# How are melee characters expected to deal with flying creatures?



## Hejdun (Oct 15, 2009)

There are a lot of flying creatures out there.  Most epic (and heck, even a lot of paragon) monsters have flight.  The problem is that more than half of the PC classes are solely melee-rangers.  A lot don't even have any powers that reach beyond a square, or at most two.  Even most ranged characters have a max range of 5 on most of their powers (Cleric, I'm looking at you).  About the only characters that can attack at range 11+ are the Wizard and Ranger (longbow).

Well, ok, but surely the melee rangers aren't expected to sit back chucking javelins for the majority of their Epic levels, right?  I mean, they have higher level powers, surely they're expected to use them sometimes, right?  So I started a search for powers/rituals/potions/magic items that granted flight.  And I found, to my dismay, about 4.  One Wizard power (mass fly), one cleric power, one Angelic Avenger power, and a flying mount.  Not a single magic item gives you flight for more than a round or 2, and even those are stingy.

So, what's the deal?  Is it expected that if melee-rangers want to contribute at epic levels, they NEED to have a ranged mount?  (And the only one I found was the rimfire griffon).  It seems to be an odd paradigm.  WotC put in all these beautiful flying creatures, but no way for the 50%+ melee classes to contribute except to spam ranged basic attacks.

Now, there are a few counter-measures.  All parties should have at least one dedicated ranged character, and in theory that character should have a power or two that is capable of bringing that creature to the ground (via prone or stun).  But as there are no at-will attacks that will achieve this, you are stuck with encounter powers.  If you're fighting 4 flying creatures, you almost certainly don't have 4 powers that will do that (and you'd still need to hit, which is only 50% or so).  And even if you get them on the ground, they will be back in the air after a round or 2.

But short of that, I don't see what my fighter is expected to do when we fight flying characters.  I have a magic javelin, but because I have no Expertise feats and Dex isn't my main stat, my chances of hitting are about 15%.  If you're a class that has no reason to have Dex, you're basically praying for a natural 20.

Am I missing something here?  Or did WotC just not give adequate ways for melee-characters to be useful against flying creatures?  Which is to say, almost all of Epic tier.

Does anyone who has played extensively at high paragon/epic tiers have any input?


----------



## talarei07 (Oct 15, 2009)

i see your point but a javelin is a heavy thrown weapon and works off str not dex. i know still not that helpful


----------



## Hejdun (Oct 15, 2009)

talarei07 said:


> i see your point but a javelin is a heavy thrown weapon and works off str not dex. i know still not that helpful




Oops, my bad.  Still, once you factor in lower enchantment (as it's a back up weapon), no weapon expertise, and ranged penalties, you still have a bad chance of hitting.  Also, there are quite a few melee characters who don't have very good Str or Dex.


----------



## talarei07 (Oct 15, 2009)

which ones that dont have ranged attacks?


melee character classes without ranged abilities (from memory so might be wrong on a few)
Fighter, Barbarian, Warden, Warlord (dont count hammer formation) All work off str


----------



## Ryujin (Oct 15, 2009)

Farslayer Weapon.


----------



## Fanaelialae (Oct 15, 2009)

There are also magic items that grant flight, most notably the Flying Carpet (PH pg 254).


----------



## Flipguarder (Oct 15, 2009)

4 words. Heavy thrown and whetstone.


----------



## SabreCat (Oct 15, 2009)

There's also the tried-and-true readied action, for Flyby Attack style melee fliers. "Ready [melee attack power that knocks prone] against the griffon when it enters melee range" or what have you.


----------



## AngryMojo (Oct 15, 2009)

Also, don't forget that a fighter can stop movement by connecting with an opportunity attack.  That's always been my favorite way of earthbinding a flying baddie.


----------



## Garthanos (Oct 15, 2009)

Hejdun said:


> Also, there are quite a few melee characters who don't have very good Str or Dex.




huh? an Avenger counts... who else?


----------



## talarei07 (Oct 15, 2009)

avenger has ranged capabilities


----------



## Garthanos (Oct 15, 2009)

talarei07 said:


> avenger has ranged capabilities




pretty questionable ones... yeah pursuing avenger there dex is a secondary so they can throw rocks at it (simple ranged weapons ranged basic attack only hooo hah for powers)

The other builds of avenger arent even that lucky...


----------



## Garthanos (Oct 15, 2009)

Fanaelialae said:


> There are also magic items that grant flight, most notably the Flying Carpet (PH pg 254).




Flying mounts too... want a witch reskin a flying mount as spirit posessed broom ;-).


----------



## FireLance (Oct 15, 2009)

Agreed, a single melee character will probably find it difficult to deal with a flying creature, but an entire party ought to have some method to handle flyers that will vary from party to party. This may involve some of the following:

Magic items that have pull effects, cause a creature to approach you, or cause a flying creature to fall. Examples: _grasping weapon_ (Level 6+), _orb of indisputable gravity_ (Level 7+), _skyrender weapon_ (Level 9+), _magnetic armor_ (Level 9+), _cherished ring_ (Level 14), _ghost chain weapon_ (Level 25+). 

Powers that have pull or slide effects, or teleport enemies.

Once the enemy is within melee range, powers and magic items that immobilize, restrain or stun can be used to keep it there.


----------



## bganon (Oct 15, 2009)

It's all items.  They're generally the best way to get situational powers that your class doesn't grant.

In particular, winged boots are only level 13.  There are several other flight-related foot-slot items (zephyr boots, airstriders, etc...), and I think many melee characters are not going to have a much better use for the foot slot.

AV even has freakin' Elixirs of Flying... 9000 gp per use isn't really so much at epic levels.


----------



## KarinsDad (Oct 15, 2009)

Throwing Shield

Course, the plus to hit is not all that great, but it's better than no ranged weapon at all.


----------



## Iron Sky (Oct 15, 2009)

Even cheaper, get an Ebony Fly (Level 9, 4200gp).  Cheap flight pre-Paragon even.


----------



## Shin Okada (Oct 15, 2009)

Garthanos said:


> pretty questionable ones... yeah pursuing avenger there dex is a secondary so they can throw rocks at it (simple ranged weapons ranged basic attack only hooo hah for powers)
> 
> The other builds of avenger arent even that lucky...




Avenger is one of a class which gains true flight power (not something like you must land at the end of this movement) "Wings of Vengeance". At least, avenger can fly 2 rounds per encounter with this L10 utility power.

And yeah. Even if  a melee character can't deal with a flayer, a party should be. having at least one Skyrender ranged weapon in a party is a good thing. Once the flying monster drops to the ground, melee warriors may swarm to it and kill it fast, or at least make them difficult to leave.


----------



## Garthanos (Oct 15, 2009)

Easiest earliest flight for player characters if the DM allows and wants it are level 4 or 5 mounts.


----------



## DracoSuave (Oct 15, 2009)

Use available terrain to force the flying monster to fight on their terms.

Melee characters have trouble against flying monsters.  This is not news.  This is intentional design.

Encounters should be designed to take that into account.  But other than that, every Melee character should have a Grasping spear they can through of some sort.  This isn't even an optional tool.

'But you're not likely to hit with it.'

Let's examine probabilities here.

Let's say you have a 40% chance to hit with that above Grasping Spear.
Compare that to the 0% chance you have to hit if you don't do something to ground said monster pickin' yer fighter nose.

