Author Topic: Game difficulty, character effectiveness, and you.  (Read 5490 times)

Offline Basket Burner

  • Legendary Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1072
  • I break Basket Weavers.
    • View Profile
Game difficulty, character effectiveness, and you.
« on: November 07, 2011, 11:20:50 AM »
My stance on this is quite simple. People should be able to do the things they are supposed to do. For adventurers, most of those things will be adventuring things. Characters that cannot get through encounters on their own merits are characters that have no business being played. Most of those methods involve combat, so naturally a part of this is combat readiness.

Where exactly the bar is set can vary. In a normal game you have a lot more slack than a hard one. Monks always give Flurry of Blows though. It's surprisingly rare to find an easy campaign, mostly because to get one you'd have to be deliberately going out of your way to make it as easy as possible. If you do though then you can just do whatever and run right through it. It doesn't even matter.

The role of the DM in all this is to act as a referee. Which means when the party easily defeats a level appropriate encounter, their reward for this is whatever XP and loot comes from that for little effort. It also means that when adventurers are not up to the task of adventuring, bad things tend to happen to them. Both of these are very important, as without effective and ineffective choices having corresponding consequences, there is simply no correlation between cause and effect. You end up with the Three Stooges running around because actually thinking and planning things is punished.

As the characters are expected to make it through encounters on their own merits, as opposed to say, having the DM cheat on their behalf it stands to reason that they need to have the abilities to do that. The DM's role in this is to make sure they do, generally by staying out of the way but also by actively helping if need be. It largely depends on what they're trying to play and what their experience is. For example, experienced player playing Cleric just needs the DM to stay out of their way and they will build a useful and contributing member of a party. Inexperienced player playing a non caster needs a serious assist from some CO people just to get in the game at all.

As for me, I prefer hard mode because anything less would bore me. Normal mode is also a valid playstyle, just one I'm not interested in anymore.

This came up in regards to the RHoD module, which someone described as hard, and that made me think of all the other people that said it was hard when it's actually very easy and is only hard if you change it heavily to make it hard. However it can apply to any game, published module or own campaign. It can probably even apply to games in systems other than D&D though the particulars will vary.

Offline ksbsnowowl

  • DnD Handbook Writer
  • ****
  • Posts: 4776
  • Warrior Skald, teller of tales.
    • View Profile
Re: Game difficulty, character effectiveness, and you.
« Reply #1 on: November 07, 2011, 12:07:16 PM »
I see your point, BB, and I agree that players shouldn't be penalized with lower XP awards because their characters are actually effective at adventuring, but many of the encounters in RHoD are on the high end of the CR/EL scale.  Whether that accurately reflects the challenge or not can depend on a lot of factors.

The opening encounter of Red Hand is an ambush against the PC's where the ambushers have the advantage within difficult terrain, and there are essentially three waves of bad guys.  The EL calculation runs at 8 to 8.5 (depending on exactly how you calculate the EL), and that's against a 5th level party.

Now, the difficulty that presents to a 5th level party will depend on the party composition.  When I played it, my party consisted of a Cleric of Pelor, a Druid, a Duskblade, and a Rogue/Ranger (me).  Aside from the Duskblade class, we were restricted to Core only.  The Druid had an advantage in that the undergrowth didn't slow him, but we had no wizard to lay down a fireball or two to take out several of the minions at once.

There is an insightful "Designers' Note" in the RHoD adventure in relation to this marauder attack.
Quote
This encounter has a high EL because we expect that the party won't fight again before they reach the town and rest, but you should know that the EL is artificially high because of the large number of hobgoblin warriors.  Low-level opponents don't really contribute a lot to the challenge; the bladebearer (TWF fighter 4), cleric, and hell hounds are the true foes in this fight.  We assume that the hobgoblin regulars will land a couple of lucky shots, only to be taken out by a fireball or two.  If your party doesn't include an arcane spellcaster who can throw area-attack spells, you might need to cut down the number of hobgoblins to suit your player characters better.
- James and Rich

So they acknowledge that the minions aren't expected to do a whole lot, but at the same time the terrain REALLY has an impact on how hard they are.  It will take most PC's two rounds to approach the first one, assuming the minion doesn't start pulling back as the PC's start approaching.  They have 20% concealment vs. the PC's attacks, while not suffering the same (at least until the PC's enter the underbrush too).  Once you engage, pulling back is very difficult, as you cannot 5-ft step (unless you are a druid).

