Meanwhile there are at least two different levels of play that seem to be desired for LFR if one listens to the posts complaining about LFR mods being 'too easy' etc.
Rather than simply add a small bonus to the monsters here and there why not really change the combats? Heck many times you could leave the monsters unchanged and just alter the environment/setting and you could achieve two real different tiers of play. Though I will say that enemy group makeup does matter! I'm tired of seeing minions used as brutes and the like, or very unbalanced groups of opponents sent against the PCs.
It would be great to satisfy both desires. As it is our local group simply always plays up and mostly cakewalks the mods (some a great deal more than others). We've talked about purposefully creating weak characters, but that just strikes me as desperate and an endgame move.
-James
In many cases it is indeed a +2 levels to the existing monsters, this is not always so. Sometimes other monsters are picked, while at other times the composition can change completely. Changing terrain is not going to work (except for increasing depth of pits, damage due to hazardous terrains and DCs due to hindering terrain), because that would require completely different maps and terrain sections. It also clashes with the goal to keep the challenge of the fight the same since the impact of terrain on the PCs does not change all that significantly between 4 levels.
If your group would prefer to see the tiers as an indication of challenge for your group, you should talk with your DMs. The rules err on the side of easy, simply because a TPK does more damage to the campaign than an easy adventure. Besides, in my experience the tactical minded players who love to spend hours on the books to pick the right game mechanical choices are in the minority. The DM has the freedom though to modify adventures. When players are skilled tacticians with min-maxed characters I usually change terrain, tactics and even stats to make a fight more challenging. Most of the time simply adding a dozen or so more hit points is all that is necessary. If you feel the adventures are too easy for your group, please talk with your DM. And yes, I am aware this is not going to increase the xp and gp your characters earn, but that is unavoidable for balance reasons. That subject has been beaten to death on these boards. Just read the LFR too Easy threat for example.
Pieter Sleijpen
RPGA LFR GLobal Administrator
If you would like to give my PC a +2 to everything (attack, all defenses, etc.) because "it makes no difference", I will happily take the bonus.
Is there really much use to giving all the monsters +2 level or so? Is the +2 to hit going to change a combat from super easy to way too hard? Consider how many misses that really changes into a hit, then tack on a few more hps to each bad guy. It isn't changing much of anything.
Meanwhile there are at least two different levels of play that seem to be desired for LFR if one listens to the posts complaining about LFR mods being 'too easy' etc.
Rather than simply add a small bonus to the monsters here and there why not really change the combats? Heck many times you could leave the monsters unchanged and just alter the environment/setting and you could achieve two real different tiers of play. Though I will say that enemy group makeup does matter! I'm tired of seeing minions used as brutes and the like, or very unbalanced groups of opponents sent against the PCs.
It would be great to satisfy both desires. As it is our local group simply always plays up and mostly cakewalks the mods (some a great deal more than others). We've talked about purposefully creating weak characters, but that just strikes me as desperate and an endgame move.
-James
Indeed, there really isn't a great deal of difference if the monsters are acting in a dumb fashion.
Perhaps your DM should try the following:
- 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) recieve a concentrated burst of attacks from those enemies who observed them.
- Those enemies who can conceal themselves (Lurkers), do so, and attempt to attack from the rear (or flank) once the characters have passed them.
You might find that when the monsters play to their strengths and operate as a cohesive team, the encounters get a lot tougher... then the extra HP and + to attack and damage really shows.
Indeed, there really isn't a great deal of difference if the monsters are acting in a dumb fashion.
You might find that when the monsters play to their strengths and operate as a cohesive team, the encounters get a lot tougher... then the extra HP and + to attack and damage really shows.
That would work when the encounter HAS such varied opponents.
But many times it's just not the case. Enemy composition just isn't there or is very misaligned.
And while DM tactics can account for a wide variation in challenge (as frankly has always been the case) it doesn't tell the whole story.
If you have a combat where the wrong roles are being put in the wrong slots there is going to be a problem for any DM in achieving a reasonable challenge.
The easiest example of this is when minions are put forth in an encounter to do the duty of brutes or even soldiers. Suddenly whatever leader is behind them might as well have been a solo, only isn't.
