4e Combat Frustrating Instead of Fun?

[karaethon]

My 4e campaign recently started and I'm not sure if this is mainly the DM's fault or of it's more of a problem with the 4e combat system in general. My party is level 2 and contains a cleric, fighter, paladin, rogue, warlock, and wizard, and our DM matched us up against the low-level black dragon solo monster in the monster manual (I don't have it on hand, but I think he's a 4th level solo and counts as an ECL3). The DMG classifies ECL3 to be "standard" difficulty, but it was incredibly frustrating to be fighting the dragon.

The dragon had something like 22AC, 20 Ref, 17 will, 16 fort and it was simply too difficult to consistently hit the dragon. The highest +hit that our party had was the rogue with a +11 to hit (4dex, 3 prof, 1 enh, 2 combat advantage, 1 nimble blade) and he was targeting reflex, so he had to roll a 9 or higher to get a hit. In comparison, the paladin and fighter had something like +8 or +9 to hit and they kept missing because they had to target AC, so they would have to roll a 14 or 15 to hit. The wizard and warlock had about +5 to hit (+4 from stat and +1 from implement), so they also had to roll greater than 10 to hit. The cleric was just completely screwed in every way possible because trying to hit AC or reflex had pretty much no way of working except on rolls of 15 or greater.

I guess the frustration that the group has stems from the fact that since we need to be rolling 10+ every time to hit, when someone rolls low 2-3 turns in a row, they feel absolutely useless. 3.xe seemed to counteract this by the fact that misses to DC still do half damage and BAB was designed to give you a hit on your highest roll and you would get multiple attacks.

My questions are:
- Is the combat system really designed to be like this where you have a 50% chance to miss every time or is our DM just not designing the encounters well?
- Are other people frustated by "blowing" the daily and either missing with no effect or missing for the half effect consistently?
- Is there something that we're missing as players that would make the combat easier?

We were able to beat the encounter, but that's largely due to the fact that the wizard was able to cast sleep and the dragon luckily missed his save to fall asleep. Without that, we would have been annihilated by the dragon.

Thanks

 

[Mercule]

I think 50% hit rate is pretty fair. Dunno what to tell you. My experience in 3.5 tells me that 50% hit rates for the fighters -- maybe even slightly lower, like 40% -- make for the most interesting and fun combats. Needing a 15+ isn't uncommon in earlier editions, either.

I can feel your pain for a bad night of dice, though. It happens to everyone every now and again. I've seen all the PCs have it at the same time, which sucks. I've also seen it happen to the DM, which isn't any more fun.

 

[karaethon]

I don't think the problem is that there can be one bad night of dice. I think the general feeling is that every night is a bad night with dice. When every night, the same problem continues, people are getting frustrated and want to quit.

 

[Scribble]

I don't think the problem is that there can be one bad night of dice. I think the general feeling is that every night is a bad night with dice. When every night, the same problem continues, people are getting frustrated and want to quit.

It also depends on the monsters used a bit. (Their role and setting and such.)

Solo monsters are tough, because mainly they have a lot of HP, and action points, and such.

I haven't noticed an inability of my players to hit/kill stuff... Seems like par the course, and only a few bad dice streaks.

let me ask... what have your tactics been? Have you been relying on run up and bash?

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

I don't think the problem is that there can be one bad night of dice. I think the general feeling is that every night is a bad night with dice. When every night, the same problem continues, people are getting frustrated and want to quit.

My best suggestion in this case is to look at two aspects:
- Do you need to run such Solo encounters? Fighting against more opponents can change the dynamic a lot, especially since Solos (and Elites) do have higher Defenses then normal monsters of their level). If you want a tough Solo encounter, add some Minions to a equal level Solo.

- Did the players play "smart", as in going into flanking positions or finding other was to gain combat advantage (that's a +2 you can't just ignore) and using buff powers that enhance your attacks? Did they spend action points to gain an extra attack?

So far, our group didn't have so much trouble hitting enemies. Or at least, they weren't dissatisfied by their "hit-rates".

 

[Boarstorm]

The problem could be
1) poor character optimization (ie -- you're picking powers that don't use your strengths to their fullest)

2) poor party optimization (ie -- everyone's taking the big bang powers for personal glory and neglecting the powers that give everyone little buffs and can completely turn a fight around)

3) Encounter design

From the description, I'm pretty sure that 1) is NOT the case. 2) might have something to do with it, but I suspect 3) is what's sucking your fun out of the night. A level 4 solo, while beatable by a 2nd level party, is just not a whole lot of fun to fight. You rarely hit (meaning you've got a 60% chance of whiffing your dailies), it's got a mountain of hit points (landed a 3[W] power? Ok, it's scratched), and it's just not all that tactically interesting.

I'm getting the impression from my own games that solos are things to be used VERY sparingly, because they just aren't as fun as advertised, and fighting one that's higher level than the party can really be tedious.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I'm getting the impression from my own games that solos are things to be used VERY sparingly, because they just aren't as fun as advertised, and fighting one that's higher level than the party can really be tedious.

Yeah, oddly enough I was thinking of running precisely the same encounter (Black Dragon vs. level 2 PCs) in my campaign, but looking at the abilities of the characters, I cannot for the life of me figure out how that is going to remotely be as interesting a fight as one with multiple enemies, and how it's really going to be anything other than a horrible wear-down festival. Accounts of similar fights don't seem to contradict this.

 

[Tigerbunny]

The nice thing about fighting a solo, though, is that you can pretty much guarantee your dailies with a little planning. If your defender(s) are keeping it tied down, there's no reason you shouldn't be Aid-ing, flanking, positioning, etc. so as to get solid bonuses to dailies that target its weaker defenses. Also, use your superior numbers to take advantage of the terrain/environment as much as possible. Solo fights showcase your teamwork in a way that big multi-opponent fights don't.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Solo fights showcase your teamwork in a way that big multi-opponent fights don't.

I find that extremely hard to credit, to be honest. Ganging up on something is hardly the most impressive use of "teamwork" to my mind, but there you go.

 

[Scribble]

I find that extremely hard to credit, to be honest. Ganging up on something is hardly the most impressive use of "teamwork" to my mind, but there you go.

I think by teamwork, he means showcases the synergies of the various characters.

As for solo monsters... I think they will be one of those encounter types that DMs will have to pay attention to how they use them... Things like terrain, and position in the "dungeon" will play a much bigger role.