Show
There is a difference between challenging and annoying.
While I wholeheartedly support making RPGA mods more challenging, WATE1-5 is (in my opinion) one way not to do it. It won't make your PCs more scared, more hang-on-the-edge-of-your-seat; it will just make them irritated and frustrated, and it will take longer than usual. A LOT longer than usual.
The specific encounter I am discussing is Encounter 2: Bring On The Teamsters. All you really need to know is that there are a large number of combatants, many of whom are minions, almost all of whom (save two) are halflings, and the other two are a gnome and an elf.
They're located in an entire area of fog (light obscurement), essentially rendering all of them invisible from more than 5 squares away. Most of them have cover, and their primary objective is to take something and get away.
So, what do we have here? We've got a bunch of PCs with a base -2 to hit; often a -4, fighting a bunch of creatures that make them reroll when they *do* hit. The creatures have an objective that, unless the DM decides to really give the PCs a chance, they will complete relatively easily.
The monsters are not particularly tough or deadly (although there is one that can seriously hurt the PCs; if he gets into the right situation). It's just that you are going to have a bunch of PCs chasing around a bunch of creatures, all of whom are going to frustrate the living Hell out of them because they can't hit them.
This is a challenging encounter in terms of completing it--but it's frustrating as Hell as a combat. If there was ever a situation where a combat called for a skill challenge, this would be it...the mod states that the monsters are trying to steal something. If they do that, they will (almost certainly) succeed, or at least the vast majority of them, solely because the PCs won't be able to see them...oh, wait. The mod says "Since there are quite a few opponents in this encounter, it is suggested for simplicity’s sake that all NPCs be placed on the board anyway, and that the players are requested to use discretion in attempting to target NPCs that their PCs cannot see."...so not only are the creatures invisible and in large numbers, they're there taunting the PCs to come and get them metagamy. Even if they give into the metagamy aspect, most of the ones without Stealth--the ones the PCs can hear--are minions. So they'll chase down minions, all of whom will have a -2 to be hit and second chance.
This is a remarkably irritating encounter to run, and a remarkably irritating encounter to play in. It's not the first mod with an encounter with a whole mess of halflings with second chance--frustrating enough--but this time, they all have concealment to boot. It's also an example, as I've mentioned in an earlier post, of how environment (which does not add to the CR) makes a module much more difficult to play but doesn't count towards the XP.
The best PC attack bonus that I can think of off the top of my head on High is a +13 (stat 5, level 2, expertise 1, magical weapon 2, proficiency 3). Make that a 14 if you get a +1 from some other source like a PC with a power that pumps it up. On High, these creatures have base ACs of 18, 19, and 20, which become effective 22, 21, 20 with concealment and cover, if the PCs can manage to see them. Thus, presuming all the PCs have been optimized, you are looking at a base of 6 to hit the lowest AC; with one hit negated. I don't know what the prob/stat of that is...but that's level 4 characters who are optimized playing on High in the best possible circumstances.
Case 2, probably more likely, suggests the PCs have an average attack bonus of around +10, still somewhat high, but not all pumped up--stat 4, level 2, expertise 1, magic weapon 1, proficiency 2. These guys are hitting on 12, 11, 10. If they only get one shot a round...
That's on high. Case 3, the low end. and assume, for the moment, that not every character has a +2 weapon. The monsters' ACs go down to 16, 17, and 19; the PCs attack bonuses go down to stat 5, proficiency 2, level 0, expertise or some other source (+1 magic weapon, proficiency bonus +3, etcetera) 1, for a total of 8. These guys have a better chance to hit, an 8, 9, or 11. Of course, the 8 is for the minions. But they're rerolling every round, as well...and most people will be playing mods on high, anyway, based on current CW regarding difficulties.
If this is the way we're going to be making modules harder, let's please keep them less challenging, because I don't want to irritate my players. Sure, I can easily DME away the fog--which vastly changes the combat--but I'd really rather not *have* to.
There is a difference between challenging and annoying.
While I wholeheartedly support making RPGA mods more challenging, WATE1-5 is (in my opinion) one way not to do it. It won't make your PCs more scared, more hang-on-the-edge-of-your-seat; it will just make them irritated and frustrated, and it will take longer than usual. A LOT longer than usual.
