|
3 years ago ::
Jan 15, 2010 - 1:04AM
#261
|
Date Joined:
Oct 19, 2008
|
I've given DK crap about his fights before, and while I may not be particularly fond of the way he constructs some combats, I'll still thank him for doing it and writing the mods for us to play (thanks Dkay, you evil deathtrap writing monster, keep writing because I want to keep playing). I think he may take the criticism a bit to personal sometimes, but that's just human nature so I can't fault him for defending his babies  So the point, well none really. I've never actually been killed in an LFR game but I've come close with a nat 20 on the third death save, and I've only come close to killing a player 5 or 6 times. I've been present for at least 20 or so deaths of other players characters. I just looked at my logs and see that I've played 187 adventures, 3 of those being scepter tower, no idea how many I've run, just lots. I think the difficulty is acceptable, I think as people have said though more damage less "control" would be a good thing and would make the tension higher. Being hit for peanuts while stunned doesn't make me tense, it makes me annoyed that I have to wait forever for my turn to come, being hit for 1/3 of my hp per hit makes me tense.
Blah blah blah
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Jan 15, 2010 - 5:18AM
#262
|
Date Joined:
Mar 19, 2009
|
While I really would rather have another root canal than play Spec1-3 P1 again, I can see that could be seen as ad-hominem. I do not know DKay and did not intend any insult to him, personally. Since I did, I apologize for the phrasing but not the content of my post.
I am not whining about a Special being too hard; I thought the combats were poorly designed. I have played it one time and have seen it run three times. Of those four times, there was a TPK in the second encouter three times, including mine. The successful party had heavy radient damage and played before their characters got nerfed in the November and December updates. The dead parties did their best with what they had, but the combat enounter did not offer enough ways to succeed beyond bringing the "right" characters.
Given the variety of possible character builds, player experience, and party make up, I see that making a combat encounter interesting and challenging is difficult. The more difficult Paragon combats are not very interesting.
* They are easy if you have the right party mix and a TPK if you do not.
* The swing from initiative is too extreme. Often, winning initiative scales the encounter down to be similar to having one fewer player at the table. Losing initiative is severly punished, with one or two characters down or the whole party bloodied and controlled.
* They have conditions to make characters ineffective in ways that players cannot use tactics to counter or compensate
For Paragon module design, I am for increased difficulty as long as it keeps the combats interesting. These are some guidelines for interesting paragon encounters; I am not experienced enough in encounter writing to know how to implement them.
In a combat encounter that is designed to be challenging:
* Winning initiative should be de-emphasized
There should still be a benefit and penalty but it should not be as extreme. A winning party should get favorable positioning and some damage on the enemies but not, effectively, a scaled-down fight. A losing party be in an unfavorable postion and (pick one) controlled, bloodied, or one character down.
* Character build choices and optimization should be de-emphasized
The combat should be difficult for a balanced party of experienced players with good but not highly-optimized build. A TPK should be "earned" through player mistakes and/or bad rolls. If played well, the majority of parties should be successful, with a few having a cakewalk because of a good fit. No balanced party should be "born to lose" an encounter.
* Players should be kept involved, even if their character is ineffective
A player whose character has been rendered ineffective by the encounter design should be given something else to do. The encounter should allow a way for the character to overcome the impediment or an alternate way to aid the party.
* Controls that take away all of a player's turn should be used sparingly
This includes Stuns, Dominates, and Daze/Prone combinations. A player cannot have fun if they consistently cannot be more than a punching bag. Stunlock is a valid tactic, but no fun for the player.
Snap out of it cards are a problem -- perhaps a Daze with an aftereffect of damage or some other control if the daze ends before the attacker's next turn.
* Combat should be more like a chess game, less like a puzzle with a single correct solution
The encounter should offer multiple valid tactics for success, not just one optimal solution. This is especially true if the optimal solution depends on abilities that the party might not have even though the party is balanced.