-James
Besides, in my experience the tactical minded players who love to spend hours on the books to pick the right game mechanical choices are in the minority. The DM has the freedom though to modify adventures. When players are skilled tacticians with min-maxed characters I usually change terrain, tactics and even stats to make a fight more challenging.
Pieter Sleijpen
RPGA LFR GLobal Administrator
That's a shame to hear that you feel this way.
Personally I see offering two 'tiers' of play offers an easy way to accommodate both sets of gamers (though to be honest its more of a spread than two individual camps) without cost to either end.
I see it as a shame that the best advice is 'your on your own' rather than to have support from the campaign.
And honestly, we're not talking fringe 'uber' here or anything. But pretty straight forward under-balanced and mismatched encounters.
I think you're going to see more loss from 'bored' gamers than you did from 'overwhelmed' gamers. And worst of all it's needless as you can easily accommodate both without cost to the other.
Most already see the tiers not as 1-2 & 3-4 but as 'low' and 'high' challenge because you are picking a *very* narrow level of 'challenge'. One size is not going to fit all.
Sure you can leave it to individual GMs, but that is a cop-out and doesn't do the campaign any good. The campaign should try to serve the needs of the players. Perhaps you feel that certain groups should be marginalized, but I find that bad form whether it is 'one group' or 'the other'.
Aiming for one narrow target is going to miss a lot of people. Having two will make it easier for a given gamer to be more content with what the campaign is producing.
As far as rewards go, I would prefer it if rewards were set by level (for gold/xp) and that bundles were not dependent upon tier at all. So that there would not be mechanical reasons for wishing to play one tier or the other whatsoever.
-James
PS: I'm not following the comment about why you couldn't alter terrain based on challenge level, as the premise *was* that the two tiers would be different challenge levels so altering those levels would *be* the point.. ?
I would like to see a third tier of play for mods, one for players that do want a challenge or at least for their character’s abilities to seem necessary.
Low tier should be the easiest level. Any party of four characters no matter how dysfunctional and “unoptimized” should be able to clear low tier without too much trouble. This tier should also offer the least rewards in terms of xp, gold, and found items.
High tier should be the average, as that is how it feels now. Any balanced party with decent tactics and decently built characters should be able to clear the mod at high tier without too much difficulty. At this tier characters should start to feel it in combat if they have poorly built characters or poor tactics. Rewards at high tiers should be more xp, gold, and a couple more found items than low tier.
Heroic tier (just a name I made up, you could call it anything) should be for optimized PCs or just solid parties who want a challenge. This tier should pull out all the stops short of blatantly cheating. This should be the tier where all brutes are replaced with soldiers and all minions have a leader to give them temp hps. Heroic tier combats should be genuinely hard and always end with PCs looking for ways to improve their characters or their tactics. Rewards should be better than high tier but not too much. Players who are playing high and low tier shouldn’t feel too left out. Equal xp and gold to high tier and maybe one more item would be fair rewards. Additionally, a short line on the story rewards at the end would be a nice touch.
Another poster mentioned it but I am looking at making purposely bad characters to add some of the challenge that is missing in the game. I should not have to do this.
Another poster mentioned it but I am looking at making purposely bad characters to add some of the challenge that is missing in the game. I should not have to do this.
You don't have to do this. Give you DM a little head's up that you want to play "hardcore". It would take me about 5 minutes (10 at most) to make one of these adventures truly challenging. I could even do it on the fly (say, at a convention), if all the players at the table asked for it. One of the big advantages of 4e is that it has a modular approach with easily understandable rules for adjusting difficulty. You ask nicely and I will give you a XXXX1-1 that will have you crying for your momma.
-SYB
I don't know if I speak for everyone, but players like myself who want to be challenged also want to be rewarded for our success (it makes the failure more meaningful). Why would I ask the judge to DME in a few hundred xp worth of monsters when all it does is make the danger higher with no greater reward?
You don't have to do this. Give you DM a little head's up that you want to play "hardcore". It would take me about 5 minutes (10 at most) to make one of these adventures truly challenging. I could even do it on the fly (say, at a convention), if all the players at the table asked for it. One of the big advantages of 4e is that it has a modular approach with easily understandable rules for adjusting difficulty. You ask nicely and I will give you a XXXX1-1 that will have you crying for your momma.
-SYB
Cool. If you could please rewrite a few of say the 1-1 modules for a 'high' tier. It would be great to have available.
