Ok, so I'm re-reading the DMG and such, since I'm playing in a group now, and I'm into the part about roles and how many you need of each, or how to cover if you're missing a controller or whatever. Something occurs to me:
Can you play 4e with only two players and a DM? I mean, I imagine you could make it work, but how would you go about it? My first inclination is to reduce the encounter levels, of course, but unless you're making a home-brew setting or dungeon, anything published would likely be useless (or nearly so) since it is started that the "optimal" group is at least 4, preferably 5, players of various "roles".
I'm only asking because my regular Saturday group tends to alternate between five people and three people every other weekend, so if I want to run some 4e, I'd likely only have two players in the group.
So, yeah, how do you handle a very short-handed group?
In actual practice, the balanced party they recommend is fairly weak. A team of all or mostly strikers synergizes internally better than a mixed bag of strikers and defenders. A team of all defenders can make much the same claim actually. Most classes have a means of advancing towards victory that will eventually work on its own, so putting in another character of the same class is delightfully synergistic. A Paladin's greatest joy in life would be to be joined by four more paladins.
So if you simply reduce the scale of combats (less PCs, less monsters), it'll actually work out pretty OK. A team of two Rangers will blitz through two basic enemies in very short order, and the cheese stands alone. A team of two paladins can divide the hate between them and grind their enemies down, sharing out healing surges if anything breaks. Solos are hard to cut down in size, because you can't use less than one without using none at all. And using lower level solos is incredibly unsatisfying because they don't have the to-hit bonuses to make a combat at all threatening. But then, fights against Solos are incredibly boring in 4e anyway and you shouldn't be using them. So no loss.
Of course, you could also just let each player play two characters. That's the tact I would use.
-Frank
Don't sweat the party makeup too much.
Well, the default assumption (baseline encounter) is 1 combatant of equal level for every party member. And then you can kinda play around with those numbers. What you really get is an XP budget.
So if it's a pair of 3rd level characters, and level 3 monsters are worth 150XP.. that's an encounter budget of 300XP. You could probably bump that up or down depending on whether it's meant to be an easy, standard, or hard encounter to range between 225XP to about 500 or 550XP (or maybe higher.. but I don't know the skill level of the players involved).
So using that budget for an example, you might do a hobgoblin lair with the following encounters:
2 Hobgoblin Mercenaries (level 2) 125x2
4 Fierce Dogs (level 1 minion) 25x4
=350XP (kinda near the entrance)
1 Hobgoblin Soldier (level 3) 150
4 Hobgoblin grunts (level 3 minion) 38x4
=352 xp (maybe this is a patrol..)
1 Advanced Hobgoblin Warcaster (level 5) 200
3 Hobgoblin grunts (level 3 minion) 38x3
=314 xp (this is the NPC warcaster and his servants/guards..)
1 carnivorous ape* (level 3) 150
2 hobgoblin mercenary 125x2
=400 xp (the ape-handlers and their pet)
1 Hobgoblin Warchief (level 5) 200
1 goblin acolyte of Maglubiyet 100
6 hobgoblin grunts (level 3 minion) 38x6
=528 xp (the chieftain, his spiritual advisor, and a few extra guards..)
There is no carnivorous ape yet, but I whipped one up in the monster builder in about 3 minutes.
(http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4069/4703362619_604dc606e2.jpg)
Hm. If I were running for two players, I'd write up balanced encounters as per AM's notes and just plan for defeat. The "risk" is that the PCs have less margin for random chance screwing them up. In a five person party, if a monster gets a string of lucky crits and takes down one PC, it doesn't wreck the group. In a two person party, you're cutting your effectiveness in half. This is obviously not 4e specific, mind you.
So I'd embrace that and make sure I had plans for the PCs losing the fight in any case. Use monsters who won't eat the PCs, for the most part. Make sure the players know they should run away if it gets bad; encourage them to be more wary. That sort of thing.
Quote from: Werekoala;387542So, yeah, how do you handle a very short-handed group?
By knowing your players and their characters. If they're both non-optimizers and they choose to play a Wizard and a Bard, for example, you're going to need to plan some low key encounters that you can adjust on the fly. If they're both hard core players who chose a Fighter and a Ranger, you're going to have to go another route entirely.
Seanchai
Quote from: Seanchai;387567By knowing your players and their characters. If they're both non-optimizers and they choose to play a Wizard and a Bard, for example, you're going to need to plan some low key encounters that you can adjust on the fly. If they're both hard core players who chose a Fighter and a Ranger, you're going to have to go another route entirely.
Seanchai
Yeah, I don't even run 4e, and this is some of the better GMing advice you can have in your head at all times, no matter the game. If you just blindly slap together encounters and go, don't be surprised if the game goes off the rails.
If I'm running Savage Worlds and no one has the Shooting skill higher than a d4, but I toss the PCs out into a scenario where the enemies are set up in good sniping positions, I shouldn't be surprised if the PCs a) die or b) run like Hell.
