Stacking penalties, solos, and . . . *sigh* sadness. :(

[Piratecat]

One thing I notice about this thread- the majority of problem powers are from the books apart from PHB1+2. In my group we don't use other supplements, which keeps things much more reasonable.

Most people probably know this, but it's really easy to turn off any source you want if you're using the Character Builder. That's really handy for any campaign that limits sources such as Dragon and Dungeon.

 

[IanB]

One thing I notice about this thread- the majority of problem powers are from the books apart from PHB1+2. In my group we don't use other supplements, which keeps things much more reasonable.

Expect a lot of pressure to allow at least paladins access to Divine Power. Paladins right out of the book have some really terrible gaps in their powers, especially if strength-based.

 

[aurance]

Solos have a fundamental design problem. They're supposed to be equal to five creatures, but in most cases they present a much easier fight than five creatures.

The issue pertaining to your case is that any debilitating effects applied to a solo is, encounter wise, theoretically equivalent to applying that effect to five normal creatures all at once with a single use. I would recommend adding some mechanism for all solos to shrug off status effects more easily, e.g. allowing them to make saves at the beginning and end of their turns.

 

[RangerWickett]

Well the next dragon they fight (they're on #2 of 3!) will probably use that "takes two turns each turn" gimmick that the bebilith has.

 

[Neubert]

I just had a thought. Maybe we are looking at this the wrong way.
Of course a solo should be as challenging as 5 monsters, but shouldn't we compare with a full day of encounters, either consisting purely of solo monsters or of regular/standard monsters? I have a theory (from reading these stories) that players go "nova" when they see a solo, and wouldn't actually last through very many consecutive solo encounters because of this.
Thoughts?

 

[RangerWickett]

Hm. Good point. I've never tried it.

 

[Neubert]

Of course, I am not saying that we should throw a full day of solo encounters at the players, but it would be interesting to see in regards to balance. Because if players do go nova, then a solo might actually pull more than its weight in spent resources - we just don't see it because it is (quite often I believe) the last fight of the day.

Another experiment might be to have a group you are familiar with (so you know roughly how many encounters they can take per day), and then start the day with a solo instead of a regular encounter.

 

[IanB]

Solos have a fundamental design problem. They're supposed to be equal to five creatures, but in most cases they present a much easier fight than five creatures.

The issue pertaining to your case is that any debilitating effects applied to a solo is, encounter wise, theoretically equivalent to applying that effect to five normal creatures all at once with a single use. I would recommend adding some mechanism for all solos to shrug off status effects more easily, e.g. allowing them to make saves at the beginning and end of their turns.

Solos already shake status effects off really easily from non-CharOp grade characters via saving throws thanks to their +5; the issue in this case it sounds to me was 'til end of next turn' type effects.

The better answer is to limit stacking penalties in some way. If you just give them two saves you simply further disadvantage non-optimized characters while barely affecting optimized ones, who have potentially stacked so many save penalties that a second roll won't help; I'm inclined to just blanket assign them item/power/feat keywords depending on source instead, or something similar.

 

[RangerWickett]

I think when it comes to penalties, only the greatest penalty should apply. None of this Vicious Mockery (bard) + Maze of Mirrors + Psychic Lock (illusionist) + Ride the Giant Down + mark (warden/giant slayer).

Yes, I checked with my players, and that actually was all active on the dragon one round. It ended up being -11 to the first attack roll, -9 thereafter, with an extra -2 if I attacked someone who wasn't the warden.

But since my dragon got away, and is supposed to be a powerful necromancer/sorcerer, I intend to have some fun. The party will probably wait at least half an hour so they can sit down and cure disease on the two PCs who have "djinni's leprosy" (mummy rot), which gives me time for the dragon to set up a hallucinatory creature version of himself to draw out at least a few attacks.

If the party withdraws to take an extended rest, well, I'll just have fun. Don't mess with cursed desert necromancers.

 

[shadowoflameth]

Last night the party fought a dragon.

The bard has vicious mockery and psychic lock.

The bard also had powers (some multiclass) that:

a) healed for 6 hp each PC who hit the dragon.

b) granted each ally a +6 damage on damage rolls against the dragon.

c) let him and one ally roll twice for every attack.


The dragon had a -4 penalty to attacks every round (except for the rounds when the warden/giant slayer climbed on top of the dragon, and the illusionist used some power that incurred a -5 penalty) and kicked the total penalty to -7, or -9 to attacks against anyone other than the warden.

The ability to stack so many penalties, especially against a solo, feels radically overpowered and crippling. Are these penalties supposed to actually stack like this? Are there things I'm missing?

Looking at your rough draft the creature was pretty formidible, but complex to run. The minon power intrigues me thouh, it might have been better served with the deathmaster template. have the dragon start with (4) minions that distract the party at least a little, and instead of the tearing off limbs thing consider a power like the Berbelang to duplicate itself.

Those ideas voiced, like level solos I have seen get pummeled if they have few options. This party was able to stack penalties to hits to crippling effect. Where were the dragons +5 saves? and what about flight. I have a party with the rogue who used walking wounded a lot to make foes fall, when he used it against the griffon riding ranger though, he realized that the griffon could grab him or a fellow in melee, then fly up taking the fall and dropping the party member.

Bottom line is, creatures with few options are easy to cripple for 5 foes coordinating their efforts. (especially five power gamers). Your dragon needed an option that either gave it a way to recover, or that didn't require a to-hit. auras which several dragons have particularly the red, can do at least a lttle damage without rolling, and the white is good at making the terrain around it difficult.

Here's one to try next time: Have them meet a gargoyle with the demonic acolyte template. It can be advanced to the appropriate level, and have allies that don't seem too threatening, say goblins. For his first action have him summon his allies, and then turn to stone. resist all 20 for all the minions as long as they stay close. The heroes will have to use at least some resources/effort to do 21pts. with a blow enough times to drop each ally, even if they are minions, it's a challenge at low-mid levels, and then the gargoyle can revert to normal and attack when they are, (at least a little) exhausted.

another favorite of mine is the grey slaad in the MM. It could cause at least one condition effect to backfire on the rogue/bard or whomever. If you make a solo slaad with a lot of hit points, it can become a long night for the healer.

vampire lords have some well known weaknesses even in fourth, but if you dominate a foe, it will let you blood drain. (no coup d'gras because dominated targets are dazed, not helpless). With a dominated heroe, you could rule that he will let the vampire do blood drain if it seems nonthreatening. In our game, it bloodied the hapless rogue, so blood drain recharged. The vampire lord spent his action point and did it again nearly killing him.

I am quite sure others on here could come up with other 'evil encounters' maybe WOTC should put out a book of them.