I think a few people are getting into 'reskinning' modules, perhaps you could do this in their format?
Personally I think it would be a decent amount of effort: changing mismatched lopsided groups of bad guys, altering terrain, etc. But if it only takes you a few minutes, that would be awesome and solve most of this!
In my opinion if it gets to the point where you need to nearly rewrite the module to get what you and your players want out of it, then the point of even being in the campaign in the first place is fading. Just run a home campaign and give up on LFR entirely.
That's what I'm afraid is going to happen.
I'm not concerned about what kind of 'higher' rewards there would be. In fact I would prefer that a module's bundle rewards be fixed and the xp/gold be a function of the level of the PC in question. I'd rather not have it be a mechanical pressure to 'play up' but rather a choice of what the party wants from the module.
If it's not all that difficult for you to decently 'ramp up' these modules then I'm very serious about you doing so. I figure that in the next few weeks we'll see more and more 'reskinned' mods, and having a 'high' variant for a few out there would be awesome. If done early in this, it might be adopted by the others making reskinned mods, so as to already be included in theirs when they make a more 'extreme' reskin.
-James
I really don't feel like "high tier" does the game justice. We have characters with these cool abilities which more often than not feel unneeded. I am not even talking about “optimized” PCs. My characters are usually far from optimized, competent and well built yes, but optimized definitely not.
I would like to see a third tier of play for mods, one for players that do want a challenge or at least for their character’s abilities to seem necessary.
Low tier should be the easiest level. Any party of four characters no matter how dysfunctional and “unoptimized” should be able to clear low tier without too much trouble. This tier should also offer the least rewards in terms of xp, gold, and found items.
.
I do not believe that this proposed tier should exist at all. If a weak party of four intentionally disfunction characters exercising poor judgement and weak tactics does not have "too much trouble" clearing a mod then there is no possible challenge unless you suppose that the players roll all 1s and the DM all 20s. If that is the case, there is no point in playing. We should just write on our logsheets and do something more entertaining--like watch paint dry.
That's not to say I like the idea of a tier which is written to exploit the worst and least functional mechanics of the system (minions with temporary hit points, "all swarms, all the time," or insubstantial elite monsters with boatloads of non-surge based healing and damage over time abilities, for instance). Exploiting the corner cases of the system either as players or on the writer's side may increase the challenge, but it also takes the fun out of the system. It's fine if people want to DM empower that kind of thing (though I'd prefer to be warned so that I can avoid it myself), but I would not want to see that playstyle encouraged with greater rewards.
I do not believe that this proposed tier should exist at all. If a weak party of four intentionally disfunction characters exercising poor judgement and weak tactics does not have "too much trouble" clearing a mod then there is no possible challenge unless you suppose that the players roll all 1s and the DM all 20s. If that is the case, there is no point in playing. We should just write on our logsheets and do something more entertaining--like watch paint dry.
This is exactly how the games feels to me, and a lot of the people that I play with, right now.
Why does the idea of a higher tier of play offend you? You don't have to play in it.
That would work when the encounter HAS such varied opponents.
But many times it's just not the case. Enemy composition just isn't there or is very misaligned.
And while DM tactics can account for a wide variation in challenge (as frankly has always been the case) it doesn't tell the whole story.
If you have a combat where the wrong roles are being put in the wrong slots there is going to be a problem for any DM in achieving a reasonable challenge.
The easiest example of this is when minions are put forth in an encounter to do the duty of brutes or even soldiers. Suddenly whatever leader is behind them might as well have been a solo, only isn't.
-James
Minions are the easiest to use...
- use them like Brutes/Soldiers when there is a character affected by a control effect
- use them like Artillery if they have a ranged attack
Simple!
Modifying xp and treasure rewards are going to impact the game mechanical balance. For one thing, you level quicker, play less adventures and hence have a lower chance of finding the items you want. Furthermore, adding 1 tier means adding more pages, making things more complicated for authors and reviewers and are also much more likely to make a story unlikey. Forgive me if I am having trouble seeing how it is really that important that you get x% more xp and gp, but I accept that for some players it apparently is.
If a weak party of four intentionally disfunction characters exercising poor judgement and weak tactics does not have "too much trouble" clearing a mod then there is no possible challenge unless you suppose that the players roll all 1s and the DM all 20s. If that is the case, there is no point in playing. We should just write on our logsheets and do something more entertaining--like watch paint dry.
