Hello.

Sorry to begin a new thread while the other is still active. I need advice on something that came up in tonight's game- it's about balance problems in 4e.

One player had to work, so we played with 2 level 2 PCs and 1 DM. Excluding breaks, we played 7 hours.

At the start the party attacked a high level group of bandits and were TPK'd. No biggie, the ghost captain hauled their corpses back to the vessel and revived them. I need to improve my death mechanic btw. Then the party returned for revenge.

The paladin was immediately outright killed. The ranger however was able to kite the surviving bandits with his weird ranger build and wiped out a level 5 encounter all by himself. Took a bit, but victory was plainly certain. That was a little weird.

Later in the night, at the end, the party finally found the halfling island. They marched to the center of it and started shooting everything in sight. I sighed, expecting another TPK. The paladin however had declined resurrection so that the player could play a battlerage fighter. This fighter slew 40 halflings and murdered a level 3 solo single handedly while the ranger kited stuff. The ranger died (backed into a corner), but the fighter was able to genocide this entire island's inhabitants and loot it blind.

He was exploiting some skills that earns him temporary hit points and a ton of regeneration, plus had a few healing potions for emergencies. It was legit.

On another occasion, last year, we tried a level 20 game of 4e: our powergamer friend W. built a character who would buff up a barbarian. That barbarian dealt 1600 damage per round, and killed 3 solos in a single round- they're very clever character builders.

4e is full of stuff like this. It's everywhere. I banned battlerage fighters, but something else will come up next. The battleragers are even patched in the errata, this is their weakened form.

I don't know what to do. With that regen and that kiting strategy, on an overland map the party could defeat an almost infinite number of similar-level enemies. I'm tired and cranky, but I could really use some advice on how to save my game.

Besides, obviously, making that player make a new character. The issue is that something else will arise.

I don't have enough footing with the 4th edition to resolve the specific mechanical issues, although I am a bit surprised if what you have here are truly legitimate and overpowered builds; the game has a pretty good reputation for balance, after all. However, I do have a GMing recommendation from how I myself run D&D and similar games: instead of trying to provide the players with level-appropriate challenges, what I do is I provide them with a selection of various challenges and allow them to choose for themselves. This way I don't have to know whether the group is powerful enough to face that troll or dragon or whatever, as I can just tell the players that there is a troll in that cave, and it'll be on their own heads if they choose to go into a combat they can't handle. And of course it's a given that I'll be able to populate my setting with something that'll provide a challenge.

Admittedly mere challenge-negotiation technique is not enough if the game's mechanics run into a dead end where the characters are so powerful that they can only really be stopped by challenges that are not themselves gameable; in 4th edition context I imagine this as fighting enemies that you can only hit on natural 20s, that sort of thing. What I myself do in that situation is that I make a game of it: the player who found the rules loophole that caused the overpowered character gets a lateral reward (something that does not further unbalance the character, that is), the loophole gets houseruled and the player changes his character to not rely on the loophole in question anymore. In this way it's no big deal if the occasional unbalanced character comes up, as they can be dealt with as they happen, and everybody wins provided your reward is sexy enough.

How is your own rules mastery with the 4th edition rules? Would you say that you know the rules better than your players? It's the sort of game where I'd be hesitant to go into it without either knowing the game very well or knowing that the players know the game very well and do not cheat with the rules. Without knowing about the exact issues here, the sort of rules-failures you describe are generally really, really common in games that have involved rules-systems that are not being adjudicated entirely correctly. Because I haven't really seen anybody else complain about broken ranger builds in the Internet I'm a bit inclined to suspect that there's an issue of rules-mastery here more than game balance. Then again, you know your group better, and probably know 4th edition better as well.

Hi,

I don't know what to do. With that regen and that kiting strategy, on an overland map the party could defeat an almost infinite number of similar-level enemies. I'm tired and cranky, but I could really use some advice on how to save my game.

Also, check for errata

This way I don't have to know whether the group is powerful enough to face that troll or dragon or whatever, as I can just tell the players that there is a troll in that cave, and it'll be on their own heads if they choose to go into a combat they can't handle. And of course it's a given that I'll be able to populate my setting with something that'll provide a challenge.

