Issues with Adjucating Stunts


4th Edition


When I'm DMing I don't really face any problems because my newbs are not really able to break any part of the game and I find myself subtly encouraging them to use stunts.

The real problem that has come up recently in the game I am a player in. Here we have a mix of players - some of which are pretty heavy optimizers, others not so much. At lower levels the DM seemed to encourage stunts but he is heavily toning back on that.

The main issue would seem to be the Charging Thief. The problem is that the only real weakness of the Charging Thief is that it is sometimes difficult to handle enemies that are flying or have tactically difficult to reach positions. However the nature of a Charging Thief is such that it comes with acrobatics more or less maxed out. Thus what we have begun to see as we move toward mid paragon is a situation where, if we are engaged with a Dragon say, the Charging Thief will counter the dragons advantage by readying an action to charge and then wait for the dragon to come flying into range. She then runs up convenient wall (or ship masts etc.) and uses a stunt to push off from the wall and fling herself across to the dragon, stab it and then fall, using acrobatics to make any falling damage pretty trivial. I believe there is a magic item involved that gives the Charging Thief a climb speed which is how she gets part way up the walls so easily.

Of course at this point what we are really seeing is not exactly a stunt any more...if this is how you handle everything that flies then your not exactly using a stunt any more - if we define a stunt as an improvised manoeuvre then having it become routine makes it not really a stunt. Its no longer an ad hoc action hero move but something more common. Maybe none to surprisingly the DM is coming down with heavy restrictions on such routine use of stunts to negate flying opponents.

If the Charging Thief were the only character effected everything might end right there...but the group also has a very manoeuvrable monk who's schtick seems to be to do cool stuff, because the character is not particularly optimized his stunts where never a problem...but, with the DM laying down the law he has become one frustrated gamer since, for him, all of a sudden the game hates his character and he can't seem to do what he historically could.

I'm curious how other 4E DMs handle stunts in general and how you might deal with this issue in particular. I did a search over on the WotC site but stunts don't seem to have gotten much discussion and I have not really seen anything that insightful regarding this issue.


Jeremy Mac Donald wrote:
I'm curious how other 4E DMs handle stunts in general and how you might deal with this issue in particular. I did a search over on the WotC site but stunts don't seem to have gotten much discussion and I have not really seen anything that insightful regarding this issue.

I let the players have their fun with stunts.

After the first such attack, the dragon or any half-way intelligent beast will adapt their tactics to account for this threat. Additionally, the thief 'falling/jumping' out of a threatened square will get an opportunity attack, and if hit, put a large penalty on their acrobatics check, or even make them simply fall without a possibility to reduce the damage.

Also, if the flying monster realizes the danger from the acrobats, it might concentrate on them. Being strikers, they will run into troubles quickly....


I have never played with stunts, but from what I have read, you could add a couple things like adding the move the character makes are part of the stunt to the falling damage (add an average of 30 feet to the fall). Another is to treat the character as a clumsy flier and add a -4 to their attack roll. And finally, the core issue may be one of scale, where you may have to implement a system that considers maxed out skills in comparison to a monster and increase the skill DC, or change it to an opposed DC check. For ship battles I always add in the movement of the ship for every round, so you may end up next to the Dragon if you use a wait maneuver.


Malaclypse wrote:


I let the players have their fun with stunts.

After the first such attack, the dragon or any half-way intelligent beast will adapt their tactics to account for this threat. Additionally, the thief 'falling/jumping' out of a threatened square will get an opportunity attack, and if hit, put a large penalty on their acrobatics check, or even make them simply fall without a possibility to reduce the damage.

Also, if the flying monster realizes the danger from the acrobats, it might concentrate on them. Being strikers, they will run into troubles quickly....

Not sure how easy it is for the DM to adapt. That Charging Thief can get some pretty good distance with this stunt, 4 or 5 squares for sure and most flying monsters need to get within that bubble to attack. Now the DM could certianly find monsters that don't have this weakness...but he would punish most of the party, not just the Charging Thief with this tactic. It'd probably get to boring to do very often as the Paladin would mark the attackers and they would have to focus on him - it'd come down to whether they could kill the paladin with phenomenal defences and my clerics healing to bolster him before our wizard manages to kill them.

Interestingly enough falling does not provoke opportunity attacks (Rules Compendium p. 209). focusing of the Charging Thief, presuming that the Paladin does not have a lock on the creature, is also not especially effective. My cleric would just heal her and her defences are actually about middle of the road in this party, better then my cleric or the wizard but not as good as the Paladin or Monk. That said the DM does tend to concentrate on her - I just think he is making a mistake from a meta game perspective and he'd hurt our party more by focusing on my healer or the wizard.


Uchawi wrote:
I have never played with stunts, but from what I have read, you could add a couple things like adding the move the character makes are part of the stunt to the falling damage (add an average of 30 feet to the fall). Another is to treat the character as a clumsy flier and add a -4 to their attack roll. And finally, the core issue may be one of scale, where you may have to implement a system that considers maxed out skills in comparison to a monster and increase the skill DC, or change it to an opposed DC check. For ship battles I always add in the movement of the ship for every round, so you may end up next to the Dragon if you use a wait maneuver.