Because some people perhaps play this game for the story? To sit around a table and have fun with friends? A sizable group of D&D gamers really do not like combats beyond a good scenematic description. They want to do the cool thing, not the game mechanical best one. To them flinging the candelbra into the face of the villain should be fun. It should not endanger the lives of their friends, forcing them to use their sly flourish with rapier instead. In other cases, people like to take a gamble in a fight, and they want to do so without immediately dieing.
Of course, their style of gaming does not invalidate yours either. The fact is though that no matter what we do, we cannot write an adventure that pleases everybody. That is why we added DMs Empowerment in the first place. I have heard people say that upgrading the challenge is difficult, and downgrading easy, but that is simply not the experience we have had with LG and Xen'drik Expeditions.
Personally I have run many an adventure, some of which with highly experienced tactical minded players, and I have made players sweat even without modifying monster or terrain with XXXX1-1 adventures. It doesn't mean we do not pay attention to people reviewing the campaign here. We are giving our own experiences, which apparently differ from some other groups, and we try to learn what is the cause of those differences either to make the current adventures more challenging for them or take that in account to design better ones in the future.
Pieter Sleijpen
RPGA LFR Global Administrator
It doesn't mean we do not pay attention to people reviewing the campaign here. We are giving our own experiences, which apparently differ from some other groups, and we try to learn what is the cause of those differences either to make the current adventures more challenging for them or take that in account to design better ones in the future.
Pieter Sleijpen
RPGA LFR Global Administrator
I think what we can agree upon is that 'one size will NOT fit all'. Yes?
So there's two possible roads to go from there: have one size and whoever doesn't fit must handle the disappointment on their own however they can, or try to accommodate two sizes instead.
I think trying to fit everyone into one round hole is a mistake. We're mostly square pegs after all.
Each module already offers 2 sets of opponents for each combat. The page counts are based upon that currently. Changing it from them being almost always the same critters just leveled twice from one page to the next to instead having something more different that would be more palatable to another play group would not increase page size one bit.
It would take more work for authors, as they would have to take the time to set up two encounters instead of quickly adding a level or two to each critter.
But I don't see that as that much of a price to pay. Do you?
And again I'll say that there are not just two 'camps' of gamers. Gamers range from these two mystical extremes to everywhere in between. I've seen fairly average gamers very dissatisfied with the lack of challenge that they've seen in some of these mods. Having two 'target' levels of difficulty could help to assuage this.
-James
Or maybe we don't really pay that much attention to combat toughness because we try to play a RPG rather than miniatures battle.
I understand people like to get tough fights now and then. I feel the potential is there, even though the game is likely skewed towards the PCs, being heroes, prevailing. And likely we are all trying to determine what make sthe most interstign and challenging combats (it is a lot easier for players to learn to optimize their tactics than it is fro DMs and especially authors).
But really, this is a story game. Not a fight game. I would rather concentrate at making good stories and interesting scenes than at maxing out the bad guys just becausesomeone feels a game isn't fun unless there was a TPK every other time it is run.
As Pieter said: DME is the best way to tailor the combats to individual parties.
Including 'tougher' and totally different combat tiers in an adventure unnecessarily complicates the adventure writing process, which is difficult enough as it is.
But the best way may be for those players who feel combats are too easy to propose and write an adventure themselves, and show what the xp budgets can allow for.
Gomez
Interestingly, thus far it seems true that in most cases an all 1st level and an all 4th-5th level table generally finds the 1-4 and 4-7s to be very challenging. As soon as a few of the players climb up in level, then a mixed table starts finding the challenge to be low. Playing high helps initially, then loses its effect.
I think pick-up groups will have trouble picking the right tier. A group that plays often can easily work with a DM to pick the right tier and, if desired, ask the DM to provide a higher challenge.
Simply adding a template to one monster to make an elite, adding a level to all other monsters... if that doesn't challenge you then you probably need to take a "Wood whittling" feat or two to reduce your optimization. And adding a level to all monsters and a template to one is a 5-minute activity at most for an experienced DM. There should be no problem for those wanting a challenge!