Natespank wrote: I don't know what to do. With that regen and that kiting strategy, on an overland map the party could defeat an almost infinite number of similar-level enemies. I'm tired and cranky, but I could really use some advice on how to save my game.

Hi Nate,

I think it's at the point where you decide whether you concede victory to them (not only over the game world, but over the system itself) or realise all this modification and trying to find ways around what they've done is finding ways around conceding victory. Keep doing that and it's just a path down to either simulationism or narrativism, as it shoots gamism in the foot to not pay that victory. As I measure it.

I know, it feels utterly lame to put in that much effort and then on a sort of technicality of system, they just win? Further it wasn't even in in game show of ability - it was all pre game character build skill applied. I know. And your still stuck with either shooting gamism in the foot, or acknowleding the technicality win as still a win. I think alot of people go and shoot gamism in the foot and go sim.

Hi Nate,

I'm not sure what you're looking for in terms of help.  It sounds a lot like you're just completely unhappy with either a) 4E overall, b) the person you're playing with, or possibly both.

I mean, there's a lot of simple houserule fixes you can go with, like capping Temp HP Battleragers get.  Or just banning that build out right (a lot of people on the WOTC/D&D boards have simply gone with that option).

But if you're not happy with D&D4E and just venting, the only thing people can really tell you is, "Hey, try another game."  Or, if the player in question "always" finds ways to do things outside the intent of your games, the problem isn't going to be the rules, and again, the end result will probably be to not play with him.

So what are you looking for and how can we help?

Chris

I think it's at the point where you decide whether you concede victory to them

I'm not sure what you're looking for in terms of help.  It sounds a lot like you're just completely unhappy with either a) 4E overall, b) the person you're playing with, or possibly both.

So what are you looking for and how can we help?

It might be helpful to see the specific builds being used.  Also, what kind of environments were the PCs fighting in?  Were there some kind of unusual choke points between them and the targets?  Just throwing out ideas, but this does sound quite odd for 4E.

I think alot of people go and shoot gamism in the foot and go sim.

I just need a structure that doesn't get ridiculously unbalanced.

Natespank wrote: The ranger just excels in large open areas. Ship to ship is good for him, as are plains. Just a good build for that.

The dwarf bloodrager thing... level 2 or 3, regen 6, 23 AC (partially due to items), 4-8 temp hit points per attack. Like I said, at higher levels I think it'll be far less effective, but for low levels he's a god.

Hi Nate,

I need to save my campaign, partially for my own sake. A few more episodes like this and I'll just stop DMing.

Eero wrote:
"... instead of trying to provide the players with level-appropriate challenges, what I do is I provide them with a selection of various challenges and allow them to choose for themselves. This way I don't have to know whether the group is powerful enough to face that troll or dragon or whatever, as I can just tell the players that there is a troll in that cave, and it'll be on their own heads if they choose to go into a combat they can't handle. And of course it's a given that I'll be able to populate my setting with something that'll provide a challenge."

Hi Nate,

I wanted to follow up on Chris' first point, which might be easy to miss. In fact, I think I want to dissect one of your statements, without anesthetic.

I need to save my campaign

So, here's the thing, the big problem is you're not having fun.  We can recommend a lot of house rules and stuff, but, it really sounds like the last thing you want is -more- work.

My recent 4e experience took this form.  Our GM was explicit about the level of challenges we could face, with statements like "this is a level 3 area."  We PCs made decisions where to go and took the risks of heading to those places.  The GM was deliberately negating the advice of the DM guide on how to ratchet challenges up and down to make sure every encounter would be always balanced.  A deft hand with monster manuals, he preped a few locales but was strict about checking for random encounters.

At all points we chose our risks.  I liked it.  I wanted to start GMing again so I stopped playing but it was a good gamist group.

why save it? Do you really need to, as you put it? I've seen people stuck in the circular logic of saying they need to save it because if they don't, they won't have it, although they acknowledge that what they have isn't worth saving.

Why would saving it be on your shoulders alone? Unless you see your role as utterly transitive, i.e., the GM as author of fun for everyone else, then your satisfaction or dissatisfaction is entirely equal in status to anyone else's at the table. If one of the players were flatly not enjoying himself or herself, then I'd guess you'd see that as an issue for everyone else's sympathy and expect them to contribute to solutions. Does this not apply to you as well?

