A big adjustment I had DMing 4E was to rethink how fights worked compared to AD&D. I used to throw down a lot of fights back then. Usually my dungeons were chock full of monsters and fights were fast and furious.

With 4E I find combats are a lot more dynamic and almost have a cinematic feel. They’re a lot more tactical and everyone is constantly maneuvering around for a better position. Even in an open room, in 4E you have a real engagement, where in AD&D it would be a glossed over fight (maybe some excitement if a person rolled a 20). It took me a while to wrap my head around how combats played out in 4E, and what works well (or doesn’t).

I found out one important thing with 4E fights, if you are fighting just to have some combat, it’ll make for a boring affair. In older versions this was never a big deal. If my group got jumped by a monster wandering the woods, I’d just play it out. 4E combats work better as staged set pieces. If you used an old approach of just dumping out monsters to fight on a grid, things get old pretty fast. So I learned to ask myself constantly, ‘why should this be a fight?’

I found this was critical in designing encounters and more importantly, stringing them together to make an enjoyable session. So when I’m planning out a dungeon, I try to think of a few reasons why I should be having a fight and what is the purpose of the combat encounter.

Moving the story along – Likely the number one reason players are trading blows with creatures. The group is in combat with a main villain, or some key encounter, because of the story. It is an event central to the plot. Not every fight has to hold a critical element to the campaign arc, but it’s something you should be striving for.

I try to avoid having a fight simply to give a clue. If I go this route, I try to limit to a few rounds, usually having the opposition run, surrender, or offer some other quick resolution to get the players moving on.

As an example, my players landed on a dock where a local crime lord had control over the longshoremen. A few burly dockworkers with cudgels badgered their ship captain into getting more coin to unload some cargo. They turned their ire towards the players, clearly itching for a fight (the non-lethal thumping of heads kind). Combat went for about two rounds before the town guards came in and broke it up, siding with the longshoremen on who started it.

It was a short fight, but it helped established a few key points that some dockworkers were more thugs than laborers, and that local authority were either corrupt or inept. I didn’t want to drag the fight out to a bloody conclusion. But at the same time I thought it useful to have the players exchanging a few blows, before getting some key information about the town they were in.

Drain the resources of the players – This is an effective way of ramping up the difficulty of later encounters. A straight up engagement against a group of guards may not have a tremendous story purpose. But if it is an encounter before the group moves further in a bandit camp to fight against the main bad guy, you’ve definitely have a reason to have the fight. While the party is expected to win, they will take a little damage. This results in healing surges being used, and may result in use of some magic item powers, all of which drains the resources of the party for future combats.

It’s a decent ploy to make that later combat against the main villain a little tougher, without having to ramp up the encounter level. If players have used most of their healing surges, a few magic items, possibly even a daily, you’ve got players working a much tougher fight. The main trick is to keep the group moving and not have them head back to town for an extended rest. This does not necessarily have to be a battle either. Traps make for great ways to drain the group resources also. Don’t forget that you don’t have to almost kill the players, you just need to dig into the HP a little and in turn, whittle away at their healing surge total.

A combat for the sake of combat – This is something I try to avoid. Yet sometimes after several nights of talking around problems and clever use of skills to overcome obstacles, it’s nice to have a throw down with some monsters and hack away at things. However I think for these type of encounters to work, you should have one rule. Keep things interesting.

Pull out the stops and have a fight on a collapsing bridge over a chasm. Dig through the monster manuals and pull out some wild planar creature. Whether it’s the location or the type of creatures they fight, make the combat exciting and memorable. A bar fight with some surly dwarves may have nothing to do with the campaign, but can make for a grand time. You won’t get the same player reaction from another nameless wilderness encounter in a wood clearing.

Don’t hesitate to hand wave a fight – Don’t worry about having an actual combat for every encounter also. If the players have to infiltrate a fortress and fight through waves of opposition, you don’t have to play out every combat. Hand wave a bit and resolve it through narration. Maybe have that first fight against a few initial guards and don’t worry about the rest. Save the encounter combat for the main boss at the end.

This is where healing surges work wonders. Tell the players they made their way through an orc enclave, slaying a few groups, then have each player lose a healing surge. If you want to be tricky, also roll a basic attack against each player and have them dock off another surge if you hit. It’s a nice way to represent some scrapes and bruises from a fight, without having to actually play out a combat.

In my past campaign, I had my players clear out a kruthik nest. The original layout was an optional encounter if they failed a skill challenge, followed by a tough fight, with a final fight against the nest queen. While my group succeeded at the skill challenge, they opted to take on the optional encounter. After that happened I looked hard an long at the second encounter.

Did I have to have this fight? Would it really push the story along? I wanted a series of progressive fights, ramping up the difficulty to emphasize the group was going deeper and coming closer to the nest queen. But that optional encounter took off a few healing surges, so did I really have to have another full battle to do the same? Nope. So I just narrated to the players they ran across more kruthik and killed them as they explored further the tunnels. I moved them on to the final fight, just handwaving the middle combat and sticking to the more meaningful final encounter against the nest queen.

