What are other peoples' experiences?
Do we think that this just may be due to the fact that earlier modules are still written to be "introductory" and module authors still haven't let their claws out yet?
I'd love to hear the opinions of some of the global admins.
I'd love to hear the opinions of some of the global admins.
Slip your DM a C-note and tell him you like it rough.
Slip your DM a C-note and tell him you like it rough.
Not cool. Some of us happen to read forums while at work and making us laugh that hard is just not cool.
I'll have to try that one at my next game.
I haven't played a whole lot of LFR (only 8 or so modules), and, while I haven't seen any deaths, I've surely read about quite a few of them here, and on the LFR Yahoo group. And, I've participated in a fair number of combats that really felt like they could go either way.
Personally, my PCs have gotten knocked to 0 HP quite a bit; in fact, I've gotten knocked to 0 three times in the same encounter -- on two separate occasions.
However, as we're still in a fairly introductory phase, and I have been stuck with sub-optimal parties and had to work beside seriously broken characters, I'd prefer that any additional difficulty be added on only by experienced GMs for groups of people they are familiar with.
There's a paladin I've been put in a group with a couple of times now that has 14 str, 14 cha and wields a longsword but doesn't carry a shield. This paladin, despite having played for a couple of months now, still doesn't understand the basic mechanics of their own at will powers and has never marked anything without being nudged to do so. Luckily, the player is a really nice person, a team player and is completely open to suggestion during combat. However, amping up the difficulty would make a character like this less of a distraction and more of an actual liability and I'd prefer, at least in the early stages of LFR, to keep things easy until some of the new players have a chance to adapt.
While you can't change the xp rewards, if you're with a DM you know and a group of like-minded friends and allies, let the DM know that he doesn't have to hold back and if things are going too easily, he can add an extra challenge or two (toss in another monster that was hiding or give some of the ones that are left some extra hit points or another use of a power.) This should only be done on a consensual basis, though.
Based on my experiences, as well as the experiences of many of the people I play with or speak to about LFR, the general consensus is that LFR modules do not provide an adequate challenge.
It is possible that this isn't a module issue, but more of a judge issue.
Playing a PC competently requires you to master the few abilities that a low-level PC has. Running an NPC competently requires you to master a new set of abilities each combat.
Because of this, in a new system, most DMs are likely to be a little behind the learning curve, as compared to a group of capable players, so that will intrinsically make LFR combats slightly easier than they should be until everyone's up to speed.
Note that, when players make mistakes, they're usually in the PCs' favor (warlocks dealing curse damage multiple times a round, cursing enemies who aren't closest and getting the prime shot bonus even if allies are closer; fighters with unlimited immediate actions; players using an encounter ability multiple times in an encounter or forgetting about ongoing damage).
When DMs make mistakes, however, they're usually also in the PCs' favor (forgetting that a particular creature has an action point, immunities, abilities that recharge or abilities that are triggered by something PCs do).
If you are finding that LFR combats are, across the board, too easy, you may want to make sure that no one in your group is making mistakes that increase their effectiveness. If that's not the case, perhaps it's a case of your usual judge being a bit too nice, so you might want to run a module yourself that you've had time to prepare, to see if your tactical skills can challenge the group.
If you are 1st or 2nd level and are playing up, and are not in danger of dying every encounter then your GM is either softballing it for you or has the cursed dice of never rolling above 10 in a 4 hr gaming session.
That is flat-out not true.
If you are finding that LFR combats are, across the board, too easy, you may want to make sure that no one in your group is making mistakes that increase their effectiveness. If that's not the case, perhaps it's a case of your usual judge being a bit too nice, so you might want to run a module yourself that you've had time to prepare, to see if your tactical skills can challenge the group.
I play with a variety of judges and have been judging quite often myself - I can be a pretty vicious judge.
I guess that my impressions aren't shared across the larger community. That's a good thing, I suppose.
It just hits problems when you do have a good party who knows how to work together, etc. Also, the item inflation is also making things easier than normal for tabletop.
I personally think the scaling isn't scaling things up to be dangerous enough, too - it's way too easy to just play up at the moment.
Anyhow, I'd like more difficult modules. There's nothing preventing a group who feels like that telling the DM and the DM switching things up a little. I know I've played with one DM who switched up a lot of stuff to make it challenging, giving us 2 rounds instead of 6, 6 monsters instead of 4, one less extended rest, etc.
I think the mods right now are too easy, for the most part, but only when a table has all four roles covered to some extent. I've yet to actually play at a table without a healer in my region, and oftentimes I've been one of many leaders at the same table.
The real issue I have right now is players getting scared. By this I mean that tables that could be playing high don't want to because everybody's scared of their character dying. Again I think this is more of the old LG mindset, with it's harsher death penalties, than anything else. The current CCG and the way raise dead works now in 4e virtually eliminates the pain of death from PC's. Still, more often than not my 7th level cleric has to grin and bear it while he shepherds 5th and 6th level companions through low tier mods
For example, the last adventure I ran had:
Played Down
Encounter 1: Level 2 == 600 XP (125/player)
Encounter 2: No XP (RP/Story Award)
Encounter 3: No XP (bundle)
Encounter 4: No XP
Encounter 5: "Level 1" == 300 XP or 60 XP per player (that's more like level 1/4.
Encounter 6: "Level 1" == 425 XP or 85 XP per player (Ok, so we are up to level 1/2 or so now)
Encounter 7: Level 2 == 675 XP (135 XP per player), with a skill challenge to avoid.
Played Up
Encounter 1: Level 3 == 775 XP (155/player)
Encounter 2: No XP (RP/Story award)
Encounter 3: No XP (bundle)
Encounter 4: No XP
Encounter 5: Level 2 == 600 XP or 125 XP per player.
Encounter 6: Level 2 == 575 XP (115 XP per player)
Encounter 7: Level 3 (4?) == 850 XP (170 XP per player), with a skill challenge to avoid.
So, let see: Playing this 'down', you have two encounters which are not even a level 1 encounter (level-1, essentially) and thus will be no more than speed bumps to any group except a group of 100% first level characters and you have two difficult encounters, and two moderate encounters (level+1).
But if your group averages 2nd level, playing 'up' is now balanced properly (or even arguably too weak with two encounters at Level -'2' and two encounters at level +1) and if you are playing it at level 3 or higher it is definately unchallenging.
And the root of the problem is, imho, the adventure experience budget.
With 400 XP per player (playing down) you really cannot have more than three encounters that grant experience or else you end up with, essentially, four level 1 encounters or some encounters that are lower than level 1 and thus borderling pointless. And if you are restricted to only three encounters, and one of those is a skill challenge - now you are down to only two combat encounters and that feels a bit short to most players.
With 560 XP per player (playing up) you are not much better off. If you have four encounters (including the nearly obligatory skill challenge) you are up to four level 3 encounters. If you want to make one of these somewhat challenging, you end up reducing the difficulty of the other encounters and ending up with easy encounters. Again - this would work better as three encounter (for that budget) but you are once again down to only two combat encounters.
In essence: The problem is that the addition of skill challenges has not been compensated by the addition of more experience to the effective budget. Under 3.5, an adventure typically had three encounters and the types of activities that are now covered by a skill challenge were simply handled as a roleplaying encounter that did not generate experience. Now that they generate experience, since the effective budget has not been increased the difficulty of the existing encounters needs to be decreased in compensation.
The solution is that the experience budget needs to be increased.
For a group playing 'down', a better mix of encounters would be something along the lines of one Level 1, two Level 2s and one Level 3 for a total of 500 XP per character. This gives a party of all level 1 characters three moderate encounters and one hard encounter (by the DMG standards) and a part with an APL of two one easy encounter and three moderate encounters.
Likewise, for a group playing 'up', a better mix of encounters would be something like one level 3, two level 4s and one level 5 for a total of 700 XP. This would give a party of APL 3 three moderate encounters (level to level +1 per DMG) and one hard encounter and a party of APL 4 one easy encounter and three moderate encounters.
Either that of start writing all modules with only three encounters including any skill challenges.
Carl
The thing that confirmed this to me was at the weekly gamenight I run. We have always had a mix of very good and very bad players since the LG days. Well I have seen tables of mediocre to bad low level players finish the higher tier mods easily. That basically never happened in LG.
Once you get used to your characters and use just basic rudimentary tactics, LFR appears to be very, very easy.
Daren
Based on my experiences, as well as the experiences of many of the people I play with or speak to about LFR, the general consensus is that LFR modules do not provide an adequate challenge. Even with level 1-2 PCs playing at 1-4 high tier, or level 4 PCs playing at 4-7 high tier, we haven't really found the modules very challenging. In fact, I have only seen someone drop to 0 or below under 10 times in the 30+ games I have played.
What are other peoples' experiences?
Do we think that this just may be due to the fact that earlier modules are still written to be "introductory" and module authors still haven't let their claws out yet?
I'd love to hear the opinions of some of the global admins.
I have seen the same thing. I think LFR is too easy. I have seen tables of mostly 1st level characters choose to play the higher tier and beat it without much difficulty. I have taken part in a short table of a 4-7 mod and beat it easily too. The too easy part is across multiple tables of people with different DMs.
The thing that confirmed this to me was at the weekly gamenight I run. We have always had a mix of very good and very bad players since the LG days. Well I have seen tables of mediocre to bad low level players finish the higher tier mods easily. That basically never happened in LG.
Once you get used to your characters and use just basic rudimentary tactics, LFR appears to be very, very easy.
Daren
Daren,
I think we need to start making inherently flawed characters... as difficult as that may be for us.
1) LFR mods tend to have lots of average fights (Encounter level = PC level). Very few Level+1 (above average) or Level +2/3 (hard) fights.
2) The encounter budget means with 2-3 fights and 1-2 skill challenges you will have an action point in ALMOST EVERY FIGHT. In homegames, i've delt with resource management issues (having 3-6 average/above average fights in a row means you have to conserve your dailies and you only have an action point in every other fight)
3) Good DM vs Weak Players or Weak DM vs. Good Players is a big difference.
4) strong builds/tactics vs. weak builds/tactics. I've seen crappy tactics/builds destroy a table many times (either running or playing). the reverse turns any mod into a cakewalk. Look at the Pre-Gens. If your PC (same role) has consistently 2-3 points higher on attacks, defenses, skills, etc. then you're way on the top end of the curve.
5) when i play with people i know and trust we always play up. We started the level 4-7 mods all on high tier with all 4th level PCs. Some fights were hard, but no one was in any real danger.
6) party balance. if you always have a defender, a leader, and a striker you should be fine. But the key is to have a GOOD defender, leader, and striker. If you rogue never gets his/her sneak attack, and your defender is an assault swordmage that doesn't keep the baddies off the squishies, and your leader doesn't add WIS to healing, it's going to hurt.
- if you combine multiple negative factors (imbalanced table, inexperienced players, bad builds, bad tactics, challenging DM, playing up) it is REALLY hard.
- if you're on the opposite side, it tends to be a cake-walk.
For a challenge - play with people you dont' know. Or get the judge to spice it up (for instance, if you're playing with a table of 5, have the DM scale for 6 anyway). Another thing is to build wacky non-optimal builds for fun (a gnome ranger? dwarven rogue?).
Also, i expect mods to get harder in the middle of next year once authors start finding cheesy combinations of terrain, monsters, templates, and challenges. I hope it doesn't happend (I want the game to stay open and fair for new / inexperienced players). Setting the campaign to "eleven" just turns new players away. The challenge-hungry people can find their cake without making the game unplayable for the average person.
As noted above, playing 'up' is balanced (as per the DMG) for a party of 1st level characters. So why would anyone do otherwise unless they had new players or a really screwy party role mix.
We have only played one adventure in the 4-7 band as yet, so we haven't yet figured out if they have the same problem, but I'm assuming they do.
RPGA: Increase the level budget for the adventures.
DMs: Cut out one encounter and use the experience gained to make the remaining encounters challenging. Or (if your players don't object) just bump up the challenge to what's appropriate and don't worry about the fact that your players will 'lose' experience (my preference).
WoTC: Put out a revision of the game that increases the number of encounters per level back to (at least) the 14 that was appropriate for 3.5 rather than the ~9 that are implied by the current rules.
Carl
Of couse, some of the players have always been new to 4E entirely, so had they been more familiar or optimized, maybe it'd be different.
Personally, I'm starting to get a better feel on how balanced certain encounters are. I think it is true that as written, LFR mods are usually weighted toward the easier side. But, we also have the ability to spice it up. For me, I usually add a few more minions.
A large portion of it has to do with the way the encounters are built. Often they use too many brutes/skirmishers and not enough soldiers/controllers. I miss the sense of danger, and the associated sense of accomplishment that was gained when that danger was overcome, from LG.
DM empowerment is not the answer. When we get TPKed I don't want to have to think that the DM was screwing us. I want to think, "Hey, that mod was tough".
DM empowerment is not the answer. When we get TPKed I don't want to have to think that the DM was screwing us. I want to think, "Hey, that mod was tough".
This perspective is definately worth more thought.
I read this as:
If the module writer puts in a tough encounter and you are beaten, you see this as fair ("Hey, that mod was tough".)
And yet if the DM takes an easy encounter and beefs it up to create the exact same tough encounter and you are beaten, you see this as unfair "the DM was screwing us".
It seems as if this is wrong, somehow. If an encounter is 'fair' when the module writer puts it in, the encounter is 'fair' when the DM puts it in. What makes it fair or not is how balanced the encounter is for the group (and who, besides the DM - with knowledge of the party levels and roles - is better able to make that call?).
I'd say that it is the job of the DM to change the adventure to make it fair (which may mean making the encounter harder or easier) not that the adventure is fair and it is unfair for the DM to change it.
Aside from the issue of risk/reward in that the DM can't increase the experience to compensate for the changes he makes.
Carl
When my party is wiped out by the four ogre mages I want to be able to ask someone who cleared the mod with no problems how they did it. I don't want to find out that they only had to fight two ogre mages or one ogre mage and two lizardfolk.
Also, using DM empowerment to make mods tougher punishes characters who are built better and groups who are better prepared.
Doesn't it invalidate my efforts when an encounter is scaled up to make things harder for my characters or scaled down to make things easier for someone who purposely built a weaker character?
Why make effective characters at all? Why not just make strength 14 fighters and intelligence 12 wizards since it's the job of DM empowerment to scale things down to make them doable for me?
I realize things will never be perfect, but the system should not encourage people to change the mod however they like.
So, more treasure, action points, and dailies against encounters that are easier due to XP budget.
Having discussed this with various authors, DMs, and previous campaign admins, I would rather have an interesting story that may be a little less challenging to a finally honed group/character, than a weak story that obliterates all but the best of the players out there.
I think it is much easier to use DM Empowerment to take the table up a notch as required, than it is to pick up a weak story and make it interesting. When I DM with a pre-written adventure, I don't mind adding a few critters, bumping up others, or fudging a roll or two. I don't want to have to completely infuse my own story into the adventure. After all, I didn't write the adventure, and I'm not getting paid to do so, so why should I have to do that work?
So I vote for the status quo, with DM Empowerment for the tables that want it.
As a player -
I usually sit on a table where, while we try to balance the party, it doesn't always happen.
There's nothing more frustrating then being a warlord that grants lots of basic attacks and you're on a table with a Sword Mage, Paladin (CHA base), Wizard, and Warlock.From what I've seen, while some of the fights are easy, others can just be hard. It really all comes down to the tactics the GM and players use.
As a (beginner) judge -
*If I want to be really mean. I can have all my bad guys gang up on just one player, drop him and then move through the rest.
It's a tactic the players use so I have no problem using this tactic when the players start getting cocky.
*Mods. A few of the mods I've ran makes me wonder what the heck the writers were thinking when the placed the bad guys on the map supplied for the encounter. So I usually do a little re-arranging of where those bad guys start out at.
Doing this can make a easy fight into a challenging fight.
If I rephrase value judgments, then I might claim the following about LFR are true statements, in my opinion:
Typically, a team of well-rounded PCs which represents the players' desires for character races, types and backgrounds will be challenged appropriately by LFR adventures at the equivalent EL.
Typically, a role balanced team of combat optimized PCs played by combat proficient players will be only marginally challenged by LFR adventures, and should ask their DM to raise the challenge of the combat encounters. The DMs are empowered to do so.
Have fun.
Keith
I run at an FLGS with a high number of younger players and people new to the hobby. I generally try and push them to the point where they feel threatened, without taking any of them out of the fight with a KO, simply because they feel accomplishment from the victory but start really sulking or worse if they get knocked unconscious. They're getting better at the system, I rarely have to prompt the rogue to try for combat advantage, I don't usually have to try and convince the warlord that commander's strike is a better tactical choice while he's flanking something with the rogue than a basic melee attack, and so on. Still, often I'm playing with a smaller group--the kids don't always make it out every week regularly--and even when I only have the players who I've never had to explain how something works more than once, I'll find myself short on roles. Usually a leader.
When I play at home, with my friends when they come in from out of town, yeah, we're rarely in danger of much going wrong, and even if something did we're all capable of handling it--I think once when I was rolling poorly and got KO'd in a session I grinned and hopped up for another round of pizza. That said we're often more vicious tactically at each other than I would be for the kids.
I'm still fairly new to the RPGA, I never played during the old LG days or anything, but for my money it would be a much more frustrating and much less interesting format for me if a less-than-optimized character was going to not only potentially suck for that player, but for everyone else sitting at the table. I really don't see that as being as ideal for roleplaying games and introducing new people to the hobby as something a bit less challenging like LFR. I know that a good half of my players wouldn't be coming out if the games were challenging on that level, for whatever reason--to the point where I just wouldn't have a game.
So, easy or not, I think it's just about where it needs to be.
And I think it was like +11 vs. Will.
We got through it, but it was rough.
Power gamers - like Dave or myself - not being challenged is not the problem. But having no one challenged is a problem.
Daren
[snip]
If I rephrase value judgments, then I might claim the following about LFR are true statements, in my opinion:
Typically, a team of well-rounded PCs which represents the players' desires for character races, types and backgrounds will be challenged appropriately by LFR adventures at the equivalent EL.
Typically, a role balanced team of combat optimized PCs played by combat proficient players will be only marginally challenged by LFR adventures, and should ask their DM to raise the challenge of the combat encounters. The DMs are empowered to do so.
Have fun.
Keith
My comments should probably be taken with a grain of salt because I am also one of those people who believe in the mythological "standard of play".
When my party is wiped out by the four ogre mages I want to be able to ask someone who cleared the mod with no problems how they did it. I don't want to find out that they only had to fight two ogre mages or one ogre mage and two lizardfolk.
Also, using DM empowerment to make mods tougher punishes characters who are built better and groups who are better prepared.
Doesn't it invalidate my efforts when an encounter is scaled up to make things harder for my characters or scaled down to make things easier for someone who purposely built a weaker character?
Why make effective characters at all? Why not just make strength 14 fighters and intelligence 12 wizards since it's the job of DM empowerment to scale things down to make them doable for me?
I realize things will never be perfect, but the system should not encourage people to change the mod however they like.
To directly answer this - it sounds like what you want is for the module to be a metric for you to compare your PC/Parties achievements to another PC/Parties achievements. Sort of a "She's the ship that made the Kessel run in 12 parsecs" kind of thing. If the Kessel run changes everytime, then your result is meaningless (compared to the results of others).
This comparison was certainly something that did happen in LG - it was the best way to know if you/your party/PC was average, good, poor, etc. - by comparison to other's results. It worked as a metric because the adventures were held constant (at least in theory).
In practice, even in LG, a mod was very different depending on the skill of the DM (and whether or not they actually followed the adventure exactly, mostly, or whimsically). So you could compare yourself to another table at the same CON with the same judge - but arguably not with a table run two months later on the other side of the country.
I am disappointed that there's minimal reward for having the better/optimal PC/party - your only real tool is to play up; and if you're 3rd or 6th level you really CANNOT play up. The optimal/better party can demonstrate their effectivity by playing up, but if 80% are doing that, it doesn't serve as a metric to distinguise the best from the average (it only distinguishes the best and average from the below average).
What LFR appears to be achieving (through DM empowerment) is a way to make it challenging for everyone. The DM just controls the challenge knob, not the writer. So everyone gets a challenging experience (in theory), but there's no way to say which players/parties are "better". I don't think WOTC wants to create that environment (though it did result in LG).
Rest assured that there are lots of groups out there that ARE struggling in 4e. Snicker all you want, but the optimizers/ expert tacticians represent a smaller chunk of the distribution than they did towards the end of LG, at least at this stage of LFR. Maybe that's a good thing, maybe that's a bad thing.
My recommendation for those seeking a challenge is to always play up, play wacky builds, or play with a table of sub-optimal players - your DM has ways to make it more challenging for you, but if you're looking for a way to prove your PC/Party performed "better" than others, I think you're going to be disapointed with LFR.
What are other peoples' experiences?
We had a near TPK in first session (4 of 5 died, 5th was unconscious and stable).
We had a near TPK in second session (3 of 4 died).
We haven't had anyone die since then.
We have people drop every mod or two; we have people bloodied every encounter. We don't play up.
My homeplay group is not bent toward optimization. Very few characters have scalloped ability arrays. Folks are taking low level bundles rather than waiting for upper level bundles. We have few people replaying.
David
Power gamers - like Dave or myself - not being challenged is not the problem. But having no one challenged is a problem.
Daren
Daren,
I certainly respect your position, but from an administrator's point-of-view, I've also had the odd complaint that some combats are too tough (specifically DRAG1-1, BALD1-1 and MOON1-2).
While it is generally accepted that the 1-1 adventures were written off draft versions of the rules and therefore given a pass, what might be worth keeping in mind is that the 1-2 adventures didn't fare much better.
My submission deadline for DRAG1-2 was the first week of July, just three weeks after the release of 4e and six weeks before the campaign launched. The draft was submitted earlier than that. I can't see that anyone (who did not run playtest groups), would have a good handle on combat difficulty at that stage. Even playtesters would be working off their impressions based on draft rules...
The 1-3 games have been written by people who have had a good taste of the game, in the organised play environment. I think you'll find them a little tougher, because it is fair to suggest authors have erred on the safe side to date.
Joe
Now seems pretty easy and well unchallenging.
Things can be made challenging if you pound on a PC that is down and reduce them beyond 1/2 their bloodied value, but players tend to consider it as malicious instead of as good tactics or an increased challenge. I used an imp in a mod that would stay invisible and when someone went down it would come out and finish them off. Created too much ill-will at the table so I stopped. Once you get over level 4 though this gets harder as lots of the creatures have max damage around 12-18, not enough to do in a PC without multiple hits while they are downed.
To be honest, I'm ok with that - at lower levels, the adventure should probably be a little easier; lower-level characters don't have as many options.
Daren,
The 1-3 games have been written by people who have had a good taste of the game, in the organised play environment. I think you'll find them a little tougher, because it is fair to suggest authors have erred on the safe side to date.
Joe
Joe has a very good point. It's a new system. Give it time for the writers to kill you :P
The 1-3 games have been written by people who have had a good taste of the game, in the organised play environment. I think you'll find them a little tougher, because it is fair to suggest authors have erred on the safe side to date.
Joe
Joe,
You make a good point. The 1-4 modules were written extremely early and the 1-2 adventures were also written around the release of the game. I am anticipating a greater challenge in the 7-10 adventures. I can say with certainty that IMPI1-3 should provide a significant challenge at all tiers, especially at the higher tier if people "play up."
Who knows... I may come home from DDXP and say "okay, I take that back - LFR can be plenty challenging."
Show
DRAG1-1, high tier - the cube fight followed by the never-ending dire rats was tough, especially if the party got bottlenecked by the entrance.
I was not a fan of how optimal characters became the expectation in LG and like how "underpowered" characters can be viable in LFR. I'd like to be challenged but, I'd rather have the choice of how tough a character I want to bring to the adventure rather than have to optimize to survive.
I have definitely seen character deaths and near-TPKs occur at other tables so obviously some folks are finding a challenge. I also know I have barely gotten through a few tight scrapes even with parties that i thought would roll through a mod.
I think the best thing to do if the challenges aren't their is to begin taking more softer character build choices that you find more interesting or fun to play.
Some fights may be easier than others, and not every game has deaths. But, despite what some people seem to push for, D&D is not a miniatures game, it is a roleplaying game, and in the end it is about the story, and not about how many deaths were had in an adventure.
Gomez
It is also much harder to really kill a PC in a fight in 4E. They most often happen with TPKs and hardly ever outside such a situation. So a death count does not say anything about the difficulty.
As a rule, in the games I've played the majority of combats haven't left the party feeling in any real danger of death. But there have been a few. It's a rare mod where one member of the party doesn't hit the deck at some point.
We have often played up with a party with a mix of characters from 1-4 with no real problems, however when we played up the other day with 5 newly generated level 1s, we nearly had TPK twice (and probably should have; the GM gave us a few hints on escaping). And there are a few hard mods. For example ADAP1-1 is pretty tough if you have APL1.
So I conclude that the odd fight is pretty brutal, but as a rule mods aren't, and most of the time we go into them expecting to succeed and get full XP/rewards. However, which fights are brutal can vary with party composition, tactics and even whether you play high or low. I've replayed mods and found combats that were straightforward first time round become quite nasty at high level with a different party.
I don't know how to do spoiler boxes, or I'd provide examples.
However, I do hope that over time getting full xp proves to be a bit more challenging and not the norm.
I was not a fan of how optimal characters became the expectation in LG and like how "underpowered" characters can be viable in LFR. I'd like to be challenged but, I'd rather have the choice of how tough a character I want to bring to the adventure rather than have to optimize to survive.