The specific encounter I am discussing is Encounter 2: Bring On The Teamsters. All you really need to know is that there are a large number of combatants, many of whom are minions, almost all of whom (save two) are halflings, and the other two are a gnome and an elf.
They're located in an entire area of fog (light obscurement), essentially rendering all of them invisible from more than 5 squares away. Most of them have cover, and their primary objective is to take something and get away.
So, what do we have here? We've got a bunch of PCs with a base -2 to hit; often a -4, fighting a bunch of creatures that make them reroll when they *do* hit. The creatures have an objective that, unless the DM decides to really give the PCs a chance, they will complete relatively easily.
The monsters are not particularly tough or deadly (although there is one that can seriously hurt the PCs; if he gets into the right situation). It's just that you are going to have a bunch of PCs chasing around a bunch of creatures, all of whom are going to frustrate the living Hell out of them because they can't hit them.
This is a challenging encounter in terms of completing it--but it's frustrating as Hell as a combat. If there was ever a situation where a combat called for a skill challenge, this would be it...the mod states that the monsters are trying to steal something. If they do that, they will (almost certainly) succeed, or at least the vast majority of them, solely because the PCs won't be able to see them...oh, wait. The mod says "Since there are quite a few opponents in this encounter, it is suggested for simplicity’s sake that all NPCs be placed on the board anyway, and that the players are requested to use discretion in attempting to target NPCs that their PCs cannot see."...so not only are the creatures invisible and in large numbers, they're there taunting the PCs to come and get them metagamy. Even if they give into the metagamy aspect, most of the ones without Stealth--the ones the PCs can hear--are minions. So they'll chase down minions, all of whom will have a -2 to be hit and second chance.
This is a remarkably irritating encounter to run, and a remarkably irritating encounter to play in. It's not the first mod with an encounter with a whole mess of halflings with second chance--frustrating enough--but this time, they all have concealment to boot. It's also an example, as I've mentioned in an earlier post, of how environment (which does not add to the CR) makes a module much more difficult to play but doesn't count towards the XP.
The best PC attack bonus that I can think of off the top of my head on High is a +13 (stat 5, level 2, expertise 1, magical weapon 2, proficiency 3). Make that a 14 if you get a +1 from some other source like a PC with a power that pumps it up. On High, these creatures have base ACs of 18, 19, and 20, which become effective 22, 21, 20 with concealment and cover, if the PCs can manage to see them. Thus, presuming all the PCs have been optimized, you are looking at a base of 6 to hit the lowest AC; with one hit negated. I don't know what the prob/stat of that is...but that's level 4 characters who are optimized playing on High in the best possible circumstances.
Case 2, probably more likely, suggests the PCs have an average attack bonus of around +10, still somewhat high, but not all pumped up--stat 4, level 2, expertise 1, magic weapon 1, proficiency 2. These guys are hitting on 12, 11, 10. If they only get one shot a round...
That's on high. Case 3, the low end. and assume, for the moment, that not every character has a +2 weapon. The monsters' ACs go down to 16, 17, and 19; the PCs attack bonuses go down to stat 5, proficiency 2, level 0, expertise or some other source (+1 magic weapon, proficiency bonus +3, etcetera) 1, for a total of 8. These guys have a better chance to hit, an 8, 9, or 11. Of course, the 8 is for the minions. But they're rerolling every round, as well...and most people will be playing mods on high, anyway, based on current CW regarding difficulties.
If this is the way we're going to be making modules harder, let's please keep them less challenging, because I don't want to irritate my players. Sure, I can easily DME away the fog--which vastly changes the combat--but I'd really rather not *have* to.
Show
It sounds like it was an annoying situation, but your math seems to indicate that it was not over powered at all.
Needing to roll somewhere between an 8 to 12 to hit (before taking things like flanking into account), even against an opponent with an encounter power that forces you to reroll, doesn’t sound all that bad.
Needing to roll somewhere between an 8 to 12 to hit (before taking things like flanking into account), even against an opponent with an encounter power that forces you to reroll, doesn’t sound all that bad.