If a DM does a poor job of utilizing the terrain advantage that the hobgoblins have, yes, it could be an easy encounter.  It's the same when the DM is running the dragons; if he plays them intelligently (as intelligent as dragons are), then they are extremely tough for their CR rating, but if he just half-asses their tactics, then they aren't tough.

Then there is just pure chance, and its effect on things.  When I just ran an encounter modeled after this one, all the PC's missed the spot check, and then the ambushers beat all the PC's initiative checks.  I only started with four ambushers, but the party had 8 arrows lobbed at them before they got to react.  If I recall correctly, 5 of those 8 arrows struck the PC's.  More minions means more chances for a lucky crit (and I nearly had one in the surprise round, just didn't confirm).

Offline Basket Burner

  • Legendary Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1072
  • I break Basket Weavers.
    • View Profile
Re: Game difficulty, character effectiveness, and you.
« Reply #2 on: November 07, 2011, 12:40:30 PM »
They're on the high end of the CR scale, but then one or more of the following is true:

It is the only fight in the day. That makes it a lot easier than it otherwise would be.

It doesn't actually deserve its CR and should be lower for one reason or another.

The encounter and/or component creatures are so poorly built that it's not even funny.

Let's look at your example, the opening ambush. For it, all three are true. You're most likely not going to fight anything else that day. Most of the CR comes from throwaway mooks that aren't going to do much of anything, such as the warrior 2s who shoot at +3 for 1d8+1 damage or something like that. Then you have hellhounds, that are a very weak CR 3 to the point where almost any guide about it recommends replacing them with dire wolves, a TWF Fighter with no sources of bonus damage as the leader, and a low level Cleric as his second that has nothing except a low DC spell or two to contribute.

Every RHoD campaign I've seen, heard of, or played in that ran that encounter without some serious modification had the players just run right over the enemies, kill them all well before the second wave comes, and then kill them even more easily because the second wave appears right next to each other. As much as they worried about AoE effects (and the wrong AoE effects at that) the first wave is actually somewhat spread out. Which is good, seeing as almost everything in this encounter has terrible Will saves. Even several in which the party was only two people, and the encounter remained unchanged or was buffed.

I am quite mystified as to why you had such a hard time. You have a Druid. One Entangle and they're done. Since the road doesn't contain any undergrowth you don't even have to worry about friendly fire.

The terrain hinders the enemy about as much as it does the party. They can't five foot step either, and they have the same or lower move than you. So either you both get cover and concealment, and both move and attack without AoOs or you both stand still and attack. And you're a 5th level PC class, and they are Warrior 2s whose melee option is sword and board... ::)

Between most of the enemies going down in one hit from anything, and the rest not really posing a threat I just can't see it.

Now I revamped it to be a lot harder. Even then, they still weren't doing that much damage. More than before, but still not that much. I'd go into detail, but at least one of my players reads these boards so I'd rather not.

The dragons in that module are a bit better, on account of them being dragons but are still being used too poorly to be difficult.

Offline ksbsnowowl

  • DnD Handbook Writer
  • ****
  • Posts: 4776
  • Warrior Skald, teller of tales.
    • View Profile
Re: Game difficulty, character effectiveness, and you.
« Reply #3 on: November 07, 2011, 01:15:09 PM »
The terrain hinders the enemy about as much as it does the party. They can't five foot step either, and they have the same or lower move than you. So either you both get cover and concealment, and both move and attack without AoOs or you both stand still and attack. And you're a 5th level PC class, and they are Warrior 2s whose melee option is sword and board... ::)

Between most of the enemies going down in one hit from anything, and the rest not really posing a threat I just can't see it.
The bolded part isn't true; concealment doesn't prevent one from taking an AoO; only cover or total concealment do that.  The terrain hinders the bad guys equally to the party once the party closes with them.  Until that happens, then the ambushers have a distinct advantage.  They can shoot an arrow, then back away, and they can do that until the PC's finally catch them.  It helps if the PC's have decent ranged capabilities, but not all do.

