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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="AngryPurpleCyclops" data-source="post: 4716120" data-attributes="member: 82732">You keep dropping "an elite 5 levels higher" into the conversation like this was cheating.  It's well inside the bounds of what is expected for pc's of this level.   he should have been moving every round.  he can simply run away from the paladin and break his mark.  he also should have been a "fire lord" and not an undead.  The radiant damage makes the paladins mark like 25 damage.Good point, I wasn't thinking about it that way but I do see what you're saying.I see your point here as well but he should have never really cared about the fighter and all the creatures in this battle should have used superior mobility to make the fighter and paladin combat ineffective.well I think if I had run the encounter I would have likely killed one or more of these pc's.  The ravager most certainly would not have been killed first.  The melee types would have never gotten to use a single daily/encounter power on anyone other than doresian. Any time doresian was marked by the paladin he should have teleported 12 and moved 8 to remove the mark and leave the paladin in the dust.  This is because you accidentally gimped the encounter.  Doresian was supposed to be a firelord.  time is on the monsters side, he shouldn't teleport away and take 25 dmg he should teleport away and break the mark.   Thus my point in an earlier post that doresian might have had 200+ HP's left without the radiant mark.There is no way 4 pc's can catch him.  Even if he teleports only one time in 3.  He also moves 8 (20 on a double move run).  I never said you used awful tactics but you did change the encounter (which hurt doresian immensely) and you did fail to protect the ravager through flight.  I'm not sure how you played this out and I already said thanks for putting in the work on two occasions.  I think you have to admit that the room being too small to maximize the movement advantage of the creatures, letting doresian take radiant damage and be surrounded when he's faster than the party and not protecting the ravager all change this encounter significantly from my design.   All of our encounters outside happen in an area that's larger.  We don't always use all the area but we sometimes have to extend the map in one direction or another as something flees.   120' x 120' is kind of a small room for a creature who can move 230' in a single turn wouldn't you say?  It's not about "many" it's about reasonable.  Put this encounter in the outdoors (do your pc's never travel overland?). Well we have to disagree on what is favorable for the NPC's here.  A lightly wooded hillside, an open field, a long stretch of road, the fiery caldera of mt doom.  Hardly grasping.  If you let the melee guys mark the creatures repeatedly then they were played poorly.  If the melee guys got to use lots of encounter powers on anyone but doresian they were played poorly.  Why would a speed 8 creature with ranged attacks let a speed 5/6 guy with melee attacks close with it?  teleport 20 means, I shoot you, you charge me, you get a basic attack, I slap you back with my melee attack(leaving you with ongoing possibly) and then I move 20 paces away and swat someone else or regroup wit the team.  If the paladin has me marked I teleport 20 and move 8 to behind cover so his challenge is broken. I never give him free damage.   you're very mistaken.  Give me 5 pc's and I will outperform any 5 player team 99.9% of the time.  I was just giving you the guideline.  I didn't make this a federal case I even said it wasn't over the top or a problem.  No. I don't think the pc's should have been gimped at all.  I do think you gimped the monsters more than the pc's.  Through a combination of slight changes you made to the encounter (area, doresian being undead which not only hurts him directly it also hurts the archons ability to get away.  Doresian can move 20 and be the place the archons retreat to if he's the firelord This is a huge gimping.  That's why I was surprised the archons died relatively quick considering their abilities.  The ravager was obviously shafted by some horrible tactics.  he can fly 16 how can a melee guy ever catch him?  since he has the most aggressive offense this crippled the encounter.  I think you're failing to grasp the power of this.  If the pc's spread out to cover multiple fire creatures then doresian moves into melee with one pc and all three archons teleport next to him for flanking focus fire and pound the lonely pc into a bloody pulp.  Doresian was supposed to be a fire creature for this very tactic.  You double gimped him by making him vlunerable to radiant and eliminating the monsters most effective synergy. Since a lot of your argument was about high level synergies I think you should be able to see removing the monsters most valuable synergy is pretty debilitating.  ok that's fine but the encounter wasn't over and he still had 100hp's (should have been a lot more after removing radiant damage from both the cleric and paladin) I am telling you I would play an intelligence 20 fire lord pretty intelligently and by extension I would make his minions do what he said and thus be relatively intelligent also.  The grind is caused by the missing +2 to hit.  You're basically arguing that in order to prevent grind rather than fix the math you should play the monsters poorly and let the pc's get more attacks.  The game design might be problematic at high levels because of the vast number of hit points but playing the monsters smartly and letting the pc's hit more often would probably speed things up.  Monsters moving away don't take a lot of time so even if the rounds go up they would be rather rapid rounds.I disagree.  Flying creatures standing on the ground and rooms that are half a single turns movement were big changes to the encounter design.  Keeping doresian undead was a massive change.  Without that he would likely have killed the party and proved my points that the +2 is needed and epic is not too easy.LOL, I play in the no fudge campaign. I never want the rolls changed.  I live in arizona are you close?  We can do this via fantasy grounds it has a "show all die rolls" feature.  We might need to do it over multiple sessions as I'm not sure I'm interested in spending 8 hours at this.  The software will speed things up quite a bit once the powers are added to the characters (the die rolls are all calculated, init order handled, bloodied is displayed, power usage tracked) though I would probably make a different encounter of comparable power to make sure you're not able to metagame the encounter when building your party.Opinion.  I think I can prove differently.  I agree the pc's weren't optimal.  Nor was the encounter.  I think the monsters were hurt as bad or worse.  definitely not if you're going to devalue the data collected after the fact.  would have been better to at least marginally optimize the pc's so we can be sure the data we collect about "epic being easy" is based upon a more optimized scenario.You changed the scenario.  I think you collected a lot of interesting data I just don't think your conclusions are totally accurate.  Definitely a grind (which sucks) but part of that is due to pc's missing more often than the game designers expected.  gimping the monsters most effective tactic to offset the non optimized pc's doesn't really make a great example.  You seem to be taking this personal.  I'm simply trying to see if pc's can be challenged at epic.  My encounter was designed to be in a more open area and doresian was supposed to allow the fire creatures to be able to teleport to him.  These are important considerations.  You of all people have argued about high level "synergies" and yet you took away the only synergy from the monsters.  It's a massive gimping of the monsters.</blockquote>

Verification