Show
I think what you are missing here is that while the module is (somewhat) challenging, it gets its challenge from being irritating and frustrating, not from being genuinely dangerous.
That's the problem. It's not likely the characters will die from that encounter (though the last one is a doozy).
I think what you are missing here is that while the module is (somewhat) challenging, it gets its challenge from being irritating and frustrating, not from being genuinely dangerous.
That's the problem. It's not likely the characters will die from that encounter (though the last one is a doozy).
Were you at one of my tables? I was under the impression that most players were finding it to be a fun, light hearted encounter. In my experience, it does not take very long; 2-3 rounds. Keith
Show
The halfling (minions) have a AC of 16 in low tier, and a Fort defense of 12, Ref 14, Will 14 and the other halfings are similar. If your PC can hit on a 10 on the die, that is fine. The second chance is an encounter power so it only gets used once per halfling. The OP worded as if it was happening every round--not true. Concealment from the fog offers a -2 to hit to melee and ranged attacks; it has zero effect on close and area attacks. We do not scale the combat challenges on the assumption that the players are playing up; you do that at your own risk.
We had missed during editing the DMG errata on obscurement, but I told the Origins DMs on Dave Christ's list to be aware of that. It sounds as if the OP did not get the word (or his DM).
If the combat goes that long, the City Watch arrives at the start of Round 6 although I did not have combat run that long. Usually about 20-30 minutes of play time for this encounter. Yes, it is challenging to stop all of the halflings but it is certainly possible -- my first table did just that. Having a controller is valuable to be sure.
We had missed during editing the DMG errata on obscurement, but I told the Origins DMs on Dave Christ's list to be aware of that. It sounds as if the OP did not get the word (or his DM).
If the combat goes that long, the City Watch arrives at the start of Round 6 although I did not have combat run that long. Usually about 20-30 minutes of play time for this encounter. Yes, it is challenging to stop all of the halflings but it is certainly possible -- my first table did just that. Having a controller is valuable to be sure.
Show
I could see a Reaving/Corruption rod combo Warlock being an immense help here... :D
Show
I was not at Origins; I ran it this last Tuesday at my gaming store for a group of 2nd-level characters on high. It is possible that I misunderstood the DM instructions, so let me see if I can't explain how I approached it.
First, a large part of my dissatisfaction with the combat lies with running with the non-errata'd rules (which are the ones presented in the module). Running it where the monsters can in fact be seen from >5 away and there's no -5 to Perception checks certainly alters the combat a GREAT deal.
What I am seeing here is this:
Yon Gnome Skulk begins the combat hidden, and can maintain his hidden status (with a stealth check) in concealment. With a +11 Stealth check, and the (nonerrataed) -5 to perception checks, it will be REALLY hard for said gnome to be detected. Without the -5 it's a different story entirely, as your PCs stand a halfway-decent chance of detecting him.
His thievery check is another matter entirely. You have two options as a DM: 1) to treat it as if it were in combat, which makes the thievery check next to impossible (+9 thievery, -10 for combat, -1 to roll; DC 20) or 2) not in combat (+9 thievery, roughly a 45% chance of success). Logic dictates that the check occurs in combat, since a combat is going on, and the odds are that (if the PCs have the item) it will be in combat.
As far as I know, thievery doesn't break stealth.
So you got a dude who can sneak up pretty easily and snatch the item with a possibility of success, and whom, if you detect him, after you hit him, turns invisible and can usually run away. Not really fun (though of course the mod sort of presumes he gets away...)
The rest of your guys? It all really depends on how the DM runs the characters, and the guidelines leave it entirely in the DM's hands, which is OK, in my opinion. Either the monsters spend their time looting in the face of enemy fire (and one of the problems I have there is: where do they go once they pick things up? Do they come back for more, and from how far away)? or they engage the PCs. While you can only use second chance once per halfling, there are a lot of halflings, and most PCs get one attack per round which will likely miss (and then only if the target is within 5 squares).
If the monsters attack, and the PCs miss them, etcetera, the combat gets frustrating; if they don't attack, the PCs have a walkover...etcetera.
