|
3 years ago ::
Dec 20, 2009 - 10:44PM
#71
|
Date Joined:
Aug 18, 2007
|
I know that some folks have this theory that animals shouldn't know how to flank and that wizards and liches shouldn't know how to use their powers to the best advantage against do-gooders that ply their trade undoing their evil schemes. I'm not one of them.
If an author includes in his tactics "If a guy with a great bow shows up, the first thing the lich will do is kill him." I have no problem with that. The lich probably learned better the first dozen times he was killed by such a badass and had to regenerate from his phylactery.
I agree with these sentiments, and so these are things I'm not considering in my suggestions.
In reality predatory animals do flank, they in fact use very complex tactics just fine (lures, feints, etc), so I have no problems using tactics with animals and even less with things like Liches (even if 4E liches are meh monsters).
---------
I notice the mention of dragons as bad encounters, I have to say in general I agree. Dragons have big problems in 4E as a solo monster. When writing an encounter use the Draconomicon 2 rules for turning the solos into elites and go from there is probably good advice; certainly never put them in an ecnounter alone.
Dragon + Allies is always the way to go.
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Dec 21, 2009 - 1:41AM
#72
|
Date Joined:
Dec 16, 2005
|
I know that some folks have this theory that animals shouldn't know how to flank and that wizards and liches shouldn't know how to use their powers to the best advantage against do-gooders that ply their trade undoing their evil schemes. I'm not one of them.
If an author includes in his tactics "If a guy with a great bow shows up, the first thing the lich will do is kill him." I have no problem with that. The lich probably learned better the first dozen times he was killed by such a badass and had to regenerate from his phylactery.
I agree with these sentiments, and so these are things I'm not considering in my suggestions.
In reality predatory animals do flank, they in fact use very complex tactics just fine (lures, feints, etc), so I have no problems using tactics with animals and even less with things like Liches (even if 4E liches are meh monsters).
---------
I notice the mention of dragons as bad encounters, I have to say in general I agree. Dragons have big problems in 4E as a solo monster. When writing an encounter use the Draconomicon 2 rules for turning the solos into elites and go from there is probably good advice; certainly never put them in an ecnounter alone.
Dragon + Allies is always the way to go.
It's not just dragons. All solos can be problematic. I will add to this that solo lurker and solo artillery are, in general bad combos.
Lurker: If the monster really fights like a lurker is theoretically supposed to, he is going to disappear for one or two rounds at multiple points during the combat, leaving the PCs with nothing to do until he shows up again. At that point, it tends to turn into a game of readied actions until the monster shows up. That makes a good suspense movie, but a long and frustrating combat.
Artillery: The solo artillery fight generally goes one of two ways. Either A. The PCs cannot get to the artillery so it pounds them until they die or nickel and dime it to death with javalins after fifteen rounds of basic attacks or B. the PCs get the jump on the monster and grab/immobilize/surprise it and beat it down in short order with little challenge.
Thinking about it now, I guess that all of the monsters have pretty significant downsides in solo mode, but I think those two are the worst.
Solo soldier fights tend to drag out because the combo of moderate damage, high defenses, and decent/high hit points is a recipe for a long fight. (But, at least players get to use their abilities (unlike many of the cases with lurkers and artillery and it will rarely be an instant beatdown).
Solo controller fights have some of the weaknesses of solo artillery fights and tend to afflict the party with constant static conditions. (Yay, we're all weakened/dazed/restrained again). But at least they don't have quite the same tendency as artillery to get beaten down quickly.
Solo skirmishers share some weaknesses with solo lurker or artillery fights in that they tend to rely on being hard to come to grips with for their survivability and damage, but they are better than either of the similar types because: 1. They aren't quite as squishy or helpless as artillery when locked down, 2. They generally have to close with the PCs in order to attack so there is less "you can't get me; I'll hang up here 20 squares up and blast you till you die" and closer range means that more characters have relevant attacks and melee characters can try cinematic stunts like readying a jumping charge to hit the green dragon when it comes ten feet from the ground 3. The monster is probably doing something (other than hiding) every round so you don't have three turns of everyone readying while the monster establishes stealth and then moves into position while waiting for its powers to recharge.
Solo brute fights are, IME, the most successful kind of solo fight since they don't rely on preventing the party from acting, dish out the most damage, and rarely reach the "we just can't hit this thing so we'll keep throwing dice until we come up with a 17" stage, but they tend to be the most vulnerable to status condition lockdowns due to their lower defenses.
In general, I would rate the order of the more successful solo types as Brute, Skirmisher, Soldier/controller, Artillery/lurker.
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Dec 21, 2009 - 4:07AM
#73
|
|
|
In regards to action points, in my area it is actually reasonably accepted that you only get milestones for encounters that drain your resources. On those tables we do not hand out action points for the complexity 1 to 3 skill challenges, just for the fights or the occassional skill challenge that is a true resource drain. We know it is technically not a rule, although, the DMG does support it somewhat. When I run a game with strangers, I ask their preference and run with whatever the players prefer. Oddly enough, I have never had players object about using that rule and I run quite a lot of games at various big conventions. Either I was lucky, or the average player is a lot more accepting. Personally I suspect the last.
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Dec 21, 2009 - 7:47AM
#74
|
|
|
#8: Adding a 3rd tier to adventures may be a nice solution - Low/High/Ultra. [...] Each adventure has one bundle that is Ultra only as an enticement
No, please no. This is a really bad idea, especially given LFR's draconian magic item acquisition policy. It would simply create a situation in which the prevalent view is that "you have to play Ultra" in order to get the good magic items.