Yeah, I know these guys like the back of my hand - we've been gaming together for 25+ years (gah). so that's not the issue; I was primarily concerned about how to "mechanically" stat up the stuff for smaller groups since, as we all know, 4e is all about balanced encounters. I think AM's advice is about what I had come up with, and I might just steal his encounter since he did the hard work for me. :)
Quote from: Werekoala;387582Yeah, I know these guys like the back of my hand - we've been gaming together for 25+ years (gah). so that's not the issue; I was primarily concerned about how to "mechanically" stat up the stuff for smaller groups since, as we all know, 4e is all about balanced encounters. I think AM's advice is about what I had come up with, and I might just steal his encounter since he did the hard work for me. :)
The carnivorous ape is complimentary!
But ok, also consider making some encounters as skill challenges: maybe there's a porticullis gate puzzle that has to be solved (perception to find the hidden pressure plate, atheltics to roll a rock on top of it, thievery to jam the gears..,etc)
Sometimes you can treat the entire dungeon as one long ongoing skill challenge with encounters built into each one. So for example a 4/3 Skill challenge dungeon might be this whole hobgoblin outpost. And there are 4 "strategic areas" guarded by roaming patrols (encounter 2) that have to be locked down or perhaps diverted (with trickery.. lets say you do get that bard/wizard duo) before you can breach the chieftains throne room. So defeating each encounter earns a success. Add in a porticullis puzzle (as an example) and have the front gate encounter (encounter 1).. and you have a 6/3 challenge, or at least some redundancy towards the 4/3.
Now, see, I kinda understand the words you just used, and the individual sentences seem to make some sort of sense, but when you string it all together my gears grind and I go "Huh? That's not D&D." I mean, I know it is, but having to think along those lines when putting together a dungeon is like having to solve a story problem instead of just drawing cool shit on graph paper. :)
Quote from: Abyssal Maw;387584But ok, also consider making some encounters as skill challenges: maybe there's a porticullis gate puzzle that has to be solved (perception to find the hidden pressure plate, atheltics to roll a rock on top of it, thievery to jam the gears..,etc)
I don't understand how people find rolling dice for these sorts of things any fun. Honestly.
The charm of puzzles in a dungeon environment is to work them out by yourself, with your brains. You don't roll the dice to figure it out. The game is to figure it out in your mind, by trial and error, if allowed.
It's just so different in concept that I just don't get what's so fun about the "skill challenge" version.
If you love that sort of thing, that's cool for you. Awesome. That's just does not compute with me as something any more fun that working things out on your own, without dice. I really don't get it.
Quote from: Benoist;387591I don't understand how people find rolling dice for these sorts of things any fun. Honestly.
The charm of puzzles in a dungeon environment is to work them out by yourself, with your brains. You don't roll the dice to figure it out. The game is to figure it out in your mind, by trial and error, if allowed.
It's just so different in concept that I just don't get what's so fun about the "skill challenge" version. If you love that sort of thing, that's cool for you. Awesome. That's just does not compute with me as something any more fun that working things out on your own, without dice. I really don't get it.
See, I don't see the opposition to it. I'm not being argumentative, either...I just don't see how a Perception roll to find a pressure plate is any different than rolling for an elf or dwarf's ability to find a hidden door...rolling a boulder onto the pressure plate? Why not make that a roll? Same with trying to jam the gears...I don't see how that's any different than rolling to pick a lock.
Basically, my point is, I don't see what makes skill challenges any different than having skill rolls in a game to begin with.
Quote from: Tommy Brownell;387593See, I don't see the opposition to it. I'm not being argumentative, either...I just don't see how a Perception roll to find a pressure plate is any different than rolling for an elf or dwarf's ability to find a hidden door...rolling a boulder onto the pressure plate? Why not make that a roll? Same with trying to jam the gears...I don't see how that's any different than rolling to pick a lock.
Basically, my point is, I don't see what makes skill challenges any different than having skill rolls in a game to begin with.
I see your point, and you do have one.
My problem is that it systematizes the use of die rolls to solve pretty much anything in the game. It's like everything has to be covered by a rule, and abstracted to fit the logic underlying the game system itself. The game world is incidental to the game system as it is being used instead of the other way around.
Where you're asking "why not make a die roll?" I answer "Why make a die roll at all?" I come from a tradition of gaming where you basically "roll a die IF you need to take into account some random element in the outcome of a task", which basically spells out that if you don't need to roll the dice, then you don't and you let the make-believe unfold on its own terms. The make-believe's the point of the game. Not the dice rolling.
It's like the logic underlying the very core concepts of role playing games is completely reversed here.
Quote from: Benoist;387594I see your point, and you do have one.
My problem is that it systematizes the use of die rolls to solve pretty much anything in the game. It's like everything has to be covered by a rule, and abstracted to fit the logic underlying the game system itself. The game world is incidental to the game system as it is being used instead of the other way around.
Where you're asking "why not make a die roll?" I answer "Why make a die roll at all?" I come from a tradition of gaming where you basically "roll a die IF you need to take into account some random element in the outcome of a task", which basically spells out that if you don't need to roll the dice, then you don't and you let the make-believe unfold on its own terms. The make-believe's the point of the game. Not the dice rolling.
