The couple batches of adventures were released, and many people complained that the encounters were too easy. Then the next set of adventures were released, and many people complained some encounters were too difficult, and others said that they were not really challenging, just "annoying."
(For this discussion let us discount the people who are born to complain and nothing will ever please them, or those people who complain about not being challenged but really don't want to be challenged.)
For the rest of us, can anyone provide an example in 4e of a combat encounter that was challenging without being "annoying?" Please use spoiler tags, and be very specific about what made the encounter both challenging and fun and not annoying.
Thanks,
Shawn
I just wanted to say thank you for asking for community feedback. I very much appreciate that people care enough to do this.
I really enjoyed the bridge encounter from core 1-10 it provided a puzzle, and a sence of urgency that led us to discuss the best tactic s to get everyone across the bridge before it collapsed.
my players really liked the creeper combat in water1-2 whith the darkness cloud, tho they wouldnt admit it, they were planning to retreat, until the barbarian was smart enouph to "ready an attack for anything that attacks him" and then after he got his attack off, he yelled out to the group "5 feet infront of my voice" wich gave the rest of the group a target and all kinds of uglyness came raining down on the creepers square, soon th ecreeper died and the darkenss whent away revealing the other creepers that were hiding and throwing daggers.
I think every DM has their favorite mods; the ones where everyone at their tables repeatedly has a great time. These are mine, in no particular order:
DALE 1-1 The Prospect:
Show
By far one of my favorite modules. Not only is the story incredible, introducing several key elements of the game and a choice at the end which is (if you choose to put heavy LFR lore into it) morally ambiguous but not a choice definitively between Good and Evil that is cut and dry, it has some interesting combats and really fun enemies. The Big Fight is an example of how "annoying" properties can become amusing; the characters get taunted a lot. The favorite time I ran this, I had a party with zero in the way of ranged combatants who were very tough. I parked the main villainess over a hole--she could fly--in such a way that the only way to engage her in melee was to stand in a fire that did a small but measurable amount of fire damage per turn. The PCs traded off standing in it and they had a blast. The use of traps in this encounter combined with the villainess's encounter power is highly awesome and the list of random effects caused thereby is always amusing to the PCs.
East 1-1
The first combat encounter has a mix of magma claws, magma hurlers, and a fire bat in a room with terrain to hide behind and to slow the PCs and shape the battlefield. This encounter can be quite challenging if the bad guys play tactically but does not lead to frustration in the way that the encounters in Dancing Shadows do. I think the key difference is the reliance on artillery and brutes rather than lurkers or soldiers as the core of the encounter. A single lurker in a larger encounter can add challenge and interest to the fight as the firebat in east 1-1 does. On the other hand, an entire encounter of lurkers--especially solo lurkers like the black dragon will either be easier than the xp indicates because the monsters are not making the most of their abilities, boring because the monsters have to hide for a few rounds to recharge and line up their big attack (leaving the PCs with nothing to do), or frustrating because the monster makes use of its stealth or vision controlling abilities every round and only very rarely leaves the PCs able to target it at all without guessing where it is and/or taking -5 to the attack.
Now, on to the specific:
BALD1-1
The otyughs are very challenging opponents for H1 PCs - they have high defenses, a high attack bonus, and grab PCs. I've seen numerous groups of players exclaim "whoa, that was a tough fight" and "I liked that combat" within a span of 2 minutes.
