LMoP & HotDQ: Too "Deadly"? - Downloaded from the Wizards Community, all coding removed by Solauren

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 Clutchbone Feb 24, 2015 16:31:12	I've become more familiar with the encounter building mechanics now that I've started to write my own campiagn. One thing in particular I've noticed is that both of the initial published campaigns (LMoP & HotDQ) start off their campaigns with deadly encounters. That's not just semantics; as per the encounter building rules in the DMG, the opening goblin encounter (4 goblins, high probability of surprise) is considered "Deadly" for 4 PCs, on a scale of Easy-Medium-Hard-Deadly. Note that LMoP was designed with 4-5 PCs in mind. If monsters gain surprise (and the goblins have +6 Stealth roll vs 1st lvl passive perception), the DMG recommends that you raise the encounter difficulty up one step; in this situation, go up to Very Deadly I guess? Deadly. A deadly encounter could be lethal for one or more player characters. Survival often requires good tactics and quick thinking, and the party risks defeat.
#2 Ath-kethin Feb 24, 2015 18:09:06	When I played LMoP, I was one member of a group of 2 characters, and the DM hadn't run a game of any sort since Vampire: the Masquerade back in the 90s. He had never run or even played D&D before running the Starter Set adventure. By being clever, my companion and I managed to retreat from the initial goblin onlslaught, track them to their cave, sneak up on the guards, then (using the wolves inside, which we freed), exterminate all of the goblins. What it took was strategy. What I really REALLY like about both LMoP and HotDQ is that they reward roleplaying, in the sense of thinking like someone in the character's position would think. Charging in to attack everything like you are playing a video game, or for that matter like the "you will never run into something you can't handle" philosophy of 3rd and 4th edition, is suicide.
#3 DaveDash Feb 24, 2015 18:28:28	Hotdq is basically just a bad adventure. LMoP is great, but yep some of the encounters are tough alright. My understanding is that monsters were weaker at some point during the play test. Perhaps some of this content was written then, or even without any guidelines on what a deadly encounter was.
#4 iserith Feb 24, 2015 18:47:17	In my experience, the encounter guidelines aren't very good at predicting difficulty. I don't put much stock in them. It's also easy enough to change the stakes of encounters. For example, the goblins in the opening scene of LMoP could just try to steal instead of kill. And the kobolds in the first battle in HotDQ can focus their attacks on the villagers instead of PCs. As each villager drops, you can give the players till the end of the round to do something before they die, forcing a hard choice to save a villager or attack a kobold.
#5 Coredump00 Feb 24, 2015 19:27:48	CR and difficulty are much harder to deal with at very low levels, I mean one person with Sleep makes either encounter pretty trivial, etc. My biggest problem was I assumed Kobolds were wimps.... and got dropped because of it. But we survived.
#6 alienux Feb 24, 2015 20:18:23	Coredump00 wrote:
#7 CCS Feb 24, 2015 21:44:05	A 4 goblin opening encounter is now deemed too difficult for an average, fresh, party of 4-5 adventurers?? (Rolls eyes in disbelief)
#8 lawrencehoy Feb 24, 2015 21:56:47	Adventures are, once again, being designed with the overall story in mind; not, necessarily, with the character:enemy balance in mind. This has been a stated goal from the beginning (or, at least for some time now). I have always designed my adventures this way; not every encounter is going to be balanced for a specific party level, the encounters will be consistant with the story arc.
(Reply to #7) AaronOfBarbaria	CCS wrote:
(Reply to #7) DaveDash	CCS wrote:
#11 Istbor Feb 25, 2015 9:38:38	iserith wrote:
#12 iserith Feb 25, 2015 11:19:10	Istbor wrote:
#13 MrHotter Feb 25, 2015 12:18:25	If played to their full extent the goblins could be very deadly. The adventure says that two of the goblins will rush in to attack while the others shoot their bows, so that does help some. If the DMs use the terrain and the goblins abilities to their fullest this encounter could be very rough. Personally I don't think this is the best encounter to get new players used to the game. It pretty much sets them up to be ambushed before they even know what their character can do. I made sure to drop hints that something was not right in order to get the players to think about not walking up to the dead horses to have a look. That gives new players a chance to figure out what they can do with survival, perception, and investigation.
#14 Tony_Vargas Feb 25, 2015 13:07:10	Clutchbone wrote:
