I've been DM'ing 4e for 16 months now, and I have created many monsters using the monster builder. With the suggested damage expressions, you are able to figure out about how much damage a monster should do at a certain level.
I played the D&D encounter yesterday and was apalled that in the mod there were level 1 brutes that had 2 encounter powers that did 4d6+4 damage. That's 18 damage on average, which bloodies either defender pregen (the mul has 29 hit points and the thri-kreen 33). Something is very wrong if your defender has trouble withstanding an attack from a standard creature his same level.
I don't mind that they wanted to make the first encounter a "you need to run away" encounter, but it is a level 1 encounter! Rather than simply making it a level 3-4 encounter, the creature's damage is bumped up way beyond what is appropriate, which completely throws off the challenge.
To give a comparison a level 1 PC (by game design, PC's are more fragile but harder hitting than monsters) would have to take a feat to equip executioner axe (1d12 damage), and do an encounter attack that does 2[W], and assume that the damage stat is +4 (2d12+4 damage total). And even then the average damage of that attack is 17.
Even if that were the case, these guys get to recharge one of the powers when bloodied, meaning they can effectively use it 3 times an encounter. Our aforementioned PC may be able to do that damage, but only once per encounter. The same PC can almost match damage if he uses a daily, which then begs the question, why would a striker PC have to use a daily to match damage of an equal level standard monster.
The other stats of the level 1 brute are appropriate, but the damage makes them more like a level 2 or 3, and nasty ones at that. Like I said earlier, it would be much more appropriate to bump up the level of the monsters rather than do this, "just bump up his damage" crap to keep them a level 1 monster. Either lower the damage or keep the damage the same whie adding levels to the creature.
I remember a level 1 monster, I don't think it was elite or solo, in the first pages of The Slaying Stone, that also had a lot of firepower for its level. Might be a new trend. Might be an adaptation based on an adjustment of the rules found in DMG2 or DMG3, as I recall seeing a designer blog or article in DDI stating monsters in MM1 were not strong enough in hindsight.
There's this thing called "spoilers" and spoiler blocks (I believe it's a *SBLOCK*, where you replace the *s with square brackets). Please please please STOP posting DD:Encounter inside information, especially stuff like the actual stat blocks. I have yet to play the game... and would like a couple of surprises.
I don't want people to stop asking questions, posting reviews, etc... just put a warning somewhere!
... just write "spoiler warning" somewhere so that I know not to read it. I'd suggest the title of the post.
I remember a level 1 monster, I don't think it was elite or solo, in the first pages of The Slaying Stone, that also had a lot of firepower for its level. Might be a new trend. Might be an adaptation based on an adjustment of the rules found in DMG2 or DMG3, as I recall seeing a designer blog or article in DDI stating monsters in MM1 were not strong enough in hindsight.
The problem here is that none of the first-level monsters in MM3 reflect the level of damage that those darters did. At my table, the thri-kreen went down on turn 1 to a pair of these things. Since we didn't have anyone playing Phye (a mistake I intend to correct next week, by hook or by crook), I knew at that point that it was going to be a very short night.
I haven't looked at the mod myself yet, but I'm beginning to sense that we are in for a very poorly-written fifteen weeks.
EDIT: Sadly, upon review of the official ask the author thread, he seems to think that sort of insta-TPK is good writing. I think I might skip the rest of season 2.
Dark Sun is hard mode D&D.
Man up, ya pansies!
To be honest while I know Wizards are excited about Dark Sun and so are a lot of others, I think they jumped the gun here. The pregen characters having basic errata errors, not being able to make your own characters to begin with (that has disappointed many) and this utterly sadistic first encounter are not leaving good impressions.
Show
I gave a purposefully hint-filled introduction once the session was started that quite clearly indicated that the goal was to collect supplies and book it ASAP, since that deadly shard storm was getting worse and worse, and one of the characters made a successful Nature check to realize that silt runners travel in packs of upwards of 200 individuals!
The players chose to stick around too long, however. They could have made it out, had they not gotten greedy. They ended up with a nice chunk of supplies...then all but one of them died in the first session (half in the second). The one that made it out did so with 4 survival days worth of supplies.
