I'm building an encounter where there are three factions: a group of lawmen/bounty hunters, the refugee/renegade, and the PCs (who, of course, walk in on the middle of things).
This creature, The Hangman, I'm planning on using almost exclusively against the refugee NPC. Even if the players side with the refugee, he's their primary target. I think the others to help make up the balance of XP will probably be stock soldiers and brutes I can find in the compendium, but I wanted some perspective on this one that I'm designing from scratch.
One of my players said I needed more than just a "save ends" effect to get out of the Executioner's Noose, which is when I added the Hangman's Boots trait, to allow a powerful option for ending the Hangman outright (...especially considering my party's average output on damage).
It's an Eberron game, and I want to reflect that the Hangman (whatever his final name ends up being) is a trained enforcer of those suspected, or proven, to carry abberant Dragonmarks, or those who would harbor one with an aberrant Dragonmark. He needs to be nasty to show that the houses and the kingdoms don't mess around with Dragonmarked people (abberant, or just unregistered), since most of my players are considering some kind of D'mark feat.
Better to let them watch what happens to someone who gets exposed, instead of just ambushing them with the consequences later, right? And even if they side with the refugee, it's exposition that will show the same thing from the other side.
Opinions, please. The party ranges from 7-9 in level, so this is certainly in-line with encounter design expectations, but I've found that not everything that falls in-budget is balanced, and I want to check myself before I open this one up on my players.
As a DM, I find it easier to just punish the players no matter what they pick, as I assume they will pick stuff that is broken. I mean, fight after fight they kill all the monsters without getting killed themselves! What sort of a game is this, anyway?
(1) He doesn't seem like a Lurker to me, not with those powers. Brute, maybe Skirmisher, but not Lurker. If he's a Lurker, he needs a way to vanish back into the shadows, or evade detection, or return to the outskirts. The way you have him, once he grabs on, he's doing a lot of damage (3d6+19 is a huge increase over 3d6+6, especially for an At-Will power). The non-AC defenses seem a tad high for that level, too; I'd probably consider AC 21, Fort 22, Ref 22, Will 20, or something to that effect.
(2) Just me, probably, but I really don't like the Boots thing; once a player gets it, its to the entire group's advantyage for him to fail his saves and keep using his action, so that the Hangman can't do anything at all on his turn.
I'd probably make it so that players could try to escape with a -5 to their attempt (like a Zombie). That way they can burn a move action and still attack, and get two chances per turn to escape. Also, since it's not a grab proper, you might need to clarify what happens if he becomes dazed/stunned; can he maintain the "grab" in that case?
(3) Also, I would not use Helpless as a condition in that. Restrained already grants CA. Helpless means that they can be Coup de Grace'd. Dazed might make more sense — they're already granting CA, now they have to decide between an attempt to escape they might fail, or an attack. Even better, drop the Save Ends and have it as Escape ends only.
(4) What's the hook for the players? Is there a particular reason for them to get involved in this fight? You've built one NPC with the intent for him to attack another NPC exclusively, is why I'm curious.
• Ad Hominem— Attacking the person's circumstances, not addressing the argument. • Ad Hominem Abusive (Personal Attack)— Insulting the person, not addressing the argument. • Ad Hominem Tu Quoque— Saying the person's inconsistent, not addressing the argument. • Appeal to Authority/Belief/Common Practice/Consequence of a Belief/Emotion/Fear/Flattery/Novelty/Pity/Popularity/Ridicule/Spite/Tradition— Using emotion instead of Fact. • Bandwagon— Use of peer pressure. • Begging the Question— Assuming premises which haven't necessarily been agreed to. • Biased Sample— Using a sampling which may not properly represent the whole. • Burden of Proof— Shifting it to the wrong side. • Circumstantial Ad Hominem— Attacking the person's interests in supporting their argument. • Composition— Assuming that the whole has the same qualities as individual parts. • Confusing Cause & Effect— Assuming that one thing causes another because they appear in conjunction. • Division— Assuming that the individual parts have the same qualities as the whole. • False Dilemma— Assuming that only two options exist. • Gambler's Fallacy— Assuming the odds have changed because of past occurances • Genetic— Assuming a perceived defect in the origin of a claim is proof of a defect in the claim. • Guilt by Association— Attacking others who agree with the claim. • Hasty Generalization— Assuming a quality based on too small a sample size. • Ignoring the Common Cause— Assuming there is no outside cause of two connected things. • Middle Ground— Assuming the midpoint of two extremes must be correct. • Misleading Vividness— Assuming a colorful anecdote outweighs statistical evidence. • Poisoning the Well— Using unprovable claims about the person instead of addressing the argument. • Post Hoc— Assuming that something caused something else simply because it happened first. • Questionable Cause— Assuming that one thing causes another. • Red Herring— Using irrelevant evidence to divert a discussion. • Relativist Fallacy— Asserting that a claim may be true for some but not for the speaker. • Slippery Slope— Assuming the inevitability of one event based on another. • Special Pleading— Claiming exemption without justification. • Spotlight— Assuming individuals that get the most attention to be indicative of the whole. • Straw Man— Misrepresenting the opposing argument. • Two Wrongs Make a Right— Justifying something unethical/immoral as response or pre-emption to something else unethical/immoral.