These are a few things I keep in mind when I design a string of encounters. I still (as the kruthik example above) flub things. While it may look good in preparation, actual play can change things. You might get a really bad string of rolls from the players (and some awesome rolls for the monsters), so a simple fight on paper may end up being much more difficult. I try to keep things fluid with my plans and read the players’ moods at the table to keep things interesting.

So with 4E, I’ve had to shift my thinking about combats compared to previous editions and shed that idea of a throwaway combat. Seems DnDNext has let this creep back in somewhat. I’m sort of on the fence with that but by recognizing this difference in how combats fit into the story, it’s made my 4E game better.

So while action points and healing surges are cool, I think they can be under utilized. I’m a huge fan of healing surges and think they make an interesting economy in the game. They are a requirement for recharging some magical items and I’ve liked that idea of using a PC’s vitality to enhance their power, so why not expand on that? Likewise, action points are cool but you can only use them once per encounter. Granted the bonus standard action is pretty huge, but only comes into play if you are going though several encounters in the game day.

A while back I talked about limiting choices of powers in my next 4E game. One downside of this is the limit of damage output players have. So to work on this I really wanted to be sure players could count on the limited encounter powers they have. Also, I wanted a way to get more powers that could inflict higher damage. So I’ve been thinking about the following changes.

Action points – Players have two options for action points:
A) Spend an action point can allow the player to do another standard action (as per rules)
B) Spend an action point to grant a +4 bonus to any roll. This can be done after the roll is made.

Players start with 2 action points at the beginning of each extended rest. They can spend multiple action points during an encounter, but can only take the additional action option once.

Healing surges
– Players may spend a healing surge to add one more damage die to at-will, basic, or trained basic attacks. This can be used after a successful to-hit die roll is made (but before any damage die rolls are made).
– If players activate an encounter power and it fails to hit, they may use a healing surge to recharge that power.
– Healing surges can also be spent to re-roll any single die roll. The second roll must be accepted as the result.

This is likely going to allow my players to really crank out the damage. However I want to encourage my players to use healing surges. Not to mention, those 2-3 healing surges they lose in an initial fight leading up to the big boss now have more impact. Players now have to weigh their options when using healing surges. Do they use the surges to keep on their feet, or use them to crank up the damage on an attack? I also want action points to allow the player to do big things. +4 is a huge bonus, but I want players to be able to pull out a huge attack, or pull out of that critical death save if needed. So I am making those action point bonuses go big or go home.

Taken as a whole with some of my other changes, I’m hoping it adds some spice to my 4E game and makes for some more engaging choices for the PCs.

One thing that crept into my game was analysis paralysis. My players got to late heroic tier and things began to shut down in combat. They had this huge pile of cards and all these options to go through, with magic items thrown in to boot. It became a little unmanageable.

My feeling with 4E was the cool bit about being able to do lots of different things, also became it’s fault. I think level 3 is the golden level for 4E (possibly level 5). At that point players have 2-3 options of encounter powers and dailies, with a few choices of repeatable standard attacks (at-wills and basic attacks). As they level up, this just starts adding on. You get more and more options, and all those choices seem to gum up the thought process for players. They just have so many choices and feel that pressure of wanting to do the most optimal action possible during their turn. So I began to think about power expansion differently.

Instead of adding more and more, why not reach a set amount of powers and abilities and cap it? As players level up, instead of gaining more options they swap out powers and upgrade the ones they currently have. The emphasis of having more options begins to lean towards fine tuning and improving the powers and abilities they have. With that in mind, there are a few other things to tackle too.

One magic item with a power/tier – For my next game I am leaning more towards the magic items that give static bonuses, over an optional power. While it’s cool to have that +1 acid sword that has a daily ranged attack, having another 3 items that also have daily/encounter powers just layers on the stuff players have to go through in their decision process. This can seriously add to analysis paralysis of the PC. If anything, I’ll add more consumables and one-shot items. Dark Sun introduced the idea of static enhancement bonuses for players without using magic items, and that is something I am also seriously considering. Another option would be to bump up the items they have making that +1 dagger slowly morph into a +3 dagger with +2 fort vs. poison.

Cap the number of powers – Players will have a limited selection of standard powers as they progress. At most from the advancement table, they can have 1 At-Will, 2 Encounter, 2 Daily, and 1 Utility in-combat utility power. Players may gain additional utility powers as described, but their use must have some out of combat effect. This is highly subjective, with the final interpretation of a utility power being decided by the DM. All bonus powers from class or race are not subject to this limitation (ex. Channel Divinity, Wizard Cantrips, Elven Accuracy).

Last time I was talking about using a trained attack in place of your out-of-the-book basic attack as an option for players. At face value, it’s really just a glorified at-will attack. Mechanically, it’s no different from having a 2nd at-will power, but it’s a subtle shift from an additional power to becoming a fall-back regular attack. Rather than having another card in front of the player, it’s on the character sheet and emphasizes that point of when in doubt use this attack. It’ll never be a horrible choice for a player to use the trained basic attack as it’s geared towards their ability scores as an optimized attack.

Some classes are going to come out ahead with power choices. Your wizard and cleric are going to have more options than your fighter. But at the core of it, even the classes with limited choices should still have situational options. They just won’t have a laundry list that’s what is in the game now.

