|
8 months ago ::
Oct 08, 2012 - 10:53AM
#41
|
- Senior Volunteer Community Lead
Date Joined:
Aug 19, 2007
|
I bet. There's a certain optimization point that we largely just don't worry about  Hopefully their desire to autowin was cause they wanted to hurry to the roleplay. And didn't want to roleplay with any of the NPCs they stunned and/or removed from play...
Keith Richmond
Living Forgotten Realms Epic Writing Director
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Oct 08, 2012 - 9:25PM
#42
|
Date Joined:
Apr 11, 2008
|
When you invalidate some character concepts and/or class features, you encourage more people to play strikers, because in general, creatures aren't getting resist all, so damage is always worth something. I was playing with Dielzen's battlemind at the Calimshan Battle Interactive. I hadn't noticed how the large maps nullified battleminds' ability to use the Wild Focus class feature, but from the way he spoke, it wasn't the first time he had run into that problem. Something similar has happened in other modules with elites and solos that shed "unsheddable" conditions. It's pretty lame when I go to use my cool daily and the monster ends the effect before it has even done anything. On the other hand, my non-frost archer ranger can pump out damage like there's no tomorrow. Yeah, I lose the ability to have Confounding Arrows stun a target, but I still feel like I'm contributing. I don't want this to be required to not feel useless in future modules.
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Oct 08, 2012 - 10:20PM
#43
|
- Senior Volunteer Community Lead
Date Joined:
Aug 19, 2007
|
Yep; there are a fair number of things that aren't friendly for strikers, and there are plenty of ways for non-strikers to deal real damage... but it does seem as if people feel less "cheated" when the minions don't care what damage they do past 1, or the elite takes half damage or no damage, or redirects damage back into the striker, or the striker attacks their team mates, or themselves, or is weakened, or deals half damage, or the creatures take half damage in round 1, or disappear when bloodied, or aren't on the map at the start of combat, or every PC gets a damage bonus 1/round giving a proportionate amount more towards non-strikers, or...
Well, just saying, nobody escapes being screwed somehow, in my experience.
P.S. First rule of target selection; don't go nuts on the guy with the huge pointed arrow on him. If they're the big named bad that everyone is supposed to fear, then they'll have _something_ to protect against "unconscious (save ends, at a -13 penalty)". Whether it's redirect to a friend, stripped by a terrain effect, removed at end of turn, whatever. I always like to target the _next_ guy instead. That guy I can usually just open up on unhindered.
Keith Richmond
Living Forgotten Realms Epic Writing Director
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Oct 08, 2012 - 11:40PM
#44
|
- Senior Volunteer Community Lead
Date Joined:
Aug 19, 2007
|
Btw - if anyone does have suggestions for "good" ways to limit effectiveness of everyone, including strikers, that don't also completely screw non-optimized groups (who, for example, will slam their face into the floor if the number of monsters double); always happy to hear it.
That is one of the toughest parts about nerfing damage. Lots of groups already take too long to kill things. Ideally you just nerf the upper bound of damage.
Keith Richmond
Living Forgotten Realms Epic Writing Director
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Oct 09, 2012 - 1:18AM
#45
|
|
|
I haven't run the year 4 EPICs yet, but I do remember the fighter and swordmage being fairly effective defenders in the year 3 ones. I don't remember the maps being all that different... mind you, the swordmage had some anti-teleport and anti-movement dailies he was having a field day with a certain villain in 3-1  During those tests we also concluded huge and large monsters were a bit of a pain on the defenders, but this could be offset by being manouverable or have the controller put the monsters on the right spot (and the controller was specialized in forced movement). I am not saying that it is not a fair complaint, although it is one more directed at the game than the writing team, but by changing tactics somewhat and character build it can at least partially be offset.
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Oct 09, 2012 - 7:57AM
#46
|
|
|
Again I became intrigued by the concept of bigger maps in EPIC4-2. And, in fact, that is true. Adventure ... AVERAGE map area (squares) ... MEDIAN map area (squares) EPIC3-1 ... 483 ... 500 EPIC3-2 ... 579 ... 624 EPIC3-3 ... 406 ... 352 EPIC4-1 ... 497 ... 520 EPIC4-2 ... 600 ... 630 (see below for raw data) If you want to discuss map sizes further, I suggest starting a new thread. The point has been made for EPIC4-2: yes, the maps are on average bigger than in previous EPICs. my comments Spoiler:
Show
However it's important to note that map area is only a crude measure. It doesn't tell you anything about potential chokepoints on the map, terrain features that the PCs might want to approach or avoid, specific monsters or widgets the PCs need to deal with, and so forth. Map area by itself can't answer the question, "Where is the fighting going to take place?"