IMPI1-3I wrote this one, so I won't talk about it much. However, the feedback I've received suggests that most of the combats in the module were considered sufficiently challenging and I have yet to hear any complaints about anything too annoying (I could imagine one PC in each party getting quite annoyed in the second encounter, however). In hindsight, I may have overused the stun condition a bit (particularly in the second encounter), but all-in-all, I don't think it worked out too poorly
IMPI1-3I wrote this one, so I won't talk about it much. However, the feedback I've received suggests that most of the combats in the module were considered sufficiently challenging and I have yet to hear any complaints about anything too annoying (I could imagine one PC in each party getting quite annoyed in the second encounter, however). In hindsight, I may have overused the stun condition a bit (particularly in the second encounter), but all-in-all, I don't think it worked out too poorly
Show
I spent 5 rounds of combat stunned the last time I played this mod, the first 4 then another round later on. I honestly just feel that the stunned (save ends) condition should not exist in 4e and stunned until end of next turn is the best it should ever be, the condition is far too powerful if allowed to continue for 4 rounds + with bad rolls. Combine with an enemy who can hit 2 people with it per encounter, and then put in up to 4 of them based on scaling and it gets to be too much. You have judges who will run it reasonable and the ones who will use all 4 of the attacks to lockdown the leader as soon as they save, again and again. Almost nothing makes a combat suck more for a player than stun save ends. Wait 7-14 minutes for your turn to come around for your chance to see if you can act again in another 7-14 minutes, or hope you get granted a save and don't blow it, wasting your allies action as well as your own turn =P The rest of the mod I did enjoy though.
Show
flameskulls and high initiative
Actually, the main complaint I have heard about IMPI1-3 were theShowflameskulls and high initiative
That's funny - I have yet to hear that one. What's interesting is thatShowflameskulls are now one of the most common-occurring monsters in LFR at that tier. They appear in groups of three in at least three modules I can think of. They really are "one-pump-chumps" but I can see the potential. This is another area where the DM really has control over the challenge scale. He can have them all drop fireballs simultaneously to make life very difficult, or he can pump the brakes and scatter them across the board or over multiple rounds.
Shawn
QUES1-1
I've only run this once so far, but it's new and you likely don't have much feedback yet.
The first combat has a victory condition (capture, not kill) that's not very notable by itself. There is, however, a change of tempo with the addtion of a new threat. The new threat is also attacking the PCs' original target (good), but then the players realize that this threatens the mission objective (bad).
The second combat shows that you assigned this module to the correct writer. The players' eyes got big and round when they realized they are the badguys! Not a surprise that has any combat significance, but it really gives them a strategic decision to make. I'm not sure how fair one of the mission objectives is (hold on to the MacGuffin). My one table failed to stop the high-speed opponents from getting away. A fighter or controller would have made the difference. My instinct is that it's a fair challenge, and objectives other than "kill the enemy" should be generally encouraged.
The first combat has a victory condition (capture, not kill) that's not very notable by itself. There is, however, a change of tempo with the addtion of a new threat. The new threat is also attacking the PCs' original target (good), but then the players realize that this threatens the mission objective (bad).
The second combat shows that you assigned this module to the correct writer. The players' eyes got big and round when they realized they are the badguys! Not a surprise that has any combat significance, but it really gives them a strategic decision to make. I'm not sure how fair one of the mission objectives is (hold on to the MacGuffin). My one table failed to stop the high-speed opponents from getting away. A fighter or controller would have made the difference. My instinct is that it's a fair challenge, and objectives other than "kill the enemy" should be generally encouraged.
I guess the trick with any encounter is that the PCs have to feel as though they're achieving something. Annoying or frustrating encounters tend to happen when the PCs:
1: Can't hit
2: Can't do anything because of repetitive status conditions
3: Can hit but it doesn't matter because the monster's got so many frakkin' HP, and is insubstantial/regenerating/has a way of healing itself
Show
or combinations thereof - Dale1-1 is a prime example
The nice thing I'm seeing in these L7-10 adventures is that bad guys tend to have enough hit points to be able to deliberately eat an opportunity attack or two in order to get into a better tactical position. One of the guys in the above mod has a close burst 1, and twice I managed to get 1-2 extra PCs in the burst by accepting 1-2 opportunity attacks.
my players really liked the creeper combat in water1-2 whith the darkness cloud
Oh man, I was actually thinking about mentioning this combat as a perfect example of annoying.
Show
It felt like we were being given a master class on every possible vision/darkness rule all in one combat-- tracking light sources in the pitch-black sewer, then dealing with the dark fog, and finally the fact that every monster blinded everyone around it when it died...
Edit: Just learned how to do spoilers.
Better than the spoiler tag is the sblock tag.
Here is the result of a spoiler tag.
Show
Here is the result of a spoiler tag.