The hardest part of "versus" gamism, that is, a GM producing challenges for everyone else, is that you have to constantly challenge the group, which isn't easy if you're not the most tactical minded and power-nitpicky of the bunch.

Hi Nate,

Can you give us some specific questions on what advice you feel would help?

From your reply, it still doesn't tell me what would/could help you have a better game.  4E is set up that each encounter is supposed to eat up 25% of a party's resources, so 3 waves is 75%, still do-able.  On top of that, you mention waves of monster types that are low hitpoints (minions, artillery, strikers) and one Solo.  And no mention if there was anything to debilitate player movement, attacks, or actions.

The 4E advice on core encounters is solid- you want a good mix of monsters, you want a good set of terrain.  The two places the core books fall down are:

1) MInions.  Most folks on various boards have argued they should be rated 6:1 or 8:1 instead of 4:1.  But basically, minions take next to no time to take out, and usually don't inflict enough damage to be worth it unless you have some kind of effect they stack up upon.

2) Solos.  Solos are generally underpowered in terms of damage, owing mostly to the fact that players get 4x the amount of actions a Solo does.  There's a good series of posts on that here:

http://angrydm.com/2010/04/the-dd-boss-fight-part-1/

As I mentioned before, 4E is a lot of work, but there is a lot of good info to be found on Enworld, or the WOTC/D&D boards.  You'll probably be best off searching already existing threads.

What advice in specific are you looking for?

Chris

Hi Nate,

I don't want to lead you on why you want to save your campaign, but you didn't really say why before - just what was in the way, or what wouldn't save it? Is just dropping a campaign a bit like taking a half drawn picture and instead of completing it, tearing it in half and throwing it away? You'd just like to finish the creative process you started, rather than stuff it in a bag along with a brick and throw it in a river? Just what I was thinking, I don't want to lead your answer on that.

Just on this

Besides, how would we collectively solve the issue? "G., stop making douchebag characters. K., no obnoxious builds that require 50 rounds to end a fight but can't lose. J., don't go through 1-2 characters every 3 sessions, stick with one. C., give your character at least SOME personality." It won't happen.

Okay, I can use a lot of this stuff come to think about it. There's been some great replies. I think I can specifically ask a few questions.

4E is set up that each encounter is supposed to eat up 25% of a party's resources, so 3 waves is 75%, still do-able.

At all points we chose our risks.  I liked it

The 4E advice on core encounters is solid- you want a good mix of monsters, you want a good set of terrain.  The two places the core books fall down are:

1) MInions.  Most folks on various boards have argued they should be rated 6:1 or 8:1 instead of 4:1.  But basically, minions take next to no time to take out, and usually don't inflict enough damage to be worth it unless you have some kind of effect they stack up upon.

2) Solos.  Solos are generally underpowered in terms of damage, owing mostly to the fact that players get 4x the amount of actions a Solo does.  There's a good series of posts on that here:

2) Hazards!  Consider one-off hazards that make things hard for the players.  "We're fighing in a blizzard, -2 to all ranged attacks, everyone is Slowed, and monsters that aren't Yetis take 2 damage a turn!"  Change these up, they force the players to constantly re-evaluate how to deal with problems and make the best of bad situations.  Players who find a winning formula find they can't do it the same way anymore.

3) Delay hazards.  Pits, heavy sacks of grain that fall on you, a deep bog, things that you can set up that force players to lose one action or turn.  This is an excellent way to delay the players and incapacitate the heavy hitters a bit.  It adds frustration to the players, so try to spread it out.  It also makes them wary of terrain.

4) Bad choices.  "The easiest place to fight the monsters is in the magic circle.  But in the magic circle, if killed, they rise up as undead versions.  Crap."

5) Divide requirements.  "Someone has to go open the gate on the left path while some one else disables the trap mechanism on the right path, within 2 rounds of each other, otherwise they both reset."  This splits up the party within the same encounter, and also might be a fun skill challenge along with the fight.

6) Pain in the Ass combos.  Get monsters together that really combo well.  Some of the monster groups in 4E do this, but a lot don't.  If you have someone who creates a damaging zone, you want someone else who pushes targets into it, and someone else who immobilizes them there.  A useful trick is to look across the monster board and see if someone has a power that does it, and reskin them appropriately or just pull the power- that way you don't have weird stuff like, "Wait, why is an Aboleth working with these goblins?"