* Resolution should happen quickly
At-Wil-only rounds should be limited, perhaps no more than three. At this point, the character's have exhausted their interesting options and the combat is down to a grind. If combat is not resolved by the time it becomes a grind, the module should offer ways for it to end.
This post is already in TL;DR territory but I wanted to get my focus back to the thread's topic.
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Jan 15, 2010 - 5:36AM
#263
|
|
|
The poll asks that you be logged in--is that separate from the general WotC login? Because it looks to me like I am logged in.
Most strange, indeed. I've changed the poll and it should not require anyone to be logged in.
The new paragon poll doesn't require you to be logged in, but it appears that you need to be logged in to vote in the general LFR difficulty poll.
Lori Anderson
WotC Freelancer, LFR author
@LittleLorika
CALI3-3 The Agony of Almraiven (co-author)
NETH4-1 Containing Shadow (co-author)
CALI4-1 Plain of Stone Spiders (author)
QUES4-1 Liberation (co-author)
EPIC5-1 Plaguewrought Prism (co-author)
ADCP5-2 The Best Defense (co-author)
EPIC5-3 *Untitled* (co-author)
TotalCon: http://www.totalcon.com/RolePlaying.html
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Jan 15, 2010 - 5:54AM
#264
|
Date Joined:
Aug 24, 2007
|
In a combat encounter that is designed to be challenging:
While those are good points in theory, I wonder how you intend for those to be implemented in practice. The way the game works emphasises your build primarily, your dice rolls as a second, and in-game tactics only as third. So how exactly would you like for an encounter to de-emphasise build choices?
Oh and for the record, I enjoyed SPEC1-3-P1.
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Jan 15, 2010 - 6:04AM
#265
|
|
|
While I really would rather have another root canal than play Spec1-3 P1 again, I can see that could be seen as ad-hominem. I do not know DKay and did not intend any insult to him, personally. Since I did, I apologize for the phrasing but not the content of my post... SNIP
I appreciate the kind words from those of you who enjoyed some of my work, and I even appreciate the not-so-kind words from others (believe it or not). Teos, what's your sister's number? Maybe I'll give her a call sometime. To get things off of the personal level...
I and many authors are always trying to do something new and innovative with our encounters. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. Oftentimes, I would rather try something new and have it not work than do something that's been done so many times before. As authors, most of us are trying to create new and interesting experiences for the player base. Yes, I try to write content on the more challenging side of the spectrum, because from my perspective, complaints of "too hard" are usually more well-received than "too easy." Getting something to be "just right" depends too much on party make-up, table variation, the DM, etc. I'd go as far as to say that there is no such thing as a combat that is "just right" for every table.
Through experiences, we authors have learned a lot about what generates fun at the table, and what de-evolves into a grind. Via email and chat, we've discussed many of the same issues (this includes Pieter, Shawn, Teos, and others). A few aspects of SPEC1-3 P1 generated some complaints, but overall, the module generated much more positive feedback. Both I and my reviewers learned a lot about what goes over well, and what doesn't. Remember that with any adventure, your mileage may vary. Ixnay makes a lot of good points about this - these are all lessons that we have learned. Keep in mind, however, that it takes some time for those lessons learned to appear in the modules you play. SPEC1-3 was released in August last year, meaning it was written well before then. Give the new adventures a chance.
The admins are always looking for "new blood" (Pieter's words). If you think you have some great ideas and are interested in writing, please don't hesitate to reach out and see what you can do. Write a proposal, offer to write an existing proposal, etc. Just know that it's a lot more work than it seems. I'll be happy to offer help or advice to ANY new authors that want to try their hand at writing - whether you've slammed my work or enjoyed it.
Dave Kay
LFR Writing Director Retiree
dkay807 [at] yahoo [dot] com
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Jan 15, 2010 - 10:54AM
#266
|
Date Joined:
Mar 16, 2006
|
The bone naga is a good example not of a creature that is too powerful, but one that is horrible. It autodazes all around it, it's annoying, its damage output is negligible, and it just promotes grind.