40%>0%

You don't need to optimize it, you just want to -have- it just in case you get in a situation where you need to do something to something that you can't reach yet.  Fighters -definately- require a ranged attack of some sort, because they -definately- want to be able to mark -anyone- at range.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Oct 15, 2009)

My groups still in heroic levels, but we have come up against fliers.  Some things that mitigate the problem of melee'ing them:

 - Low cielings.  Lots of fights happen in dungeons.  If it's a 10' cieling - or a 15' cieling for a large flier, it can't just hover out of range of the melee types.  If the melee types have reach, add another 5'.  If the DM lets you jump-and-strike, you can stretch it a few more feet.

- Melee fliers.  Sure, a lotta monsters fly, but many of them still need to melee to use thier best attacks.  Even if they're skirmishers and can move in, hit, and fly away again, you can ready to hit them as they move into range.

- heavy thrown weapons.  For the STR types.

- other enemies.  In order for the melee types to be completely trumped all the monsters have to be flying.

- controllers.  A variety of conditions can ground a flier.  They can also get creative.  In one combat with a flier, our wizard thought to move her stinking cloud above the battlefield, effectively creating a 'low cieling' effect.  Another time it was a web cast at a flier early on, that stuck arround to similar effect.  

- ranged pressure.  Having a high-damage ranged character, like an archer-ranger, in the party makes the standoff option a lot less attractive to the monster.


----------



## DracoSuave (Oct 15, 2009)

Yes.  Controllers.  -YES-.

This is part of their job.  An immobilize or a knock prone is the -bane- of a flyer.  Not only does it inconvenience the flyer, it also will often damage the flyer.  Don't forget the usual pulls and slides.


----------



## talarei07 (Oct 15, 2009)

Garthanos said:


> pretty questionable ones... yeah pursuing avenger there dex is a secondary so they can throw rocks at it (simple ranged weapons ranged basic attack only hooo hah for powers)
> 
> The other builds of avenger arent even that lucky...





they have a ranged weapon at will power and implement powers that doesnt seem all that questionable to me


----------



## Garthanos (Oct 15, 2009)

Hey that low cieling trick I like a lot... storm power anyone?


----------



## Garthanos (Oct 15, 2009)

talarei07 said:


> they have a ranged weapon at will power




Oh they do now!?  The ph heros series 2? 

Generally easy to overlook ranged attacks (less than 10 percent of their powers and many levels with no ranged possibilities at all). for the Avenger since they never getting the Oath of Enemnity benefit.... read that again no striker class feature for avenger ranged powers...


----------



## Beckett (Oct 15, 2009)

Garthanos said:


> Oh they do now!?  The ph heros series 2?
> 
> Generally easy to overlook ranged attacks (less than 10 percent of their powers and many levels with no ranged possibilities at all). for the Avenger since they never getting the Oath of Enemnity benefit.... read that again no striker class feature for avenger ranged powers...




Focused Fury is a weapon melee/ranged from Ph series 2. But avengers have always had an at-will ranged with radiant vengeance. And no, they don't get their bonus for non-melee attacks, but they lose it when they have multiple foes around them too. And most striker bonus damages can be disabled by flying monsters.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Oct 15, 2009)

Beckett said:


> And most striker bonus damages can be disabled by flying monsters.



Really?  You can still curse or quary a flying creature (if it's the closest enemy you can see, and if there are ground-bound enemies closer, you can just go after them).  You can still hide from a flying creature, or gain CA in other ways (leaders & controllers can help with that).  Sorcerer bonus damage is just always there.  So, aside from the Barbarian and Avenger, it doesn't seem striker damage should be that easy for fliers to avoid.


----------



## Garthanos (Oct 15, 2009)

Beckett said:


> Focused Fury is a weapon melee/ranged from Ph series 2. But avengers have always had an at-will ranged with radiant vengeance. And no, they don't get their bonus for non-melee attacks, but they lose it when they have multiple foes around them too.




range 10 is rather ummm short range at least its not 5 and doing d8 compared to d12 with the full blade 
and combined with not getting you OoEe ;-) the kicker of wis thp is indeed nice. but... 

I can almost say I'd rather my avenger stay dependent on friends if the enemy is out of reach ...It doesnt compare very favorably to say Overwhelming strike or bond of retribution on your pursuit avenger... in part because they can help you get the isolation you need and it really doesnt.

Focused Fury now exists melee or ranged means all by itself it is flexible ... the blast enemies back is good for helping getting that isolation you mention... and if you are at melee range you can exploit it too.


----------



## Starfox (Oct 15, 2009)

Its not so difficult to down a flier; simple knockdown will do.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Oct 15, 2009)

yeah jinx shot and wait.


----------



## Herschel (Oct 15, 2009)

I'm sorry to say, complaining about fliers against one's min/maxed melee ranger or whatever really comes accross to me as whining about something that is really the fault of the player or players. Others have pointed out a ton of ways to deal with them. In a game the other night we had our two melee guys in a cavern with shadowhunter bats harrying us. 20' ceilings. Welcome to Lightning Lure and readied actions. Heck, it also made sure we used focused damage instead of spreading it around.

Parties simply should be built to deal with basically whatever is thrown at them. If they aren't, that's on the players. Controllers, defenders and leaders are a lot of fun to play in a group setting if people can get past the "I wanna pwn damage" mentality.


----------



## mneme (Oct 15, 2009)

Avengers are fine.  They have their choice of ranged at wills, and all their ranged options are very, very good (yes, they lose the double-roll on RV, but it's still quite good, due to the temporary HP it grants.  Or they can grab Bond of Censure, which while range 5 (though you can use items to boost the range, and should, given that at high levels the pull will be larger than the range!) -does- get the double roll and will yank the flier down to where the other melee characters can get at it (or you can action point attack it with an encounter or daily).  Moreover, they have numerous teleporting and flying options they can use -- including paragon paths that provide all-day flight or flight on a charge.

Charisma Paladins OTOH, have big problems.  Sure, they have the -option- for ranged encounters and dailys...but -no- good ranged basic, no ranged at wills...

Hmm.  Shielding Swordmages might also be a problem (again, Int+Con = no ranged options), though swordmages do get a fair number of teleports, ranged or area powers, and do have a single ranged at will power (and a pull, at that), though with range 3, you'd need to boost it for it to have any usefulness against fliers.

Huh.  You could make a not-horrible argument that Intelligent Blademaster (unlike Melee Training) lets you throw melee weapons using your Intelligence as a basic attack.


----------



## Obryn (Oct 15, 2009)

Avengers are fine with their ranged attacks.  Seriously, I suggest that Avengers take one melee At-Will for their bread & butter attack, but then take a Ranged At-Will for the other one.

Otherwise they're simply unprepared for situations where they are Slowed or Immobilized or fighting a flying creature.

-O


----------



## The_Gneech (Oct 15, 2009)

Marking is LoS, isn't it? (Don't have my books handy.) That's one way to get them to come to you -- and in fact, half the purpose of the ability.

-The Gneech


----------



## Snowbird (Oct 15, 2009)

What a great point.  I like the idea of a Fighter picking up a rock, throwing it at the flying beast and saying, "Here, fight me!"


----------



## mneme (Oct 15, 2009)

Gneech, marking depends a lot on the class.  