It's like the logic underlying the very core concepts of role playing games is completely reversed here.
Fair point.
For me, I think the middle ground is a happy medium. The pressure plate part? I have no problem making them roll for it. Rolling the boulder? I think that would depend on the character. If the uber-buff Half-Orc wants to do it? Okay...if the halfling wants to? I might require a roll to even give him a shot at it. Jamming the gears? Yeah, I could probably just call that a gimme.
Quote from: Benoist;387594I see your point, and you do have one.
My problem is that it systematizes the use of die rolls to solve pretty much anything in the game. It's like everything has to be covered by a rule, and abstracted to fit the logic underlying the game system itself. The game world is incidental to the game system as it is being used instead of the other way around.
Where you're asking "why not make a die roll?" I answer "Why make a die roll at all?" I come from a tradition of gaming where you basically "roll a die IF you need to take into account some random element in the outcome of a task", which basically spells out that if you don't need to roll the dice, then you don't and you let the make-believe unfold on its own terms. The make-believe's the point of the game. Not the dice rolling.
It's like the logic underlying the very core concepts of role playing games is completely reversed here.
I'd say the idea here is not so much to account for a random element, as to allow for the character's abilities/bonusses to be used rather than the players. 'If my character can do it, I can do it' doesn't let me play an expert diplomat, trap finder, or whatever, if I have no abilities in these directions. And even if I did know everything about portcullis repair, maybe the GM has no idea and we'd just end up having arguments anyway.
And lots of people do get fun out of rolling dice and getting high results.
Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;387598I'd say the idea here is not so much to account for a random element, as to allow for the character's abilities/bonusses to be used rather than the players. 'If my character can do it, I can do it' doesn't let me play an expert diplomat, trap finder, or whatever, if I have no abilities in these directions. And even if I did know everything about portcullis repair, maybe the GM has no idea and we'd just end up having arguments anyway.
And lots of people do get fun out of rolling dice and getting high results.
First, my first thought is that people, the players, are playing the game. Not the characters.
Second, the whole idea that players can't role play a diplomat or trap finder is a red herring to me. Nobody can be anyone else but themselves, but give the appearance of being someone else? Everyone can, to some degree. Nobody's asking a player role playing a diplomat to study international affairs and perform like a real diplomat at the game table. Instead of die rolls, you can just assume that characters succeed at certain tasks, or be more lenient with the reactions of NPCs, whatever the case may be. If anything, die rolls may come as often in the way of the game's believability as in the case they wouldn't be used.
Take for instance a player of a diplomat making a ridiculous joke about the punch tasting like ass during a state dinner. You could for instance assume that, as people know who the diplomat is and what his accomplishments are, they would just laugh quizzily at the joke, not really guessing what the character was getting at, with some NPC then moving on the conversation to something else. Or you roll the dice with the character's +28 in Diplomacy, and get a 40+ result indicating that the joke is really great and everyone's laughing at it! Sure, some people will be comfortable with that. I'm not. I prefer to use common sense and situational role playing for these sorts of things.
Just an example. My point is that rolling the dice to model the abilities of the character may create just as many problems for the game's believability as it solves them in practice. It does accomplish one thing pretty consistently, though: players looking at the dice instead of concentrating on the actual make believe.
Quote from: Benoist;387599First, my first thought is that people, the players, are playing the game. Not the characters.
.
Yeah, but if the point of the game is to play the character, then solving problems as the player rather than as the character misses the point.
Bah, it's complicated. At some level it is always the player who comes up with the plans and interprets the clues, and that is kind central to the roleplaying game experience. But if the problem solving doesn't end up reflecting that character, his abilities, strengths, weaknesses and attitudes then it's no longer a roleplaying game, it is just a simulation like the sort of excercise you get on training course ( you know the kind, "your plane crashes in a desert, this is the list of items you have, what do you do").
And I think there is a further angle to this issue. A problem that is solved (or not) without engaging the mechanics, that is to say through player-GM negotiation has a different feel from one that resolved mechanically through the character's skills and player's luck. It's hard to generalise on this because different players feel differently, but for better or worse mechanical resolutions tends to put success or failure more directly on the player's shoulders.
I've done 2 players in 4e, but I prefer 3 minimum for all RPGs. The encounter math divides fine, but roles/class choice really alters how the game plays.
Duo strikers are cool until somebody gets smacked.
Controllers are hard to use without a team to hold off the smackage. I was in a 3 player campaign with 2 Strikers + 1 Controller and having no healing was an issue, as was keeping heat off the Controller.
Also, if neither one is striker, the damage output drops notably making fights longer.
But you can always warp the math to match the needs of the game. Hack the HPs in half or more if you fear the encounter will take too long.
Quote from: Soylent Green;387601It's hard to generalise on this because different players feel differently
Absolutely. Whatever works at your game table, in the end. I guess that's the real bottom-line.
