How Did Your Lair Assault 2 Go? (spoilers)

[On Puget Sound]

hmm, I was hoping to actually read about how peoples' lair assaults went. Maybe that will happen in a less angry thread.

 

[Zuche]

Karin'sDad, WotC is not at fault for how your DM mishandled the tentacles. All the description said on the subject of forced movement is that they could not be moved away from the water. Nothing was said about them being immune to other effects either, save for blindness. That shouldn't require any further explanation. We don't assume that a creature is immune to being dazed just because it's described as never granting combat advantage.

As for blindsight, I'm not sure where you got the idea that the tentacles needed to make Perception checks to detect creatures or discern friend from foe. I've got the rules open and they only state that the creature sees clearly within the listed range, regardless of invisibility or concealment. Tremorsense would be able to detect people moving around in the hull, its main advantage over blindsight, but it's blind against flying creatures. In a campaign scenario, I might go with tremorsense here, but prefer blindsight for the one shot, where I'd like to see people try a diverse array of tactics.

Note that I never referred to players wetting their pants. I specifically mentioned player characters. It's no good to have a group of players experienced enough to know the best mechanical ways to fulfill their roles if they don't realize how little that matters to their characters. As written, this challenge rewards the immersion folks no less than any other group of participants. It might even be kinder to them this time around, if the DM puts any life into their enemies.

I don't claim characters should be run at suboptimal efficiency. While you, the player, object to how watery death is handled here, your characters are unaware of any rules that might "balance" such things...and all too aware of what happens to nearly everyone that falls into the clutches of a sea monster. They wouldn't have reached the standard to which you designed them if they weren't able to acknowledge such risks. They know life can be unfair, even when it is fair to their players. Sure, in a campaign, such sudden ends can be very disruptive to an ongoing plot. We can tweak the factory settings as we see necessary, but the hazard rating should not be such that the players can only advance --or survive-- with the very best tactics.

In your final session, however, or an independent one-shot, you don't need the same controls. There's no reason to avoid including dangers your characters cannot survive, so long as there are ways to avoid them.

I prefer the kraken to your energy draining example because the likes of a Sinbad or Ulysses or even Robinson Crusoe could work out mundane ways to improve their odds of avoiding certain death in the former case. The best options aren't found in the rule book, let alone the power or feat lists. Your use of the hold demonstrates the point, though I question the wisdom of putting all eggs in one basket.

The best mechanism for creating challenge is the cooperation of your players, based on the understanding that you're all striving for fun. I'm confident that Talon of Umberlee has been designed with that goal in mind. The enemies have personality, and you've my sympathies if your DM didn't get that across. That's why the baron would be willing to cut and run if you put up enough of a fight.

As for the charge that my enthusiasm for the project makes me a zombie, please refer back to my view on how much self-determination the DM should have in this program.

I look forward to what players have planned for future sessions. One is obsessed with starting the challenge by stealing the captain's horn. Two others have separate plans for bringing down the house, neither of them covered by the book. They still haven't figured out how to achieve some of the goals from the second encounter, but they're more than happy to test the ideas they've got for the first for now. Maybe they'll even grab the gold this time, sparing the rogue the ribbing he got when he ordered them to forget it:

"What kind of a rogue are you?"
"A live one!"

Ah, well, plenty of time to see what they'll try over the next half dozen attempts as they pursue the secret awards. (One down, three to go.)

 

[Tony Vargas]

Out of curiosity, is there a narrative imperative for why falling in the water = dead?

The Kraken is an epic-level monster. I suppose the idea is that the Barron got it's help, but doesn't have it persuaded to really commit to the fight. Thus, it idly bats at the ship with a few tentacles (at 8th level, modeled as nasty individual monsters), and snacks on anyone who falls into the water (auto-killing them, which is a damned clumsy mechanic).

I think that modeling a much higher level monster as a set of more level-apropriate monsters is just fine. This is the second time WotC's done a 'kraken' that way. The other was in D&DE, and the tentacles were 'minions' that just regularly re-spawned, so you hit one, it went back under the water and came back later (the main body, presumably, couldn't even fit in the area the fight took place). You never really hurt the thing in a narrative sense, you just batted tentacles away until it got bored with you.

Back to LA2, the water=death thing wasn't very 4e in feel, even for the Lair Assault concept. It also made pixies about as crazy in the 2nd fight as in the first. Flight is just a huge advantage, even with that altitude limit.

 

[Zuche]

Back to LA2, the water=death thing wasn't very 4e in feel, even for the Lair Assault concept.

That's one thing I like about it. Why limit options to an expected "feel"? Deviations are good, as long as they're consistent within the scenario itself.