* Level 1 Swordmage
* Level 1 Warlord
* Level 2 Warlock
* Level 2 Cleric
We played CORE1-3 at low tier and while we didn't have trouble finishing it, there was definitely tension and we definitely stepped warily after the last fight. I think at High Tier we would have had a TPK, or at the very least had multiple people go into negative hitpoints with no way to revive them.
I think you're going to see more loss from 'bored' gamers than you did from 'overwhelmed' gamers. And worst of all it's needless as you can easily accommodate both without cost to the other.
I'm only seeing the game become more popular in my area with no loss of regulars.
Can you do it within the xp budget provided by the module?
I don't know if I speak for everyone, but players like myself who want to be challenged also want to be rewarded for our success (it makes the failure more meaningful).
Really? I'm more interested in having fun then getting imaginary points that I can use for an imaginary character.
Why would I ask the judge to DME in a few hundred xp worth of monsters when all it does is make the danger higher with no greater reward?
Because if you're bored with the standard module, you'll have more fun? I enjoy D&D because:
1) I enjoy the stories.
2) I enjoy trying to beat the monsters.
I don't need a better reward for beating a harder monster. Beating the monsters is the reward in and of itself. I'm more then willing to play Sceptre of Spellgard which has pretty crappy rewards because I enjoy spending time with the group (I'm even looking to play it a second time as our group is so large that not everyone could play it together the first time).
Also I feel the current difficulty level is about right. Low-tier needs to be easy because it needs to be able to accomodate a party of 2 controllers, 1 leader and 1 striker. Or other mismatched parties. Some modules have been too easy, but having played over half the 1-1 modules the only ones I can think of are:
* DRAG1-1: Many Hands Make Light Work
* CORM1-1: The Black Knight of Arabel
* LURU1-1 Slivers of Eaerlann
On the other hand I've had the DM often say "I didnt' use the best tactics" or "I had to fudge a couple of dice rolls" because without it we would have had TPKs. WATE1-2: Dark Secrets of Downshadow in particular is not forgiving towards a mismatched party.
Some modules have been too easy, but having played over half the 1-1 modules the only ones I can think of are:
* DRAG1-1: Many Hands Make Light Work
Do you think DRAG1-1 was easy...?
I played it last night on low-tier, it was pretty tough... we only had 4 players...
- Shielding Swordmage [lv.3]
- Tactical Warlord [lv.2]
- Great Weapon Fighter [lv.1]
- Archer Ranger [lv.1]
Two of the characters were brand new (just fresh out of the box), if not for our RPGA reward cards we would have been in serious trouble. Even though our party was pretty balanced, with every role covered (Aoe Control from the Swordmage, Defence from the Fighter and Swordmage, Striking from the Ranger and Leader/Healing from the Warlord).
This is why I have to wonder when people say LFR is too easy, if you have 6 players and a balanced party... play the high tier and get better rewards... if you don't play it safe and go low-tier... it makes sense.
This is why I have to wonder when people say LFR is too easy, if you have 6 players and a balanced party... play the high tier and get better rewards... if you don't play it safe and go low-tier... it makes sense.
The sentiment here is right and I agree with it for the most part.
If you feel your party is strong then you want a tougher challenge. That makes sense. If the combats are too easy then they become boring.
Meanwhile if it's weak then you want a more appropriate challenge. You don't want to have to swim upstream all the time.
Sounds like you agree with me in wanting two different challenge levels for modules.
The problem is the current mods don't give this even though it may seem like they do. Sometimes you have a strong party and the mod can't offer what you want, other times you have a weak party and the mod can't offer what you want. One of those two is going to be disappointed. Perhaps if they are lucky and are either a strong lower level party that can play 'up' or a weak upper level party that can play 'down' but otherwise they're out of luck.
It would be nice if there was an easier and tougher version to suit these needs. It could be adjusted for level as well as number of players from there.
But I don't see anything changing from my ramblings,
James
the modules already provide for two levels of play, low tier and high tier... that's all we need...
It has been said before, pumping up the levels of monsters does not change the difficuty to an appreceiable degree, especially if the monsters are just going to use the same tactics, just with better plusses to hit and damage rolls.
Making the monsters act in a tactically sound manner is much more challenging than simply buffing them up and throwing them into the "PC meatgrinder".
In last nights game, ongoing damage and disease was proving too much for the new characters and my Warlord had to use all his healing in every encounter. That made for a tough set of encounters, even at low tier.