Something like this is what our DM has been doing. He's actually throwing in Acrobatics checks on a Hard DC multiple times (on the leap from the wall, to actually make the attack etc.). The problem with this has been that, while it discourages the Charging Thief, it also shuts down the monk player and it makes it so that none of the other players would ever dream of doing a stunt. In many ways I'd rather the DM just outright said 'stunts are not allowed in my game' instead of making it hard enough to pull them off that only the Charging Thief has any reasonable chance at all.


I would make a distinction between performing a stunt in a static environment, versus one used against a creature. The former can be addressed by a set DC, while the other has to consider the creature, and this would scale as they become more difficult. I would also add the clumsy flight modifier while engaging creatures in flight.

Once in a while I would present a weakness the characters could exploit. In certain situations, I would allow character to substitute skills, like using dungeoneering or athletics underground.

In regards to the characters, they must choose the skills they are good at, and in these situations, the optimizers will have the edge. If the monk character is having problems, then I would make suggestions as a DM on how to improve the characters situation and let them make adjustments.


Jeremy Mac Donald wrote:
Interestingly enough falling does not provoke opportunity attacks (Rules Compendium p. 209). focusing of the Charging Thief, presuming that the Paladin does not have a lock on the creature, is also not especially effective

Didn't know about falling not provoking, but I guess it's a border case, since if he manages to attack, it's not 'simple' falling.

Another strategy: Let the artillery ready a turn for when the thief is in the air and strike him with ranged attacks. Especially with are push or slide effects.

But all tries to use 'mechanical' fixes don't really solve the problem. The DM should just talk to the player, explain to him that abuse of rule loopholes are not OK in TTRPGs and that the DM explicitly has the power to ban or change rules he doesn't like. Because the problem is not the stunt, but the constant abuse. This is not a computer game where you should press like X TRIANGLE X X SQUARE and repeat that until the monster is dead.


Jeremy Mac Donald wrote:
Of course at this point what we are really seeing is not exactly a stunt any more...if this is how you handle everything that flies then your not exactly using a stunt any more - if we define a stunt as an improvised manoeuvre then having it become routine makes it not really a stunt. Its no longer an ad hoc action hero move but something more common. Maybe none to surprisingly the DM is coming down with heavy restrictions on such routine use of stunts to negate flying opponents.

One thing to keep in mind, here, is that this is an area where PCs have invested some resources in being good at this sort of thing, and so adding the stunt is really only icing on the cake. There are plenty of other things that could instead cause similar difficulties for flyers - attacks that knock prone, spells that give PCs flight, etc. Would the DM have a problem if the thief, rather than worrying about stunts, just waited for the dragon to get close and then simply used ranged attacks?

It is a tough question, though - how to make sure the stunts don't just feel mundane.

I'd say the answer for the DM is to up the stakes, rather than just shut down the stunts themselves. For example: "Just so you know, if you are jumping off this mast to try and take a swing at the dragon, you're not going to get a solid hit on it by just swiping at it on the way down. If you want to take a proper attack, you'll need to make the difficult Acrobatics check to land on the dragon..."

If the thief wants to go for the easier acrobatics check, they might be able to take an attack on the dragon - but an unbalanced one as they fall, which might mean penalties, no combat advantage, etc.

If they want the full deal- which, being a thief, they probably do - they need to try for the Hard DC. Make sure the DM is using the updated skill DCs, and remember that it can be based on the level of the challenge rather than the level of the PCs. Trying to jump onto the back of a level 19 dragon is DC 33, for example. A level 16 thief is probably good at acrobatics - but even if they are in the mid 20s, they aren't necessarily guaranteed success.

Now, it's possible that they are really tricked out. Not just maxed Dex and training (which would give them +20), but also skill focus, a background in acrobatics, plus some magic items that give a bonus or a benefit, and maybe that DC 33 is also trivial. At that point, I'm not sure what a good answer is - reward them for their investment, or try and find a way around it.

Again, it comes back to raising the stakes. Success lands them on top of the dragon where they can now attack. But being on top of an angry dragon can be dangerous in its own right - maybe the dragon just flies off to fight them on its own!


Jeremy Mac Donald wrote:
Something like this is what our DM has been doing. He's actually throwing in Acrobatics checks on a Hard DC multiple times (on the leap from the wall, to actually make the attack etc.). The problem with this has been that, while it discourages the Charging Thief, it also shuts down the monk player and it makes it so that none of the other players would ever dream of doing a stunt. In many ways I'd rather the DM just outright said 'stunts are not allowed in my game' instead of making it hard enough to pull them off that only the Charging Thief has any reasonable chance at all.

One option here would be to have some modifiers based on what the PCs want to get out of it.

Want to jump off the wall and swing at the dragon? Medium DC. But you don't count as charging, and can't get combat advantage.

Want to get one of those? Jump up to a Hard DC.

Want to get both? The DC goes up by another 5.