#15 Istbor Feb 25, 2015 13:12:14	I think a dead horse feathered with arrows should be able to speak for itself on possible danger. I am not opposed to the idea of that first encounter though. I feel the idea of not knowing what you can do against an ambushing enemy when you are just beginning your career as an adventurer is pretty spot on. That is what it would feel like if you were your characters, panicked and unsure. That level of immersion would probably not intended when written, but I do not balk from making things hard on my players.
#16 Zardnaar Feb 25, 2015 13:14:22	Tony_Vargas wrote:
#17 Coredump00 Feb 25, 2015 13:31:07	The benefit of an 'ambush' or approaching a town under attack is it simplifies things for new players, BAM! they are in the middle of the action with a clear path to take. And it does a decent job of building the excitement level. Might be better if it wasn't quite so deadly.... but its hard not to against 1st level PCs
#18 Zardnaar Feb 25, 2015 13:49:48	We found the encounter easy but everyone was trained in perception and we had 2 spell casters with 4 sleep spells between them so the Goblin lair was easy and they ambushed Klarg.
(Reply to #10) CCS	DaveDash wrote:
(Reply to #19) DaveDash	CCS wrote:
#21 Noon Feb 27, 2015 2:59:35	I think it shows an adventure aught to have two options, not just one "There's some dead horses!" Players tend to think having their PC walk away/around is failing to play the game. And with railroady DM's, by their social contract, it actually is. But the ultimate point is to have a deadly encounter being based on player choice as to whether to engage it. When a DM/module forces PC's into a deadly encounter, you'll find it's yawn inducing stuff in group after group (at best!)
(Reply to #20) CCS	[quote="DaveDash"] If you were four PC's playing goblins vs the DM's four 1st level characters, you'd probably kill them all. You'd all spread out, all use bows, stand back at least 60ft, shoot the mage first, another ready an action to shoot him every time he stands up again (while the other three focus fire the Cleric), and using your bonus to hide you'd probably be able to take the group out reasonably easily. And I'm sure the same tricks & more can be used by the party. Wich exact tricks will vary based upon the characters rolled up & the creativity of the players...... But the parties not helpless, & stealth/surprise/hiding isn't guaranteed.
(Reply to #20) CCS	DaveDash wrote:
(Reply to #22) MrHotter	[quote="CCS"] DaveDash wrote:
#25 Noon Feb 27, 2015 15:35:10	It just occured to me, the cycle would be a PC using his action to find a goblin but do nothing else, the goblin attacks and then just hides again (assuming rich cover opportunities). Unless you assume the PC's have a hive mind and capacity to point out to everyone else exactly where the goblin is.
#26 arderkrag Feb 28, 2015 9:20:07	LMoP & HotDQ: Too "Deadly"?
#27 Wuzzard Feb 28, 2015 19:34:15	Any encounter can be deadly if the DM is trying to win, and uses every advantage available.
#28 Noon Feb 28, 2015 22:55:55	Cue someone complaining about use of the word 'win'. Just predicting...
#29 arnwolf666 Mar 01, 2015 1:11:32	possible SPOILERS We had alot and I mean alot of fun with HotDQ. At one point we were impersonating the Black Dragon Cultists, and at another time White Dragon Cultists. We had alot of intrique and fun when we played it. The encounters were not too tough with a few exceptions, the White Dragon was tough, and we made an ally of the Cloud Giant. Looking forward to Rise of Tiamat. We helped the Lizardfolk overthrow the Bullywugs, lots of good NPC interaction. We just had a real good time.
(Reply to #27) DaveDash	Wuzzard wrote:
#31 Rhenny Mar 01, 2015 5:26:54	Tough encounters teach players to think outside the box and look for non-combat solutions. I'm all for it. Stealth, gaining surprise, deception, diplomacy, etc. are worth more when it is clear that fights are dangerous. Like others have mentioned, I enjoy DMing and playing in worlds where encounters are developed because they fit the story and the world rather than Dming and playing in a world where miraculously every encounter is at level. Additionally, I find it more exciting (both as DM and player) when outcomes are not guaranteed.
#32 Beldak_Serpenthelm Mar 01, 2015 9:49:53	DaveDash wrote:
#33 RCanine Mar 01, 2015 9:51:40	Tony_Vargas wrote:
#34 Noon Mar 01, 2015 17:20:11	Beldak_Serpenthelm wrote:

Post/Author/DateTime

Post

Clutchbone

Feb 24, 2015 16:31:12

I've become more familiar with the encounter building mechanics now that I've started to write my own campiagn. One thing in particular I've noticed is that both of the initial published campaigns (LMoP & HotDQ) start off their campaigns with deadly encounters.