Quote from: FrankTrollman;387546In actual practice, the balanced party they recommend is fairly weak. A team of all or mostly strikers synergizes internally better than a mixed bag of strikers and defenders. A team of all defenders can make much the same claim actually. Most classes have a means of advancing towards victory that will eventually work on its own, so putting in another character of the same class is delightfully synergistic. A Paladin's greatest joy in life would be to be joined by four more paladins.
Yet another way in which 4e copies MMOG's. The most powerful parties are ones that have all Shamans/Druids/Paladins/Priests (WoW) Captains/Guardians/Champions/Hunters (LotRO) etc etc. A team of all one role can usually beat a diverse party in everything but PvP and even then it depends on the class.
Quote from: Benoist;387599First, my first thought is that people, the players, are playing the game. Not the characters.
Second, the whole idea that players can't role play a diplomat or trap finder is a red herring to me. Nobody can be anyone else but themselves, but give the appearance of being someone else? Everyone can, to some degree. Nobody's asking a player role playing a diplomat to study international affairs and perform like a real diplomat at the game table. Instead of die rolls, you can just assume that characters succeed at certain tasks, or be more lenient with the reactions of NPCs, whatever the case may be. If anything, die rolls may come as often in the way of the game's believability as in the case they wouldn't be used.
Take for instance a player of a diplomat making a ridiculous joke about the punch tasting like ass during a state dinner. You could for instance assume that, as people know who the diplomat is and what his accomplishments are, they would just laugh quizzily at the joke, not really guessing what the character was getting at, with some NPC then moving on the conversation to something else. Or you roll the dice with the character's +28 in Diplomacy, and get a 40+ result indicating that the joke is really great and everyone's laughing at it! Sure, some people will be comfortable with that. I'm not. I prefer to use common sense and situational role playing for these sorts of things.
Just an example. My point is that rolling the dice to model the abilities of the character may create just as many problems for the game's believability as it solves them in practice. It does accomplish one thing pretty consistently, though: players looking at the dice instead of concentrating on the actual make believe.
Sorry Benoist...I guess I read that you didn't like dice rolls and then assumed you didn't like having skills at all! Oops.
In practice I would only roll for stuff thats significant too - otherwise I'd assume they take 10 or whatever. In my games even for significant things, characters can certainly at least get a bonus for describing well what they're doing, and may be able to roleplay their way out of needing a check at all (particularly with diplomacy type stuff).
Back to the topic I would have thought using less monsters would be easy enough. You might be able to get away with using lower-level monsters if they have crappy defenses, maybe - depending on what sort of characters they have.
As far as characters go, you might want to encourage 'hybrids', so that the PCs have more diverse powers.
I run a D&D4 game with 1 player. He runs his main PC and during combat he controls an additional Henchman PC. Both are fighters. D&D4 allows this to be an effective group. The days of the mandatory Cleric/Medkit are thankfully gone.
I really don't do anything unusual. I just use the guidelines to build fights for 2 characters instead of 5. I use a few more minions and I try to lay off the Elites and Solos. I've started halving everything's HPs because I prefer fights to be quicker and it allows me to stack more baddies on the map without them always being minions.
I run the rest the same as I would run any other RPG. To me Skill Challenges are nothing more than "using skills creatively." They require no special note.
Quote from: Benoist;387591I don't understand how people find rolling dice for these sorts of things any fun. Honestly.
I'm probably not going to manage to say this politely, but -- why did you bother posting that? It's a thread where a guy asks for help running 4e. Everyone knows you don't like the game. What's the point of reiterating that dislike at every opportunity?
Quote from: Thanlis;387624I'm probably not going to manage to say this politely, but -- why did you bother posting that? It's a thread where a guy asks for help running 4e. Everyone knows you don't like the game. What's the point of reiterating that dislike at every opportunity?
Because I want to understand why it's so "fun" to you guys. I just don't get it.
Quote from: Benoist;387635Because I want to understand why it's so "fun" to you guys. I just don't get it.
It makes it feel like more of a "game" and less like silly storytelling? ;)
Quote from: Tommy Brownell;387636It makes it feel like more of a "game" and less like silly storytelling? ;)
It's no less storytelling. Although it does make it more like a game. It is in fact a mini-game. Which means it directly engages players with the offer of ...something (an unlocked room, treasure, access to another area they haven't reached yet) if they step right up and engage the mini-game. Although it's common to take skill challenges and put them in the plot and say "ok, now you have to do this skill challenge before you can go any further..", I think it's also cool if you have them as 'funhouse' type choices.
In the first Harry Potter book there's a series of rooms where they have to play music to put a guard dog to sleep, play a massive game of chess, and choose a key (well, I forgot, I remember the movie they changed it into a flying after keys scene that Harry had to do). Oh, and they also had to stun Neville and sneak under the invisibility cloak. It's a perfect example of a skill challenge.
The part that is being argued over is actually identical, except there's an impartial chance of failure if you have to roll for something. In one version, the players say "we attempt to roll the boulder over there towards the trap-plate.." and the DM says "sure", and in the other version the DM says "maybe and maybe not.. roll over a 21 athletics check.."