Now I admit - this is somewhat specifically targeted at the thief, who cares about both charging and combat advantage. But it also makes sense - there is a difference in trying to leap out and land a hit on the dragon, vs trying to leap at it and manage to get in range of a vital spot, vs hurling yourself directly at it in a way that the momentum triggers your various charging-based benefits.


Matthew Koelbl wrote:
One option here would be to have some modifiers based on what the PCs want to get out of it.

I like this, although I'd prolly go with a sliding scale of success right off the bat, rather than making them define it ahead of time.

Example:
We'll assume moderate DC of 15 hard is 20.
Player: "I want to [describes usual schtick of jump charge, etc.]
DM: "Okay, that sounds like an Acrobatics check, yeah?"
Player: "Sounds good. I got a 22."
DM: "[counter description] You've managed to not only get in range for a hit, but (DM's call) built up enough momentum that you can consider this a charge/got into a position to catch it off guard, but not both."

You may also want to check the DCs and alter them depending on the distance, etc. Even base success may start out at "hard" difficulty, with everything else going up from there.

Even so, you may want to take some care--flying critters vs. earthbound players who are melee focused aren't always a lot of fun. "I stand around with my thumb up my posterior because this encounter design means I genuinely cannot do anything in this situation," isn't exactly a rewarding thing to hear from players, or to have to say as one.


Malaclypse wrote:


Didn't know about falling not provoking, but I guess it's a border case, since if he manages to attack, it's not 'simple' falling.

I agree that the point of the rule was to indicate that you did not Opportunity Attacks against people while they where on the way down. I personally might choose that this does not friggen apply when your jumping AT the friggen Dragon.

Malaclypse wrote:


But all tries to use 'mechanical' fixes don't really solve the problem. The DM should just talk to the player, explain to him that abuse of rule loopholes are not OK in TTRPGs and that the DM explicitly has the power to ban or change rules he doesn't like. Because the problem is not the stunt, but the constant abuse. This is not a computer game where you should press like X TRIANGLE X X SQUARE and repeat that until the monster is dead.

I tend to agree with this. Thinking about it I might at least try something like a 'Pyramid of Cool'. Closer to the base you are the less cool it is and the less likely you are to succeed. More or less the first person to do a cool stunt in a combat gets it and I even throw in a bonus, second person gets it at base and it just gets harder and harder from there on up.

This, somewhat, translates into mechanics the effect I'm trying to get from stunts - definitely use them but within reason.

However I keep tripping over issues even with this idea - if its a fight in a bar then I actually want to see a lot more stunts then (rather paradoxically) the epic battle with the big bad villain at the end of the Heroic Tier.

In the bar fight scene the stunts of tankards flying about and players leaping over counter tops is, to a large extent, the whole point of the fight. What your fighting ought to be interesting and all but in this instance its actually the scenery (and its destruction) that makes the scene exciting and memorable.

In the epic battle between the hero's and the BBEG of an entire tier a few heroic stunts adds to the atmosphere but to many detract from it. This scene is about what the hero's can do...what they have become...and how that impacts on their showdown with some major villain that has been behind everything for the last three adventure. Here we are showcasing character growth and stunts don't really do that (newly minted Skill Focus in Acrobatics being the exception here).

Hence I have a kernel of an idea here but have yet to shake all the bugs loose.


Uchawi wrote:


In regards to the characters, they must choose the skills they are good at, and in these situations, the optimizers will have the edge. If the monk character is having problems, then I would make suggestions as a DM on how to improve the characters situation and let them make adjustments.

The monk's basically fine, 3 of the 5 players line up perfectly with him. Its the two powergamers that are knocking this about and one of those (the paladin) is not so bad...

Only the Charging Thief really seems to draw ire. Really the rule should be if your going to power game your not allowed to be a striker. Striker is a selfish role. People will complain a lot less if you make the most tricked out warlord ever...I mean no player minds it if the munchkin creates the busted 'make my friends get rerolls' build.


Jeremy Mac Donald wrote:
Thinking about it I might at least try something like a 'Pyramid of Cool'. Closer to the base you are the less cool it is and the less likely you are to succeed. More or less the first person to do a cool stunt in a combat gets it and I even throw in a bonus, second person gets it at base and it just gets harder and harder from there on up.

I like this. Feng Shui (the old TTRPG version of the Shadowfist CCG) actually incorporated something like this into its base system.

Jeremy Mac Donald wrote:
However I keep tripping over issues even with this idea - if its a fight in a bar then I actually want to see a lot more stunts then (rather paradoxically) the epic battle with the big bad villain at the end of the Heroic Tier.

I see where you're coming from, and I think I've got a better handle on how this is(n't) working out for your group.

The general problem is that there's lots of ways many systems adjudicate DMs being fair to the players. All rules should apply equally, advice on treating each player fairly, etc.

In comparison, you don't always see a lot of systems encourage Players to treat DMs (or each other) fairly. 4e has made some strides in this regard, but there doesn't seem to be the same stigma attached to the "powergamer" who goes out of their way to sodomize the system in order to monopolize the spotlight--and even when a DM applies rules unevenly in an effort to actually correct this, it's usually viewed as poor form, while most people won't bat an eyelash at things like super-mega-optimized Acrobatics for the sole purpose of abusing stunts.