It also made pixies about as crazy in the 2nd fight as in the first.

The limit on carrying capacity is a pain here. Sure, you can get around that, but it does make it harder to earn a few of the awards.

It's a shame the rules don't make it easier to grab pixies and stuff them into a trunk -- very Tinkerbell and Hook, that.

Flight is just a huge advantage, even with that altitude limit.

Not really. Thinking beyond two dimensions helps, but flight is only one of three options for doing that, maybe four if you include the hold. Even the two dimensional thinkers can avoid a dip by mundane means. Dodging opportunity attacks is easier for pixies, but not that much easier here.

 

[KarinsDad]

As for blindsight, I'm not sure where you got the idea that the tentacles needed to make Perception checks to detect creatures or discern friend from foe. I've got the rules open and they only state that the creature sees clearly within the listed range, regardless of invisibility or concealment.

Giving the tentacles Blindsight is lame. The tentacles themselves get the ability to individually "see" in a fashion. It avoids the problem of the Kraken seeing the foes through the blocking terrain of the ship. No different than the concept of making the tentacles individual creatures. Someone stunning a single tentacle does not stun the Kraken and the rest of the tentacles, hence, the monster rules are lame here.

Giving the Kraken Tremorsense makes more sense.

I suspect that most DMs just play the tentacles as omniscient and know friend from foe regardless of circumstances without a single perception check rolled, although the tentacles themselves should not be intelligent.


Anyway, it's a bit of a moot point since I won't be playing this encounter a second time. It's just not interesting enough.

The entire Lair Assault concept seems to be one designed for people who like to play the same computer game over and over again until they get the highest score they can or some such, as opposed to people who play a computer game once and then want to move on to the next computer game.

For the former type of players, Lair Assault is probably cool to keep going back to. For the latter type of player such as myself, it's meh. The challenges so far have not prevented the PCs in our group from winning and except for a tiny bit of luck on the part of the DM in the second one, we could easily have won both adventures without a single PC death the first time out.

Not exactly the level of deadly challenge promised by the designers.

I've been more challenged in 4E with a solo fight with a Beholder than I have been with either of these two modules.

 

[KarinsDad]

Thus, it idly bats at the ship with a few tentacles (at 8th level, modeled as nasty individual monsters), and snacks on anyone who falls into the water (auto-killing them, which is a damned clumsy mechanic).

Yeah, save or die has always been clumsy.

Back to LA2, the water=death thing wasn't very 4e in feel, even for the Lair Assault concept. It also made pixies about as crazy in the 2nd fight as in the first. Flight is just a huge advantage, even with that altitude limit.

Can a pixie get out of reach of a tentacle by flying above a crows nest?


As for pixies, yeah, WotC did not learn that teleport was a potent ability at low level and have now not learned that flight is a potent ability at low level.

 

[Zuche]

Giving the tentacles Blindsight is lame. The tentacles themselves get the ability to individually "see" in a fashion. It avoids the problem of the Kraken seeing the foes through the blocking terrain of the ship.

What problem? The mechanics only serve to simulate a plausible adventure scenario, nothing more. The kraken is played here as an environmental hazard, very much on par with the Scylla and Charybdis. The party is not equal to that creature. Its tentacles, however, can be used as (much?) lower level creatures, where blindsight simulates the discrepancy between the monster's expected accuracy and that demonstrated by the tentacles in combat.

The mechanics serve the simulation; they don't dictate to it. A brief consideration of powers used by your characters over the course of this challenge would also demonstrate that point.

No different than the concept of making the tentacles individual creatures. Someone stunning a single tentacle does not stun the Kraken and the rest of the tentacles, hence, the monster rules are lame here.

Not at all. It's nice to be able to play cases in which powers aren't all or nothing against an opponent. We see that simulated in a different way in the mechanics of a hydra, where the stunned creature can still get in a large number of attacks against a group. What you've got with the kraken is a case in which you're only effective way to fight it is with called shots to extremities. That mechanic is considered too unwieldy to use more widely, but here it works just fine. There are times it's not enough to have powers strong enough to take down an elephant.

I can represent the same mercenary units with 3rd level soldiers in a low heroic tier adventure and 13th level minion soldiers in low paragon tier. Again, the mechanics only serve the simulation.

I suspect that most DMs just play the tentacles as omniscient and know friend from foe regardless of circumstances without a single perception check rolled, although the tentacles themselves should not be intelligent.

That's consistent with the system's general tendency toward simplification. How would the scenario benefit from the complications you propose? "It would make more sense," is a non-starter here, as the mechanics only need to produce the mechanical effect. It doesn't matter whether the tentacles determine who's who by echolocation, through divine guidance, or with the assistance of the baron's Aquaman-like powers. It doesn't matter that the results we see are the product of an epic level creature performing with substantial penalties to attack rolls. What matters is that there are tentacles lashing about on deck and that is bad.