There's also less of a difference than you might think- there's tons of quasi-skill checks like this in older edition stuff, it just isn't tied to an established skill system. Sometimes it's an arbitrary "roll a 1 or 2 on a d6" or sometimes the DM might say "roll 5d6 under your stat" (or some other improvised solution).
3rd thing, in the skill challenge version, you don't have to ask for rolls either. You can still make everything conditional upon what players say (or any other condition) so long as the tasks are identifiable. If you create a fortress with wandering patrols, you might say each patrol represents a task and the PCs have to either kill, divert, or disperse 3 or 4 or 8 of the patrols before the villains do a certain thing. Or you might say they have to gather 6 ingredients to give to the NPC alchemist, or talk 4 criminals before the NPC crimeboss will give them an audience.. or any combination of anything else..without it even coming to skill checks.
I guess at the end of the day when you don't understand why someone else is having fun, you need to sorta accept that it's your own issue, and it doesn't really matter if you find it fun or not if you aren't playing anyway.
But that's all off topic. The real topic here is how to create encounters when you have fewer than a medium sized group.
I'm surprised nobody mentioned the companion character rules in DMG2.
Maybe I'm over simplifying things or I've just been at the game for to long. But whatever happened to a GM just designing encounters based around the players/characters at the table? Seriously. If you have a Priest and a Druid, design the game around that. Don't try and pigeon hole them into the game you want to play, that's no fun for anyone. Run a game that's appropriate to that group. If you really don't want to run that game and your heart is set on playing stock game X then make sure the players are aware of that and encourage them into picking characters that fit into that game. Perhaps a couple fighter types and give them a wand of heeling and a wand of knock to help them out in areas they can't inherently cover.
I just don't get it. It's not just this thread (though it does seem to creep more in D&D threads then others) but at what point did GM'ing stop being about using the rules to run your game and more about making your game bend into the rules. Seriously. GM=Game Master. Own it!
Quote from: Abyssal Maw;387642There's also less of a difference than you might think- there's tons of quasi-skill checks like this in older edition stuff, it just isn't tied to an established skill system. Sometimes it's an arbitrary "roll a 1 or 2 on a d6" or sometimes the DM might say "roll 5d6 under your stat" (or some other improvised solution).
Oh sure, I completely agree. I'm not somehow bitching at the fact of "rolling a die instead of role playing". I like to roll dice as much as the next guy, and somehow I just can't get hooked on diceless RPGs like Amber and such.
It's the systemization of it and the successive rolls until you hit the numbers of successes and failures indicated that annoy the heck out of me, i.e. the fact it's been made a rule, the sheer amount of die rolling going-on, and the reversed logic applied to them ("what do I role play next so the GM decides for me to roll the right skill?").
Quote from: Abyssal Maw;3876423rd thing, in the skill challenge version, you don't have to ask for rolls either. You can still make everything conditional upon what players say (or any other condition) so long as the tasks are identifiable. If you create a fortress with wandering patrols, you might say each patrol represents a task and the PCs have to either kill, divert, or disperse 3 or 4 or 8 of the patrols before the villains do a certain thing. Or you might say they have to gather 6 ingredients to give to the NPC alchemist, or talk 4 criminals before the NPC crimeboss will give them an audience.. or any combination of anything else..without it even coming to skill checks.
In which version, did you say? Where could I find it? So, just to make sure I understand: instead of a skill roll, you can basically decide on a set of conditions for success, and that could be ... anything of your choosing. Is that it? This sounds really, really much cooler already.
Quote from: Abyssal Maw;387642I guess at the end of the day when you don't understand why someone else is having fun, you need to sorta accept that it's your own issue, and it doesn't really matter if you find it fun or not if you aren't playing anyway.
Well, it sure doesn't matter to you, but that matters to me. It's a question of perspective. Besides, I disagree on the whole "giving up" thing. When you have an issue, and don't understand something, you need to say it, talk about it, and that's what I did.
Sorry for the derailment, in any case. I apologize to have pissed off Thanlis, or anyone else, for that matter.
Quote from: Benoist;387660Sorry for the derailment, in any case. I apologize to have pissed off Thanlis, or anyone else, for that matter.
For a 4e thread, this is the first one in a LONG time I haven't regretted posting in, for what it's worth...=P
I didn't think you were being argumentative or trollish or trying to piss anyone off, just trying to understand...=)
Quote from: Tommy Brownell;387675For a 4e thread, this is the first one in a LONG time I haven't regretted posting in, for what it's worth...=P
I didn't think you were being argumentative or trollish or trying to piss anyone off, just trying to understand...=)
Good. I'm really not trying to be a pain, here. :)
Quote from: Benoist;387676Good. I'm really not trying to be a pain, here. :)
No worries. :) Thanks for taking my question in the spirit it was intended in.
