A lot of time, though, the game seems like the DM is having fun, or the players are having fun, but not both at once. I'm playing in a game that just hit Epic tier, and I've noticed some odd things. When we first started playing, the DM proved he could kill us at will, and we faced some incredibly dangerous fights. The party had generally laughable defenses, and my Fighter wasn't doing the greatest job tanking.
Seeing my frustration, the DM started to avoid enemies who can effectively ignore or shut down my character, and let me do my job. My fun started to improve.
When we hit level 20, however, I started seeing a potential problem. My defenses had reached the point that normal enemies were having issues hitting my character with any degree of reliability. And on the flipside, my companions were much softer targets. I tried to warn the DM, but he waved me off.
Tonight was our first level 21 encounter, and I could tell that the DM was frustrated. It was a combination of factors, but the one thing he did mention was that my character was a problem. With my generally anemic damage, and stupid defenses, there was really no reason for enemies to waste their time with me.
Except that I routinely throw out strong attack penalties to hit my allies, and use minor control elements to make it very difficult for enemies to attack anyone else- basically, what Defenders are supposed to do. This led the DM to the following impasse.
He could use higher-level monsters, with attacks and defenses. However, if he did, he risked making combats much longer, and any of these monsters that did get past my Fighter would murder any other character.
He could use enemies with mechanics that deny my ability to do much of anything. At which point, I'm definitely not having any fun, and I might as well stay at home!
He could use solos, ironically the type of enemy I'm the least useful against, but then the rest of the party will nova the solo down in short order.
Basically, allowing our characters to function properly makes it very difficult to actually challenge them. Denying them that ability (which seems to be a staple of the game at higher levels) simply turns the game into an exercise in masochism.
And all this is frustrating the DM to no end. It's not that he doesn't know how to attack the party- he does. No one can tell him, however, how to attack the party and not suck all the fun out of the proceedings.
I want to help, but I'm not sure what to do, other than radically redesign my character. Unfortunately, that isn't a simple change- I want to do what's best for the game, but I'm fairly certain changing how my character works will end up forcing other players to make changes to their characters- if, for nothing else, the fact that they're taking less damage.
One of the other players is convinced there isn't a problem, but I could see the DM felt his actions were futile tonight. I know that my character is only part of a larger issue, but I do limit the tactics most can use, so I'm pretty much the "proud nail" in this scenario.
So if anyone can offer advice on how I can help the DM out, I'd be grateful.
I supose you could talk it over with your DM and ask if it's alright with him if you re-build your character, using your original build as a base, but optimizing your character a little better for combat effectiveness. There's a character optimization board or group somewhere in these forums (link) that you should be able to get some help from if you need it; the folks there should, I think, be able to help you fine-tune a character for maximum combat effectiveness, or suggest ways that you can get the most from your current character if it doesn't need much changing. I'm sure that if it makes the DM's job easier and helps to keep things fun and interesting for the other PCs, you shouldn't have much trouble with your DM allowing it, especially if your core character concept stays pretty close to what it was before.
And I'm not really sure what the issue is here. At level 20, you should be fighting beasties with all sorts of nasty effects and abilities. Granted, at any level a defense-optimized defender will be missed more than hit (and set up the issue where the monsters can attack you and miss or attack your allies and kill them), but usually if a defender is optimized for ideal defenses s/he's made sacrifices along the way (punishment for mark violation/number of creatures marked/etc)... a reasonably clever DM will (when running a fight with reasonably clever monsters) realize they can't hit the defender and/or might as well violate mark (because the punishment is low and/or even with the mark penalties the others in the party are easier to hit and/or others in the party are more of a threat and the defender can be ignored)... this doesn't mean instant death for the other PCs (though it does put them in danger), but it does mean you have to play very carefully. It also means the defender has to decide: is it better to be missed 80% of the time (and deal minor damage/effects for violation) or to be missed 60% of the time (and really punish violation)... the first defender will be attacked far less than the second.
I agree with above advice (some retooling may be necessary), and there's some good advice further up about ways to mix up encounter groups, but I'm also curious about what kind of things you're fighting.
Could you give a few examples of things you've faced (either the monsters or maybe just a description of how many and what they did) and how the fights went? Sorry, but I'm struggling to figure out exactly what you've been facing at level 20 that would make a high defense defender kill the fun...
It sounds like maybe the other PCs are the ones, then, who need some guidance with character optimization, or maybe you need to put your heads together to come up with a strategy that exploits your characters' strengths better in more challenging encounters, or the DM could use some help in encounter design... or perhaps it's a good time for your PC to diversify from its Defender optimization a little to round out the party better.