Then play the low tier.
That's not what I have a problem with ... I have a problem with the fact that our group was able to play one of the toughest mods I've seen at high tier when our characters were 2 level 1's and 4 level 2's. Two of the players were under 12 and one was more of a "casual" player.
Obviously I can only go by my own experience here. But I've been playing with a variety of judges and if the group works together as a team the mods are easy, even playing up as much as possible.
This seems to be by design. I just checked a 4-7 mod's XP budget and for high level they had two level 5 encounters and a level 6 encounter. Assuming an average party level 6 for the high tier, that's 2 "easy" and one "standard" encounter according to the DMG.
I understand that at levels 1-4 the low tier should be fairly easy. I don't have a problem with it. I would like the high tier to mean something.
Allen.
Then again, I'm playing an archer and two high AC defenders, so I'm not hit often.
We have a split in our club, of experienced and inexperienced people. Three days ago we had a TPK (at a table full of mostly inexperienced people) of level 1-2 characters playing low. The same mod featured two tables (full of mostly experienced people) of level 1-3 characters cakewalking the mod on high, and a fourth table had a reasonable challenge (neither too easy nor too hard).
I am NOT interested in repeating LG - the stupidness of the template/non-associated class CR-manipulations toward the end still leaves a bad taste in my mouth (and this is speaking as a reasonably accomplished 3.x PC-optimizer).
Joe,
You make a good point. The 1-4 modules were written extremely early and the 1-2 adventures were also written around the release of the game. I am anticipating a greater challenge in the 7-10 adventures. I can say with certainty that IMPI1-3 should provide a significant challenge at all tiers, especially at the higher tier if people "play up."
Who knows... I may come home from DDXP and say "okay, I take that back - LFR can be plenty challenging."
Is IMPI1-3 running at DDXP? Am I going to get a chance to try to keep a straight face while telling you your mod is too easy, or am I going to have to cackle madly while typing it?
Is IMPI1-3 running at DDXP? Am I going to get a chance to try to keep a straight face while telling you your mod is too easy, or am I going to have to cackle madly while typing it?
Both DRAG1-2 and IMPI1-3 are running at DDXP. Dave and I should hand out a form asking how tough it was at the end of each session.
Was this adventure;
A - Not difficult. That Kayserman guy should pick up his act.
B - Moderately difficult. The Dragon Coast sure is a fun region to play in!
C - Very difficult. It turns out the sadistic DM was also the author of IMPI1-3.
:P
Joe
After tonight's experience with my first 4-7 mod on difficult, I think it is pretty well spot on. It played much harder than when I first saw it on easy and 2 rounds of cold dice came very close to TPKing us.
What level were the characters playing? If they were all 6-7 playing high, it should have been tough. It was 4-5 playing up, you shouldn't be surprised it was close to a TPK.
Maybe this will work itself out as authors learn how to balance things out, or we'll just start asking DM's to do it for us.
Allen.
However, I recognize that it's important that the low tier exists. Not every group will be balanced; players who are poor tacticians, poor character builders, or merely inexperienced should be able to take the lower-risk option since playing up could be lethal for them.
Haha, another shameless comparsion between 4e and WoW!
The problem your probably having is that you've got a very good party. If you want it to be harder, try it with an unbalanced group. It's a lot harder without a good defender or a leader.
Run a group of all wizards and see how you do.
What level were the characters playing? If they were all 6-7 playing high, it should have been tough. It was 4-5 playing up, you shouldn't be surprised it was close to a TPK.
Maybe this will work itself out as authors learn how to balance things out, or we'll just start asking DM's to do it for us.
Allen.
I believe it was a 4, four 5s and a 6. Fairly good composition(no wizard). Experienced players with solidly built characters. Every fight was at least a slow grind to win if not threatening.
The wierd thing is that I had played the mod once previously and that table completley stomped the combats on easy with 4s and 5s. The only real difference was average luck and a wizard replacing one of the strikers.
I would like the high tier to mean something.
Allen.
What would you want it to mean? I like there to be a challenge but, whether I completed a mod on "hard" over "easy" is unlikely to ever mean much or even be a feather in my cap denoting one's skill as a player. Hot dice, a borrowed build and/or stronger player/characters carrying me through could just as well account for the same outcome in the mod.
What would you want it to mean? I like there to be a challenge but, whether I completed a mod on "hard" over "easy" is unlikely to ever mean much or even be a feather in my cap denoting one's skill as a player. Hot dice, a borrowed build and/or stronger player/characters carrying me through could just as well account for the same outcome in the mod.
Perhaps my phrasing is wrong, but I would like to be challenged in a mod if I am playing up. Currently, if we have a leader and a well balanced party we play up. If we have more than one leader we always play up. In most cases (90%) it's still easy to win every encounter. There's no sense of real danger or risk. If we play a high tier level 1-4 mod with characters level 3 and 4 it's a cakewalk.
If people aren't into the tactical challenge, are having a hard time, or are concerned about bad dice days, they can always play down.
I judge regularly and there are certain groups that IMHO shouldn't play up. That's ok. They play the low level of the game and occasionally my tactics aren't quite as effective as with other groups. We have fun, and it's all good.
But if I'm with an effective group, I want to be challenged. I want to feel like a hero, like my character is risking life and limb to fight the good fight, not a janitorial crew doing routine maintenance. I want it to mean something. :D
Allen.
Is IMPI1-3 running at DDXP? Am I going to get a chance to try to keep a straight face while telling you your mod is too easy, or am I going to have to cackle madly while typing it?
Honestly, I haven't developed my "challenge guage" in 4e that I had so finely tuned in 3.5, so I'm really curious to find out what will be challenging, and what won't be. The two D&D open events are so far my only experience playing above 6th-7th level.
What's interesting about 4e is that there is only so much that can be done within the XP budget, so in order to make a module challenging, you have to focus more on environmental challenges and creature synergy than on choosing/making "overpowered" monsters.
I'd love to hear feedback on anything about the mod, including the challenge level, whether or not you keep a straight face. I'm running it in Slots 5 and 10, so if you want the author to amp up the challenge, just let me know ;)
Is LFR too easy?
If by "easy", do you mean "like driving down a five-lane blacktop highway with a two-lane service road while packing a fist full of tokens and sporting a triple-spectrum radar detector", then my answer is "yes."
I stupidly played CORM 1-2 down (6 chars mostly lvl 4, me Pal 5 with two Lay-On-Hands and my MC-Warlord Inspiring Word as the best healing source, so we thought it might be tough). Not only did I not spend any Healing, nor the two others with me use their MC Healing, but I had low Initiative for the Final Battle and it was over before my second round.
Although, given how much cake we walked, I should probably Inspiring Word somebody to brush teeth so no cavities. F***, the Cavity Creeps are probably worth more XP than the fourth-string bad guys that attacked us.
I think the majority of this is a result of weak tactics on the DMs part, and I think the majority of that is actually done a little on purpose. I understand completely! As a DM it's natural to secretly want to be on the PC's side, and sometimes when you don't ... when you get the urge to really, REALLY go for blood, it can almost feel like you're being a prick. Ignore those feelings.
I think that 4E is A) the best balanced version of D&D to date, and B) is perhaps the best example of an RPG where Tactics really matter. I mean luck matters of course, builds and stats matter obviously, but I've found that Tactics can make ALL the difference, and this goes for both sides of the screen.
The encounters have all seemed pretty well balanced, so my advice to DMs is don't hold back. Your players aren't going to be nice to you, make no mistake - they are out for blood. They will use every advantage they can, they will put thought into each of their actions and tactics, they will often team up on one monster at a time ... The players won't hold back, and neither should you. A player, will most likely know their character. They will often look at the stats and abilities and try to come up with clever uses and tactics before they ever actually play them. You should do the same thing.
As a DM I encourage you to run your Encounters as if you were a Player going against a DM and the entire party was under your control. Know your monsters, know the layout of the encounters, look for synergy, think the fights out ahead of time, try to plan some strong tactics. In actual combat, have your monsters team up on their threats just as they will try to team up on yours, and do your best to think about each monster's turn and make it count. When you're a player, every time your initiative comes up, you want to make each individual action you have matter, you pick your target carefully, you want to be effective and efficient ... all too often I see DMs basically just moving and swinging randomly, at random targets.
Anybody that's played under me can tell you I'm pretty cut-throat, and that's a warning I give to all players when I first get them. No matter what side of the screen I'm on, I am going to be thinking and playing the same. I've actually challenged groups with CORM1-1, had characters down and the rest sweating in DALE1-1, and once in a low tier CORE1-1 the last PC only managed to avoid a TPK by like 7 or so HP. Those are all mods that are considered fairly easy for the most part, and in all of those cases the Party makeup was excellently balanced, and half if not more of the characters were CharOped.
For example, most of the responses from WitR were that it was terribly easy, and I especially haven't really seen too many people complain about the first part. I actually played on WitR instead of running, (I think it was at the time either my second or third shot being a player in a 4E RPGA game instead of a DM) and we had a DM who seemed to follow this philosophy. We barely made it through the attack on the caravan, and during the Spider Vale encounter, I was the sole survivor. Again, a balanced party with a good deal of optimization.
Nobody really wants to see their PC die, but at the same time they want to know that death is a possibility. For that to happen, some PCs will have to die sometimes. If we're all on here talking about going through the mods unscathed, then there isn't really that sense of danger and challenge overcome that most of us crave. If however the DMs start playing rough, and PCs actually start dying in mods, those that survive WILL feel accomplished, victory WILL taste sweet, and you know what? ... I bet those that go down will have fun too. After all PC Death isn't even really all that bad anymore. If we want there to be a real possibility of victory as well as defeat, then as Players we have to be accept the fact that we won't be victorious all the time, and as DMs we have to be willing to actually be the "bad guy."
I've never fudged a die roll, favorably "misinterpreted" a rule, or even used DME to alter or beef up a single aspect of any of my monsters. I run the mods exactly as written, for the exact number of players in the party, at the Tier they chose to play, and my regulars, who as I said are mostly optimizers, almost never play outside their tier. I've made every party a group of Players throws at me sweat ... not by virtue of being anything special, or having magic dice, but just by going for blood with the same mentality I would have if I was a PC, and the feedback I get is definitely positive. :D
Again, this whole post is just my personal opinion and experience, I am not claiming to be any kind of great sage of wisdom or anything ... but to the players complaining about not feeling challenged: I am pretty sure your DM is being overly nice. To DMs who's players are cake-walking and maybe not really enjoying it because they're cake-walking: give this idea a shot and see how they react. From some of the responses I've read on this thread I am pretty sure I am not the only DM with this mentality. :D
... but to the players complaining about not feeling challenged: I am pretty sure your DM is being overly nice. To DMs who's players are cake-walking and maybe not really enjoying it because they're cake-walking: give this idea a shot and see how they react. From some of the responses I've read on this thread I am pretty sure I am not the only DM with this mentality. :D
I just want to kindly point out that the intent of this thread is not to "complain," but rather to get a discussion going about peoples' experiences with the campaign so far, and specifically discuss whether people have found the modules to be challenging.
So far, from what I've gathered, most people find LFR modules to be lacking in the challenge department, but since the game hasn't even reached "puberty" yet (so to speak), many of us are attributing it to growing pains.
To address your points, I agree that some DMs can be cutthroats, and others are fairly soft. In some cases, modules have the potential to be extremely difficult while others will be easy, no matter how hard the DM tries to challenge the party. I would prefer that modules in general have the potential to be deadly, and the tactics vary depending on the "difficulty setting" preferred by the players.
Party-------Suggested
APL---------Difficulty
1-----------1-4 low
2-----------1-4 low or high
3-----------1-4 high
4-----------4-7 low
5-----------4-7 low or high
6-----------4-7 high
I believe there has been a little difficulty creep upwards as things have progressed but, alot of the complaints of things being too easy are coming from the more tightly composed groups of very able players/characters and from the fact that alot of 4th level characters were played in tier 1-4 mods due to the lack of 4-7 ones. A 4th level character isn't necessarily going to crush a 1-4 mod but, a table full of them will.
1 - The advancement, XP budget, and therefore encounter difficulty are set by the core rules and by WotC's vision for LFR. While the campaign staff can make suggestions, what happens is solely in WotC's demesne. Writers can certainly come at adventure design from different angles and using different strategies, but if we have 2000/2800 xp per adventure to work with, that's what we have to work with.
2 - I love the strategic combat/skirmish part of 4e D&D just as much as the next guy. I love to try to outmaneuver the DM/the players and really make people work for their victories. I really like a challenging tactical game. But if you are playing LFR because you want to gauge your mad skillz against other RPGA players on an even playing field, you are in the wrong campaign. I can't stress this enough. I know a lot of us have that competitive spirit and want to be tested so we can compare, but it just ain't going to happen. I have DMed countless hours of RPGA events among many campaigns, and I can honestly say that I have seen the most optimized of the optimizers--and I remember better and more fondly the players who were able to roleplay well and help the other players at the table create a fun story together.
And also, no amount of baiting the writers/admins with cries of "You guys don't know how to challenge us, you bunch of girls" is going to get us to raise the difficulty level of the adventures. I know, from working in other campaigns, that some writers might feel threatened by that and therefore try to raise the stakes, leading to an arms-race scenario. But since all adventures have to pass through Sean, Pieter, and me before even going to WotC for final reviews, I can assure you that we can withstand the name-calling. I get called worse by my family--after surgery. Sean gets death threats from disgruntled soccer players (and fans) carrying loaded weapons. Pieter survived a long stint on the LG Circle, which might actually be more dangerous that armed soccer hooligans.
3 - These forums are home a great bunch of dedicated RPGA diehards. I wouldn't be doing this gig if I didn't think the world of y'all. (OK, I have a couple of you on ignore. :P ) But y'all are not even close to a majority of the LFR players. We get great feedback from this group, but there are other avenues through which we get feedback. And you'll have to trust me when I say that for everyone who has said that LFR is too easy, there is someone else who has said, "I'm never playing LFR again because it is way too hard." That's how it was in XE, and in LG, and in 3e, and in 2e, and in people's basements running Tomb of Horrors in the 1980s.
The main purpose of the LFR campaign, at least in my estimation, is to get as many people as possible playing D&D on a regular basis by providing regular content--and in some cases providing players and DMs as well. Players whose PCs are dying constantly and never feeling the thrill of victory are not going to play. If it comes down to a choice between challenging an optimized few at the price of alienating more casual players, or getting more players involved at the risk of seeming "too easy" to a few, I think you can guess where WotC is probably going to come down on the issue.
The only person really in a position to gauge the capabilities of a party is the DM, and that is one of the reasons why we are giving DMs the power to gauge what the players at his/her table want, and then delivering that to them.
Thanks again for all the great feedback and discussion,
Shawn
LFR Global Admin
I'm excited to see how my personal feelings will change when I begin to see (and write for) higher levels of play in LFR. In the meantime, regardless of the challenge level (which can certainly be addressed by DM empowerment), I'm really enjoying the campaign so far - it displays many improvements over previous campaigns (like LG). Thanks.
The idea of keeping the difficulty level somewhat low to appeal to a wider base is sound, but relying on DM empowerment to provide the content a significant portion of your core player base desires is probably not the best idea. A better idea would be to, with each round of a dozen new regional mods, make three a little "less challenging", four "just right", four "more challenging" and one "killer". Of course this would never be an exact distribution, but you could steer your writers that way, right? Word will get around..."ooh, don't go to blahblahblah...people are dying in that region this season" or whatever.
There are a lot of mods coming in the future. I think we'll see a wide variety of difficulty levels. WotC wants to expand their player base, but they don't want to lose their core in the process, and I believe they (at least a couple of them, anyhow) realize that and will do their best to please all parties involved. Particularly the ones that buy the Adventurer's Vaults and Insider Subscriptions and Martial Powers and Forgotten Realms Player's Guides. You know...the casual players.
I'd also recommend comparing a few LFR final encounters with the last couple encounters in each 'H' series adventures. If you want to challenge your players sometime the H series are a good templates for 'hard' combat encounters.
For example of the first problem, I recently played Corm 1-1 with my 2nd level warlord and an unbalanced party of mostly second level characters--I think there were two first level characters at the table and everyone else was 2nd. Warlord, barbarian, bard, wizard, archer ranger. We looked at our party, thought about it for 2 seconds and decided to play low tier. The DM apparently thought that would be too easy and ran high tier anyway. As it happened, given the DM's tactical decisions, our party, and our decisions, it worked out, he told us what he'd done at the end and gave us high tier rewards. Everyone was happy.
On the other hand, it didn't have to go that way. If there had been some good luck on his part, some bad luck on our part, and less tactically sound play on our part, things could have gone very differently, and I think that our table would have had a very legitimate beef. We had made it clear that we wanted a particular level of challenge and our DM decided that we were wrong.
On the second, point, it's all well and good to say that you are adjusting the mod to make the fight an appropriate challenge level, but it's pretty easy to get that wrong. (I had a near TPK at one point, largely because the DM read the Eye of Gruumsch's Swift Arm of Destruction as at-will rather than recharge 6; that's a big difference, but it's no smaller than adding an extra orc beserker to the encounter).
For my part, I would much rather see module authors take on the task of determining appropriate challenge than DMs do it on the fly, adding or subtracting monsters. There are a lot more judges out there who I would not trust to do that kind of thing than there are judges I would trust. As primarily a gameday and convention player, I end up playing with a lot of judges who are capable enough when it comes to running a mod, but who I wouldn't want to be rewriting encounters on the fly in order to make mods more challenging.
Now, maybe you're in the small category of judges who can regularly rewrite encounters on the fly and tailor them precisely to the party at the table and the level of enjoyment that gives the most fun for all. Good for you and I hope that it continues to work out for you. However, I think that any advice on DM empowerment in that vein would result in a lot more disasters than it would improvement.
Personally, as a DM with DM empowerment, I'd like to see more suggestions on how to make it more challenging "on the fly" rather than more difficult mods in general. So far, a lot of mods have had a "relatively difficult" combat early on that allows everyone to get a feel of what will push the players. Judging by how well they do in that situation, I can tailor future combats to meet the needs of the group.
Keith's generic advice (from most preferred to least preferred) for DMs:
1) Adjust the tactics, focus or spread attacks, synchronize attacks, separate PCs, attack the soft strikers, etc.
2) scale up/down stats (per DMG) by 2 levels, or adjust hps,
3) add/subtract an adversary or two.
4) increase/decrease the recharge rate on a power
Keith
I played dala 1-1 twice first time the fire beetles drop my fighter to 8 hp after the 1st round of combat and the wizard was drop to 1 hp in the from the flame attack.
End result the wizard was knocked out, my fighter had to burn a daily attack (comeback attack) and ended up burning the palaies lay on hands .
Second time i played it, no one was dropped.
Then when i played Core 1-3 at the 1st fight now problem, but at the end fight, we had two of the six players dropped to zero hp, One of who was dropped to zero twice.
Second time the fighter burned though his dailys attack as did my chara and the rogue. We had a tough time with the big guy in the 1st combat. and the fighter only had three surges left after the combat, and we had to have the gond cleric help heal us. But at the last fight no problem at all.
The thing is having either a small or no benefit for doing high. Let it be the status thing for optimized players.
Some Ideas would be, make encounters timed to win. All skill challenges completed in x rounds or fail, in each round 1 person can make 1 check or assist 1 person. Take healing surges on fails more often.
An example for combat would be saying some npc the pc's are trying to save gets knocked out and instead say the NPC is dying and make death saves each round.
Raise the damage for the monsters a die size +2 for each attack. Give them +2 to hit. Raise their defenses by 2.
Have smart monsters act smart by focusing fire much like pc's do.
Spread the minions out sufficiently so one ae attack can't wipe them all out.
Add an action point to boss mobs
Add in terrain to assist the NPC's
Obviously this stuff is not for the random group of 4-6 who goes through a module, but for the people way beyond the curve and optimized to work together, tyhese sort of things can make fights more interesting.
Obviously this stuff is not for the random group of 4-6 who goes through a module, but for the people way beyond the curve and optimized to work together, tyhese sort of things can make fights more interesting.
I really believe that it is better to write the adventures towards the "middle of the pack" and then let the players negotiate with the DM for a greater challenge if that is warranted. If you and your fellow players know that you are "way beyond the curve and optimized to work together," why not just tell the DM so up front and ask her to ramp up the challenge? 4E makes it very easy to scale monsters -- adding 1 or 2 levels on the fly can be done in your head in most cases. Because most adventures have several combat encounters, this can be done gradually. Don't increase the challenge along every possible axis at the same time. Give all the monsters an extra level's worth of hit points if the PCs have a bunch of strikers. Give them all +1 to their attacks if the party is defender-heavy. If the first fight is still too easy, raise everything's level by 1 in the next fight. Use the "6 PCs" version even if there are only 5 or even 4 PCs. And so forth.
In all the years that I have been writing and DMing, whether inside or outside of organized play, I have always found that it is much easier to let the DM ramp things up from the published baseline than it is to design things around the A+++ party and then expect the DM to know when and how to scale things back down for those parties who aren't uber-optimized.
From the overall campaign perspective, it is better if things are too easy (with the possibility of making them harder next time) than if they are too hard (in which case there might not be a next time). When you have to choose between having an excessive number of tables who come away from an adventure saying "that was too easy" vs. an excessive number of tables who come away from an adventure saying "that was too hard" ... well, I will pick the former every time. I have never seen players walk away from a campaign because they *didn't* get TPKed, but I have certainly seen players walk away from a campaign because they *did*.
Any DM worth his or her salt will gladly bring the pain when a group of players opens the session by saying "give us everything you've got, we can take it and we love a challenge." But bringing the pain by default is a bad way to write adventures. 4th Edition combat seems to have a very pronounced "tipping point" and when you pass that point it can be extremely hard for the PCs to recover unless the DM notices what's going on and has the ability to subtly ease up. This point can sneak up on you, too. Things seem like they are going okay, and then between one round and the next you suddenly realize that the healers are out of their healing words, everybody's used their second wind, and half the monsters aren't even bloodied. Then PCs die, the adventure ends in failure, and everybody walks away unhappy. If a table cakewalks an adventure they might not be as happy as they would have been had they gotten a tough challenge, but they will still be happier than they would have been had the outcome been a TPK followed by the DM pointing at the adventure and saying "it wasn't my fault, this is how it was written."
So, to make a long story long, I really don't expect that we will be revising the XP budgets in the writer's guidelines. I think that as time goes on and everybody gets more familiar with the system, more DMs will gain the confidence and ability to really make use of "DM Empowerment" to tailor the encounters to the capabilities of the party. Authors will also get a little bit better at designing combats and choosing not only individual monsters, but combinations of monsters and whole sequences of encounters, all designed to work together to really push the PCs to their limit. At the same time, it's a black art. I would love it if someone would write a series of articles for Dragon/Dungeon offering various tips and tricks for DMs to use to "tweak" combats and suggestions for how to tell when a fight is going the wrong way (either too easy or too hard). Maybe that is the kind of thing that will be in the Dungeon Master's Guide 2.
We certainly welcome any and all discussion about the ongoing evolution of the adventures. We have a whole sub-forum dedicated to this discussion. Tell us which adventures and encounters you liked, and which ones you didn't like -- and most importantly, tell us why. Tell us what happened that caused the TPK, or tell us what tactic your group used to wipe out an encounter in two rounds despite the fact that all the monsters were 2 levels higher than the party. Combat encounters are, in many ways, just as sensitive to the tactical environment (terrain and positioning) as they are to the monsters. Something as simple as how the monsters and PCs are arranged on the battle map before initiative is rolled can make a huge difference in the outcome.
By the way, there *are* groups out there who build super-optimized characters not just to prove they can, but specifically because they want to be able to do other things than just spend 4 hours rolling dice. I ran an LG table once that was probably the best-built complete group of 3rd Edition PCs I have ever seen. Not only were they optimized individually, but the group as a whole was optimized -- classes, prestige classes, magic items, spell selection, you name it, all chosen for maximum synergy. The players warned me up front that they had made a habit out of absolutely destroying modules without remorse. They asked me to make the adventure as hard as I could possibly make it and still be able to sleep at night. Which I did. And just so you understand where I am coming from, let me be clear that I hate boring combat encounters. If something is a foregone conclusion, I will readily call it in favor of the party if I don't think there is anything left to do but grind out a few more rounds of rolling dice. I have a pretty well-deserved reputation in my local gaming community for making every adventure I run as difficult as I think I can possibly make it without actually causing a TPK.
Well, I gave this group everything I had, and they still crushed everything I threw at them. Of course I could have slaughtered them by putting out a CR 30 creature or just starting to arbitrarily demand DC 72 save or die, but that's not the point. The DM can always "win" if he really feels the need, but what would that prove? I play hard, but I play fair. Nevertheless, I was putting APL + 4 creatures onto the battle map so fast you would think it was a game of Gauntlet. This was APL 12 and I am sure that I did not give them anything below EL 20 when all was said and done. We all had a great time -- it was definitely one of the most enjoyable RPGA games I've ever had.
Turns out they were also phenomenal roleplayers. Their characters had long histories with each other, and they didn't all get along. They argued endlessly about the right decisions to make during the adventure (all in character). They were relating anecdotes that happened 20 adventures ago and beating each other over the head with past bad decisions that the various party members had made. I am not sure I have ever laughed so much during a single 4-hour slot. After the game was over I complimented them on their play (both in and out of combat). They told me something I will never forget. They said that the main reason they spent so much time optimizing and min-maxing their characters was that in their local LG community, most of the tables were spending the entire slot in combat. The local DMs were forced to speed through the non-combat encounters in order to make sure they had enough time to finish all the fights. This group liked to get the combat encounters out of the way to make sure there would be enough time left in the slot for roleplaying. The best way they had found to do that was simply to make sure that their characters were as powerful as possible. That makes a lot of sense, when you think about it.