So I see no need to change anything in the current system, but next time we can get a 6 character team together, we're going high tier and hoping the encounters go easy on us.
This is why I have to wonder when people say LFR is too easy, if you have 6 players and a balanced party... play the high tier and get better rewards... if you don't play it safe and go low-tier... it makes sense.
My main group appears to follow some formula where you had everyone's levels together, add 1 if you have 6 players, divide by the number of players and if you come up with a value between 1 and 2 then you play low tier, otherwise you play high.
It seems to work most of the time. Of all the adventures I've played with my main group, that was the only one I'd call too easy.
In last nights game, ongoing damage and disease was proving too much for the new characters and my Warlord had to use all his healing in every encounter. That made for a tough set of encounters, even at low tier.
What ongoing damage? Isn't that the one where you have to
Show
Clear out the temple of squatters for some priestesses, upon which you go on a skill challenge to get a whole heap of workmen to help them after which you have to fight one more combat with the local thieves guild or something?
That wasn't overly difficult. Although I don't remember any ongoing damage.
That wasn't overly difficult. Although I don't remember any ongoing damage.
I have played one adventure with 4, and we got clobbered. The only reason nobody died is because my character negotiated/manipulated for their survival and herself being taken prisoner (she ended up on a slave market in the subsequent adventure).
With 5 players we likely would have won, even with the extra monsters. With 6, I am certain that we would have won (not necessarily with ease though).
I also think people underestimate the +2 on AC/defenses/to hit for monsters.
Though you likely get tougher combats on average if you go the other way (select a high level MM monster and downgrade it), because the monster 'control' or ongoing effects (daze, stun, ongoing damage etc) are sometimes better if you start with a higher-level monster.
Gomez
I think the easiest way to make a module tougher is to not play it with 6 players.
Or play it with a mismatched party, purposefully gimped PCs, suboptimal tactics, etc..
You can make it more challenging but not in any really decent, satisfying way.
Yeah you can play with one hand tied behind your back, but it's not about showing off, but rather having fun.
Contorting things just in order to have them be more challenging isn't fun.
-James
Playing them with 6 is what is contorting things.
So if you want to play the intended challenge level, play with 5. When you play with 6, you make it easier, since the increase of party size makes the party much more capable than the suggested changes for 6 make the encounters more difficult.
Hence, if you think you have more fun with a tough figth than with just the roleplaying, and you don't trust DME to counter it, then play with 5.
The adventures are written for 5 players.
Playing them with 6 is what is contorting things.
So if you want to play the intended challenge level, play with 5. When you play with 6, you make it easier, since the increase of party size makes the party much more capable than the suggested changes for 6 make the encounters more difficult.
Hence, if you think you have more fun with a tough figth than with just the roleplaying, and you don't trust DME to counter it, then play with 5.
So you don't feel that the module adjustments for 6 players adequately handles the difference in party power?
What about the adjustments for 4 players?
-James
The adjustments make the adventure easier or harder. However, I do not think that gaining or loosing a party member is equal to the gain or loss of one soldier critter or the addition of extra hitpoints.
Party members are much more valuable than that, especially if you work together. Flanking bonuses, extra bonuses form other party member's powers, and simply concentrating fire that causes opponents to go down.
Sure, this can work with opponents as well, but that is very dependent on how the DM uses it for, and what kind of opponents there are.
So in general, why I do not think we need to really change the adjustments, I do think it means that parties of 4 will have it tougher, and parties of 6 will have it easier.
However... in practice... we know that most groups drop the Controller for something else.
In a combat optimised group, the Controller is dropped for another Defender [An AC Tank if the other Defender isn't one].
In a skill optimised group the Controller is dropped for a Striker [typically a CHA Warlock] or Leader [typically a Warlord].
However, there are also the sub-optimised groups, or just plain odd parties [I once saw an all Striker party] who may well have problems with some of the encounters/skill challenges.
modules have to be pitched at all the groups above and try to make them challenging. However, as the idea is that people enjoy the game (enjoyment is typically reduced by TPK/character death) the modules have to err on the side of being easier rather than tougher and rely on DME to tailor the rest of the adventure to fit the group.
So in general, why I do not think we need to really change the adjustments, I do think it means that parties of 4 will have it tougher, and parties of 6 will have it easier.
