How are melee characters expected to deal with flying creatures?

[UngeheuerLich]

Ok, but then the PCs are not allowed to use "When the dragon gets within 20 squares ready actions.

I don't see that the DM must do something in this situation.
If a fight with the dragon makes sense considering the location and actions of the PCs he is not required to make it defeatable for the party.
The players are responsible to overcome the challenge. And when they are not prepared they should flee and regroup.
The DM should not dumb his monsters down and play them like they would be complete tactical morons just so that Mr. "I only need a melee weapon" fighter can hit it.

Problem with 4E is that the powers are so restricting. Even when the fighter gets a bow he would do rahter low damage to the dragon (if he can even hit it as Dex won't be his primary stat).

No, when dragon gets into 20 squares is not readiable IMHO... especially when a human should guess height (humans are very bad at this)

And yes, no encounter must be beatable. But it should not be unreasonanble. As i reasoned above, having an unbeatable "random" encounter which spells certain death is like using DM´s fiat in a bad way.

I don´t think the power system of 4e is the problem here, but the restricted nature of multiclassing and scaling of monsters and PCs (main stats of PC´s are rising too fast vs non main stats)

 

[DracoSuave]

I don´t think the power system of 4e is the problem here, but the restricted nature of multiclassing and scaling of monsters and PCs (main stats of PC´s are rising too fast vs non main stats)

No, the problem is the DM taking a tool (a monster) and using it incorrectly, and nothing more than that.

Melee characters are -supposed- to have ranged as a weakness, in exchange for the advantage of having easier combat advantage available through flanking.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

No, the problem is the DM taking a tool (a monster) and using it incorrectly, and nothing more than that.

Melee characters are -supposed- to have ranged as a weakness, in exchange for the advantage of having easier combat advantage available through flanking.

Yeah, i mean besides that as you can read in my posts above.

But at higher levels, unarmed attacks as well as stats not using your main stats neither hit nor do damage when you start facing flying monsters on a regular basis. And it is hardly possible to give your fighter a reliable long ranged attack even if you want to. (In ADnD a longbow was god, even when used by a dex 10 figher, because of 2/1 fire rate, long range, damage depending on strength and main part of to hit chance came from thac0 and magic and ammunition)

But yeah, using the tool: monster correctly in a fair way is the most important part.

 

[LostSoul]

While the DM has to tailor his encounters for his party

I disagree with this. The DM doesn't have to tailor encounters to the party.

A wandering blue dragon can be dealt with by a smart party - even if it's in the middle of a desert with no terrain for the PCs to use.

(Have rope? Tie a lasso and try to drag him down.)

 

[Derren]

No, the problem is the DM taking a tool (a monster) and using it incorrectly, and nothing more than that.

So how is the Dm using the monster incorrectly? By using its strength and running it not like suicidal XP fodder?

 

[DracoSuave]

So how is the Dm using the monster incorrectly? By using its strength and running it not like suicidal XP fodder?

If the monster's only function is to wipe out a party that is incapable of dealing with it, then don't bring that monster to the table. Use a monster that is challenging, but within the party's capabilities to deal with. This isn't a matter of 'Look I got a chisel and so I am chiselling with it' it's 'Look, I got a chisel, and I'm going to use it to sand my deck.' -That- is what I mean by using it improperly.

If the party is not smart enough to deal with it, you as a DM need to be aware of it. Your job is not to prove how dumb the party is or can be, your job is to help provide entertainment in a social setting. Not -everyone- likes to face an impossible challenge and get defeated by it as an inevitable conclusion.

You as a DM have the -responsibility- to make those determinations. If you decide not to, and the game suffers because of it, you're responsible for that.

Know. Your. Party.
Know. Your. Group.

 

[Tallifer]

If in my campaign I had to run a party who wilfully neglected their range attacks, I would harrass them with that dragon, but I would give them a way to escape and rethink their foolish ways.

 

[Derren]

If the monster's only function is to wipe out a party that is incapable of dealing with it, then don't bring that monster to the table. Use a monster that is challenging, but within the party's capabilities to deal with. This isn't a matter of 'Look I got a chisel and so I am chiselling with it' it's 'Look, I got a chisel, and I'm going to use it to sand my deck.' -That- is what I mean by using it improperly.

If the party is not smart enough to deal with it, you as a DM need to be aware of it. Your job is not to prove how dumb the party is or can be, your job is to help provide entertainment in a social setting. Not -everyone- likes to face an impossible challenge and get defeated by it as an inevitable conclusion.

You as a DM have the -responsibility- to make those determinations. If you decide not to, and the game suffers because of it, you're responsible for that.

Know. Your. Party.
Know. Your. Group.

Imo fun in an rpg comes from playing an alternate persona in a fantastic world and overcoming challanges (by your own, no matter what those challenges are), not by simply slaughtering higher and higher level enemies while your DM makes sure that you always have a chance of winning by direct combat.

 

[DracoSuave]

I personally agree with you. But the job of a DM is to be aware of the fine line between a party being reasonably capable of overcoming the challenge, and a foregone conclusion. The first is exciting, and fun, and the second is a waste of everyone's time. And yes, it's a tightrope walk.

 

[Derren]

I personally agree with you. But the job of a DM is to be aware of the fine line between a party being reasonably capable of overcoming the challenge, and a foregone conclusion. The first is exciting, and fun, and the second is a waste of everyone's time. And yes, it's a tightrope walk.

"overcoming the challenge" can mean more than just "winning the combat by killing the enemy".