Fighters mark when they attack, so they need a thrown weapon (or even, since they mark on an attack, not a hit, a bow to pull out when they need long range marks--wow, a reason for a fighter to use a bow!), but most marks are very weak at range (just the -2, no riders).
Wardens mark adjacent foes, so no love.
Swordmages can -use- their mark at range (and with a feat, that can be "close burst 20", which is usually plenty), but can only mark within a Close Burst 2.  Which is curious, there aren't even any feats to extend that burst, though they can get featss that will let them mark two targets within the burst, all targets, etc.
Paladins mark with a close burst 5, and only have to engage the target -- so while they don't have the nigh-unlimited marking range of a fighter, once they've gotten within 5 and dropped a mark down, they can maintain the mark indefinately (as long as they have bolts or amunition or a magical throwing weapon) and it's more effective than just a -2 on attacking anyone except the pally.



Obryn said:


> Avengers are fine with their ranged attacks. Seriously, I suggest that Avengers take one melee At-Will for their bread & butter attack, but then take a Ranged At-Will for the other one.



This.

The first melee at-will for an Avenger is golden.

The second?  Is a power not measurably better than a charge, and not giving you substantial options beyond "charge or mba or primary at-will".  Whereas slotting a ranged attack gives you -substantial- choices over what you started with.

Moreover, an Avenger, because they do not have the power to re-purpose their Oath without ending the encounter or defeating the target (or use a valuable level 2 utility that's better spent on a teleport that you'll use every encounter) shouldn't always use Oath at the very beginning of an encounter, as it often takes a round or two to know what the best targets for your oath are.  And as long as you're not running Oath, you're better off hitting something at range and maybe splatting a minion, rather then getting mired in melee combat with something that will have friends around to help it.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Oct 15, 2009)

What are ranged characters supposed to do when flying creatures land and start eating them?

What are non-flying characters supposed to do when they encounter gravity? 

These and other conundrums will be answered in DMG III, chapter 5: My players are brain dead, now what?


----------



## keterys (Oct 15, 2009)

Eh, seems to me like blue dragons and bloodfire harpies can hang out at range 20 and screw up lots of parties. The harpy can even just total defense to make the fighter pulling out a javelin even worse off.

And 20 is outside the range of most casters.

But, sure, go ahead and call parties that have problems with that brain dead. Whatever makes you feel better


----------



## ExploderWizard (Oct 15, 2009)

keterys said:


> Eh, seems to me like blue dragons and bloodfire harpies can hang out at range 20 and screw up lots of parties. The harpy can even just total defense to make the fighter pulling out a javelin even worse off.
> 
> And 20 is outside the range of most casters.
> 
> But, sure, go ahead and call parties that have problems with that brain dead. Whatever makes you feel better




_So it is said that if you know your enemies and know yourself, you can win a hundred battles without a single loss._

                                                                    Sun Tzu


The obvious answer is to not engage in situations where one is hopelessly outclassed. 

If your opponent has air superiority then you must neutralize it. If the DM creates a situation where you _must_ engage in mindless combat against such a foe without there being any intelligent alternatives available then simply have your PC strip, bend over , and get it over with quickly.


----------



## bganon (Oct 15, 2009)

keterys said:


> Eh, seems to me like blue dragons and bloodfire harpies can hang out at range 20 and screw up lots of parties. The harpy can even just total defense to make the fighter pulling out a javelin even worse off.




Meh, if the blue dragon stays at range where only a fraction of the party can attack it, it's also not using Frightful Presence or Draconic Fury (or Thunder/Wing Clap at high levels) which means it's only at a fraction of its full potential.  The breath weapon isn't too bad, but Lightning Burst is really pretty weak for something that's supposed to be equivalent to 4-5 normal monsters.

And maybe it's just me, but I'd feel like a huge jerk if I didn't allow my players to avoid the Burning Song aura by covering their ears.  And if they can't because of some other melee threats, well, that makes it an interesting encounter!  Harpies are clumsy fliers anyway, so circling out of reach is a bad idea; they're probably going to want some kind of perch that the players ought to be able to eventually get to.

But anyway, as I argued previously, I think people are focusing way too much on class powers.  IME, each character easily has three items with daily powers by the time they hit paragon, and they're pretty foolish if at least one isn't movement-related.  By epic, there are flight-enabling items available in at least foot, neck, and ring slots, plus a couple slotless wondrous items, plus potions.  That's without getting into the similar number of items that negate flight some other way.


----------



## keterys (Oct 15, 2009)

By epic it's much easier, absolutely. The creatures I mentioned are both heroic and could easily cause horrendous problems to a group of level 4-9 characters.

Now, as a DM I wouldn't throw what I'd consider a stupid flying encounter* at a party, but that doesn't mean they wouldn't be written in a module or that some DMs wouldn't 'play a creature tactically' and have it just keep its distance until there was a compelling reason to get closer.

And for some of these creatures, that compelling reason might be that it killed off, say, the first two PCs it picked on and the other 3 got away. Good enough.

* And am, for example, trying to put together a combination skill challenge / phased dragon fight for one part of my campaign where the dragon does try to leverage its flight and forces the PCs to land it with local terrain / siege weaponry / reinforcements.


----------



## Ryujin (Oct 15, 2009)

Snowbird said:


> What a great point.  I like the idea of a Fighter picking up a rock, throwing it at the flying beast and saying, "Here, fight me!"




Our fighter keeps a pocket-full of coppers, for just this purpose. Even if he doesn't get the thing to fight him, he's still giving it that -2 penalty.


----------



## fba827 (Oct 15, 2009)

get the controller (or other controller-esque) type allies to ground the creature.

(hey, controllers have to done something good for the party, right?  )


----------



## keterys (Oct 15, 2009)

Well, a young blue dragon is level 6. So let's say it's facing level 4 characters... other than being a dreadfully boring fight, what abilities can these level 4 characters use on the dragon to prevent it from using lightning burst on the group every round, potentially while ducking out of range every other round if there's somehow any use in doing so (like letting a mark fade).

Though technically it can probably just do the lightning bursts from 22 squares away since they're burst 2 and it would still hit the ground. Yeah, that'd be funny for narrowing out javelins and magic missile too.

But, what controller powers are range 20 and knock prone or stun at level 4? Phantom Chasm is one of the few I can think of, and it does require hitting - thankfully the dragon's low defense, so a good 30%-35% chance. If the wizard prepared that daily.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Oct 15, 2009)

keterys said:


> But, what controller powers are range 20 and knock prone or stun at level 4? Phantom Chasm is one of the few I can think of, and it does require hitting - thankfully the dragon's low defense, so a good 30%-35% chance. If the wizard prepared that daily.




Why the assumption that the PC's have to engage the dragon while at the greatest disadvantage? Maneuver it to a place where its flight advantage is minimized. Is having to fight the thing without a plan the requirement here?


----------



## Obryn (Oct 15, 2009)

mneme said:


> This.
> 
> The first melee at-will for an Avenger is golden.
> 
> The second?  Is a power not measurably better than a charge, and not giving you substantial options beyond "charge or mba or primary at-will".  Whereas slotting a ranged attack gives you -substantial- choices over what you started with.



Yep.  I let one of my players re-train one of his At-Wills after the first session trying out the new class.

I know that the OoE is a tempting and delectable nugget, ripe for the picking, but Avengers have a lot of great powers - and some of the best aren't melee weapon ones.  I understand wanting to get the most out of OoE, but if an Avenger distributes out his powers, he'll get the most out of his _character._

-O


----------



## keterys (Oct 15, 2009)

ExploderWizard said:


> Why the assumption that the PC's have to engage the dragon while at the greatest disadvantage? Maneuver it to a place where its flight advantage is minimized. Is having to fight the thing without a plan the requirement here?