Much like the current situation with "you have to play High".
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Dec 21, 2009 - 8:50AM
#75
|
Date Joined:
Aug 22, 2007
|
Oddly enough, I have never had players object about using that rule and I run quite a lot of games at various big conventions. Either I was lucky, or the average player is a lot more accepting. Personally I suspect the last.
Or the average player is hesitant to go against the desires of a senior campaign staff member.
This is basically an out-and-out house rule, because you believe that the core rules give out too many action points (though, actually, this sounds more like you're saying that you dislike the way that LFR modules are fundamentally structured, which would be an odd point of view for someone in your position to have).
There's already an easy fix for this problem that doesn't require a house rule. Some (though not all) recent modules have begun specifying whether an encounter counts for a milestone. If you don't think certain encounters should count, start requiring authors to always specify that and have rules for what encounters don't count.
Otherwise, you're just a DM making up a new jumping rule because you don't like the one under the Athletics section, and everyone's going along with you, either because they assume your interpretations of the rules is correct or they're wary of challenging you, based on your title.
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Dec 21, 2009 - 9:58AM
#76
|
Date Joined:
Aug 25, 2008
|
Oddly enough, I have never had players object about using that rule and I run quite a lot of games at various big conventions. Either I was lucky, or the average player is a lot more accepting. Personally I suspect the last.
Or the average player is hesitant to go against the desires of a senior campaign staff member.
This is basically an out-and-out house rule, because you believe that the core rules give out too many action points (though, actually, this sounds more like you're saying that you dislike the way that LFR modules are fundamentally structured, which would be an odd point of view for someone in your position to have).
There's already an easy fix for this problem that doesn't require a house rule. Some (though not all) recent modules have begun specifying whether an encounter counts for a milestone. If you don't think certain encounters should count, start requiring authors to always specify that and have rules for what encounters don't count.
I am not a senior campaign staff member, and I have been doing this pretty frequently, with no complaints. Every single person I have played with, on both sides of the DM screen, have agreed that an encounter that was no challenge is not worth an action point. This has included skill challenges and battles - never one complaint. Having "This encounter does not count towards an action point" is certainly helpful, but I don't think it needs to be said in every case. That said, I have not participated in any LFR at Paragon tier, so maybe people feel differently at the higher levels, but in my normal D&D games, I have a level 17 character - almost every fight gets a Daily used. I think any fight after level 9 that doesn't take a Daily should not count towards a milestone.
What makes me sad - no more compiled magazines: http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75882/27580349/Dungeon_and_Dragon_Magazine_PDFs&post_num=24#495423645
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Dec 21, 2009 - 10:37AM
#77
|
Date Joined:
Nov 15, 2004
|
My problem with not giving out AP's when the rules say you are supposed to is that some players have invested in feats and options that rely on them, like Action Surge. When people take the option, they have to weigh it against something that can be used all the time, so AP frequency is going to have a big impact on that decision. If you give out half as many AP's, those options become half as good (or are half wasted). This is especially true in paragon when many characters have bonuses that work off of AP's from their paragon paths.
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Dec 21, 2009 - 10:55AM
#78
|
|
|
In regards to me being a senior administrator, I doubt it has a big influence. I never introduce myself as a global administrator to the players at my table. After all, being one does not necesarily make me a better DM or more entitled to break the game rules. Most players do not recognize me. Besides, in my experience the majority of players is perfectly able and willing to give their opinion, just as I am able to formulate the question in a way to make sure the players know they can say no. My problem with not giving out AP's when the rules say you are supposed to is that some players have invested in feats and options that rely on them, like Action Surge. When people take the option, they have to weigh it against something that can be used all the time, so AP frequency is going to have a big impact on that decision. If you give out half as many AP's, those options become half as good (or are half wasted). This is especially true in paragon when many characters have bonuses that work off of AP's from their paragon paths.
Well, the rules actually give us some leeway in determining when and when not to grant a milestone. The DMG clearly points out a DM is able to rule an encounter to be insignificant and not grant one. It does not give any hard rules, leaving it to the individual DM.
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Dec 21, 2009 - 11:14AM
#79
|
Date Joined:
Aug 14, 2006
|
Having "This encounter does not count towards an action point" is certainly helpful, but I don't think it needs to be said in every case. That said, I have not participated in any LFR at Paragon tier, so maybe people feel differently at the higher levels, but in my normal D&D games, I have a level 17 character - almost every fight gets a Daily used. I think any fight after level 9 that doesn't take a Daily should not count towards a milestone.
Why stop there? I'd say that a fight should count toward a milestone only if at least one PC died. Obviously the encounter wasn't challenging enough if all the PCs survived. 
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Dec 21, 2009 - 11:14AM
#80
|
|
|
Well, the rules actually give us some leeway in determining when and when not to grant a milestone.
Not these rules:
No matter if the characters succeed or fail in an encounter, they reach a milestone if it is the second encounter they’ve had since the start of the adventure or their last extended rest. Encounters that do not give out experience points do not count for purposes of reaching a milestone. Make certain to mention this information to the players when applicable, as it gives each PC another action point and affects how some magic item powers are used.
(Although now that I read it closely, that boilerplate text has a rather serious error in it that could be construed to mean you gain an action point only after the second encounter.)
|
|
|
