DMs sure can make life hard... :(

[DarkLord Of DForce]

Okay, note taken on not using the Dailies soon enough. We just figured (going by past encounters) that as tough as the Stone Golem Guardian Form creatures were, that the
end of campaign Boss was going to be tougher.

Now...I'm going to post a e-mail msg thread following this encounter (actual e-mail addresses deleted of course):

Sam is the current DM - Donnie is our Ranger...

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Any chance...

(This is for Sam...)

You could work some small village or someplace we could stop, into the current
scenario? Reason I'm asking is, Donnie really needs that +3 mod transferred
by ritual (Tony or Carl) to his bow. Sure would help his characters + to hit.

Thanks!
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On Saturday 12 December 2009 03:48 pm, Sam wrote:
> I wouldn't' count on it.

<sighs>

Well, I tried Donnie!
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On Saturday 12 December 2009 05:56 pm, Donnie wrote:
> "Possible party wipe coming"

Nah, not as long as we all roll natural crits (20), then we can still hit
and win...
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On Sunday 13 December 2009 03:11 pm, Sam wrote:
> Yeah... I agree.. When characters have a +14, +15, +16 to hit.. its
> unfair to have any monsters with an AC above 10...

Right, thats why we were facing 2 level 17 elite soldiers with 33 AC. (see
attached pic).

BTW, you do realize that most of our party had to darn near crit to hit,
right? With all the Avenger's advantages, I had to roll a 17 or higher just
to hit...

AND with their +23 to hit, and the highest AC in the party being 25, they
were, for all intents and purposes, AUTO-hitting us...

> The game is not fun or challenging unless you have a 90% chance to hit
> and one hit kill them...

Still trying to figure out who you are talking about - no one in our party is
like that!
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On Sunday 13 December 2009 03:45 pm, Sam wrote:
> Lets see... What buffs did you have?
>
> Flanking +2

Yes, when they were flanked, they weren't always.

> Warlords bonus +6 ( i think), you had two Warlords..

[EDIT] We had 2 Warlords but one was setup for damage so he did NOT
have this +6 Bonus.

Once per encounter, until the end of their next turn (so basically everyone
got -1- and only -1- round of that bonus).

> I think there was another bonus that was -2 to their AC from Tony I
> think...

Minus 2 for them to hit us...I know of, not sure about the -2 armor - Tony?

> If my math is right that drops their AC to 23 or a 25.. So, using your
> math.. You would had to get an 11 to hit them... That gives at little
> less than a 50% to hit them..

IF the bonuses were for the entire encounter, you would be correct, sir

Unfortunately for us, the bonuses were not, so only for a short duration
during each encounter did we have have those advantages.

> Ohh wait... I for that that there was NINE TENTH level characters
> attacking them... Not to mention that they ignored the marking from
> the dwarf which essentially have him a extra attack every round.

Hmm, TBH, I'm not that familiar with Kevins character - I don't know exactly
what all he does, or doesn't do.

> You have no sympathies or regrets from me.. You were invading a tower
> that was magical in nature and held the final boss of the campaign...

Ah, if it seemed like I was seeking sympathy or regrets, my apologies - I was
looking for, nor expecting, either...

> What did you except Kobolds???

Nope, just party level challenges.

> Either way we are going to have to disagree on this issue...

Sure thing.

> I think if you are a Hero you need a challenge.. When everyone dies
> and you wipe out I'll talk..

Understood completely.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Apologies for the long post - but this should give an idea of a typical discussion and
exchange between us.

Thanks everyone.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Honestly I just think your DMs concept of how to make a tough encounter is flawed. Obviously the encounter wasn't totally out of line in that you WERE able to beat it, but 4e really does build on the concept that hitting isn't generally TOO hard on the average. Needing a 14 to hit and then having some buffs to pull it down to 8-10 range long enough to toss in a daily or two with the expectation that you have a pretty good chance of hitting with it and can at least expect to hit even with an unadjusted roll now and then is pretty much fine. The problem is when you have to pile on several buffs just to have a CHANCE to hit with your daily it amplifies the difficulty (or at least grind) of the encounter a lot and it is just not so much fun to be constantly missing. I think a monster with a 2-4 lower AC would have been a lot more fun, even if it had more hit points. Likewise it gets pretty tedious when affects and conditions just pretty much don't work at all. Even if you hit, chipping away 40 hit points from a 400+ hit point monster with that rare hit you do get in and nothing else isn't too dramatic.

