AngryPurpleCyclops
First Post
I designed the encounter. You changed it and made it weaker. This is the definition of gimped.
This is the epitome of a straw man argument. I said the encounter was gimped not the creature. putting a fire archon with ice creatures gimps the encounter by decreasing synergies. the encounter was designed to use monster synergies and you'll twist and try and wordsmith your way out admitting that you modified it to the monsters large detriment.According to your logic here, the Ghoul King is gimped as written in the MM because that's how I used it.
Now you're once again being smug and condescending even though you're unable to EVER admit that you're mistaken. You REGULARLY avoid responding to the points that prove you're 100% wrong and a little ridiculous. Did you read page 175 of the DMG? Do you now agree that it is fully part of the game to modify a monsters type, description, etc without changing it's exp value?You really should look up the word gimp. "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means".
No, you're just being obtuse and trying to deflect away from the facts as they are. The encounter was designed around challenging the party via monsters with synergies. This is very common in 4e. You've made ludicrous assertions that monster synergies make the encounters higher exp value yet fail to respond to the points about phalanx soldier and flame step being ALREADY factored into the exp value of a creature. I'm the one that designed the encounter, you used a watered down version and then try to argue that's how it should have been built. The point was to see if epic is too easy... why would you water down the encounter and thus make it more easy unless you're not really interested in challenging pc's just interested in arguing senselessly.
I will. You can. Don't be so sensitive, I just pointed out the facts. If you weren't married to your position on every thread you wouldn't be so defensive. You can't argue with the fact that my design was fair and reasonable and you can't argue with the fact that you made it weaker both in design and in tactics. Seriously, if you always under play your monsters abilities of course epic will be too easy but this is just a byproduct of ineffective dm'ing, not a broken game.
Thanks.
I didn't suggest totally waiting without ever attacking nor did I suggest the ghoul king always flee but if you think attacking the paladin only to be the victim of 4 attacks with CA the next round is "more productive" for the monsters, I feel you're mistaken. The monsters should chose their spots to confront the party on rapidly shifting fronts where the monsters can maximize attacks and the pc's can't.
I think this combat would take under 3 hours with experienced players. Some groups impose a 60 second rule on pc's when choosing actions. Even if you have some slippage on the time constraint some players and monsters will act in 30 seconds and a round should be over in under 10 minutes with 10 combatants. 6 rounds an hour at worst. I'm going to build an encounter and play it with people via fantasy grounds. I think the software takes notes from the chat log so if the players always type in in the targets we should be able to have a roughly readable log.
No you're trying to trade positions with me? LOL. I have always been suggesting that epic was not too easy and that the "grind" was caused by the missing +2 on ATT. Now you're saying that playing the monsters intelligently will cause too much grind so it's better to play them stupidly and let epic be too easy? What actually is your position? Is epic too easy or too grindy? Both? What would fix these things? is the +1 per tier math still wrong? you seem to be shifting from your initial positions.
less fun perhaps but I assure you if the ravager lives for 15 rounds and the archons gang up with 4 attacks on a single pc in a round at times it will not be less threatening.
