Now we are just about to start running 4-7 mods and I want to give them a wake-up call. Simply due to random chance, over three quarters of the level 4+ characters available are strikers and with their smug feelings of invincibility the players are pushing to start the 4-7 mods with very striker heavy parties.
So, I am looking for advice from DMs who have already run some of the 4-7 mods. I'd like recommendations for what adventures would be best to give them a nasty shock. Not looking for a TPK (although if they play dumb enough...) but after this I want them to shudder at the thought of rushing a room without a defender or two.
So, which of the mods has some good controllers to lock them down with status effects? Or mobile nasty things that will wear them down while staying out of reach? Or any other bad things that you think would hit a striker-heavy party particularly hard?
I'm part of a group of DMs that run weekly LFR games at a local store. We have a least two dozen regular players and every night is packed with a good time had by all. Our one nagging annoyance are some of the Striker players. They have been blessed with other smart players running good defenders and leaders. Thus, they have never had to learn good tactics the hard way. In the 1-4 mods, they have always felt secure rushing in without a thought and it has mostly worked out because few of the low level monsters have the control or area effect abilities to deal with them.
Now we are just about to start running 4-7 mods and I want to give them a wake-up call. Simply due to random chance, over three quarters of the level 4+ characters available are strikers and with their smug feelings of invincibility the players are pushing to start the 4-7 mods with very striker heavy parties.
So, I am looking for advice from DMs who have already run some of the 4-7 mods. I'd like recommendations for what adventures would be best to give them a nasty shock. Not looking for a TPK (although if they play dumb enough...) but after this I want them to shudder at the thought of rushing a room without a defender or two.
So, which of the mods has some good controllers to lock them down with status effects? Or mobile nasty things that will wear them down while staying out of reach? Or any other bad things that you think would hit a striker-heavy party particularly hard?
MOON1-2 has a tough combat in it (especially if the party is lacking strong defenders and controllers). I've also heard that AGLA1-2 has a tough combat as well. Those might be good to teach those naughty Strikers a lesson.
Some modules that I found to be on the easy side as far as 4-7 adventures are concerned are IMPI1-2 and CORM1-2 (and possibly DALE1-2).
It's a large rotating group. The potential members are 3 warlocks, 2-3 rangers (1 ranged) and 1-2 Rogues. Out of that pool, four or five would play with possibly a Defender and/or Leader as well.
Then I'm with Dave on MOON1-2. CORE1-5 can provide problems with some parties as well. The problem is that with a lot of strikers at the table, there is a true war of attrition occurring; if the strikers are fast (especially with archery rangers), many of your foes are going to be dead before they act.
I'm thinking not really, unless they get really unlucky with their attack rolls for a few rounds.
My money is on CORE1-5. There is a monster in one of the encounters that is just a beast. He will tear up any poorly prepared party. The only downside might be that he will likely break any defenders in the party in two as well.
Now I want to read core1-5 and see what you are talking about but I am probably playing it next weekend =( so no sneak peak for me.
Also remind the warlocks that they can't curse a creature that's cursed already (you can't override a previous curse like you can with marks.) Multiple warlocks have to choose between attacking separate targets or some of them not getting their curse damage and pact boons.
And now I wanna play Core 1-5 too.
Punch them in the face with Moon 1-2. :D If the party's fighter didn't get a lucky 65+ point crit with a +2 vicious execution axe Brute Strike, I think I'd have wiped the floor with them.
Also remind the warlocks that they can't curse a creature that's cursed already (you can't override a previous curse like you can with marks.) Multiple warlocks have to choose between attacking separate targets or some of them not getting their curse damage and pact boons.
And now I wanna play Core 1-5 too.
Not to be the Grinch who stole this thread with a rule tip, but...
Read Warlock's Curse. Just because a creature isn't cursed by you specifically doesn't mean you can't add curse damage when attacking it. The downside to having multiple Warlocks in a party is that they can't get their pact boons as often when creatures die (since only a creature cursed by the Warlock in question can trigger that Warlock's pact boon). However, Warlocks B and C can add their curse damage against a creature that is under the effects of a curse from Warlock A.
Warlock's Curse (PHB 131):
Once per turn as a minor action, you can place a Warlock’s Curse on the enemy nearest to you that you can see. A cursed enemy is more vulnerable to your attacks. If you damage a cursed enemy, you deal extra damage. You decide whether to apply the extra damage after making the damage roll. You can deal this extra damage once per round.
Furthermore, a high-AC defender can pretty much neutralize him.