So personally I'd say if the DM wants to put in monsters that are very resistant to effects, then they should have a bit lower AC and somewhat lower on other defenses so that at least the blows visibly do something. At 10th level I'd rather see the monsters damage upped to make them tougher. That level of PC can take a couple sharp hits and not be in danger of going down instantly. It means the party will need to be on its toes to keep the front line healed properly, but at least the battle is moving forward at a decent pace.

Overall though I can't totally disagree with Herschel that its hard to really criticize a DMs ability based on a small sample of encounters that players didn't like. Only the OP can really say how things go in a general sense. Are the encounters always like this? Are there hard encounters that present different types of challenges? Are there encounters that don't focus as much on beating your way past a fairly static tactical situation? What about other aspects of play? Is there a lot of exploration, social RP, puzzle solving, etc? How about pacing? Is it all the same degree of deadly difficulty or are there dramatic shifts in the intensity of the game and if so do they draw you forward and create moments of tension and release? Its possible a DM could overall be an excellent game master and still throw out some encounters like this one.

I guess if the players are disgruntled about it though it is definitely time to try to explain the nature of the dissatisfaction. It kind of seemed like the DM was a bit dismissive in your email exchange, but again its hard to judge fairly based on a small amount of conversation and not knowing the group dynamics. Maybe earlier in the campaign players had a tendency to complain about even weak encounters, I don't know.

 

[Mengu]

Now that I'm looking at the Stone Golem, two of these against a level 10 party is just not a good idea. Most characters probably spent a lot of their turns dazed too. No defender immediate actions while dazed, the Golem can easily end its turn 1 square away from multiple dazed melee characters that won't be able to attack back unless they have reach. With Rampage, characters will rarely hit it using opportunity attacks and stuff gets pushed around and dazed. I'm surprised this fight came to a conclusion in one session.

 

[DarkLord Of DForce]

I understand - at level 10. with the examples I've posted, you're looking at a small slice of our overall campaign.

Sure, we do some role-playing, some exploration with puzzles, etc,. I'd rate the DMs pretty good overall at balancing this part of gameplay.

I think that probably, short of a party wipe, that the rest of the group will sit and take it. Last 2 sessions, with the ultra-high AC creatures we're fighting, they just rolled their eyes when we kept missing. I know what they were *thinking*, but other than "you mean a 31 missed???" they didn't say anything. I dunno.

Last session, our level 9 characters fought level 15 Drow Inquisitors.

At Saturdays session, we fought 2 level 15 Chimera's on the road to the Tower where we fought the level 17 Stone Golems.

The DMs used the triple attack of the Chimera's for their basic and Opportunity Attacks. I believe that was actually an honest mistake though. But it sure did deal out a lot of extra punishment.

My son, with his Warlord, at one point moved past a Chimera, and being a rather brash youth, told the DM he'd take the OA. The DM rolled all 3 attacks, the last one criticaled, and Kyle's Warlord went smack! and hit the ground. The sad part about this was Kyle, and 2 other players watched the damage roll on one OA and the 2 D6's stopped tilted sideways on a folder. Our table ruling has always been that you re-roll any die that isn't flat on the table, or whatever surface you're using. The DM calmly picked up the 2 die and set them both down as 6's. Kyle immediately objected, and the DM told him he didn't have to reroll and the other guy who swaps out as DM immediately agreed with the current DM. Kyle said that wasn't fair and they gave the all argument ending standard answer, "the DM said so and thats the end of that".

So there ya go....

Honestly, I'm about tired of even complaining about them - I've mostly posted these messages here at Enworld, where I know a lot of D&D fans and veterans are, just to see if this kind of DM behavior is typical or atypical. From the majority of responses I've received I think not.

I surely do thank everyone for their replies, insights and opinions. Its all educational for me.

 

[the Jester]

Seriously, dude, salvage the good players and jump ship.

 

[bobcat_grad]

based on that email chain, it sounds like your dm is a jerk. You were more than civil and he was an ass about things.

 

[dvvega]

Ignoring all the numbers being thrown about ...

As a recent 4th Edition DM (my players are 6th level right now) I have noticed a couple of things.