Anecdotally, in my experience, most D&D combats (de)generate into a scrum in one small section of the map. The occassional ranged PC or monster will slink around the edges, but the melee types rush towards each other like they're magnetized. So the maps in EPIC4-2 might have a median area of 630 squares, but the actual space used for melee fighting could be 100 squares (10x10) or smaller.
Finally, remember that larger maps are one of the guiding principles of 4th edition D&D. This is explicitly stated in the DMG. raw data Spoiler:
Show
EPIC4-2 Map Sizes
North-South (rows) by East-West (columns)
Encounter 2 --- 21x30
Encounter 5B -- 21X30
Encounter 5C -- 30X21
Encounter 6B -- 20x20, with a 4x2 extension at south end
Encounter 6C -- 30x21
Encounter 7A -- 30x21
Encounter 7C -- 21x30
Encounter 8 --- 26x24
Areas
Encounter 2 --- 630 squares
Encounter 5B -- 630 squares
Encounter 5C -- 630 squares
Encounter 6B -- 400 squares (not counting extension)
Encounter 6C -- 630 squares
Encounter 7A -- 630 squares
Encounter 7C -- 630 squares Encounter 8 --- 624 squares
AVERAGE area -- 600 squares
MEDIAN area --- 630 squares
===========================
EPIC4-1 Map Sizes North-South (rows) by East-West (columns)
Encounter 1B -- 24x24
Encounter 3 --- 20x16
Encounter 4 --- 28x20, not counting tower and bridge
Encounter 6B -- 32x26
Encounter 7 --- 26x24
Encounter 9 --- 26x8
Encounter 11 -- 22x18
Areas
Encounter 1B -- 576 squares
Encounter 3 --- 320 squares
Encounter 4 --- 560 squares
Encounter 6B -- 832 squares
Encounter 7 --- 624 squares
Encounter 9 --- 208 squares
Encounter 11 -- 396 squares
AVERAGE area -- 497 squares
MEDIAN area --- 520 squares
===========================
EPIC3-3 Map Sizes
North-South (rows) by East-West (columns)
Encounter 1A -- 28x24
Encounter 3B -- 32x24
Encounter 4B -- 22x20, but irregular so actual area is smaller (90%?)
Encounter 5B -- 28x8
Encounter 7 --- 20x16
Encounter 9 --- 16x17, with two 3x3 extensions at north and south ends
Encounter 11 -- 42x4, not counting prisoner rooms
Encounter 12 -- 16x24
Areas
Encounter 1A -- 672 squares
Encounter 3B -- 768 squares
Encounter 4B -- 440 squares, 90% would be 396 squares
Encounter 5B -- 224 squares
Encounter 7 --- 320 squares
Encounter 9 --- 272 squares
Encounter 11 -- 168 squares
Encounter 12 -- 384 squares
AVERAGE area -- 406 squares
MEDIAN area --- 352 squares
===========================
EPIC3-2 Map Sizes
North-South (rows) by East-West (columns)
Encounter 1 --- highly irregular; multiple 4x4 platforms
Encounter 3 --- 32x22, but irregular so actual area is smaller (50%?)
Encounter 5 --- 33x24, but irregular so actual area is smaller (50%?)
Encounter 8 --- 16x16, with two 4x4 extensions at north and south ends
Encounter 10 -- 23x20
Encounter 12 -- 24x30, but irregular so actual area is smaller (75%?)
Encounter 13 -- 12x12 and 20x20, latter irregular (75%?)
Areas
Encounter 1 --- impossible to estimate
Encounter 3 --- 704 squares, 50% would be 352 squares
Encounter 5 --- 792 squares, 50% would be 396 squares
Encounter 8 --- 256 squares
Encounter 10 -- 460 squares
Encounter 12 -- 720 squares, 75% would be 540 squares
Encounter 13 -- 544 squares, 75% would be 444 squares
AVERAGE area -- 579 squares
MEDIAN area --- 624 squares
===========================
EPIC3-1 Map Sizes
North-South (rows) by East-West (columns)
Encounter 1 --- 16x24
Encounter 3 --- 20x16
Encounter 4 --- 22x28
Encounter 6 --- 24x24
Encounter 8 --- 22x20, but irregular so actual area is smaller (75%?)