The players chose to stick around too long, however. They could have made it out, had they not gotten greedy. They ended up with a nice chunk of supplies...then all but one of them died in the first session (half in the second). The one that made it out did so with 4 survival days worth of supplies.
I like the idea that an encounter might actually be deadly. With no sense of danger, the game can get stale pretty quickly. For me, anyway. I've never been too happy with the philiosophy that the players must never be allowed to lose. In most of the 4E games I've played in, the players are rarely even slightly challenged, let alone actually fearing for their lives. Where's the adventure in that?
>even slightly challenged, let alone actually fearing for their lives.
>Where's the adventure in that?
That is also poor design.
None of us are questioning the intent of the encounter to impress the danger of the setting and situation on the PCs. We are questioning the execution of that intent, which I thought was sloppily executed and the need to run rather than fight deemphasized to the point of nonexistence. That deemphasis may have been our GM mis- or under-reading box text, but I doubt it (our GM is also a player in my usual Monday game, and he is quite acute about these things, and a talented GM himself. It is unlike him to miss these things).
Maybe my table simply rolled poorly or our GM well. Maybe our tactics were unsound or our GM's superior. Maybe it really was the lack of the Ardent that killed us... It's been my experience, however, in three years of playing and GMing 4e, that what happened in that encounter should not happen. What I observed from my perch on the corner of the table was not bad luck or hot dice or class imbalance. What I observed was poorly-built characters facing off against an encounter that -even with its strength reduced to compensate for a small party- was designed to kill the PCs.
Challenge them? Obviously. Scare them? Certainly. Make them work for it? Absolutely... but this encounter wasn't designed to do any of those things, and unless TPKing half of the tables to run the module was the designer's intent (at which point I question the wisdom of whoever is hiring WotC's freelancers), then the encounter failed to achieve its purpose.
I know I'm not alone in this opinion, and while I am trying to keep an objective viewpoint about this, mine wasn't the only table to be making unhappy noises in my store on Wednesday, and I'm not the only one who left that night sour-faced and mumbling about not coming back.
This isn't about "flavor" or "hard mode" or any of that nonsense. This is about the designer's intent in building the encounter. Either he failed to build a mechanically-appropriate fight, or he succeeded in building a fight designed to curb stomp the party. Either way, he screwed up.
community.wizards.com/shelly_m/blog/2010...
I recently played a boardgame called Pandemic. Fantastic game. I win about 1/3 of the time. It's a cooperative game. The players against horrible little bugs trying to eat the world's population. It's super hard! And It's sooo much fun because the number of situations, competitiveness of it, the challenge.
Dark Sun is like that. You don't always win. Actually, you often lose. A TPK (or at least player death) will happen over and over until you start to get your bearings. It's not impossible, just difficult. And when your character survives one or two sessions... you'll be sooo attached to the character, you'll do anything to keep the character alive. Anything...
I... think I'm done trying to explain my point. It's giving me a headache much like repeatedly walking into a wall.
You likely won't believe me, but I'm dead serious here*. Have you ever been punched in the face? Or headbutted someone? Or some other violent and maybe-not-expected sudden trauma?
If RPGs are a mental exercise and escape, can they not mimic or explore that moment of your entire world being shaken up by a jarring hit? By confronting a lose-lose situation and that absolute, desparate, desire to end it at all costs?
I don't think a design choice to curb stomp the party is always a bad one (on a regular basis? Yeah, that gets old, but not always). Perhaps a bad choice for an event intended to bring in the masses, but an absolutely bad choice? Naa.
*Maybe not completely. But there's a point.
>In most of the 4E games I've played in, the players are rarely
>even slightly challenged, let alone actually fearing for their lives.
>Where's the adventure in that?
That is also poor design.
None of us are questioning the intent of the encounter to impress the danger of the setting and situation on the PCs. We are questioning the execution of that intent, which I thought was sloppily executed and the need to run rather than fight deemphasized to the point of nonexistence. That deemphasis may have been our GM mis- or under-reading box text, but I doubt it (our GM is also a player in my usual Monday game, and he is quite acute about these things, and a talented GM himself. It is unlike him to miss these things).