I fear I'm begining to sound like a broken record as regards party composition, but it would seem that this is statiment is only true only for an all melee party. In the parties I play with, wouldn't you just send in a defender or two, lock it down, and then have your other players kill it from 4 squares away? Even if all they have is basic range attacks, I'd see this as being a very fast encounter -- if they're not using powers they can all attack and resolve damage at once. A bow ranger or a ranged cleric should finish it off really fast.
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Jan 15, 2010 - 11:07AM
#267
|
Date Joined:
Jan 26, 2005
|
lock it down
...You're dazed. Bone Naga simply moves around the defender and then attacks whoever the heck it wants to.
Not to mention that, while rolling a whole bunch of ranged basics or at-wills at once might be fast, it's also incredibly boring and not something I'd like to play.
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Jan 15, 2010 - 11:16AM
#268
|
Date Joined:
Apr 25, 2002
|
The bone naga is a good example not of a creature that is too powerful, but one that is horrible. It autodazes all around it, it's annoying, its damage output is negligible, and it just promotes grind.
I fear I'm begining to sound like a broken record as regards party composition, but it would seem that this is statiment is only true only for an all melee party. In the parties I play with, wouldn't you just send in a defender or two, lock it down, and then have your other players kill it from 4 squares away?
And then the following happens:
Bone Naga dazes the Defenders with its attack, moves around them to a point where it is 2 squares away from the Defender and next to the ranged attackers. The Ranged attackers are then autodazed and can't attack without taking opportunity attacks and the dazed Defender can't charge.
It gets a lot worse if there's a bone floor and the Naga burrows up with surprise.
NETH4-1 Containing Shadow (co-author) Handbooks
Show
Builds
Show
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Jan 15, 2010 - 11:27AM
#269
|
Date Joined:
Mar 16, 2006
|
lock it down
...You're dazed. Bone Naga simply moves around the defender and then attacks whoever the heck it wants to.
Not to mention that, while rolling a whole bunch of ranged basics or at-wills at once might be fast, it's also incredibly boring and not something I'd like to play.
You do need some imagination to lock it down -- cannot depend on OAs. Anything that knocks it prone or slows or immobilizes it should be fine (shield bash, dizzying blow, etc.). You could even grab it. Of course, some defenders such as wardens have less trouble slowing it down (and can save at the top of their turns -- wardens will havbe no problems locking it down). Anyhoo, I haven't had issues with people getting bored in 5 minutes ("everyone roll to hit AC 32. Tell me all the damage you do ... OK, it evades the fighter and charges the bard for 24 point damage. Your turn" ... doesn't really take that long), but I guess if you forced everyone to go in order it might be a pain. I'd suggest not doing that. As was pointed out, its not doing much damage, and has no possible other tactic than daze and bite, so you can run the combat really, really fast if you want to.
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Jan 15, 2010 - 11:41AM
#270
|
- Senior Volunteer Community Lead
Date Joined:
Aug 19, 2007
|
Your reply sounds like it's solo - so either you let it daze everyone for the combat while you dealt with the other four guys with it, or it's really not as easy to do the things you want.
Stuff like dazed defenders having to trigger opportunity attacks from Abyssal Ghouls, Ghoul Eyebiters, Sword Wraiths, and Bodak Reavers in order to get up to the bone naga in the first place. Those being some decent creatures for synergy with the Bone Naga mechanically and thematically appropriate.
Like I said, though, it's not like it's tremendously hard. It's just bloody annoying and a good example of one selection to suck the fun out of a fight. Which is why I'm mentioning it here, before I run into a dozen of them as P2 and P3 module writers go 'Ooh, this looks fun'. Those same writers can put the sword wraith on the same list. The wraith wasn't fun at low level. This guy's the same thing, but higher level, and still not fun. Yay.
Keith Richmond
Living Forgotten Realms Epic Writing Director
|
|
|