Point is, though, not that the errata makes the encounter playable (it does), but that the *original* way the module was written makes it very frustrating, and the author was looking at the unerrated stuff when he wrote it. What I'm trying to address with this post isn't the writer's specific authoring of this encounter (despite the title), but rather the tendency to use terrain features to increase the challenge of an encounter without considering that they cause frustration to the PCs in cases like these.
I was not at Origins; I ran it this last Tuesday at my gaming store for a group of 2nd-level characters on high. It is possible that I misunderstood the DM instructions, so let me see if I can't explain how I approached it.
First, a large part of my dissatisfaction with the combat lies with running with the non-errata'd rules (which are the ones presented in the module). Running it where the monsters can in fact be seen from >5 away and there's no -5 to Perception checks certainly alters the combat a GREAT deal.
What I am seeing here is this:
Yon Gnome Skulk begins the combat hidden, and can maintain his hidden status (with a stealth check) in concealment. With a +11 Stealth check, and the (nonerrataed) -5 to perception checks, it will be REALLY hard for said gnome to be detected. Without the -5 it's a different story entirely, as your PCs stand a halfway-decent chance of detecting him.
His thievery check is another matter entirely. You have two options as a DM: 1) to treat it as if it were in combat, which makes the thievery check next to impossible (+9 thievery, -10 for combat, -1 to roll; DC 20) or 2) not in combat (+9 thievery, roughly a 45% chance of success). Logic dictates that the check occurs in combat, since a combat is going on, and the odds are that (if the PCs have the item) it will be in combat.
As far as I know, thievery doesn't break stealth.
So you got a dude who can sneak up pretty easily and snatch the item with a possibility of success, and whom, if you detect him, after you hit him, turns invisible and can usually run away. Not really fun (though of course the mod sort of presumes he gets away...)
The rest of your guys? It all really depends on how the DM runs the characters, and the guidelines leave it entirely in the DM's hands, which is OK, in my opinion. Either the monsters spend their time looting in the face of enemy fire (and one of the problems I have there is: where do they go once they pick things up? Do they come back for more, and from how far away)? or they engage the PCs. While you can only use second chance once per halfling, there are a lot of halflings, and most PCs get one attack per round which will likely miss (and then only if the target is within 5 squares).
If the monsters attack, and the PCs miss them, etcetera, the combat gets frustrating; if they don't attack, the PCs have a walkover...etcetera.
Point is, though, not that the errata makes the encounter playable (it does), but that the *original* way the module was written makes it very frustrating, and the author was looking at the unerrated stuff when he wrote it. What I'm trying to address with this post isn't the writer's specific authoring of this encounter (despite the title), but rather the tendency to use terrain features to increase the challenge of an encounter without considering that they cause frustration to the PCs in cases like these.
Show
Only one table was able to stop the thieves from escaping. They had a wizard and immediately engaged them. Most tables stuck to fighting the elf and halfling thieves who engaged them. The way I ran it, each halfling that started adjacent to a package picked up two and moved away. The next turn, they ran, pretty much guaranteeing their escape. The ones that weren't adjacent to the packages, moved up and picked up two, then did the same as the first group. The two nearer the party engaged the PCs. I ended up forgetting about their halfling reroll about half the time.
The gnome was able to get away about half the time. I first thought the PP needed to see him was set at 18, but then checked again, and didn't see that number in the module. So whether he steals unnoticed is largely dependent on luck, whether I rolled 3 or 18 on his Stealth check.
The gnome was able to get away about half the time. I first thought the PP needed to see him was set at 18, but then checked again, and didn't see that number in the module. So whether he steals unnoticed is largely dependent on luck, whether I rolled 3 or 18 on his Stealth check.
Show
The ACs of the second encounter are very, very high (and the encounter is very, very hard)...I love the way it says "if you don't have enough time left in the mod, don't use the fog...which makes their ACs even HARDER.
However, my main complaint isn't (despite this one being used as Prime Example #1) about this mod. It's about the desire to make mods challenging WITHOUT making them annoying. Creatures with remarkably high armor classes (backed up by numbers of ranged attackers with cover in a fog, and the high-AC guys not being tanks/decoys that can be ignored because they do vast amounts of damage) are frustrating. That entire encounter is built to be deadly--and yet, it's a straight-up fight. Missing is a pain in the butt with the AC, and the monsters do a lot of damage. I'm OK with that...