Maybe my table simply rolled poorly or our GM well. Maybe our tactics were unsound or our GM's superior. Maybe it really was the lack of the Ardent that killed us... It's been my experience, however, in three years of playing and GMing 4e, that what happened in that encounter should not happen. What I observed from my perch on the corner of the table was not bad luck or hot dice or class imbalance. What I observed was poorly-built characters facing off against an encounter that -even with its strength reduced to compensate for a small party- was designed to kill the PCs.
Challenge them? Obviously. Scare them? Certainly. Make them work for it? Absolutely... but this encounter wasn't designed to do any of those things, and unless TPKing half of the tables to run the module was the designer's intent (at which point I question the wisdom of whoever is hiring WotC's freelancers), then the encounter failed to achieve its purpose.
I don't get this.
Isn't every encounter designed by the GM supposed to be an attempt to kill the characters? If not, then what's the point? If combat isn't deadly, only a challenge, then why have it? Sure, it could be exciting and fun, but if there is no chance of character death in every fight, again, what's the point?
I don't understand and I am hoping you can explain it to me.
turlough
DM vs PCs games aren't that fun for the DM or the PCs. I'd say it's more that the DM is supposed to give the impression that he's trying to kill the characters, and present a challenge that if failed, can result in a character's death or five.
But, at the same time, I am told that combat without the fear of character death is meaningless. Now, it could be my own subset of players who think this, but I am not sure of that.
Don't get me wrong! I appreciate 4E's design to look at options for the campaign to continue, whether or not the characters pass or fail a skill challenge. That makes sense that it [the campaign] is harder for them if they fail it, or easier if they do well.
But, it seems that combat has to have that potential. If we accept the dice in the game, we have to accept the consequences of those dice. Or else, why use them?
turlough
If they don't run in a situation when its obvious they should run, it should have serious consequences. It should have serious consequences, because if you let players call the bluff, and its only a bluff, then they know they can do whatever they want whenever they want. Which hurts the players in the long run because it cheapens their actions and decisions. How is someone going to feel clever for making a good decision when regardless of what they choose they will get the same result?
The story surrounding the encounter made it clear that it was a large attack, an attack larger than the players could fight. If they players were not looking at that context and focused on reacting in a manner appropriate to the situation (specifically running away, quickly), then the outcome is completely appropriate.
I mean, really, what would players think they would be accomplishing by killing everything on the board? Circumstances were that regardless of what they did they couldn't hold the battlefield after the fight, and killing the silt runners was not going to strike a crippling blow to the raiders, and even if it did, how would that advance their overall objective (Getting to Tyr).
Also, if the silt runners were sissys, then why would the players feel any pressure to run away before they had taken an obscene number or survival days worth of supplies?
If RPGs are a mental exercise and escape, can they not mimic or explore that moment of your entire world being shaken up by a jarring hit? By confronting a lose-lose situation and that absolute, desparate, desire to end it at all costs?
Absolutely it can, and I think from time to time it should. But a one-hit-wonder curb stomp battle with no lead up, no warning and a poor explanation of circumstances is not the right way to do it, doubly so in a game format that is (ostensibly) aimed at new players and DMs, and uses characters that the players are going to be unfamiliar with.
I've never said that the encounter was a bad idea. I've said the encounter in these circumstances was a bad idea.
Isn't every encounter designed by the GM supposed to be an attempt to kill the characters? If not, then what's the point? If combat isn't deadly, only a challenge, then why have it? Sure, it could be exciting and fun, but if there is no chance of character death in every fight, again, what's the point?
I've never agreed with this stance, even in the days when the DMG preached it. This kind of attitude encourages a Players vs. DM mindset that I think is damaging to the game.
Not every battle has to be life-or-death. Sometimes, it's okay to let the heroes feel like heroes and let them pick a fight where they're the ones doing the damage, rather than eating it. Likewise, an even fight isn't a bad thing either.
The real way to challenge and scare players, particularly in 4e, is to bleed them slowly. Run them ragged to the point where they're all down to a handful of surges and no dailies left, and they will be very nervous and excited and tense for that next fight, even if, mechanically speaking, it's not that dangerous. Throwing fresh PCs into a fight where everything they face can one-shot them with no warning doesn't challenge or entertain players -it frustrates them and makes them want to not play anymore.
But, at the same time, I am told that combat without the fear of character death is meaningless. Now, it could be my own subset of players who think this, but I am not sure of that...