In the high-tier fights of MOON1-2 you need to do about 600 points of damage to take down the encounter. Focused fire helps, but the defenses on the bad guys are pretty decent.
In IMPI1-2, there's a fight with lots of ongoing damage - so if those monsters go first they'll murder a striker heavy party (that's a lot of damage to repair).
Generally, strikers go down hard - the exceptions are CON-warlocks (they have lots of HP/surges for strikers) and ranged rangers (they're very hard to get to). I've found melee strikers are the most likely to go down, especially without a defender to "defend" them...
but seriously, if you have a tactically good party of strikers they can do well. MOON1-2 has lots of fights, so they're more likely to run out of Surges after the 2nd fight if they're not careful.
In IMPI1-2, there's a fight with lots of ongoing damage - so if those monsters go first they'll murder a striker heavy party (that's a lot of damage to repair).
That's odd - I don't remember any ongoing damage of note from this mod. I actually think this mod is a good example of one that a striker heavy party would blow through pretty easily since doing damage very quickly will get you past most things since only, like, one creature type actually does significant damage in the entire module.
Though, heh, depending on how fights go, I could see some problems with running out of surges - then it becomes all about spreading the damage around, so maybe it would at least be a good learning exercise.
Not to be the Grinch who stole this thread with a rule tip, but...
Read Warlock's Curse. Just because a creature isn't cursed by you specifically doesn't mean you can't add curse damage when attacking it. The downside to having multiple Warlocks in a party is that they can't get their pact boons as often when creatures die (since only a creature cursed by the Warlock in question can trigger that Warlock's pact boon). However, Warlocks B and C can add their curse damage against a creature that is under the effects of a curse from Warlock A.Warlock's Curse (PHB 131):Once per turn as a minor action, you can place a Warlock’s Curse on the enemy nearest to you that you can see. A cursed enemy is more vulnerable to your attacks. If you damage a cursed enemy, you deal extra damage. You decide whether to apply the extra damage after making the damage roll. You can deal this extra damage once per round.
Intent is way against you on this one. The curse is clearly a personal effect, like hunter's quarry or a mark. It only affects the PC from which it originates from unless stipulated otherwise.
It would not clearly state that you cannot curse an already cursed creature if you could do so. Furthermore, nowhere does it say that warlocks can benefit from other warlock's curses, 'you' is a pretty specific personal term in 4th edition, and all the classes have personal effects like this.
I think this rule is sufficiently poorly written that an argument can be made either way about what is intended.
Personally, I interpret the rule as saying that any warlock deals extra damage against a cursed target, regardless of who cursed the target. There is a distinction between "a cursed enemy" and "a creature affected by your Warlock's Curse".
If the warlock dealt extra damage to "a blinded enemy", "a prone enemy" or "an immobilized enemy", I'd have a tough time arguing that you only deal that damage if you were the one to cause them to be in that condition.
A ranger deals extra damage to "your quarry", not "a quarry". If it was the latter, I would infer that the ranger could deal damage to anyone's quarry; if the warlock ability said "your cursed enemy" or "the enemy you cursed", it would be clear that only the warlock who cursed the enemy deals extra damage.
I have no problem believing that my interpretation was what was intended. Letting multiple warlocks deal bonus damage isn't a problem--multiple rangers or rogues can deal striker damage vs. one target. Conversely, though, interpreting the rules the other way allows for a warlock to effectively immunize a party vs. enemy warlocks, which strikes me as problematic.
The reason why the rules say you can't curse a cursed target is (IMO) because some effects are triggered by the action of cursing (cf. Rod of Dark Renewal, Rod of Reaving), and this rule ensures that these effects don't become too powerful by allowing the warlock to curse the same target round after round.
But, sure, if you want to run it the other way, I think the rules are loose enough that you can run it that way.
I guess if you treat a curse as a status, like blind or stun, I could see the argument. But as long as it is viewed as a mark I think it is pretty clear cut.
However, if it is a status, I'd think the enemy should get a save-to-end or some other end condition.
You can infer or read in anything you want and change how you'll rule but, allowing warlock's to use the curse of others causes no problems that I have ever seen and while not allowing it tends to cause friction between the players of warlocks at the same table.
As a DM promoting fun play, why go against the rule as written to cause additional frustration?
Thread Successfully derailed...
dkay, you are neatly ignoring the bit AFTER that:Show
A Warlock’s Curse remains in effect until the end of the encounter or until the cursed enemy drops to 0 hit points or fewer.
You can place a Warlock’s Curse on multiple targets over the course of an encounter; each curse requires the use of a minor action. You can’t place a Warlock’s Curse on a creature that is already affected by your or another character’s Warlock’s Curse.