I definitely second the notion that a combat will be un-fun if its challenge relies on limiting and weakening the PCs rather than letting them be awesome against tough foes.
I agree with this, and would put it this way:
Good - Status conditions that affect key PCs (striker, controller), where other PCs (leader) have to choose whether to help the affected PC recover or continue to push the fight against the enemy.
Bad - Status conditions that affect the entire party, particularly the stun/daze condition, and super especially if those conditions cannot be modified by the party short of destroying the source or moving out of the area of effect (best example:
Show
the mad wight in WATE 1-3
Thank goodness for the cheese that is Snap Out of It, but even then...I can't agree on restrained or helpless - I'd rather they never showed up at all
P.S. you probably want to say where an example is when you give it, so people who don't want to be spoiled about an adventure can just avoid it.
In general, I suspect the issue with frustration/irritation kicks in whenever one of these two things happens:
- The party feels ineffective
- The party feels the situation is unfair
For example, if I drop a perception-less trap or terrain that locks down the whole party, then whisk away one party member and force them to engage the solo by themselves, that can be fun... IF the encounter is designed correctly for that (meaning a solo that is somewhat easy and one PC could deal with it for a few rounds while the others catch up).
Similarly, weakened and insubtantial just makes you feel like you are nerfed.
Terrain that has hazard/trap qualities should be balanced with something the PCs can use to turn the tables. Mods with things that can be used by both foes and PCs are great.
Some ideas on specific mods:
Major Spoiler for CORE1-10 Dancing Shadows:
This immediately came to mind as an obvious way to increase difficulty. The natural effect of the bridge is for it to pull the defender(s) ahead, especially if they are afraid of the bridge dropping. This splits the party, usually out of healing range (just about guaranteed if there is one leader, and possible still if both leaders are the same focus of melee/ranged).
The encounter, however, is not insanely challenging. It would be frustrating if it was a deathtrap for half the party and the PCs were locked down and unable to do anything but watch their friends die.
Thus, the encounter plays really well, applying strong pressure on the split team to finish up one side and rejoin effectively. It is a really nice challenge, tactically engaging, still fluid.
This immediately came to mind as an obvious way to increase difficulty. The natural effect of the bridge is for it to pull the defender(s) ahead, especially if they are afraid of the bridge dropping. This splits the party, usually out of healing range (just about guaranteed if there is one leader, and possible still if both leaders are the same focus of melee/ranged).
The encounter, however, is not insanely challenging. It would be frustrating if it was a deathtrap for half the party and the PCs were locked down and unable to do anything but watch their friends die.
Thus, the encounter plays really well, applying strong pressure on the split team to finish up one side and rejoin effectively. It is a really nice challenge, tactically engaging, still fluid.
IMPI 1-3 Spoiler
IMPI 1-3 is probably the most challenging but non-annoying mod out there. (I'd rather see stun save ends than until end of next. At least then your leader might be able to get you out of it; at least ours did when we ran it so it didn't bother us too much. But your experience may differ.)
I think the main reason is that the enemies are actually doing a threatening amount of damage. People actually fall unconcious; you actually get worried you might TPK (I wouldn't be surprised if people do on this adventure.)
Finally the boss fight is just awesome. Unique creature + skill challenge is good stuff. You really need to have good tactics and be thinking on your feet or you're going to have a bad day.
IMPI 1-3 is probably the most challenging but non-annoying mod out there. (I'd rather see stun save ends than until end of next. At least then your leader might be able to get you out of it; at least ours did when we ran it so it didn't bother us too much. But your experience may differ.)
I think the main reason is that the enemies are actually doing a threatening amount of damage. People actually fall unconcious; you actually get worried you might TPK (I wouldn't be surprised if people do on this adventure.)
Finally the boss fight is just awesome. Unique creature + skill challenge is good stuff. You really need to have good tactics and be thinking on your feet or you're going to have a bad day.
So I guess I'm going with the theme of enemies that do lots of dmg = challenging but not annoying. Mostly though I feel that's somewhat rare in LFR, but I think I'm seeing a trend in the newer adventures to be more difficult which pleases me.