But, it seems that combat has to have that potential. If we accept the dice in the game, we have to accept the consequences of those dice. Or else, why use them?
I don't think your players have an unusual mindset at all -but they do have a mindset that conflicts somewhat with 4e, where that assumption of lethality is stretched out over several encounters or even an entire adventure.
I'm in a Pathfinder game right now where the DM has outright refused to kill PCs on several occasions. It's ruined a large part of the entertainment value of the game -so I obviously don't disagree with you in this.
Players should run when it is obvious they should run.
I agree. In this specific case, it was not obvious (at my table, at least) that this was one such fight until it was too late. Nothing in the box text or presentation of the encounter indicated that this was one of those fights. The first warning we got was the thri-kreen getting two-shotted.
The story surrounding the encounter made it clear that it was a large attack, an attack larger than the players could fight. If they players were not looking at that context and focused on reacting in a manner appropriate to the situation (specifically running away, quickly), then the outcome is completely appropriate.
I mean, really, what would players think they would be accomplishing by killing everything on the board? Circumstances were that regardless of what they did they couldn't hold the battlefield after the fight, and killing the silt runners was not going to strike a crippling blow to the raiders, and even if it did, how would that advance their overall objective (Getting to Tyr).
Your GM told you more than mine did about what was going on. A lot more. Given the other reports I've gotten from people, you got more than most tables did.
This indicates to me, because I know my DM well, that something in the writing or formatting of the adventure was poorly done. He misread, or failed to read, something important, and the full weight of the circumstances was not made clear to my table.
Also, if the silt runners were sissys, then why would the players feel any pressure to run away before they had taken an obscene number or survival days worth of supplies?
Weight of numbers. The author rather clearly ignored the advice in the DMG regarding making an encounter more difficult: add more monsters, not more dangerous ones.
Further, for myself, it took me saying, "you need to run" before my players would consider it. Again, might be me but I think DND creates this attitude of it.
M4kitsu: Ah. Okay. As the DM, I re-read it, I was *really* excited about running it and I realized, as above, I would have to state explicitly, "okay, here's the deal. The sandstorm is bad, more silt runners are coming in half a minute and you guys don't have food on you, having been with the caravan." Further, when the battle started, it took me until then to realize that they are supposed to fight their way through to exit behind the monsters. I laid that all out for the players and I think it worked well.
As far as "DM vs player" I didn't explain myself well. Sorry about that. I guess what I should have said was that, to the best of their ability, every fight should be a life or death fight. The DM shouldn't hold back anything, unless she realizes what she put together is not the CR/CL she thought it was. I guess I didn't agree with the idea that the fight should only be a "challenge" and it could just be a semantic thing there.
Thanks for the clarification! Good discussion!
turlough
I think the takeaway lesson with this first encounter is that they need to include bolded extra-large "clue-by-four" boxes for instructions that if skipped can ruin an adventure. Either it wasn't there, or DMs were skimming the material and missing it.
@turlough
I'll agree that it is a reality that some players can be fairly unreasonable when it comes to "backing down" or focusing on roleplay/story objectives. In reality, the only fix is to just let them TPK themselves or get themselves sold into slavery until they learn.
I'm willing to bet that after this encounter, that come the later encounters that the parties don't have to be hit over the head with a clue-by-four to get them to focus on their objective instead of wandering around 'killing everything'.
I think the computer games don't help in that regard, especially NWN (as much as I enjoy the game) because it scales automatically for the characters! That gives expectations, real or not.
Yeah, no. Trust me, video games have nothing to do with it.
Further, for myself, it took me saying, "you need to run" before my players would consider it. Again, might be me but I think DND creates this attitude of it.
And how many rounds into the fight were you when that happened? At my table, the fight was effectively over in round 2 -any advice the DM might have remembered to give us at that point was too late.
Ah. Okay. As the DM, I re-read it, I was *really* excited about running it and I realized, as above, I would have to state explicitly, "okay, here's the deal. The sandstorm is bad, more silt runners are coming in half a minute and you guys don't have food on you, having been with the caravan." Further, when the battle started, it took me until then to realize that they are supposed to fight their way through to exit behind the monsters. I laid that all out for the players and I think it worked well.