Quote from: Abyssal Maw;3876423rd thing, in the skill challenge version, you don't have to ask for rolls either. You can still make everything conditional upon what players say (or any other condition) so long as the tasks are identifiable. If you create a fortress with wandering patrols, you might say each patrol represents a task and the PCs have to either kill, divert, or disperse 3 or 4 or 8 of the patrols before the villains do a certain thing. Or you might say they have to gather 6 ingredients to give to the NPC alchemist, or talk 4 criminals before the NPC crimeboss will give them an audience.. or any combination of anything else..without it even coming to skill checks.
Just ringing the bell again on this point, because it's very interesting to me. I'd like AM, or anyone knowing what AM's talking about, to tell me where I can find this in 4e, that is, specific rules, guidelines, that explain how you might substitute any task or specific actions instead of skill rolls in a skill challenge.
Quid?
Quote from: Benoist;387731Just ringing the bell again on this point, because it's very interesting to me. I'd like AM, or anyone knowing what AM's talking about, to tell me where I can find this in 4e, that is, specific rules, guidelines, that explain how you might substitute any task or specific actions instead of skill rolls in a skill challenge.
Quid?
Well, I'm at work right now so I don't have the books or anything, but the real answer is "why couldn't you?"
Quote from: Abyssal Maw;387733Well, I'm at work right now so I don't have the books or anything, but the real answer is "why couldn't you?"
That's not what I'm asking though. Any Great GM can do anything with any game.
That's not what I'm asking. My question is whether the game indicates this black on white, on the written page.
Quote from: Benoist;387734That's not what I'm asking though. Any Great GM can do anything with any game.
That's not what I'm asking. My question is whether the game indicates this black on white, on the written page.
Anytime they say "six success before 3 failures", you have a lot of leeway in determining what a success is. Examples in a lot of the published materials include things that automatically earn a success, or even conditions that automatically earn a success (or a failure). So for example, if the characters have applied the ointment from Nalashtis Naturals in ADCP1-1, they don't have to roll an endurance check against the stinging insects in the swamp during the hunt skill challenge.
Handling skill checks by dice rolls is itself also optional. If a player makes an impassioned speech, the Dm never has to then force a diplomacy check (in fact the written advice is not to). When characters eat their rations, we don't roll for how many bites hit the characters mouth.
Quote from: Abyssal Maw;387737Anytime they say "six success before 3 failures", you have a lot of leeway in determining what a success is. Examples in a lot of the published materials include things that automatically earn a success, or even conditions that automatically earn a success (or a failure). So for example, if the characters have applied the ointment from Nalashtis Naturals in ADCP1-1, they don't have to roll an endurance check against the stinging insects in the swamp during the hunt skill challenge.
Handling skill checks by dice rolls is itself also optional. If a player makes an impassioned speech, the Dm never has to then force a diplomacy check (in fact the written advice is not to). When characters eat their rations, we don't roll for how many bites hit the characters mouth.
When you get back from work, I would appreciate if could you provide me with some examples from the rules, or some published modules, anything that supports that interpretation. No rush.
I understand what you're getting at, and indeed, I see no reason why you couldn't make the leap from interpreting a success/failure from a die roll to a specific roll-less action in the game. And that's very cool.
What I want to know is if there's any written, published material 4e GMs have access to that presents this interpretation to them, even as an option in game play, or a specific skill challenge in some adventure on DDI, anything.
Quote from: Benoist;387738When you get back from work, I would appreciate if could you provide me with some examples from the rules, or some published modules, anything that supports that interpretation. No rush.
I understand what you're getting at, and indeed, I see no reason why you couldn't make the leap from interpreting a success/failure from a die roll to a specific roll-less action in the game. And that's very cool.
What I want to know is if there's any written, published material 4e GMs have access to that presents this interpretation to them, even as an option in game play.
Well, I mentioned ADCP1-1 ("Jungle Hunt") off the top of my head. Thats a real example.
Quote from: Abyssal Maw;387740Well, I mentioned ADCP1-1 ("Jungle Hunt") off the top of my head. Thats a real example.
Oh sorry. I didn't notice that particular example. Where can I find it?
Got the file. I'm not finding the reference yet, though.
Quote from: Benoist;387742Got the file. I'm not finding the reference yet, though.
At the beginning of the adventure, there's a reception where the players have to get a sponsor for the hunt, and each sponsor provides something. (Naelishti's naturals provides insect repellent ointment).
Later on when they begin the hunt, there are parts of a skill challenge where if you have a certain item, you get an automatic success.
There are also auto-failures; an example from the DMG is trying to talk a Duke into helping the party against some goblins, and if you try to intimidate him, it is an auto-fail.
Interesting that "social" skill challenges such as attempts to sway someone to help you are dependent on the outcome of rolls (in the DMG, the examples given at least) rather than what the characters actually say. Or at least it comes across that way. I know, the DM can do whatever, etc. etc. I'm just talking about the book and what it says.
Quote from: Abyssal Maw;387745At the beginning of the adventure, there's a reception where the players have to get a sponsor for the hunt, and each sponsor provides something. (Naelishti's naturals provides insect repellent ointment).