I'm not saying a hobgoblin Warrior 2 is normally much of a threat; I'm saying that the terrain does play a major factor in them being more of a challenge.

I also revamped the bad guys when I ran this encounter.  Due to the nature of my campaign world, the mooks were Tanarukk, which have 22 hp, fire resistance 10, and SR 14.  They also have a +6 to hit with their bows, and all good saves.

The entangle wouldn't help much with the first wave of mooks; they're already in difficult terrain, and without many blasting caster options, we needed to close with them to deal with them.  I can't recall if entangle was used against the second wave (this was 5 years ago for me), but it would have been effective, yes.

Part of the reason this encounter was quite difficult in the campaign I'm currently running, is that basically the PC's had to "attack" three times for each hit.  They had to hit the tanarukk's AC, then they had to overcome the miss chance, and then, about half the time (depending on their attack method) they had to overcome SR. And then some of that may have been negated (fire resistance).  When the wizard was running low on spells, all he had left to keep him going was his fiery burst reserve feat.  It's nice that it ignored SR, but its average of 10.5 damage often did nothing against a tanarukk with Fire Resistance 10 (especially when a tanarukk has a reflex save of +5 vs a DC of 16-ish).

Offline veekie

  • Spinner of Fortunes
  • Epic Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 5423
  • Chaos Dice
    • View Profile
Re: Game difficulty, character effectiveness, and you.
« Reply #4 on: November 07, 2011, 01:20:41 PM »
Quote
The role of the DM in all this is to act as a referee. Which means when the party easily defeats a level appropriate encounter, their reward for this is whatever XP and loot comes from that for little effort. It also means that when adventurers are not up to the task of adventuring, bad things tend to happen to them. Both of these are very important, as without effective and ineffective choices having corresponding consequences, there is simply no correlation between cause and effect. You end up with the Three Stooges running around because actually thinking and planning things is punished.
I have to object to this. The referee concept presumes the game is firstly, a contest, a challenge, and that does not universally hold true. In a roleplaying game, the loot and experience obtained from a challenge is not a reward, but a progression of character, with characters evolving as they deal with conflict and issues.

This in turn is an extension of playability. The 'given' challenge of any encounter is only an approximate value, and calculating it objectively is a lost cause. So in the role of the game, difficulty's purpose is:
-Entertainment. Through overcoming the challenge, entertainment is obtained. This purpose is poorly served should a weaker party get destroyed by an encounter. It is also somewhat similarly ill done to have the challenge being too trivial. Therefore, difficulty should modify based on party capabilities.
You do not throw optimized casting encounters against the party of monks performing a pilgrimage, or use scry and die tactics against the players doing an all-rogue band of thieves. Cause and effect do not come into this(yet), particularly when from the player perspective, they do not know a future encounter has been modified(because the encounter does not exist until they play it)

-Character evolution. Through challenges, you alter characters. In D&D terms, this is XP, wealth and semi-permanent effects on the character. This is distinct from encounter challenge. There is a target rate of growth for each game group, and basing evolution on the purported challenge difficulty sets up for trouble.
A hypercompetent party blows through encounters beefed up to accommodate their ability, and through this, gains even more competence, and widens the gap even further. In D&D this only ever aggravates the problem, as the degree of rocket tag rises, an encounter they should be able to blow through is also an encounter that can pulverise them with about the same difficulty. This rate should be based on what the group needs, not on challenge, it is also why one of the more common house rules is that characters level up when appropriate, and why 'trivial' encounters do not generally warrant experience.