Why the assumption that they have a choice? If a blue dragon decides to attack a party on the road or in the wilderness it can easily take at least 5 minutes to get into a cave or similar form of absolute cover.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Oct 15, 2009)

Yeah, i hink the don´t fight a dragon in the open sounds like the best and desired tactic. If PC´s could bring down a dragon easily when he is in his favourite terrain, something is wrong.

Did such a question came up in a 3.5 discussion? I ´hope not, because there were not so many things a fighter could do to bring the dragon down... even when he readies an action

In the worst case, the fighter could ready a grab and also do his opportunity attack in 4e to convince the dragon to stay down if it ever coes into melee range.

in 3.5 you could however use a bow which did meaningfull damage if you hit... but thats not to be taken for granted against a dragon...
especially if you are hyperotimized...


----------



## keterys (Oct 15, 2009)

And yet, by conceding that the party _can't_ deal with it, responses that basically act like the OP's concerns are trivial or meaningless or suggest that parties stuck in such circumstances are brainless are, well, not very useful responses.

I wouldn't throw an encounter at the party that was both supremely boring and potentially unwinnable (like a dragon who could do damage to them while they had no recourse except to run to something several minutes away)... but some DMs would just consider it a good challenge, or note that's what the random encounter table threw against the party, or just flat out not realize how bad things could be.

So it's a valid conversation to have. And it doesn't have to be just dragons. I was only giving examples of low level creatures that have flight and range 20 significant damage, since range 20 is outside of the range of a massive percentage of magic abilities.


----------



## Garthanos (Oct 15, 2009)

Obryn said:


> and some of the best aren't melee weapon ones.
> -O



Names please claim so far un backed by actual data... 
ranges of 10 and under may receive summary dismissal.
Feel free to compare these ranged powers to other strikers please.... 

picture the above with robot voice firmly planted in cheek.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Oct 15, 2009)

keterys said:


> And yet, by conceding that the party _can't_ deal with it, responses that basically act like the OP's concerns are trivial or meaningless or suggest that parties stuck in such circumstances are brainless are, well, not very useful responses.
> 
> I wouldn't throw an encounter at the party that was both supremely boring and potentially unwinnable (like a dragon who could do damage to them while they had no recourse except to run to something several minutes away)... but some DMs would just consider it a good challenge, or note that's what the random encounter table threw against the party, or just flat out not realize how bad things could be.
> 
> So it's a valid conversation to have. And it doesn't have to be just dragons. I was only giving examples of low level creatures that have flight and range 20 significant damage, since range 20 is outside of the range of a massive percentage of magic abilities.



Hmmh, let me rephrase:

as a DM you can always set up unwinnable encounters, even against equal level foes, or even against lower level foes, if they have favourable terrain. And for flyers, the open filds are favourite terrain.

It is your responsibility as a DM to make the encounter interesting despite it beeing nearly unwinnable. Surviving such an encounter is already a challenge and should be rewarded.
The trick is to set up a trap or hunt the Dragon down with appropriate weapons spells and rituals.

4e has an answer for many situations, but you can always break any system if you want. And the usual reaction should be creativity. And this is what makes it an RPG and not a board game...


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Oct 15, 2009)

I think both Keterys and Ungeheuerlich have good points. Its worth considering what sorts of encounters might be unwinnable for a party and also what exactly that implies in terms of how players could respond and what would make an interesting scenario out of say Keterys' blue dragon example. It is quite possible that a DM might, even unwittingly, place a party in that type of situation. I have to say though that the possibility has always and will always exist. Even barring flight there are certainly ways to create unwinnable encounters, though admittedly most of them the party can at least refuse. It is simply incumbent on the DM to be able to recognize this sort of thing and provide some interesting alternative to inevitable defeat.

There is one factor though that I haven't seen mentioned yet. Ranged powers do seem to have a pretty hard upper limit of 20 squares, but this is NOT true of archery. Longbows have a range of 40, crossbow has range 30, superior crossbow has range 40 and greatbow has a range of 50 squares. Far Shot can increase these slightly and magic ammo and certain items can increase it a bit more. Granted this kind of range is only likely to be available to one or two characters in a party, but one decent archer ranger with a greatbow may be all it takes to tip the balance against the example blue dragon, assuming the rest of the party spreads out a bit. So I'm not sure its a totally dire situation for the party in all cases.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Oct 16, 2009)

I also strongly believe, if a DM allows a dragon to stay at exactly 21 squares away he is doing his job wrong...

inevitable defeat by unfair means is never fun. Such encounters are rather plot devices or should break the usual "kill whatever we encounter" kind of scenarios. I can imagine a lot of scenarios where fleeing from an unkillable beast is a cool thing to lure it into a trap. And there are a lot of movies where such a senario appears.

Kill everything is no fun either. It may be old school, but sometimes it is fun to challenge the players instead of the PCs.


----------



## Dr_Ruminahui (Oct 16, 2009)

Tied into this issue is one of DMing style - are you the type of DM that expects their players to be versitile and who speficially attacks their weaknesses, or are you one who avoids doing so and thus allows the players to concentrate on what their characters do best? Or, more likely, where on the continuum between the extremes does your groups play fall?

Neither approaches are wrong - its simply a difference in playstyle. What would kill the fun is if the encounter doesn't suit your group's playstyle - for example, springing a dragon using such "stay away tactics" on a melee heavy group without any indication that you might penalize the group for overspecialization.


----------



## lukelightning (Oct 16, 2009)

Re. The Artillery Dragon of Doom situation:

I'd turn it into a skill challenge, something like this:

Use social skills to lure the dragon in (diplomacy to coax it closer, bluff to trick it into coming in closer, intimidate to anger it so it loses its cool and rushes in). Acrobatic stunts could help (leap out into a position that tempts the dragon to move closer). Athletics to throw debris at the dragon to hinder its flight. Insight might be a good secondary skill that can succeed once (you gain insight into what might get the dragon to land), as well as arcana (knowledge that blue dragons like to swoop in such-and-such manner, or whatever).

If you fail an attempt you lose a healing surge (representing the dragon's attack).

If you succeed in the challenge, the dragon is on the ground 5 squares away or something. If the entire challenge fails each character loses a healing surge and maybe even some gold (representing they have to bribe the dragon to leave them alone), and the dragon takes off back to its lair.


----------



## Stalker0 (Oct 16, 2009)

UngeheuerLich said:


> I also strongly believe, if a DM allows a dragon to stay at exactly 21 squares away he is doing his job wrong...




There's a certain blend here. While the DM has to tailor his encounters for his party, you also want most parties to handle a wide variety of encounters.

I think this is a weakness in 4e's power system.

In 3e, a fighter's power is represented in his weapon and his multiple attacks. A fighter with a powerful bow in hand can do solid damage, though not as high as with his weapon.

In 4e, a fighter's main power comes from both his weapon and his powers. You can give them a good magic ranged weapoin....but they can't use any powers with it. At will attacks become weaker and weaker at higher levels, so the damage disparity grows.