Blazer might be on the right track by asking for more information about what the encounters are looking like, and it might also help to know what the party looks like as well as far as PC Race and Class: it's hard to tell from limited information whether it's a matter of the other PCs being unoptimized or poorly-designed, or if it's a matter of the DM not throwing diverse enough encounters at the party to give everyone involved a proper challenge.
I guess, though, the question is something like: "what sort of monsters are best added to an encounter to challenge a party with a very hard-to-hit Defender, without overwhelming squishier party members?" I wish I could answer that, but I really don't know enough about 4th Edition to provide a meaningful answer....
My character is a Dragonborn Fighter. My defenses are something like 40/43/36/37. I have an encounter stance that gives me a +2 power bonus to defenses, and several situational bonuses (+1 when bloodied, +2 vs. Opportunity Attacks, +2 when I use full defense, +4 when I use an Action Point).
My attack bonus is +29, +34 when I make an opportunity attack. I have Superior Fort/Ref/Will. Instead of Dragonbreath, I took Dragonfear. While it's not the best attack bonus, I still have a +24 vs. Will, so I generally tend to hit.
My general tactic is to get close to as many enemies as I can, then use Dragonfear to Mark all enemies within 10 squares (now that I'm level 21). If I actually hit, I impose an additional -2 penalty and cause the hit enemy to grant CA to me and my allies until the end of my next turn. I can also throw in Glowering Threat for an additonal -5 to attacks against anyone other than myself.
While most of my powers don't do a lot of damage, I have enough dazes/slows/prones/attack penalties that it's not easy for enemies to attack my allies.
In the last session (the one where the DM was frustrated), he'd set up a series of three encounters that we'd fight back-to-back. Only if we completed an encounter quickly would we have a chance to rest. Each fight had two brutes, two skirmishers, and an elite soldier.
In the first encounter, our Invoker blew his Daily, temporarily removing the elite from play. The enemies were grouped close enough that I was able to move in, dragonfear, then use Lunging Dervish (a close burst 2 attack) to slide all the enemies into base with me. As my minor action, I threw out Glowering Threat. Faced by an effective -9 to all attacks for the turn if they ignored me, the enemies stayed put, and I wasn't hit once.
With the enemies so nicely grouped (the DM could have had them move away anyways, and probably should have), the Invoker was able to drop an area burst on the enemies, which slowed them and knocked them prone, if memory serves. I took this opportunity to use my stance to get a +2 power bonus to defenses, and I think I got hit once, taking minor damage.
By the time the elite got out of his prison, everything else was dead, and we'd moved into a good position around it.
The DM gave us our rest, and we moved to the next encounter. I used the same opening as before, but this time, I spent an Action Point to use a Daily that let me hit all the enemies adjacent to me, slide them 2 squares, and knock them prone. This time, the DM decided to have the enemies stand up and charge the other party members, but thanks to the attack penalties, they missed anyways.
While our off-tank continued to annoy the adds, I moved next to the elite. The DM decided to have the soldier try to shift away, thinking my punishment wasn't that great, but he'd forgotten about the Takedown Strike from my theme (he recently allowed themes into the game, and I hadn't really shown this power off much). So he tried to shift away, and got knocked prone for his trouble. Rather than stand, he tried to hit me from prone. He missed, and then the rogue murdered him.
At this point, the DM said we wouldn't have time for a rest, so we moved onto the third fight. We were still in good shape, thanks to our shaman. I won initiative, so I just double moved into the thick of the enemies. Some got OA's, but I think I took ~30 damage, which the shaman erased in short order. I ended my turn with Glowering Threat and said done. After the last fight, the DM just sighed and had all the enemies flank me, with intent to kill. He got in a crit, but having reached a milestone, I reduced the damage by 10 with my stone band, and then my razorscale armor kicked in, dealing ~30 damage to the guy who crit me. As I recall, it was one of the skirmishers, who didn't hit very hard to begin with, so I ended up doing more damage to him with my armor than he did to me.
As the fight ended, a solo entered the fray. We'd known this was a possibility from the get-go, so it wasn't too bad. I used Dragonfear, crit (it doesn't do damage, but this guaranteed me CA), and hit my Adaptible Maneuver Daily. The Invoker had just used an AP, which granted a +7 to hit the solo (I don't know exactly what his Paragon Path is, that allows this, fyi). So with a +38 to hit, I hit with both attacks, and delivered a -4 penalty to attacks (save ends) to the guy.