-Story evolution. One common Bad GM story source, when they raise the value of their story over the value of providing appropriate challenge and character evolution). Encounters have a role in the setting, story or plot to maintain believability and also plot based enjoyment. Pacing this element with the previous can be a problematic area, but essentially, the challenge needs to fit the story and vice versa. When your players can only be feasibly challenged by dragons, demons and casters, then you have to either rein them back so the story can continue working(such as, after an unexpected source of wealth like looted adamantine dungeon furnishings), or you have to move them in the story to another.

-Gratification. When you combine the above, this is what you get. Players are satisfied with the challenge dealt, their growth rate is just right(too fast, and you gain new abilities before you settle into old ones, too slow and you feel static) and it all fits in with the story as given. Different players might enjoy different aspects, but few would do so to the complete detriment of the other areas.

Treating the GM as the referee is far underselling his role in the encounter. The encounter is not a static construct, it lives and evolves based on the group's needs.
Everything is edible. Just that there are things only edible once per lifetime.
It's a god-eat-god world.

Procrastination is the thief of time; Year after year it steals, till all are fled,
And to the mercies of a moment leaves; The vast concerns of an eternal scene.

Offline Basket Burner

  • Legendary Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1072
  • I break Basket Weavers.
    • View Profile
Re: Game difficulty, character effectiveness, and you.
« Reply #5 on: November 07, 2011, 01:47:55 PM »
The terrain hinders the enemy about as much as it does the party. They can't five foot step either, and they have the same or lower move than you. So either you both get cover and concealment, and both move and attack without AoOs or you both stand still and attack. And you're a 5th level PC class, and they are Warrior 2s whose melee option is sword and board... ::)

Between most of the enemies going down in one hit from anything, and the rest not really posing a threat I just can't see it.
The bolded part isn't true; concealment doesn't prevent one from taking an AoO; only cover or total concealment do that.  The terrain hinders the bad guys equally to the party once the party closes with them.  Until that happens, then the ambushers have a distinct advantage.  They can shoot an arrow, then back away, and they can do that until the PC's finally catch them.  It helps if the PC's have decent ranged capabilities, but not all do.

It is true. Check the encounter again. Anything in the forest gets concealment... and cover. Cover does prevent AoOs. The party also is not that far from the woods.

Quote
I'm not saying a hobgoblin Warrior 2 is normally much of a threat; I'm saying that the terrain does play a major factor in them being more of a challenge.

I also revamped the bad guys when I ran this encounter.  Due to the nature of my campaign world, the mooks were Tanarukk, which have 22 hp, fire resistance 10, and SR 14.  They also have a +6 to hit with their bows, and all good saves.

The entangle wouldn't help much with the first wave of mooks; they're already in difficult terrain, and without many blasting caster options, we needed to close with them to deal with them.  I can't recall if entangle was used against the second wave (this was 5 years ago for me), but it would have been effective, yes.

It's still entangled, which is -4 to ranged attacks. It also stops them from moving.

Quote
Part of the reason this encounter was quite difficult in the campaign I'm currently running, is that basically the PC's had to "attack" three times for each hit.  They had to hit the tanarukk's AC, then they had to overcome the miss chance, and then, about half the time (depending on their attack method) they had to overcome SR. And then some of that may have been negated (fire resistance).  When the wizard was running low on spells, all he had left to keep him going was his fiery burst reserve feat.  It's nice that it ignored SR, but its average of 10.5 damage often did nothing against a tanarukk with Fire Resistance 10 (especially when a tanarukk has a reflex save of +5 vs a DC of 16-ish).

Most of the good spells ignore SR, so having it doesn't do anything but funnel people towards the good spells. That and interfere with buffing.

In my case the no name mooks had 31 HP, +8/1d8+4, and a Bard. They also had a few flaming arrows. They were still rather slow. Of course they still had bad Will saves because that couldn't be helped but then they are NPCs that are not monsters and are not casters. I'm not a miracle worker.