Anyway, it's a bit of a moot point since I won't be playing this encounter a second time. It's just not interesting enough.

You get out what you put into it.

The entire Lair Assault concept seems to be one designed for people who like to play the same computer game over and over again until they get the highest score they can or some such, as opposed to people who play a computer game once and then want to move on to the next computer game.

The advantages to playing for all of the points are the same we get from any sort of review. It gives us the opportunity to explore new options and notice things we overlooked the last time. In Groundhog Day, Bill Murray moved from one day to the next without learning anything until he got caught in that loop. Before that point, he was just repeating mistakes that were sufficient to get him through each previous day, oblivious to the possibilities of the day.

To adopt the revelation line from Die Hard III, "Don't you get it? It's Groundhog Day!"

Some of my players want to know how Captain Bloodbath was able to move so fast through water, charging a wizard they'd presumed to be safely out of range. Others didn't care. I don't foresee the latter group getting as much out of their next adventure as the former will get from replaying this one, even if they don't learn Captain Bloodbath's secret their next time out. The curious ones will keep looking for new options and revelations.

I've run too many encounters over the years in which players completely ignored the resources provided by the encounter. Some of them even complained about their lack of options afterward. I'd mention options they didn't use, such as weak floors or narrow passages, and they'd go on to ignore them again in future encounters, and then complain again about the lack of options. By replaying a scenario without the post mortem discussion, they're not waiting on me to provide them with variety. It's a valuable creative exercise.

Karin'sDad, you say this isn't challenging. Well, the challenging options do exist, and if you opt to play the third season of this, I strongly recommend you go straight to nightmare mode without access to items or rituals. Some may despise such "self-imposed" challenges, but every game is a self-imposed challenge in the end. No one makes you play. After that, it's all a matter of showing just how good you are... even when you're up against a whiny, entitled DM.

 

[KarinsDad]

What problem? The mechanics only serve to simulate a plausible adventure scenario, nothing more.

Your definition of plausible is different than mine.

My definition of plausible for a tentacled creature from the deep where the creature itself is below the ship is for the tentacles to attack everyone on board. Friend and foe.

That's the scenario driving the game mechanics of the creature, not the game mechanics of the creature driving the scenario.

It's not very plausible that the tentacles can distinguish friend from foe.

One sees this in adventures, even Dungeon magazine adventures. There's occasionally some handwaving thrown in because the implementation is not as well thought out as the original concept.

You find it reasonable for the tentacles to be smart and for the tentacles to be able to observe their surroundings. I find it a bit illogical.

The advantages to playing for all of the points are the same we get from any sort of review. It gives us the opportunity to explore new options and notice things we overlooked the last time.

I didn't say that there was anything wrong with that. I said that the adventure wasn't interesting enough for me to do that.

If one of the Lair Assaults come out where it is really interesting, I might do that. But from what I've seen in the first two, there aren't enough "changeable bits" to warrant it. As an example, if the rooms could have been moved around in the first LA and different things could happen in the rooms (i.e. the runes did something different each time), then it would have been interesting.

But when the foes are beaten during the first run both times, sorry, but it's just not that challenging and just not that interesting.

I'm glad that you find it that way.

I'm not interested in playing Groundhog's Day over and over again unless the scenario has some cool new stuff in it each time and it's not just a matter of switching up some monsters a bit. I don't need to come up with a way to tweak out a few extra bonus points.

I've run too many encounters over the years in which players completely ignored the resources provided by the encounter.

...

After that, it's all a matter of showing just how good you are... even when you're up against a whiny, entitled DM.

This from the DM who decided he should destroy the ship instead of having the tentacles break through the sides of it because his players played smart? You cannot have it both ways. You cannot whine about your players ignoring resources and then whine if your players use the resources and go below decks.

And, I actually did show how good I was, even after the DM killed the party Cleric in round one. I really don't need to prove it a second time. To me, the purpose of Lair Assault should be to wipe out the PCs during the first run and possibly do so again during a second run where the encounters themselves are a changing challenge. But, WotC's idea of wiping out parties is just throwing a lot of damage at them. This can be countered by healing, temp hit points, resistance, etc.

The next Lair Assault should be focused more on other things: splitting up the party, interesting traps, zones, effects, terrain that takes skills to negotiate, etc.

That's a real challenge, one that the first two LAs did not do at all. So far, the actual encounters themselves have only been damage fests. Sorry, but damage fests are boring and can easily be countered. I'm glad that you find them interesting enough to run a second time. I don't.