Nothing communicates 'challenge' like taking damage. Conditions and so on can raise the alert level, but if the party is not taking damage then they are generally not threatened (with the exception of encounters where there is a skill challenge, a time factor, something getting away, or other story element).
The worst combats are those where there is little threat and just difficulty in finishing critters off. The best are ones where damage is flying, but PCs are also dealing damage. Throw in cool (but not annoying) terrain, and you are on the edge of your seat.
Show
The combination of the harpy's power that can pull PCs (and yes, even her allies) into the olive mille, has the potential to be devestating, but not iimpossible. In one of my sessions, after one of the PCs had been lured into the mill, took quite a bit of damage, and escaped, he used that terrain to his advantage by bull-rushing some of the enemies into it.
With the EL caps, the most interesting and effective way to do so seems to be through having an external objective: Certain encounters that do this well, in my opinion, include:
Show
The caravan encounter in Ques1-1 (save the item, then decide on the fly what to do with it now that you're stuck with it), and the distillery encounter in Drag1-2 (decide whether to concentrate on the fight or put the fire out) are both encounters that reward the table for finding a solution to the problem at hand rather than playing according to formula. Another encounter which I really liked for the same reason (but which I suspect most people disliked) was a wererat capable of summoning large numbers of other rats to block people with, with the challenge being to overcome the wererat before a 'critical mass' was reached. I can't remember which module that was in, however.
For instance, my party was just TPKed in Bald 1-4 (lvl 4 battle cleric, lvl 3 avenger, lvl 1 psion, lvl 1 artificer). I am assuming that the DM did not add any monsters (though 3 wolves, 1 werewolf defender, and a solo werewolf with 200 hp and a damage output of about 30/round seemed a little out of whack for four players--even at high tier). One of the major factors in the TPK was that the DM delayed the solo until the grey wolves were able to double move and provide a flank then moved in and double attacked one character, spend an action point and followed up with a double attack, the first of which dropped the battle cleric and the second of which killed him. (That of course game him another action point which he used to kill my avenger two rounds later, gaining a fourth action point). My point is not that it was a TPK or the four player scaling seems very odd but rather that the tactical aggressiveness of the DM makes a huge difference in how these mods plays out. Are the wolves willing to double move to give the werewolf a flank? Will the werewolf delay to get a flank? Will the wolves ready actions to attack so that both wolves will have a flank when they attack? Will the werewolf keep going after his attack has dropped a target? Add all of those up and you have a very very deadly encounter. (In fact, you can probably kill any PC that will show up in a 1-4 adventure by waiting for a flank, moving up and having the werewolf spend both action points to make six attacks with the bonus for flanking (several of which will also get the bloodied bonus). Get another action point for dropping that PC, rinse and repeat. If the PCs can't get rid of all his flankers and deal 200hp before they run out of PCs, they lose.) I don't know how deadly the encounter would be if played less aggressively, but played aggressively, it is pretty easy to TPK a party. (The DM was not rolling either particularly well or particularly poorly but we had only chewed through about 40 of the monsters 200hp by the time he killed both melee characters, so he could have spotted us 3-4 more rounds of attacks and still TPKed us as long as he didn't take more than one vicious greataxe crit during that time. It wasn't even close).
For my part, I had a somewhat similar experience when I ran dancing shadows. When I played it, the dragon didn't live very long and only ended up using her cloud of darkness to escape (on something like the second or third round of combat). When I ran it on the other hand, I didn't want her to go down like a chump (which any lurker who sits in the open and trades blows will do), so I used her cloud to hide, had her breathe then swim out of the cloud stealthily, then make an attack and fly back into the cloud to hide again. That tactic made the dragon challenging but also made it a very frustrating and annoying encounter for the players. (In fact, all of the encounters in dancing shadows are that way--the monsters all have ablities that are most effectively used to kite the PCs and hide from them, slowly whittling away their resources while remaining unreachable or untargetable). When I played the mod, the DM was much less tactically aggressive and thus the encounters seemed easy but were not frustrating. Play the dragon to her utmost effectiveness, on the other hand, and she will become very annoying.