So you're saying that the difference in scaling isn't sufficient to merit fixing, but that the adjustments for 4 or 6 PCs are insufficient to maintain equity?
Personally I think that the current mods have set such a low bar that you just aren't seeing what would otherwise be the proper counter balance here.
Combats typically initially favor the bad guys until a point in the combat occurs where the PCs regain their footing and then mop them up. This is the same situation that you saw in 3e. Combats go wrong when too many PC actions are spent reacting to enemy action rather than regaining tempo. When you have fewer PCs you have less slack for actions lost.
When you have more bad guy actions the initial weight of their advantage can be greater (assuming that they can all be brought to bear initially) and the chance to overwhelm the PCs increases. The analogy would be your PC gains hps but the bad guys does more damage per hit. It can even out or favor one side or the other depending upon hit/miss streaks.
What I think you're seeing here is that the bad guys are weak enough that they aren't accounting for themselves as much as they otherwise should. Thus adding a bad guy doesn't increase the initial pressure enough to remove the added PC's action, while removing a bad guy in exchange for removing a PC action (by having 4 instead of 5) is doing more work than the remaining encounter.
modules have to be pitched at all the groups above and try to make them challenging. However, as the idea is that people enjoy the game (enjoyment is typically reduced by TPK/character death) the modules have to err on the side of being easier rather than tougher and rely on DME to tailor the rest of the adventure to fit the group.
This is where I think the 'one size fits all' method fails. By writing to the lowest bar you're going to completely remove any challenge from those reasonably removed from it.
It would not be that hard to forgo printing out 'high' and 'low' tiers that are essentially the same just with a +2 level bump on everything, instead just make notes of those adjustments (much like the adjustments for 4 or 6 PCs). You could then use that second stat block group as a more challenging version of the same encounter.
-James
However, as the idea is that people enjoy the game (enjoyment is typically reduced by TPK/character death)
People keep saying this as though maximizing fun meant removing the possibility of the TPK. On the other hand, for a lot of people, removing the very possibility of defeat sucks more fun out of the game than the small possibility of a rare TPK does. I've played D&D for close to twelve years now and in that time, I have only had one TPK happen to a party that I have played in (not RPGA) and have only had one TPK (also not RPGA) as a DM/judge. (I saw or heard about more TPKs, but was not involved in them and, as rare and dramatic events, you generally hear more about one TPK than 100 ordinary games). TPKs are already rare, even in "challenging" campaigns like many people seem to think Living Greyhawk was. Heck, character death is fairly rare as well--even in most challenging campaigns. Make death and TPKs much more rare and they will become non-existant and remove even the illusion of challenge. LFR has already removed most of the long-term consequences of character death. Softballing the game even further than that is not necessary for fun. I strongly suspect that it actually reduces it.
People keep saying this as though maximizing fun meant removing the possibility of the TPK. On the other hand, for a lot of people, removing the very possibility of defeat sucks more fun out of the game than the small possibility of a rare TPK does. I've played D&D for close to twelve years now and in that time, I have only had one TPK happen to a party that I have played in (not RPGA) and have only had one TPK (also not RPGA) as a DM/judge. (I saw or heard about more TPKs, but was not involved in them and, as rare and dramatic events, you generally hear more about one TPK than 100 ordinary games). TPKs are already rare, even in "challenging" campaigns like many people seem to think Living Greyhawk was. Heck, character death is fairly rare as well--even in most challenging campaigns. Make death and TPKs much more rare and they will become non-existant and remove even the illusion of challenge. LFR has already removed most of the long-term consequences of character death. Softballing the game even further than that is not necessary for fun. I strongly suspect that it actually reduces it.
I've personally seen more TPKs in LFR than I ever saw in LG... especially at Conventions where new players tend to be 4e. novices.
I think LFR is a great system, that is easy to learn for new players, but deep enough to keep long serving players engaged. However, this ease also breeds complacency and many of the LFR TPKs I have seen are due to new player's poor grasp of tactics and seasoned players assuming a combat will be an "auto-win".
Just because the modules are written to err on the side of caution, does not mean they are easy... easier if you run them straight from the page... but that is why DME is so important.
I'll give you an example that started another thread...