This is my point precisely: You found this necessary in order to not insta-gib your PCs. A rookie GM who doesn't know as much -or, as happened at my table- a veteran who wasn't paying attention isn't going to realize the necessity.
The fact that we view this veterans' attention to detail as being necessary to the success of the mod speaks volumes as to its design. Any mod should be built to pick up and play, with no tweaking necessary, at least in theory and intent. That we seem to agree that this wasn't the case with Fury of the Wastewalker is telling.
As far as "DM vs player" I didn't explain myself well. Sorry about that. I guess what I should have said was that, to the best of their ability, every fight should be a life or death fight. The DM shouldn't hold back anything, unless she realizes what she put together is not the CR/CL she thought it was. I guess I didn't agree with the idea that the fight should only be a "challenge" and it could just be a semantic thing there.
No, I think I understood you well enough, and I still disagree. I don't think fights shouldn't be a challenge that poses at least some risk, but I do not think a DM should be going out of his way to kill the PCs every time they roll initiative -that isn't what creates tension. That creates frustration, especially if he succeeds more often that he fails in doing so.
In addition, the system of 4e actually does this for you: by the fourth or fifth fight of the day, the PCs are usually nearing out of resources, and a fight that would be reasonably easy at the beginning of the day is a nightmare -the uncertainty of when the PCs are going to get to rest next and recharge their batteries is where the tension comes from. Assuming that the DM is roughly following the encounter difficulty and monster balance guidelines set down in the DMG, it shouldn't be until at least the third fight of the day that a PC's life is in immediate risk -and that's as it should be, I think.
Good discussion!
Agreed!
I think the takeaway lesson with this first encounter is that they need to include bolded extra-large "clue-by-four" boxes for instructions that if skipped can ruin an adventure. Either it wasn't there, or DMs were skimming the material and missing it.
This does seem to be the lesson of the day, but given the conduct of the ORCs in the Season 2 group forum, I'm not entirely sure it's going to stick. We'll see what week 2 brings, but if it doesn't show some sign of slackening (and from the early reports I'm getting, it isn't), my organizer could have a riot on his hands. And given the... *ahem* unique circumstances of my FLGS, that could be... most unfortunate.
I'm willing to bet that after this encounter, that come the later encounters that the parties don't have to be hit over the head with a clue-by-four to get them to focus on their objective instead of wandering around 'killing everything'.
Yes, IF they are aware of the objective. You said yourself that many tables appear to have missed it. While I think DMs that, like mine, were told in no uncertain terms what we thought of the encounter, will be more attentive in the future, others might not have the necessity of careful reading impressed upon them as fully.
EDIT: ...also, why does the forum think "dialogue" is misspelled..?
The monsters are overpowered for their level.
If they want to make it a fight you can't win, then you bump up the encounter level, not monster damage.
Dark Sun is brutal, unforgiving, and far from heroic. In 2nd edition Dark Sun, PC's rolled 5d4 for stats instead of 3d6, each was a wild talent (a touch of psychic power), and the classes were more powerful. It made sense for the monsters to be more powerful because so were the PC's.
In 4e, Dark Sun PC's are just the same as Forgotten Realm or Eberron. So making the monsters more powerful without bumping up the PC's just kind of invalidates the highly balanced core system they established with the core books, when Richard Baker himself said in a podcast that Dark Sun would not violate this balanced core system.
What they should have done: make the monsters all level 3 with appropriate stats and damage (which would in fact be lower than it was in the mod).
Since we are only playing every other week, we are doing 2 encounters per session and without spoiling anything let me just say that that encounter was even worse, resulted in near total PK with the surviving PC having to run and leave his fallen comrades.
I really enjoyed playing but I have to agree that they made it a bit too hard.
My original post was pointing out two things:
The monsters are overpowered for their level.
If they want to make it a fight you can't win, then you bump up the encounter level, not monster damage.
Dark Sun is brutal, unforgiving, and far from heroic. In 2nd edition Dark Sun, PC's rolled 5d4 for stats instead of 3d6, each was a wild talent (a touch of psychic power), and the classes were more powerful. It made sense for the monsters to be more powerful because so were the PC's.
In 4e, Dark Sun PC's are just the same as Forgotten Realm or Eberron. So making the monsters more powerful without bumping up the PC's just kind of invalidates the highly balanced core system they established with the core books, when Richard Baker himself said in a podcast that Dark Sun would not violate this balanced core system.