Anyway, I forget what the heck I was talking about, but I love telling that story. Thanks for bearing with me.
I really believe that it is better to write the adventures towards the "middle of the pack" and then let the players negotiate with the DM for a greater challenge if that is warranted.
I'm really happy that this is one of the people in charge.
The only thing I would change is GIVE THE PLAYERS A EXTENDED REST really five minutes is fine when fighting run of the mill enemies. A Solo may have anywhere from 300-400 HP and a Solo Dragon may have damn near 500. It's crazy to expect a PC to survive a mod where they're spent before even getting to the real fight. As a player I don't mind a hard fight but to go 3 straight combats then fight a Solo which may not even be the final encounter has suicide written all over it.
I'm not sure where most of this is coming from. The highest solo I've seen so far in any adventure I have run had a little over 300 HP in a high tier 4-7. And at that point, all the players should have two daily powers plus their encounter powers and a few choice magic items.
Besides, the limits put in place by the adventure XP budget means that any adventure with a really big solo monster, or even higher end elite monsters, is going to have limited combat leading up to the big fight. If your players are blowing all their daily powers the first time they run across some kobolds, the problem is not with the adventure difficulty.
For example, one 4-7 adventure I am familiar with DOES have three combats leading up to a solo encounter. Now, assuming that it is being run by three 4th and two 5th level characters, they should have 7 daily powers total. The various encounters are party level +0, -2, +0 and +0. Assuming they have some bad rolls and need a little extra oomph, I could see a party using 2 daily powers on the first two party level +0 encounters, leaving them three more to deal with the solo, not counting magic items, of which each character should have one or two with a daily power as well.
So, again, if the party in question is hitting encounter one, and using more than a couple daily powers, they need to rethink their strategy. Perhaps it will take a couple failed adventures before they figure out that blowing everything at the first sign of trouble is not the way to go. LFR should not be punishingly hard, but at the same time, players do not have an inherent right to succeed irregardless of how bad their tactics and decisions are.
I'm not sure where most of this is coming from. The highest solo I've seen so far in any adventure I have run had a little over 300 HP in a high tier 4-7. And at that point, all the players should have two daily powers plus their encounter powers and a few choice magic items.
Besides, the limits put in place by the adventure XP budget means that any adventure with a really big solo monster, or even higher end elite monsters, is going to have limited combat leading up to the big fight. If your players are blowing all their daily powers the first time they run across some kobolds, the problem is not with the adventure difficulty.
For example, one 4-7 adventure I am familiar with DOES have three combats leading up to a solo encounter. Now, assuming that it is being run by three 4th and two 5th level characters, they should have 7 daily powers total. The various encounters are party level +0, -2, +0 and +0. Assuming they have some bad rolls and need a little extra oomph, I could see a party using 2 daily powers on the first two party level +0 encounters, leaving them three more to deal with the solo, not counting magic items, of which each character should have one or two with a daily power as well.
So, again, if the party in question is hitting encounter one, and using more than a couple daily powers, they need to rethink their strategy. Perhaps it will take a couple failed adventures before they figure out that blowing everything at the first sign of trouble is not the way to go. LFR should not be punishingly hard, but at the same time, players do not have an inherent right to succeed irregardless of how bad their tactics and decisions are.
It's about running out of healing surges without them the party a has no chance against a Solo especially a Dragon who can get 6 attacks a round. That's going to be well over forty points then he'll ACTION POINT and do it again to someone else crippling two members of the party IN THE FIRST ROUND. With no healing surges the injured party members are as good as dead next turn then the dragon can take it's time breathe fly away wait for it's breath to recharge breathe again and mop up what left.
It's about running out of healing surges without them the party a has no chance against a Solo especially a Dragon who can get 6 attacks a round. That's going to be well over forty points then he'll ACTION POINT and do it again to someone else crippling two members of the party IN THE FIRST ROUND. With no healing surges the injured party members are as good as dead next turn then the dragon can take it's time breathe fly away wait for it's breath to recharge breathe again and mop up what left.
What dragons are you looking at in the Heroic tier that get 6 attacks before spending an action point? The most I see is 3, and more often 2.
What dragons are you looking at in the Heroic tier that get 6 attacks before spending an action point? The most I see is 3, and more often 2.
It'sa blue dragon in the high level tier of TYMA 1-2
Now, the limits that the experience budget imposes means that if one 4th level character is taking that much damage in the first three battles, either the 4th battle will be easy, no other characters will be significantly hurt, or they are playing dumb. Really dumb.
Also, if your players, and specifically your defenders, are running out of healing surges before the last battle, they are doing it wrong. Let's take a level 4 human fighter with 15 Con. They should have 48 HP, 11 surges and a surge value of 12. So, for them to go through 3 battles and end with full HP but no healing surges left, they would have to take roughly 132 damage, not counting any extra healing from a leader. If there is a leader in the party that can add an average of 4 extra HP per surge, that's 44 more HP. If they are dragonborn, that's another 22. So, if our hypothetical fighter ws a dragonborn with a leader in the party, they would have to take 198 damage to wipe out their healing surges. That's 66 damage a battle, just to that one character.
Now, the limits that the experience budget imposes means that if one 4th level character is taking that much damage in the first three battles, either the 4th battle will be easy, no other characters will be significantly hurt, or they are playing dumb. Really dumb.
Ah but often the DM will ignore Paladin or the Fighter and take out the support staff first like the Cleric, Warlord, Warlock, or Ranger, this forces them to waste surges keeping each other alive. Those classes don't have a depth of surges nor do they heal as much and once the Warlord or Cleric are down the rest of a party can be picked of pretty quickly. So while the Fighter or Paladin might have enough surges the DM will once again target the Cleric, Warlord, Warlock, or Ranger, first knowing they're an easy kill. Then he'll target the meat shields knowing nobody will be able to trigger what ever surges they have left.
Ah but often the DM never goes for the Paladin or the Fighter he attempts to take out the support staff first like the Cleric, Warlord, Warlock, or Ranger, this forces a them to waste surges keeping each other alive. Those classes don't have a depth of surges nor do they heal as much and once the Warlord or Cleric are down the rest of a party can be picked of pretty quickly. So while the Fighter or Paladin might have enough surges the DM will once again target the Cleric, Warlord, Warlock, or Ranger, first knowing they're an easy kill. Then he'll target the meat shields knowing nobody will be able to trigger what ever surges they have left.
Then your defenders and your support characters are doing it wrong. If you are facing big hitters, they should never be able to reach your support characters without taking OAs and being otherwise stickied. If your support characters are in melee range, they need to either be built to take the blows or else they need to get out of there. And if your DM is giving you a couple bonus OAs a round in an attempt to get to to your support people and you still can't deal with it, you have bigger problems.
And finally, the dragon in question you mentioned a couple posts back* has only a little over 300 HP and 3 attacks a round on the high level, not the 500 HP and 6 attacks you seem to believe. If you were playing the high level adventure with appropriate characters (level 6-7) it should have been challenging, but not brutal. If you were playing it with 4th and 5th level characters, you deserved whatever fate befell you.
*There are a couple methods for hiding spoilers on the forum, like the sblock and spoiler tags that both show that there is something there to be reveled. Just colouring your text white isn't very user friendly. The first couple times I read that post, I assumed you had accidentally hit reply without any text beyond "It's"
Regardless, something is wrong at that table if you experienced it the way you've said.
Alternately, your GM is doing it wrong, if that dragon was run with close to 500 HP and 6 attacks per round pre-action point, and focuses constantly on taking out the healers.
Regardless, something is wrong at that table if you experienced it the way you've said.
When I was talking a dragon with 500 HP it was in response to a post about how easy LFR is it wasn't mean to refer to one mod in particular but how a PC needs a break when a mod throws him to the proverbial lions den. Then in another response I mentioned TYMA 1-2 we played it at a high tier not knowing just how rough it actually is. As it turns out this is not a mod to drag a low level party into I was the the only six at a table with two other fives and two fours. If we had a mix of sixes and sevens it would have gone smoother but in my opinion playing a mod high tier isn't as much fun if every one at table is the same level as the highest APL the mod is designed for. A group of 4s and 5s should be able to take the high tier path and have a challenge with out it being so hard that they need to worry about every mod at that level becoming a TPK.
If we had a mix of sixes and sevens it would have gone smoother but in my opinion playing a mod high tier isn't as much fun if every one at table is the same level as the highest APL the mod is designed for. A group of 4s and 5s should be able to take the high tier path and have a challenge with out it being so hard that they need to worry about every mod at that level becoming a TPK.
I on the other hand, would prefer it if the mods were challenging enough that a group of level 4 and 5 characters playing the high tier of a 4-7 mod do need to worry about a TPK. The modules should be designed for level 4 and 5 characters to play low tier and level 6 and 7 characters at high tier. If the campaign has decided that they should at most be moderately challenging when playing at the appropriate level, that's fine, but balancing them to be at most mildly challenging (but with no real danger) for characters playing up is simply ridiculous. (And would leave no room at all for players who do enjoy a challenge). If you don't want danger, don't play up.
If you don't want danger, don't play up.
This is how I feel as well. I understand the low-tier, high-tier thing and agree that low tier needs to be fairly easy. But it seems like everyone in our gaming group (we regularly have 4-5 tables) plays up if they have a leader no matter what the average level of the party.
I know the theory is to aim at medium-level difficulty, but in my experience the mods are aiming too low.
Allen.
I on the other hand, would prefer it if the mods were challenging enough that a group of level 4 and 5 characters playing the high tier of a 4-7 mod do need to worry about a TPK. The modules should be designed for level 4 and 5 characters to play low tier and level 6 and 7 characters at high tier. If the campaign has decided that they should at most be moderately challenging when playing at the appropriate level, that's fine, but balancing them to be at most mildly challenging (but with no real danger) for characters playing up is simply ridiculous. (And would leave no room at all for players who do enjoy a challenge). If you don't want danger, don't play up.
That's the issue the low level track isn't a challenge and the high tier may be to difficult for those not of the appropriate level. Then when players get to that 6-7 level it's not a challenge.
I can say the LFR modules i have played are balanced. However, the crucial factor in all modules is the party make up.
I have played in a few modules where I thought "that wasn't so bad... not as bad as the Fey Gods last week...", but after analysing the groups i have played with, one fact immediately jumps out.
All the easier groups were of 6 players and each group had 2 defenders and 2 leaders. Even if one of the characters wasn't as optmised as the others, the fact that there was "enough healing" and a couple of meat shields dealing with the incomming enemies, frees the remaininf controllers or strikers to do their stuff.
Another factor was the number of players who had played the module before. Having played the mod before allowed mthese players to conserve resources for the "big fight" making things a lot easier.
Conversely I played a mod that few had played on Saturday with a group of 5 with 3 Strikers (2 badly conceived Drizzt clones and a Dark Warlock... against the undead...
) and 2 Leaders (a STR Cleric and my own Tactical Warlord)... while we didn't TPK... it was damn close!It was the first time my warlord has got to use his "Fearless Rescue" daily... and that was in the second encounter!
So when people say LFR is "too easy", it may well be for an optimised group, but unless you play with the same group all the time, then you are eventually going to arrive at a group where every kid wants to play Drizzt (as happened to me) and they have all made a terrible version.
So if you find it easy... enjoy it while you can! :P
I've read this thread with interest, having played a couple of mods where characters (not my own I might add) have been killed (one of whom was "one-hit killed" from max HP to -bloodied by an Orc brute... not a pretty sight).
I can say the LFR modules i have played are balanced. However, the crucial factor in all modules is the party make up.
I have played in a few modules where I thought "that wasn't so bad... not as bad as the Fey Gods last week...", but after analysing the groups i have played with, one fact immediately jumps out.
All the easier groups were of 6 players and each group had 2 defenders and 2 leaders. Even if one of the characters wasn't as optmised as the others, the fact that there was "enough healing" and a couple of meat shields dealing with the incomming enemies, frees the remaininf controllers or strikers to do their stuff.
Another factor was the number of players who had played the module before. Having played the mod before allowed mthese players to conserve resources for the "big fight" making things a lot easier.
Conversely I played a mod that few had played on Saturday with a group of 5 with 3 Strikers (2 badly conceived Drizzt clones and a Dark Warlock... against the undead...
It was the first time my warlord has got to use his "Fearless Rescue" daily... and that was in the second encounter!
So when people say LFR is "too easy", it may well be for an optimised group, but unless you play with the same group all the time, then you are eventually going to arrive at a group where every kid wants to play Drizzt (as happened to me) and they have all made a terrible version.
So if you find it easy... enjoy it while you can! :P
Having at least one Defender (preferably a fighter) and a Leader (preferably a cleric) helps a great deal and does make things very easy.
The strikers (especially the rangers) can dance around the fighter like a jack rabbit caught on fire (never want to see that), while the wizard can sit back in his/her lawn chair, drink a fru-fru drink with an fancy umbrella, and blasts the nasties away with ease.
Course, its also due to good party makeup. The one time I flanked the party who was taking too long in a combat encounter, there was a swordmage in the backlines for some reason...
It gets hard. My group playtested a 7-11 mod.
That would be a 7-10 mod; the Paragon mods come out later next year.
I playtested one also. Another difference (deduced from observation) is that the DM is instructed to roll lots of 6s on recharge attempts. That makes it really, really hard.
Yet that describes exactly the eladrin wizard that is in our group. She loves the umbrella drinks. I don't think she's ever gone down...
Pretty much same for my wizard.
She even has a lounge chair she sticks atop her Tenser's Floating Disc that she operates from, complete with a small side table to hold her drink.
DM: You don't want to get into the combat area more?
Me: Why? Everything I want to hit is in range from where I'm at.
Control wizards can be a massive force multiplier if played right.
One thing I've seen is folks that try to make them into ranged strikers, and often failing miserably at the control thing - and then they wonder why the adventures are so hard.
-karma
1. Many DMs are far more comfortable weakening an encounter to keep PCs alive than upping it. As near as I can tell, one concern that several posters in the list have raised is the concern over what happens when the DM misjudges things and accidently kills people due to his on-the-fly edits.
2. LG, despite what I continue to hear from various sources including Keith in this thread, simply wasn't built to challenge optimized PCs. I know this because I built my PCs to be non-optimal on purpose, and yet people thought they were optimized. Often I needed to explain what an optimized character was.
It is my observation that few LG PCs were truly optimized for combat. Since the campaign didn't exactly grind to a halt due to TPKs left and right (in 7+ years of LG play I never saw one) arguing that only optimized PCs could survive strikes me as more of that revisionist history that keeps popping up with regards to LG.
3. On-the-fly edits are precisely what DME'ed altered encounters are. They are edits done by people whose interest and commitment to the success of the campaign is almost certainly less than the admins. In all likelihood, they are less experienced with the system as well. So why would any sane person trust a random DM's opinion of balance vs. the folks appointed by Wizards to make sure things are balanced?
4. I was pleased to see the post of someone important (Sean Molley) emphasizing a rarely expressed but extremely legitimate viewpoint: Combats are boring, so let's build things to end them quickly and get on with the story. That certainly became my view after hundreds and hundreds of encounters, most of which were handled in about 5-6 categories of various formulaic approaches to defeating them.
5. So that someone might get something meaningful from this post, here are some specific tactical thoughts.
a. Someone made the astute observation that 6-player combats are easier than those with fewer players, even when the extra opponent is added. This is unsurprising from a mathematical perspective. Ask the question: "What does adding an additional ally and an additional opponent mean?" It means two things.
1. An increase in the number of die rolls per encounter. This is good for the PCs since the PCs are expected to win, having more die rolls increases the probability of an average die rolling result.
2. An increase in the value of coordination. I propose that the ability to coordinate maneuvers is positively related to the number of options/unit available. PCs have more choices than do their opponents, so increased unit coordination should help them more.
Conclusion: The simply proportionate opponent increase for 6 PCs may not be sufficent. Accordingly, decreasing opponents only proportionately may be inadvertantly increasing the challenge for parties of 4.
b. People underestimate the ability of leaders to to simply extend a fight and cause a PC win by attrition. I have not generally observed surges/day to be a limiting factor for PCs in LFR modules. The OOC time constraint of an LFR module limits combats to 2 hard or 3 easy, which doesn't prove to be enough to drain surges. Consequently, the leader has greater purpose in LFR than in canon DnD at the moment, since there is only a practical limit on in combat healing and the leaders are the only ones who can increase that limit.
Conclusion: Combats can be increased in difficulty by either concentrating all reasonable fire on the leader until it drops, or (preferably, since it generally takes fewer resources) blocking the leader at least 6 squares (for heroic tier) away from the target absorbing the brunt of the attack.
c. Due to the dramatically imbalanced Veteran's Armor, the resources/fight allocation is greatly skewed currently. In consequence, a writer than plans on 3 moderately difficult fights will find that a set of marquee dailies will be used to end not one but 2 of the 3 encounters. Of course, if only 2 hard encounters were included, the lack of replenishing action points until after the second encounter should prevent a wholesale daily spamming for at least one of the two encounters.
Conclusion: A party fighting 3 medium difficulty encounters has many more resources than fighting 2 hard encounters because the item lets them regain a daily for the 3rd fight and still have an action point left. In a sense, it takes away the punishment for having action points that you don't need, as you'd otherwise have a stack of them after several easy encounters, but no more fights left for the mod. Writers should consider a structure of 2 fights followed by skill challenges etc. if they are concerned about a party trivializing encounters spending surplus action points to recover dailies. It is possible that Wizards will address this issue with errata.
Brayden Glad
Edited as I forgot the adage ' Don't get involved on a arguement on the internet '
For instance I played AKAN 1-1 with my 1st level Dwarf Wizard.
There were also 3 other 1st level characters, two of which were new players.
TPK
It's ok though.
If we would have had one more player I think we would have been ok.
So in conclusion some seem easier, and others not. It depends on the makeup of the group.
Without doubt this factor is just as important as the make up of the party.
The tactics of the villains can make a huge difference to the way a module plays out.
I remember running a module just after another guy had DM'd it. When I checked through the stat blocks of the villains all I kept saying was... "they can do what?" and "they didn't do that!".
Now the guy who ran the module is a good friend, but no tactical genius. Neither am I, but I know how to win the odd game of D&D minis.
So when it came to my turn to run the module, there were cries of "foul" all over the place, as characters got their butts handed to them, or had to deal with tactics that didn't include "just charge the nearest enemy."
Without spoiling anything, some of the tactics were pretty obvious. The enemies were intelligent, so I felt justified in allowing them the following tactics...
- Ranged attackers (Artillery) used cover and attacked the characters with the least obvious armour.
- Those with control effects (Masterminds) used them on the characters with the most obvious armour.
- Heavy melee hitters (Brutes & Soldiers) targetted those affected control effects.
- Targets who revealed themselves to be Leader types (including healing Paladins) got a concentrated burst of attacks from those enemies who observed them.
- Those enemies who could conceal themselves (Lurkers), did so, and attacked from the rear (or flanked) once the characters had passed them.
Basic stuff, but needless to say, the same encounters became far more difficult than before.
In my observations I would say the difficulty is about right for "average" play. The better understanding the players have, the more quickly they develop meaningful team work, and well how hot their dice roll are all important factors in the success of a party at the table.
I play to have fun, and a good laugh with others from time to time.
I'm pretty sure that's what its about isn't it?
Not "beating the mod on hard" like we are sitting at home playing a computer game.
Yes I get there is value in good tactical play making the module challenging, I like the tactics of combat as well, but its not my focus when I come to the table, and its something that is entirely subjective to the encounters presented, and the DM's grasp of the situation and rules. (eg realising half-way through the first encounter that the main monsters of the module are all wrong so its to late to change them...CORM 1-1 I'm looking at you.)
In short there are to many random factors for the writers to accomodate them all, though in truth I'm sure the tactics etc of encounters will go up over time. The best way to get a challangeing game is to have a DM who is well prepared for the module, and has had time to review the characters at the table and think about how to handle the encoutners in the module for that group. You can bet with a good DM that those games will be tougher even at character level.
I've also noticed that when I ask the players to rate the adventures, the parties that stormed through without a challenge give the adventures crappy ratings; while the tough pressed parties, who may have been having a hard time getting the hang of 4th edition in the first place, still give the adventures really good ratings.
Some things I've noted with the adventures so far however:
- Some of the treasure packages are too good! (it seems like everyone and their mom has a +1 lightning fullblade that kills all the minions in one hit)
- traps are never very inventive or designed to screw the party over.
- I havn't seen one good solo battle (fighting dragons is cool)
I would really like to see a) alot more low level RPGA adventures before they start to tackle the high level stuff. I miss how in living greyhawk I could go from level 1 to 5 without having to leave my home region! and b) some "elite" adventures, that include needle fang drake swarms and pit traps with rockslides on top of them and all that fun stuff.
I'd like to see WOTC really open up the floodgates to people wanting to write adventures for their regions. I understand that relying on volenteers to write the adventures is unreliable, but look at the shier volume of great adventures they were puting out with living greyhawk!
I would really like to see a) alot more low level RPGA adventures before they start to tackle the high level stuff. I miss how in living greyhawk I could go from level 1 to 5 without having to leave my home region! and b) some "elite" adventures, that include needle fang drake swarms and pit traps with rockslides on top of them and all that fun stuff.
I'd like to see WOTC really open up the floodgates to people wanting to write adventures for their regions. I understand that relying on volenteers to write the adventures is unreliable, but look at the shier volume of great adventures they were puting out with living greyhawk!
1) There will be more low level adventures released during 2Q09 and later. I can see WotC's reasoning for having all of Heroic Tier available ASAP.
2) I am not sure you can qualify any of the published writers for LFR as volunteers, since WotC has, without exception, bought the adventure from the writer.
Which is also why the number of modules per year in LFR is going to be a bit more limited than the number of modules per year in LG.
a) WotC is buying the modules, for multiple reasons, some of them related to IP, some related to quality control.
b) As modules are being purchased, but given away for free, there is really no slush in the fund for any modules more than they initially put in their budget to start with each fiscal year.
Note that that is also one of the factors that affects the availability & feasibility of things like Interactives.
c) Each module goes through a multi-tiered editing queue, which includes making sure that any changes the module might cause will be coordinated with the rest of the Forgotten Realms lines, including the book side.
And that queue includes at least one layer that did not exist in LG, the book side of the FR line.
Another point of note is that, in LG, at least after the first year or so, you had more than just the new adventures to play, you usually had last year's, and maybe even before. So you had more than a few months module production, but you also had a more limited play choice, as well, since you could only play Core, Adapteds, and your Region and Meta-region's modules.
2. LG, despite what I continue to hear from various sources including Keith in this thread, simply wasn't built to challenge optimized PCs. I know this because I built my PCs to be non-optimal on purpose, and yet people thought they were optimized. Often I needed to explain what an optimized character was.
It is my observation that few LG PCs were truly optimized for combat. Since the campaign didn't exactly grind to a halt due to TPKs left and right (in 7+ years of LG play I never saw one) arguing that only optimized PCs could survive strikes me as more of that revisionist history that keeps popping up with regards to LG.
As someone who ran many LG adventures at Cons and also ran my own Con... I would disagree with you to a certain extent. Regionals ran the gamut, but most of them were fair. Core mods could be tough. (Fiendish Tyrannasaurus Rex of Legend anyone?) But there were Cores that weren't too bad. Metaregionals were the toughest.
I ran many mods rolling behind a screen because I had to fudge die rolls to keep the party alive past the first encounter. (I kept them on the edge, just didn't kill them off that often... call it 3.X DME
) I also ran many, many tables with PCs who were optimized, doing 50+ damage before they even rolled and their to-hit bonuses were sick. I always made them rattle off how they got that to me and it was always legit.2) I am not sure you can qualify any of the published writers for LFR as volunteers, since WotC has, without exception, bought the adventure from the writer.
Sorry, perhaps I should have been more clear. What I'm trying to say is that I think it should be done on a volunteer basis in the same way living greyhawk was done. I think it's nice that they are paying people for this stuff, but it's really limiting their output. (if someone writes an adventure that's a TPK every time (with their 400xp limit)...big deal, you can resurrect for free)
I'm really not sure paying for the adventures is doing much for quality control. While I thought the aglorond adventure was really good! (and actually somewhat challenging - just to stay on topic) I found the ankanul adventure to be absolutely abysmal! (no role-playing at all)
I wrote a number of LG mods and the party I had in mind when I wrote was a party of standard characters who were not tricked out with five prestige classes each. Everything I wrote was doable by a party of PHB only characters. (Challenging, yes, but that's what mods are supposed to be--if it were written to be easy for a party of PHB only characters then only those who played characters who were deliberately gimped would be challenged). In fact the only LG mod I played in eight years that I would think was probably [i]only]/i] written for tricked out characters was the last core special (and the author there was using EL 22+ encounters against APL 16 parties).
For my part, I have found most LFR mods to be easy, but some have proven reasonably challenging. I think that, as characters advance in levels, we are going to see a very dramatic increase in the difference between the effectiveness of various characters and parties--not just as a result of individual optimization, but also as a result of group dynamics and tactical ability. 4th edition does not really have any characters who are simple to play effectively and even those that are (archery focused rangers can be) have to be carefully constructed to achieve a build where point and click play will yield close to optimal results.
As someone who ran many LG adventures at Cons and also ran my own Con... I would disagree with you to a certain extent. Regionals ran the gamut, but most of them were fair. Core mods could be tough. (Fiendish Tyrannasaurus Rex of Legend anyone?) But there were Cores that weren't too bad. Metaregionals were the toughest.