Later on when they begin the hunt, there are parts of a skill challenge where if you have a certain item, you get an automatic success.
Ah. I see now. Thanks.
QuoteNaelishti's Naturals – This trading house specializes in the exportation of rare plants from Chult to the mainland that find use in poisons, perfumes, dyes, and medicines. They have been infiltrated by locals with a faint touch of yuan-ti blood, or they are taking advantage of locals with such blood – it’s hard to tell which, but regardless, they’re snaky. Their representative is a dusky-skinned, beautiful female shifter who moves with a sinuous grace.
House Naelishti offers a special salve, whose recipe is known only to them, that will help protect the adventurers from the hazards of the jungle environment, such as poisonous bites of jungle insects, venomous plants, and diseases. (The effects of this salve are accounted for as a benefit during one of the skill challenges.)
Sounds more like an exception to the way the skill challenge unfolds than a part of the skill challenge itself. You put the balm and basically
avoid a check later on in a skill challenge. If it was an actual skill challenge situation in which some actions/choices would be given to the PCs determining the outcome of a success or failure of the skill challenge, without any mention of dice in the outcome, I'd be more satisfied by the example. Nonetheless. It's there.
:hmm:
I just wish your interpretation of it would make it into a rulebook, or 5th edition, or Essentials, whatever. Then you'd need to stop calling them "skill challenges" at all, to call them "challenges", or maybe retain the name, but broadening its meaning to mean Character or Player or Both "skill", instead of what seems to be the default meaning of "(Character) Skill Challenge".
Quote from: Werekoala;387748There are also auto-failures; an example from the DMG is trying to talk a Duke into helping the party against some goblins, and if you try to intimidate him, it is an auto-fail.
Interesting that "social" skill challenges such as attempts to sway someone to help you are dependent on the outcome of rolls (in the DMG, the examples given at least) rather than what the characters actually say. Or at least it comes across that way. I know, the DM can do whatever, etc. etc. I'm just talking about the book and what it says.
Sometimes it really is less about what you say, and more about how you say it.
Quote from: Benoist;387787I just wish your interpretation of it would make it into a rulebook, or 5th edition, or Essentials, whatever. Then you'd need to stop calling them "skill challenges" at all, to call them "challenges", or maybe retain the name, but broadening its meaning to mean Character or Player or Both "skill", instead of what seems to be the default meaning of "(Character) Skill Challenge".
OK, now I looked it up. DMG 2, page 86. Allow Options Besides Skills.
QuoteGive some thought to thinks the characters might do aside from using skills -- and be ready when you run the skill challenge to account for the things players try that you could never have anticipated.
The rule of thumb is to treat it as a secondary skill, so it's not a full success but it perhaps mitigates a failure or provides a bonus. However, there are explicitly categories of actions which should be treated as a free success.
Quote from: Thanlis;387835OK, now I looked it up. DMG 2, page 86. Allow Options Besides Skills.
Ah now that's pretty cool. Thanks!
Any chance you could scan the page or something?
Yeah. I know... I'm asking too much, am I not? :o
Quote from: Werekoala;387582Yeah, I know these guys like the back of my hand - we've been gaming together for 25+ years (gah). so that's not the issue; I was primarily concerned about how to "mechanically" stat up the stuff for smaller groups since, as we all know, 4e is all about balanced encounters.
Okay. What are their characters like mechanically?
Seanchai
I ran a game for two players on Friday. We were supposed to have four, but two couldn't make it.
They created a two blade ranger and a druid. So that's a striker who has to get in close and a controller, who'll attack multiple foes from a distance.
They're 1st level. That matters. Their resources, particularly healing, will be limited.
Before selecting anything, I looked over their character sheets, noting their Hit Points, their average attack bonus, and the range of their defenses.
We created the game world, then I selected some foes that they might fight. (I was hoping there wouldn't be much fighting at all. I wanted some as this was the second time one of them had played 4e, but I knew a session full would kick their ass.)
I re-skinned two Fire Elementals, level 1 artillery, as "fire snakes" and selected a level 4 controller wizard type as the main bad guy of the fight.
I wanted multiple opponents so the druid could be more effective. I wanted some low level people that would fight close up, but not too many to overwhelm the ranger. I wanted someone standing in the back so at least part of the combat didn't involve melee.
I looked at the PC's numbers and juxtaposed them with the monsters' so that I didn't have monsters that would hit on a 5, for example, or that could take someone down with just a couple of hits.
We had two fights against these opponents. The first ended prematurely - as soon as the wizard appeared, using ritual to appear where her minions were searching, the PCs spoke with her and Bluffed her into thinking the object of her search was miles away. When she came back, we had a complete fight.
It went okay. At one point, I "fudged." I roll out in the open, so I can't fudge rolls. The druid had fallen and just had a Surge worth of HP on waking, with no way to gain more. The minion "fire snakes" were gone, but the wizard had almost all her HP. So I decided that the ritual she was using didn't allow her to change the locus of her magic - her "sending" was stuck in one square. Since she was using ranged spells, the ranger was able to get a couple of opportunity attacks on her. That helped even things out.