----------



## lukelightning (Oct 16, 2009)

Stalker0 said:


> In 4e, a fighter's main power comes from both his weapon and his powers. You can give them a good magic ranged weapoin....but they can't use any powers with it. At will attacks become weaker and weaker at higher levels, so the damage disparity grows.




I know it's not the best solution, but multiclassing can help.


----------



## Mirtek (Oct 16, 2009)

Herschel said:


> Welcome to Lightning Lure and readied actions.



Actually LL is completly useless against a flyer, you can't even damage it. Forced movement can't move vertically and if you can't pull, the whole power fails.


----------



## keterys (Oct 16, 2009)

A bit of an aside, but it is my understanding that the 'not vertical' part of forced movement was only intended to cover using forced movement to induce falling damage (ie, by sending people up) and it is standardly accepted among WotC that you can pull downwards and that interpretation will be making it into an FAQ of some kind.

But my understanding is often flawed, and I'd have thought it would hit an FAQ by now.


----------



## Nifft (Oct 16, 2009)

keterys said:


> A bit of an aside, but it is my understanding that the 'not vertical' part of forced movement was only intended to cover using forced movement to induce falling damage (ie, by sending people up) and it is standardly accepted among WotC that you can pull downwards and that interpretation will be making it into an FAQ of some kind.



 This was my understanding as well. If the rules say you can't Pull a flier down, then I guess I'll need a house rule.

Cheers, -- N


----------



## mneme (Oct 16, 2009)

Hmm.  Clearly, the -intended- rule (and certainly the sensible one) is that a pull/push/slide must be legal movement using targets movement modes.  

A swimming creature can be pulled around vertically or horizontally in the water -- but unless it has a fly or walk speed, it can't be forced moved out of the water.

A creature with a fly speed can be pulled/pushed any which way.

A creature with a walk speed but not a fly speed can't be forced moved into the air, but can be moved along a slope.

Hmm.  Only thing is, this doesn't cover stuff like critters that force move people into water--though that's arguably hindering terrain anyway.  Not seeing a big loss here.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Oct 16, 2009)

Stalker0 said:


> There's a certain blend here. While the DM has to tailor his encounters for his party, you also want most parties to handle a wide variety of encounters.
> 
> I think this is a weakness in 4e's power system.
> 
> ...



Yes, you are right 

but not the answer to the quoted passage... 

my reasoming for the quoted passage:

1) The dragon can´t know that 21 squares, i.e. 105 ft. is a magical barrier
2) The dragon can´t hover at this distance
3) Players can move
4) The dragon most certainly can´t judge the distance exactly
5) Designing an encounter which not only challenges the players by attacking their weakness once in a while and with "fair" means is ok. Designing an encounter with monsters who happen to know where exactly the weaknesses of the players are and shamelessly exploiting them is not ok.

1) Fair situation (IMHO of course)
And presenting a dragon which only stays at this distance right from the beginning...
At the beginning, the dragon usually would believe he faces normal warriors who are no challenge to him and offer him a good meal. Only whe the dragon realizes he is facing real enemies he will try to back off and stay in the ait using his breath weapon. If the enemies fire on him with missiles and magic he will stay even further away...

2) The Dragon knows from this particular group of adventurers and te adventurers may have heard rumors of dragons, but ignored them. (Maybe because the DM would never use ranged monsters in the open vs an only melee party) The dragon has heard of the melee prowess of the fighters so decides to attack in the open and show them who is the boss.

Unfair stuation:
Random encounter dragon on an open plain, no trees. Suddenly appears at 200 ft distance. Closes to 105 ft and attacks with his breath weapon without any reason... rinse and repeat until players are death.


----------



## Herschel (Oct 17, 2009)

keterys said:


> A bit of an aside, but it is my understanding that the 'not vertical' part of forced movement was only intended to cover using forced movement to induce falling damage (ie, by sending people up) and it is standardly accepted among WotC that you can pull downwards and that interpretation will be making it into an FAQ of some kind.
> 
> But my understanding is often flawed, and I'd have thought it would hit an FAQ by now.





This is also the way I have understood it, as have the multiple other DMs played with.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Oct 17, 2009)

UngeheuerLich said:


> Yes, you are right
> 
> but not the answer to the quoted passage...
> 
> ...




These are all really good points which a DM should be taking into consideration. Of course not all DMs seem to be even this insightful and some are just spiteful, and some are just frightful  In any case it devolves down to not a weakness in the system, but just a matter of having a good DM. Bad DMs will muck things up one way or another.

@Stalker0 The problem isn't to do with powers. In fact powers COULD solve the issue. The issue is the same one that has always existed in D&D where you have a dependency on different skill sets for different weapons. In 2e a fighter with a high STR and a bow is equally hobbled because DEX still controlled to-hit bonuses with missile weapons and at higher levels the enhancement bonus of your weapon was still a major part of your chance to hit. Stats had a similar amount of effect on your attack bonus and so did magic etc as it does in 4e. Thus a 2e fighter with a bow is really no better off than a 4e fighter with a bow. 

At least in 4e it is theoretically possible within the design of the game to write a power which gets the fighter around part of the issue by making it a STR vs AC attack. Nothing is going to particularly solve the "I can't afford a magic bow I use once a year" problem. Either you have one or you don't and that has nothing to do with powers.

As a design issue solving this IMHO is as bad as not solving it since the implication is you now have to let every PC be essentially at par with a variety of weapons. How then would one character excel with a specific style of fighting? If they can excel at one specific style, then that will be the baseline for performance in that style and the "ordinary" guys are still lame at it by comparison. Its not a solvable issue and 4e is no better or worse than any other system in this regard.


----------



## keterys (Oct 17, 2009)

UngeheuerLich said:


> 1) The dragon can´t know that 21 squares, i.e. 105 ft. is a magical barrier
> 2) The dragon can´t hover at this distance
> 3) Players can move
> 4) The dragon most certainly can´t judge the distance exactly
> 5) Designing an encounter which not only challenges the players by attacking their weakness once in a while and with "fair" means is ok. Designing an encounter with monsters who happen to know where exactly the weaknesses of the players are and shamelessly exploiting them is not ok.




I think we still safely know that the blue dragon sniping party is still just an example of an unfun encounter, and hopefully no DM is rolling random encounters for a party traveling or running a module that happens to include a blue dragon and then going 'well, I guess the smart tactic would be...' _but_ your assumptions above are flawed.

1) It's not a magical barrier. It knows it can launch a blast of energy a certain range. It should well know how high to stay so it's at the rough extent of its range (ie, 101-110 ft up). If you mean 'it shouldn't know that many creatures have attacks which don't go past 100 ft' - 1) why not? and 2) why wouldn't it stay at max range, regardless?
2) It has fly (hover). Yes, it can.
3) Doesn't really help them except to limit the number of them it can kill. That is why I mentioned that it might only kill, say, 2 of the 5 PCs though. I assumed a scenario where they all scattered and ran. It presumably focuses on the ranger or whatever first in the meantime.
4) It can do so as exactly as any player can, and since it only needs to be within 10 feet of its estimate I imagine it can do so quite well enough for these purposes. At least as well as any PC positioning a blast 5 or area burst 2 normally. I imagine you don't make PCs use grenade scatter rules for that, anyways, nor would I think of telling a DM to do so for his monsters as a player.
5) Sometimes DMs don't design encounters - they run them from a module or roll some random encounter or something similar. Not my preferred method, of course, but I _have_ actually fought multiple dragons out in fairly open areas in modules as a player and had a DM once whose idea of fun _was_ to hover at max height in a 60' tall room using ranged attacks cause hey, that's what was in the module (yawn).