That's not just semantics; as per the encounter building rules in the DMG, the opening goblin encounter (4 goblins, high probability of surprise) is considered "Deadly" for 4 PCs, on a scale of Easy-Medium-Hard-Deadly. Note that LMoP was designed with 4-5 PCs in mind. If monsters gain surprise (and the goblins have +6 Stealth roll vs 1st lvl passive perception), the DMG recommends that you raise the encounter difficulty up one step; in this situation, go up to Very Deadly I guess?

Deadly. A deadly encounter could be lethal for one or more player characters. Survival often requires good tactics and quick thinking, and the party risks defeat.

Ath-kethin

Feb 24, 2015 18:09:06

When I played LMoP, I was one member of a group of 2 characters, and the DM hadn't run a game of any sort since Vampire: the Masquerade back in the 90s. He had never run or even played D&D before running the Starter Set adventure. By being clever, my companion and I managed to retreat from the initial goblin onlslaught, track them to their cave, sneak up on the guards, then (using the wolves inside, which we freed), exterminate all of the goblins. What it took was strategy. What I really REALLY like about both LMoP and HotDQ is that they reward roleplaying, in the sense of thinking like someone in the character's position would think. Charging in to attack everything like you are playing a video game, or for that matter like the "you will never run into something you can't handle" philosophy of 3rd and 4th edition, is suicide.

DaveDash

Feb 24, 2015 18:28:28

Hotdq is basically just a bad adventure. LMoP is great, but yep some of the encounters are tough alright.

My understanding is that monsters were weaker at some point during the play test. Perhaps some of this content was written then, or even without any guidelines on what a deadly encounter was.

iserith

Feb 24, 2015 18:47:17

In my experience, the encounter guidelines aren't very good at predicting difficulty. I don't put much stock in them. It's also easy enough to change the stakes of encounters. For example, the goblins in the opening scene of LMoP could just try to steal instead of kill. And the kobolds in the first battle in HotDQ can focus their attacks on the villagers instead of PCs. As each villager drops, you can give the players till the end of the round to do something before they die, forcing a hard choice to save a villager or attack a kobold.

Coredump00

Feb 24, 2015 19:27:48

CR and difficulty are much harder to deal with at very low levels, I mean one person with Sleep makes either encounter pretty trivial, etc. My biggest problem was I assumed Kobolds were wimps.... and got dropped because of it. But we survived.

alienux

Feb 24, 2015 20:18:23

Coredump00 wrote:

CCS

Feb 24, 2015 21:44:05

A 4 goblin opening encounter is now deemed too difficult for an average, fresh, party of 4-5 adventurers?? (Rolls eyes in disbelief)

lawrencehoy

Feb 24, 2015 21:56:47

Adventures are, once again, being designed with the overall story in mind; not, necessarily, with the character:enemy balance in mind. This has been a stated goal from the beginning (or, at least for some time now).

I have always designed my adventures this way; not every encounter is going to be balanced for a specific party level, the encounters will be consistant with the story arc.

(Reply to #7)

AaronOfBarbaria

CCS wrote:

(Reply to #7)

DaveDash

CCS wrote:

#11

Istbor

Feb 25, 2015 9:38:38

iserith wrote:

#12

iserith

Feb 25, 2015 11:19:10

Istbor wrote:

#13

MrHotter

Feb 25, 2015 12:18:25

If played to their full extent the goblins could be very deadly. The adventure says that two of the goblins will rush in to attack while the others shoot their bows, so that does help some. If the DMs use the terrain and the goblins abilities to their fullest this encounter could be very rough.

Personally I don't think this is the best encounter to get new players used to the game. It pretty much sets them up to be ambushed before they even know what their character can do.

I made sure to drop hints that something was not right in order to get the players to think about not walking up to the dead horses to have a look. That gives new players a chance to figure out what they can do with survival, perception, and investigation.

#14

Tony_Vargas

Feb 25, 2015 13:07:10

Clutchbone wrote:

#15

Istbor

Feb 25, 2015 13:12:14

I think a dead horse feathered with arrows should be able to speak for itself on possible danger.

