 2009
|
You guys are rolling too many dice. We all know the book says monsters open with their toughest attacks first, but forget about the impending TPK ... three flameskulls dropping three fireballs in the first round just sounds BORING.
You're the DM, you can alter their tactics. And these are INT 22 monsters -- they probably wouldn't mind having a little fun with the party, watching them suffer over a few rounds of Fireballs instead of blasting them all at once. If only one launches in the first round, you're still staying true to their tactics in the MM -- let the others use Flame Rays for a round or two.
And now you can still roll one initiative die for each monster group without predetermining the outcome on a lucky or unlucky roll.
Better for the party -- less chance of TPK, more chance of win.
Better for the encounter -- more fireballs more often = more action, less boring, lets party strategize
Better for the story -- monsters aren't simply killing machines, they now have personalities and team dynamics, possibly internal conflicts (just like a party of PCs)
Better for gameplay -- monster group rolls = less die rolling & faster gameplay
As always, letting the action and the story trump the rules just makes things easier.
Or, you could keep the system the same and roll a d10 for initiative instead of a d20. That would help balance the spread, as well.
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Dec 17, 2009 - 1:50PM
#42
|
Date Joined:
Dec 16, 2005
|
You guys are rolling too many dice. We all know the book says monsters open with their toughest attacks first, but forget about the impending TPK ... three flameskulls dropping three fireballs in the first round just sounds BORING.
You're the DM, you can alter their tactics. And these are INT 22 monsters -- they probably wouldn't mind having a little fun with the party, watching them suffer over a few rounds of Fireballs instead of blasting them all at once. If only one launches in the first round, you're still staying true to their tactics in the MM -- let the others use Flame Rays for a round or two.
And now you can still roll one initiative die for each monster group without predetermining the outcome on a lucky or unlucky roll.
Better for the party -- less chance of TPK, more chance of win.
Better for the encounter -- more fireballs more often = more action, less boring, lets party strategize
Better for the story -- monsters aren't simply killing machines, they now have personalities and team dynamics, possibly internal conflicts (just like a party of PCs)
Better for gameplay -- monster group rolls = less die rolling & faster gameplay
As always, letting the action and the story trump the rules just makes things easier.
Or, you could keep the system the same and roll a d10 for initiative instead of a d20. That would help balance the spread, as well.
Maybe so, but I've played a lot of mods with three flameskulls in them in LFR and I've yet to have one instance where the DM didn't drop all the fireballs on the party in round 1 (while they were still in the "players start here" penalty box). I think working on better methods for initiative is probably an easier sell to the LFR DM community than staggering the fireballs.
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Dec 17, 2009 - 2:05PM
#43
|
Date Joined:
Jul 16, 2002
|
I have seen DMs do a lot of "tactical tricks" by moving enemies in initiative clumps that might not be possible with (what I consider) normal seperate initiatives.
Those tactical tricks seem to be encouraged by the DMG, such as readying for flanking.
Readying for flanking is fine, but when you have 3, 4, 5, or 6 monsters going on the same intiitative and the DM just moves them all at once to clump around a PC and flank... sure he could say "this one moves here and readies to attack when he has a flank... oh look, this one moved into a flank" ad naseum, but the problem with this is that it's possible that the PC would be flanked may be able to go in between the monsters to move out of a flank or use a utility power to allow him/her/it to move away entirely and save him/her/itself from the shellacing they're about to receive.
There's a world of difference between a monster moving adjacent and readyign to flank when there are other turns between its turn and the next closest ally who could move into a flank and all the monsters movign at once, flanking and commencing the beatings.
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? Check out the 4e Conversion Wiki. 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
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Dec 17, 2009 - 2:08PM
#44
|
Date Joined:
Dec 16, 2005
|
I have seen DMs do a lot of "tactical tricks" by moving enemies in initiative clumps that might not be possible with (what I consider) normal seperate initiatives.