So depending on the game, Grasping Javelins and Ebony Flies (preferably with the invulnerability saddle) may be the method of choice for dealing with flyers. If you're lucky you may have some other resort, though surprisingly few abilities work for this. If your DM doesn't allow forced movement to work vertically, you're even more up a creek.


----------



## Tallifer (Oct 17, 2009)

Imagine you are actually a hero building a new adventuring party or a lord hiring a new party of adventurers. Why would you not recruit at least one ranged controller and one ranged striker?

In fact MMORPGs make better simulation for the roleplaying aspect of an adventuring party: there is a goal (waging war against the other realm, defeating some monsters, questing for something in dangerous territory) and the party begins to assemble. If there is a certain role lacking, everyone stares disconsolately at each other until a) they find another member or b) one of them agrees to fetch another member of his family [ooc switch to an alternate character].

If your party is useless against flying creatures then you need to sacrifice soemthign else.


----------



## Derren (Oct 17, 2009)

UngeheuerLich said:


> I also strongly believe, if a DM allows a dragon to stay at exactly 21 squares away he is doing his job wrong...




Ok, but then the PCs are not allowed to use "When the dragon gets within 20 squares ready actions.

I don't see that the DM must do something in this situation.
If a fight with the dragon makes sense considering the location and actions of the PCs he is not required to make it defeatable for the party.
The players are responsible to overcome the challenge. And when they are not prepared they should flee and regroup.
The DM should not dumb his monsters down and play them like they would be complete tactical morons just so that Mr. "I only need a melee weapon" fighter can hit it.

Problem with 4E is that the powers are so restricting. Even when the fighter gets a bow he would do rahter low damage to the dragon (if he can even hit it as Dex won't be his primary stat).


----------



## keterys (Oct 17, 2009)

Thinking on two parties I know... 
Party one has a fighter, barbarian, cleric, and warlock. 
The cleric's max range is 5.
The warlock's max range is 10.
The fighter and barbarian have magic javelins and can attack with them at, say, -3 to hit and, say, -20 or so to damage (ie, 1d6+7 damage instead of 4d6+24 or 1d12+22)
I think there's at least one bow stashed in some pack, which would be at a further -6 to hit and damage.

The other has a paladin, bard, swordmage-warlock, and rogue.
Paladin's max range is effectively 5.
Bard's max range is 10.
Swordlock's max range is 10.
Rogue's max range is 18. (I think - Range 12 plus Determined for another 6)

And the number of ranged prones in the game is still very very small, which is really the best hope of dealing with creatures that can hover.

Well the best hope is a DM who wants the group to have fun and provides interesting terrain, the ability to stunt or skill challenge more options, etc. But after that


----------



## keterys (Oct 17, 2009)

Derren said:


> Problem with 4E is that the powers are so restricting. Even when the fighter gets a bow he would do rahter low damage to the dragon (if he can even hit it as Dex won't be his primary stat).




Well, going from 30 damage to 10 damage at a stiff penalty to attack due to weapon change is little different from going from 200 damage to 30 damage at the same penalty to attack in 3e from switching to a bow. Better, in some ways, but still a screw off either way.

You could also do some _really_ silly things with range in previous editions. When I ran Dragonlance I remember the odd effects of enlarged (double range) spells on ship combat and sieges, having dragons 'Run' for distances, and giving the archer several rounds of rolls at penalties decreasing from extreme as things closed.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Oct 17, 2009)

keterys said:


> I think we still safely know that the blue dragon sniping party is still just an example of an unfun encounter, and hopefully no DM is rolling random encounters for a party traveling or running a module that happens to include a blue dragon and then going 'well, I guess the smart tactic would be...' _but_ your assumptions above are flawed.
> 
> 1) It's not a magical barrier. It knows it can launch a blast of energy a certain range. It should well know how high to stay so it's at the rough extent of its range (ie, 101-110 ft up). If you mean 'it shouldn't know that many creatures have attacks which don't go past 100 ft' - 1) why not? and 2) why wouldn't it stay at max range, regardless?
> 2) It has fly (hover). Yes, it can.
> ...



Ok, i didn´t check if it can hover, this will help him a bit.

But actually, you have pointed out a lot of reasons why using a battlemap isn´t the A and O for a game.
It makes you think judging distances and heights is so easy... You can go for this tactics and it starts beeing really unfun. Within the rules, diagonals are the same as height, so it is easier for the dragon to stay at the same height... and not having to actually follow the players or go up and down a bit helps making the fight even more boring and static.

Designing and running the encounter from a book is the same. If you have an encounter in the book which tells you to kill your players on an open plane, you should consider using the adventure on the dust bin.

And you should also not use every monsters like a super intelligent tactician. Some are just brutes which try to have a good meal. (at least at first glance)

Bringing items to ground the dragon is a good idea however. And if a monster recognizes that the players can´t harm it at the distance, it should fall back to this tactic. But not straight from the beginning... (maybe if you encounter an adult dragon who has learned not to close in with adventuring parties, but usually this dragon will search for an easier target.)


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Oct 17, 2009)

Derren said:


> Ok, but then the PCs are not allowed to use "When the dragon gets within 20 squares ready actions.
> 
> I don't see that the DM must do something in this situation.
> If a fight with the dragon makes sense considering the location and actions of the PCs he is not required to make it defeatable for the party.
> ...



No, when dragon gets into 20 squares is not readiable IMHO... especially when a human should guess height (humans are very bad at this)

And yes, no encounter must be beatable. But it should not be unreasonanble. As i reasoned above, having an unbeatable "random" encounter which spells certain death is like using DM´s fiat in a bad way.

I don´t think the power system of 4e is the problem here, but the restricted nature of multiclassing and scaling of monsters and PCs (main stats of PC´s are rising too fast vs non main stats)


----------



## DracoSuave (Oct 18, 2009)

UngeheuerLich said:


> I don´t think the power system of 4e is the problem here, but the restricted nature of multiclassing and scaling of monsters and PCs (main stats of PC´s are rising too fast vs non main stats)




No, the problem is the DM taking a tool (a monster) and using it incorrectly, and nothing more than that.

Melee characters are -supposed- to have ranged as a weakness, in exchange for the advantage of having easier combat advantage available through flanking.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Oct 18, 2009)

DracoSuave said:


> No, the problem is the DM taking a tool (a monster) and using it incorrectly, and nothing more than that.
> 
> Melee characters are -supposed- to have ranged as a weakness, in exchange for the advantage of having easier combat advantage available through flanking.




Yeah, i mean besides that as you can read in my posts above.

But at higher levels, unarmed attacks as well as stats not using your main stats neither hit nor do damage when you start facing flying monsters on a regular basis. And it is hardly possible to give your fighter a reliable long ranged attack even if you want to. (In ADnD a longbow was god, even when used by a dex 10 figher, because of 2/1 fire rate, long range, damage depending on strength and main part of to hit chance came from thac0 and magic and ammunition)

But yeah, using the tool: monster correctly in a fair way is the most important part.


----------



## LostSoul (Oct 18, 2009)

Stalker0 said:


> While the DM has to tailor his encounters for his party




I disagree with this.  The DM doesn't have to tailor encounters to the party.

A wandering blue dragon can be dealt with by a smart party - even if it's in the middle of a desert with no terrain for the PCs to use.