...it's the fog I have a problem with. And the cover. And all the things that make a combat this hard by EL even *harder* with the terrain. That's not accounted for in the EL, and the EL of that fight is REALLY hard.
Your post about the thieves getting away, and the gnome getting away, just exacerbates the problem I have with the mod. It's annoying and frustrating, not a temporary setback; it makes the players feel like fools (and incompetant fools at that) if they do not succeed.
In my mind, the goal of a mod is to bring the characters to the brink of their abilities, test them, and almost kill them--but give them the ability to Win, to be Heroic, to Succeed in the end against Great Odds. And along the way some may fall...but continually missing due to environmental effects is not terribly fun; and in that first encounter (where, as your six run-throughs demonstrate) the PCs will likely lose at least one, and more likely lose both, of the objectives, as either the thieves will get away or the gnome will get away or both.
As an aside, the encounter doesn't make it clear what constitutes a "success" in that encounter...that is to say, what gives the PCs full XP. Stopping the rogues? Stopping the gnome? Not dying? Either/both?
The ACs of the second encounter are very, very high (and the encounter is very, very hard)...I love the way it says "if you don't have enough time left in the mod, don't use the fog...which makes their ACs even HARDER.
However, my main complaint isn't (despite this one being used as Prime Example #1) about this mod. It's about the desire to make mods challenging WITHOUT making them annoying. Creatures with remarkably high armor classes (backed up by numbers of ranged attackers with cover in a fog, and the high-AC guys not being tanks/decoys that can be ignored because they do vast amounts of damage) are frustrating. That entire encounter is built to be deadly--and yet, it's a straight-up fight. Missing is a pain in the butt with the AC, and the monsters do a lot of damage. I'm OK with that...
...it's the fog I have a problem with. And the cover. And all the things that make a combat this hard by EL even *harder* with the terrain. That's not accounted for in the EL, and the EL of that fight is REALLY hard.
Your post about the thieves getting away, and the gnome getting away, just exacerbates the problem I have with the mod. It's annoying and frustrating, not a temporary setback; it makes the players feel like fools (and incompetant fools at that) if they do not succeed.
In my mind, the goal of a mod is to bring the characters to the brink of their abilities, test them, and almost kill them--but give them the ability to Win, to be Heroic, to Succeed in the end against Great Odds. And along the way some may fall...but continually missing due to environmental effects is not terribly fun; and in that first encounter (where, as your six run-throughs demonstrate) the PCs will likely lose at least one, and more likely lose both, of the objectives, as either the thieves will get away or the gnome will get away or both.
As an aside, the encounter doesn't make it clear what constitutes a "success" in that encounter...that is to say, what gives the PCs full XP. Stopping the rogues? Stopping the gnome? Not dying? Either/both?
Show
I treated the fog for one encounter as -2 conceal and no los past 5 squares, second fight on as -2 after more than 5 squares. When I had the thief steal the ring I timed it so it occured just before the watch arrived in that combat, the guy carrying the ring after the watch arrived checked his pocket, discovered it missing and screamed to the PC's (as the watch was rolling up) that the ring was missing and the PC's could see the only way someone could have possibly gone without them noticing was down some street, I had the cart guy and the employer yell to the guards that the pc's saved them and the pc's ran off on a skill challenge chasing the thief through the city to recover it.
This seemed to work out well enough for the party. I wish I had more time to read the mod before I ran it as From what I'm getting here that's not really how it should have gone down?
I treated the fog for one encounter as -2 conceal and no los past 5 squares, second fight on as -2 after more than 5 squares. When I had the thief steal the ring I timed it so it occured just before the watch arrived in that combat, the guy carrying the ring after the watch arrived checked his pocket, discovered it missing and screamed to the PC's (as the watch was rolling up) that the ring was missing and the PC's could see the only way someone could have possibly gone without them noticing was down some street, I had the cart guy and the employer yell to the guards that the pc's saved them and the pc's ran off on a skill challenge chasing the thief through the city to recover it.