Response to those who like to compare 4e to a Video GameShow
Also, I find that the "D&D 4e is like an MMO" argument is often a sign of someone who is deliberately being obtuse and/or is potentially ignorant of actual MMO play. As someone who only ended a 6-year World of Warcraft addiction a year ago, I can say that most of your bullet points actually don't match up to the truth of it.
In D&D 4e, you can choose a hybrid, you can choose to play one class as though it were another (people played Warlords as Bards frequently, when the edition first came out, and Rangers were refluffed to Monks), you can focus your class on its secondary role (a Warlock who is more controller than striker, for instance), you can multiclass, and you can create a particular concept (a mounted lancer, a charger, etc.) within the mechanics via feats, choice of powers, and choice of skills. You decide which set of stats you use--are you a Chaladin, Straladin, or Baladin?--and you have ultimate influence on how your character turns out in the end. Yes, powers require you to be using a particular weapon within your class's available selection, but the powers are not themselves tied to the gear. Powers tied to weapons or armor are typically powers that belong to the item, not to the character class that's most likely to use it.
Yes, there are only so many powers available, and these will be what you do in battle; this is all that the designers created. Yes, there is a time-frame in which they can be used; this has always been the case, even in the days of Vancian casting. Yes, there are suggested builds, but you can routinely ignore those if it pleases you; the only parts of a class you have to take are the class features, and even those have options at this point. But the only way that this can be considered at all conflatable with MMO character building/playing is if you are deliberately ignoring all of that.
In WoW, you choose a class and you're done. No multiclassing or hybridization, no way to mimic one class with careful building of a different one. There is a firm dividing line on what is a WoW class. No secondary roles or creative concepts, either; you're going to be what the class sets out to be, and that's it. You'll always have the same stat allocation as another of your class, because you get set numbers as you level up, and you've got at best four options--and that's only the Druid class--to build, and if you plan on running dungeons, particularly heroic level ones, or raiding, you'd better not even think of deviating from the single defined best build on the talent tree for what you want to do. It was only recently, with the complete tear-down and recreation of talent trees for Mists of Pandaria, that there was a concept of there being anything but the one best build that people who calculated such mechanical advantages (the folks on Elitist Jerks, for example), and the people who did things like achieve "World First" at various top-tier raids set precedent for.
Also, no class will ever not have a specific set of powers; all Priests in WoW have the same baseline, with deviation only based upon their talent tree specialization, where a D&D4e player could take whatever power in their class pleases them. Any Retribution Paladin will be the same as any other in terms of powers, because that is what a RetPally is. Any Assassination Rogue will always have the same powers as another, etc. All powers are always on specific cool-downs, but will always be there when they start a battle, where a 4e PC might enter an encounter with only At-Wills, or without their Daily powers due to what plot has done up until that point. Furthermore, no power that is not already specifically tied to an item will ever "require" you have that item, to my recollection. Classes get all their powers based on class; gear only gives bonuses to stats, possibly cuts down cast times for abilities or cooldowns, grants temporary extra bonuses to stats (the latter two most often on the raid tier equipment), and on rare occassions an extra power that may or may not be valuable, as some are only special effects instead of valuable abilities.
Most honest/open response on why DDN needs to be InclusiveShow
I've always felt it is in the best interests of D&D to be as inclusive across the playerbase as they can be and still have a game. I've never felt though that making a game that was inclusive within a group was very useful or even desirable. DM's and players can decide amongst themselves what options or restrictions they want for their games. I tend to lean to the DM to make most of those decisions but again that is a group specific thing.
Having said that. I get the distinct impression that there are a lot of players on these boards who come from groups that generally ruled against their own desires. It's almost like they are an oppressed minority from a gaming perspective. I also get the impression that they tend to advocate against things that if available their fellow group members might like and vote them down on.
