D&D 4E Help, I’m a Terrible (4E) DM

[S'mon]

I wanted to have the campaign open to everything.

You weren't a terrible 4e DM, you just made that one mistake.

 

[Retreater]

I don't know why that adventure gave out a Paragon level artifact, but you guys were definitely playing the deck wrong if he keeps drawing out the same card.

Here's how it's used in the module. (Attempting to put this info in a spoiler block.)

Spoiler

The heroes collect individual cards, which they can use as Encounter or At-Will powers depending on the strength of the card. Once the full deck is assembled, it takes on the properties of the Paragon level artifact. The Skull card in question here is an Encounter power with a Blast 5, +11 vs. Fortitude, some minor damage and unconscious (save ends). To be fair to all of the players (and to reflect the chaotic nature of the Deck), I randomly shuffle the cards and deal them at the beginning of a session.

So I don't think I was necessarily doing the module or the deck wrong, and I was running the monsters to the best of my ability. I think maybe it was a combination of 1) extremely min/maxed characters; 2) a larger sized group (7 players - even though I did up the number of monsters in the encounters); and 3) all sources being allowable.

 

[JohnnyO]

My normal campaign is a weekly game in Gardmore Abbey. The players waltz through the encounters, bragging about how they didn't get hit a single time. This is fine; from time to time it's cool to feel like a butt kicker. But it's also kind of worrisome to me that the encounters feel like a walk in the park - that there's no real danger. I know that butt kicking will be exciting for only so long.

This is really surprising to me. I'm running Gardmore Abbey right now, and I am finding the monsters and encounters to be extremely well-balanced for a party of five. I've already had 1 PC death, and several near misses. The beholder fight was pretty bad for them (see my earlier post)

That being said, AC 35 is really high, that sounds like a math error there, I'd carefully review it. My party's fighter has an AC of about 26, which I believe is the highest in the party.

 

[On Puget Sound]

Actually, using the un-assembled cards, per Gardmore Abbey, works differently than the article quoted by Traveon:
If the card is present at the start of an encounter, whether carried by a PC, held by a villain, or just lying around somewhere, a manifestation (in this case, an image of a skull) appears in a random square adjacent to where the card started (the manifestation does not move, even if the card does).

Any creature that moves into the square with the image can use the power associated with it. "Skull's Demise" is an encounter power that, on a hit, causes unconsciousness and possibly death. Once the power is used, the image's square and all adjacent squares deal necrotic damage to anyone ending turn therein.

So yes, this paragon level item is given out in a level 7 adventure. It's an "I win" button vs any level-appropriate boss... mostly. It does have one significant risk - if an enemy creature gets the highest initiative, it should immediately run into that square and use Skull's Demise against a PC, ideally the one who possesses the card! It's an artifact, it wants to be used, it thrives on chaos and uncertainty. Enemies don't need to know what it does; they just feel its power and instinctively want to use it.

It also wants to find more cards and re-unite the deck, and given the Deck's focus on chance and luck, the odds are that somehow future encounters will include enemies who hold other cards.

This is a game-changing item, and you are right, it requires a GM with the confidence to change the game accordingly.

 

[chriton227]

The magic item in question is the Skull Card from the Deck of Many Things, which is an artifact but it was awarded as per the Gardmore Abbey adventure.

I don't have a list of all of this player's feats, magic items, etc., but he did tally it up in front of me and it seemed to make sense that he could get to a 35 AC.

Next campaign, if I run again, will be 5 players absolute max (I can up the number of monsters to equal an increased EL, but more characters mean more zones, more auras, more synergistic effects, that they are exponentially more effective); I would disallow all magic items and allow only inherent bonuses; I would limit character creation to a resource or two (such as only Essentials) so I would have a chance to get familiar with those classes and their powers.

Having a defense AC spike up to almost unhitable levels for a single round isn't that unreasonable, there are plenty of enemies that have abilities that are just as annoying (chillborn zombies with their stacking damage aura, foulspawn berserkers with their hit redirection, and other creatures with at-will reaction hit negation/redirection come to mind), and lots of classes have encounter powers to completely negate hits. Aid Another can be a good choice for intelligent enemies in those situations, as the DC isn't affected by the target's defenses.

Remember that things like bull rush and grabs don't target AC, and an immobilized or out-of-position defender is at a big disadvantage. Dazes also shut down defenders pretty well, since it stops them from taking opportunity and immediate actions. If the defender isn't using a reach weapon, knocking them prone and then shifting 1 square away can get really irritating in a hurry too (they can't stand up and attack, and are outside charge range). Dwarves can mitigate some of these tactics with their resistance to forced movement and saves against being knocked prone, but they aren't completely immune.

Ideally, encounters should have creatures that target a variety of defenses; if they all target the same one you can run into problems with PCs that have optimized one defense over all others (just like having all of a PCs powers targetting the same defense can leave them in trouble against enemies with that as their high defense). "Solo" is also a bit of a misnomer, solos should really have some supporting creatures with them. It helps reduce the focused fire effect, can give some synergy to the solo, and reduces the GM boredom and/or frustration if the solo gets hit with a stun or other action denial. It also puts the PCs in the situation of deciding whether to deal with the mooks early (giving the solo some time to act) or focus on the solo (letting the mooks have time to get annoying).