This seemed to work out well enough for the party. I wish I had more time to read the mod before I ran it as From what I'm getting here that's not really how it should have gone down?
Regarding the second part of this encounter:
Show
It is hard to predict whether the gnome will succeed or not, which is why we insisted on a skill challenge to chase him down, or if that fails as well, that you could literally chase him into the arms of the Burning Sun gang. So the adventure was designed to be flexible according to individual tables.
The default assumption is that Stevian is carrying the ring and he is not in combat. (Notes the words that Stevian moves away from the combat.) However, he automatically notices the theft and shouts. Remember, the gnome should only be moving two squares per move while Stealth so he should not have gone far. Also, we figure noticiing the theft means noticing an action by the gnome, meaning he will no longer be hidden. Stevian will automatically notice the theft, even if it is from a PC, and shout. "Stop thief" or words to that effect.
If a PC is carrying the ring, then they are in combat, and that penalty applies, so it is really tough for the gnome to do that.
In my experience, at least half the PCs turn their focus on the gnome, and stop him from running.
The default assumption is that Stevian is carrying the ring and he is not in combat. (Notes the words that Stevian moves away from the combat.) However, he automatically notices the theft and shouts. Remember, the gnome should only be moving two squares per move while Stealth so he should not have gone far. Also, we figure noticiing the theft means noticing an action by the gnome, meaning he will no longer be hidden. Stevian will automatically notice the theft, even if it is from a PC, and shout. "Stop thief" or words to that effect.
If a PC is carrying the ring, then they are in combat, and that penalty applies, so it is really tough for the gnome to do that.
In my experience, at least half the PCs turn their focus on the gnome, and stop him from running.
This entire post is one big spoiler for a new module released at Origins, so don't read it if you don't want to know.Show
There is a difference between challenging and annoying.
While I wholeheartedly support making RPGA mods more challenging, WATE1-5 is (in my opinion) one way not to do it. It won't make your PCs more scared, more hang-on-the-edge-of-your-seat; it will just make them irritated and frustrated, and it will take longer than usual. A LOT longer than usual.
The specific encounter I am discussing is Encounter 2: Bring On The Teamsters. All you really need to know is that there are a large number of combatants, many of whom are minions, almost all of whom (save two) are halflings, and the other two are a gnome and an elf.
They're located in an entire area of fog (light obscurement), essentially rendering all of them invisible from more than 5 squares away. Most of them have cover, and their primary objective is to take something and get away.
So, what do we have here? We've got a bunch of PCs with a base -2 to hit; often a -4, fighting a bunch of creatures that make them reroll when they *do* hit. The creatures have an objective that, unless the DM decides to really give the PCs a chance, they will complete relatively easily.
The monsters are not particularly tough or deadly (although there is one that can seriously hurt the PCs; if he gets into the right situation). It's just that you are going to have a bunch of PCs chasing around a bunch of creatures, all of whom are going to frustrate the living Hell out of them because they can't hit them.
This is a challenging encounter in terms of completing it--but it's frustrating as Hell as a combat. If there was ever a situation where a combat called for a skill challenge, this would be it...the mod states that the monsters are trying to steal something. If they do that, they will (almost certainly) succeed, or at least the vast majority of them, solely because the PCs won't be able to see them...oh, wait. The mod says "Since there are quite a few opponents in this encounter, it is suggested for simplicity’s sake that all NPCs be placed on the board anyway, and that the players are requested to use discretion in attempting to target NPCs that their PCs cannot see."...so not only are the creatures invisible and in large numbers, they're there taunting the PCs to come and get them metagamy. Even if they give into the metagamy aspect, most of the ones without Stealth--the ones the PCs can hear--are minions. So they'll chase down minions, all of whom will have a -2 to be hit and second chance.
This is a remarkably irritating encounter to run, and a remarkably irritating encounter to play in. It's not the first mod with an encounter with a whole mess of halflings with second chance--frustrating enough--but this time, they all have concealment to boot. It's also an example, as I've mentioned in an earlier post, of how environment (which does not add to the CR) makes a module much more difficult to play but doesn't count towards the XP.
