Community

Dec 20, 2009 -- 8:10AM, Cailte wrote:

Controllers are not just about bursts. To some extent the job of controllers is to stop the monsters bunching up - this lets the PCs single out 1 monster and eliminate it better.

The problem with many of the suggestions for making Strikers weaker is they make the combats much worse for parties that lack a striker. Strikers are about a lot of damage to a single target - people (and I mean authors) have complained about strikers being able to kill a standard monster in a round. That is a design feature of the game, it is one of the reasons to play a striker.

...

Trying to make it happen every module is a problem.

I didn't suggest that it is the only thing controllers do, but it is a part of their powers. So in using tactics against that piece of them I would be deliberately doing things to counter their abilities. Something that you say shouldn't happen in every module and something that I believe (tactics) should happen in every mod. Either by the author or by the DM. By not using proper tactics, the combats in mods will all devolve (IMO) into stand-up-hack-and-slash-until-something-falls-over combats.

I believe this applies to strikers (find some way to reduce the ability to do damage (if possible), to Defenders (some way to make it hard for them to stop defending, or Leaders (kill them so they can't heal). It just happens that -this- discussion started because of the striker damage being called out. And let's face it, a defender is rarely going to break a mod. Or if it happens often, I at least haven't seen it. (where break == making it a joke in terms of either difficulty or ending fights before they start).

As a general approach, trying to marginalise specific roles/powers/abilities or whatever is a bad thing.

We're not talking about marginalizing them. We're talking tactics. Whether you like it or not, D&D has become a tactical game, and it behooves authors and DMs to find new tactics in order to make things interesting. Otherwise, why play? If you just want to roll dice and do damage, you don't need the DM.

I know and some of them are contrived and those mods are better for the contrivence being DMed away.

Perhaps, in some cases. But if you are, you may well be breaking the author's intent and simply excacerbating one of the problems we're been discussing. Namely the feeling by some folks (players, DMs and authors) that they can't challenge the PCs. On the one hand you're suggesting that authors should be taking into account ER and planning for them in the modules, BUT if they didn't and they didn't intend for an ER, when a GM gives the PCs an ER, you're hurting the play experience for that mod by putting an effect into the game that the author didn't intend.

You might also DME the fights to be harder, and that's good, but that's not the mod the author wrote. Maybe that doesn't matter, maybe it does.

First I didn't say they have no effect on combat - I said use them for their story purpose NOT their combat purpose. There is a difference.

Oh and using them for their story purpose AND the effect that will have on combat is pretty much "determining if environment should increase or decrease the difficulty/xp of an encounter".

Using something for its story purpose AND NOT a combat purpose equates with not using it for a combat purpose/effect and thus I feel they should not provide XP. If they are to have both a story purpose AND a combat purpose/effect, then they should 1) have an effect on the combat and 2) should provide XP.

Another option is that minions might be there for purposes of a Skill Challenge. Fine, in which case they can also provide XP.

Either way, however, I feel that minions are far, far over-XP'd by default. And I believe even some of the designers and devs have agreed on this even if they haven't made any changes.

I believe this applies to strikers (find some way to reduce the ability to do damage (if possible), to Defenders (some way to make it hard for them to stop defending, or Leaders (kill them so they can't heal). It just happens that -this- discussion started because of the striker damage being called out. And let's face it, a defender is rarely going to break a mod. Or if it happens often, I at least haven't seen it. (where break == making it a joke in terms of either difficulty or ending fights before they start).

As a general approach, trying to marginalise specific roles/powers/abilities or whatever is a bad thing.

Defenders certainly can wreck a module, but only if there are multiple of them and the players are accustomed to playing together.  Our 'best' group uses 3 Defenders, 2 Warlords, and a ranged striker.

The defenders simply lock everything they can down, the Warlords augment whichever Defender is in the best position to wreak havoc and the ranged striker picks off whatever escaped the lockdown.  Even so, I agree it is a rare instance - DM's are far more likely to run into Nova-strikers then lock down parties, I am just noting that defender parties can wreck mods too.

 

Dec 20, 2009 -- 10:06AM, Elder_basilisk wrote:

Dec 20, 2009 -- 9:21AM, MorganDaemos wrote:

#1:  Monsters (on average) do not do enough damage.  It would be difficult to give a precise math resolution, but my ballpark guess says raise it 20% or so.  Threatened PC's makes for more intense gaming - PC's who end adventures when the leader's still have all of their daily healing powers (which has now happened 4 games straight for my Warlord) would seem to indicate the PC's need to take more damage to make things a bit more interesting.

But keep in mind, that, if this is true, it is only true as an average. It should not be an excuse to find the closest thing to a pre-errata needlefang drakeswarm and then contrive a way to up its damage (tactics: this monster always rolls maximum damage, for instance). There are quite a few monsters that do plenty of damage. Upon playing Spec 1-2 yesterday (apparently I forgot just how bad that mod is--I should have saved myself the experience and just stayed home), the monsters in the first encounter were dropping about one and a half PCs every round. In the second encounter, the primary monster+trap dished out around 30-40 damage every round--maybe missing one PC each if we were lucky.

So there are monsters that dish out more than enough damage. (I will also note that the only time a character was knocked unconscious before he got to act was our rogue in the first fight. So at least some paragon monsters are plenty durable too).

I agree that there are exceptions

Sovereign of the Mines, At the Foot of the Lighthouse, Woolmen's Tomb all pushed are healer's hard enough that they exhausted all of their daily heals - there are some Mods that do not have damage dealing issues, but most of them do.

Dec 20, 2009 -- 11:06AM, Crodocile wrote:

Speaking of the SPECs, I've got to say the campaign has really mixed messages if there's supposed to be a consistent power level.  A party that absolutely destroys AGLA1-6 could easily get their butts handed to them by paragon SPEC1-3.  To have any chance at winning in a few of the SPEC mods you really have to cheese out your character, but then most of the regular mods become a cake walk.  I don't know how to reconcile this disparity.  You can't have an optimized to the point of broken SPEC only character.

This speaks to my idea of adding a third level 'Ultra' to mods - that way the players know what they are getting themselves into.  The highly optimized parties can still be challenged without running things for everyone else.

I have not played a SPEC yet, but am looking forward to playing the one at DnDXP - we have not had a TPK yet, so hopefully those will prove to be a bit more challenging then the normal mods.