Interestingly enough, we played on Saturday in a group where only three of us showed up. I played a Gnome Bard, a leader, and we had a striker and a controller. We had two big fights (we're 15th level).
The first went well.
The second, which was sort of an impromptu fight, went poorly. The DM threw it together based on some decisions we made. The monsters - there were four: two big smashers, one controller type, and one I'm not too sure about - were overpowered for us.
It didn't help that I went down in the first round, without acting. As I was the healer of the group, that really hurt. I don't think the other players had potions. I wasn't able to use mine.
It would have been a TPK if we hadn't used some roleplaying/story elements.
Seanchai
Yeouch. Unless the encounter is WAY overpowered, I can't think of any reason in any edition of D&D (except save vs. death) where one shot should put a character down.
Quote from: Werekoala;388797Yeouch. Unless the encounter is WAY overpowered, I can't think of any reason in any edition of D&D (except save vs. death) where one shot should put a character down.
Well, that's kinda how it works in most editions of D&D. Even in 3.5- a standard orc with a greataxe that scores a critical hit is likely to kill anything 1st level he hits.
One monster in 3.5 that used to kill a lot of PCs in my campaigns was the Redcap- it had a surprise attack, and it was armed with a scythe and had a pretty bad-ass hit. The 3.5 crit system did xN damage on a crit, and with a scythe that was x4. Often enough, this was enough to take even a higher level PC down past -10 in one hit.
Well, maybe at 1st - this was his 15th level character, apparently.
I can see it happening at level 15, assuming poor initiative rolls on the player's part and good ones on the part of the monsters. It wouldn't be one shot, but four shots? Sure. And Seanchai said first round, not one shot. I wouldn't expect it to happen very often but I wouldn't be shocked to see it.
Quote from: Thanlis;388820I can see it happening at level 15, assuming poor initiative rolls on the player's part and good ones on the part of the monsters. It wouldn't be one shot, but four shots? Sure. And Seanchai said first round, not one shot. I wouldn't expect it to happen very often but I wouldn't be shocked to see it.
It could easily happen at any level: Several monsters making a full attack can take a PC down quickly.
In one of the final battles of my Charm campaign (this was D&D3.5) there was a battle where a Chichimec used Wail of the Banshee, killed two PCs, and then one got resurrected before the round was even over and then killed
again.
Quote from: Thanlis;388820And Seanchai said first round, not one shot.
Yep. It was multiple hits from a few different opponents (the big bruisers had three attacks a round, I think). Also, I play with a group that has a few system mastery people, so it's pretty tough. I made two mistakes: not Fading Away and not using my Cape of the Mountebank.
And, obviously, you can go down from one hit in all sorts of games and editions of D&D.
Seanchai
Quote from: Werekoala;388807Well, maybe at 1st - this was his 15th level character, apparently.
Yes, but 15th is just mid-level these days. Also, we were facing opposition designed for mid- to high-level characters.
Seanchai
Sorry, guess I misread the "round" not "hit" - my bad. I can definitely see a 1st-round takedown.
Quote from: Werekoala;389011Sorry, guess I misread the "round" not "hit" - my bad. I can definitely see a 1st-round takedown.
No worries! I've bounced off you a couple of times in the last pair of days, btw -- I'm sorry if I seem hostile or critical or anything. It's just random chance.
Nah, I just need to be a bit more careful with my replies I guess.
Quote from: Gabriel2;387611I run a D&D4 game with 1 player. He runs his main PC and during combat he controls an additional Henchman PC.
Same here, though not regularly (not by a long shot). I DMed a one on one for a guy once who wanted to try out 4E. He'd made a dwarven warlord for his own PC and then made up four further dwarven PCs as henchmen at the warlord's behest (mostly fighters IIRC). It was basically the party make up of The Hobbit, minus the hobbit and Gandalf, and it worked out beautifully, with the warlord ordering the other dwarves into formation etc.
I don't like one on one gaming at all generally, and I usually call off D&D sessions when it's less than 4 players (plus me, the DM), but for the occasional experience I'd totally go for 1-2 players if I were the OP. 4E is very friendly to that, since the classes don't work that differently - well, not those in PHB 1. I'd try to not jump on PHB 2 or PHB 3 classes straight away, as these tend to be a bit more special and complex (plus, requiring a tad more book keeping), which doesn't work out well when you got a player controlling multiple PCs.
Finally, you could also check out the henchmen rules in DMG 2 if you wanted to. Perhaps this has been pointed out in the last 5 pages, but I didn't bother to follow the discussion when it steered off topic.
Quote from: Werekoala;389016Nah, I just need to be a bit more careful with my replies I guess.
Nah. I have being less prickly written down as a 2010 goal on my notepad. ;)
Quote from: Werekoala;389011Sorry, guess I misread the "round" not "hit" - my bad. I can definitely see a 1st-round takedown.
It's cool. It was still an oh, crap moment. And put the group in a bad way.
Seanchai