I think in chess when the king is surrounded, can't move in any direction and is threatened as well, it's ridiculously unbalanced. I'd actually say winning is about one player taking balance and breaking it over his or her knee.

Well, I've talked about the whole 0-1000 winning track thing. I know it's a pain because you expect to be able to just deligate that responsiblity to the written rules, instead of having bought a product and then write your own game anyway. But I think you don't want things to be balanced forever and ever - you have to determine how they can finally unbalance things and take the king, so to speak.

Anyway, speaking in those terms I'd consider instead of trying to faff about with banning classes, just put a cap on damage output. Also a cap on the number of rounds you can kite, before the enemy automatically closes with you. It's just too hard to try to find and fill in all the little holes, so just put a bigger bag around the whole thing. But still at some point there needs to be a king taker move.

Hi Nate,

Healing Surges

If players are already having an easy time with encounters, giving them MORE surges is a bad idea, even if the surges come back slower.  Leave Healing Surges alone, and consider stuff like Skill Challenges or Hazards that reduce Healing Surges.

Terrain

If you're saying "players can use terrain better than monsters", you're doing Terrain wrong.

For example, you're planning on a river fight.  Why not put in aquatic monsters who have full movement and mobility in water?  Instantly the terrain favors the monsters.

If anything, terrain should be neutral, if not helpful to the monsters.  This could be stuff like having 3-4 minions behind a wall with crossbows and arrowslits they shoot through- the players can't even target them until they break down a gate, and deal with the defenders outside.  It provides a hazard and forces HP attrition.

If you have anything that is damaging by virtue of location ("A raging bonfire"), a fun combination is a monster that can immobilize or slow a character, and another monster that can Push/Slide PCs into the damage zone.  The combination of damage and possibly being stuck there more than a few rounds from status effects is a nasty trick.

Also, "One Off Hazards" are things like: "The Orcs roll a barrel down the stairs if anyone comes up, it will do X damage, and leave the person prone for 1 round".  It's a "one-off" because it's a trick that works once in the fight- the barrel is rolled, then it's down the stairs and either broken or too big of a hassle to get back up the stairs. 

These kinds of things let you give monsters options to do more damage than they normally do as well as inflict status effects they don't normally have - page 42 is the DM's godsend when it comes to this stuff.  You want it to be a one-off because it a) avoids becoming frustrating and annoying to the players and b) the players can't easily turn around and use it back on the monsters.

All of these things don't have to magical or weird, really.  "The goblins drop the tapestry over you- you're blinded and immobilized until you make a Strength check", "The Gelatinous Cube starts knocking over bookcases as it plows forward, attack vs. Reflex and you take x damage and you're pinned", "The dragon has set fire to the town.  If you use anything as cover, there is a random attack from falling burning debris", etc.

Think of great action movies and videogame levels and you'll have a good set of ideas to draw upon.

Battleragers: No

Here's what a 2 second Google Search gave me:
http://www.enworld.org/forum/4e-discussion/248974-battlerager-experiences.html

When the class was first published, it was decried all around as broken, and I haven't kept up with the errata, but by your account it sounds like they're still overpowered.  Take a read through that thread, there's some folks talking from experience there.

Minions

Minions are annoyance enemies.  The 1-hit-1-kill rule isn't bad, actually, the thing is, as a GM you have to realize they're not good choices if you're ever trying to make an actually challenging encounter.

If you have melee focused minions, they can only really do damage if they're surrounding and laying into a single target- which usually makes them ripe for area attacks.

If you have ranged focused minions, again, they have to focus fire on a single target, which almost always puts them too close together and open for area effects, or, at least, multiple-attack powers.

If you want to make minions somewhat dangerous, the trick is to either have them be mobile enough to attack and move a significant distance away (meaning they can scatter and not get hit with an area attack) or else, they need to do some other kind of status effect rather than damage being the primary point.

For example, if you have a minion type who can Slide a PC, then you could chain them up to scoot a character halfway across the board, perhaps into some highly damaging zone.  But again, this is so gimmicky that it's probably only going to be fun for one encounter at most.