I ran many mods rolling behind a screen because I had to fudge die rolls to keep the party alive past the first encounter. (I kept them on the edge, just didn't kill them off that often... call it 3.X DME
I have seen many modules where, if you don't have a full table of higher level PCs that are, indeed, "tricked out," you will lose PCs during the module.
Indeed, in one of the Core modules in the final sequence, and it was NOT the final Core special, but one a little earlier in the series, that the GM threw up his hands and ended the module because it was already insanely overpowered, and was only going to get worse. The whole experience was ... ugly. Really, really ugly.
And the balance of any 3.5E module, past APL 4 or so, went to pot.
Play this module at APL4, and you had a fair chance against the Drow ambush, but you got crappy access. Play the same module at APL6, and the ambush is going to kill at least one, if not more, characters during the surprise round. Really, sneak attacking, dual wielding, Dervish dances are not balanced at APL 6. And about the only access added for APL 6 was a Quiver of Ehlonna. Meh.
Oh, and siunce the ambush was in town, set to happen after you leave a tavern after a failed negotiation with a Drow representative, even your tricked-out, maxed out, full BAB Spiked Chain tripper with Combat Reflexes isn't going to help, since he is not likely to have his spiked chain in hand when leaving a tavern, even after refusing to make a deal with a couple of Drow.
We made a deliberate attempt in Zeif to make our mods (which we only put out for 6-xx, 7-xx, and 8-xx) reasonable for non-optimized PCs. They were dramatically less difficult, combat-wise, than metaregionals and cores of the same era.
(When I say "we" I mean that I was on the original Triad when the region was incorporated, and the policies we set then were carried through to the end).
In our local club we stopped ordering VTF metaregionals at some point in year 7, and skipped the high level cores too, because these mods became ridiculous and unfun (I travelled to a con in-region but outside my own town and got to play most of the 8-xx metas and cores and know that we didn't miss anything we would have found fun).
LG play in 2008 dropped to almost zero other than at our unofficial "goodbye to LG" con in May where we played only regionals and an interactive - we were stretching to fill a single table most gamedays, in an area that had in the past, and currently does in LFR, fill 4-6 tables per slot.
The only high level LG play that we did in 2008 was regional mods and interactives. The one two-round VTF we ordered I was set to eat/judge. I read it, and about 2/3 of the way through I stopped reading and ordered two different mods to run...
Currently in LFR, our core judge group has a pretty easy time with slot zeros - but we are getting VERY practiced with 4E, and are generally good with teamwork and tactics. However, our regular players have a moderately difficult time with the adventures during gamedays.
Increasing the difficulty of LFR would, in my estimation, cut our play numbers in Calgary in half. For reference, we do two gamedays a month, with two slots per gameday, running roughly six tables per slot counting slot zeros (ie 24 tables per month) and are in the process of setting up a third yearly convention in the city (in the past we've run two yearly conventions).
I believe the DMG suggests 5 as an average work day, and that powers are balanced on that basis. Net result you get more daily attacks per combat, more surges per combat, and daily power utilities become better. Also (as has been observed) you will have an action point for at least two, occasionally all three fights. All in all, the PCs will have a slightly higher concentration of resources than they do for a game that demands longer between extended rests.
Add in the fact that the encounter XP budget is a little on the low side for 3 combats plus a skill challenge, and you'll have one comparatively easy fight in that lot which doesn't require the use of a daily or an action point, so the party can keep them and then go nova in the tough fight.
Too soon access to +2 items makes things easier - yes the staff has acknowledged this mistake and will be addressed at higher levels.
Finally - rewards cards. Now that everyone has them, yet another edge for the LFR character over the mod.
Agreed that the "3 fights" mechanic with XP budget makes for easy fights.
Too soon access to +2 items makes things easier - yes the staff has acknowledged this mistake and will be addressed at higher levels.
Finally - rewards cards. Now that everyone has them, yet another edge for the LFR character over the mod.
And don't forget Veteran's Armour... everyone has Veteran's Armour... :D
The last 5 modules I've DMed have had encounters come dangerously close to TPK (but not quite there, which is what most are aiming for, I think) - all against balanced, tactically-sound parties.
I've found that a few simple DM tactics can give the party a really tough time:
- Focused fire on PCs
- Ignore marks when it's tactically sound for the monster to do so (if a defender is built well, he'll give the monster more reasons to respect his mark than just the fact that he's marked)
- Ready actions and delay when applicable
...and if you really want to challenge the party...
- Attack downed PCs (I haven't done this yet, but I'm tempted to begin doing so - it seems to be taboo but honestly, why wouldn't an intelligent creature do so after seeing a leader bring people back from unconsciousness on numerous occasions)
I've actually come to realize over time that DM tactics can have a far greater impact on module difficulty than the creatures contained therein. Obviously, the creatures need to have the potential to be deadly, but running them in a tactically sound manner (assuming they're intelligent enough to warrant tactics) makes just as big a difference.
The last 5 modules I've DMed have had encounters come dangerously close to TPK (but not quite there, which is what most are aiming for, I think) - all against balanced, tactically-sound parties.
I've found that a few simple DM tactics can give the party a really tough time:
- Focused fire on PCs
- Ignore marks when it's tactically sound for the monster to do so (if a defender is built well, he'll give the monster more reasons to respect his mark than just the fact that he's marked)
- Ready actions and delay when applicable
...and if you really want to challenge the party...
- Attack downed PCs (I haven't done this yet, but I'm tempted to begin doing so - it seems to be taboo but honestly, why wouldn't an intelligent creature do so after seeing a leader bring people back from unconsciousness on numerous occasions)
This is entirely my experience... as I quoted above... if a DM follows these basic tactics:
- Ranged attackers (Artillery) use cover and attack the characters with the least obvious armour.
- Those with control effects (Masterminds) use them on the characters with the most obvious armour.
- Heavy melee hitters (Brutes & Soldiers) target those affected control effects.
- Targets who revealed themselves to be Leader types (including healing Paladins) receive a concentrated burst of attacks from those enemies who observe them.
- Those enemies who can conceal themselves (Lurkers), attempt to do so, and attack from the rear (or flank), preferrably once the characters have passed them.
These basic tenents will make any encounter a lot harder.
Even simply hitting the defenders with control effects is enough to turn most battles. A Slowed Fighter loses a lot of effectiveness, even moving [pull/push/shift] them one square away from their marked target is enough to free that enemy to do other nastiness with near impunity.
Of course, simple creatures should have simple tactics, but even they have learned enough to avoid the "sharp food with the shiny skin" and go for the "food with the stick"... then try to get away!
I've actually come to realize over time that DM tactics can have a far greater impact on module difficulty than the creatures contained therein.
Quoted for truth.
I'm a strategy gamer. I play many strategy games. I may be no Napoleon, but I'm pretty good. There have been a couple times I have run a game with players who had played the mod before with a different DM. Each time, they have been shocked with how much harder it has been when the monsters do more than line up for the defenders. I have had players accuse me of secretly running the high level version of the game. I always roll where the players can see.
Not all modules are going to be challenging. Not every encounter is going to result in players down, regardless of how the DM plays it. But a good DM who plays smart monsters like smart monsters will keep thew party on their toes and maintain the feeling of risk in the game.
Now, a side note on targeting unconscious players. While it is the smart tactical move, I feel it leads to poor gameplay. As a DM, my job is not to beat the players. I do not win when they lose. Unless it is thematically appropriate to the particular circumstances, I can't see myself doing it. I'd rather run a combat where I drop almost everyone at least once and at the end they battle though as a group than a combat where I kill off one or two people while the rest are ignored.
Now, a side note on targeting unconscious players. While it is the smart tactical move, I feel it leads to poor gameplay. As a DM, my job is not to beat the players. I do not win when they lose. Unless it is thematically appropriate to the particular circumstances, I can't see myself doing it. I'd rather run a combat where I drop almost everyone at least once and at the end they battle though as a group than a combat where I kill off one or two people while the rest are ignored.
I agree with you there. However, the party needs to make an effort to give the bad guys a reason not to attack downed PCs and as I mentioned in another thread, not leave party members unconscious just because it's "inconvenient" for them to heal them up a bit (like spending a standard action to trigger a second wind). I just think that players often take certain things for granted and assume that once a PC is unconscious, he's somehow "safe" or "out of bounds."
If a pair of ghouls drops a PC to unconsciousness and are left to their own devices for a round... they're going to snack on some brains. However, if a PC is dropped and the Paladin stands over his body and challenges the enemy, it would be particularly vindictive of me to coup de grace the downed PC anyway (and wouldn't make sense).
I agree with you there. However, the party needs to make an effort to give the bad guys a reason not to attack downed PCs.
Well, of course. After all, if they are going to play dumb they deserve whatever happens. Most of the time I figure having other characters actively threaten the monsters is enough to keep them from going after the unconscious people. However, your mention of ghouls is interesting, as just a few days ago, I had a couple ghouls drag off and eat the wizard* while the rest of the party was busy...
Players who play tactically dumb deserve anything they get. It tends to only take one or two bad encounters to get people thinking. And once a couple of the players are thinking, they tend to get the rest of the party into line pretty quick. My one TPK was DALE1-1, where the party 'retreated' from an encounter into an unexplored part of the map and ran into another encounter. They were thrashed as part of a glorious three way battle. Word got around, and now none of the players who attend the weekly game days will ever do anything that dumb again.
*He was delicious
In my opinion both are good, but it is essential to the development of the campaign that the system not degenerate into a predictable formula. The first mods were extremely formulaic and predictable even for players who were not replaying. I am pleased that some recent mods have since broken the formulas established by the 1-1 mods and have reduced the predictability of LFR mods in general. (Drag 1-2 is a good example of this. Though there were some major holes, I was pleasantly surprised to discover a plot that could not be summarized as the standard trio of random encounters).
This was, IMO a serious weakness of later LG mods as well and one that it is essential to fight by ensuring that both the xp budget and encounter system supports varied numbers and orders of encounters but also by ensuring that authors take the time to break the formulas and to give players meaningful choices that affect not only the final outcome but also the in-game play of the module. (Hopefully the campaign staff does not believe that such things are counter to the spirit of 4th edition). IMO Impiltur 1-1 was a good example of this, though the choice was such that a lot of parties did not even realize that they had made a choice. I would like to see more of it.
I'm a little surprised that no-one has observed that one of the reasons that LFR is a bit easy is the fact that you only get 3 combat encounters per mod.
I believe the DMG suggests 5 as an average work day, and that powers are balanced on that basis. Net result you get more daily attacks per combat, more surges per combat, and daily power utilities become better. Also (as has been observed) you will have an action point for at least two, occasionally all three fights. All in all, the PCs will have a slightly higher concentration of resources than they do for a game that demands longer between extended rests.
Add in the fact that the encounter XP budget is a little on the low side for 3 combats plus a skill challenge, and you'll have one comparatively easy fight in that lot which doesn't require the use of a daily or an action point, so the party can keep them and then go nova in the tough fight.
If a pair of ghouls drops a PC to unconsciousness and are left to their own devices for a round... they're going to snack on some brains. However, if a PC is dropped and the Paladin stands over his body and challenges the enemy, it would be particularly vindictive of me to coup de grace the downed PC anyway (and wouldn't make sense).
Of course attacking a downed opponent would be the first choice of a particularly unintelligent opponent (such as an ooze)... which is the way to make them dangerous to characters in a way "intelligent" enemies are not.
The "instinctual" opponent will attack the target it deems to be the "weakest" at the time... this is what makes the bluff skill invaluable against them.
I find the 4-level band to be too wide a range for most tables. If everyone is first level, the mods are generally hard (especially at a random pick-up table). Throw in a few third and second level PCs, and the mod can quickly become easy at the low tier. As PCs climb in level, the high tier can fail to challenge. 3 PCs that are 4th level could take on many high-tier mods in the 1-4th range.
However, this isn't a huge problem. If you are DMing for a pick-up team, you do what you can to keep the challenge from being too high. Water down the tactics, shave off a few HPs, reduce attacks by 1... lots of options.
If DMing for a group that you know wants a challenge and may not be challenged, you can increase attacks and defenses by 1, add more minions, add a monster or two, etc. You want to be an experienced DM to make these changes, but it can be done well with experience.
I prefer that to the idea of the modules trying to keep up with optimization. Let the players have their optimization, their magic item tricks, and so on. They didn't pick those optimization strategies so they could miss with an attack roll and get killed... they chose those strategies so they could dominate in combat. If that's the experience they want, give them that. As DM, you are there for the players, not for your sense of game balance! (In a home campaign, then it is your campaign). You should not change core rules, but you can use DME, but changes should be to the benefit of the enjoyment of the players.
LG, from the comments of players, authors, and so on, often worked hard to keep up with players. Optimization was a constant headache for many triad authors. The ridiculous things they put together for some of the battle interactives were matched only by how poorly those things failed to challenge some of the truly optimized tables. Optimization will almost always beat an attempt by a DM to provide a challenge and may hurt the non-optimized player. Instead, make the game collaborative. Ask the players what they want and give them that level of challenge.
The game can use more RP and more flavor and more time. Thus, ending combats early and simply is not a huge problem. It gives me more time to provide regional plot using the FRPG and FRCG, more time to delve into NPCs and locations, more time to describe the dungeon, and more latitude to use everything a monster has without fear of unfairly killing off a PC. Easy, to me, is much better than too hard.
Finally, this game is targeted at expanding the audience. You don't expand your audience by killing them off. The difficulty of 'intro' mods like Mad God's Key and many regional intro mods was a giant failure of LG. MGK alone drove away several new players who said they wanted no part of such a difficulty level. I expect LFR to keep the power level low, and that's a good thing for the hobby!
I as a DM enjoy nearly killing a character but with such weak monsters it is very difficult to do this.
I have used every tactic in the book even in spell guard and they ran me down like a pack of wild bulldozers due to found items. The problem is that they are catering to the low end of the spectrum of optimization, and this causes an extreamly weak game to the rest of us. They need to cater in the upper middle IE manage for say the 1-2 game an average 3rd level encounter for the mod. For a 3-4 they should manage an average 5. This means that only those being increadably greedy (IE 4 1s playing up to 3-4) get punished and the rest get rewarded, because as is I have had 4 1s and 2 2s play up and splatter the whole mod and no amount of DME is going to help because the EXP budget isnt high enough to even let DME challange the players.
- Does your group have the recommended 2 Defenders (including 1 AC Tank) and (Cleric) Leader?
- Do you always run games with 6 players?
If the answer is yes, then you are running teams that should have few troubles with most combat encounters.
Having just recently played a module with 3 Strikers [Barbarian, Beastmaster Ranger and Darkpact Warlock], 1 Leader [my Tactical Warlord] and 1 Defender [the worst Swordmage I have ever seen], I can tell you we nearly TPKd in every encounter.
Not only did we face the undead (Darkpact Warlock now practically useless) with no Radiant damage or Cleric, but the Ranger and Swordmage were "specced for DPR"... we were told
... which I now know is a euphamism for "crap".After playing what I can only describe as 4 hours of agony, were only my Warlord and the Barbarian did anything but fall over, I got another team together to run the module again... this time we had:
2 Defenders (AC Tank Paladin & AoE Swordmage), 2 Leaders (Bard & Cleric), 1 Striker (Rogue)
There was no contest... Minons (who had previously caused such problems with no AoE), exploded when the Cleric and Swordmage looked at them funny... the tougher enemies were no match for the Radiant damage of the AC Paladin, while the Rogue aced the skill challenges and sneak attacked like it was going out of fashion.
If I hadn't played the module first with a sub-optimal party I would have said the mod was "too easy". However, I know that just wasn't the case, the party just had all the tools it needed to make it easy.
When playing the same two mods with two strikers, a wizard and my warlord, we had a much easier time. (Yes, I played them first. I've only replayed three first round mods so far, and those were just to help make tables.) We did not deal as much damage per round, but the warlord buffs and healing made the party much more stable. And the DM running for my games is much more likely to kill PCs than I am! ;)
Lesson: leaders with healing abilities make mods easier.
Having just recently played a module with 3 Strikers [Barbarian, Beastmaster Ranger and Darkpact Warlock], 1 Leader [my Tactical Warlord] and 1 Defender [the worst Swordmage I have ever seen], I can tell you we nearly TPKd in every encounter.
Wow, really? I have played with similar tables that slaughtered mods... Now I have been at tables with 4 strikers and 2 defenders... and that went badly. (especially against insubstantial undead!)
the Ranger and Swordmage were "specced for DPR"... we were told
Rangers are strikers... they are, by nature, specced for DPR. ;) A Defender tryign to be a striker on the other hand, yes, that is crap. It's what I like about 4e. Know your role jabroni. When you play out of role, you don't do well, unlike old editions where you could get away with the "Oh, I'm not ahealing cleric," and still pound the DM into submission.
If the answer is yes, then you are running teams that should have few troubles with most combat encounters.
So you recommend running with unbalanced tables to make the mods deliver a challenge?
Personally I wish that the modules would offer different challenge levels of play.
Currently they really don't. They offer tweaks for when you have 4 PCs or when you have 6 PCs, and they offer a 'low' and a 'high' tier.
But these are not geared towards high or low challenge.
It would be nice if the modules would directly offer these things, rather than simply leave it in the hands of a random DM to try to do so on the fly.
I guess I simply want more support from the campaign than that for my group (and others) that typically do run in balanced parties.
Not I'm *NOT* saying that there should *only* be a higher challenge level of play. Rather I'm saying that they should offer BOTH.
Remove the 'high' and 'low' tiers for level and replace them with challenge levels. Have a small adjustment for mostly higher level characters just like they do with varying table sizes.
It wouldn't change the page count at all (perhaps at most adding 1 page for an encounter if the layout would be different) would offer all that it currently does, and at the same time not leaving us to do the work of trying to appropriately challenge our groups.
One size does not fit all groups. Not by a long shot. Writing for two different challenge levels would go a long way here in reasonably coming close. This would allow for DMs to tweak on the fly without much problem.
-James
Personally I wish that the modules would offer different challenge levels of play.
I think the much larger thing is that many DMs don't really understand 4e tactics yet. Who to attack first, how to generate the most confusion, what to do when marked, etc...it makes a huge difference, especially on what to do with the defenders.
Throwing bigger monsters on the table doesn't help the DMs understand how to resolve those issues.
One size does not fit all groups. Not by a long shot. Writing for two different challenge levels would go a long way here in reasonably coming close. This would allow for DMs to tweak on the fly without much problem.
-James
The adventures do not need to provide information on how to tweak it for low or high challenge. The DMG provides that information. Every DM is supposed to read the DMG before running a game.
Assuming the adventures included full stat blocks for just about every challenge level possible (lets call it three difficulty ratings per tier), that would add approximately 5-10 pages to the document (if not more). There is no reason to add that to the document for something that any competent DM can do in just a few minutes.
Seriously, here are the stripped down rules for making an creature more difficult. Add +1 to all of its attacks and defenses per level increased. Add 8 hit points per level increased (technically, this number is sometimes 6 or 10, but 8 covers the majority of cases).
To make the creature less powerful, reverse the above process.
Alternately, add additional copies of creatures in the battle. In order of how much it increases difficulty (minions, brutes, artillery/lurkers/skirmishers, soldiers, controllers). To decrease difficulty, remove creatures from the battle.
Certainly, every encounter could include those simple instructions or every adventure could have those instructions as a boilerplate. But, why bother. It is all in the DMG. Any competent DM knows it and can do it. If a DM needs that spelled out for them, find yourself a new DM as fast as you can. That will improve your game much more than any instructions in the adventure.
-SYB
I think the much larger thing is that many DMs don't really understand 4e tactics yet. Who to attack first, how to generate the most confusion, what to do when marked, etc...it makes a huge difference, especially on what to do with the defenders.
Throwing bigger monsters on the table doesn't help the DMs understand how to resolve those issues.
I agree with this. Well prepared DMs who know the creatures in the module well and have good tactics are going to be much tougher than an unprepared DM. I have played a mod where the DM was clearly not ready to run it. He was reading the mod as we played constantly missing chances to use the creatures powers to full extent. It was a very easy run and a tad boring. Played the same mod again with a more experienced DM and though our group was higher level it was a much tougher mod.
I find that people are only now really starting to get a good handle on the new rules. This is both players and DMs. Games are starting to go faster now as people spend less time going through power cards trying to figure out what they do and DMs are having an easier time with rules questions. This can only lead to better DM performance and tougher play in the long run. Not every mod will be perfectly balanced against every group, but I expect the overall DMing to only get better as more and more DMs come on line.
The adventures do not need to provide information on how to tweak it for low or high challenge. The DMG provides that information. Every DM is supposed to read the DMG before running a game.
Assuming the adventures included full stat blocks for just about every challenge level possible (lets call it three difficulty ratings per tier), that would add approximately 5-10 pages to the document (if not more). There is no reason to add that to the document for something that any competent DM can do in just a few minutes.
Seriously, here are the stripped down rules for making an creature more difficult. Add +1 to all of its attacks and defenses per level increased. Add 8 hit points per level increased (technically, this number is sometimes 6 or 10, but 8 covers the majority of cases).
To make the creature less powerful, reverse the above process.
Alternately, add additional copies of creatures in the battle. In order of how much it increases difficulty (minions, brutes, artillery/lurkers/skirmishers, soldiers, controllers). To decrease difficulty, remove creatures from the battle.
Certainly, every encounter could include those simple instructions or every adventure could have those instructions as a boilerplate. But, why bother. It is all in the DMG. Any competent DM knows it and can do it. If a DM needs that spelled out for them, find yourself a new DM as fast as you can. That will improve your game much more than any instructions in the adventure.
-SYB
If the "good" dm is just throwing in more monsters to challenge the players then the characters at the "good" dm's table should get more xp.
I know that there were a lot of players who were attracted to LG by the challenge and unpredictability of mods like River of Blood. I certainly was. If I had instead cut my teeth on some of the later intro mods which were designed with the "dying is never fun" mentality, that you seem to advocate for LFR, I don't know that I would have bothered. (And if I hadn't done LG, I probably would not be playing LFR). LFR may not have LG to compete with anymore, but it still has to be more interesting than watching paint dry.
Finally, this game is targeted at expanding the audience. You don't expand your audience by killing them off. The difficulty of 'intro' mods like Mad God's Key and many regional intro mods was a giant failure of LG. MGK alone drove away several new players who said they wanted no part of such a difficulty level. I expect LFR to keep the power level low, and that's a good thing for the hobby!
If the "good" dm is just throwing in more monsters to challenge the players then the characters at the "good" dm's table should get more xp.
Have you been reading this thread?
If you are playing LFR, you can only get module-cap XP, just like in LG.
And, in addition, what he was saying is that, for a good DM, knowing how to increase (or decrease) a monster's difficulty to match it better to the party's abilities is simple to do on the fly. But that same good DM is already probably using the monsters as written better than a bad DM, since he will be better able to use the monsters as a tactical whole, and chose powers to use on-the-fly better than a less experienced DM would.
To be honest, I ran AKAN1-1 last week, fairly well-balanced party, but since I was running the monsters better than some of the players were running their characters, the challenge level for the PCs was much higher than many people feel that module has. I had the main defender bloodied, and almost down, several times during the first encounter, and had the other defender out in the third encounter. They had learned a bit by the fourth encounter, but the hexer still had them unhappy, and I wasn't running the rest of the goblins all that well. Kept forgetting to have them use their shift when missed by a melee attack, so I missed using the hexer's ability for that, too.
So you recommend running with unbalanced tables to make the mods deliver a challenge?
Hmmm... don't recall actually recommending anything... just pointing out that a team with an AC Tank + 1 Defender and a Cleric already has a strong foundation to take on any of the intial LFR mods.
It would be nice if the modules would directly offer these things, rather than simply leave it in the hands of a random DM to try to do so on the fly.
That's what the forums are for...
I guess I simply want more support from the campaign than that for my group (and others) that typically do run in balanced parties.
This thread has lots of pertient advice for DMs to make the modules harder... tactical advice and DM empowerment not withstanding... it doesn't take much to make a module tougher.
One size does not fit all groups. Not by a long shot. Writing for two different challenge levels would go a long way here in reasonably coming close. This would allow for DMs to tweak on the fly without much problem.
-James
I don't see how, the modules already provide the DM considerable leeway when deciding to change the makeup of a module.
Perhaps the problem here is that the DM is running the modules for the first time (or one-time only). Personally, I always find the first run through of a module is always easier, as the DM (myself included) has a lot of juggling to do, remembering skill challenges and encounters, while trying to keep things running smoothly.
I find that once you get to the second or third run, you are much more comfortable with the storyline and have had a chance to formulate some monster tactics in your head, for use against the next team.
I can't count the number of times a team has killed a monster and I have to face-plant and mutter "dang it... I forgot to do that deathstrike!"
These are all things that make encounters seem easy... it's not the fault of the writers... but I can certainly blame myself!
One size does not fit all groups. Not by a long shot. Writing for two different challenge levels would go a long way here in reasonably coming close. This would allow for DMs to tweak on the fly without much problem.
In 4e it's already really easy to tweak on the fly. By requesting the authors write for two different challenge levels for two different tiers you're basically asking the authors to increase the amount of writing they're doing for the modules. That is not going to happen and it is an unrealistic expectation. They already have low and high tier. If you're on the low end, play high tier and tweak from there.
In 4e it's already really easy to tweak on the fly.