Encounter 9 --- 24x22, but irregular so actual area is smaller (50%?)
Encounter 10 -- 20x24
Encounter 11 -- 20x26
Areas
Encounter 1 --- 384 squares
Encounter 3 --- 320 squares
Encounter 4 --- 616 squares
Encounter 6 --- 576 squares
Encounter 8 --- 440 squares, 75% would be 330 squares
Encounter 9 --- 528 squares, 50% would be 264 squares
Encounter 10 -- 480 squares
Encounter 11 -- 520 squares
AVERAGE area -- 483 squares
MEDIAN area --- 500 squares |
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Oct 09, 2012 - 9:36AM
#47
|
- Senior Volunteer Community Lead
Date Joined:
Aug 19, 2007
|
You are once again a font of knowledge. It's worth note that while poster maps are usually 21 x 30, the actual usable area is often _not_ that. For example, 5C is really less than 300 (10 radius circle with some blocked walls) and 6C is really 14 x 22. I'm totally using more poster maps, for 4-2 and all adventures going forward though. I got tired of making all the maps for every encounter! P.S. Your 3-2 and 3-3 labels are swapped in your breakdown.
Keith Richmond
Living Forgotten Realms Epic Writing Director
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Oct 09, 2012 - 9:57AM
#48
|
|
|
It's worth note that while poster maps are usually 21 x 30, the actual usable area is often _not_ that.
Right, the usable area of almost every map is much, much smaller than the entire map.
Basically I was too lazy to count every individual square on the map, then decide if it's "usable" or not. Is a squate completely occupied by a stone wall "usable"? Not if you're limited to ground movement, but maybe if you fly... or have phasing somehow.... It's too hard to make these ad-hoc decisions for every square on every map. Faster just to count rows-by-columns.
Your 3-2 and 3-3 labels are swapped in your breakdown.
Fixed.
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Oct 09, 2012 - 9:59AM
#49
|
Date Joined:
Apr 14, 2010
|
Keithric: if you're looking for good ways to nerf everyone, try thinking about encounter design from a different perspective. If you introduce alternative ways to end a combat besides killing everything, groups that aren't optimized for combat can choose to end encounters that way instead. That way you still keep optimizers happy by allowing them to win using their favorite strategy (kill everything), and make fights interesting for nonoptimizers by giving them an out if a fight is clearly too challenging for them. Also see the second link in my sig.
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Oct 09, 2012 - 10:15AM
#50
|
- Senior Volunteer Community Lead
Date Joined:
Aug 19, 2007
|
Well, we do already do that kind of thing fairly frequently; though I'll admit we should probably be more direct about having encounters end entirely without needing to deal with enemies beyond talking to them... But it should be noted that the correct answer in most of the listed examples is "Kill enemy until problem is solved". We need to protect this guy - so stop all the enemies from acting, and kill them. We need to get the widget, ditto. Need to stop the ritual, hey yep. Etc. I do believe the D&D Championship from a couple years back with Orcus had some good examples of "stopping to fight is actually counterproductive", but that was partially because of how badly built the PCs were (in comparison to optimized standards) _and_ also illustrates one problem: PCs want to use their actual powers. Moving to cover objectives is good, but if you're making skill checks with your actions, burning actions to assist/heal/defend a target instead of to stop monsters, etc - it's actually very easy for that to be counterproductive. So, we do a lot of that stuff, but it's not _really_ solving the "Party 1 has generic striker who does 40 damage and generic defender who hits adjacent enemies if they don't attack him for 20" and "Party 2 has controller who stuns a 15 x 15 area of the map and a striker who deals 400 damage" quandary of letting them both have fun Though I'll admit that the very low end and very high end, well, are on their own to figure out how to have fun, with my suggestion being to figure out a good difficulty level as a group and play within those bounds (not too good, not too bad, adjust adventures as necessary).
Keith Richmond
Living Forgotten Realms Epic Writing Director
|
|
|
