CR, DR and dead heroes...

[EntropyDecay]

I think it's fairly clear that, with a couple of exceptions, the party played extremely poorly.

It also sounds like (apart from the illusionist), they're not so much a party as a group of people. ie - there wasn't much in the way of group tactics, beyond the psywar tripping the devil, or the illusionist buffing people. Is this about right?

Totally right, when the ranger came back with her report of the upper tower level, the whole combat plan they developed was "Let's go and get them" followed by the casting of Bull's Strength. This is their typical tactic for all encounters they meet. The players of the PsyWar and the Illusionist are VERY frustrated about this, because they are the only ones in the group who would like to use more party tactics. But since they are a minority in the group...

Finally, I hate to say it, but a group with no healing is going to have some serious troubles. Reduced healing, I can understand. Being reluctant to use slots to heal, I can understand. Not healing someone who's practically dead (the paladin) is just being silly.

The cleric thought the paladin was responsible for his own healing as long as he can use his Lay On Hands ability. But when the paladin waited until he was at 13 hp and the critical hit brought him down to -12, he was beyond any help. More of poor playing on the side of the paladin.

The first non+ enchantment I get on a weapon (assuming I get to choose it) is going to be sure striking. The next one will be ghost touch. Damage is nice, but being totally unable to hurt your opponent seriously outweighs the advantages of an elemental weapon.

I know a party that would totally agree with your last sentence.

It sounds like your party really don't know their own powers, or the advantages and disadvantages of their choices. Would you say that a large proportion of your group has a tenuous grasp on the rules? If that's the case, and they're unwilling to invest their time, perhaps you should give them some appropriate strategy tips. Telling them the disadvantages of elemental weapons in the first place would possibly have encouraged one or more of them to run with +2 instead of +1, cold. ie - the wizard they employ to enchant the thing says "All these guys, coming in, asking for the elemental enchantments... it's flashy, it looks cool, it makes your opponents burn to a crisp. Give me a +2 weapon any day. You never know when you'll meet a devil...". After all, his business depends on customer satisfaction. If his weapons fail, his customers die, and he loses business. Good advice means they rake in more treasure, and meet more powerful foes, and need better weapons.

Well, all players know the basic rules of the system. Most are non-D&D roleplayers since several years and our D&D campaign started nearly a year ago. Regarding the more complicated rules of D&D I would say that 2 players (PsyWar, Ranger) have a good grasp of it, 1 player (Illusionist) is not very firm with the rules but compensates that through good ideas (When he doesn't know the rules, he just describes what he wants to do and asks me about the game mechanics. Works good most of the time), 1 player (Paladin) should know the rules (e.g. spells, abilities, equipment,...) but forgets to use them very often especially when he is frustrated (which happens really fast e.g. first attack against Narzugon hits but does no damage -> Player frustrated) and the last player (cleric) barely knows the basics, but seldom makes the effort to read in his rule books ("Dark Age of Camelot" seems to eat all of his spare time. He is one of the top ranking (power) gamers on a german server).

The "worst" players in regards to the rules are definitely the players of the paladin and the cleric.
The paladin player almost always fights in the following way: Strength buff, then attack until opponent drops to the ground.
The cleric player has almost no idea of the magic rules, but he always discovers "spells that are totally leet and uber" D I did mention he was a DAoC powergamer, didn't I). Yeah, some spells really are broken... if you don't read the description properly. Some examples (Both from Defenders of the Faith):
- Blade Storm: He wanted to cast it as a standard action (spell description: one round cast time) and without having one of the proper foci (needs two foci).
- Curse of the Brute: Great spell when you read an "AND" instead of an "OR": ...enhancement bonus to strength, dexterity or constitution... intelligence and charisma drop the same amount...
- I told you already the story about the casting of Hold Person on the flesh golem.

I don't know if I ask really too much when telling them to look at least sometimes in their rule books and get an idea of what their abilities and spells do.

Chris

 

[Fenes 2]

I will never throw creatures out of the book at my party without first checking what they can do to each other. I carefully tailor my opponents to my PCs' capabilities. In your case, I'd have dropped the DR from the beginning.

But then, I don't place much value on "challenging players" tactically or strategically, nor do I force my players to "learn valuable lessons" about spells etc. I would, for example, tell a player if he is committing a blunder his character, often much wiser or more intelligent, but surely more experienced than the player would not do (such as triple-miscasting a hold person, f.e.). If my players don't want to play "battle the monsters with optimized tactics" but prefer "charge them heroically" I will cater to them.

 

[EntropyDecay]

I will never throw creatures out of the book at my party without first checking what they can do to each other. I carefully tailor my opponents to my PCs' capabilities. In your case, I'd have dropped the DR from the beginning.

IMO, the creature is defeatable by the party at their current level. Problem is that the two players of the paladin & cleric don't want to sacrifice some spare time to study their character abilities. The only time they are looking at their spell list is when they are at the game table. So rule errors and forgetting abilities is quite normal for these two. They know this, we (other players and I) told them a few times that combat is not going to be easier in the future and that they should at least prepare a bit for the next gaming session (and learn the rules for casting spells). No problem with the other three players.
The cleric has access to spells such as GMW, Protection from Evil, Dismissal and information spells such as Divination, to name just a few. He has the Strength domain but since now never used the domain ability. The paladin could have prepared obvious spells such as Protection from Evil and Bless Weapon (even if just for the auto-crit). But somehow they expect that each opponent should be a no-brainer that is defeatable by "CHARGE!", hack, hack without ANY use of abilities and special equipment, and spells should be so powerful that just one should render the opponent helpless even if the spell description says that it don't works against that type of opponent.
I have no problem with helping players if their character would know something that the player doesn't. But in exchange I expect that the player learns at least the rules and knows what his character can do and what he can't do.