I think step 1 is really to pull your Thief player to the side and speak with them gently, but directly about what's happening, why it's happening, and why it needs to stop happening. In most cases this is enough, and then you can move on to mechanical applications.

Step 2: Remind your players that they have a lot of freedom of description when it comes to things like how their powers resolve. Take a peek at your player's powers and abilities and see if there isn't something similar to what they want to do that's actually already on their character sheet or is available to their class but they just didn't choose it. For monks especially, there's a lot to do--I had one that spent an entire fight bashing things with a tankard or bouncing it off their heads (by flavor) that was pretty much nothing other than his standard powers.

Step 3: Assume all "boss fights" have "stunt resistance." These are usually well-trained or at least exceptionally powerful foes, and they learn quickly. Allow one stunt per player--if that, and from then on, all stunts provoke Opportunity Actions, whether they normally would or not. I know you may be resistant to the idea of different rules for solos/elites, but it seems to be the most expedient application in this instance, IMO.

That allows all your players to go have fun and be crazy on other fights, and do whatever sort of cool mischief they can imagine when tearing up a bar or dealing with Random Group of Thugs #8, but reigns them in a bit when it comes down to pounding the stuffing out of Lord Fontleroy IIX the Terrible.


RedJack wrote:
Step 3: Assume all "boss fights" have "stunt resistance."

Or, possibly, use stunts themselves.

Admittedly, this is an even trickier area - a stunt in the hands of the DM is basically just DM fiat, and needs to be handled carefully to not feel like the DM is just making stuff up so that he can win the encounter. (He's just making stuff up so that the encounter is fun, you see.)

But if you can handle it smoothly, it both keeps players on their toes, keeps the intensity up, and lets you react to developments like players negating flying by climbing up the ship's masts. (Ok, you spend your turn climbing the mast, and when the dragon gets close, you jump off and stab the dragon on the way down. Instead of attacking you, he changes direction and with a mighty slap of his tail, sends the ship mast crashing down towards you..."

And sticking with the stunt DCs/damages for these NPC stunts keeps the players feeling like there is no unfair advantage at hand. All you are really doing, basically, is creating terrain effects on the fly. (So to speak.)


Matthew Koelbl wrote:


One thing to keep in mind, here, is that this is an area where PCs have invested some resources in being good at this sort of thing, and so adding the stunt is really only icing on the cake. There are plenty of other things that could instead cause similar difficulties for flyers - attacks that knock prone, spells that give PCs flight, etc. Would the DM have a problem if the thief, rather than worrying about stunts, just waited for the dragon to get close and then simply used ranged attacks?

Not as much I don't think. Mainly because the range specialist would really have put resources into doing their thing. The issue with a Charging Thief is that its phenominal stunt ability comes free with the build and using it with stunts means getting around on of the the builds main weakness' (though I noticed that monsters with a really nasty aura where actually probably a much bigger weakness for the Charging Thief).

Matthew Koelbl wrote:


It is a tough question, though - how to make sure the stunts don't just feel mundane.

I'd say the answer for the DM is to up the stakes, rather than just shut down the stunts themselves. For example: "Just so you know, if you are jumping off this mast to try and take a swing at the dragon, you're not going to get a solid hit on it by just swiping at it on the way down. If you want to take a proper attack, you'll need to make the difficult Acrobatics check to land on the dragon..."

The problem with upping the stakes remains that it really just discourages most people from doing their stunts while keeping it a viable option for the handful of players that have dex (or occasionally strength) maxed out.

Landing on the Dragon is an interesting side element here as well. The Charging Thief did almost immediately declare that jumping on the dragon was her initial plan...the DM pretty much flat out forbid it. I kind of empathize with him because what the heck are the rules for adjudicating that. That said I don't, in the end, agree. He should have just made up rules, athletics check to hold on at the end of the dragons turn (sort of a variant on the dragon having 9save ends to get rid of the Thief) might work and even if not I generally feel that fumbling about with the rules in a cool scene is better then avoiding the scene because there is no rules support. It also dawns on me that the Charging Thief would actually have been less effective...she can't charge the dragon if she is on its back after all.

Matthew Koelbl wrote:


Now, it's possible that they are really tricked out. Not just maxed Dex and training (which would give them +20), but also skill focus, a background in acrobatics, plus some magic items that give a bonus or a benefit, and maybe that DC 33 is also trivial. At that point, I'm not sure what a good answer is - reward them for their investment, or try and find a way around it.

No idea what are DM would do in this circumstance...personally I'd have a lot less problem with doing amazing stunts, even repetitive ones, if a player worked to pull it off however. I mean not ideal to get routine stunts but the actual element of putting character resources into it dampens my complaints significantly.


RedJack wrote:


Even so, you may want to take some care--flying critters vs. earthbound players who are melee focused aren't always a lot of fun. "I stand around with my thumb up my posterior because this encounter design means I genuinely cannot do anything in this situation," isn't exactly a rewarding thing to hear from players, or to have to say as one.