Solos: Don't

If you've looked at the post I linked, and the Angry DM's series on that, basically Solos suffer from not being able to keep up in the action economy.  This requires rules tweaking- but if you can't make a normal encounter challenging, you really aren't in a place to be able to know what kinds of tweaks would make sense for a Solo, anyway.  Even with rules tweaks, Solos are even more terrain dependent for an interesting encounter than a normal one, so wait until you're comfortable with play, in general.

D&D is probably the most well supported crunchy-gamist game out there right now, and there's a LOT of people who have played a lot, and spent a lot of time thinking about this stuff - take advantage of it!

If you take the Battlerager out, and you're still having problems creating a challenge, then something, somewhere, is going wrong - lots of folks are playing and not having trouble giving challenges to groups.

Chris

Hi Nate,

If I understand correctly, you are stating that a conversation like this one:

Besides, how would we collectively solve the issue? "G., stop making douchebag characters. K., no obnoxious builds that require 50 rounds to end a fight but can't lose. J., don't go through 1-2 characters every 3 sessions, stick with one. C., give your character at least SOME personality." It won't happen.

I talked to the players. I need to work out exactly what I want before I push it too much. The one player agreed to try to stick with his current character.

Gotta think about stuff a bit.

Anyway, while I'm at it:

REQUEST FOR ADVICE

-What are some people's favorite rule systems? I realize this is tricky because of the variety of systems out there. I'm aiming for fantasy, gritty, with exploration and discovery. I want some rules that make combat fun, but I don't necessarily want it to be the focus like 4e is. Old D&D is sketchy because of many reasons haha, but I like aspects of it. Rifts too, but only aspects of it. I can try to be more specific but I need to figure out more of what exactly i want.

-Any interesting, challenging 4e modules out there I can read/run for ideas/inspiration? The fourthcore stuff interests me but there's not much of it yet.

Nate, try checking out capes. You can download the lite version for free. It's not actually a gamist inclined game, but it has a complete procedure (so you just play - you don't have to tighten the nuts on the engine every five minutes) and it does involve strategic play.

And I know I already said it before, but I think having a chat which says 'Don't play douchebag characters' is entirely dysfunctional. Not because it's rude, but because dude A and dude B's idea of a douchebag can so very easily be very, very different. And that difference goes in so many wrong directions I can't go into it and have a short post! If your not both thinking the same thing, it's not a rule. If you can convert 'don't be a douchebag' into something both parties understand in the exact same way, fully, then that'll work out.

Nate, try checking out capes. You can download the lite version for free. It's not actually a gamist inclined game, but it has a complete procedure (so you just play - you don't have to tighten the nuts on the engine every five minutes) and it does involve strategic play.

And I know I already said it before, but I think having a chat which says 'Don't play douchebag characters' is entirely dysfunctional. Not because it's rude, but because dude A and dude B's idea of a douchebag can so very easily be very, very different. And that difference goes in so many wrong directions I can't go into it and have a short post! If your not both thinking the same thing, it's not a rule. If you can convert 'don't be a douchebag' into something both parties understand in the exact same way, fully, then that'll work out.

Natespank wrote: -What are some people's favorite rule systems? I realize this is tricky because of the variety of systems out there. I'm aiming for fantasy, gritty, with exploration and discovery. I want some rules that make combat fun, but I don't necessarily want it to be the focus like 4e is. Old D&D is sketchy because of many reasons haha, but I like aspects of it. Rifts too, but only aspects of it. I can try to be more specific but I need to figure out more of what exactly i want.

Natespank wrote: 4e should be marketed as a pure-gamist system akin to a board game. Out of the box the rules aren't good for much of anything except combat, magic items and leveling up to fight better. He, in a way, did "win" 4e with that rager. That's partly the game's fault- ie, MY fault, right? 4e is the engine, my campaign's the game. Poor design on my part. Not technically a douchebag move of his, but created conflict.

Hi Nate,

I suggest that "fault" is not actually an important part of the discussion. Over the decades, I've observed not only that open discussion about the game and group is often considered rude at best and admission of failure at worst, but also that when such discussions occur, people move very swiftly away from what matters - what is being done and why that's a problem - to whose fault it all is. "Yeah, OK, I'm being a dick, but it's your fault for choosing this game, or for letting me get away with it," that kind of thing. Putting that aside, and finding out who is actually interested in actually having fun, and restricting the conversation (and later play) only to those people, is a really good idea.