Agreed. If your DM doesn't have a strong enough grasp of the rules to tweak on th fly, there is a reason that everything feels easy. Considering that all it takes to level a monster is a +1 or +2 across the board and a dozen extra HP, this is not rocket science. If your DM has enough knowledge to run the encounters properly in the first place, a few small bumps to the monsters should be easy, if not automatic. If the DM in question finds this a challenge, the solution is either a better grasp of the basic rules and tactics or else a new DM.
For any players out there who feel that you are not having a challenging enough game, my advice is to step up to the plate and run a few. Let your usual DM play. Having different people on both sides of the screen might give everyone involved some insight into how to run the game better.
As a module author, I'd like to chime in and agree with everyone who says that the two tier system is good as-is. It already takes a lot of extra effort to write a module using the current template. It's tedious setting up and verifying stats for 2 sets of monster, 2 sets or traps, etc. It also adds a lot of pages to the module. Adding more variations is just not necessary.
You guys misunderstand me.
I am suggesting that the modules have exactly 2 sets of monsters, etc.
I am just suggesting that one set be 'low challenge' and the other set be 'high challenge' rather than one set just be the other set +2 levels.
I agree with you all that it's very easy to add +1 level or so to monsters. So taking the time and space to have the 'high' tier just be the 'low' tier with a level bump isn't really needed. Especially if module space is a premium.
But it's not easy to make a combat that is unbalanced or otherwise more fundamentally gimped into a reasonable challenge. And since that module space is already allocated, why not reallocate it from something that you and I agree is 'easy' to something not as easy.
The quickest example of this I have is when you have minions pulling the duty of brutes and soldiers. They simply don't hold up to that role (nor are they supposed to). Imagine when you put a single enemy behind only minions- they are effectively a solo without the stats. Imagine that they are a leader. Giving that leader +2 levels isn't going to be make his abilities to augment his allies any more impressive when his only allies are minions. Meanwhile changing a number of the minions into 'real' monsters would greatly change the threat of the combat even if the levels otherwise remain the same. (Heck even keeping the xp the same and trading in minions at 4 for 1)
-James
I am just suggesting that one set be 'low challenge' and the other set be 'high challenge' rather than one set just be the other set +2 levels.
If you really make the monsters different, you have to provide two sets of tactics/instructions to the DM. It gets clumsy and it hurts tables with DMs that aren't spending sufficient prep time (which probably happens often).
If I see one constant message in this thread, it is that table to table experiences are hugely varied. I mean, we have someone saying AKAN1-1 was hard! That's about as easy a set of combats as you can have in a module. Every table is different and every DM is different.
With regards to alterations and the resulting XP, in the recent reskin of AKAN1-1 I noted the increased XP, which could be used to offset a loss of XP if the party fails other encounters. That's core 4E/LFR and appropriate. Under no circumstances can a PC earn more XP than what is stated at the end of the module.
Teos
But it's not easy to make a combat that is unbalanced or otherwise more fundamentally gimped into a reasonable challenge. And since that module space is already allocated, why not reallocate it from something that you and I agree is 'easy' to something not as easy.
You really should have a read of some of the tactical advice entries above... it really is very easy...
The quickest example of this I have is when you have minions pulling the duty of brutes and soldiers. They simply don't hold up to that role (nor are they supposed to).
Indeed they aren't, but they are astoundingly efficient at taking down opponents who are suffering from control effects or for tying up Defenders without AoE attacks.
Imagine when you put a single enemy behind only minions- they are effectively a solo without the stats. Imagine that they are a leader. Giving that leader +2 levels isn't going to be make his abilities to augment his allies any more impressive when his only allies are minions. Meanwhile changing a number of the minions into 'real' monsters would greatly change the threat of the combat even if the levels otherwise remain the same. (Heck even keeping the xp the same and trading in minions at 4 for 1)
-James
I haven't seen any "single enemy + minion" combat encounters... are there any?
I've seen one all minion fight, but not one like has been described above. A mob of minions with a single Mastermind would be a unbalanced in favour of the characters.
Most encounters are created to allow the DM to use tactics and environment to their advantage. Perhaps your DM should try that approach first, before "jacking up" the monster power and using the same old tactics.
I haven't seen any "single enemy + minion" combat encounters... are there any?
I've seen one all minion fight, but not one like has been described above. A mob of minions with a single Mastermind would be a unbalanced in favour of the characters.
I'm not 100% positive, as I've not seen the actual module in question, but, based on a discussion over on the LFR Yahoo Group, I suspect that there's such an encounter in one of the Adapted modules. It sounded like it was a Solo monster, and minions were added for a 6 PC party.
And, based on how much the player was complaining about that encounter, it doesn't sound like it was unbalanced in favor of the characters (though, it sounds like that player's complaints were more focused on him, and the rest of the players in his group, not understanding just how "tough" a Solo monster is going to be for his level).
I'm not 100% positive, as I've not seen the actual module in question, but, based on a discussion over on the LFR Yahoo Group, I suspect that there's such an encounter in one of the Adapted modules. It sounded like it was a Solo monster, and minions were added for a 6 PC party.
And, based on how much the player was complaining about that encounter, it doesn't sound like it was unbalanced in favor of the characters (though, it sounds like that player's complaints were more focused on him, and the rest of the players in his group, not understanding just how "tough" a Solo monster is going to be for his level).
Now that you mention it, I think I know the one you mean. I haven't played it, but others in my group have.
They found it a challenge, but not impossible... if it's the one I think it is... multiple Dwarf Defenders and Strikers put paid to the beast in question.
However, that highlights the point that I have been making... if your group is specifically kitted out to resist or counter the enemies you face (or even that you are well balanced to face multiple threats)... then the modules are going to seem easier.
That's not the fault of the writers or the system, it's the fault of the DM.
There is no middle ground that's the real issue unlike LG there is no way to get a hired gun to help deal with the threats that stomp most low level tables who play up.
What sort of "hired gun" was available in LG? Was it something specific to your region? The only generally available "help" that I can remember was the boilerplate recommendation to "buy riding dogs". Playing in Verbobonc, I can tell you that we didn't have any NPC help available for that sort of circumstance.
What sort of "hired gun" was available in LG? Was it something specific to your region? The only generally available "help" that I can remember was the boilerplate recommendation to "buy riding dogs". Playing in Verbobonc, I can tell you that we didn't have any NPC help available for that sort of circumstance.
I know that there were mercenaries that you could hire in the Bandit Kingdom. But my region of Dyvers did not have them.
I know that there were mercenaries that you could hire in the Bandit Kingdom. But my region of Dyvers did not have them.
You know you're old school LG when you've had to "enlist the iconic" to fill a gap in your party makeup.
...back in Year 1 and 2, I played with quite a few Jozans fresh off the assembly line.
What sort of "hired gun" was available in LG? Was it something specific to your region? The only generally available "help" that I can remember was the boilerplate recommendation to "buy riding dogs". Playing in Verbobonc, I can tell you that we didn't have any NPC help available for that sort of circumstance.
What I meant by hired gun was when a group of fours and fives would play up to APL six so the eighth level tank could play down making combats go much smoother. Usually the higher level PC would stay in the background and only fight when needed since he's tagging along strictly for EXP, Money, and Access I.E. a hired gun.
However, that highlights the point that I have been making... if your group is specifically kitted out to resist or counter the enemies you face (or even that you are well balanced to face multiple threats)... then the modules are going to seem easier.
That's not the fault of the writers or the system, it's the fault of the DM.
I don't know that "fault" is the appropriate word to use in this case. It sounds to me like a system is being faulted for something that is a strength. You can make choices about your character. What those choices are matters. If you make choices that strengthen your character and party against a particular encounter, that encounter becomes easier. If things didn't work that way, there would be no point to making choices because they wouldn't matter.
I personally don't mind the occasional encounter that plays to the group's strengths being easy. It is more than made up for by encounters that play to the group's weaknesses being difficult. I would certainly not want to see DMs look at a party and start thinking "two clerics, and a character with black iron armor? Well, let's take all the undead out of the mod then--wouldn't want the character's to get any use out of their abilities or resists."
What I meant by hired gun was when a group of fours and fives would play up to APL six so the eighth level tank could play down making combats go much smoother. Usually the higher level PC would stay in the background and only fight when needed since he's tagging along strictly for EXP, Money, and Access I.E. a hired gun.
So... The same as when a level 4 character plays with a bunch of level 1s?
I'm not 100% positive, as I've not seen the actual module in question, but, based on a discussion over on the LFR Yahoo Group, I suspect that there's such an encounter in one of the Adapted modules. It sounded like it was a Solo monster, and minions were added for a 6 PC party.
And, based on how much the player was complaining about that encounter, it doesn't sound like it was unbalanced in favor of the characters (though, it sounds like that player's complaints were more focused on him, and the rest of the players in his group, not understanding just how "tough" a Solo monster is going to be for his level).
Actually, I just finished reading the module, as I hope to get a local group together to play it.
And the original poster's complaints, and at least one of the GMs follow-up decisions, are incorrect.
1) The solo is alone for some time. First he has to cry for the minions, who are an encounter in another room, then they have to take the time to get there.
2) He was also complaining about the lack of digging gear in the PHB.
Show
In the module's description of the most likely re-grouping area for the PCs, it explicitly says; "A cellar storeroom contains excavation and masonry equipment that the monks sell on behalf of the Gargengrim clan."
However, that highlights the point that I have been making... if your group is specifically kitted out to resist or counter the enemies you face (or even that you are well balanced to face multiple threats)... then the modules are going to seem easier.
That's not the fault of the writers or the system, it's the fault of the DM.
The question is if the DM should make up for an optimized group. IMO, if I were in an optimized party, then I think that's because we want the combats to be easy. I think I would be disappointed if the DM would just change the adventure to give us effectively the same challenge than a less optimized group would have with the standard adventure.
The reason for me to make an optimized character in an optimized party able to just overrun any enemy foolishly to get in our way would be because that's exactly what I wanted: to flatten would-be enemies without working up a sweat. So a DM just adjusting the adventure to take that away is just ruining the whole reason for making such chars / such a party in the first place.
The most important point is IMO to identify what the players want.
There are players who build such parties because they do not want to be challenged and they will be disappointed if the adventure gets just tweaked to challenge them nonetheless.
There are also players who build such parties because they do want the DM to come up with ways to challenge them nonetheless and will be disappointed if the adventure is not tweaked to handle their party
The reason for me to make an optimized character in an optimized party able to just overrun any enemy foolishly to get in our way would be because that's exactly what I wanted: to flatten would-be enemies without working up a sweat.
...
Speaking as someone who finds LFR too easy, I don't make optimized characters so that they can flatten enemies without breaking a sweat. I try to write characters that are well balanced in and out of combat, that are fun to play, that have a personality I can have fun playing off of.
As a DM, I use my best judgement when running games - modifying tactics, increasing or decreasing difficulty as best I can based on the reactions of the players at the table. That's probably the only answer to this issue.
All I can say is that in our area if we have a reasonably competent table (i.e. the majority of people are over the age of 12 and people have played a few times) we always play up. It seems like the challenge level is set to "extremely easy" not "average". I would like to see the threat level increased modestly since most DMs are more comfortable with easing up on people if the dice gods are not in their favor. OTOH if you play up with a bad mix of characters and players, it *should* be hazardous to your well being.
Allen.
The reason for me to make an optimized character in an optimized party able to just overrun any enemy foolishly to get in our way would be because that's exactly what I wanted: to flatten would-be enemies without working up a sweat.
I agree with this sentiment.
The reason I work so hard on optimizing my PCs is that I like to win. Maybe I'm a shallow person, but winning an easy challenge (in a game) is just as rewarding to me as winning a difficult challenge. I like to test myself against difficult challenges in real life, but in a game I just want to have a good time.
(Might be similar to the reasons why I generally only like comedy TV and movies - I get enough drama in real life.)
Like the last mid-tier module my 4th level character played up difficulty, we used 8 surges total in 3 combats, as a party. Clearly, the module was too easy for us, but it was still fun to tactic it out that extensively... and I'm pretty sure we could have shaved off at least two of those surges.
The, like, six crits the DM got in one combat probably stopped us from cutting it any closer, though
I see a lot of newbies who don't bother to read the campaign rules or the PHB, and can actually play the game fine because the many mistakes they make don't affect anything. However, these same people, when asked to judge, say 'I don't know the rules well enough to judge', and they're right.
I've begun to observe a shortage of judges both locally and online due to this factor, and I'm wondering why the campaign would choose to cater to these people rather than the people who care enough to carefully read the rules, know what's going on, and therefore are able to contribute.
At this point, when people are able to play without buying the books, learning the rules, or contributing in any way to the community, I have to wonder if that's the Wizards target audience. Seems bizarre to me.
Brayden Glad
A level 1-2 party would probably be facing a TPK if they play "hard" while a 3-4 level party could still be challenged.
It would mean one more set of stat blocks per encounter, but the levels are still close enough to maintain the same plotline.
Allen.
'All monsters in this adventure are 1 level higher, which makes them worth more xp. This cannot affect the total amount of xp you get, but will make up for xp lost for failing any encounters (such as skill challenges, etc)'
At which point playing up one level (or two) is also a reasonable way to avoid losing XP due to failing a skill challenge or missing something. Which is not likely, but hey, lets the group choose to be slightly more challenged and pretend it helps
...and here I was thinking everyone was complaining that LFR was too easy.
It is. The combats are fairly boring as a result, even when playing up.
I tend to agree: LFR modules are too easy. I have on several occasions cleared a high-tier adventure with the lowest level possible (e.g. a level-4 group on a 4-7 module), without really breaking a sweat. While I'm sure some players prefer it that way, I believe there also is room for more difficult modules, for players who enjoy the challenge.
What makes LFR so easy, and what could be done about that?
(1) Around here, we play most modules with six players. Usually that means adding two or three minions more than there would be with five players. This doesn't compensate for the greatly added firepower of a sixth player.
(2) Many modules have three (or sometimes even four) smaller combats. It would be more challenging to have two bigger combats, at the same total XP value. Fighting two groups of five orcs each separately is much less difficult than fighting one group of ten orcs combined. Also, more combats means you're more likely to run past the four-hour time limit.
(3) Reward cards (and the new guild bonus action point). I'm sure they're not going away, but is it really necessary to have Yet Another way to stack bonuses onto your characters? They do make a big difference: a party of six would have as many as eighteen free rerolls, or get-out-of-Daze-free effects, or what have you. In retrospect, I believe that "access to some race or other option" cards would have been better for the game than "bonus in play" cards. And honestly, since rewards are now available as a free download for anyone who plays RPGA at least semi-regularly, they're not much of a "reward" any more.
(4) Perhaps the problem is that each module is trying to cater to everyone. I think that a significant group of players would be interested in something like a Hardcore Module, which says up front that it's dangerous and Really Not intended for novice players or the less tactically inclined. It needn't even give more XP or gold, personally I'd play this just for the bragging rights. Tying in with the above, perhaps hardcode modules should forbid reward cards other than character creation/expansion.
Opinions please?
You can speculate, but the best way to see if an theory on making adventures more challenging works, is to apply it and write one yourself, using the parameters (xp budget etc) given.
So make a proposal, submit it, and see if what you think makes an encounter tick, does, in fact, tick.
Gomez
I was just down at Owlcon last weekend and there were a number of player deaths and a near TPK (coordinator called the game which was over-time, before it happened). In one game we were significantly beaten by a solo swarm when no one in the party had burst/blast attacks.
In LFR I don't think that it's safe for module writers to assume that every party is well balanced. I also think there should be easy and hard modules (which there seem to be) at the same character levels.
-Robert
Another group of competent players could run through the mod and TPK. Do they think it's too easy?
When the campaign started at GenCon i played at a table of CORE1-soemthing (Inheritance, whatever one that was) and we nearlyTPK'd. It only had two combats. We got throught he first exhaustign our resources. We took an extended rest and nearly got TPK'd in the last fight. (all but 2 down and they were in single digit hp) And we were playing low tier as a mix of mostly 2's with one 3 thrown in the mix.
If you have a party that works really well together, tell your DM to up the difficulty of the combats with extra monsters, not just minions. That's one suggestion (and within the bounds of DME). Other thoughts have to do with the DMs ability to run combats.
The experience of one table is not going to be the same for all tables.
The game allows for the DMs to modify difficulty. And, any good DM can do it in about 5 minutes, assuming they actual prepare in advance (like all DMs should). Just get your group to agree to increased difficulty and let the DM experiment.
-SYB
http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=1117017
Hm, some good points in there.
"what disturbs me is that the game is so easy that you can succeed without having a good understanding of what is going on, and thus have no incentive to actually get the tools you need to contribute to the community.
I see a lot of newbies who don't bother to read the campaign rules or the PHB, and can actually play the game fine because the many mistakes they make don't affect anything. However, these same people, when asked to judge, say 'I don't know the rules well enough to judge', and they're right."
Your suggestions aren't necessarily bad, but you aren't using them right. If you want an adventure to be harder (with the same rewards), just ask the DM to make it harder.
Sure, it's easy to fix it locally, but I'm wondering if there's sufficient interest to fix it globally.
I believe there is sufficient interest in having some harder modules in LFR (by no means all of them). And what better place to test that belief than the global LFR forums?
http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=1117017
*nods*
I'm going to merge this to the old thread, to keep the conversation collected.
Hm, some good points in there.
"what disturbs me is that the game is so easy that you can succeed without having a good understanding of what is going on, and thus have no incentive to actually get the tools you need to contribute to the community.
I see a lot of newbies who don't bother to read the campaign rules or the PHB, and can actually play the game fine because the many mistakes they make don't affect anything. However, these same people, when asked to judge, say 'I don't know the rules well enough to judge', and they're right."
Sure, it's easy to fix it locally, but I'm wondering if there's sufficient interest to fix it globally.
I believe there is sufficient interest in having some harder modules in LFR (by no means all of them). And what better place to test that belief than the global LFR forums?
I believe that is elitist thinking. An adventure designed for everybody to play, whether they are brand new to the game or very experienced, helps grow the hobby. An adventure designed for an elite few limits the hobby. It is much better for experienced DMs with experienced players to make an adventure harder than for inexperienced players (who may not have experienced DMs) to be restricted from playing adventures because they are too hard.
The worst case scenario of an adventure being too easy is that some players will walk through it. The worst case scenario of an adventure being too hard is it will drive players away. LG adventures drove me away after I played an adventure where EVERY NPC in the adventure had a level of warrior added to their stats, because it technically didn't increase the CR of the NPC.
Writing adventures to be enjoyable and "winnable" by the majority of players is a good idea. Writing adventures for the cream of the crop is a bad idea. Thankfully, the administrators understand this (unlike the Circle of Seven of LG), so bad ideas like this won't take hold.
-SYB
I see a lot of newbies who don't bother to read the campaign rules or the PHB, and can actually play the game fine because the many mistakes they make don't affect anything. However, these same people, when asked to judge, say 'I don't know the rules well enough to judge', and they're right."
Sure, it's easy to fix it locally, but I'm wondering if there's sufficient interest to fix it globally.
I believe there is sufficient interest in having some harder modules in LFR (by no means all of them). And what better place to test that belief than the global LFR forums?
It occurs to me, according to your first paragraph, you seem to think it is a problem when new players enjoy their games. My first ever game of D&D, I didn't read the rules. The DM made sure I enjoyed the game and ran an adventure where we (the party) could do well. This isn't an elite club. Membership shouldn't require a test of competency. It is a GOOD thing that brand new players, who haven't read the rules, can play a game and enjoy it. It means they are likely to play again (and, at some point, read the rules).
Also, you mention fixing something in your final paragraph. There is nothing to fix, because there is nothing wrong. Your DM isn't fixing the adventure. Your DM is adjusting it to give you and your group more enjoyment. Each group is different. I have already seen people who state that they enjoy playing an easy game. So, your "fix" is actually making a problem for them.
-SYB
I believe that is elitist thinking.
You say that like it's a bad thing.
An adventure designed for everybody to play, whether they are brand new to the game or very experienced, helps grow the hobby. An adventure designed for an elite few limits the hobby...
Writing adventures to be enjoyable and "winnable" by the majority of players is a good idea.
So where is the line? Is there any level of skill at which a player should not be able to successfully beat an adventure? I don't mean this sarcastically. If a group of players who have no grasp of the rules play, should they be able to win? Should a player who doesn't use anything but at-will attacks be able to survive on a regular basis*? How about a player who regularly chooses to make basic melee or ranged attacks instead of at-will attacks*? How about characters who have 14 as their primary stat*? how about players who decide it's a good idea to play without a single defender and no strikers*?
Is there any level of play, no matter how poor, where you think players should fail?
I think players who do not have a firm grasp of the rules should fail on a semi-regular basis. I think the same thing about players who play monopoly or poker without knowing the rules. No, people should not have to be power gamers or follow the character optimization forums to play. But they should be expected to know how to play the game.
The simple reality is that 95% of games will have no complete newbies in them and most of those will be made of people who play 4e or LFR on at least a semi-regular basis. The number of games made up completely of new players, as opposed to a group of regular players with one or two new people, is vanishingly small. I'd be shocked if it is a significant fraction of one percent.
You are right in that the adventures need to be written to be enjoyable by the majority. However, new players and people who don't know the rules are not the majority. So the real question is if the campaign should cater to 95% of its players or 5% of its players. Now, that is not to say the 5% deserve to die regularly, but they do need to get better. And they need a reason to get better. If the majority of the players are not feeling challenged by the campaign that is a problem. This is a game, not an everyone's-a-winner confidence building group. Players do not deserve to win. They deserve a face chance of winning.
So why should DMs have to adjust adventures up to fit the majority of players instead of adjusting them down a notch for the occasional new player?
*All encountered in weekly open games I run. Many died. Many died so spectacularly they thought it was rather awesome and come back the next week to do it again.
Also, you mention fixing something in your final paragraph. There is nothing to fix, because there is nothing wrong. Your DM isn't fixing the adventure. Your DM is adjusting it to give you and your group more enjoyment. Each group is different. I have already seen people who state that they enjoy playing an easy game. So, your "fix" is actually making a problem for them.
Wow, you just missed the point by several miles.
I am talking about making a wider variety of adventures, to accomodate a wider ranger of play styles (e.g. both people who like easy games, and people who like a challenge) and you completely ignored that. You're just saying that since you like the game as it is, nobody may have different tastes than you do. Nothing of that has any bearing on the suggestions in this thread.
So far I'd say the LFR mods I've played are very similiar in difficulty to the Greyhawk adventures. While most of the time they are not too hard, they can be a challenge for the misguided or the parties that are not well rounded. The issue in both LFR and LG seems to be balancing a story that is entertaining, a challenge for most, but not too tough for a group of new players or non optimized PCs.
So why should DMs have to adjust adventures up to fit the majority of players instead of adjusting them down a notch for the occasional new player?
I agree. The problem is that most DM's won't make adventures more difficult (or do a poor job of it). Most DM's have no problem recognizing when they need to ease up. IME it is far easier to play the bad guys "dumb" by using poor tactics than to expect all DM's to be brilliant tacticians who maximize the effectiveness of the mix of opponents.
I've played and run quite a few adventures. If people have a decent understanding of mechanics and a reasonably balanced table most adventures are easy, even "playing up".
Allen.
I am talking about making a wider variety of adventures, to accomodate a wider ranger of play styles (e.g. both people who like easy games, and people who like a challenge)
Based on other comments from campaign leadership, I don't think that's likely. They're explicitly trying to make it so that everyone can play everything -- which is why "regional" adventures can be played everywhere, why the Specials become available for general play after a few months, and why they aren't really looking at con-exclusive interactives.
That said, they already do have a few adventures which seem to be written for "people who like a challenge" -- they're called Specials.
Based on other comments from campaign leadership, I don't think that's likely. They're explicitly trying to make it so that everyone can play everything -- which is why "regional" adventures can be played everywhere, why the Specials become available for general play after a few months, and why they aren't really looking at con-exclusive interactives.
That said, they already do have a few adventures which seem to be written for "people who like a challenge" -- they're called Specials.
Agreed, the special was far more of a challenge then the other adventures I've been in so far (as it should be IMO).
Generally, the LFR modules are easy... for an experienced group of DND players. My group knows the rules very well - one is an online DM, one is a gamer who learns the rules of any game he plays very well, and a third played 3.0 and 3.5 for years, and the 4th player is wise enough to go along with the suggested tactics of the experienced players during combat. I can see where the LFR modules were written to be used by "any Joe Schmoe" and played for fun. If your playgroup is new to DND, or new to RPG's, or even just very casual players, then the LFR modules are just right. In light of the ease of LFR modules, it is up to the DM and his/her players to step up to a stiffer challenge - and for the DM to make the adjustments they are entitled to make as stated in the beginning of every LFR module.
ADAP modules are much harder I have found. They provide a bigger challenge to an experienced group of DND players. I would LOVE for WOTC and the RPGA to make MORE of the ADAP modules. I personally like them more and so do my players, but then our group is very cohesive - working well with each other throughout the game - and very experienced as players.
A word on the PREV modules: Hard. Very hard. Even for experienced RPG'ers and DND players, very hard. The preview modules are spot on for the experienced gamer/DND player. I came very, very, very close to TPK several times when I started my group off in one of the Preview (PREV) modules. Every encounter had them on the edge of their seats as to whether they would survive or not - it made for a thrilling session!!
Lastly, the SPECS. I have read the SPEC 1-1 module. Haven't played it or any other SPEC module. But what I read looks like a stiff challenge for any play group. And what I have seen posted about the new SPEC from DND game day looks like it is a tough one too. Very, very challenging. But then this group of modules written for its audience: hard core gamers or DND players who are willing to travel to a game day or convention to play an RPG. It is going to be a challenge because it is assumed the players are experienced and are there to be entertained on the edge of their seats.
