D&D 4E Turns out my DM cannot into 4e.

In previous threads, I was discussing flaws that I had perceived with 4e, especially regarding attack values and hit points. From my own experiences, it seemed that the math was weighted in such a way that everyone was almost always hitting, slowly plinking away at a vast pool of hit points. Well, after a particularly egregious near-TPK last night in which the party fought a group of spiders and my warpriest of Pelor--you know, that guy who tosses out saving throws and heals like candy--couldn't keep up with the constant poison damage, I decided to look up the monsters used. The most heinous offender was this ridiculous swarm of spiders. It got free attacks if you started your turn next to it, and it did something like 2d6 + 5 damage and 5 ongoing poison damage. It also had a ridiculous 19 or 20 Reflex, something that made it difficult for even the rogue to hit, and it had the half damage resistance for non-area attacks.

Upon scanning the Monster Manual, I realized the DM had put a party full of level 2 characters against an encounter that included a level 7 soldier. Bloodweb spider swarm or something, and it had a +10 vs. Reflex attack.

We're level 2. The highest Reflex in the party is around 15. I'm sure the encounter was within the XP guidelines, but there's no way we can fight a monster with a +5 bonus to its attacks and defenses.

I suppose my complaints with the system can be dismissed until I actually play the system properly.

B.T. said:

In previous threads, I was discussing flaws that I had perceived with 4e, especially regarding attack values and hit points. From my own experiences, it seemed that the math was weighted in such a way that everyone was almost always hitting, slowly plinking away at a vast pool of hit points.

Click to expand...

The Monster Math was fixed with the Monster Manual 3 and onward. Unfortunately, the DM was using the MM1.

Well, after a particularly egregious near-TPK last night in which the party fought a group of spiders and my warpriest of Pelor--you know, that guy who tosses out saving throws and heals like candy--couldn't keep up with the constant poison damage, I decided to look up the monsters used. The most heinous offender was this ridiculous swarm of spiders. It got free attacks if you started your turn next to it, and it did something like 2d6 + 5 damage and 5 ongoing poison damage. It also had a ridiculous 19 or 20 Reflex, something that made it difficult for even the rogue to hit, and it had the half damage resistance for non-area attacks.

Click to expand...

Since you weren't just attacking its Reflex, I don't know why you focused on that, but yes, you ran into a real problem, which I'll address in a moment...

Upon scanning the Monster Manual, I realized the DM had put a party full of level 2 characters against an encounter that included a level 7 soldier. Bloodweb spider swarm or something, and it had a +10 vs. Reflex attack.

We're level 2. The highest Reflex in the party is around 15. I'm sure the encounter was within the XP guidelines, but there's no way we can fight a monster with a +5 bonus to its attacks and defenses.

I suppose my complaints with the system can be dismissed until I actually play the system properly.

Click to expand...

I've run 4e a lot, and I ran into the exact same problems right at the beginning. The problem isn't the system, although some of the early adventures exacerbated the problem.

The problem is using higher-level monsters. Keep on the Shadowfell has a deserved reputation for being a bad adventure. The final boss is 4 levels higher than the PCs, and because he's an elite, his defenses were all increased by 2. No one could hit him. Also, he's boring

The DM made the mistake of using higher-level monsters. DMs shouldn't use monsters more than maybe 2 levels higher than the PCs. (MM3 and onward, they get no defense boosts for being elites.) For a challenging encounter, use more monsters. Two solos of the party's level is a level +4 encounter (assuming a party of 5, so double the usual XP budget) and can result in a TPK, but at least they won't hit all the time and the PCs won't miss all the time. The PCs might even be able to escape

I got to play a bit of 4e before the DM bowed out, and he ran an old adventure as written. It was something based in Forgotten Realms, Escape from Sembia. We curb-stomped our first opponents, but sometimes found ourselves facing NPCs 4 levels higher than ours. Not fun.

The spider swarm is fairly balanced for 7th-level PCs. It probably doesn't do enough damage actually (for a 7th-level monster) since this is a monster pre-MM3 rules (damage went up).

B.T. said:

I suppose my complaints with the system can be dismissed until I actually play the system properly.

Click to expand...

That's very reasonable, and I'm sorry to hear about your near TPK, though at least you survived. I've always maintained that whether someone ends up enjoying or hating 4e can be entirely dependent on the quality of the DM. Things like wonky math, boring skill challenges, or spending too much time fighting and little time RPing are all DM issues but end up being some of the main criticisms of 4e. Of course, someone could play in a great campaign with an awesome DM and still end up not liking 4e's particular playstyle, but that's a whole different matter from thinking the game is a broken mess/not an RPG.