Another side issue but I always wonder what to do about encounters like this. If the party eschews range combat should the DM really play along by making it less a part of the game? It seems like its both rewarding bad party design on the players end and also behaving somewhat inauthentically in that the villains suddenly changing their tactics so as to behave differently depending on the players. When I learned to DM in 1st you just would never do that and I carried that style with me with each subsequent edition. On the other hand I do agree that adhering to this to strictly turns into boring combats and no one wants that so its not an issue with easy answers. All that said my experience has been its mostly a hypothetical problem because almost all adventures go with variety and it may be annoying for a player to have to stand around with their thumb stuck up their derriere but its also meant to present the players with diverse challenges. One of the issues I have noticed with this in regards to 4E more then previous editions is that 4E tends to really encouraged focused builds. Once you design your character for melee or ranged your sacrificing a fair bit to throw in powers that work at ranged and its harder to pull off - you either end up in a combat at ranged where you can use this one power and then its back to having your thumb in your behind or you have this dud power when your character is working properly and your stuck in.

My cleric actually tries to split the difference - I built a cleric that has about 50% of his powers at range and 50% close in and I face this issue a lot, now most combats half my powers are not really applicable to the situation I am in, worse yet having to split my stats up so that I was reasonable at both means that my attack bonus is less in both, I'm straight out less effective in either of my roles because I've not got nearly as good a to hit bonus as I could have had.


I don't know if it encourages focus. I think it's more of a carry over of players from previous editions.

On (over)specialization.:
Take for instance two sample players at my table. We'll call one Jody, and the other my wife.

Jody has been table-top gaming for quite a while. They've played a variety of RPGs, but they cut their teeth on 3e and 3.5. When they build a character it's not unheard of for that character to wind up with something obscene like a +12-14 in a skill they find important at 1st level. There's no real need for this, and I've explained to them on multiple occasions that just means I am generally just going to assign a success on that skill if it's appropriate, but there will be a lot of occasions where it won't be. I've also explained that, in many cases, they'd actually get more benefit from diversity, but this is what they do, and they do very much kick ass at any chance to use that skill, but frequently suck in a wide variety of other situations. When they pick exploits/spells/whatever, they frequently find one aspect of combat and own it. Again, they're great at one thing, awful at anything else.

My wife has sat at the table for a game exactly 4 times. I've helped her build every character, (mostly math and "this goes here" or "choose two of these") but she is learning to do a lot on her own. 4th edition (and 4e compatible Amethyst--seriously, you should check it out) is quite literally the first and only TTRPG she has ever looked at or played, and while I've given her a pointer here or there, she generally makes her own decisions. Her first character was a druid with a good selection of both beasty powers and sorcerous ones, her next was an Amethyst character which primarily is built for range (but as it's modern style, nearly everything is) but she picked up a couple of pistols to use in close quarters because she realized that might come up. Next was a druid/rogue hybrid with an excellent mix, and finally an Invoker that still packs a whallop up close. When it comes to skills, she rarely has a bonus over 6 or 7 starting out, and usually uses training to even out low abilities so she's always pretty useful--and she is! Her characters work well for her and the party, and although she's still learning and occasionally needs help making a decision on what to do in combat, she's never had a situation where she had no options other than "wait." She understands that overspecialization is a bad thing. She's got no real outside influences, (I don't discus game theory with her, it bores the hell out of her) no previous edition baggage, and her characters are pretty damned varied and awesome.

Jody, on the other hand, has had more than one game where they wanted to keep rolling their +12(or more...) skill for every single problem that came up, (and when it was appropriate or they could even begin to justify it, I certainly let them, but it generally wasn't "The inn is on fire!" "I got a 34 on stealth!" "Okay, you are masterfully hidden among the billowing smoke... just like everyone else who's not even trying, but better. By the way, the inn is still burning down with you in it.") and pouted when it wasn't the answer to every problem. There have been a few times when they wanted to use X power and focused on doing X to the point of choosing to stand around on purpose waiting for an opening just in case, when they could have easily done Y or Z that was available to them. In 3.5 Jody mostly stayed away from spellcasters and played a lot of rogues and occasionally a ranger. They learned pretty quick that in that game if you want to not suck, then you must not only specialize, but overspecialize. If you want to be good at a skill, you sink every resource you can into it, or you suck. If you want to be good at combat, you plan ahead, pre-build everything, and sink every available resource into combat.

I'm pretty lucky to have a good mix of "old hats" and new players at my table. Some folks haven't played any RPGs at all, or haven't played in a very long time, and we've got one fellow who's played more game systems than I've likely even seen--no mean feat. I see a lot less "overspecialization" out of the folks who are having either their first gaming session with 4e or haven't gamed in so long that they have no influences to remember, or have even played so many different systems that they've learned not to make any assumptions about 4e based on how 3e was played, than I do out of the players who've spent a lot of time playing 3.X and similar systems.

As for the problems with melee specialists, flying critters, variety in general, etc...

I know where you're coming from on the AD&D and design & GM habits standpoint. I didn't DM 'til about midway through 2nd (I think we were playing a lot of Palladium Fantasy as well) and it's been hard for me to compromise on a lot of things that I picked up in the last 20+ years.