Do a lot of you feel this way?
Just for clarification...here are some examples... 1. Alignment restrictions as an option. 2. Alignment Mechanics 3. Martial healing 4. Races being included or not.
I know my perspective is not that I often play at tables where my likes are not represented. Instead, my perspective comes from the many years I spent being a bad DM. I was a bad DM because my guidance came from the books, and the books gave bad advice. The books told me that alignment was a useful approach to roleplaying, so I went with it even though it felt kind of weird to me. Now I know that, at least in my style of running games, alignment destroys rp. I trusted the books to give good advice, and it messed up my game. Now I'm much more mature as a DM, so I know how to take advice with a grain of salt. And I still learn new stuff every session I run.
I don't want future DMs to go through my problems again. There's a big enough DM shortage as it is. DMing well is hard.
The biggest thing I had to unlearn in my process of becoming a good DM was the idea that the game is a simulation of a world. I understand many DMs prefer a more simulationist approach, although I am always skeptical simply because I would have said the same thing until I learned and grew as a DM. This doesn't mean their approach is completely invalid, but it still gives me a personal twinge when I see a regression back to 3e era sim style gaming.
I also have noticed many groups where one or two old-school players run a whole group's playstyle because the newer players aren't even aware there are other ways of doing things. The newer players tell me stories of things they hated in the session, and I end up explaining to them how those things they hate are very fixable, and in fact are fixed in the newer edition of the game their older players have told them is terrible.
In regard to things like martial healing, I don't think it's necessary for it to be in the game for the game to be fun. However, the attitude that says martial healing is terrible and shouldn't exist is an attitude that, to me, reveals a wrongheaded approach to the game. Therefore, my fight for it to be an option is to help legitimize the more narrative approach that I think is what most players want, but many don't know is possible, because they've never been exposed to it.
His nads are way to high, Seriously, level +16 defenses?
But other than that, honestly he's knida weak: a level 9 elite that only has single target standard action attacks? This guy screams punching bag (atleast to weapon users). So what if his big attack does 29 damage, he'll get it off maybe once. Then he's dead.
Third: i second that it shouldn't use Helpless. And teleport should get them out of the noose- even if nothing else does. Seriously, if my pc were in a noose and you told me i couldn't teleport out, it'd be our last game together.
Last: yeah, he's not a lurker. At all. He doesn't even pretend to be one. He's either a brute or a controller. And as a 9 brute - all 4 of his defenses should be around 21.
FWIW [4e designer] baseline assumption was that roughly 70% of your feats would be put towards combat effectiveness, parties would coordinate, and strikers would do 20/40/60 at-will damage+novas. If your party isn't doing that... well, you are below baseline, so yes, you need to optimize slightly to meet baseline. -Alcestis
I built around Lurker because lurker mechanics have (for the most part) been 2 turns for big damage. I set the option for Hemp Dance as "limited use" since I do only expect him to do it once or twice, at most.
The numbers are generated almost solely by the Adventure Tools. I upped FORT and WILL to the "high" option (+3) on the Tools, and then popped STR, CON by the "high" option, and dropped CHA off to "low" for a -3 there. REF and AC are straight from the Tools.
Why helpless? The thought process was that if you're strung-up, in a more literal sense, you're not able to do much other than swing there, and die. It followed the flavor I was trying to establish. The guy only becomes a punching bag if a creature wants to sacrifice their turn, and get CDG each turn with Hemp Dance.
. . .
What's the hook? During the short rest after an encounter where the player brutally murder a cult in the middle of Sharn, in the cult's own temple, this guy comes running by looking for sanctua....ah, %*^$!, and keeps running.
The players haven't been terribly fond of the law, nor the law of them, to-date. And most of them are considering some kind of D'mark, and one already has one. I want to see if they'll side with the refugee D'mark NPC that's being chased through the city, or string him up and try to cover up their own marks.
If they even bother to follow him.
. . .
Team composition for this encounter will be: Halfing Blackguard/Assassin-9, Warforged Bard-9, Half Elf (Fire Spec) Sorcerer-9, and a Bow Ranger-8. Almost all of them hit 21 in their sleep, and average party damage output seems to sit around 70+ per turn, if they focus fire (granted about 40-45 of it comes from the sorc alone).
. . .
I'll play with this and see if I can make it a controller, somehow.