All that being said.... I think the modules are fine as written. Each seems to be geared towards its appropriate (or most common) audience. And it is the job of any DM to know his play group and make adjustments. If that means always running the "High" version AND adding HP and +2 to AC values, then you are entitled to do so as DM. Right in the beginning of each LFR module is the paragraph about DM entitlement to make changes - do your DM duty and make those adjustments, challenge your players.
I was just down at Owlcon last weekend and there were a number of player deaths and a near TPK (coordinator called the game which was over-time, before it happened). In one game we were significantly beaten by a solo swarm when no one in the party had burst/blast attacks.
-Robert
Hehe I believe that would have been my table. I don't think I would have got the TPK, but I'm pretty sure I would have got one or two of you.
The real challenge of that mod, though, is the middle encounters. I foresee a lot of groups breaking weak and taking a short rest in there.
Kudos to your team for not doing so!
EDIT: You're absolutely correct that much of the difficulty depends on how well the DM uses the monsters/powers. I'll pass along your appreciation of our L337 DM skillz to the rest of our crew, as well!
I believe that is elitist thinking.
-SYB
I see this as separatist thinking.
That there are two sides and that they are in competition with one another. One must loose for the other to win.
Modules offer two tiers of play.
It seems to me that making one tier 'tougher' and one tier 'easier' would double the chances of providing a reasonable experience for the group of players that you find at your table.
You claim it's easy to change an easy combat into a tough one. Well that's great for you, I don't seem to find it as easy.
What I do see as easy is the differences that I see between the low and high tiers of almost all the mods I've seen in LFR. Almost all can be summed up with add X levels to critter Y. They are on par with adjustments for 4 or 6 players. In fact in some combats the adjustments for 4 or 6 are adjust the level of critter Y!
So why not use the two tiers to cater to the median of both camps rather than choose one camp over the other to get support?
-James
The module contained a fight with an insubstantial enemy, immune to radiant damage, which had more than 80 HP, and took 2 to 3 attacks each round.
With insustantial, that meant it had to take more than 160 Hp in damage. From level one characters. While tearing them to shreds.
How is that too easy, exactly?
I played a level 1-3 module recently, with 4 level one characters, one of each role, each reasonably optimized.
The module contained a fight with an insubstantial enemy, immune to radiant damage, which had more than 80 HP, and took 2 to 3 attacks each round.
With insustantial, that meant it had to take more than 160 Hp in damage. From level one characters. While tearing them to shreds.
How is that too easy, exactly?
If it's the monster I'm thinking of, it's not immune to radiant, just has an aura that removes vulnerability. Perhaps your DM misread that one.
Generally, the LFR modules are easy... for an experienced group of DND players.
QFT.
Remember that home groups playing with a consistent set of PCs, with the same players who have been playing together for months, is NOT the norm.
Playing a public game, where you don't know what the heck the party composition is going to be, nor whether any of the PCs are "virgins" or are one module away from changing tier, is a lot more common, at least in my experience.
In short:
I play in a regular weekly game, but it bounces between 3.5E and PFS Beta rules, NOT 4E. Very experienced players, mainly good at optimizing, but not playing 4E, so LFR is not a thing to worry about.
I run a monthly game at the local game store, and, every time, have a different mix of players and PCs. Sometimes I am lucky enough to get a few players who can swap PCs to fill gaps in the party, but not always. And I have seen players who don't know how to build an effective PC, or use the correct powers at the correct time. This, of course, is most noticeable with either Clerics who don't heal, and melee strikers who don't take advantage of accessible combat advantage situations...
I also play at a monthly game day, 2 rounds, and, again, while the organizers try to make balanced tables, this isn't always going to hold true, and even just putting in a Leader isn't always going to provide efficient or effective healing, as an example.
So where is the line? Is there any level of skill at which a player should not be able to successfully beat an adventure? I don't mean this sarcastically. If a group of players who have no grasp of the rules play, should they be able to win? Should a player who doesn't use anything but at-will attacks be able to survive on a regular basis*? How about a player who regularly chooses to make basic melee or ranged attacks instead of at-will attacks*? How about characters who have 14 as their primary stat*? how about players who decide it's a good idea to play without a single defender and no strikers*?
If you have just one of these players in a game, it makes a serious detriment to the rest of the table. If you have a table full of them, then the current power level of a low-tier version of a 1-4 game will likely provide a TPK.
I have played with a player running a cleric who only used basic attacks. Meh. I have played at a table where the rogue melee striker wasn't working on gaining combat advantage. Meh. Fortunately, these players weren't at the same table, but it would have been even more difficult, if not impossible, to complete those adventures with such non-optimized characters at the same table.
Also, as another thing to think about, the level of the LFR modules make it difficult for a bad GM to screw his players too badly, as well. It is, unfortunately, possible, however. Some things in some modules are just an invitation to disaster for an inexperienced or rusty GM. Example: The transition between the end of WEEK1-2 and the beginning of WEEK1-3. The group I was playing with had half the party in the pool at the beginning of the third part, leading to automatic damage and dazed members. And, to add insult to injury, the GM then had the NPC run into the second room. Not to mention that our only healing was stuck in a cage in the other room... Irritating TPK, not a "reasonable" TPK.
Generally, the LFR modules are easy... for an experienced group of DND players.
Yes.
Now certainly, that means that the level1-4 scenarios should be easy, because they are people's introduction to the campaign, and possibly to the entire game.
But honestly, do people really get to level7-10, or to paragon levels, without being experienced? Surely we can expect a higher level of rules comprehension and tactics from people who have been playing the game for months than from novices.
Yes.
Now certainly, that means that the level1-4 scenarios should be easy, because they are people's introduction to the campaign, and possibly to the entire game.
But honestly, do people really get to level7-10, or to paragon levels, without being experienced? Surely we can expect a higher level of rules comprehension and tactics from people who have been playing the game for months than from novices.
Excuse me while I laugh, hysterically.
Remember the cleric I mentioned in an earlier post, the one who only used basic attacks, and seldom did any healing? Experienced D&D player, I have played games with him in LG.
The melee striker who doesn't go for combat advantage is an experienced player in my Tuesday night legacy game. He runs a Rogue/Paladin, and he deliberately ignored, after a couple of peple pointed out the possibility, a move that would have given him a flank on an enemy in order to do a normal attack.
Experienced? Sure! Tactics? Not necessarily. Rules comprehension? May I point you to the multitudinous debates on what should be simple rules, some of them in this very forum area.
As was pointed out in another thread, a while back, in the discussion on what, exactly, the Charity of Death clause entailed, that, in its current incarnation, it would be entirely possible to be able to play a character from 1st level, all the way to 30th level, without ever succeeding, or even surviving, a single adventure.
He's going to have nothing for equipment, since he will never have access to either found items or any gold, other than in those few adventures where some money is advanced right at the beginning, so he might even be out of arrows, crossbow bolts or sling bullets, if he even has a ranged weapon.
Disgusting, isn't it? But, unfortunately, entirely possible. Imagine adventuring with this PC in a level 4-7 module, much less a level 27-30 module....
Thank Mystra that something like that is unlikely, at least...
As for the idea that DMs have an easier time downgrading a challenge then upgrading, that is simply not true. The amount of complaints from LG and Xen'drik expeditions are perfect examples of this. A good DM can increase and decrease the challenge on the fly. An inexperienced or bad DM cannot, and given all things, more gamers leave the game because they are overwhelmed then when it is a cakewalk combat wise (especially when the story is otherwise good).
Pieter Sleijpen
RPGA LFR Global Administrator
For the majority of D&D gamers it is not competetive. The majority of the players want to reach the story a conclusive end, feeling somewhat challenge, but not overwhelmed.
(1) do statistics exist on this topic?
(2) the existence of one or two "difficult" modules (as is being suggested here) does not preclude this majority you speak of from enjoying every other module.
(1) do statistics exist on this topic?
(2) the existence of one or two "difficult" modules (as is being suggested here) does not preclude this majority you speak of from enjoying every other module.
1) Yes, they do. I don't have them. You don't have them. But WotC/RPGA has been collecting data for years now (through polls, at conventions, etc.). This strategy wasn't made randomly. It was made based on customer data and experience.
2). You are right. The existence of one or two "difficult" adventures does not preclude the majority from enjoying every other adventure. It precludes the majority from enjoying those one or two "difficult" adventures, though. And, that is a mistake. Adventures should not be written that intentionally exclude a large segment of the population from enjoying them.
You want a challenge. That is awesome. Make it happen. Willingly choose not to bring any reward cards to your next game. If that isn't enough, choose not to take short rests during the next adventure (that should be a heck of a challenge). Choose to only use untrained skills in the next skill challenge. Get your DM to add 1-2 monsters to every encounter. Your challenge is in your own hands.
-SYB
Edit: If you ever make it to my neck of the woods or I run a game for you at a convention, just say, "I want it hardcore". I'll give you a challenge that will turn you inside out.
Why do some of us have this urge to punish people who are not good at fights (either because it is not the part of the game they like or because they lack the "talent")?
What you call punishment, I call a consequence of not knowing the rules of the game they are playing. At what point are players assumed to be able to play D&D? when they hit level 7, it will represent an average of 72 hours of play time. How about paragon? Level 11 represents 120 hours of play. At what point can we start assuming players are able to find their asses with both hands?
Should the 1-4 modules be geared towards the easy side of things? Arguably yes. Should any adventure be designed to kill players, or put them at unfair disadvantage through means beyond their control? Never. Kinevon's comments on the WEEK module are an excellent example of what should never happen. Should players, no matter how good, be able to accidentally make it through an adventure without using a single daily because they kept saving them for the hard fight they assumed had to show up sometime? Absolutely never.
You want a challenge. Willingly choose not to bring any reward cards to your next game... choose not to take short rests during the next adventure... Choose to only use untrained skills in the next skill challenge.
So what you are saying it that anyone who takes the time to learn how to play the game should then use their new found skill to intentionally cripple their character so that they remain on the same level as those who don't even bother to read the player's handbook? How does this promote new people to learn D&D? How does this bring new people to the game?
What you call punishment, I call a consequence of not knowing the rules of the game they are playing. At what point are players assumed to be able to play D&D? when they hit level 7, it will represent an average of 72 hours of play time. How about paragon? Level 11 represents 120 hours of play. At what point can we start assuming players are able to find their asses with both hands?
Strange. What you call not knowing the rules of the game, I would call a result of philosophical or even inherent mental process differences.
Not everyone, no matter how well they know the rules, is going to be a tactical or strategic genius. Some people are inherently better at understanding a combat environment, others will see social dynamics better, and some people, no matter how much they love the game, will always miss seeing opportunities, or not think of how they can interact positively with the party.
Then again, IMO, you shouldn't have to always be at your "A" game in a hobby.
Remember, some people are going to be incredible when doing RP encounters, while others shine in combat encounters. And others will be middle-of-the-road in both.
Some people can and do plan out their character in finest detail from conception to retirement, others build something that "looks good" on paper for use at first level, but have no idea, at all, what feat they are going to take at second level, much less what Paragon Path or Epic Destiny they will choose for this character.
And, even for the tactical genius, you will be playing an encounter, and miss that perfect action, until you do a facepalm later with a "D'oh! I shoulda done such-and-so!"
LFR, really, is targeted at those who aren't interested in dressing up like their character and walking around in an area to either meet-and-greet for an RP encounter, or pull out the rattan longsword and shield for a combat encounter. We just want to pull out some dice, paper and pencil, play the game, and have a reasonable chance of success at the end of the day.
Some of us would be interested in trying the Specials, and, if we get the right party (and GM!), and have paid enough attention to the CO boards, manage to make it through alive.
And, for those of you who play in a tactically-optimized party, with some players who are either RP or combat geniuses, and the rest of the party is willing to follow those geniuses' advice for each type of encounter, then, yes, you will probably find LFR too easy.
Then again, that probably describes the types who played the Year 8 LG Core adventures at the highest APL possible, and were unhappy if the GM didn't kill a significant portion of the party at least once during each module.
Also remember, as has been stated, the tactical ability of your GM can make a significant difference in the difficulty level of any particular module, as well. If the monsters synergize, they will be a much tougher battle than if they work individually, just like the PCs.
I have on several occasions cleared a high-tier adventure with the lowest level possible (e.g. a level-4 group on a 4-7 module), without really breaking a sweat.
Was that a group you regularly play with or a pick-up group?
As I've said earlier, I find tactics is the difference between easily finishing a mod and having difficulty. If its a pick-up group the chances of you employing good tactics are less.
Opinions please?
If you're playing home games with the same group (or retail games but always with the same group of players at one table, so anyone who walks in to play plays at a different table) your DM can change everything you want about the mod (homerule: no cards, combining encounters, scaling up encounters any way he see's fit, etc) so that you can have a harder challenge and enjoy it more. Assuming he's willing to spend the time ;)
Otherwise you're pretty much out of luck.
When the campaign started at GenCon i played at a table of CORE1-soemthing (Inheritance, whatever one that was) and we nearlyTPK'd.
I just played CORE1-4 Crystal Clear (pick-up game) and we almost had a TPK at low-tier. I'm running it this Friday (home game with a regular group) and I expect them to play it high-tier and I'll probably be scaling it up for 6 players (regardless of whether or not there are 6 players). They'll hopefully find it challenging. I doubt there'll be a TPK.
(1) do statistics exist on this topic?
Nothing published. But if you played during the LG days, you just had to listen to the infinite number of complaints of "LG is too hard for the casual gamer! LG is an arms race between authors and players! LG is geared to power gamers only!"
It was a constant, deafening complaint. No hard and fast statistics needed.
Nothing published. But if you played during the LG days, you just had to listen to the infinite number of complaints of "LG is too hard for the casual gamer! LG is an arms race between authors and players! LG is geared to power gamers only!"
It's a shame that they don't elect to aim for a two pronged attack hitting the median in both groups, rather than just cater to one or the other.
Look over the mods out there between the high and low tiers... how many of those can be summed up by add X levels to the critters?
I don't think that the answer 'fend for yourself' or 'rewrite the mods' should really be the answer for a good number of people's problems with how easy the mods are.
Sure there will be variation by table makeup. That's something that a module should account for in having two different settings. Have a mismatched party? Choose easy. Have your normal group that's used to one another? Choose harder.
Then have DMs tweak from THERE.
-James
Nothing published. But if you played during the LG days, you just had to listen to the infinite number of complaints of "LG is too hard for the casual gamer! LG is an arms race between authors and players! LG is geared to power gamers only!"
It was a constant, deafening complaint. No hard and fast statistics needed.
I personally take issue with this statement and perspective. I was a pretty well traveled player and DM in LG, and the "too hard for the casual gamer" perspective was echoed only with regard to certain regions that were repeat offenders. In fact, I served as Triad for a year and a half, and only had ONE player e-mail me with a comment to that nature - and that player was a player at a four-person table that was APL 3.5 playing APL 4 that didn't have an arcane caster (for the record, we made a deliberate choice to design our adventures for five-person tables at APL). To make claims that there were an "infinite" number of complaints about it is, in my opinion, to give too much weight to the vocal minority and to ignore the efforts of the writers and Triads who did put a lot of effort into making sure their regions were not geared only to powergamers and were not an arms race between players and authors.
That said, I have another comment on the thread as a whole. I think that those who have an issue with the difficulty of LFR adventures are minimizing the scope of their complaint too much. More than any other RPGA campaign (or so I've been told, I've only seen MoH, LA, LG, and XE adventures), LFR closely follows the core rules of the campaign. Thus, it's not necessarily that you think *LFR* is too easy; it may be that you think 4e in general is too easy. Just a perspective to consider.
I personally take issue with this statement and perspective. I was a pretty well traveled player and DM in LG, and the "too hard for the casual gamer" perspective was echoed only with regard to certain regions that were repeat offenders. In fact, I served as Triad for a year and a half, and only had ONE player e-mail me with a comment to that nature - and that player was a player at a four-person table that was APL 3.5 playing APL 4 that didn't have an arcane caster (for the record, we made a deliberate choice to design our adventures for five-person tables at APL). To make claims that there were an "infinite" number of complaints about it is, in my opinion, to give too much weight to the vocal minority and to ignore the efforts of the writers and Triads who did put a lot of effort into making sure their regions were not geared only to powergamers and were not an arms race between players and authors.
That said, I have another comment on the thread as a whole. I think that those who have an issue with the difficulty of LFR adventures are minimizing the scope of their complaint too much. More than any other RPGA campaign (or so I've been told, I've only seen MoH, LA, LG, and XE adventures), LFR closely follows the core rules of the campaign. Thus, it's not necessarily that you think *LFR* is too easy; it may be that you think 4e in general is too easy. Just a perspective to consider.
I'd have to agree on the LG difficulty being a regional issue, and even then it was only noticed increasingly towards the end of the campaign. It seemed there were several writers towards the end of the campaign that went out of their way to make the modules' combats extremely difficult for anyone but the most optimized PC builds. It appeared to me that was in response to the 'broken' nature of 3.5 with all it's splat books.
Verbobonc had several TPK inducing modules towards the end, but those same modules were a walk in the park for the cheesed out groups of players who had a good handle on tactics.
I still think it comes down writers having to balance the difficulty for all types of players. In order to give a challenge (but not a TPK) to the PCs who rely less on build optimization and more on character development requires presenting an adventure that will likely seem easy for the PCs who take advantage of the best builds and tactics in combat.
I don't think that the answer 'fend for yourself' or 'rewrite the mods' should really be the answer for a good number of people's problems with how easy the mods are.
While you might be 100% right*, I don't see WotC changing their policies on writing mods any time soon.
* I have no real opinion one way or another.
LFR closely follows the core rules of the campaign. Thus, it's not necessarily that you think *LFR* is too easy; it may be that you think 4e in general is too easy. Just a perspective to consider.
Except that the format of LFR skews the possible challenge of the modules downward. Mostly the way the RPGA has decided to split each level into roughly 3 modules and the experience caps that produces. For any given module, it (roughly) restricts the encounters to one Party Level+2 encounter and a couple Party Level +0 or even -1 encounters. And that is not counting XP taken for skill challenges.
Let's put it this way. If the RPGA had split LFR levels into 2 modules, each module would have half again the experience cap available. In the same way, if they had split each level into four modules it would become rare to see even party Level +1 encounters. Each of these would be just as true to 4e rules as the current method.
In many ways, it gets worse as the PCs level up. All the easy +0 encounters can be dealt with purely with at-will and the occasional encounter power. So, in the single big encounter they are free to use multiple daily powers each. Metagaming or not, they can tell when to use them. Any encounter that challenges them can by definition not be repeated.
Yes.
Now certainly, that means that the level1-4 scenarios should be easy, because they are people's introduction to the campaign, and possibly to the entire game.
But honestly, do people really get to level7-10, or to paragon levels, without being experienced? Surely we can expect a higher level of rules comprehension and tactics from people who have been playing the game for months than from novices.
Excuse me while I laugh, hysterically.
Remember the cleric I mentioned in an earlier post, the one who only used basic attacks, and seldom did any healing? Experienced D&D player, I have played games with him in LG.
The melee striker who doesn't go for combat advantage is an experienced player in my Tuesday night legacy game. He runs a Rogue/Paladin, and he deliberately ignored, after a couple of peple pointed out the possibility, a move that would have given him a flank on an enemy in order to do a normal attack.
Experienced? Sure! Tactics? Not necessarily. Rules comprehension? May I point you to the multitudinous debates on what should be simple rules, some of them in this very forum area.
Both of you make good points. While some people, not all, will learn as they go and by the time they make it to 7-10th level they will have learned to play well, or at least play better, when it comes to dealing with challenges. And some people never, ever learn.
And it is true that you will not get the same cohesion from a group of strangers/noobs at a convention as you get from your home game of LFR.
And it is true that the LFR adventures are generally pretty easy.
But that's where your job as the DM comes in, where you earn your keep, so-to-speak. Make adjustments. Right there in forward of every LFR module. Make adjustments. If you have to go beyond the simple Low and High tier adjustments already provided for you, then do so. Step up and challenge the players, push them to use all their resources in the best way the players know how. If that means easing off the reins a tad because "they don't get it", then that's what you do. If that means increasing the danger because you are playing with a sound group of tacticians, then do that.
I think the LFR modules are good as written. It is your job as DM to make adjustments to them as needed.
I still think it comes down writers having to balance the difficulty for all types of players. In order to give a challenge (but not a TPK) to the PCs who rely less on build optimization and more on character development requires presenting an adventure that will likely seem easy for the PCs who take advantage of the best builds and tactics in combat.
I think one big difference between 3.5 and 4 is that a DM has a lot more tactical and strategical freedom in 4e than 3.5. Even if the party concentrates on a tough monster, they're still unlikely to drop it in one round.
Which means the DM doesn't have to worry about the tactics of the monsters getting completely wiped out due to a couple of bad rolls. You don't have to use the big power on the 1st round, because when the party is bloodied, you might drop more than just one character - the effect of a Daze on a Leader is much higher when he needs that minor to heal and heal now as an example. Or when he's got some Sustain Minor effect going which requires a move to move...
Was that a group you regularly play with or a pick-up group?
Pick-ups.
It was a constant, deafening complaint. No hard and fast statistics needed.
Well, I never played LG, but even if this was the complaint then, it could easily be the case that the design team overreacted.
Otherwise you're pretty much out of luck.
Or, we could come to the WOTC forum (i.e. here) and perhaps some of the designers will consider it.
Really, people. Is it all that unreasonable to ask LFR writers to include an OPTION to make the adventure more difficult? People who don't like that option can simply OPT NOT to use it. Seems to me that more options is catering to a wider audience. So far the main argument against it is that some people don't want it for themselves, and instead of simply not using it, forbid other people from using it (i.e. cater only to themselves). I don't see how that makes sense, really.
Pick-ups.
Well, I never played LG, but even if this was the complaint then, it could easily be the case that the design team overreacted.
Or, we could come to the WOTC forum (i.e. here) and perhaps some of the designers will consider it.
Really, people. Is it all that unreasonable to ask LFR writers to include an OPTION to make the adventure more difficult? People who don't like that option can simply OPT NOT to use it. Seems to me that more options is catering to a wider audience. So far the main argument against it is that some people don't want it for themselves, and instead of simply not using it, forbid other people from using it (i.e. cater only to themselves). I don't see how that makes sense, really.
Is that not called DME ? The option is there and used regularly
Really, people. Is it all that unreasonable to ask LFR writers to include an OPTION to make the adventure more difficult? People who don't like that option can simply OPT NOT to use it. Seems to me that more options is catering to a wider audience. So far the main argument against it is that some people don't want it for themselves, and instead of simply not using it, forbid other people from using it (i.e. cater only to themselves). I don't see how that makes sense, really.
Because LFR follows the CR rules unlike LG? I know of a table that defeated epic level Fire Giants for no additional XP.
If you, the players, want to keep X experience for dealing with say Y+2 Level encounters, there's nothing preventing your DM from quickly doing the upgrade. Change a couple of monsters to Elite or add +2 to hit, to all defenses, and +1 to damage across the board. Just ask.
What this stops is the people who don't understand how to upgrade encounters from defaulting to the really difficult encounter(and thereby scaring away new players)
Really, people. Is it all that unreasonable to ask LFR writers to include an OPTION to make the adventure more difficult? People who don't like that option can simply OPT NOT to use it. Seems to me that more options is catering to a wider audience. So far the main argument against it is that some people don't want it for themselves, and instead of simply not using it, forbid other people from using it (i.e. cater only to themselves). I don't see how that makes sense, really.
Yes. Maybe you should take a step back, and check out the LFR Writer's Guidelines. Read them, think about it for a while, then you need to figure out where you need to direct your suggestions.
Really, people. Is it all that unreasonable to ask LFR writers to include an OPTION to make the adventure more difficult? People who don't like that option can simply OPT NOT to use it. Seems to me that more options is catering to a wider audience. So far the main argument against it is that some people don't want it for themselves, and instead of simply not using it, forbid other people from using it (i.e. cater only to themselves). I don't see how that makes sense, really.
The option exists. Any DM may make an adventure more difficult if they choose.
In fact, as best I can tell, the real problem is that too many DMs are used to LG way of things. They are used to having to stick to the module precisely. And, since they had to play the module precisely as written, it was very common for DMs to cold run LG modules.
LFR should never be cold run. Only bad DMs consistently cold run LFR adventures. LFR adventures are DESIGNED to be modified every time they are run. Good DMs actually do this.
The real problem is lazy DMs who aren't giving appropriate planning to the adventures. You keep complaining that the adventures don't provide a challenge. That isn't the fault of the writers. That is the fault of the DM. The adventure provides a baseline challenge. It is the DUTY of the DM to adjust that difficulty to provide the highest enjoyment possible for the players.
If you want to solve your "problem", tell your DM what you want (and play games with people who want the same thing). It is worth remembering, even if you want an intense challenge, if the other five people at the table would enjoy something easier, your preference doesn't take precedence.
-SYB
LFR should never be cold run. Only bad DMs consistently cold run LFR adventures.
That's a pretty focused and narrow-minded statement. I'm not going to elaborate too much on this point, since that leads to an entirely different "what makes a good DM" discussion, but to say that only bad DMs consistently cold run LFR adventures really short-sells the folks who go to major cons and do just that so that people can play the adventures they want, even if they're not on the schedule. From my understanding, one of those "bad" cold-running DMs received significant amounts of positive feedback at DDXP from players.
Only bad DMs consistently cold run LFR adventures.