The best PC attack bonus that I can think of off the top of my head on High is a +13 (stat 5, level 2, expertise 1, magical weapon 2, proficiency 3). Make that a 14 if you get a +1 from some other source like a PC with a power that pumps it up. On High, these creatures have base ACs of 18, 19, and 20, which become effective 22, 21, 20 with concealment and cover, if the PCs can manage to see them. Thus, presuming all the PCs have been optimized, you are looking at a base of 6 to hit the lowest AC; with one hit negated. I don't know what the prob/stat of that is...but that's level 4 characters who are optimized playing on High in the best possible circumstances.
Case 2, probably more likely, suggests the PCs have an average attack bonus of around +10, still somewhat high, but not all pumped up--stat 4, level 2, expertise 1, magic weapon 1, proficiency 2. These guys are hitting on 12, 11, 10. If they only get one shot a round...
That's on high. Case 3, the low end. and assume, for the moment, that not every character has a +2 weapon. The monsters' ACs go down to 16, 17, and 19; the PCs attack bonuses go down to stat 5, proficiency 2, level 0, expertise or some other source (+1 magic weapon, proficiency bonus +3, etcetera) 1, for a total of 8. These guys have a better chance to hit, an 8, 9, or 11. Of course, the 8 is for the minions. But they're rerolling every round, as well...and most people will be playing mods on high, anyway, based on current CW regarding difficulties.
If this is the way we're going to be making modules harder, let's please keep them less challenging, because I don't want to irritate my players. Sure, I can easily DME away the fog--which vastly changes the combat--but I'd really rather not *have* to.
At least the "up" versions are getting more difficult. Came dang close to a TPK when we ran this with 3 1st levels, a 2nd, and one 3rd/4th level character.
I agree. The overturned cart's encounter is next to impossible.
At least the "up" versions are getting more difficult. Came dang close to a TPK when we ran this with 3 1st levels, a 2nd, and one 3rd/4th level character.
:pile:It wasn't "next to impossible" it was an annoying encounter that was made tougher because of enemy/charactor placement not because the enemies themselves were uber hard. It's the final fight that's set up to wreck unbalanced parties but a well balance party like the one we had should find that fight manageable if not down right fun.
ShowNo complaints about the high defenses of the enemies in the second fight, particularly those dwarves' ACs?
ShowI ran this today at high tier, and switched his defenses for the lower-tiered version as three of my five players were first level. He still took down three of the party, including nearly one-shotting someone in a single round
The downside will be that people keep playing up, and be surprised later on when they do come across a DM who does not take as much pity on them... Personally I tend to be a bit harsher when people play up with an obvious under leveled group.
I had just been through a brutal SPEC1-2 yesterday and wasn't really in the mood to inflict a similar hammering on other people, especially when there were three first-level strikers (all targeting AC) in the party (including one guy who was playing his first game of LFR) who would have needed to roll 18+ to hit the NPC we're talking about.
This is an increasingly common problem - for example, the same problem occurs at the end of EAST1-4 - how are people meant to hit AC27? High-tier mods are meant to be a challenge, but there is a difference between a challenge and mechanically impossible, isn't there?
As it was, turns out the 4th level ranger in the group (yes, there were four strikers) had only 7 hp left at the end, so I think that with three unconscious onb top of that (and the other character well into bloodied as well) they were taught a lesson as it was.
The downside will be that people keep playing up, and be surprised later on when they do come across a DM who does not take as much pity on them... Personally I tend to be a bit harsher when people play up with an obvious under leveled group.
Agreed. The worst thing you can do as a DM is condition your players to expect a lesser threat at high-tier than what it is. It results in underdeveloped tactical nous and a false sense of a PCs ability.
When they encounter the real threat level, it is only going to cause grief because they blame the new DM, who is playing it straight, for the TPK (aka, lack of fun).
Starbog - the solution to your situation is very, very simple. Play low tier...
I agree. The overturned cart's encounter is next to impossible.
At least the "up" versions are getting more difficult. Came dang close to a TPK when we ran this with 3 1st levels, a 2nd, and one 3rd/4th level character.
