Thorn (Dungeon 160) Is really puny

[ricardo440]

I ran an encounter lifted from Dungeon 160.
It is a level 11 encounter. with a Level 9 Solo Thorn and 4 level 6 monsters to back him up.

I ran this with only 4 level 7 PCs. My idea was that Thorn would cause a lot of pain and then have to leave, and leave the other 4 monsters for them to finish off while he makes his getaway.

However I was expecting Thorn to dominate the fight but he hardly posed a threat at all. The entire encounter was relatively straigtforward for the characters and most didn't even consider resorting to their daily resources.
The PCs almost bloodied him before he left. His level 6 helpers did far more damage and posed far more of a threat.

So what is wrong with Thorn?
Perhaps his damage expressions are just far too low to be concerning.

He had a lot of hitpoints, but at no stage were they players actualy scared of him at all. If he had stayed around to the conclusion of the fight rather than leaving in his scripted retreat it would just have been a matter of time before he was taken out.

 

[ForbidenMaster]

Actually thats a level 12 encounter. What were some of the stats of the PCs?

EDIT: You realize that Thorn is a skirmisher with just ranged attacks, right? He shouldnt have even been near the PCs.

 

[ricardo440]

Yes I'm aware it is a higher level encounter as there were only 4 PCs not 5.

Well his Dogs and Falcons can only hold off the PCs for so long.
Especially with a Dwarf Barbarian willing to just run past AoO to get to him.

He isn't really a Skirmisher, because he has no evasive powers at all appart from blinding someone. He has nothing that triggers off combat advantage either.

 

[James McMurray]

His stats in the compendium are missing some stuff, but he certainly looks pretty nonthreatening for a solo. He's got no abilities that scream "skirmisher." He doesn't have reactions and interrupts like many solos do, nor movement powers to hamper or evade his foes. His damage (1d6 + 6) is insanely low compared to the DMG guidelines, which say the low range for a level 9 monster should be 3d8+5.

It looks like he was created using some hybrid of the NPC and Solo creation guidelines, which uses the worst of both worlds.

 

[Truename]

It's possible that Thorn is low-powered on purpose:

Thorn should attack at a point when the PCs' resources have been depleted--after a difficult encounter, halfway through an attempt to take an extended rest, and so on.

Thorn attempts to catch the PCs unawares in order to gain a suprise round, either approaching by way of one of the secret doors in the fortress or attacking from cover elsewhere.

 

[Runestar]

It's possible that Thorn is low-powered on purpose:

Then this should have been reflected in his cr, should it not?

 

[James McMurray]

What's a cr? (or in other words, there's no such thing as CR in 4e)

 

[Runestar]

What's a cr? (or in other words, there's no such thing as CR in 4e)

Or whatever passes for it in 4e. It ought to be an accurate indicator of how tough the monster is expected to be so the DM can access it properly. And not say "I know I listed it as a lv12 solo, but I weakened it on purpose because...so it is not actually a lv12 solo".

Kinda defeats the purpose, doesn't it?

 

[CapnZapp]

Actually, it does not surprise me that WotC retains the level indicator on such a foe.

The overarching design policy is "Fun. Now." - and if used according to instructions, he might well be appropriate for his level. (Plus, lowering his level means less XP)

The way CRs were aiming for "objective truth" seems completely subordinate in 4E.

In fact, much like the way monsters don't play by the PCs rules (just to pick one thing), this indicates "objective truth" or verisimilitude takes a seat way in the back nowadays, for good, and bad.