Those tactical tricks seem to be encouraged by the DMG, such as readying for flanking.
Readying for flanking is fine, but when you have 3, 4, 5, or 6 monsters going on the same intiitative and the DM just moves them all at once to clump around a PC and flank... sure he could say "this one moves here and readies to attack when he has a flank... oh look, this one moved into a flank" ad naseum, but the problem with this is that it's possible that the PC would be flanked may be able to go in between the monsters to move out of a flank or use a utility power to allow him/her/it to move away entirely and save him/her/itself from the shellacing they're about to receive.
There's a world of difference between a monster moving adjacent and readyign to flank when there are other turns between its turn and the next closest ally who could move into a flank and all the monsters movign at once, flanking and commencing the beatings.
Also, I've noticed that a lot of DMs simply move them all at once then attack all at once without deciding which ones are readying, etc. There are a number of characters (especially melee rangers) who will be able to shift as an interrupt or reaction when the second monster moves adjacent, thus potentially preventing the sequence of actions.
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Dec 17, 2009 - 2:28PM
#45
|
Date Joined:
Aug 22, 2007
|
Also, I've noticed that a lot of DMs simply move them all at once then attack all at once without deciding which ones are readying, etc. There are a number of characters (especially melee rangers) who will be able to shift as an interrupt or reaction when the second monster moves adjacent, thus potentially preventing the sequence of actions.
Ugh, I dislike that. I am pretty careful about announcing what's going on. It's a) fair, and b) a sneaky way to teach newer players that trick. In general I try to be pretty verbose about what my monsters are thinking and doing.
I think I'm at the point where I'm just gonna have to try some of this stuff. I'm not sure Arts will lend itself to split initiative; I'll have to reread it. Failing that, MINI 1-3!
(Hm. I wonder what splitting minion init would do for their survivability?)
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Dec 17, 2009 - 3:14PM
#46
|
Date Joined:
Aug 19, 2007
|
I still do minions in clumps (but never more than 4 in a given clump - if there are more than 4 I make two even clumps).
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Dec 17, 2009 - 5:25PM
#47
|
Date Joined:
Jun 15, 2004
|
I have seen DMs do a lot of "tactical tricks" by moving enemies in initiative clumps that might not be possible with (what I consider) normal seperate initiatives.
Those tactical tricks seem to be encouraged by the DMG, such as readying for flanking.
Correct. DMG p.38 says:
"Each player character rolls initiative separately, of course, but don’t give the monsters the same attention. Roll once for each distinct kind of monster in the encounter. For example, in an encounter with one orc Eye of Gruumsh, two orc berserkers, two orc raiders, and three orc warriors, make one initiative roll for each of the four kinds of orcs. So as you run through the initiative order, all the orc warriors act at once, all the orc raiders go together, and so on."
"Monsters can also ready within their turn without shifting their place in the initiative order. For example, the orc raiders can both move into a flanking position and then both attack with combat advantage. Technically, the first one to move would have to ready its attack until the other one moved into position, but it all works out the same in the end."
Also, I've noticed that a lot of DMs simply move them all at once then attack all at once without deciding which ones are readying, etc.
Right... this is mainly to speed up combat, but if/when it matters you could always back-up, announce it and allow a player to act. Based on the DMG text above, I'd conclude that the first mini (out of two flankers) that the DM moved was the readying one anyways.
fwiw: I personally even take it a couple steps further to speed up combat:
1) All my creatures go on the same (take 10 and averaged) initiative
2) After the monsters go, the PC's can technically go in any order they wish (thanks to delaying and such)... and since they will all take their turn before the monsters' next turn anyways, I generally just go clockwise around the table, skipping (then coming back to) any player that isn't immediately ready. Note: PC initiative is still used to determine who gets a turn before the monsters on the first round.
3) I also use average damage: no one has seemed to notice or care. Overall combat seems to progress at about twice the speed, allowing for more role-playing or combat (or even time with loved ones, or sleeping)... which seems to net more fun to me, but ymmv.