At -6 to hit me, and -8 to hit anyone else, I took the brunt of his barrage. I still got hit, but the shaman used an immediate to reduce the damage and give me temps. He made his save, as expected, but then the rogue, of all people, hit him with a daily that immobilized him. This Daily requires the rogue to stay adjacent to the enemy or the immobilize wears off.
I dazed the solo on my turn, so he turned to hit the rogue, who responded with his Bad Idea, Friend power, turning the hit into a miss (and getting an axe to the back for his trouble as well). This bloodied the solo. In frustration, the solo turned his attention to me, with an action point attack that let him attack me three times. One for three, and the fight was soon over.
I'm not the only problem in this scenario, of course. In addition to my "melee controller with high AC", we have a shaman who heals the instant someone gets so much as a papercut. Since his heals are generally surgeless and grant temp hit points on top of them, I haven't been bloodied in a good long while. It's difficult to make us run out of resources as an additional consequence.
Where is the "I'm trying to do my job but the enemies are trying to keep from doing it"? That's where the real fun is. You don't need monsters that negate your abilities. You need the ones that have abilities that are hard to deal with, but not impossible.
Also it might be an issue that your DM is using either old math monsters or just too weak ones. A crit at that level should be at least 40 to 50 damage. Or he's just using monsters that aren't nearly as optimised as the lot of you. Or that are playing right into your plans, since you sound like you're mostly using the same tricks every time.
Sounds like the monsters should be further apart, with more Lurkers mixed in to hammer on the squishy characters, less surrounding characters so they're suspectible to area attacks, Leaders on the monster side to get rid off effects and grant buffs, etc.
That and the DM has a fondness for Final Fantasy-esque "boss battles", with big solos. Something I'm not all that good at fighting, since a lot of my powers multi-target.
The reason that the monsters weren't doing much damage was apparently that they were designed to make several attacks. The individual strikes did less damage than a standard monster hit, but if you get hit more than once, it really hurts. My defenses really did a number on that strategy.
Thinking about it though, I put a lot of effort into trying to shore up my weaknesses, and try to do more in the fights that really prevented me from performing my role, while at the same time, the DM tried to make more fights that let me shine, with multiple enemies that I could grab and try to "tank". So that's probably an issue there, as well.
That being said, even with your high defenses (and penalties to attack allies) enemies at your level have multi-target attacks and good to-hit bonuses. It sounds like part of the Need To Make Things More Challenging problem could be solved by your DM with a couple of tweaks, including (but not limited to):
-monsters that fight unfairly (flying around bombarding, using lurker abilities, etc)
-beefing up solo fights (a "solo" monster should really be a "main" monster, that is, a single nasty "boss" type supplemented with a few friends... a DM who throws a single monster at an epic level party is basically giving the fight away)
-using tricky monsters (including monsters with abilities to become "unmarked," teleporters, etc)
-using tricky terrain (traps of which the baddies are aware and which they can use to their advantage, terrain that is a danger to the party but to which the baddies are immune, etc)
-planning fights out beforehand (works best with intelligent monsters/badguys _ not necessarily deciding what will happen, but at least saying "OK, my two brutes will rush forward here where the room narrows and they can cut the room in half, freeing up my flyer to soar around and pick at the leader/rogue, and my archers can stay well back, a good 15 squares away so they can avoid marks... maybe a couple of minions on balconies who try to hide and, if successful, dump some hot oil at the right moment, and when the brutes fall the archers can run away, secure in the hope that the pit trap they were hiding behind will delay the party long enough for them to get reinforcements...")
So have a chat with your DM. Tell (him? her?) you've noticed DM's frustration, and that while you're proud that the party is a well-oiled machine, you do share the desire for encounters to be challenging. Share a few of the tips from this board and/or refer DM to this board. And bear in mind the fact that well-played epic level parties can be hard to challenge... pulling monsters out of the manuals and chucking them in a room with the party isn't nearly as effective against a solid 20th level team as it is against a team of 5th or even 15th level.
It seems like it's a problem that's well-known enough for more than one person to have pointed it out, and so I'm sure that multiple home-brew solutions have been made to try to solve the problem.
The original poster might be interested in checking out a series of articles written by The Angry DM on that subject, with a proposed fix that aims to do exactly what the OP's DM seems to be wanting:
I have found, both in playing and DMing (the Encounter building side) that fights that use alot of lower level artillery can create havoc for a group. I also like to use waves in the same encounter (ie, group 1 rushes in, gets all the crazy effects the PCs can throw, then wave 2 of level 1 minion artillery, or a couple of stealthy Lurkers pop out of hiding and shank the REMFs once the battle lines are formed.)