I believe I was your DM with this...and I agree the cart encounter is next to impossible to stop the thieves from stealing a couple packages...and the final combat encounter could have been a TPK! Especially since you guys were playing up...in the past playing up wasn't much of a challenge, but now it seems they are getting more difficult so playing up may not be as much of a no brainer any more...
Tim
When they encounter the real threat level, it is only going to cause grief because they blame the new DM, who is playing it straight, for the TPK (aka, lack of fun).
Starbog - the solution to your situation is very, very simple. Play low tier...
Maybe this is a transatlantic-culture-difference-thing, but TPKs over here in the UK in LFR are very very *very* uncommon. All the DMs I know and have played or ran with consider a TPK a "reward" for utter and gross stupidity, nothing else. In fact, a DM who went out of his way to enforce a TPK would have a bad reputation here.
But with three players unconscious out of five, and the other two on single-figure hitpoints, I think they learned a lesson.
Best,
SB.
Maybe this is a transatlantic-culture-difference-thing, but TPKs over here in the UK in LFR are very very *very* uncommon. All the DMs I know and have played or ran with consider a TPK a "reward" for utter and gross stupidity, nothing else. In fact, a DM who went out of his way to enforce a TPK would have a bad reputation here.
But with three players unconscious out of five, and the other two on single-figure hitpoints, I think they learned a lesson.
Best,
SB.
Nah, nothing transatlantic like. I would consider playing up a calculated risk that can indeed be a gross stupidity. I have had semi-TPKs* as a result from experienced players, choosing to play up. None of the players were too irritated about it (they didnt like the adventure but that had nothing to do with the botched fight). I really wonder whether or not those players truly learned their lesson since they were rewarded for it. Besides, it is not as if a TPK is all that costly. Like I said, to each his own.
* Two PCs died, a third was arrested and the other two had to flee during the first fight. They never finished the adventure, so for all intents and purposes it was a TPK with the exact same repurcursions for the characters.
Show
When we played through this, we were completely paranoid about keeping the NPC that was with us safe, and keeping the item safe. We were convinced the attack was a diversion to steal the item. So our Warden (one of the high perception characters in the party), stayed next to the NPC the whole time, and did not otherwise participate in the fight. He did his job and caught the gnome.
The rest of us were concerned more about the well being of the cart owner than the actual thieves. So we formed the fight around him, and weren't really too worried about the thieves getting away. We were dealing with the immediate threats. Turns out we should have been going after the halflings, but there was no way to tell that that was the primary objective. We felt good about keeping the cart owner alive, and were slightly upset about not getting his favor. I guess next time we'll let him die and go after the thieves.
We also didn't have a controller, which would have made this encounter easier.
I think our DM was just applying concealment (+2 defenses) against attacks that were from further than 5 squares away. Perhaps this was an error, but we failed anyway.
As for the dwarves in the last fight, yes they had high AC, but sometimes that's what you have to deal with. Between bard and thaneborn debuffs and rogue accuracy, we didn't have that much trouble with them (we were playing low). I thought that fight was a lot of fun, especially the conclusion where we cornered the antagonist.
When we played through this, we were completely paranoid about keeping the NPC that was with us safe, and keeping the item safe. We were convinced the attack was a diversion to steal the item. So our Warden (one of the high perception characters in the party), stayed next to the NPC the whole time, and did not otherwise participate in the fight. He did his job and caught the gnome.
The rest of us were concerned more about the well being of the cart owner than the actual thieves. So we formed the fight around him, and weren't really too worried about the thieves getting away. We were dealing with the immediate threats. Turns out we should have been going after the halflings, but there was no way to tell that that was the primary objective. We felt good about keeping the cart owner alive, and were slightly upset about not getting his favor. I guess next time we'll let him die and go after the thieves.
We also didn't have a controller, which would have made this encounter easier.
I think our DM was just applying concealment (+2 defenses) against attacks that were from further than 5 squares away. Perhaps this was an error, but we failed anyway.
As for the dwarves in the last fight, yes they had high AC, but sometimes that's what you have to deal with. Between bard and thaneborn debuffs and rogue accuracy, we didn't have that much trouble with them (we were playing low). I thought that fight was a lot of fun, especially the conclusion where we cornered the antagonist.