(Have rope?  Tie a lasso and try to drag him down.)


----------



## Derren (Oct 18, 2009)

DracoSuave said:


> No, the problem is the DM taking a tool (a monster) and using it incorrectly, and nothing more than that.




So how is the Dm using the monster incorrectly? By using its strength and running it not like suicidal XP fodder?


----------



## DracoSuave (Oct 18, 2009)

Derren said:


> So how is the Dm using the monster incorrectly? By using its strength and running it not like suicidal XP fodder?




If the monster's only function is to wipe out a party that is incapable of dealing with it, then don't bring that monster to the table.  Use a monster that is challenging, but within the party's capabilities to deal with.  This isn't a matter of 'Look I got a chisel and so I am chiselling with it' it's 'Look, I got a chisel, and I'm going to use it to sand my deck.'  -That- is what I mean by using it improperly.

If the party is not smart enough to deal with it, you as a DM need to be aware of it.  Your job is not to prove how dumb the party is or can be, your job is to help provide entertainment in a social setting.  Not -everyone- likes to face an impossible challenge and get defeated by it as an inevitable conclusion.

You as a DM have the -responsibility- to make those determinations.  If you decide not to, and the game suffers because of it, you're responsible for that.  

Know.  Your.  Party.
Know.  Your.  Group.


----------



## Tallifer (Oct 18, 2009)

If in my campaign I had to run a party who wilfully neglected their range attacks, I would harrass them with that dragon, but I would give them a way to escape and rethink their foolish ways.


----------



## Derren (Oct 18, 2009)

DracoSuave said:


> If the monster's only function is to wipe out a party that is incapable of dealing with it, then don't bring that monster to the table.  Use a monster that is challenging, but within the party's capabilities to deal with.  This isn't a matter of 'Look I got a chisel and so I am chiselling with it' it's 'Look, I got a chisel, and I'm going to use it to sand my deck.'  -That- is what I mean by using it improperly.
> 
> If the party is not smart enough to deal with it, you as a DM need to be aware of it.  Your job is not to prove how dumb the party is or can be, your job is to help provide entertainment in a social setting.  Not -everyone- likes to face an impossible challenge and get defeated by it as an inevitable conclusion.
> 
> ...




Imo fun in an rpg comes from playing an alternate persona in a fantastic world and overcoming challanges (by your own, no matter what those challenges are), not by simply slaughtering higher and higher level enemies while your DM makes sure that you always have a chance of winning by direct combat.


----------



## DracoSuave (Oct 18, 2009)

I personally agree with you.  But the job of a DM is to be aware of the fine line between a party being reasonably capable of overcoming the challenge, and a foregone conclusion.  The first is exciting, and fun, and the second is a waste of everyone's time.  And yes, it's a tightrope walk.


----------



## Derren (Oct 18, 2009)

DracoSuave said:


> I personally agree with you.  But the job of a DM is to be aware of the fine line between a party being reasonably capable of overcoming the challenge, and a foregone conclusion.  The first is exciting, and fun, and the second is a waste of everyone's time.  And yes, it's a tightrope walk.




"overcoming the challenge" can mean more than just "winning the combat by killing the enemy".


----------



## eamon (Oct 18, 2009)

Derren said:


> Imo fun in an rpg comes from playing an alternate persona in a fantastic world and overcoming challanges (by your own, no matter what those challenges are), not by simply slaughtering higher and higher level enemies while your DM makes sure that you always have a chance of winning by direct combat.




I agree - but _using_ a party's weakness doesn't necessarily mean _exploiting_ it.  As Tallifer said, you could let them confront their weakness and force them to retreat and rethink, or you could drop hints (perhaps the dragon's flyby strafing attacks are the stuff of local horror-stories).  You can use their weakness to encourage some creativity or some changes in tactics, and mixing things up now and then is fun.

In a sense you have have you cake and eat it too - you don't need to tailor the challenge type match the PC's, but you can still have a party that always has a chance of winning - if they take into account what they know about the situation and plan appropriately.  The world can stay reasonable, and the party won't get TPK'd by bad luck or an oversight.  Ideally ;-).


----------



## Derren (Oct 18, 2009)

eamon said:


> you could drop hints (perhaps the dragon's flyby strafing attacks are the stuff of local horror-stories).




Thats exactly what a DM should do. But when the PCs still manage to get into the fight then it is their "challenge" to figure it out how to deal with it.
What the DM should not do is to play the monster stupidly (unless it is stupid) only to give the PCs a chance of winning the fight or pull punches to let them retreat. He also should not force an combat with a flying enemy just to "teach teh PCs a lesson".
Whatever happens to live in the area is a possible encounter, not more, not less.


----------



## keterys (Oct 18, 2009)

Sure... and if blue dragons are an example of a creature that could be a horrible encounter for that particular group, if played optimally, then it should instead be a green dragon (or whatever). Or the blue dragon should be changed to not be a hovering artillery.


----------



## renau1g (Oct 18, 2009)

eamon said:


> I agree - but _using_ a party's weakness doesn't necessarily mean _exploiting_ it.  As Tallifer said, you could let them confront their weakness and force them to retreat and rethink, or you could drop hints (perhaps the dragon's flyby strafing attacks are the stuff of local horror-stories).  You can use their weakness to encourage some creativity or some changes in tactics, and mixing things up now and then is fun.
> 
> In a sense you have have you cake and eat it too - you don't need to tailor the challenge type match the PC's, but you can still have a party that always has a chance of winning - if they take into account what they know about the situation and plan appropriately.  The world can stay reasonable, and the party won't get TPK'd by bad luck or an oversight.  Ideally ;-).




Half the fun of being a player was not being fed a steady diet of monsters who I could easily overcome with my skill set. In 3e it meant I needed to change my strategy as the party rogue when we ran across some undead, or for the wizard when we fought a golem. 

In 4e they got rid of most of that, which I _do_ like for the most part (except knocking an ooze prone), that being said if a group totally forgoes ranged attacks there _are_ consequences to that decision, just like if the group totally forgoes melee attacks. As a DM I'd ensure that after reviewing the PC's sheets I let them know they lacked ranged attacks and if they were ever immobilized or fighting flying enemies they'd be in trouble. If they ignored it, too bad.


----------



## keterys (Oct 18, 2009)

What if they were overflowing with ranged attacks, but only up to range 10? Or they could do some ranged, but at 1/8th the damage output?

Cause I mean the two parties I detailed earlier have quite a lot of range in the 10 or under department, but go to 20 and they're pretty screwed.


----------



## Neuroglyph (Oct 18, 2009)

renau1g said:


> Half the fun of being a player was not being fed a steady diet of monsters who I could easily overcome with my skill set. In 3e it meant I needed to change my strategy as the party rogue when we ran across some undead, or for the wizard when we fought a golem.
> 
> In 4e they got rid of most of that, which I _do_ like for the most part (except knocking an ooze prone), that being said if a group totally forgoes ranged attacks there _are_ consequences to that decision, just like if the group totally forgoes melee attacks. As a DM I'd ensure that after reviewing the PC's sheets I let them know they lacked ranged attacks and if they were ever immobilized or fighting flying enemies they'd be in trouble. If they ignored it, too bad.