I wouldn't go that far. All the mods I've run so far have been cold runs. Not out of choice, but because getting together to play was last minute and the choice was cold run or don't play ;)
What makes LFR so easy, and what could be done about that?
We should start with the history of this thread, which has a wide range of experiences, from TPKs to cakewalks and people feeling everything is great and everything is too easy and it is too hard. DMs certainly can play a strong hand in choosing tactics and DME methods that make play easier or harder, and such methods are easy to implement.
I also prefer to have mods easy than to be hard, especially given how easy it is to adjust monsters and encounters.
That being said, when it comes to LFR mods being easy, which I do myself experience often, I see this as two different aspects.
Range in levels per adventure level block. I have noticed that games played at exactly the low end of the tier (everyone 1st level, everyone 4th level, everyone 7th level) tend to be very challenging. Compare most play experiences at Gen Con, then fast forward to those same players playing the 1-1 mods (not necessarily the same ones) at a later time, now with a few PCs of higher levels at the table... much easier.
Those few extra resources from leveling (Encounter, Daily, HPs, defenses, +1 level bumps) make a decent difference at those initial parts of a tier.
This, to me, suggests that one of the aspects that makes play easier is the level spread in mods (1-4, 4-7, 7-10, 11-14). It may be that you really need three choices (low, mid, high) vs the two (low, high) to best capture the range in party strength that is possible in those levels.
XP Allotment for Number of Encounters in a Module. The second factor I see as a big driver of the difficulty level is the stated XP available to build encounters. I find it to be a little low for the number of encounters that work well in a module.
Most modules have a skill challenge and three combats or some similar permutation leading to 4 XP encounters.
Let's take a look at the 7-10 range. You have at low-level a budget of 5,250 (1,050 per PC). The target level of difficulty is level 8. At level 8, a typical encounter (p 57 DMG) is 1,750XP. Three combats take you to 5,250 and a skill challenge would add, if of complexity 3 (fairly typical), another 1,050 XP (same as 3 level 8 monsters). Total of 6,300, exceeding the budget by 1,050.
Now, in general (per the DMG), you don't want each combat to be of the same difficulty. You want one a bit easier (maybe 7th, even 6th), one on target (8th), and one harder (maybe 9th or 10th). But, if we go with 6th (1,250), 8th (1,750), and 9th (2,000), this makes for 5,000 without the skill challenge... and still isn't very challenging. If you want to push the difficult combat to 10th... well, you have to make one of the combats really easy.
Those who have played with four PCs, played up, and still cakewalked a mod, should not be so surprised. The XP an author has available is actually not that different from what you might choose, as a homegame DM, to use for a party of four... an encounter of 7th, 8th, and 10th levels are 1,200/1,400/1,600 for parties of four, for a total of 4,200. Throw in the skill challenge (still 1,050 XP), and you are pretty much at the budget of 5,250 (your total is 5,250). We could almost say the LFR, with the typical three combats and one skill challenge, is aiming to challenge one PC less than it should.
The high level of play ups the XP available, of course. At the 7-10 range, 10th level is the aim, with 1500 XP available per PC (7,500 total budget). Of course, now you need to aim for higher levels of challenge (maybe skill challenge plus combat encounters at 9th, 10th, 11 or 12th). You simply don't have the budget once more, though you can generally challenge a table that is pretty low level and playing up. This is why when we often play at level (five 7th level PCs at a level 7 (low) mod) or we have a number of equal level and some higher level (three 7th, one-two 8th or 9th) and play up, this is a more challenging game. When we get to all above 7th, let alone having a bunch of 8th and 9th PCs, the high level version can still be 'easy'.
The options are:
- Take out an XP encounter, make the others harder. This does work, XP-wise. A 8th-level and 10th-level encounters add up to 4,250 XP, and with the skill challenge you are just fine. But, you lost an encounter worth of story/development/ potential challenge as opposed to a home game.
I think that the longer special mods are in many ways taking this approach of more encounters (longer mods) and thus up the challenge level by plain old getting more XP to throw at the PCs.
- You can make one encounter really easy, so as to have more XP.
- You can drop skill challenges, making them really short (low complexity) or just remove them, freeing up some XP (though often not enough and then the mod would be all combat or have RP situations that arguably could be a skill challenge.
Ok, family is falling apart. My children are always given a huge (challenging) XP budget... gotta run, but those are my thoughts on why LFR may seem easy to some.
Teos
Entire incredible post snipped. Whole thing is a must read.
This post gets to the heart of the issue and has the numbers to back it up. LFR really isn't being run according to the DMG suggested difficulty. Yes, the total experience in each level is the same, but having it chopped up into tiny parcels effectively invalidates it. The PCs shouldn't get XP by buying and then squishing rats and that's the level of difficulty some of these encounters are.
However, the real bit I'd like to address is:
We should start with the history of this thread, which has a wide range of experiences, from TPKs to cakewalks and people feeling everything is great and everything is too easy and it is too hard.
As a participant of this thread (and others) from the start I have seen a lot of people who feel it is always easy. I have seen a lot of people with a specific group or situation where the module proved to be too challenging. I can't remember anyone posting that they play in or run a group the feels consistently outmatched by the modules being played as designed. I might have missed someone, so if anyone is in this situation please let us know your experience. I'd also be curious about the makeup of your group and the playstyle and experience of the players.
So, if anyone plays or runs a group that have seen multiple TPKs, let us know. I'd like to get a feel for the types of groups and individuals that are having problems with the campaign as it is currently designed.
So, if anyone plays or runs a group that have seen multiple TPKs, let us know. I'd like to get a feel for the types of groups and individuals that are having problems with the campaign as it is currently designed.
From my experiences, a tactically-minded DM running a module with.. potential... can provide a significant/adequate challenge to even the most tactically-minded, balanced party. I can assure you of that.
I'm beginning to see some adventures that are significantly challenging, and that has reassured me about the campaign. A few examples are SPEC1-2 (I hear that's a meatgrinder), CORE1-7, and IMPI1-3. I have run IMPI1-3 for a handful of very put-together parties and brought each of them dangerously close to TPK (probably could have done it once or twice if I actually wanted to).
I have run IMPI1-3 for a handful of very put-together parties and brought each of them dangerously close to TPK (probably could have done it once or twice if I actually wanted to).
I am in the same category.
I have beaten the snot out of some of the better players around here with IMPI 1-3 and few decent tactics...
And with some good rolls, also with East 1-3.
I wouldn't go that far. All the mods I've run so far have been cold runs. Not out of choice, but because getting together to play was last minute and the choice was cold run or don't play ;)
Fair enough. Slight rephrase. Only bad DMs choose to cold run an adventure when they can avoid it.
I have no problem with convention DMs who cold run an adventure because they are going out of their way to make an adventure happen that wouldn't otherwise or who are covering a missed DM shift. I have nothing but contempt for DMs who schedule games in advance and then download the adventure last minute and cold run it or DMs who sign up for a convention and don't preview and learn the one adventure they are assigned to run all weekend long.
-SYB
with a specific group or situation where the module proved to be too challenging. I can't remember anyone posting that they play in or run a group the feels consistently outmatched by the modules being played as designed.
The question is: What is it that LFR is designed for?
I mostly play LFR at local game days and conventions and there you have groups made up of whatever classes people show up with. 1 Healer + 3 defenders? Done that. 2 Defenders, 1 Controller, 1 Striker? Done that, too.
While it's nice to actually have at least Defender, Leader and Striker within the same group, it's far from guaranteed.
So if "as designed" means to be challenging for the ideal Defern, Leader, Striker, Controller group than it can quickly lead to meaning overwhelming for less balanced groups. Yet I think that these unbalanced groups are what LFR is intended for.
So by making it doable by such groups it becomes easy for balanced groups.
LFR really isn't being run according to the DMG suggested difficulty.
Thanks for the kudos. One thing I will note is that the DMG XP guide is often meant to be part of the type of adventure where you get Extended rests. Thus, the full XP often includes getting refreshes on those tasty dailies. Now, I suspect this isn't such a huge problem as you first think it is at level 1... where your Daily is such a huge factor. As you level and gain more resources, plus with some dailies being really meant for certain types of combats, you learn to work well even having spent Dailies. And, there are other powers/magic that have the strength of some dailies. Thus, I'm thinking the lack of ability to take Extended Rests doesn't enormously compensate for difficulty. Or, perhaps it is better to say that even without Extended Rests, parties have the resources to still triumph at the stated XP budgets in the DMG.
Now, for a weak party, not having Extended Rests is huge. You can start failing and never recover, because your strongest powers/items are gone. You see this often at tables for specials or where a table makes the mistake of playing up when they are a pickup game with a fair number of low levels. The party falls behind and the danger just keeps increasing. For those reasons, I like that there is a low level of difficulty.
Oh, one more thing. Authors can go above the stated amount of XP, but it isn't by enough to make the numbers I posted work out for a challenging 4-encounter mod. It comes close. And, the author needs permission to do this. An author can also do unfair things, such as choosing a monster or sets of monsters with something 'broken' such as ridiculously high defenses, but clearly that isn't the point and the review process should find that and remove it, as it would really hurt new players or casual players.
In looking at the numbers and experiences, I wouldn't mind keeping high, and either leaving it the same or calling it something else, then having a third level (call it something like "challenge") that could pose a threat. From an authoring standpoint, it isn't all that hard. The author is in the best position to do this, since they picked the monsters and have a good feel for which ones should be leveled, added, removed, substituted to make a good challenge. (Though, it isn't so hard for a judge that understands encounter design or just monster powers to choose what to increase via DME... having a third level just makes it easier for DMs).
Another idea would be to have certain mods carry this extra level. For example, a mod that has a major quest reward (usually one concluding a series) could feature a "Challenge" level of difficulty that carries extra XP and thus has a larger budget.
I agree that DMs can really use the tools already in place to modify mods and make them more challenging. The downside is you have to trust the DM. That's tough for pick-up games, stores, and cons. You've met the DM for 2 minutes and they ask your table if they can run their home-concocted challenge level... no surprise if the table hesitates.
What do people see as solutions? Does the system merit a third level of difficulty for mods? (Always? Just for some mods?)
Is it better to try to come up with a user-side proposal, such as a uniform set of changes that can be applied, in a pinch, to make a combat challenging? (Not all DMs will grasp tactics... does some concoction, such as raising each monster level by 1, adding +2 to defenses, etc. equate with a fairly reliable ability to create a challenging scenario?)
What do people see as solutions? Does the system merit a third level of difficulty for mods? (Always? Just for some mods?)
Is it better to try to come up with a user-side proposal, such as a uniform set of changes that can be applied, in a pinch, to make a combat challenging? (Not all DMs will grasp tactics... does some concoction, such as raising each monster level by 1, adding +2 to defenses, etc. equate with a fairly reliable ability to create a challenging scenario?)
I'm not sure a third level of difficulty is the answer. Attack Rolls in 4e in general seems to be very much a binary function - you tend to spectacularly miss or you spectacularly hit instead - there appears to be a much less reduced middle ground where a +1 here or a +1 there makes a difference.
What *could* be the answer is for modules to be customisable due to party-makeup. From what I've seen, party makeup is the big varying factor in how difficult the modules appear.
Some fights are absurdly easy with the right party composition. For example, I ran CORE1-1 yesterday high-tier for a 3rd Paladin, 1st Paladin, 2nd Bard and a 3rd Wizard. The final fight could have easily killed the party - all the characters were repeatedly bloodied and a couple of them were unconscious at one point, but they just about struggled through.
But if they had had a Cleric with them it would have been a complete walkover instead. Similarly, I played AGLA1-1 the previous night with three of the same characters and thanks to the same Wizard we completely stomped the final fight.
The question is: how exactly could you customise the modules though in this regard? I'm not entirely sure.
The fast and easy answer, which many have pointed out but few have heard, is that if you're not being challenged (and you've got a regular DM)...then let him or her know to step up the game until you find that balance of being challenged but not being annihilated.
If you're prone to pick up games...then you might be out of luck. When you're designing something for the masses then it needs to be scaled down to accommodate the hobby players...because it is they (and not the hardcore gamers) who make up the majority of WotC's customer base.
...then let him or her know to step up the game until you find that balance of being challenged but not being annihilated.....
To be sure I agree wholeheartedly, but..
I think the issue for a lot of the "LFR is to easy" people is that, while they do want more challenge, they also want more XP and/or phat lewts for their "effort".
Being the cynic that I am i tend to find a lot of correlation between people calling LFR too easy and dual wand wielding warlock wannabe minion instagibbers.. but that may just be me
Another idea would be to have certain mods carry this extra level. For example, a mod that has a major quest reward (usually one concluding a series) could feature a "Challenge" level of difficulty that carries extra XP and thus has a larger budget.
My answer to the topic of the thread is "No, it's just about right."
However, I do think that this particular option is a reasonable compromise, from "my" side of the issue.
Giving out the Major Quest reward for a chain? Throw in a third difficulty setting, complete with extra XP budget (and a larger treasure reward), as an option.
It is extra work for everyone involved, but only happens infrequently.
I like it.
How about a player who regularly chooses to make basic melee or ranged attacks instead of at-will attacks*?
I just wanted to point out there are cases where the basic attack is superior to the at-wills. In particular, a low-level fighter with Bracers of Mighty Striking does more damage with a melee basic attack than an at-will attack. If he's used all his Daring Exploit cards, and he can't get any extra advantage with his at-wills (no extra target for Cleave damage, no benefit to pushing with Tide of Iron, already have temporary hit points from Crushing Surge), the basic attack is better.
What do people see as solutions? Does the system merit a third level of difficulty for mods? (Always? Just for some mods?)
Currently each module has two tiers and for each tier they have two 'tweaks' to that tier.
Currently the higher tier typically is just the lower tier with the monsters bumped up in levels.
The tweaks are for 4 and 6 person tables and amount to 'remove/add' a combatant.
I would suggest that they have two tiers and THREE tweaks.
The tiers would be level of difficulty. It would likely be more than just 'add a level' to all monsters.
The three tweaks would be for 4 person, 6 person and average higher level tables. They would likely be of the form 'remove a X', 'add another X', and 'add 2 levels to each X'.
Wouldn't be that hard to do, and would cater to a much wider band of players,
James
If we add the "challenge tier" but we don't award extra XP or treasure for it, people will complain that they had to fight harder monsters but they didn't get any better rewards.
If we add the "challenge tier" and we do award extra XP or treasure for it, people will complain that we are just rewarding the "powergamers" with more "phat lewtz" and now people who don't make super-optimized characters can't keep up because they are getting less XP and lower treasure by "only" playing at the other two, clearly inferior, non-challenge tiers.
Even worse, some DMs will feel guilty (or be made to feel guilty by their players) about awarding anything less than the maximum XP and treasure, resulting in the "challenge tier" basically becoming the new standard, and thereby increasing the number of tables that have to be cake-walked to avoid TPKs.
Then someone can start a new thread on the message board complaining that LFR is too hard while other people take the opposite side and say that any competent DM should be able to scale the adventure down for parties that don't have all the roles covered or where some of the characters aren't optimized or where some of the players aren't tactical savants.
Eventually, following this same logic, we will no doubt be compelled to add a fourth tier, to satisfy those people who still think the adventures are too easy even at challenge tier. We could call that super-double-extra-uber-challenge tier. Of course, once we have four tiers, we will start getting a lot of complaints about the page count and printing costs of adventures (especially since only one of those 4 sets of stat blocks is going to be needed for any particular running of the adventure) so to save space we might as well delete the old two tiers that we started with (which we know nobody will be using by then anyway) and just rename "challenge tier" to "low tier" and "super-double-extra-uber-challenge tier" to "high tier." Voila!
All kidding aside -- personally I would much rather operate under the current scheme (easier standard with the expectation that you can and will scale it up as much as the DM and players want to scale it up) than under the opposite (harder standard with the expectation that you can and will scale it down). As I have said before, I have never seen anybody leave a campaign because they *didn't* get TPKed but I have sure seen people leave because they *did*. Even when people of good intent and reasonable experience try to make adventures that are harder than normal but not so hard as to be unwinnable, which is exactly what Shawn and I did when writing SPEC1-1 and especially SPEC1-2, we see a drastic increase in PC deaths and accompanying unhappiness.
As it turns out, the designers of Dungeons & Dragons had a cunning plan to solve this very problem. They cleverly made arrangements to provide each and every table with a marvelous device that is capable of making a nearly infinite variety of adjustments to any adventure in order to better fit that adventure to the expectations and capabilities of the players and their characters. This marvelous device is called a Dungeon Master. There is no amount of work on the part of the authors, editors, or campaign staff that can substitute for the capabilities and good judgment of the individual DM. Nobody ever has been or ever will be better positioned to do what needs to be done in order to make fun things happen in the particular game occurring at that specific time and place.
Having said that, I do not mean to imply that the existence of the DM allows the authors, writers, or campaign staff to abdicate their responsibility to try and make the adventures as good as possible (for some definition of "good"). And we do try, and the success or failure of those efforts must ultimately be judged by the community, who, in the end, will vote with their dice (and their postings on Internet message boards). So we absolutely appreciate threads like this one, and I have seen some interesting suggestions in this thread -- but ultimately, it seems to me that what some people are asking for is a solution that relies far more heavily on the author and far less heavily on the DM -- when in fact the author is much less able than the DM to accurately assess what any particular adventure needs at the particular moment in time when it is being run for a particular group of people. This is why recipes say "season to taste." The person who wrote the recipe assumed that the person doing the actual cooking would be in a much better position to judge the quality of the work in progress. And I think that is a very wise assumption.
Thanks for reading, and thanks for your support of the campaign. I appreciate everyone who has taken the time to post here, even if you disagree with everything I just said.
If we add the "challenge tier" but we don't award extra XP or treasure for it, people will complain that they had to fight harder monsters but they didn't get any better rewards.
We've already seen this argument and its frustrating because they don't have to.
Even worse, some DMs will feel guilty (or be made to feel guilty by their players) about awarding anything less than the maximum XP and treasure
Really? Has this been happening now with any regularity? I've played low, high, high++ and I've never felt (as either DM or player) that more XP should be awarded. I've also never seen anyone even attempt to guilt DM into awarding the high XP when they played low.
resulting in the "challenge tier" basically becoming the new standard, and thereby increasing the number of tables that have to be cake-walked to avoid TPKs.
If the players are playing high (or the proposed challenge tier) when they should be playing low, I'm not going to feel guilty about TPKing them, unless I've recommended they play high. Although If I bump up the encounters without telling the players because they're having a cakewalk, and then suddenly there's the threat of TPK, I'll of course let them retreat with no penalty.
As it turns out, the designers of Dungeons & Dragons had a cunning plan to solve this very problem. They cleverly made arrangements to provide each and every table with a marvelous device that is capable of making a nearly infinite variety of adjustments to any adventure in order to better fit that adventure to the expectations and capabilities of the players and their characters. This marvelous device is called a Dungeon Master.
But if I'm running a pre-written mod I don't want to have to put any effort into it! [/not serious]
I understand complaints that DMs don't have time to alter mods for their players who are breezing through the mods. But if you've got such a group of players, then the LFR mods as-written aren't for them. It sucks to be told that you can't play them, but as Sean points out, there will always be a group who are finding the mod too easy. My personal experiences say that the "this is too easy at high" group doesn't outweigh the "we almost died at low" group. So I'm siding with keeping the system as is. Others with different personal experiences will of course disagree with me.
When monsters got 'harder' in 3e, it's not because the monsters got smarter, more devious, or better equipped - as WELL as tougher.
In 4e their hit points go up and their attack bonuses also rise.
Thus, compared to 3e, where a level 11 Cleric and a level 8 cleric differed on a HELL of a lot more than just AC, To hit and HPs, now that is the only real difference between high and low.
Sadly all that means is the fights can take longer if you elect to go high, or heaven forbid, you have to use your daily powers. (Or you use one more surge)
The tactics are there, but they are the same at level 4 as they are at level 10 - very few new variables come into play.
4e is a game of punching each other slowly to death, with the odd bit of environmental sliding/pushing off cliffs. It is not the same.
Problem aint LFR folks. Problem is 4e. Stop ragging on the RPGA on this one, so they can fix all the other issues like the Rules compendium :P (just kidding Sean... well half kidding...)
As I have said before, I have never seen anybody leave a campaign because they *didn't* get TPKed but I have sure seen people leave because they *did*. Even when people of good intent and reasonable experience try to make adventures that are harder than normal but not so hard as to be unwinnable, which is exactly what Shawn and I did when writing SPEC1-1 and especially SPEC1-2, we see a drastic increase in PC deaths and accompanying unhappiness.
Well I've certainly curtailed my LFR play based on the fact that it's been boring.
I haven't stopped completely but it's getting very close to that. Right now the locals are willing to run a random 3.x campaign and with that LFR has died for me. I might play it as a last resort at the nearby con I'm going to in a week or so, but only if other things don't make and I don't find anything else to do.
So here's my advice, take it or chuck it:
While it's true you can't please everyone, in general you are going to have 2 main camps of people playing: those that want an easier challenge level and those that want a higher challenge level. Yes?
What is wrong with catering to both? Can't both groups be happy?
You say that if you only cater to one that the other will be unhappy. Fine. Don't cater to just one, cater to both!
High and low tiers aren't all that different currently. Do you really need separate stat blocks for each? Go through a module or two and see how often you couldn't easily describe the high tier from the low tier, just as you describe a low tier with 4 PCs from the default low tier.
Small SPEC 1-1 spoiler:
Show
Take your SPEC 1-1 for example. You could describe each of the current high tiers by saying 'add 2 levels to this guy' or 'add 2 minions' from the current low tier. There's no combat that you couldn't describe that way in the space that you take to list out the high tier combatants.
Take your SPEC 1-1 for example. You could describe each of the current high tiers by saying 'add 2 levels to this guy' or 'add 2 minions' from the current low tier. There's no combat that you couldn't describe that way in the space that you take to list out the high tier combatants.
And I've been more or less choosing not to play as a result. It's just been too boring. Perhaps I should be asking the DMs to rewrite the mods, but honestly I'd just rather ask them to run something else as do that.
I'm not sure what the difficulty in asking is - if your DM doesn't know how to up the challenge on the fly, there are likely good reasons as to why you don't feel challenged. i.e. your DM doesn't understand the tactics of 4e. Make a couple of monsters Elite of the same level, throw a template on two of them, or add +2 to hit, +1 damage, +2 to all defenses.
Here's three comments from dkay, the person who started the thread - they basically state the following:
He's wondering if everyone else is finding LFR too easy.
He responds to someone that he's got a rep for being a vicious DM and people are still finding LFR too easy.
Then finally, he notes how when he does certain tactics, his extremely tactical, highly experienced group of players(a group who could walk most LG mods) are narrowly avoiding TPKs.
Based on my experiences, as well as the experiences of many of the people I play with or speak to about LFR, the general consensus is that LFR modules do not provide an adequate challenge.
I play with a variety of judges and have been judging quite often myself - I can be a pretty vicious judge.
I've actually come to realize over time that DM tactics can have a far greater impact on module difficulty than the creatures contained therein. Obviously, the creatures need to have the potential to be deadly, but running them in a tactically sound manner (assuming they're intelligent enough to warrant tactics) makes just as big a difference.
The big difference between 4e and 3.5e is the tactics are significantly more complex. It isn't just enough to stand in the back and hope to go first. Or as a monster, walk up to the party and hope they haven't read about your gotcha power.
When monsters use terrain to protect themselves, when they focus fire on guys who are not obvious defenders wearing Chain or Cloth, when they use shift & charge to get around the Fighter who just used Come & Get It - yes, he gets a shot to hit one of them. So what - even if he hits, he doesn't prevent any of them from attacking someone else in the party unless they have to move past him...use forced movement powers to trigger traps, damaging terrain or throw someone off a cliff - and if you get the chance to throw someone off a cliff, do it on someone who won't be able to get back up easily.
Another big 4e thing is a lot of the time, the really tough monster with the big daily or non-recharging encounter power doesn't actually have to use the power on the 1st round. Set up the situation to use that power most effectively. Think about the power of Daze as an example - use it on round 1 and the party maybe doesn't get to set up some powers. Use on round 2 when someone's bloodied and their leader maybe has to choose between healing them or doing an action. Focus on the bloodied guy and he likely goes down. Now what does the leader do - either way, your Daze just cost the party a standard action and that's really powerful. Daze on Rogues often attacks their weakest defense and makes it really hard for them to get CA - no flanking when Dazed. And it is no longer round 1, so the Rogue doesn't get automatic CA any longer, which could set up a charge.
While some people can run combats cold, I don't think that's a good idea - it is a better thing to think about how the monster powers might intersect together with the terrain. In one mod, I trapped the party in a burning house and they had to fight their way out of it as an example. It was a possibility in the mod, but you had to look at the situation to see it if the DM you played with didn't do it.
Writers/Admins: The modules are being balanced without taking potential bonuses like Reward Cards and the Adventuring Company AP into account, correct?
Thus, compared to 3e, where a level 11 Cleric and a level 8 cleric differed on a HELL of a lot more than just AC, To hit and HPs, now that is the only real difference between high and low.
It certainly doesn't _have_ to be only purely level derived benefits - for example, high tier could gain a power, have a better recharge, etc. Terrain could also get more complicated, there could be less rounds until reinforcements or traps, etc.
The tactics are there, but they are the same at level 4 as they are at level 10 - very few new variables come into play.
Both level 4 and 10 are in the heroic tier and are roughly analogous to the difference between level 5 and 8 in 3e... so yeah, not a ton expected to change there no.
4e is a game of punching each other slowly to death, with the odd bit of environmental sliding/pushing off cliffs. It is not the same. Problem aint LFR folks. Problem is 4e.
Please don't bring edition wars into an otherwise good discussion. Both editions have flaws, certainly, but that's neither here nor there.
I'd actually say that the xp budget is far more to blame here - you almost guarantee easy combats because 3 combats plus a skill challenge or two matches the 4e DMG definition of normal to easy combats.
It's possible to still have difficult combats even on a low XP budget, but typically only with very good synergy of monster abilities, terrain, or mispowered opponents (needle drake swarms, frex). If you go the other way and have underpowered monsters or lack synergy then it becomes a cakewalk.
Here's three comments from dkay, the person who started the thread - they basically state the following:
He's wondering if everyone else is finding LFR too easy.
He responds to someone that he's got a rep for being a vicious DM and people are still finding LFR too easy.
Then finally, he notes how when he does certain tactics, his extremely tactical, highly experienced group of players(a group who could walk most LG mods) are narrowly avoiding TPKs.
In a nutshell, yes. I have come around somewhat. Some modules, however, just don't have the potential to be deadly, others do. My "tactical, experienced group of players" has only narrowly avoided TPKs in a couple of modules, but you've summed it up pretty well.
I have noticed that the rewards cards do have a tremendous impact on games, moreso than one might think at first. We played a recent "home brew" module to test out some of the higher level content and the first thing that everyone noticed was the lack of rewards cards. Not being able to re-roll at-will powers, and not having those +1 bumps for the times when we knew that attacks had missed by 1 was very noticeable. It felt like we had lost a crutch. I'll openly admit that I wouldn't be at all upset to see the reward cards go bye-bye... or at least morph into something that provides additional access rather than in-game benefits (like new playable content). However, as long as everyone is using them, I'll continue to do so myself (for the same reasons that I can't allow myself to make an underpowered PC just to have more of a challenge).
In a nutshell, yes. I have come around somewhat. Some modules, however, just don't have the potential to be deadly, others do. My "tactical, experienced group of players" has only narrowly avoided TPKs in a couple of modules, but you've summed it up pretty well.
Oh, I was sure that was the case - only some monsters/terrain combos really let you use tactics effectively. The DM can't do it by himself, he needs the writer to offer options. And I think the writers are getting better at it.
However, as long as everyone is using them, I'll continue to do so myself (for the same reasons that I can't allow myself to make an underpowered PC just to have more of a challenge).
Yeah, a reroll for an at-will is extremely powerful, especially for classes that live off of class features that only trigger on a hit.
You really need to embrace my philosophy - start off with an oddball concept, then work to make it as powerful as possible. And often, the writers of D&D, realizing that your set of combos is underpowered, write feats designed to overpower it.
I've got an Eladrin Battlerager 3 as an example. It seems like it ought to be underpowered, but Dualstrike with an Urgrosh does a lot of damage - in essence, it is a +4 to hit(using the math on Danger Sense), 1d10+4 damage attack that might do an additional 1d10+4 damage(because unlike Danger Sense, you can hit twice). Combined with Fluttering Leaf from Dragon 368 and Polearm Momentum, he can teleport into a near flank position, shift 2 with Footwork Lure into the flank position, let the Rogue take his readied action, then slide him 2 into the position he just left.
i.e. at-will prone where they're 2 away from me and 4 away from the Rogue. And if I miss, I can use the stupid card...really, really powerful against melee types. So I have very effective control and damage at-wills.
Both level 4 and 10 are in the heroic tier and are roughly analogous to the difference between level 5 and 8 in 3e... so yeah, not a ton expected to change there no.
Ummmm what? Are you kidding me? from level 6 onwards critters often had more than one attack, creatures had access to spells like Evards, Dimension door, etc.
APL 8 was a lot different to APL 10.
Please don't bring edition wars into an otherwise good discussion. Both editions have flaws, certainly, but that's neither here nor there.
I fail to see how it is not relevant. The discussion is good - however the majority of the complaints/issues raised are not actually problems with LFR modules, but rather with certain players who used to enjoy the 3.5 tactical element. (dkay and his tables would fall under this category)
The question was asked, is LFR too easy? - my answer is no it isn't any easier than it is supposed to be.
My answer is 4e is intrinsically easier - and that is where the issue lies for those players. You cannot have a 'is this game too easy' conversation WITHOUT bringing up the rules mechanic, otherwise it's just sophistry and skirting the issue.
I am solidly of the opinion that 4e has been made easier to be more accessible and less adversarial. It succeeds at that. Whether or not *everyone* enjoys that is a different thing. I personally like a chance of failure, it doesn't seem heroic without that element to me. Remember this, mechanically, things are balanced in 4e. If all rolls are average, and tactics are average, the party will always win. So with a good party with good tactics, excepting terrible rolls, it will always seem easy. A crafty DM can equal it, but the numbers are always balanced towards PC success.
On a final note, complicated terrain is a bad idea, there is a fine line between relying on environmental variables all the time and making the game pure DnD miniatures. (Which is a TERRIBLE wargame I might add)
The question was asked, is LFR too easy? - my answer is no it isn't any easier than it is supposed to be.
My answer is 4e is intrinsically easier - and that is where the issue lies for those players. You cannot have a 'is this game too easy' conversation WITHOUT bringing up the rules mechanic, otherwise it's just sophistry and skirting the issue.
I am solidly of the opinion that 4e has been made easier to be more accessible and less adversarial. It succeeds at that. Whether or not *everyone* enjoys that is a different thing. I personally like a chance of failure, it doesn't seem heroic without that element to me. Remember this, mechanically, things are balanced in 4e. If all rolls are average, and tactics are average, the party will always win. So with a good party with good tactics, excepting terrible rolls, it will always seem easy. A crafty DM can equal it, but the numbers are always balanced towards PC success.
On a final note, complicated terrain is a bad idea, there is a fine line between relying on environmental variables all the time and making the game pure DnD miniatures. (Which is a TERRIBLE wargame I might add)
Without starting any "edition wars" arguments, I'd like to state for the record that I think 4e is actually more balanced, and can be more challenging than 3.5 The key difference is that 4e is a fairly straightforward slope. Combat can get linearly more difficult by simple level adjustments. 3.5 is a cliff. It was usually either too easy or too difficult, and it took a great deal of effort for writers to find the "sweet spot." Also, most NPCs didn't have as many tactical options, so there was less that the DM could do to really challenge the party (there are exceptions, of course, like creatures with numerous options such as Nabassu and whatnot).
I actually find 4e to be intrinsically more balanced - not necessarily harder or easier. Weaker players can still deal with encounters (albeit with more difficulty), but stronger players can still be challenged. Ramping up the challenge is also very easy. Long gone are the days where we add 4 HD to a monster and it suddenly grows in size and doubles in effectiveness. Now, we have a nice and easy progression to create monsters that provide the challenge we're looking for.
From my 4e DMing experience so far, I have often asked my players before a combat "Hey, would you guys like me to add a level or two to certain creatures in this encounter so that they provide what I think is an adequate challenge?" More often than not, the players agree and the results are exactly as expected: more challenge. I haven't changed anything intrinsic to the module... I've simply given some opponents +2 to every d20 roll and defense, +1 to all damage rolls, and a few HP - pretty simple. To me, this seems like a pretty solid example of statistical DME.
I believe that each of the global admins has been saying this all along in this thread - it is entirely within the DM's control to provide greater challenge for parties that want it. The writers shouldn't be asked to work harder - they have enough on their plates as it is.
~Dave
p.s. Being something of a control freak, I do expect my DMs to ask permission before bumping up NPC levels... or at least informing the players that they've done so.
p.p.s. I would still like to see a module or two with each wave that is intrinsically more challenging than others - the notion of "oh, that mod..." has always been inherent in RPGA campaigns and I'd like that to continue. Everyone loves the occasional meatgrinder that winds up being the topic of so much conversation.
Without starting any "edition wars" arguments, I'd like to state for the record that I think 4e is actually more balanced, and can be more challenging than 3.5 The key difference is that 4e is a fairly straightforward slope. Combat can get linearly more difficult by simple level adjustments. 3.5 is a cliff. It was usually either too easy or too difficult, and it took a great deal of effort for writers to find the "sweet spot." Also, most NPCs didn't have as many tactical options, so there was less that the DM could do to really challenge the party (there are exceptions, of course, like creatures with numerous options such as Nabassu and whatnot).
I believe that each of the global admins has been saying this all along in this thread - it is entirely within the DM's control to provide greater challenge for parties that want it. The writers shouldn't be asked to work harder - they have enough on their plates as it is.
I basically agree with Dave on this, I just equate 'balanced' with 'easier' due to there being less variables involved. Hence my earlier statements.
I actually don't have a problem with the difficulty of LFR - and have to say Dave you did a great job on IMPI 1-3 on the combat side, I had a cocky party, for the first time, regretting choosing to play High tier with their level 8s...
(Will continue to PM you about it, will get some choice comments from the players first)
Not trying to start an Editions war, so I better nip that in the bud, what I was more saying - and Dave summed it well - is that the 4e slope is easier to codify, predict, deal with, and approach. As such, some view it as easier, compared to the unpredictability and numerous factors in 3e games.
I just don't see the point in adding a third tier of encounters to the adventures. We're not going to give out more XP than we already do -- the advancement rate is very fast as-is, particularly if you play up a lot (or always). Given that constraint, the idea of adding another tier puts us in an immediate no-win situation.
If we add the "challenge tier" but we don't award extra XP or treasure for it, people will complain that they had to fight harder monsters but they didn't get any better rewards.
Lots of good thoughts, Sean. Thanks! To be clear, this post I'm making here is not an argument trying to refute what you are saying. I'm more so exploring the concepts and thinking through all of this.
I think what I hear on this thread and in play is not a request for more XP per mod. (That may come, sure, but the discussion is really about feeling properly challenged). Advancement is indeed very fast.
The reason for having another 'difficulty setting' or a 'challenge tier' is so that DMs use it and it is a standard offering. Right now, DMs use the current high and low setting. If there were a middle or an ultra-high, I am sure it would be used. What I see little of is true customization (DME adjustment) of monsters. I can count on two fingers (:tongue
the number of times a DM has taken a mod and actually applied a template (or upgraded to elite) to a monster, raised its level, etc. While it is easy to do, most DMs lack either the inclination, knowledge, or time to make that change. I do absolutely believe in the power of the DM. These changes aren't hard. But... they can't be done lightly or easily, and the responsibility falls squarely on the DM's shoulders in a way that can be counterproductive to the DM having a good time. Here's what I mean. A DM asks the table "High or Low", the PCs make the choice, they bear the responsibility for that decision, and a near TPK is something they understand to be something they decided and 'earned'. If the DM, seeing the PCs do well in encounter 1, deploys their untested "Adjustment Alpha" to encounter 2, and this almost causes a TPK, the players will absolutely hold that DM responsible for making the decision.
Similarly, when DMs run mods, how often are they really looking at the module to say "Hmmmm, let's see, given the XP values, the first combat is an average fight, the second is easy and won't consume resources, and the third is a really hard one. So, the first combat should let me know how good the party is, while the second one should be easy so they have some resources left for the third..."?
Most DMs are just running encounters. They typical setup is that your difficulty increases across three combats, with a skill challenge somewhere in the mix. (This varies, of course). This means the first combat is usually the easier one and the DM gets little opportunity to know how good the table is... plus, and easy combat is not supposed to test the party or consume many resources. If the DM, on the fly (or beforehand), makes an adjustment to the first combat to make it much harder, and the party consumes resources, that last combat may be much harder than it should be.
The person that best understands this is the author. They are choosing how to dole out XP, so they know that the first combat isn't supposed to be a big deal. The second, they know, is a bit of a test. And they know the third is where the magic happens. They can similarly choose how to make high (or 'challenge level') work within that framework.
Personally, I don't like to apply any real DME until I have run/played a mod once. Without playing the mod (and better, running it) I lack a true comprehension of how intangibles affect the combat. Intangibles like terrain, plot implications, deployment of monsters over time, difficulty of earlier fights, etc. are hard to measure. It isn't that you can't use DME without playing it or running it (the DME of AKAN1-1 I posted is largely based on moderate DME I did without playing or running the mod beforehand), but most DMs are likely not going to do this easily.
One issue that I see with the mods is an intrinsic aspect of the 'difficulty' of 4e versus the previous editions. (I.e: it's not a campaign thing, but a mechanics thing).
When monsters got 'harder' in 3e, it's not because the monsters got smarter, more devious, or better equipped - as WELL as tougher.
In 4e their hit points go up and their attack bonuses also rise.
Yes and no. Many times, especially once you get past the first four or five monster levels, monsters have awesome powers. They really don't need more powers. Making those powers hit, plus making them harder to hit and stay on the mat longer... that does mean a lot.
Take a look at most monsters (non-Elite) at level 7 and at level 11, they all have fun powers. Sure, you will find monsters with uber-cool stuff at higher levels, but it isn't a huge sea change in general.
I say this with limited experience, but I do think it is true that an author, when picking monsters for a certain XP level (say 7th vs 9th vs 10th), will choose different monsters in a home campaign. You end up narrowing your author focus to a few levels. Sure, you could go with two very different combats at high and low levels, but then your DMs have to do a lot more review and you have to provide different tactics and descriptions. Thus, you often end up with the same monsters with maybe one monster swap and some leveling. The same would be likely of any 'challenge level', though you could change that.
In 3E, the combats where monsters changed greatly over levels were hard to run. You could be a good DM with experience with the mod, run at a higher APL, and find yourself trying not to spend 10 minutes reading over spell lists to see what the critter would do... so you rushed the decision and failed to challenge. Run at the same APL three times, and you could really threaten some PCs!
So, I think it is actually mod design that encourages us to just level monsters rather than make unique choices for each difficulty level. It isn't a bad thing, and I don't think it is responsible for any perceived/real lack of difficulty. (Some monsters are horrendous when leveled, actually. )
Similarly, when DMs run mods, how often are they really looking at the module to say "Hmmmm, let's see, given the XP values, the first combat is an average fight, the second is easy and won't consume resources, and the third is a really hard one. So, the first combat should let me know how good the party is, while the second one should be easy so they have some resources left for the third..."?
I completely do this. I pick which adventures I am running based on the encounters and how fun and challenging they look. In the same way, there are a few mods I have no desire to run because I feel the encounters have been built poorly and the XP divided out among too many minor fights and skill challenges.
I completely do this.
I'm sure we can find a bunch of really good DMs that do this. But, is that the norm? Is it the expectation? Because the campaign rules/format should be set to what is reasonable and expected. In my play, I don't see DMs taking that sort of time. They are making adjustments, but in the mindset of previous editions or any RPG... fudging dice and such.
To try to be constructive here: The game caters well to new players in various ways. Maybe it would cater to new DMs better by offering some suggestions for tweaks. It takes up mod space, but maybe instead of a 'challenge level' you have a sidebar-type box that contains options for any XP encounter. These could be around difficulty or other things that DMs can use. For an encounter meant to be a challenge, the author could include some ideas (add the blah template to this monster, swap this monster for this one...). I mean, if that's the sort of thing DMs are supposed to do (we shall see when we receive the DME guidance). What I'm looking at is what could be in a mod that would make my new DM feel comfortable in tweaking difficulty on the fly or with minimal prep (because I don't expect great prep from new DMs).
At one point the DM made the statement
DM: Dang 1 point off from hitting with my most powerfull attack. Isn't there a +1 on the table I can use? Haha.
Player: Sure, but to use it you have to bump it to a +2
(10 second pause)
DM: hmm ... ok, you guys were going to have a cakewalk on this mod anyway.
(3 rounds later after another DM whiff)
DM: so how's everyone feel about me using the +2 and making it a +4
All Players: agreed
This progressed, the DM couldn't elevate a card above +8, and it was gone once a player used it. Made the encounters... scary, but fun, and fast. At one point, with 2/6 players down and 2/6 bloodied, one player commented that they were physically trembling and sweating at their keyboard because the DM was up and a +4 was on the table.
This progressed, the DM couldn't elevate a card above +8, and it was gone once a player used it. Made the encounters... scary, but fun, and fast. At one point, with 2/6 players down and 2/6 bloodied, one player commented that they were physically trembling and sweating at their keyboard because the DM was up and a +4 was on the table.
This is sort of the inverse of the Spycraft AP system. When you do something cool, from good RP to a cool move, you get an action point. However, your DM gets one too. Often, the players nervously look at the giant pile of APs the DM has... it can make for a really fun battle. I've never met a DM that wasn't good about using their chips only to make the game more fun (not using them if it would be overly hard on the PCs). It is a really nice in-game reward system, actually, but not broken like reward cards. Any bonus to the PCs is a bonus to the DM.
I actually have less of an issue with the card text itself than I do the +1 and +2. Getting to re-roll various attack rolls can be huge, but there is still some variability to the outcomes. The automatic pluses, when you know your target number (i.e. saves throws), takes the variable nature out of the game.
Shawn
(just posting as Shawn, who rarely used the cards in LG despite having enough to build a house out of)
They really show WOTC's card game focus in a way. 'Turn them sideways after you use them.' Hmmm What does that sound like.
I think some people need to move away from the "they're turning D&D into a card game" fixation*. Sometimes its because WotC recommends the use of a prop (power cards), in other cases its because WotC recommends similar visual aids (turning a card sideways).
* Not necessarily saying you fall into that category Tancread, I'm simply using your post to bring up this issue.
I think some people need to move away from the "they're turning D&D into a card game" fixation*. Sometimes its because WotC recommends the use of a prop (power cards), in other cases its because WotC recommends similar visual aids (turning a card sideways).
* Not necessarily saying you fall into that category Tancread, I'm simply using your post to bring up this issue.
Nah, I certainly don't think it is turning into a card game, just that you can see the influence on that particular bit. Most players just keep them in their notebooks after showing them to the DM, I haven't seen anyone yet lay them out and turn them after use, doesn't really seem to be necessary. Amused me, wasn't a serious gripe.
Nah, I certainly don't think it is turning into a card game, just that you can see the influence on that particular bit. Most players just keep them in their notebooks after showing them to the DM, I haven't seen anyone yet lay them out and turn them after use, doesn't really seem to be necessary. Amused me, wasn't a serious gripe.
I lay them out on the table and turn them after use. In fact, as a DM, I would insist on it. Not because I like to be a hard ass, but because it is easy to forget whether you have used something in a 4 hour game. I know there are many times I have trouble remembering whether I used an action point (thankfully, the game I play in uses physical tokens as action points) or whether I have used a daily power successfully (I just can't seem to hit with Brute Strike) and props help me remember.
-SYB
I haven't seen anyone yet lay them out and turn them after use, doesn't really seem to be necessary.
I do. I have a terrible memory. I also cut up the power cards use them as cards because I spend other people's turns deciding what I want to do (to help speed up the game). At first I just printed off the sheet and kept it as an A4 piece of paper, but I was finding by not cutting them up, I was easily forgetting what I had decided to do. By holding them in my hand, I can say "aha! I'm doing this."
Turning them over helps me remember if I used it this turn or not. I don't do it with action points and I'm constantly forgetting if I've used an action point or not ;)
(thankfully, the game I play in uses physical tokens as action points)
That's a good idea. What a lot of us seem to be doing instead is on the initiative board they put a circle next to the person's name for each use of action points. It helps us remember how many we have, although it doesn't let us remember if we've used it this battle or not.
Turning them over helps me remember if I used it this turn or not. I don't do it with action points and I'm constantly forgetting if I've used an action point or not ;)
One thing that's nice about the power cards from the DDI Character Builder program is that it includes an Action Point card, which makes it easy to know if you've used your AP in that encounter.
I tend to keep my power cards in a stack, and, when I use an Encounter or Daily power, I flip it over and stick it in the back of the stack. (When I use a power like Inspiring Word, which can be used twice per encounter, I turn it 180 degrees the first time I use it, and then flip it over the second time I use it.)
One thing that's nice about the power cards from the DDI Character Builder program is that it includes an Action Point card, which makes it easy to know if you've used your AP in that encounter.
Yeah I don't print that one off to save on ink :P I probably should though (can also use use tokens for when I'm with a group where the initiative tracker doesn't also keep track of action points).
When I use a power like Inspiring Word, which can be used twice per encounter, I turn it 180 degrees the first time I use it, and then flip it over the second time I use it.
I do that too which I know is very card-gamey of me ;)
Several issues I have with cards:
1. Many players spend a good 10-15 seconds finding the right card when it comes to their turn, (this delay may occur without the cards anyway - so it's probably just me, but I notice said players were quicker in 3.X - maybe it's just a change thing)
2. I have visibly seen players failing to flip cards over/delineate whether they have used them. On purpose or not. I like the old 'marking off with a whiteboard marker in a folder' trick.
3. Cards take up much more space than the text written on them - I know one or two players that after spreading out their cards take up 4 A4 sheets of paper.
4. Cards need to be updated every level
5. As mentioned elsewhere, a reliance on cards/rules done for you often results in not knowing how the power works or why certain numbers are what they are.
6. I have a mate that plays magic and I always rag on him, and now I can't cos my game does it
7. I'm mad
8. I wouldn't live up to my grumpy reputation if I didn't arbitrarily dislike change, which is what the cards represent.
These are all my own largely irrational reasons why I don't use them others are free to, though I will tell you off if you do the taking up too much space thing. Most players here use them.
When I have time I write out the powers in one or two lines, colour code them, and leave boxes so I can tick them off when used. This means that with the front of my Character sheet, and the power sheet, I at msot take up 2 A4 sheets at a table (dice usually resting on top of the sheets, though I know that is a taboo to some folk)
I like the old 'marking off with a whiteboard marker in a folder' trick.
Which can be forgotten just as easily ;)
3. Cards take up much more space than the text written on them - I know one or two players that after spreading out their cards take up 4 A4 sheets of paper.
This can be/is true. Particularly for Wizards.
5. As mentioned elsewhere, a reliance on cards/rules done for you often results in not knowing how the power works or why certain numbers are what they are.
Good point, although its way too risky at this point with the WotC Character Builder fairly buggy when it comes to the power cards. I regularly check them, although with a memory like a sieve, I don't necessarily learn the related rules ;)
This means that with the front of my Character sheet, and the power sheet, I at msot take up 2 A4 sheets at a table (dice usually resting on top of the sheets, though I know that is a taboo to some folk)
If you ever e-mail me a copy of the power sheet you use, I might give it a whirl with my wizard. Although with 15 powers plus 8 items with powers I'd need to be able to look up quickly, I'm not 100% sure if it will be much better. An advantage with the cards is I can put my dailies and utilities in the same card holders and only have the prepared one showing. With an A4 sheet of paper I'd have to write them each onto it (or constantly erase the paper and change it) I can also leave my items in a stack taking up the slot of 1 card.
4. Cards need to be updated every level
There's many cards out there besides the WotC ones, which don't need to be constantly reprinted. Similarly a clean piece of A4 paper, cut into a rectangular shape with the relevant information pencilled in works just as well ;)
My anti-card game thing is an irrational bias, so I can't hold it against others.
Several issues I have with cards:
1. Many players spend a good 10-15 seconds finding the right card when it comes to their turn, (this delay may occur without the cards anyway - so it's probably just me, but I notice said players were quicker in 3.X - maybe it's just a change thing)
My Response-I've found the opposite, it seems to me the players who use the cards are able to more quickly figure out their powers then the people who end up flipping through the PHB to re-read the power.
2. I have visibly seen players failing to flip cards over/delineate whether they have used them. On purpose or not. I like the old 'marking off with a whiteboard marker in a folder' trick.
3. Cards take up much more space than the text written on them - I know one or two players that after spreading out their cards take up 4 A4 sheets of paper.
IResponse f they are spread out I'd agree, but I like to keep them in a stack, and that ends up taking only a 3"x4" space
4. Cards need to be updated every level
Response Yes, but so does a character sheet or a wipe off board. If you use a pencil on the cards it only takes a second to update them on level up
5. As mentioned elsewhere, a reliance on cards/rules done for you often results in not knowing how the power works or why certain numbers are what they are.
Response True, but the players who don't know those things are just as likely to lack that knowledge weither it is on a card or not
6. I have a mate that plays magic and I always rag on him, and now I can't cos my game does it
7. I'm mad
8. I wouldn't live up to my grumpy reputation if I didn't arbitrarily dislike change, which is what the cards represent.
--- :D
These are all my own largely irrational reasons why I don't use them others are free to, though I will tell you off if you do the taking up too much space thing. Most players here use them.
When I have time I write out the powers in one or two lines, colour code them, and leave boxes so I can tick them off when used. This means that with the front of my Character sheet, and the power sheet, I at msot take up 2 A4 sheets at a table (dice usually resting on top of the sheets, though I know that is a taboo to some folk)
I understand the bias against the cards because it does seem to change the game from RP to a card battle game, but at the same time I think they do hold alot of advantages for speeding up and simplifying combat.
It's always nice to see a swordmage kill 5 minions with greenflame blade after initially missing and using desperate spell to reroll :D
...which isn't actually legal since the card says "re-roll the attack roll" (singular). Unless of course he hit 4 minions the first time and rerolled for the 5th.
...which isn't actually legal since the card says "re-roll the attack roll" (singular). Unless of course he hit 4 minions the first time and rerolled for the 5th.
No, Greenflame Blade only requires ONE attack roll. The damage to the adjacent enemies (minions, usually ;) ) is automatic on a (single) hit.
During most mods I am never fearful of dying or even losing a bunch of healing surges. I had 10 surges and was down to my last one at the end of the mod.
Show
The High AC of the monsters throughout the mod was impressive. And I had two oh **** moments where I was stunned in the pit of acid *yikes* and when the big dude came back up in the last fight.