Need some DM help.

[S'mon]

I'm glad it's working out, but if the players are unhappy about the threat level, you may want to dial it down. Best approach is: let the PCs choose the threat level in-game, by presenting them with a choice of adventures, and they can choose whether to take on the easy, medium or hard one. Let the hard one be roughly what you do now, but don't fudge/dial it back if the PCs are losing. The easier one should have much lower ELs, but potentially lots and lots of encounters, with the possibility of enemy groups combining if the PCs are careless.

 

[Fooly_Cooly]

Well the party is actually quite large. In the dragon/witchfire encounter it was the rogue.,swashbuckler,ranger,wizard,fighter,cleric and an invulnerable rager all lvl 7. The dragon and witchfire were only cr9. It should have been about equivilant challenge. The problem was only 2 chars can hit flying and I forgot to take the witchfires dr vs. magic into account

 

[Herobizkit]

Time to drain dem levels.

 

[N'raac]

Well the party is actually quite large. In the dragon/witchfire encounter it was the rogue.,swashbuckler,ranger,wizard,fighter,cleric and an invulnerable rager all lvl 7. The dragon and witchfire were only cr9. It should have been about equivilant challenge.

I would note they are CR 9 in a typical game setting. In your game, with no Arcane casters, perhaps they are no longer CR9. Tinkering with the fundamental assumptions (ie a balanced party of character types; wealth per level, item availability) can result in CR's no longer being an accurate measurement.

Are Undead as challenging against, say, a party made up entirely of Clerics, Paladins and Necromancers as they would be against a group with no one with channelling abilities, and Arcane casters specialized in charm and mind-affecting spells?

The problem was only 2 chars can hit flying and I forgot to take the witchfires dr vs. magic into account

Both special abilities are commonly overcome by offensive spellcasters, so this would, to me, be a much more challenging encounter against a group lacking spell power. Not sure why only two characters have range, though. It's easy enough for most characters to carry a ranged weapon, even if it's intended only as a backup plan, and even firing normal arrows is better than standing around waiting to be attacked with a breath weapon.

The Witchfire is more problematic - if range is only a backup, then ranged attacks that can seriously threaten it are unlikely. Melee is pretty painful, and a lack of arcane firepower makes it a pretty tough opponent. "Fall back and defend the Cleric" seems like the battle plan with that team (especially if we pull the wizard).

There's also PC attitude. Maybe "we only have two guys capable of attacking at range" should not lead to fighting a dragon out in the open, but to fleeing for better cover. Force the Dragon to land to follow you through thick trees or into a cave, and melee becomes a more viable option. "I'll just stand here and keep using the same tactics I always use" can be a pretty suicidal tactic.

 

[Fooly_Cooly]

Well they had a spell caster to fir the witchfire but ...all his ranged offensive spells were fire..so yeah it didn't exactly workout. But the earlier challenges worked fine. The duerager shield wall was supposed to be a battle were they had to think tactically instead of relying on the parties brute force for once. Lol. And the dark stalkers just spread them out and caused a little mayhem. They did almost no damage. The only worth while thing they did was cause the swashbuckler to be blind and deaf when they killed 3 of them that were next time him. I don't want to kill them but at the same time I know from experience that putting these guys up against a regular cr 7 enemy is just asking for a boring encounter were they wipe the floor with him. They have a cleric that specializes in mind control,A ranger who puts out lots of dmg with her great bow,a good TWF swashbuckler,an unarmed fighter who specializes in trip and grapple and a rogue who is about to specialize in scimitar TWF and take dervish dancer. That's without the wizard or the invulnerable rager (That player rarely shows up for games). I did manage to challange them with goblins once recently but only because there were 2 hobgoblins 8 regular goblins and 2 goblin marksmen.

 

[N'raac]

Well they had a spell caster to fir the witchfire but ...all his ranged offensive spells were fire..so yeah it didn't exactly workout.

Another example where the general CR assumption may not hold true based on party specifics.

The duerager shield wall was supposed to be a battle were they had to think tactically instead of relying on the parties brute force for once.

Nothing wrong with that. If the players don't bother thinking about their options, the party can often be KO'd by much lower CR opponents.

I find a game where every encounter is just another variant on "Charge hack slash kill" pretty boring myself, so different opponents with different tactics work for me. So do different objectives.

For example, "The King wants him brought back alive" can be much more challenging where the players' sole focus is on doing more damage.

 

[Fooly_Cooly]

For example, "The King wants him brought back alive" can be much more challenging where the players' sole focus is on doing more damage.

Actually the grappler has a nice habit of capturing opponents alive. He manacles after he subdues. Lol. I see what you mean by situational CR though. Sometimes I see creatures that fit really well in a dungeon I make but are the wrong CR. So I take away abilities or give abilities until I believe them to be more balanced to the parties lvl. As for almost always killing. I may go a little overboard but to me a combat encounter were 1 or 2 party members dont even get to half health is too easy. You may as well just hand them EXP and say" Well you guys fought this and won.1 of you took some damage but a cure spell or 2 should handle it. Moving along." That to me as a DM and player wouldnt even be worth playing .