But then, I don't place much value on "challenging players" tactically or strategically, nor do I force my players to "learn valuable lessons" about spells etc. I would, for example, tell a player if he is committing a blunder his character, often much wiser or more intelligent, but surely more experienced than the player would not do (such as triple-miscasting a hold person, f.e.). If my players don't want to play "battle the monsters with optimized tactics" but prefer "charge them heroically" I will cater to them.

The whole discussion is not about "Challenging players with monster nearly undefeatable for them" but "Monsters that should be no big problem if they would think at least a bit". Should a wizard win a fight against a mighty dragon when he would charge it with a dagger and battle it in melee combat? Should a fighter win if he accepted a magic duel with a sorceror? Should a paladin and a cleric survive every battle when they are not using their class abilities and just attack like they were fighters (at least a fighter would have enough feats to survive such a tactic)?
IMO, a player should be able to defeat an opponent if he uses his characters strengths. And sometimes the party should meet enemies that are hard to battle, that require the party to work together and that reward a bit of thinking with the sweet feeling of a hard earned victory.

Chris

 

[MerakSpielman]

IMO, the creature is defeatable by the party at their current level. Problem is that the two players of the paladin & cleric don't want to sacrifice some spare time to study their character abilities. The only time they are looking at their spell list is when they are at the game table. So rule errors and forgetting abilities is quite normal for these two. They know this, we (other players and I) told them a few times that combat is not going to be easier in the future and that they should at least prepare a bit for the next gaming session (and learn the rules for casting spells).

I have a couple of players like this. What you have to understand is that some players aren't as fanatical as others. They don't want their recreation to require out-of-game homework. But they like playing RPGs enough to keep at it.

 

[Henry]

To Recap what has been said:

-Greater Magic Weapon.
-if the Illusionist had access to it, magic missile would have helped.
-any other magic spells they had that used force or non-elemental effects.
-dismissal.

Other than that, there really isn't a lot. That's why the damage resistances are changing in 3E Revised, anyway. If a creature has a damage resistance you aren't prepared for, you are as screwed as the conventional method of "+X weapons or better" under Advanced D&D.

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

Let me echo the teamwork comment. Failure to act as a party kills a lot of adventurers. This was a tough encounter -- tough, but not unreasonable. Even with only +1 weapons, proper teamwork could have won the day (good buffs, judicious use of power attack, and you can overcome the damage portion of the DR -- just imagine the same group against a lycanthrope in 3.5, with no silver weapons -- gotta do the damage to get through the DR).

 

[Brista]

But somehow they expect that each opponent should be a no-brainer that is defeatable by "CHARGE!", hack, hack without ANY use of abilities and special equipment

I expect that the player learns at least the rules and knows what his character can do and what he can't do.
Chris

You need to sit down and talk to each other

Printing this thread and showing it to them might help. They aren't really playing the game as most enthusiasts think it should be played

But I think you are heading for a lot of stress, potentially even damage to your friendships, if you don't deal with the conflicting expectations

There are other games - Slaine d20 springs to mind - where charge, hack, roll up new character is a completely natural way to play. Good fun too

There are roles within D&D for people who aren't interested in the rules. Barbarian and Fighter can benefit from understanding of the rules but they don't require reading in the way that spellcasters do

Another option is to play a lower level campaign - there isn't a great deal to understand about a first level paladin's abilities for instance

Good luck!

 

[Darklone]

When I first read this thread, I refrained from posting.

I played in a 6 man group, wizard7/cleric3, cleric 8, fighter 9, multiclass crime 7 (me), lvl6 ftr/rogue, lvl5 monk.

At this time, we had 3 magic weapons in the group... one +1 dagger, one +1 longsword (that the fighter used to break now and then), one +1 scimitar.

We encountered 2 kytons (DR 20/+2) while the fighter wore no armour. We won. Barely, but we won. Next day, two more kytons attacked us during the night (with several animated chains). We defeated them again, only partially buffed/equipped. How? Teamwork and taking risks for friends.

So yes, I do think too that this encounter was ok.

 

[Numion]

Let me echo the teamwork comment. Failure to act as a party kills a lot of adventurers. This was a tough encounter -- tough, but not unreasonable. Even with only +1 weapons, proper teamwork could have won the day (good buffs, judicious use of power attack, and you can overcome the damage portion of the DR -- just imagine the same group against a lycanthrope in 3.5, with no silver weapons -- gotta do the damage to get through the DR).

We had a little taste of this. The DM that picked up a campaign after me had us fighting a Huecuva (or is it Heucuva?), a type of undead cleric that has DR of 15 or 10 / silver. As a new DM he didn't know that in 3e +1 weapons can harm silver Dr's.. it was one hell of a battle!

 

[Murrdox]

That, IMHO is cool, and how DR should work!

I like the idea of my players needing to keep special equpment on them for certain situations.

Right now, it's just "get my greatsword up to a +3!"

Then, next time they run into a Kyton, you can bet your horse that the next time they get back to town, that fighter is going to seriously consider spending some treasure to buy a blessed silver longsword to keep tucked in his backpack for those special occasions.

(Oh, I say this because in 3.5 I think Devils are going to have holy silver DR per the Pit Fiend? But it's just an example)