You get to tank the brutes and the like, and your group gets to pick off the artillery, or deal with the skirmishers that get around you, or the Lurkers that ambush them.
Another idea is that while it stinks to be ALWAYS immobilized, dazed, what-have-you as a Defender, sometimes it IS a good way for the DM to challenge the rest of the group. Those fights are a slog for you, but if it makes your DM happy, you can suck it up once in a while, right?
Also, a final thought... is your DM using the new damage/accuracy expressions from DMG2? I found that the increases to monster to-hit really helped me at least HIT the Defender more often, though a defender is by nature going to be hard to hit.
tell your DM to try these sample encounters (assuming level 21 characters - if level 20, lower all levels by 1)
Level 21 solo brute + 2 level 21 lurkers (level 22-23 fight)
the brute occupies you, and the lurkers delay (hidden) until they can get around the armored fighter and engage ONE other character together. If you ignore the brute to get the lurkers, the brute can carve someone up, and if you ignore the lurkers, the rest of the party has to deal with them, which shouldn't be deadly, but should be challenging.
3 level 21 soldiers, 2 level 21 artillery
this is a standard fight where 2 soldiers lock you down in combat with them....you get to do your job occupying two guys, they get to keep you off the artillery. The artillery focus fire on one person, and the remaining soldier runs around and attempts to prevent your strikers from focus firing.
1 level 20 solo controller, 2 level 20 artillery, 1 level 21 skirmisher, 5 level 21 brute minions (level 22-23 fight)
The tactics here are easy. Each monster does his own tactics....there are just too many for you to lock up all at once. The solo controller is the big hitpoint sack that can often target you AND some allies in blast powers. The artillery focus one person, keeping the healer using resources, the skirmisher weaves in and out providing flanks or aiding the minions/artillery, and the minions get in hits anywhere they can while staying spread out.
notice each fight plans for you. Not to remove you from the fight, but to challenge you. Every fight allows you to do your job and lock up more than your xp amount worth of enemies, but leaves a dangerous combo of at least 2 standard monsters who focus fire on a squishier target. Creative power use might allow you to occupy an extra monster or two, but big, wide open encounter areas with VASTLY spread out monsters and some limited cover is definitely the order of the day to challenge without killing (or monsters behind doors that enter the fight round 2/3)
In this environment, the Shaman's spirit and the Ranger's dog companion were able to serve as a virtual replacement for an actual Defender, and it wasn't as important for the players to make sure their attack bonuses or defenses were up to par.
Initially, it took awhile before my character really hit his stride in the game. The DM would use skirmisher and soldier enemies who A) were hard to pin down, or B) didn't really care if they were stuck in one spot. I went through several revisions of my original build, as I slowly tried to adapt to the encounters that were being presented. The DM has a love of Final Fantasy-esque "boss battles" (which I think I mentioned previously)- these fights tend to be more scripted, and the abilities of the various monsters are simply designed to "just happen" when appropriate. Previously, that hadn't been as much of an issue, but I quickly became the "sand in the gears", as it were.
For example, we were fighting a clockwork boss that had several components. Parts of it could move away from the boss, temporarily becoming independent enemies, which it would then retract periodically to perform a special attack.
When I started locking down the "bits", keeping them from moving back, the DM realized that, while he could continue the encounter as planned, doing so was unfairly ignoring my abilities. About this time, we added an Invoker. While there were some rough patches with that character initially (he had this annoying tendency to push enemies I had marked away from me), he slowly hit upon a combination of abilties that would help keep enemies from eluding my Fighter.
So the actual issue is threefold.
1) I've become very good at grabbing enemy attention, and, by necessity, I've used a lot more resources increasing my defenses than any other party member.
2) The Invoker is able to corral enemies around me, which helps him out when he starts laying out ally-friendly area attacks.
3) The Shaman has gone from having to worry about healing an entire party to only having to really keep an eye on myself and the Rogue. Thus, even during extended battles without rest, he's not likely to run out of healing.
There proved to be no simple solution either- any attempt to increase damage and accuracy resulted in the Rogue getting murdered unless he stayed a lot closer to me than suited his fighting style. While our last session went surprisingly well, the DM admitted that he had to put a lot more thought into it, and the game is currently on hiatus while he plots out the next chapter.
Since we do have a break, and I'm separated from the party at the moment, I've considered telling the DM that I want to rebuild my character as more of a Striker during this opportunity, in the hopes that it will let him run the game he wants to.
For example they all play unaligned, I mean as unaligned as can be, not giving two effs about anything. A good character sees a village under siege by undead and go's to save the towns people.