Allow for more retraining each level – At each level, players can retrain up to 3 powers. In addition they can retrain 1 feat. This is key to limiting powers. Each level you have to allow the player to get cooler toys. While they may not be able to add more to what they have, they can at least pick up powers and abilities to create interesting combinations and improve on the attacks they make.

Limited choices break down – This is far from perfect. Utility powers become a huge issue. Some classes get situational skill bonuses that transform into static bonuses. Some classes have utility powers that can only be used in combat. It’s just the way to the cookie crumbles. By the book, at level 10 players have 3 utility powers tacked on to all the other powers they have. Utility powers make a good target for power pruning.

Psionic classes just don’t work with this. This cap power limit is doable with your core classes, but psionic augmentation powers just break down. If anything, possibly the number of power points might be reduced. I don’t play with psionics for my game, so not too worked up over this. Multiclassing and hybrid classes might need a little more tweaking too, however my players never really explored those options.

It’s a huge game change, but I’m liking it. I think the focus shift from more powers to better powers will work out. It’s far from perfect, utility powers especially, but having a cap on the powers players gain through advancement will likely allow them to have more focus, while still retaining a few options, and hopefully curb that analysis paralysis.

I’m still throwing the idea around of at least doing a one-shot of 4E once in a while. Maybe do another campaign if I can get some interested in giving it a go. So far they’ve been enjoying another setting and another game. One thing that I want to do is bring back the idea of using a basic attack or at the very least have it in place of an at-will.

Face it, a lot of at-will attacks have that generic option of a single target attack that simply uses a high ability score aligned with a certain class. As I mentioned way back in an old post, there is even a PHB2 feat that does something similar. So why not make a go of it and go full out? I think this actually might open up some classes to being able to focus on other abilities and not lag too behind other builds. Now I could have that CON-based fighter which could still be able to reliably roll out the basic attack damage. So here are my thoughts for a different basic attack-like ability.

All players at level 1 gain a trained basic attack. The player must select one option for this power at character generation, and cannot be re-trained.

A) The player picks a weapon group they are proficient with (ex. axes, bows, light blades, etc.). The player can use one ability score of their choice to be applied to that weapon group. If this ability replaces the default strength (melee) or dexterity/strength (ranged/heavy thrown) modifiers for that weapon, then the chosen ability score bonus is applied to both to hit and damage rolls. The power retains the martial keyword and weapon keyword. At 21st level, the power gains [2W] damage (plus appropriate bonuses).

B) The player gains a ranged basic attack that can target 1 creature. The power has a range and damage equivalent to a level 1 At-Will power of choice from their class. The power gains a damage keyword equivalent to the power source of the class (i.e. arcane, divine, primal, etc.) and the implement keyword. The power gains a bonus to hit and damage rolls based on an ability score of choice. At 21st level, the power gains one additional damage die, plus the appropriate bonuses (example, if the trained basic attack power does 1d8 + modifiers, at 21st level it will to 2d8 + modifiers).

Regular basic attacks are still in the game, but the player can have this listed first as their bread-and-butter attack. It’s the go to attack when they aren’t sure to pull out an encounter or daily power. A fall back choice for an attack and be comforted that they aren’t crippling themselves. I’ll have to tweak this some more, but looking forward to trying this in game.

So the gang is back together after an extended holiday and we’re discussing what to play next for our campaign. 4E is something still being considered. Think running with Savage Worlds will be the most popular choice, but 4E is still on the table. At the very least, it might be an occasional break from our regular game as a one-shot once in a while.

I’ve got some plans however to do some serious tweaking to the game. I’ve been thinking of some things to do for streamlining combat and speeding things up. I plan on still having a map, but throw out the grid. Also considering on really altering the number of powers players have in play and thinking of tinkering with the whole magic item power bit. More on that later.

One thing for certain, I want to get rid of the minor temporary bonuses that float around in the game. I want something with bigger effects. Static bonuses aren’t much of an issue, but all those little +1 bonuses seem rather fiddly. I’m thinking of a couple of options.

Make it all +2 – Not a groundbreaking change, but I’m liking the idea of making each bonus or penalty a +/- 2 and rounding things up. So that combat advantage with some temporary power boost might translate into a larger bonus to hit. That’s okay with me. I want the PCs to make those big rolls, the monsters are going to get the same thing.

Advantage/Disadvantage – The other idea I’ve had is using the advantage mechanic from DnDnext. Basically use simple color markers to indicate either a bonus or penalty to hitting a target. The marker with the highest total would grant either a disadvantage or an advantage.

This will likely make for some very chaotic combats, and I entirely expect my players to pummel the stuff I throw at them. However this might also put some hurt on them (given the proper circumstances), as I’ve just been able to double the chances of me critting my players. This might just make combats too wild and unpredictable, but of the two options I am leaning towards this more.

It’ll take a bit of playtesting. Fortunately I’ve got a patient group while I pull out the crazy houserule stuff. Honestly they haven’t been too keen on doing another fantasy campaign, but I might be able to get a one shot session in sometime. Certainly looking forward to trying this idea out.