What they should have done: make the monsters all level 3 with appropriate stats and damage (which would in fact be lower than it was in the mod).
We still don't know how the final book looks like; maybe Themes will give characters that extra edge that is needed to face the brutality.
I think you're all missing the point.
Dark Sun is hard mode D&D.
Man up, ya pansies!
hehehe...I tend to agree with you.
OP, I don't want you to think I am dismissing your views of the encounter. You've played it. I haven't. I think Dark Sun should be hard but I can see your point about increasing the encounter level instead of upping the damage.
As a matter of fact, I would love to play encounters but I can only find one store in my area. The store is very, very close to where I live. I don't go to that store because my interactions with owner give me all indications that he is an A S S. I would rather don't deal with that kind of person when I am trying to play a game.
I agree with the spirit of it but DND players seem to think that whatever is thrown at them is something they can handle.
turlough
I've seen this same attitude with some of the player's I play with. I was trying to impart how dangerous of a world they lived when by having a fairly large dragon fly over. It was scenery in my mind until one of the player's fired his bow at it. Looking back on it I should have had the dragon be out of range. I caved and made it a hard encounter.
I'll never do this again. If I describe something as them being unable to handle it and they attack it then they can see the consequences of their actions. I think I am a fair DM but I agree with your assessment of many DnD players.
I don't think those brutes in DDE Season 2 encounter 1 are actually "hard mode Dark-Sun only monsters". I think they are (extreme) examples of post MM3 monster design: all monsters will do more damage from here out. What I've heard as a rough conversion estimate from MM1 or MM2 to the new standard is "double non-variable damage". So if previously a monster would do 2d8+4, it should instead do damage roughly equivilent to 2d8+8.
I don't think those brutes in DDE Season 2 encounter 1 are actually "hard mode Dark-Sun only monsters".
Except that, you know, they are. In fact, they're not only "hard mode Dark-Sun only" monsters, they're "hard mode Encounters Season 2" monsters, as far as I can tell.
I think they are (extreme) examples of post MM3 monster design: all monsters will do more damage from here out.
Yes, by 30-40%, not 400%. I ran an encounter tonight in my home game that included a level 11 Brute that hit for less on average than the ragers. 4d6+4 is on the level of an early-Paragon Lurker or Skirmisher.
As Aegeri points out, the curve has been adjusted, and you don't really start seeing a notable across-the-board damage increase until early Paragon.
What I've heard as a rough conversion estimate from MM1 or MM2 to the new standard is "double non-variable damage". So if previously a monster would do 2d8+4, it should instead do damage roughly equivilent to 2d8+8.
That's... debatable, and still fails to account for the damage the ragers did. I've got a boss fight coming up in my campaign, and the big bad does about 18 damage on an average hit, same as the brutes in the mod... and he's a 15 Elite Skirmisher.
I maintain that either someone on the design team dropped the ball hard, or that the author has grossly miscalculated the purpose of the Encounters modules, or both. Whatever the case, something happened that should not have, and the backlash is plain to see.
Actually, the DMG tells me that the "standard" high limited damage expression for levels 1-3 is 3d8+3 (averaging to 16.5 damage). 4d6+4 is actually not that far from 3d8+3 in terms of damage potential (it is still a wee bit higher, around 9% increase?) So in terms of encounter power damage, they should more or less be in line.
The problem here, I think, is that according to Castlemaster, the monsters have two such powers (with one of them rechargeable). They're called limited damage for a reason, and allowing such damage to be usable by the monster thrice removes that reason. I think a nice change here is to move the rechargeable damage down to medium (2d10+3) or remove it entirely. Leave bloodied recharge to elites and solos.
kilpatds might be on to something, though. My experience with level 1 brutes is that while they can hurt, they generally can't hit the party defender. But what if the MM3 standards of increasing the accuracy of the brutes crept in? That would have made their damage a lot more noticeable.
There is another complicating factor in this case: the pregenerated PCs (which you are required to use) are very poorly designed overall, and they're riddled with errors on top of that. If it wasn't for that then the encounter might not have been so over the top, although it WAS still more dangerous than it ought to have been. (The author noted that someone bumped up those creatures' damage after it left his desk, so it wasn't his original intention.)