One significant factor in the evaluation of any module will be how aggressively tactical the DM is. [...] For instance, my party was just TPKed in Bald 1-4 (lvl 4 battle cleric, lvl 3 avenger, lvl 1 psion, lvl 1 artificer).
I agree with your thesis (that the DM's willingness to be aggressive with the monsters and his/her overall tactical savvy definitely make a big difference in the way fights play out in any adventure) ... but ... you had 4 characters, two of which were 1st level, and you played high tier.
So in some sense I would have to say that the outcome you describe is not necessarily indicative of anything in particular about that encounter, or even the DM's level of aggressiveness. You were basically relying on the two high-level characters to be able to carry the adventure and whatever contributions the two low-level characters could make would be gravy. That is by no means a recipe for guaranteed success and I'm not at all surprised you were TPKed. (I don't mean that in a malicious way, but that party composition is not one that I think ought to be able to play high tier and expect to automatically succeed. At a minimum you were asking for the level 1 characters to run a very significant risk of getting killed.)
If you had played low tier with that same party, or if all 4 characters had been 3rd/4th level instead of half the party being 1st level, I think you might have had a better outcome.
One significant factor in the evaluation of any module will be how aggressively tactical the DM is.
For instance, my party was just TPKed in Bald 1-4 (lvl 4 battle cleric, lvl 3 avenger, lvl 1 psion, lvl 1 artificer).
I have to agree with Sean, it wasn't just the DMs tactics. That is a bad party make-up to be playing high tier. Especially since the newer mods have been getting more challenging.Play the dragon to her utmost effectiveness, on the other hand, and she will become very annoying.
Yeah, but (and you knew there'd be a but), that's how a Dragon should be played, IMHO. Facing a dragon should be a daunting, tough task. No dragon should go down like a chump, as you said. The dragon shoudl be using its abilities and resources to their greatest effectiveness vs. the PCs and its up to the PCs to find a way to counteract them.
Then, I've always believed that beating a dragon should be earned. I have fond memories of running an LG special and having the white dragon swoop in, snatch up PCs and drop them off the side of a mountain. He'd fly away until his breath weapon recharged, woudl fly back in, breathe, if someone was isolated, he'd pick them up and toss them off (effectively nixing the PC from the combat if they survived the fall) and when someone was hurt he'd drop on top of them, maul them, then fly away.
I ****** off more than one table with that dragon. But as I said, being able to call yourself a dragonslayer should be earned. Not handed out like candy. I think you ran it just fine.
I... hope... that DM did the wrong number of monsters for that wolf/werewolf fight, cause that sounds broken for a high tier 1-4. Unfortunately I don't know the fight/mod to be sure.
I agree with your thesis (that the DM's willingness to be aggressive with the monsters and his/her overall tactical savvy definitely make a big difference in the way fights play out in any adventure) ... but ... you had 4 characters, two of which were 1st level, and you played high tier.
As far as I can tell 4 characters shouldn't make a difference at low tier or high tier since mods supposedly scale for four characters. Now some mods don't scale well for four characters. I haven't read Bald 1-4 to be sure but I know that Core 1-2, the first combat scales pretty smoothly, but the second combat is harder with four characters than with five since all you lose is a few minions. The last encounter, on the other hand, of that mod is much easier with four characters than with five because two orcs are not enough to hold the line against four characters and they go down before the healing available to them really kicks in. But again, in theory, it shouldn't make a difference.
As for the party, given the module, we obviously would have been better off playing low tier, but it's better than the parties I usually get stuck with. As it happened though, the 40+hp 4th level cleric went from full to -bloodied before the end of the first round. That's going to do in any four person party.
I am assuming that the DM did not add any monsters (though 3 wolves, 1 werewolf defender, and a solo werewolf with 200 hp and a damage output of about 30/round seemed a little out of whack for four players--even at high tier).
There should have been fewer creatures with four players.
Show
The Scaling the Encounter block states that one wolf should be removed if there are only four players, so you should have faced two wolves, the werewolf defender and the Frenzied werewolf. Yes, the solo had 200 hit points. His double attack does 2d6+2, so even maxed out on every damage roll it is 28 points, average 18 per round, IF both attacks hit. Yes, he can action point and do it again. And if he reduces a PC to 0, gains another action point.