I recently ran a module with Guard Drakes in it. As I couldn't find any Guard Drake models, I sued two large sized lizard (Blue Dragonspawn) models and simply increased the Guard Drake size to large, while keeping the same stat block.
This was a replay for some of the players and after the battle, they commented on how much tougher the encounter was. However, I noted that only one defender was bloodied and only one other healing surge had been used. As opposed to the provious time the mod was played, where there was a lot more damage.
So in short, the module "seemed" tougher, but in reality the outcome was better than the last run.
Player impressions have a lot to do with how an encounter is perceived and a small mechanical change can alter those impressions considerably. Not to mention dice rolls... consistently good rolls on the part of the DM (our groups insist that DMs roll in public, which increases the difficulty as you can't fudge rolls) can swing an encounter every time.
I've personally seen more TPKs in LFR than I ever saw in LG... especially at Conventions where new players tend to be 4e. novices.
A judge should take it easy on novices and help them learn the game while having fun. That's what DME is about.
That doesn't mean mods should be a cakewalk for a reasonably balanced and experienced parties - especially when they are playing up.
There's not much sense of reward without risk. And no, I don't think intentionally gimping my character (not that I'm a big "optimizer" either) to be much of a choice either.
Allen.
...I sued two large sized lizard (Blue Dragonspawn) models ...
What did you sue them for, and have they retained lawyers yet? I'm highly interested in the outcome of this case, please keep us all posted.
What did you sue them for, and have they retained lawyers yet? I'm highly interested in the outcome of this case, please keep us all posted.
He might have settled out of court and had to sign a non-disclosure...
-James
Can you do it within the xp budget provided by the module?
Yes it can be done by converting all brutes into similar xp blaster traps. Or just convert everything into traps.
What did you sue them for, and have they retained lawyers yet? I'm highly interested in the outcome of this case, please keep us all posted.
Blue Dragonspawn are rightly feared for their "resist letigiousness 5" and bonus damage vs. cease and desist orders...
Fortunately I hired a rules lawyer and got them on a technicality... victory to me!
Now to roll on the treasure table for compensation! :P
However with the other group, we do the calculationg way of selecting which tier we do and we almost always have a fun time with some tense moments and even possibly some times when we could very well die.
So if you're like the first group, always go high tier. If that's too easy, ask the DM to make it even harder (our DMs always seem more then happy to throw harder stuff at us ;)).
According to the rules, a 1st level NPC is worth the same XP as any other 1st level monster, or an NPC of whatever level.
But when you pull out a goblin blackblade and put in a level 1 goblin rogue, pull out a goblin sharpshooter and put in a level 2 goblin ranger, and pull out a goblin skullcleaver and put in a level 3 goblin barbarian or battlerager fighter, it changes the feel and challenge of the fight immensely.
Obviously, you shouldn't just do this by default, without reason. This is just for the groups of skilled players who really want a more meaningful challenge.
I tweak the maps a fair bit, too, to make the encounter areas larger and more full of interesting features to use, and then I have the monsters take advantage of that. Most of the time, the players take advantage of it too, and work it around to their benefit. But usually the monsters have a little home court advantage for the first couple of rounds, which makes the fight seem a lot more scary in the beginning.
Don't be afraid to have your monsters run around, establish new positions, break line of sight, regroup, hide and sneak, use cover, try to force move PCs into dangerous or hindering areas, ready actions, focus fire, take advantage of elevation, and use size differences to their advantage.
I hate encounters where two groups of enemies are just standing there next to each other in a plain square room, bashing it out. That's boring, AND it's probably going to feel way too easy, for strong PCs. Make the monsters do a bunch of unpredictable stuff which throws the players' usual tactics into disarray. Even without changing the monsters, you can make a fight seem a lot harder, just by making a couple of tiny adjustments to the map, and having the monsters move around and do unusual things a bit more.
(For some example of scaling in the other direction, in Radiant Vessel of Thesk, the second combat encounter gets easier the more players you have (as your action advantage increases), but the final one gets more difficult the more players you have because it becomes harder to get to the enemy leader and it is difficult to muster enough burst damage to take down the leader's tools quickly before they are able to heal, be healed, and put some characters down. Likewise, when I played Moon 1-2 the first time, the final battle was brutal. However, the four player version removes one creature and that makes it dramatically easier.)
6 players is indeed easy mode, especially with 2 leaders.