Quote
The role of the DM in all this is to act as a referee. Which means when the party easily defeats a level appropriate encounter, their reward for this is whatever XP and loot comes from that for little effort. It also means that when adventurers are not up to the task of adventuring, bad things tend to happen to them. Both of these are very important, as without effective and ineffective choices having corresponding consequences, there is simply no correlation between cause and effect. You end up with the Three Stooges running around because actually thinking and planning things is punished.
I have to object to this. The referee concept presumes the game is firstly, a contest, a challenge, and that does not universally hold true. In a roleplaying game, the loot and experience obtained from a challenge is not a reward, but a progression of character, with characters evolving as they deal with conflict and issues.

No, it is a reward. Not all rewards need be material, but when you do get something material, that is a reward. The concept of a referee presumes it is not a challenge, in that they are simply presiding, as opposed to setting up a contest between themselves and the party.

Quote
This in turn is an extension of playability. The 'given' challenge of any encounter is only an approximate value, and calculating it objectively is a lost cause. So in the role of the game, difficulty's purpose is:

It doesn't need to be calculated exactly. The point of that is that success is its own reward, and failure its own punishment, and no one should detract from either of those things.

Quote
-Entertainment. Through overcoming the challenge, entertainment is obtained. This purpose is poorly served should a weaker party get destroyed by an encounter. It is also somewhat similarly ill done to have the challenge being too trivial. Therefore, difficulty should modify based on party capabilities.
You do not throw optimized casting encounters against the party of monks performing a pilgrimage, or use scry and die tactics against the players doing an all-rogue band of thieves. Cause and effect do not come into this(yet), particularly when from the player perspective, they do not know a future encounter has been modified(because the encounter does not exist until they play it)

So in other words, because the party chooses not to be up to the task of adventuring that the DM should be limited in the sorts of encounters he runs beyond the obvious things? Preposterous. This isn't Oblivion.

A party of Monks is screwed regardless. A party of Rogues had better not tick off any casters, because if they do a scry and die is a possibility. Not the only possibility, but given how short work casters make of Rogues it's good advice regardless.

Quote
-Character evolution. Through challenges, you alter characters. In D&D terms, this is XP, wealth and semi-permanent effects on the character. This is distinct from encounter challenge. There is a target rate of growth for each game group, and basing evolution on the purported challenge difficulty sets up for trouble.
A hypercompetent party blows through encounters beefed up to accommodate their ability, and through this, gains even more competence, and widens the gap even further. In D&D this only ever aggravates the problem, as the degree of rocket tag rises, an encounter they should be able to blow through is also an encounter that can pulverise them with about the same difficulty. This rate should be based on what the group needs, not on challenge, it is also why one of the more common house rules is that characters level up when appropriate, and why 'trivial' encounters do not generally warrant experience.

This isn't Occupy Wall Street. What's wrong with more capable parties being rewarded for being more capable? Answer: Nothing. The only thing that could possibly be wrong with it is the degree of rocket tag rising, except that higher levels of optimization tend to actually REDUCE rocket tag, simply because defenses have a lot more room to be optimized than offenses.

So a normal group fights a Wizard, and he casts Slow and 2-3 of the 4 party members are crippled for the rest of the fight.
An optimized group fights a Wizard, and he casts Slow and everyone saves on a 2 or better. Even if the Wizard is also optimized.

Quote
Treating the GM as the referee is far underselling his role in the encounter. The encounter is not a static construct, it lives and evolves based on the group's needs.

The alternatives to arbiter is either competitor or enabler. Neither are at all desirable.

Offline ksbsnowowl

  • DnD Handbook Writer
  • ****
  • Posts: 4776
  • Warrior Skald, teller of tales.
    • View Profile
Re: Game difficulty, character effectiveness, and you.
« Reply #6 on: November 07, 2011, 02:31:46 PM »
I am quite mystified as to why you had such a hard time. You have a Druid. One Entangle and they're done. Since the road doesn't contain any undergrowth you don't even have to worry about friendly fire.
The road has undergrowth directly next to every square on the road (the embankments are described as having undergrowth on them), and just about every DM is going to rule that within the AoE, plants can reach at least 5 feet.