There should have been fewer creatures with four players.ShowThe Scaling the Encounter block states that one wolf should be removed if there are only four players, so you should have faced two wolves, the werewolf defender and the Frenzied werewolf. Yes, the solo had 200 hit points. His double attack does 2d6+2, so even maxed out on every damage roll it is 28 points, average 18 per round, IF both attacks hit. Yes, he can action point and do it again. And if he reduces a PC to 0, gains another action point.
As far as I can tell 4 characters shouldn't make a difference at low tier or high tier since mods supposedly scale for four characters. Now some mods don't scale well for four characters.
I don't think it was the fact that you played high tier with 4 characters that made the difference. I think it was the fact that you played high tier with 4 characters, *two of which were 1st level*, that made the difference. The table you described was two 1st-level characters, one 3rd-level character, and one 4th-level character. That is not an appropriate table composition for high tier, in my opinion. There are certainly adventures where you could play high tier with that table and succeed, but I do not think there is any reason why you should have a default expectation of automatic success with that group at high tier. As far as I am concerned, you should not have been surprised when you were not able to defeat the encounters.
Let me put it a different way. If the party you described had been able to defeat that encounter at high tier without at least coming under the very significant risk of a TPK, then how could that exact same encounter ever possibly pose a challenge to a group in which all of the PCs were actually of the appropriate levels to be playing high tier?
Forget the scaling for 4 or 6 PCs, I'm just taking about pure character levels. If a table of 1,1,3,4 can defeat a given encounter then a table of 3,3,3,3 is almost certainly going to absolutely destroy that same encounter under most circumstances. It was the high-tier version so the correct way to write it (in my opinion) is for the 3,3,3,3 table to have a challenging time but most likely be able to prevail unless the dice go horribly wrong. (I assume equal tactical savvy on the part of both sets of players and both DMs.) By necessity, if the encounter is designed to be tough for the 3,3,3,3 table, that means that the 1,1,3,4 table is going to face long odds, and quite possibly a TPK. There is a big difference between a 3rd-level character and a 1st-level character.
If that were not the case, then wouldn't we just be throwing more fuel on the fire for the people who claim that the adventures are too easy?
All of the challenge in the module for this table came in the first fight (well, except for the social skills - the highest Charisma modifier was +1, and more characters had Charisma 8 than didn't). The last fight was over so quickly that I barely had time to blink. The big boss did manage to drop one PC to 0 hit points, but that was due to a crit on one of his basic attacks and an action point to take advantage of the now-bloodied PC. The PC was still in no danger - the leader hadn't even used either of his encounter heals.
The first fight though... that went very well. The PCs had surprise and moved in, and then were blown away by the response that they received. The robed individual hit most all of them with her close blast, and the city guards managed to hit with their recharge powers and recharge them early. I was also rolling hot on the dice. Because it was the first encounter, they were hesistant to blow their dailies. Once they did, the tide of the fight slowly turned, and they managed to pull it out.
On the other hand, the fight could also be made less difficult by having the NPCs scatter fire more or by bringing down the dwarf bolter to make her easier to reach. There's going to be some variation at tables as well, thanks to three NPCs with recharge powers. I recharged a lot early on, but then my luck ran out and I failed to do so.
LFR is time-based. I want to use my game-time to RP or combat, not wait and watch, grind, or blow stuff away (alright, there is some fun to that...). If the DM lays out an encounter I want it to be important, challenging, and fun. Unfortunately, depending on the DM (aggressive/passive, tactical/casual, competent/incompetent), party mix, and initiative rolls, any given enounter can become annoying. Granted some encounters are weaker than others, or suffer from layout issues that weaken their challenge.
Perhaps more of an issue is stronger emphasis on DM ability. A DM should be able to make a poor encounter zing and a overpowering encounter push, but not destroy a party. I'm amazed when I read a mod after playing it. I wonder what mod the other DM read.
More on specific encounters after I've done some rereading.