I don't see what's wrong with one creature, in one encounter, over the course of 20+ levels of play that says "can't teleport out of restrained." Hard to believe someone would stop gaming with a person over something that insignificant, over the long run.
As a DM, I find it easier to just punish the players no matter what they pick, as I assume they will pick stuff that is broken. I mean, fight after fight they kill all the monsters without getting killed themselves! What sort of a game is this, anyway?
As a DM, I find it easier to just punish the players no matter what they pick, as I assume they will pick stuff that is broken. I mean, fight after fight they kill all the monsters without getting killed themselves! What sort of a game is this, anyway?
NADS are still pretty high, but not unrealistic now. They seem to be on the order of a human who also picked up the +1 to all NADS feat and is wearing a neck item now.
Does your Executioner's Noose hits all enemies in a close burst 10 and does damage+restrained+cannot teleport with a -5 to save? If so, that is insane! (Even doing that to just one enemy is pushing an upper Paragon-like power.)
His defenses are on par, so that's better. If you want fort and will higher do 22,20,22. This atleast keeps it a little more balanced.
Close burst 10 on the noose? Seriously? then -5 on the save and still no teleport? (See my comment above).
Hemp dance at 5d6+12 as an at-will?
So here's the sequence: Noose + AP Hemp Dance: 7d6+18 dmg to everyone in the party. That's only enough to bloody the entire party and maybe kill one of them, and he gets to repeat it next turn, since there is no way in hell anyone is getting out.
Try again, lol maybe the 3rd time is the charm.
FWIW [4e designer] baseline assumption was that roughly 70% of your feats would be put towards combat effectiveness, parties would coordinate, and strikers would do 20/40/60 at-will damage+novas. If your party isn't doing that... well, you are below baseline, so yes, you need to optimize slightly to meet baseline. -Alcestis
Umbragen Shadow Walker Level 9 Elite Lurker Medium fey humanoid (drow) 800 XP
HP 154; Bloodied 77 Initiative +13 Perception +5 Darkvision AC 25; Fort 20; Ref 25; Will 22 Saving throws +2 Action points 1
STANDARD ACTIONS
Shadowblade (MBA) (Necrotic, psychic) - At-will Attack: +12 vs fort Hit: 2d6 damage + necrotic and psychic damage
Shadowbolt (RBA) (necrotic, psychic) - At-will Attack: Ranged 15; +12 vs fort hit: 2d6 + 5 necrotic and psychic damage
Double attack - At-will Effect: The Umbragen Shadow walker makes two shadowblade attacks.
Soulblade (necrotic, psychic) - At-will Attack: +12 vs fort Hit: 3d8 + 5 necrotic and psychic damage, and the target cannot spend healing surges until the end of the shadow walker's next turn.
Dancing shadows (psychic) - Encounter Attack: Area burst 3 within 12; +12 vs will Hit 1d8 + 2 psychic damage, and the target is blinded until the end of the shadow walker's next turn.
MINOR ACTIONS
Cloud of Darkness - Encounter Effect: Close Burst 1; this power creates a cloud of darkness that remains in place until the end of the shaodw walker's net turn. The cloud blocks line of sight for all creatures except the shadow walker. Any creature entirely within the cloud (except the shadow walker) is blinded until is exits.
Shadow Form - Recharge 4,5,6 Effect: Until the end of its next turn, the shadow walker gains the insubstantial and phasing qualities, gains a +5 bonus to stealth checks and gains vulnerable 5 radiant.
SKILLS stealth +14
str 12(+5) Dex 20 (+9) Wis 12 (+5) Con 17 (+7) Int 11 (+4) Cha 17 (+7)
Ok so comparing now your monster vs this one, there's some obvious differences. Now not all lurkers are the same. Not all elites are the same. This is true even when comparing two at the same level. What is true though is that they have resemblences that are universal about lurkers. The first is the tendency to be hit and run based. They usually have some kind of control ish effects. They have medium hp, high ref, high ac, low fort, medium will, high initiative. Some can have variances but that's usually what they have.
Another notable difference is from the damage dealing. Lurkers are not meant to be huge damage droppers. That's the role of the brute for example that swings a great axe and does 1d12 + 17 at level 5. Lurkers are also not supposed to be alone in combat, they are a sort of support to the monster team, hitting and running, blinding opponents in this case (which is really nasty as a burst 3 within 12 !)
Maybe this can give you a solid base to make your monster ?
"Non nobis Domine Sed nomini tuo da gloriam"
"I wish for death not because I want to die, but because I seek the war eternal"