Regardless, the point I came back to make is that I recall my DM stating at some later point (after using this same map for a Goblin Worg-rider assault) that we were doing so well because we were using good tactics.  I don't recall what those tactics were to any great extent; it may well have included lots of entangles.  A party of the same people using poor tactics could easily have been ripped apart.

It is true. Check the encounter again. Anything in the forest gets concealment... and cover. Cover does prevent AoOs. The party also is not that far from the woods.
That's debatable.  The encounter states 'most' of the forest squares are filled with light undergrowth and trees.  Not all, but most.  And the trees are drawn on the map (they are brown).  It even specifies that it provides cover to creatures in the same square.

Quote from: SRD
Forest Terrain
Forest terrain can be divided into three categories: sparse, medium, and dense. An immense forest could have all three categories within its borders, with more sparse terrain at the outer edge of the forest and dense forest at its heart.

The table describes in general terms how likely it is that a given square has a terrain element in it.

Forest Terrain Features
Terrain Feature   Category of Forest
......................Sparse   Medium   Dense
Typical trees   ........50%   70%   80%
Massive trees   ........—   10%   20%
Light undergrowth   50%   70%   50%
Heavy undergrowth   —   20%   50%
Given the lack of any massive trees, and the proliferation of undergrowth, this appears to be something between a sparse forest and a medium forest.  Note that not every square will have typical trees.

Quote from: SRD
Trees
The most important terrain element in a forest is the trees, obviously. A creature standing in the same square as a tree gains a +2 bonus to Armor Class and a +1 bonus on Reflex saves (these bonuses don’t stack with cover bonuses from other sources). The presence of a tree doesn’t otherwise affect a creature’s fighting space, because it’s assumed that the creature is using the tree to its advantage when it can.
Again, it mentions that it only applies to creatures standing in the same square as a tree, and the fact that the trees are marked on the map...

Again, could they have made it more explicitly clear? Sure.  They did an excellent job of that in Expedition to Castle Ravenloft.

The cover only applies when standing in the same square as a tree.

Offline Basket Burner

  • Legendary Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1072
  • I break Basket Weavers.
    • View Profile
Re: Game difficulty, character effectiveness, and you.
« Reply #7 on: November 07, 2011, 02:45:30 PM »
Nitpicking aside, you'd have to really try in order to lose to any of the unmodified encounters in the first chapter. It's almost all one fight days and all of them have some trick to them that makes it far easier than it would seem. The first encounter has already been covered. The second is a single creature with bad will saves that is melee only. The third, if handled in any way smarter than screaming Leeroy Jenkins while dashing in at the top of your lungs will give you a series of very easy and poorly prepared fights as the build quality of the enemies and alertness levels of the same is extremely low. The fourth gives you ample opportunity to perfectly prepare for that specific battle.

It gets a bit more interesting later, but without some heavy rewrites to make it actually live up to its words, it won't live up to its words.

If you'd like, we can discuss details of improvements in private, as I'd rather not post them where my players might see and if you use any of them (they probably won't fit your theme) your players might read this as well.

Offline ksbsnowowl

  • DnD Handbook Writer
  • ****
  • Posts: 4776
  • Warrior Skald, teller of tales.
    • View Profile
Re: Game difficulty, character effectiveness, and you.
« Reply #8 on: November 07, 2011, 02:51:03 PM »
Regardless, the point I came back to make is that I recall my DM stating at some later point (after using this same map for a Goblin Worg-rider assault) that we were doing so well because we were using good tactics.  I don't recall what those tactics were to any great extent; it may well have included lots of entangles.  A party of the same people using poor tactics could easily have been ripped apart.
I think this comment summarizes what a lot of people mean when they say the encounters were tough.  A party on their game will still do well.  If they're having a bad day and utilize less-than-stellar tactics, or they have a run of bad rolls, these encounters could turn quite deadly.