All the Aussie Judges I know (including 4th edition stuff at Gencon Oz) rule it as being a personal effect, keyed to individuals like a mark/hunters quarry. To us it seems in line with all the other personal effects that exist in the game, none of which benefit anyone else other than your own effect.
I would like to see an official ruling on this at some point, I love ambiguous stuff like this... Stupid rules.
I just think that if that was the actual intent, it would be a lot clearer. It seems at the moment that it is a badly worded passage, and that is what is allowing it by RAW. There is no real supportive text or precedent to back it up.
Who are you to define intent? I happen to believe that the feature is worded as intended. It's RAW and nothing suggests that it isn't also RAI. Sorry mate.
So I guess that means you'll start playing the bard as written? :D
So I guess that means you'll start playing the bard as written? :D
Game rules and campaign rules are two different kettles of fish (at least to me). But you do have a point. I guess I'm a hypocrite!
The RPGA police are welcome to pull me over for playing my bard as I believe was intended. Furthermore, any judge that disagrees with me is welcome to stop me. I think the fact that every judge I've had hasn't disagreed with me says something in and of itself.
The RPGA police are welcome to pull me over for playing my bard as I believe was intended. Furthermore, any judge that disagrees with me is welcome to stop me. I think the fact that every judge I've had hasn't disagreed with me says something in and of itself.
Sure, it says that the judges you play with don't really think it's important to follow the RPGA rules, or that you are skilled at bulldozing judges into ignoring the rules that they really don't care that much about enforcing anyway. I suppose that does say something, but it's not something I'd be particularly proud of.
Let's be clear about this: There is no wiggle room in the CCG; you must use the latest version of a rule. There is no exception for cases where you think the designers or editors made a mistake in the final version. This is not a case where reasonable people can disagree; this is a case where there is only one obvious way to read the guidelines.
A judge cannot allow you to use the initial write-up of the bard instead of the final compilation version any more than they can allow you to use the Monster Manual version of the minotaur instead of the Dragon Magazine version.
Yes, the editors screwed up. Yes, the final compilation version clearly needs errata, which it is very unlikely to receive. This is unlikely to be the last time this happens: I would expect that we will occasionally see powers or abilities where the final version is nerfed from what originally appeared, and it would surprise me if no player ever argued that some change had a consequence for their PC that the designers surely must not have intended. I'm pretty sure we don't want to create the mindset that players get to decide which version is the "right" one.
Sometimes game designers do things that we think obviously must be mistakes that will soon be corrected; sometimes we're right, sometimes we're not. In either case, when playing in a Living campaign under RPGA rules, we're not the ones who get to make that call.
Sure, it says that the judges you play with don't really think it's important to follow the RPGA rules, or that you are skilled at bulldozing judges into ignoring the rules that they really don't care that much about enforcing anyway. I suppose that does say something, but it's not something I'd be particularly proud of.
Let's be clear about this: There is no wiggle room in the CCG; you must use the latest version of a rule. There is no exception for cases where you think the designers or editors made a mistake in the final version. This is not a case where reasonable people can disagree; this is a case where there is only one obvious way to read the guidelines.
A judge cannot allow you to use the initial write-up of the bard instead of the final compilation version any more than they can allow you to use the Monster Manual version of the minotaur instead of the Dragon Magazine version.
Yes, the editors screwed up. Yes, the final compilation version clearly needs errata, which it is very unlikely to receive. This is unlikely to be the last time this happens: I would expect that we will occasionally see powers or abilities where the final version is nerfed from what originally appeared, and it would surprise me if no player ever argued that some change had a consequence for their PC that the designers surely must not have intended. I'm pretty sure we don't want to create the mindset that players get to decide which version is the "right" one.
Sometimes game designers do things that we think obviously must be mistakes that will soon be corrected; sometimes we're right, sometimes we're not. In either case, when playing in a Living campaign under RPGA rules, we're not the ones who get to make that call.
So basically, I shouldn't play my bard if I get you as a DM... gotcha.
this works alot much more better :-)
If you want to teach your strikers some respect. Focus fire. REALLY focus fire. Give up AOs to the rogues if they've already hit with their SA damage. Surround the ranged guys.
Without defender's marks to hamper you, you should be able to dump most of your attacks on a squishy striker in one round. (Pinning the leader more than 5 squares away - or dropping him first - helps as well!)
Get flanks! Use action points! Great tactics!
:D
Focus fire should, as far as I know, be pretty much how you run combat anyways, barring a reason otherwise. There are a lot of ways to make that difficult, especially against Rangers, but eh.