An evil character sees a town besieged by undead and go's to see how they can profit from it.
My players see a town besieged by undead and go..eh, who cares.
Makes building adventures hard...the logical step is to build from thier backgrounds ..except they don't make any, they roleplay but they never make a background or history, so yeah I have nothing to work with.
Oh did I mention every new campaign they almost always pick the same race, class and personality?
So if I want to run a themed campaign of some kind, I would have to restrict some of the stuff they normally choose so I wont do it. So even in a new campaign I have to build adventures for the same unaligned backgroundless characters.
Sigh...love them, they are my friends and they play and roleplay pretty well. But sometimes I'd like to smack them.
You are a good guy Metafictional, I don't think you should have to change like that, but its awesome that your willing too.
Metafictional, I want to express agreement with this on both counts:
1) You shouldn't have to change your character
2) Volunteering to do so is a seriously classy move. Particularly if it's a change away from something that you strongly prefer to play.
Now the DM ought to be able to adapt better... but for one reason or another he can't, doesn't know how, or won't. Come to think of it, in an ideal world he wouldn't have to change then game either.
Here's another idea. I take it you play defender a lot, and are really comfortable with it?
Ask the DM for permission to bring in a temporary character - that is anything BUT a defender. With it stated up front that this character might get a letter from home and have to go away suddenly. Then build a non-defender character you think would be fun, and give it a try. If you don't like it, a messenger shows up in town looking for you...
My players don't grasp that I am supposed to have fun too, and its not like i'm restrictive, they just wont play ball with a lot of things.
Makes building adventures hard...the logical step is to build from thier backgrounds ..except they don't make any, they roleplay but they never make a background or history, so yeah I have nothing to work with.
Oh did I mention every new campaign they almost always pick the same race, class and personality?
GamingGorman, for this I suggest that at the start of your next campaign, you identify each' player's stock class, race, and personality and tell them they each have to play a character that is different from their stock in at least one of those three ways.
(I did that once to one player, after the umpteenth character that was an embittered loner estranged rebel victim of parental abuse in an impoverished household. I told him his character would be male and on good terms with his family, particularly his father who is among the country's political leaders. The player accepted it, and did a pretty good job of playing the character.)
Then start the campaign something like this:
You're traveling down the road together. Why are you together? How long have you been together? Why are you going this direction on this road?
It's getting toward nightfall. There's a good-sized gypsy camp alongside the road, and the gypsies invite you to share their campfire. (The gypsies are good-hearted but not overly trusting; they won't attack or rob the party unprovoked, and provoking them is an obviously bad idea.) As you are eating, a couple of the gypsies tell stories about their past adventures: the first is a tale of a trip through SomeInterestingLand where they met a dragon and adopted it into their clan; the second a comedy of mistaken identities in the capitol of NextKingdomOver that draws hoots of laughter and snorts of disbelief even from the alleged participants. In fact some of you recognize that it's based on the script of a popular play. Then the gypsy chief looks at you and says "And I think perhaps you have some stories too?" and you realize that this is how you are expected to pay for the food you're eating.
(You're trying to get the players to provide the bare bones of a history, particularly for themselves but also for the world. "Smaur tells about the time he and Glorfin hid a frog beneath the seatcushion of the throne of Rinfel" will do. You can flesh it out if necessary. However if one suddenly discovers the talent and will to lay out a four-course feast of a history, let him! You will still get to doctor it as needed, since he's telling the story for campfire entertainment. Simplification and exaggeration - or even plain making stuff up - is not only accepted, but expected.)
(The camp will be attacked by - something - in the morning, for the combat-happy players. Apply plot-hooks as you see fit.)
Being straight up;
The DM's job is to challenge the party. And for that, he has to look at the group as a whole. With that being said, he should throw a CR at the party that will challenge. If that means then that a player (even if it's the fighter) dies and (worst case senerio) along with him the rest of the party; then so be it.
I'm not trying to be (or sound) mean. But stuff happens.
One of the hardest things I've had to watch DM's learn is that it's ok for bad stuff to happen. As bad as the moment may be when it does, it makes the game that much better. The players get to really enjoy when they win a battle, and you can't enjoy that if there's no possibility of loss.
As a player there's really nothing you can do. But if I was talking to that DM I'd tell him; "Hey. Put them up against a CR that will be a good challenge for them." If they win, great. If not, then, it happens. As long as the CR is a beatable CR and not over-powered, then it falls on the party to beat it.
Win, lose, or draw; it will all turn out ok in the end.
Hope this helps.
- NEMIS