But there's a couple of things I try to keep in mind:

  • Players build the character they want to build. They build melee specialists because they want to get in there and mix it up.
  • Unfortunately, range is one of those things that's still a kind of rock/papal/scissors mechanic. (Pope wins!) A flying critter versus a mostly ranged party isn't much of a concern, but a melee based critter is easily handled by them as well, as long as they do a good job of locking it down and staying away, which most can do with ease. Melee characters, on the other hand, distinctly have problems with flyers, and when faced with melee critters they're no more or less effective than usual. A melee based striker/controller/leader is in no less poop when the critters want to eat them than a ranged one in a similar situation.
  • "Bad party design" is preferable to "unfun party design." Yeah, someone still needs to heal, but healing is fun in 4th, and doesn't preclude the player from doing other neat things. Defenders also seem to be pretty appealing, thankfully. Still, I'd rather have my players show up with a 'screwy' character design than feel like they need to be 'stuck' playing a character they don't want to. Because it makes what I consider to be my job harder.
  • My job is to have fun while everyone else does. If part of that is varied encounter design, so be it, but there are ways to provide variety beyond adding flying creatures that half the party can't do anything about. I'd rather provide encounters where everyone gets a chance to participate AND are varied, than have variety by excluding players.
  • Encounter design in 4e isn't just about the critters. It's about the battlefield. Play with a few players who are crazy good with a Wizard and you'll see how quickly this becomes apparent. It's easy enough to assume that skilled warriors (of whatever discipline) like the party can choose terrain that is exploitable for their fights when they can--such as the ruins of a nearby building with some standing staircases and choke points when dealing with big ol' flying lizards. They won't always have a choice, but you can give them an advantage anyhow. ;) Fight enough and you get paranoid. The first instinct when you enter a room becomes to consider defensible positions, methods of egress, etc. It's not too surprising that characters would choose somewhat defensible locales even when not genuinely expecting an attack, and instinctively avoid easy ambush sites.

I really do see where you're coming from on this, and I'm not advocating making everything super-easy, or cater to every whim. Most players won't have fun with that either. But perhaps focusing less on how characters are "badly designed" and more on how they're designed for the type of fun your players want to have could be more productive...

As they apply to the specific players:
Our charging thief is obviously exploiting the rules a bit. This is less of a systemic problem in this case, and more of a player problem. I think discussing it with them is going to be your more likely option for resolution--as a player in that game you don't have the "authority" of a DM, but that can work in your favor. Just approaching them like another concerned individual and explaining how it's hampering your fun as well as causing problems for the monk player will hopefully go a long way.

As for "Jody," I've spoken with them about it as much as I think would do any good. My final solution was to work out things for them to do that would suit the characters they build, and cater to them a little. They have fun building super-specialists, and I've found a way to have fun letting them. Every challenge can't be solved by Stealth (or whatever their favorite skill is for that character) but I try to give them at least one chance to do something neat with it, or place in an option that is so difficult that they have a chance to fail where no one else could possibly succeed. If they succeed, it's phenomenal, if they fail, it's awful, but I do my best to balance out their contributions so that it's on par with the players who don't take specialization to such absurd extremes.

It's a little extra work, sure, but as little work as I normally have to put into mechanics already--which lets me spend a lot more time on the really nifty stuff like story and art--I figure I can spare a few extra minutes to keep Jody in the game and smiling.


RedJack wrote:
Unfortunately, range is one of those things that's still a kind of rock/papal/scissors mechanic. (Pope wins!) A flying critter versus a mostly ranged party isn't much of a concern, but a melee based critter is easily handled by them as well, as long as they do a good job of locking it down and staying away, which most can do with ease. Melee characters, on the other hand, distinctly have problems with flyers, and when faced with melee critters they're no more or less effective than usual. A melee based striker/controller/leader is in no less poop when the critters want to eat them than a ranged one in a similar situation.

I think this is true but 4E is actually reasonably good at pushing the weak point of a range heavy party - swamp them with numbers in a place where they can't funnel the enemy. My newbs get this a lot as 1/2 the party is range and there are often situations where its impossible for the fighter to lock down everyone so the range characters start having problems with the enemy melee guys in their face.

That said its not as extreme as a melee party faced with flying enemies that just bombard them when they can't do much about it.

RedJack wrote:


My job is to have fun while everyone else does. If part of that is varied encounter design, so be it, but there are ways to provide variety beyond adding flying creatures that half the party can't do anything about. I'd rather provide encounters where everyone gets a chance to participate AND are varied, than have variety by excluding players.

Up to a point I agree with you but still very much dislike the idea of redesigning the bad guy organization or what have you just because my players will have an easier time engaging them and will be less frustrated.

Part of this stems from the fact that I'm not a big fan of character 'builds' and would rather discourage the behaviour. Between the fact that its possible to play a 4E character reasonably well simply by making your characters choices at the time when the character levels up and the retraining rules its reasonably possible for 4E characters to adapt to the adventures and campaign they find themselves in. I personally like to encourage that element of the game because it means that characters 'grow' in response to the story being told in the campaign instead of 'realizing' a design that the planned out from 1st. Considering that planned out characters, even in 4E, remain very potent my preference is a style of DMing that emphasizes the strengths of being versatile with your characters and being adaptable with them.

If the DM creates adventures that specifically play to the characters strengths then it pretty much encourages players to look to break the system so knowing that the monsters will play along. If the DM creates adventures without reference to the players character sheets then the players are encouraged to be adaptable to overcome diverse challenges...and the adventures feel more authentic to boot which is actually pretty important to me.

RedJack wrote:


Our charging thief is obviously exploiting the rules a bit. This is less of a systemic problem in this case, and more of a player problem. I think discussing it with them is going to be your more likely option for resolution--as a player in that game you don't have the "authority" of a DM, but that can work in your favor. Just approaching them like another concerned individual and explaining how it's hampering your fun as well as causing problems for the monk player will hopefully go a long way.

We have and its worked after a fashion - has not changed the design currently at the table but the player promises not to add in some of the more broken elements that where coming up in the build (some kind of...when I charge you and hit you always go prone and I always get a wack of extra damage dice against prone enemies combo). I'm told by Blazej and MK that the issues with Charging Thieves will be mitigated significantly as we move into the upper reaches of Paragon and beyond in any case because the potency of the powers ramp up to the point that Charging Thieves pure damage out put becomes less of a factor.

RedJack wrote:


My wife has sat at the table for a game exactly 4 times. I've helped her build every character, (mostly math and "this goes here" or "choose two of these") but she is learning to do a lot on her own.

Good luck with bringer her on board. I've brought a group of newbs into the game and its been really rewarding. Word of advice from my own experience is to be careful that she does not use the rest of the veteran players too much as a crutch. Years ago one of the group's wives decided she wanted to play, she loves fantasy fiction so it should have been a good match but even after 16 sessions (I was counting) she never really figured out how to play - people told her what dice to use or what to do and she did that, its needed to some extent when a player joins a veteran group but some where along the lines the new player needs to figure out how to play on her own - without the ability to have her her own agency - to be able to make reasoned decisions and understand why she is making choice A rather then choice B, she will eventually lose interest.

I doubt you have the option but if you do teach her to play along with a bunch of other new players...my experience is that there is an order of magnitude difference between how well a group of neophytes learn and understand the system and how well a neophyte thrown in among the sharks does and its usually more fun to learn with other new players where you get to really explore the wonders of fantasy gaming right along side of others who are in the same boat as you and don't even know what the gamer speak means yet.


Jeremy Mac Donald wrote:
Matthew Koelbl wrote:


One thing to keep in mind, here, is that this is an area where PCs have invested some resources in being good at this sort of thing, and so adding the stunt is really only icing on the cake. There are plenty of other things that could instead cause similar difficulties for flyers - attacks that knock prone, spells that give PCs flight, etc. Would the DM have a problem if the thief, rather than worrying about stunts, just waited for the dragon to get close and then simply used ranged attacks?
Not as much I don't think. Mainly because the range specialist would really have put resources into doing their thing.

Not as much as you might think, honestly.

Investment in doing leaping melee stunts: Acrobat's Trick (gives a climb speed), plus acrobatics check.

Investment in ranged attacking: Sneak Trick (move and hide with basic cover), plus Stealth check.

Thieves are basically just as good at ranged attacks as melee ones, being dex-based - as long as they can get combat advantage. The ranged thief does lose out on specific charging bonuses, but still gets most of their damage from other sources.

It does require an opposed role - stealth vs perception - which might make it feel easier. So maybe that is the option - have the acrobatics check be opposed by the dragon. Though that doesn't really help with making it easier for other characters - if the dragon can evade the thief, he can probably evade the monk, too.

Jeremy Mac Donald wrote:
Another side issue but I always wonder what to do about encounters like this. If the party eschews range combat should the DM really play along by making it less a part of the game?

4E has tried to move away a bit from this sort of encounter, where some PCs are basically just out of the fight.

For myself, I think that is one solution, but not the only one. For me, the key is making sure there is something for every PC to do in an encounter - but that doesn't mean every enemy needs to be easy for them to get to.

So maybe the dragon is firebombing the party and the wizard and ranger need to shoot it out of the sky. Rather than the others try to find ways to jump at the dragon, having other enemies for them to focus on - possibly ones trying to take out their ranged attackers - can keep them invested in the fight. Or even just having some sort of skill challenge going on - trying to prevent the boat from sinking once it catches fire, for example.

It isn't a perfect solution - what if the rogue really wants to stab a dragon? What if the wizard wants to be the one to put the fires out? You can't - and, really, shouldn't - perfectly predict what PCs will do.

But giving them options is really the key. If you really want a combat to be about an enemy flying out of reach? That's fine - but you don't want people sitting at the table with nothing to do for an hour. They'll be trying to find ways to get to the dragon. If you plan out those ways yourself, or give them other options to engage in the fight, they are less likely to try stuff that bothers the DM and is difficult to adjudicate.


Jeremy Mac Donald wrote:
That said its not as extreme as a melee party faced with flying enemies that just bombard them when they can't do much about it.

And that's the part to think about.