Actually, the DMG tells me that the "standard" high limited damage expression for levels 1-3 is 3d8+3 (averaging to 16.5 damage). 4d6+4 is actually not that far from 3d8+3 in terms of damage potential (it is still a wee bit higher, around 9% increase?) So in terms of encounter power damage, they should more or less be in line.
And you'll notice that monsters rather rarely actually follow those damage expressions. I also have a vague memory of that table being errata'd at some point in the past to drop everything there by 5 points or so, but I could be thinking of something else.
You are correct in your assessment that it was their ability to repeatedly use the power that skewed the fight so heavily in their favor. In addition, the Leader creature had a recharge 6 ability that triggered immediate standard actions in all allies within 5, meaning that these things could potentially get off two such attacks before the party can even act (as happened at my table), meaning that by the time any of the PCs get to actually go, half of them are bleeding out.
kilpatds might be on to something, though. My experience with level 1 brutes is that while they can hurt, they generally can't hit the party defender. But what if the MM3 standards of increasing the accuracy of the brutes crept in? That would have made their damage a lot more noticeable.
Yuka and Shikirr have ACs of 19 and 17, respectively, which are something close to in-line for a Brawler Fighter and a Quick Battlemind, if not entirely optimized. AC is about the least of the problems the characters have (except Barcan, the Sorcerer, who has an AC of 12). The problem wasn't their ability to hit the Defender, though, it was their ability to reliably hit and one-shot the other four.
There is another complicating factor in this case: the pregenerated PCs (which you are required to use) are very poorly designed overall, and they're riddled with errors on top of that. If it wasn't for that then the encounter might not have been so over the top, although it WAS still more dangerous than it ought to have been.
Indeed. I believe the running tally was: a Fighter who can't really defend; a Battlemind optimized for MBAs, armed with a reach weapon (his defender shtick requires him to be adjacent) and with his secondary stats mixed up; a Cosmic Sorcerer with a particularly pathetic AC; a Psion who avoided taking all the good powers; and a Ranger armed with an accurate-but-weak dagger and a powerful-but-inaccurate axe.
The only one of the lot that's actually good at their job is Phye, the Ardent, and even then there had to be better feats for her.
(The author noted that someone bumped up those creatures' damage after it left his desk, so it wasn't his original intention.)
Yeah... I'm calling shenanigans here. I don't disbelieve that he said it, but rather the accuracy of the statement, considering the way he's been talking it up in the Ask The Author thread.
That said, Week 2 proved that whoever did the mechanics of the fights actually does know how to write an encounter correctly, which rules out incompetence being at fault for Week 1, leaving only malice. Whether it was Nick or not, I pity the home group that has to deal with that GM.*
* - and because I know it's coming: censor away, Mudbunny!
However, this is my opinion and we probably wouldn't agree on which of us is right in that point. I think it's best if we just agree to disagree there.
To me, the important factors here, in summary, is that:
- The 4d6+4 "limited damage" isn't limited at all.
- The fight itself is optimized on the part of the monsters (a leader that made the brutes even more lethal, the unbalanced power distribution of the brutes), while the PCs are unoptimized at best.
- MM3 ideologies may have crept in, making the brutes more accurate than before (also, 9% increase is still an increase that is noticeable at level 1)
I think that sums it up pretty well. Did I miss anything?
Oh, and I'm glad to hear that the second fight is better designed.
Oh, and I'm glad to hear that the second fight is better designed.
...all I really disagree with, all in all, is the idea that 4d6+4 damage is too much for a level 1 brute. Yes, most monsters didn't actually follow these guidelines, but to me that is part of the reason why some fights turn too dragging (granted, that's usually for paragon to epic).
I don't think we actually disagree at all. 4d6+4 is acceptable if a bit on the high side for a limited expression such as an Encounter ability... not an ability that can be fired three times in an encounter, potentially twice in a round.
Also, I don't think the table itself has been errata'd. Perhaps you were thinking of the skill challenge DCs?
Indeed I was. Yay memory faults!
I think that sums it up pretty well. Did I miss anything?
Sounds about right to me, except for that third one. I didn't notice the Brutes being notably more accurate than usual, but my DM was rolling well that night, so my sample may be skewed.
