Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="AbdulAlhazred" data-source="post: 5028576" data-attributes="member: 82106">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.</blockquote>

Verification