My "middle of the road" suggestion? Keep the flying enemies. Totally. But either include ways for a player or two to get at them (ruined staircases, ship masts with easy-to-climb rigging, etc.) or have them accompanied by a couple non-flying cohorts to keep folks busy. By the time you knock down the melee critters, the flyer may well figure "well, if you wan't something done right..."

It keeps the melee occupied and engaged, and doesn't require a whole lot of change.

Quote:
Up to a point I agree with you but still very much dislike the idea of redesigning the bad guy organization or what have you just because my players will have an easier time engaging them and will be less frustrated... Part of this stems from the fact that I'm not a big fan of character 'builds' and would rather discourage the behaviour.

*shrugs* I get you here too, for the most part.

When it comes to things like players targeting for "builds" that are intentionally exploitative, I'm with you on discouraging them. After nearly 18 years of dealing with players who did this exact thing, (insert Shatner-esque "KIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIITS!!!" here) it has gotten a bit old, for a number of reasons.

The first, of course, is mostly selfish. It (was) a lot of extra work for me, and occasionally it still is--although never for long. Having to build a game to intentionally negate a player is not fun for me, nor do I appreciate the work involved in the necessity of doing so, just to be able to include the other players. This has become more a matter of subtle degree than "damn, Joey hasn't done a damned thing all night again because of Greg," but it's still there if I'm not careful.

The next is more "Papa Bear." I like my players. I have friends who don't play at my table, but I don't have players who aren't friends. Been there, done that, got my wallet stolen. (figuratively) We play friendly at my table, or we simply don't play--it's a very specific reason that certain people (who are still my friends) just are not welcome at game night any more. Everyone deserves fun. Everyone deserves some time in the limelight, and when I can shine it on everyone at once, I'm a pretty happy camper. Players who go out of their way to prevent this get a little chat, and, if that doesn't work, they get gone.

Now, that's not to say I change everything in my game to fit my players. Remember Jody? Yeah, there's a lot of times having +eleventy billion to stealth just doesn't do them any good. I put those in on purpose--not to exclude them, but to reign them in a bit. Jody isn't maliciously trying to shut other people out--as a matter of fact, most of the things they do are because Jody has a tough time learning things.

But most of my players don't really go for "builds," they just grab what looks cool to them. Sometimes the result is pretty close to a notable build, and I've actually found a couple of test characters I built were pretty close to the more reasonable things I've seen from char-op. I didn't build them to exploit a loophole, I built them because they looked fun and cool to me, which (thankfully) is what I get from my players. Sometimes what's fun and cool to them is one specific aspect of something, and I do my best to let them have fun with that when I can... but, like most things, the answer isn't found in absolutes, but in finding and maintaining a middle ground.

Part of it may also be that I don't consider myself to be wholly in charge of everything when it comes to the game world. I start with a general idea of how a game will start and where it will go, and I keep a pretty firm grasp on the mood, but the remainder comes primarily from the players. I've joked that in one game in particular, all my players have the Bard's Tongue flaw because the things they say or speculate on often come true in horrible, horrible ways.

For example...:
It's the first adventure. the players are headed off on what they figure is a "milk run." Go get something simple and seemingly innocuous, and bring it back. They had a few options of places to look, but they wind up checking a nearby cave system. It's the dead of winter, they're busy looking for snakes, and I describe some molted scales on a rock shelf. I was slightly specific, but one of the players decides they've found an enormous scale.

Two or three years ago, I'd probably have piped up and said "Nononono... that's not what I said, it's actually..." Instead I popped up the old adventure tools, drug out something big and nasty and level appropriate, and then made some modifications on the fly. The next thing they know, they're face-to-face with something that looks like it's out of an old Richard Corben nightmare... which got me thinking about one thing, which got me thinking about another, which got me thinking about still more things.

Every now and then the players will say or do something that inspires me, and where I see the story going now is an entirely different direction from what I had originally planned before we started up the game.

I'm having a blast, by the way. ^_^

I realize running with players involved in the creation of the story and world isn't for everyone, and it's been really challenging for me to break some of the old habits of "correcting" my players' imaginations, but the farther I get away from it, the less I miss it.

I don't think most folks would enjoy building everything to suit their players--I certainly don't. But it's not tough to make an adjustment here or there to keep from sidelining the players. If you've got an idea for an organization or foe or whatever, and it's stuck in shape like Roman concrete, then you can leave it be--just change up the battlefield a little. ^_^

As for my wife, I have to say, I'm pretty proud. She had been pretty resistant to learning "dork things," but she's catching on pretty quickly. I try to minimize my help on a lot of things so I'm less of a crutch, and (also thankfully) one of my games includes a lot of people who are very new to 4th. About half the group has never actually played 4th before, one tried to run it, but... well, we won't get into that. The Dm for that game is one of my regular players who's been running a lot of games himself, but this is his first time running 4th. (Two sessions and I think he's already spoiled!) That's a lot of new folks and only 3 players who've spent any real length of time playing. So far, it's pretty enjoyable, and most of the folks are picking up pretty quickly.

Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Gaming / D&D / 4th Edition / Issues with Adjucating Stunts All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.
Recent threads in 4th Edition