If you're interested, my essay Gamism: Step On Up may help in thinking about what sort of game would be most fun for you and this group.

Best, Ron

I have not read the 4e rules at all.  As I read the thread, I am blinking and scratching my head wondering how this game you're describing can possibly be any sort of D&D. 

What I don't understand from the thread is how important this rules system and tactical emphasis is to you, Nate.  I assume you are familiar with the D&D offshoot called "Pathfinder"?  The best I can describe, Pathfinder is what 4e would have been, had it remained the kind of game 3e was.  In other words, closer to the original vision, basically tweaks and small expansions here and there, but without the terrain/tactics/physical layout emphasis that 4e seems to have.  Anyone please correct me if that description is wrong, since I have not actually played the Pathfinder rules, only read them.  I think it's worth a look, if you want a more traditional D&D feel to the game.

If you don't particularly enjoy the myriad rules about setting, terrain, minions, and so forth, then perhaps 4e is not for you.  You would not be alone -- from my readings, there was quite a rift created in the playing community when 4e came out and many have abandoned the system (while others, presumably, embrace it).

Natespank wrote: 4e should be marketed as a pure-gamist system akin to a board game. Out of the box the rules aren't good for much of anything except combat, magic items and leveling up to fight better. He, in a way, did "win" 4e with that rager. That's partly the game's fault- ie, MY fault, right? 4e is the engine, my campaign's the game. Poor design on my part. Not technically a douchebag move of his, but created conflict.

And the thing is, maybe you don't want to design either? Which would be entirely valid as well. Perhaps your looking for a solution from someone because you just wanna get on and play? Which I'd totally get. Or maybe I'm simply thinking of myself in that - in trying to grab onto a certain social scene (and perhaps even a zeitgeist), a socially validated creative outlet, just started trying to get this thing work as a game, but not interested in designing for it's own sake. Or atleast not interested enough to make an entire multi player, complex game without a jot of design help from anyone else. Simple ones, yeah, but not designing complex ones with zero outside contribution.

As for whether "winning" 4e in this context is good or bad:

Players A, B and C go adventuring. Player A builds a god like character and slaughters several towns worth of people. He's broken.

The DM, to compensate for this, ups the difficulty of the game so he fights huge mobs of high level monsters instead of current-level foes. Otherwise this character is a god.

Players B and C get left behind and are effectively useless PCs- they can't meaningfully interact with the strong enemies. They insult player A for powergaming and breaking stuff, and a series of balance "fixes" ensue- otherwise, they're forced to insanely break the system too, and then you get Vampire the Masquerade with my buddy C. who literally do fight lesser dieties somehow.

Which isn't the game we signed up for :(

Just my 2 cents. Off for dinner now! :D

Hey Nate;

I'm the DM in that game that Erik mentioned upthread.  We're still playing and I've been making modifications to the hack over the months.  I've been trying to keep a decent AP log on EN World: http://www.enworld.org/forum/4e-fan-creations-house-rules/278034-d-d-4th-edition-hack-fiction-first-playtest.html  The version of the rules up there are pretty out of date, though I think illustrate what I'm trying to accomplish.

I'm only 10 pages in but I love what you've done with 4e. More when I'm done.

The version of the rules up there are pretty out of date, though I think illustrate what I'm trying to accomplish.

For now, gonna focus on working with 4e though- at least for a bit

Hey everyone,

It may be that the basic thread topic here has been raised, defined further, and dealt with. Nate, what do you think? Long experience has shown me that once a thread has done that, it's much more productive to let it stand as its own document, and jump to new daughter topics with new threads. The focus seems to have shifted to the other guys' game, so maybe that time has come. Or if you think your genuine, original topic is still not quite hammered into shape, please let us all know what about it needs work, and we can finish it here. It's up to you.

Let me know. Everyone else, let Nate respond to me, please.

Best, Ron

Lets see, the original goal was to fix the 4e campaign and find the fun in it again.

I think I've gathered enough ideas to do that now. Especially Lost Soul's hack- he's done in a systematic, thought out manner what I did in pieces. Much better than my minor effort- good work!

I think it's okay to close the thread.

Done and done.

But don't stop the conversations that began here! New threads, with actual play foundations of their own and with links back to this one, would be most welcome.

Best, Ron