 

[JohnnyO]

See above, Skull's Demise is powerful, but its not really game breaking (any more than the sleep spell is)

You've got a 1/n chance of drawing the card, where the n is the number of cards you possess. (assume at least 4, so a 25% chance)

Then, they had roughly a 50% chance of hitting the enemy. Then, on top of that, they only had a 25% chance of the enemy failing a saving throw (it gets +5 to saving throws), and he failed it twice.

So, part of this story sounds like the players just got really lucky.

Im my home game, the beholder absolutely destroyed the party on their first meeting, given its preference for targetting non-AC defenses, the party was in a lot of trouble.

Also, even with the beholder down, the terrain effects and minion should still have been around to harry the party in the first few rounds, making it difficult for them to focus on him initially.

Also, I just saw you are running 7 people instead of the standard 5. Party power scales non-linearly, and thats a lot of people to try and balance it around. At 7 people, I might be tempted to put them up against two beholders (one elite, one less so, but still threatening)

 

[Traveon Wyvernspur]

So it looks like there are a few ways that Deck has been interpreted thus far, which only further leads me to believe that the Deck was possibly played incorrectly. That's not really the whole point of the OP and what he was trying to get at in regards to his party doing a cake-walk through everything he threw at them.

I agree with most of what everyone has said thus far about how to challenge a party even a party of 7. I've personally never played the Gardmore Abbey module so I can't attest to how difficult it is supposed to be, but the majority of people seem to agree it's supposed to be kind of hard with the real danger of PCs dying or even a TPK. I won't fault the OP for giving his players all options available due to the preconceived difficultly level of the module.

I suggest that the next time a module is played that serious consideration is made in regards to limiting gear to be appropriate to the party and take a module at face value, feel free to tweak it up or down based on the players (experience wise) involved (which is a GM's call because only he/she knows their group). I've always played modules as an outline and added or taken things out that I don't personally like and suit it to my taste and how my PCs usually play because I usually know what kinds of things challenge them. This comes with experience with the group and knowing the players involved and how they interact with what you throw at them.

Just take this campaign as a learning experience and move on from there and keep having fun. I'm sure you aren't a terrible DM and you seem to be pretty player friendly, so continue to get feedback from your players and by posting in these forums for advice on how you can get a bit better. I've learned quite a lot by reading the story hours by such greats as [MENTION=2]Piratecat[/MENTION] and [MENTION=53135]Jack99[/MENTION] (who did a great few write-ups about 4E and especially his musings w/ the epic tier).

As always, just have a great time and continue to play in this amazing hobby we all love.

Trav

 

[Dragonblade]

Hmm, interesting thread. I have never had a problem challenging my players in 4e and I allow everything in DDI. But I also have a pretty good mechanical understanding of the game and watch pretty closely for players stacking bonuses that shouldn't be stacked and so on.

I'm very suspicious of your PC's builds and would love to review their characters. AC 35 at level 7? I'm having a hard time accepting that.

That said, when I DM 4e, I don't fudge or try to play nice. I try to design fair combat encounters, but once initiative is rolled I don't pull punches. If a squishy controller is causing my monster allies some condition problems, they get targeted and beat down. And I generally ignore marks from the defenders. They get to do their cool marking triggery stuff, which they enjoy but in most cases it doesn't stop me from putting the hurt on their squishy allies. Or while the defender is marking a brute, elite, or solo, I target them with skirmishers or artillery monsters, or my own controllers and hit their Will or one of their other NADs.

I look for synergies with my monsters too. If one monster causes a condition like prone that lets another monster do bonus damage, I key off that and try to get that bonus damage as much as possible.

Also, any monster that is pre-MM3 flat out gets a bonus +5 damage per tier per attack. Apart from that the only other house rule I use is to let solos and elites once or twice per combat end ALL conditions currently affecting them at the beginning of their turn. It cuts down on some of the stun lock condition stacking pig piling I've seen players do.

 

[Traveon Wyvernspur]

I look for synergies with my monsters too. If one monster causes a condition like prone that lets another monster do bonus damage, I key off that and try to get that bonus damage as much as possible.

Great advice here! I couldn't agree with you more. That's the best way to really challenge good players who are able to min/max and take advantage of the rules. There's nothing in the RAW that states you can't do exactly what they do and have to pull your punches. Nothing keeps players on their toes like the actual threat of dying. Those have always been my most memorable moments as both a DM and a Player.

 

[Jack99]

Just take this campaign as a learning experience and move on from there and keep having fun. I'm sure you aren't a terrible DM and you seem to be pretty player friendly, so continue to get feedback from your players and by posting in these forums for advice on how you can get a bit better. I've learned quite a lot by reading the story hours by such greats as [MENTION=2]Piratecat[/MENTION] and [MENTION=53135]Jack99[/MENTION] (who did a great few write-ups about 4E and especially his musings w/ the epic tier).

As always, just have a great time and continue to play in this amazing hobby we all love.

Trav

I am fairly certain I don't deserve to be mentioned alongside P-Kitty, but thanks none the less, glad you found the musings useful.