Dragoslav said:

I've always maintained that whether someone ends up enjoying or hating 4e can be entirely dependent on the quality of the DM.

Click to expand...

That's true, but of course it's equally true about every other RPG as well.

It's also worth noting that one can be a really good DM (generally) and yet be a really poor fit with 4e.

B.T. said:

In previous threads, I was discussing flaws that I had perceived with 4e, especially regarding attack values and hit points. From my own experiences, it seemed that the math was weighted in such a way that everyone was almost always hitting, slowly plinking away at a vast pool of hit points. Well, after a particularly egregious near-TPK last night in which the party fought a group of spiders and my warpriest of Pelor--you know, that guy who tosses out saving throws and heals like candy--couldn't keep up with the constant poison damage, I decided to look up the monsters used. The most heinous offender was this ridiculous swarm of spiders. It got free attacks if you started your turn next to it, and it did something like 2d6 + 5 damage and 5 ongoing poison damage. It also had a ridiculous 19 or 20 Reflex, something that made it difficult for even the rogue to hit, and it had the half damage resistance for non-area attacks.

Upon scanning the Monster Manual, I realized the DM had put a party full of level 2 characters against an encounter that included a level 7 soldier. Bloodweb spider swarm or something, and it had a +10 vs. Reflex attack.

We're level 2. The highest Reflex in the party is around 15. I'm sure the encounter was within the XP guidelines, but there's no way we can fight a monster with a +5 bonus to its attacks and defenses.

I suppose my complaints with the system can be dismissed until I actually play the system properly.

Click to expand...

That sounds very not good, and my commiserations. Monster Manual 1 monsters are bad in general and a level +5 soldier (i.e. an AC two higher than expected) of all things that to add insult to injury halves most damage it takes and dishes out auto-damage to everyone is just plain unpleasant. And thanks for keeping an open mind.

I've had encounters that were lvl+4 and smashed them--usually because that was a solo, and when the party gangs up on a solo, esp with powers that daze and stun, the solo gets splatted. I did once pit two lvl8 brutes vs a lvl3 party of 6, which made for a tough encounter, but not impossible.
On the other hand, "at-level" encounters are ones that the party should be able to defeat fairly easily without having to break out dailies (though that can be fun). Normally heroic characters hit on a 10-13 or better.
In the epic campaign I'm currently in, my lvl22 character has been hitting on a 4 or better (which leaves me to think the module was not well written--a constant problem in the Scales of War series).

sabrinathecat said:

I've had encounters that were lvl+4 and smashed them--usually because that was a solo, and when the party gangs up on a solo, esp with powers that daze and stun, the solo gets splatted. I did once pit two lvl8 brutes vs a lvl3 party of 6, which made for a tough encounter, but not impossible.
On the other hand, "at-level" encounters are ones that the party should be able to defeat fairly easily without having to break out dailies (though that can be fun). Normally heroic characters hit on a 10-13 or better.
In the epic campaign I'm currently in, my lvl22 character has been hitting on a 4 or better (which leaves me to think the module was not well written--a constant problem in the Scales of War series).

Click to expand...

They seriously upgraded the monsters in 2010 - Scales of War was written very early in the lifespan of 4e. And written for ...not 4e.

sabrinathecat said:

I've had encounters that were lvl+4 and smashed them--usually because that was a solo, and when the party gangs up on a solo, esp with powers that daze and stun, the solo gets splatted.

Click to expand...

Unfortunately, pre MM3 solos and elites were done poorly. I've seen elites without a second attack. They're just a bag of hit points.

The newer ones have counter-stun strategies, on the grounds that single-target stuns shouldn't take out the equivalent of 5 monsters.

Neonchameleon said:

They seriously upgraded the monsters in 2010 - Scales of War was written very early in the lifespan of 4e. And written for ...not 4e.

Click to expand...

Monster design (especially damage and the accompanying grind that resulted) was just one of the many downright disappointing mistakes that should have been caught before 4e's publication. Out of all of them, this one bugs me the most.

-O

Obryn said:

Monster design (especially damage and the accompanying grind that resulted) was just one of the many downright disappointing mistakes that should have been caught before 4e's publication. Out of all of them, this one bugs me the most.

-O

Click to expand...

I agree, and I'm glad that they have mostly fixed this in the latest stuff. I honestly would not mind a revised and updated reprint of PHB1 and MM1 that had these fixes. Then again, Monster Vault has the fixes so I don't think it's absolutely necessary, but I wouldn't mind it.

Now that the game is really firing on all cylinders, a newly redesigned DMG1 with ALL the fixes, much better advice based on the current experience level with the game, written by Perkins, Laws and Schwalb, would be ideal. I'm not holding my breath, but I can wish.