EG
I don't think it was the fact that you played high tier with 4 characters that made the difference. I think it was the fact that you played high tier with 4 characters, *two of which were 1st level*, that made the difference. The table you described was two 1st-level characters, one 3rd-level character, and one 4th-level character. That is not an appropriate table composition for high tier, in my opinion. There are certainly adventures where you could play high tier with that table and succeed, but I do not think there is any reason why you should have a default expectation of automatic success with that group at high tier. As far as I am concerned, you should not have been surprised when you were not able to defeat the encounters.
Except that, to this date, that party could expect a very good chance of success in high tier modules--including pretty much every 1-4 adventure except possibly Bald 1-1, definitely Tyma 1-4, and obviously Bald 1-4. That's not "there are certainly adventures." That's "the party could succeed on high tier in the vast majority of 1-4 adventures."
Now I don't have a particular problem with modules becoming challenging--I think they need to do so. But there's no call to get on your high horse about people always playing high tier when nearly every module published has been designed in a way that allowed people to do exactly that.
I brought it up in this thread not because I wanted to threadjack and complain about it but rather because there were a number of encounters that were getting reviews as "fun, moderately challenging, and not annoying" and "annoying and not fun" from different folks. Now some of that is obviously going to be different people viewing the same experience differently. But, as I was trying to illustrate with that experience, some DMs are more aggressively tactical than others and my guess is that some of the encounters which get diametrically opposed reviews are due DMs making decisions to use certain monsters (such as the black dragon and lizardman snipers of Dancing Shadows or the necromancer of Tyma 1-4) to the full extent of their abilities. Thus rather than being "not challenging, just annoying," some encounters are challenging because of the same factors that make them annoying.
Except that, to this date, that party could expect a very good chance of success in high tier modules--including pretty much every 1-4 adventure except possibly Bald 1-1, definitely Tyma 1-4, and obviously Bald 1-4. That's not "there are certainly adventures." That's "the party could succeed on high tier in the vast majority of 1-4 adventures."
Now I don't have a particular problem with modules becoming challenging--I think they need to do so. But there's no call to get on your high horse about people always playing high tier when nearly every module published has been designed in a way that allowed people to do exactly that.
[/i]
This is a tricky subject. I agree in that the majority of the 1-4s can be done at high tier with a mix of 1s and 2s. Of course, I was among the number of players that complained that LFR is too easy. Lo and behold, the writers and staff start making more difficult adventures.
I don't think this a bad thing; I think its more that there is the difficulty in people changing their view of the difficulty of adventures. So in the meantime it might be shaky, but overall by word of mouth I think the idea that "the new mods are harder" should spread.
With that said, I ran TYMA 1-5 yesterday, and though I could have run the main villain sub-optimally to give the party a better chance, the entire final encounter is min-maxed so that even if the main bad guy doesn't have a huge impact, the party will still likely be frustrated:
Show
The main villain has a zone that attacks enemies in the zone at the start of their turns, and if it hits, causes damage and immobilization, preventing the character from escaping. He can spend a standard action to move the zone if party members somehow get slid or pushed out, and has a short-range attack that can slide targets back into the zone.
The humanoid zombies have an attack that imposes the dazed condition, while the canine zombies can knock their target prone if they have combat advantage, and are fast enough to be able to get combat advantage via flank without really worrying. And both zombie types have the ability to add ongoing damage if they hit in certain situations. So even if the party does a long-range nuking of the necromancer in the opening round (and if the party sees that the dwarf they've been sent to find is on the altar in front of the necromancer, that effectively shuts off options like Stinking Cloud or Fireball), the other creatures in the combat still can frustrate the players tremendously.
And lastly, if the party is accustomed to 'we can play 1-4s up even if we're not in the higher tier', then they're asking for a TPK -- my group was a 3rd level shaman and three first level PCs, and the necromancer hadn't even been bloodied by the time the final PC fell.
So TYMA 1-5: challenging, absolutely. Non-annoying? Not so much.
The main villain has a zone that attacks enemies in the zone at the start of their turns, and if it hits, causes damage and immobilization, preventing the character from escaping. He can spend a standard action to move the zone if party members somehow get slid or pushed out, and has a short-range attack that can slide targets back into the zone.