 

[D'karr]

In general I find a lot of the complaints against Lair Assault to be rather "unusual".

My group playtested some of the Lair Assaults, and we provided input on what worked, and didn't work for us in the scenarios. Many other groups were doing the same thing.

From playtesting these, I found that I don't enjoy playing within the premise of Lair Assault. They are designed to be brutal to the characters, and they say it right on the advertisement. They are designed so that you can try them until you beat them. It's no mystery, it's the advertisement. There is no bait and switch here.

I can understand the purpose of Lair Assault, challenging the characters to the point of breaking, but it's not my preferred way of playing. I don't like it. I don't participate in Lair Assault because I know its premise is not my preference so I'm not going to enjoy it.

I don't like dance movies. They don't cater to my preferences. If I see that a movie is a dance movie, I'm going to skip it. If I purposely go to a dance movie, how is it a surprise that I'm not going to like it? It would be rather silly for me to go to a dance movie, and then complain that it was a dance movie.

That seems to be a lot of what I see in these threads. Complaints about Lair Assault because they are unfair. No, duh. It says it right on the box, it's a dance movie. A good way to deal with things that you don't enjoy being a part of is to avoid being a part of them.

Lair Assault is not for me and, from what I see, it seems that it's also not for some others. How about we just don't play in Lair Assault if we already know that it's not to our liking. I think it would be more productive than continuing to participate in Lair Assault and complaining about it. I don't enjoy it, but it doesn't mean that I should be a constant nag about it.

Why don't we let those that enjoy that type of play simply enjoy it?

 

[Nullzone]

In general I find a lot of the complaints against Lair Assault to be rather "unusual".

My group playtested some of the Lair Assaults, and we provided input on what worked, and didn't work for us in the scenarios. Many other groups were doing the same thing.

From playtesting these, I found that I don't enjoy playing within the premise of Lair Assault. They are designed to be brutal to the characters, and they say it right on the advertisement. They are designed so that you can try them until you beat them. It's no mystery, it's the advertisement. There is no bait and switch here.

I can understand the purpose of Lair Assault, challenging the characters to the point of breaking, but it's not my preferred way of playing. I don't like it. I don't participate in Lair Assault because I know its premise is not my preference so I'm not going to enjoy it.

I don't like dance movies. They don't cater to my preferences. If I see that a movie is a dance movie, I'm going to skip it. If I purposely go to a dance movie, how is it a surprise that I'm not going to like it? It would be rather silly for me to go to a dance movie, and then complain that it was a dance movie.

That seems to be a lot of what I see in these threads. Complaints about Lair Assault because they are unfair. No, duh. It says it right on the box, it's a dance movie. A good way to deal with things that you don't enjoy being a part of is to avoid being a part of them.

Lair Assault is not for me and, from what I see, it seems that it's also not for some others. How about we just don't play in Lair Assault if we already know that it's not to our liking. I think it would be more productive than continuing to participate in Lair Assault and complaining about it. I don't enjoy it, but it doesn't mean that I should be a constant nag about it.

Why don't we let those that enjoy that type of play simply enjoy it?

At least in my case, I take issue with the fact that LA was advertised as being akin to the "Ultimate Delves" of years past, which were definitely brutal challenges but were also puzzles to be solved. Find the trick, answer the riddle, get the hidden macguffin, and suddenly this brutal event becomes extremely manageable.

This? This is just hard for the sake of hard. And the delves, from what I remember, didn't cheat the design to get around player "cheese" either; they just found interesting designs where that cheese didn't matter. It's clear that certain elements of both of these modules so far have had some things "penciled in" to account for apparent flaws discovered in playtesting that made it "too easy" for their liking, which makes the whole thing feel cheesy anyway.

It's uninspired and boils down to a numbers game. Sure, there's a market for that, but it's a letdown compared to the hype that WotC themselves gave to it. It could very well be that people like myself and the R&D dept don't actually agree on what made those old delves fun, so that could explain part of the discrepancy. I don't know.

I get the feeling that LA as currently designed also reinforces a fairly negative impression of min/max and CharOp concepts to the community as a whole, which is doubly unfortunate since they provide a pretty amazing perspective on the game's design as a whole but are often lambasted for their methodology or philosophy.

Edit: And to carry your final question a bit further, it seems fairly reasonable by extension that we should allow those who may be interested in the concept but displeased with the result to voice their opinions, preferably without having their very opinion itself picked apart. I haven't seen anyone with positive feedback get told why they're wrong, but I've seen plenty of the inverse. (Please note this is an entirely subjective response, I don't intend to re-read both LA threads to ratify it.) If you enjoyed it, great! But that doesn't mean that some people didn't.