It didn't happen to me, but in researching my conversion of RHoD, I've read several accounts where the assault on the keep turned into a TPK.  If the PC's are smart and sneaky, and they come upon each encounter in the keep individually, or maybe two encounters mashed together (because someone overhears the combat), they'll probably do fine, even as a mediocre party.  But if they accidentally alert the keep, there's a good chance they'll die.
« Last Edit: November 07, 2011, 02:53:53 PM by ksbsnowowl »

Offline Basket Burner

  • Legendary Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1072
  • I break Basket Weavers.
    • View Profile
Re: Game difficulty, character effectiveness, and you.
« Reply #9 on: November 07, 2011, 03:28:13 PM »
No, that isn't what I meant. What I meant was if you do anything smarter than a Leeroy Jenkins charge it will be incredibly easy... but if you DO end up doing a suicide charge, it won't actually be suicidal, or even that hard.

You have:

Worg riders: These guys are goblin fighter 3s, that do 1d4 + nothing damage. You'd have a hard time dying to them if you intentionally rendered yourself helpless. The mounts themselves are not much better. They're the fastest to respond but otherwise are nothing.
Veterans: All warrior levels, low stats. These guys are just cluttering the battlemap. They also take 12 rounds to get into the fight. That means they get jumped before they are ready.
Manticore: Half decent damage output, but deliberately refrains from entering the fight unless certain conditions are met, making it far easier than it would otherwise be. Otherwise completely unremarkable.
Minotaur: Decent damage, extreme glass cannon.
Leader: Lightning Bolt and Blindness/Deafness, no precast Mage Armor of all things. Need I say more? Well I will anyways. As if that weren't bad enough, both he and the minotaur take multiple rounds to get ready and then deliberately sit out until the fighting stops. So even if they too are not jumped while getting ready, even the most stupid approach imaginable gives you the enemies in manageable numbers.

Offline Shadowhunter

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 765
  • E6/E8 fanboy.
    • View Profile
    • The additional vestige collection for all you Binder players out there.
Re: Game difficulty, character effectiveness, and you.
« Reply #10 on: November 08, 2011, 09:17:50 AM »
I had a friend of mine help me in playing RHoD. I was the DM and he played the party. It consisted of a Crusader, a Druid, a Sorcerer, a Binder and the start of a Swift Hunter Scout/Ranger. I think it might have had a level of Targeteer in there somewhere as well.

The first encounter that day was handled by the Druid, the Druid and the Swift Hunter alone. One entangle went down and covered the entire ambushing force. The Swift Hunter had Goblinoids as his favored enemy, the Binder had bound Focalor. The Druid had prepared Call Lightning.

Between the arrows and the many bolts of lightning, no enemy ever got close to being a threat.

The Sorcerer did one useful thing I found hilarious so I said it was ok. A Gust of Wind to counter the hobgoblin reading the summoning scroll interrupted the spell and made the scroll fly away. The reader didn't survive long enough to chase after it.

That's been my experiences with that encounter, for what it is worth.

Offline Basket Burner

  • Legendary Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1072
  • I break Basket Weavers.
    • View Profile
Re: Game difficulty, character effectiveness, and you.
« Reply #11 on: November 08, 2011, 09:57:19 AM »
Heh. Well I can say a little more without spoiling things, so...

When I ran it I beefed things up quite heavily. So the mooks had a real NPC class (Fighter) and stats that were actually decent, the hellhounds were dire wolves and there was three of them, the Cleric was actually a Bard which is so much better for its intended role in the encounter, namely to support the others, the leader was not a Fighter and actually did some half decent damage with TWF, about 15 a hit or so and I added in one more thing - some berserkers. They have average saves and put out solid amounts of damage in melee, but are otherwise unremarkable. Of course the party is going to take one look at an enemy swinging twice for > 30 damage each and never let them get another melee attack off again. And that is more or less what happened.

This is just the beginning though. I might make a campaign journal for this actually. Though I'd prefer to wait a bit longer for that, as even fast PbP games still move slowly and I don't want gaps of weeks between updates.