The humanoid zombies have an attack that imposes the dazed condition, while the canine zombies can knock their target prone if they have combat advantage, and are fast enough to be able to get combat advantage via flank without really worrying. And both zombie types have the ability to add ongoing damage if they hit in certain situations. So even if the party does a long-range nuking of the necromancer in the opening round (and if the party sees that the dwarf they've been sent to find is on the altar in front of the necromancer, that effectively shuts off options like Stinking Cloud or Fireball), the other creatures in the combat still can frustrate the players tremendously.
And lastly, if the party is accustomed to 'we can play 1-4s up even if we're not in the higher tier', then they're asking for a TPK -- my group was a 3rd level shaman and three first level PCs, and the necromancer hadn't even been bloodied by the time the final PC fell.
So TYMA 1-5: challenging, absolutely. Non-annoying? Not so much.
Thanks,
Shawn
(forgive my poor spoiler powers - I can't remember how to set one up, so if an admin can fix it i'd be thankful):
LURU1-1: I love the final encounter. The badguys coming "out of the water" T-1000 style is fun, as is dealing with sabotaging the "pools". Most DM's let you "smash" the pools, so it's a fun mix of skill actions and combat actions.
EAST1-1: The fire encounter is neat and interesting. Admittedly, higher level PCs just have the numbers (attack mods, defenses, hp) to defeat this easily, but APL <2.5 have a solid challenge on high tier.
CORE1-3: The "final" encounter with all the automotons. This can run so many ways - the first time i played it was as two fights, subsequent times DMs ran it as one big fight, and finally I've seen it as a rolling fight (bad guys enter into the fight in waves). This takes the fight across all spectrums of difficulty, but the terrain and the ability to "turn off" the turrets is neat. The encounter varies CONSIDERABLY with DMs though.
AGLA1-2: the first encounter (with DME) can be a lot of fun. As written, not so much. The final encounter can be a blast - especially if you have some good ranged/mobile PCs. It's scary getting shoved off the cliff by the skull lord. It's HILLARIOUS to shove the quad-sword wielding monster off the cliff (or the skull lord off the tower). I have never seen the "bull rush" mechanic used so much since.
DRAG1-2: the exploding barrels in the first fight make for a fun encounter. I've run this mod several times and gotten various results. I've especially enjoyed teleporting (with the wizard) PCs either out of the building through a window (so they have to run back in), onto a loft (i drew a loft bedroom for the girl with a convenient window), or right on top of the barrels when they're about to explode. The most fun I had was when the wizard got outside and was able to (since she could see the roof, and inside through a window) teleport a dwarf cleric out of the building and onto the roof). Admittedly, "the jig is up" and my last batch of replayers made a mad dash for the barrels and disarmed them in Round 2 (with action points no less).
IMPI1-2: the second fight with all the plants with AoE is tough but fair. This is one of the harder levle 4-7 fights I remember.
AGLA1-3: the first encounter is great. Making the combat objective to sieze the cart (and not defeat the bad guys) made for a challenging but not frustrating combat. PCs had fun using lots of mobility oriented powers to get ahead of and cut off the cart.
AGLA1-4: the first encounter with the bouncing between two worlds. My DM decided to have it switch over at the end of every round and it was HILLARIOUS. She had the maps well drawn out and the grids labelled, so it was easy to transfer (not a good encounter for cold DMs). I swear I re-appeared in that pit three times...
DRAG1-2: the exploding barrels in the first fight make for a fun encounter. I've run this mod several times and gotten various results. I've especially enjoyed teleporting (with the wizard) PCs either out of the building through a window (so they have to run back in), onto a loft (i drew a loft bedroom for the girl with a convenient window), or right on top of the barrels when they're about to explode. The most fun I had was when the wizard got outside and was able to (since she could see the roof, and inside through a window) teleport a dwarf cleric out of the building and onto the roof). Admittedly, "the jig is up" and my last batch of replayers made a mad dash for the barrels and disarmed them in Round 2 (with action points no less).
That is at once exactly as how I had envisioned the combat happening and also a fear of mine and other writers I've spoken to, in that replayers metagame things like the exploding rum barrels.