Oh, and I'm glad to hear that the second fight is better designed.
It's designed more according to the guidelines in the DMG. Whether it's better is up for some debate. An ambush with the PCs completely surrounded by level 4 Soldiers supported by Artillery on a very small map with fairly little cover and a lot of movement-hindering obstruction that the monsters don't appear to care about at all may or may not actually be a better encounter than the first, but it's at least numerically correct -which, given the situation, I'll accept as the best we're likely to get on Season 2.
Our DM that night made the fight much easier than it should have been given what has been written here, though it may have been unintentional, and we all survived the encounter and escaped with 5 days of supplies.
As far as the "challenging the PCs" discussion goes, I play D&D to explore the themes of a world, solve unsolved mysteries, get into character and background, and establish connections between my PC and others. Please don't kill my PC that I spent hours writing a backstory for, and possibly days or months establishing in-game story, unless I do something horribly stupid or it is part of the plot. If I'm not quaking in my boots at prospect of the next combat encounter, I'm not too upset.
In this particular situation, with pregenerated characters, what exactly does a character death mean? Do the people just come back again next week and use the same characters? After all, you can't make new ones and reflavor them. Are they disallowed from playing? Do you just call an end to the campaign if they all die? All-in-all the encounter as written was a bad idea. It was frustrating and pointless.
Encounter 2 was much better, but again, I haven't seen how it was written. Our DM might have soft-peddled it for us again. And I don't much care if he did.
1. It was meant to be so hard that you have to run away from it.
2. It was level 1 encounter for level 1 players which (by definition of the DMG) is a moderate encounter, and possibly not even that given that the PC's have all their resources.
It needed to be rectified one of two ways: make the encounter 3-4 levels higher than the PC's (as suggested by DMG if you want--at the least--a hard fight), which shows to the PC's very quickly they can't win this battle, or keep it as a low level encounter.
I challenge someone to number crunch the average dps of the ragers and dart shooters (accuracy*average damage including encounter and basic attacks) and find a level 1 creature in any of the monster manuals who has the same DPS.
The pressure to run could have been created without making that death feel so cheap by having new enemies arrive every round with the DM making it very clear that they weren't going to stop coming. That also would have been a lot more effective considering a lot of players doing these encounters games are completely new to DnD. There's nothing like watching your ranger hide inside the cart doing no damage for a couple rounds then when he finally got out he decided to push the artillery he hit away from himself and forgot to use quarry. -sigh-
Whether or not you agree it was poorly designed or maybe my DM wasn't communicating the intention of the encounter well enough or we as players were just making bad decisions, the end result is that it wasn't fun at all. I really wanted to like it. I don't mind a flavorful world where sometimes the PCs have to run. I just hate cheap and I can't think of any other way to describe the first encounter.
How things played out in our game -
The Mul Fighter: He can defend well enough if he grabs enemies to lock them down (especially those ranged types). Our player never did that... thus ineffective.
Thri-Kreen Battlemind: Seemed to work out well enough, except for many bad to-hit rolls. The reach weapon never mattered much as the Battlemind mark needs fixing anyways.
Human Ardent: I can seem to hit a "blessed" thing! +6 to hit, and every power I have targets AC. I essentially using my healing powers each fight and try not to die
Enemies/Environment: All of the ongoing damage was a little much for level 1 pregen characters to handle. I think the sandstorm damage of 2pts/round was fine, but not combined with the intense amount of damage those brutes were doing. In encounter 3, you have to scale up some rocks and stand on some ongoing 5 terrain, and the boss can stack a 5 ongoing (save ends) on top of that, with an attack. Two turns of failing the saving throw and fighting on the terrain (you have to since the enemies are out of melee reach), and that will take out pretty much anyone in the party. Encounter 3 could have been a little better if we hadn't lost our ranged attackers due to a RL split of the players into two different encounter groups. If the ongoing from terrain and bosses in encounter 3 were 2 ongoing (save ends) I think it would be more acceptable. Ongoing damage for a briarpatch seems a bit much though; maybe they could have made it an attack roll against Fort instead.
When all is said and done, I'm still looking forward to trying out Dark Sun. It will be fun to bring back my 3e dwarven fighter to be a real gladiator