I am not opposed to the idea of that first encounter though. I feel the idea of not knowing what you can do against an ambushing enemy when you are just beginning your career as an adventurer is pretty spot on. That is what it would feel like if you were your characters, panicked and unsure.

That level of immersion would probably not intended when written, but I do not balk from making things hard on my players.

#16

Zardnaar

Feb 25, 2015 13:14:22

Tony_Vargas wrote:

#17

Coredump00

Feb 25, 2015 13:31:07

The benefit of an 'ambush' or approaching a town under attack is it simplifies things for new players, BAM! they are in the middle of the action with a clear path to take. And it does a decent job of building the excitement level.

Might be better if it wasn't quite so deadly.... but its hard not to against 1st level PCs

#18

Zardnaar

Feb 25, 2015 13:49:48

We found the encounter easy but everyone was trained in perception and we had 2 spell casters with 4 sleep spells between them so the Goblin lair was easy and they ambushed Klarg.

(Reply to #10)

CCS

DaveDash wrote:

(Reply to #19)

DaveDash

CCS wrote:

#21

Noon

Feb 27, 2015 2:59:35

I think it shows an adventure aught to have two options, not just one "There's some dead horses!"

Players tend to think having their PC walk away/around is failing to play the game. And with railroady DM's, by their social contract, it actually is.

But the ultimate point is to have a deadly encounter being based on player choice as to whether to engage it. When a DM/module forces PC's into a deadly encounter, you'll find it's yawn inducing stuff in group after group (at best!)

(Reply to #20)

CCS

[quote="DaveDash"]

If you were four PC's playing goblins vs the DM's four 1st level characters, you'd probably kill them all. You'd all spread out, all use bows, stand back at least 60ft, shoot the mage first, another ready an action to shoot him every time he stands up again (while the other three focus fire the Cleric), and using your bonus to hide you'd probably be able to take the group out reasonably easily.

And I'm sure the same tricks & more can be used by the party. Wich exact tricks will vary based upon the characters rolled up & the creativity of the players...... But the parties not helpless, & stealth/surprise/hiding isn't guaranteed.

(Reply to #20)

CCS

DaveDash wrote:

(Reply to #22)

MrHotter

[quote="CCS"]

DaveDash wrote:

#25

Noon

Feb 27, 2015 15:35:10

It just occured to me, the cycle would be a PC using his action to find a goblin but do nothing else, the goblin attacks and then just hides again (assuming rich cover opportunities). Unless you assume the PC's have a hive mind and capacity to point out to everyone else exactly where the goblin is.

#26

arderkrag

Feb 28, 2015 9:20:07

LMoP & HotDQ: Too "Deadly"?

#27

Wuzzard

Feb 28, 2015 19:34:15

Any encounter can be deadly if the DM is trying to win, and uses every advantage available.

#28

Noon

Feb 28, 2015 22:55:55

Cue someone complaining about use of the word 'win'. Just predicting...

#29

arnwolf666

Mar 01, 2015 1:11:32

possible SPOILERS

We had alot and I mean alot of fun with HotDQ. At one point we were impersonating the Black Dragon Cultists, and at another time White Dragon Cultists. We had alot of intrique and fun when we played it. The encounters were not too tough with a few exceptions, the White Dragon was tough, and we made an ally of the Cloud Giant. Looking forward to Rise of Tiamat. We helped the Lizardfolk overthrow the Bullywugs, lots of good NPC interaction. We just had a real good time.

(Reply to #27)

DaveDash

Wuzzard wrote:

#31

Rhenny

Mar 01, 2015 5:26:54

Tough encounters teach players to think outside the box and look for non-combat solutions. I'm all for it. Stealth, gaining surprise, deception, diplomacy, etc. are worth more when it is clear that fights are dangerous.

Like others have mentioned, I enjoy DMing and playing in worlds where encounters are developed because they fit the story and the world rather than Dming and playing in a world where miraculously every encounter is at level. Additionally, I find it more exciting (both as DM and player) when outcomes are not guaranteed.

#32

Beldak_Serpenthelm

Mar 01, 2015 9:49:53

DaveDash wrote:

#33

RCanine

Mar 01, 2015 9:51:40

Tony_Vargas wrote:

#34

Noon

Mar 01, 2015 17:20:11

Beldak_Serpenthelm wrote: