suggestion on monster stats

[twilsemail]

Thanks.

I like those rules with the exception of the post in any order. It creates all kinds of problems like "I'm unconsious, the Cleric now gets to go before me instead of after me, so I never ever have to roll a death saving throw". This can throw entire rulesets out of the game system.

It's a sacrifice some people are willing to make to be sure that each combat encounter won't take a month or two. If everyone takes one day to make their post after their initiative order comes up it's the difference between a week and a day for a turn.

 

[KarinsDad]

Yea, it could happen that way sometimes, but it definitely doesn't happen all the time. I've seen quite a few death saving throws rolled while reading around the site.

Doing it any other way slows things way down in an already slow format, which is, I think, why most people opt to allow that rule. I personally wanted to go straight initiative for my game (because I have the time), but opted to continue with the block format because people are used to it and I don't really want one round to take two weeks if each person takes 48 hours to respond on their turn. I find that the more a game drags, the easier it is to lose interest in it.

I think this is a matter of the players. People who are really into the game will be checking the boards most of the time on a daily basis (or even more than once per day). People who are not into it as much won't.

I'm more concerned with things like "Stun, save ends" where the leader (or leaders, in two games of the three games I am in here, we have two leaders each) give an additional save, possibly with a bonus. In the core game, the stunned PC loses his turn. In the modified game, the stunned PC is often only prevented from doing Opportunity Attacks and still gets his actions in that round. It can really water down the NPCs abilities by doing it this way. Ditto for any effect that save ends and a leader hands out a free save.

In the core game, there is a possibility that the leader would go after the enemy that stunned the PC and could give the save anyway, but in the core game (at least those played by extremely savvy tactical players), players often delay so that the most of the PCs go in a group and most of the monsters go in a group anyway. The reason for this is due to the increased synergies when the PCs can focus fire and laying down of multiple effects (even simple things like flank) without any enemy intervention.

But, I can definitely see the time advantage. It just makes sense to only do this if you have a slow group and blow it off if you have a fast group.

 

[LadyLaw]

But, I can definitely see the time advantage. It just makes sense to only do this if you have a slow group and blow it off if you have a fast group.

I see what you're saying. However, you're supposed to lay down all the rules in the OP of the Adventure when it starts. It can be difficult to assess the fastness of the group before you even get going. Of course, you can always change things (goodness knows I've realized I have to add things I didn't think of originally), but it could get very confusing if you make too many changes, especially moving from one format to another. In the meantime, your faster players may have lost interest while waiting for your slower players. I'd really hate to feel someone was losing interest/had lost interest in my adventure. Hence, playing it safe.

Besides, I think this format allows for the use of more difficult, and potentially tactical (depending on the enemies) combat encounters. I've seen things done on this board no tabletop group I've ever played with could handle. It's been a real eye opener.

 

[KarinsDad]

Besides, I think this format allows for the use of more difficult, and potentially tactical (depending on the enemies) combat encounters. I've seen things done on this board no tabletop group I've ever played with could handle. It's been a real eye opener.

Such as?

 

[LadyLaw]

Such as Level +4 encounters. I've never played with a group that could handle that IRL. Maybe that's my loss, but it's still the truth of the situation in my experience.

 

[KarinsDad]

Such as Level +4 encounters. I've never played with a group that could handle that IRL. Maybe that's my loss, but it's still the truth of the situation in my experience.

Happens all of the time at our table games. In fact, it happens more than same level encounters at our games because same level encounters are so easy as to be almost boring.

But, higher level encounters are easier at higher levels than low levels. Starting at 4th level, it's not that hard. That's an extra 5 encounter powers per encounter for a 5 PC party over a level 2 party and at 5th level, 5 extra Daily powers as well. It might not seem like that's very potent, but it can be.

LEB also allows all WotC published material. So, that makes it even easier. Some table games don't allow that level of options. But, it would be just as easy there as here if a DM did allow it.

 

[LadyLaw]

Perhaps in your circles, but not in mine. Again, perhaps that's my loss, but it is my experience.

 

[evilbob]

KD, a lot of DMs add the specific rider (which is almost entirely spelled out in Mal's question section, actually) that anything that happens "until the end of your next turn" can only happen once for a given character (or twice for the current character if that character has actions left this turn). So no one would be able to take advantage of a daze twice just because they happened to post late one turn and early the next. I would think this takes care of the majority of the issues you brought up.

I will concur with LadyLaw that due to the nature of PbP, where most groups only have a few battles per day (over the course of weeks or months), the tactical nature of the game is changed slightly from your standard table rules: but ultimately it's not broken. PCs are given much harder battles, but much more time to plan and consider their move - and going as a group allows for more synergy as well. This definitely helps them deal with tougher encounters. However, the enemies get the same advantage, and by acting as a group they can also turn the tide of battle quickly.

Personally I like it; it encourages more tactical play (which I am a fan of, obviously) and it makes the battles more "swingy" than they normally are in 4.0 (but not as swingy as 3.5), which makes them more exciting to me. Also, I will say that my experiences with "home games" as you might call them are closer to LadyLaw's example: n+4 battles are quite difficult, especially if everyone isn't highly optimized (which has not been the case for my group). Needing a 15 or higher to hit makes it really hard to do anything.

 

[KarinsDad]

KD, a lot of DMs add the specific rider (which is almost entirely spelled out in Mal's question section, actually) that anything that happens "until the end of your next turn" can only happen once for a given character (or twice for the current character if that character has actions left this turn). So no one would be able to take advantage of a daze twice just because they happened to post late one turn and early the next. I would think this takes care of the majority of the issues you brought up.

But what he doesn't really take into account is stun or unconsciousness. So, I decided to use Mal's rules in my MMF part 2 game, but I modified them with 2 rules: stun or unconscious disabled PCs go first at the start of the PC's portion of initiative, and the DM rolls opportunity attacks for PCs during the NPCs' turn. The reason for this is that PCs would rarely be stunned for a round or have to make a death saving throw if a Leader can just use a power to prevent it (especially unconscious, heals are a dime a dozen). There should be the consequence of losing a round of actions for being stunned or for being knocked unconscious.

I will concur with LadyLaw that due to the nature of PbP, where most groups only have a few battles per day (over the course of weeks or months), the tactical nature of the game is changed slightly from your standard table rules: but ultimately it's not broken. PCs are given much harder battles, but much more time to plan and consider their move - and going as a group allows for more synergy as well. This definitely helps them deal with tougher encounters. However, the enemies get the same advantage, and by acting as a group they can also turn the tide of battle quickly.

Personally I like it; it encourages more tactical play (which I am a fan of, obviously) and it makes the battles more "swingy" than they normally are in 4.0 (but not as swingy as 3.5), which makes them more exciting to me. Also, I will say that my experiences with "home games" as you might call them are closer to LadyLaw's example: n+4 battles are quite difficult, especially if everyone isn't highly optimized (which has not been the case for my group). Needing a 15 or higher to hit makes it really hard to do anything.

It really depends on your players. I have several tactically strong players with really well designed PCs at my table, so it is fairly easy for them to take on tougher foes. These players also help the less tactically strong players by suggesting feats and powers and tactics out of game so that their PCs get stronger. In fact, I have a house rule where the monsters do more damage (1 extra die at Paragon, and 2 extra dice at Epic) and the PCs still kick butt on higher level encounters.

I will admit that the DM tends to make fewer tactical mistakes in PBP than at a table. At a table, the DM has to juggle a lot of things. In PBP, I easily spend an hour or more for each round, double checking PC powers to ensure that they are used correctly, having the monsters make good tactical decisions, drawing the map, etc. So I do think that PBP is a little bit more challenging because the DM is more focused, but not a lot.

 

[evilbob]

Yeah, I'd say your two addendums are good ones. In particular, the DM definitely needs to roll OAs for players on the enemies' turn: that's just begging for a slowdown if you don't.