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Dec 17, 2009 - 11:01PM
#48
|
Date Joined:
Dec 16, 2005
|
Right... this is mainly to speed up combat, but if/when it matters you could always back-up, announce it and allow a player to act. Based on the DMG text above, I'd conclude that the first mini (out of two flankers) that the DM moved was the readying one anyways.
Hmm. I guess this won't be the first time the DMG has given bad advice. Probably won't be the last time either. As for backing up, in my observation, the two or three DMs that I have had to ask to back up and handle their monsters turns individually since my character has interrupts or reactions that will (or could) prevent or change some of the move/ready monster mob's actions, have been flustered and unable to replicate exactly what they were trying to do with the rules. IMO, this indicates that these speed tricks often leads to sloppiness, sometimes to the point where the DMs forget the tactics that they are shorthand for or never learn them in the first place.
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Dec 18, 2009 - 9:33AM
#49
|
Date Joined:
Jun 15, 2004
|
Hmm. I guess this won't be the first time the DMG has given bad advice.
I personally consider it good advice... but I acknowledge that it is a subjective issue. I reckon the majority of players actually prefer faster play, but it wouldn't be the first time I was was wrong about typical D&D player preferences.
As for backing up, in my observation, the two or three DMs that I have had to ask to back up and handle their monsters turns individually since my character has interrupts or reactions that will (or could) prevent or change some of the move/ready monster mob's actions, have been flustered and unable to replicate exactly what they were trying to do
Armed with the DMG knowledge, you might be better able to facilitate it. As I said:
Based on the DMG text above, I'd conclude that the first mini (out of two flankers) that the DM moved was the readying one anyways.
With clearer assumptions, you could possibly now handle those occurances with less chance of flustering the DM. Example: "I have an interrupt for this, and since you moved that miniature first I'm assuming he was readying an action until his buddy flanks, but at any rate I'll be interrupting before the second one has a chance to flank"
It's also possible that the DM's were flustered because you were requesting that they slow down game play (and LFR sessions tend to run close on time as is).
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Dec 18, 2009 - 12:08PM
#50
|
Date Joined:
Dec 16, 2005
|
Hmm. I guess this won't be the first time the DMG has given bad advice.
I personally consider it good advice... but I acknowledge that it is a subjective issue. I reckon the majority of players actually prefer faster play, but it wouldn't be the first time I was was wrong about typical D&D player preferences.
Except it doesn't actually slow down game play to say, "X moves to hear and readies; Y moves to here and sets off X's ready [roll dice] then attacks [roll dice]." Since most people can walk and chew gum or talk and move miniatures at the same time, the only time it will slow down play is if the DM does not actually know what they are doing. (I know there is some way to move all these monsters into flank and have them attack so that they all get the bonus, but I don't know what it is and haven't thought about how it actually works so I'll just move them all at once and throw a fistful of dice).
I suppose that it does raise the DMing bar a little bit to expect DMs to know how the tactics they are employing actually work in the game system, but it's not an unreasonably high bar--and it actually does help if the DM is able to figure out what happens when the first minion to attack is killed by a disruptive shot before he attacks and the second is killed by a strikeback fueled attack after he attacks. PCs can have those kind of abilities at level 1 if they want them and any given party is likely to have such abilities by level 7 so it's going to slow down the game even more if the DM has to go back and figure out what, exactly he was doing. Also, as another poster mentioned, calling out what the monsters are doing is a subtle way for DMs to teach newer players more advanced tactics.
It's also possible that the DM's were flustered because you were requesting that they slow down game play (and LFR sessions tend to run close on time as is).
Darn those players who slow down gameplay to use their abilities. Stupid fighter combat challenge, slowing down gameplay. Stupid yield ground slowing down gameplay. Games would go so much faster if PCs and monsters just lined up and beat on each other without moving.
|
|
|