During this time I have tried to use every item in the game: skill challenges, traps, disease (wait have not used that yet), interested terrain, tough foes who run when reduced to certain levels of hit points (an alternate take on balance), etc.

One thing that I have stuck to is that no creature (single or otherwise) should be more than +4 the party's average level. I accidentally included a 10th level creature versus my 5th level party without realising it. When the combat began I did realise what I had done and quickly adjusted the "flee point" of the leader, thus giving the party a break.

+7 level golems seems excessive and when you tack on a Dragon Magazine "special" you should be level adjusting them even more when that special negates tactics the party uses.

If I did what this DM did I know my players would inform me - in a nice social way - and I would review what I had done wrong and hopefully do better next time.

However it seems that the DM(s) in question do not actually care. I just see justifications to all the problems and not one admission to creating an encounter that is out of the level range of the party by standard rules.

I am sure that a combination of golems, gargoyles, and a stone based trap would have been more thematic, create tension and action, and be within the level limits of 14.

D

 

[Infiniti2000]

Your DM is a jerk and IMO so are you if you choose playing with him over playing with your son. Really, I can't even fathom why you would even be having this conversation.

 

[Engilbrand]

Count me as another person who doesn't think that the DM is the master of the universe. I have no problem calling my DMs out when they're being crappy. 9 10th level guys doesn't mean that 2 level 17 Elites are a good challenge. Hell, 1000 level 19 guys aren't a challenge for Tiamat. The same principle is at work. There are some things that just suck, and this DM and his little buddy suck. Math is math. He was looking at 9 versus 2, which was the wrong math to look at.

 

[Rel]

I'm of the mind that the problem with this encounter wasn't that it was too hard, just that it wasn't fun. I'm a big believer in hard encounters because I think they bring about a sense of accomplishment on the part of the players that is far more satisfying than if things are a cake walk. But it's a fine line between "tough battle" and "annoying grind".

I was unfortunately treading that line last night.

It reminded me of the situation described in this thread because it was the next to last session of the campaign. The PC's are preparing to enter this big temple and fight the BBEG who they've been chasing for the entire second half of the campaign. And he's in there doing a big, nasty ritual, etc., etc. But first they have to get past the guards that the BBEG put on the door to the temple.

The encounter I put together was, to be blunt about it, stupidly difficult for a party of their size and level. The PC's are a party of 4 13th level characters. Outside the gate I had ten (somewhat modified) Ghost Legionaires. The gate itself was a creature (heavily modified Pit of the Abandoned Regiment) and a pair of Shadar-Kai Blacksouls. Sounds terrible, doesn't it?

However I also made a few things clear: One of the Shadar-Kai was busy at all times channeling necrotic energy from this circle of black flames to strengthen the gate and the Ghost Legionaires. So not only could he take no other actions, it was clear that these other bad guys would be easier to destroy if that channeling was interrupted. The PC's had numerous ways to do that, but apart from the Warlock getting up close once early in the battle and attempting a Howl of Doom (which missed), it wasn't until nearly the end of the battle that any of the PC's knocked that Shadar-Kai out of the channeling circle. (the effect of this would have been to render the Ghost Legionaires all minions and the gate would have 1/4th of its normal hit points)

But instead of focusing their efforts on getting past the gate and attacking the Shadar-Kai, they fought toe to toe with the Ghost Legionaires. All one thousand hit points worth of them. This was made all the more difficult by the fact that they didn't want to spend ANY of their daily powers because they felt they would be needed vs. the BBEG at the end. Furthermore, the PC's have a set of weapons enchanted via a ritual they got not too long ago that do a sort of "retributive strike" that damages all nearby bad guys AND let's nearby allies spend a healing surge. They also had at least two Action Points each. Again, they didn't want to use any of these resources because they wanted them for the final battle.

I understand them being a bit conservative with those resources but that, combined with the fact that they used none of the shortcuts I had in place to make this fight easier, meant that it was incredibly long, difficult and, at times, frustrating.

I think that a good GM will identify a battle that is going to be un-fun and try to remedy that situation (preferably before it ever starts being fought). But I also think that the players are responsible to making some adjustments to their tactics and resource expenditures to overcome seemingly difficult odds.

Like I said, it's a tricky line to straddle. If this is a constant problem with this GM then yeah, I'd be looking for another group. But sometimes they make a single bad call. And sometimes the players don't do much to help the situation.