I half to agree as well - a party of 5-6 characters should have covered most combat situations with their skill sets - ranged or melee.  The nice thing about 4e is the ability, level by level, to modify your character by using the Retraining rule.  A party can hone themselves as a TEAM and take those exploits that will cover a combat situation that their teammate is not capable of handling.

I still think that a DM can be fair, and create one or two ways to allow melees to handle a flying encounter - such as terrain or some other plot device.  But if your characters insist on being melee dps freaks, without giving an eye to the sky, then maybe a flying encounter will help to shake them out of their one-track mindset.


----------



## Derren (Oct 18, 2009)

keterys said:


> Sure... and if blue dragons are an example of a creature that could be a horrible encounter for that particular group, if played optimally, then it should instead be a green dragon (or whatever). Or the blue dragon should be changed to not be a hovering artillery.




No. When the group lacks ranged weapon then they should stay away from blue dragons (and generally most other flying enemies). Its their responsibility to stay away from such encounters.

This of course requires a DM to put more thoughts behind world design than "what monster would be level appropriate for the PCs?".


----------



## KarinsDad (Oct 18, 2009)

keterys said:


> What if they were overflowing with ranged attacks, but only up to range 10? Or they could do some ranged, but at 1/8th the damage output?
> 
> Cause I mean the two parties I detailed earlier have quite a lot of range in the 10 or under department, but go to 20 and they're pretty screwed.




Screwed?

Walk into a building. Go into a tunnel. Hide under the trees.

There are a lot of ways to force a foe to close range. Not every encounter has to end with the PCs killing/winning either. Running away is often an option.

Sure, the DM can set up an encounter on an open plain or out on the high seas in a dinghy where the PCs have little cover. The DM can kill the PCs any time he wants. Doesn't mean it's a good idea.

Any reasonable DM can make a flying encounter challenging without making it totally one sided. Flying foes should often stay out of range of ranged attacks if possible. That is one of their strengths. Doesn't mean that they should be designed to auto-win though. There are many many ways to handle flying foes, regardless of range.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Oct 18, 2009)

Yeah, I agree KD. There are always ways to make something interesting out of any encounter. And as you say, the DM can kill any party any old time he feels like it if that's what he wants to do.

The thing is there are always weaknesses in any party. I guarantee you if you hand me 5 character sheets for a party of any level and composition and no matter how skilled they are at covering their bases I'll be able to design an encounter that will render them virtually helpless. There are just so many possibilities available to the DM and that doesn't even count DM cheese. I'm just talking about using pretty much by-the-book encounters. For that matter almost any group of monsters if played to the hilt (intelligent ones at least) can be run in such a way that they're at best virtually unbeatable. 

There's nothing wrong with any of that, but obviously there is some sort of line the DM needs to walk between impossible challenges and fun, challenging, dangerous ones. It seems merely sensible that if the DM is going to spring encounters on the PCs that are designed to be close to impossible then there should be some plot element which compensates. The PCs should be forewarned or have an escape route. Their inevitable defeat should be a plot point and maybe how close they come to victory despite the odds is their real measure of success. Maybe the scenario is even a case of "Lets all go out in a blaze of glory", which is a perfectly good end to a campaign if its done well.

I'm not advocating coddling players either. Its fine to TPK a party that cockily ignores its own weakness and warnings. There COULD be other ways to teach them a lesson that don't involve wiping them out though. My campaign is pretty much a sandbox, so players can easily find stuff they can't handle, but almost invariably they'll get some forewarning that they're going to be in trouble, or there's some reasonable way they can escape, etc.

Anyway, I'm still not really convinced that 4e has any bigger problem with characters using secondary weapons than say 2e did. I still say a 2e fighter taking on a blue dragon using a bow is at best marginally less in trouble than his 4e counterpart. A 2e fighter's to-hit increased at the same rate (1/2 levels) as a 4e fighter's does. MAYBE you got more enhancement bonuses at lower levels, but its hard to say since there was no standard for this in 2e. Still, a level 10 2e fighter with a +1 or +2 bow when its not his main weapon sounds well-equipped to me. A 4e fighter can easily afford something similar at the same level (and figure the 4e guy is probably really 15th level for roughly the same point in level progression). Yeah, technically the 2e fighter's bow MIGHT be a strength bow, so OK he's got maybe +6 damage from that at most. Yes, he can attack 2x per round, but still the dragon's return shots are still a lot more powerful than his attacks and those attacks will be greatly less than what he can do with his melee weapons. His chance to hit with his (lets say) +2 bow is also not that great. At level 10 to hit AC -3 (adult blue dragon) he's got a 23 - 7 = 16+ or 25% hit rate. The 4e equivalent dragon has AC30 so again assuming the fighter has SOME dex and a +2 bow his chance to hit is not that much different. So it seems fair to say that in 2e being stuck using a bow was a little better than it is in 4e, but really the ultimate result is the same, the dragon wins and it wins because using an off weapon just never is that great. It really isn't a 4e specific problem.


----------



## keterys (Oct 18, 2009)

KarinsDad said:


> Screwed?
> 
> Walk into a building. Go into a tunnel. Hide under the trees.
> 
> There are a lot of ways to force a foe to close range. Not every encounter has to end with the PCs killing/winning either. Running away is often an option.




So we're back to the dragon having to specifically fight in a suboptimal (or downright stupid) manner so that the party has a chance? 

I mean, I hope no adventure ever has a blue dragon in a desert. One of their preferred habitats.

The parties indicated, two fair examples of parties, have nothing they can do about the blue dragon. In previous editions they'd possibly have access to some more flight mechanisms, a method of teleport, etc. And the party's ranged spells and weapons were almost always more than the dragon's breath weapon or spell options, whether bows or magic missiles.

So it's still not the DM trying to kill the party. It's a core game concept that is not jiving well.

You're not always within a minute of total cover. In fact, I'd imagine you're very, very often not within a minute of total cover. And the dragon only needs a minute to kill someone.



> Any reasonable DM can make a flying encounter challenging without making it totally one sided. Flying foes should often stay out of range of ranged attacks if possible. That is one of their strengths. Doesn't mean that they should be designed to auto-win though. There are many many ways to handle flying foes, regardless of range.




Absolutely - but shouldn't it work a little better out of the box, too? Mind you, I think my problem would be solved by the harpy not having its aura (which is retarded, anyways) and the dragon's range being 10 instead of 20. So maybe those are just simple mistakes, hopefully not repeated often at higher levels or in later MMs.

Or maybe flight is just a lot more powerful than it used to be and hover is given out just a bit too much. Or maybe the loophole of Grasping Javelins should be championed as a solution rather than the clear loophole that it is. Dunno.


----------



## renau1g (Oct 18, 2009)

keterys said:


> Absolutely - but shouldn't it work a little better out of the box, too? Mind you, I think my problem would be solved by the harpy not having its aura (which is retarded, anyways) and the dragon's range being 10 instead of 20. So maybe those are just simple mistakes, hopefully not repeated often at higher levels or in later MMs.
> 
> Or maybe flight is just a lot more powerful than it used to be and hover is given out just a bit too much. Or maybe the loophole of Grasping Javelins should be championed as a solution rather than the clear loophole that it is. Dunno.




This I agree with. I`m glad that flight is more powerful in 4e than 3e, although there`s no way a blue dragon should have hover (not sure if they do or the harpy). WOTC is not perfect in their monster design either, most DM`s are somewhat aware of this fact so I always review the monsters I use in adventures for a sanity check. Also, I wouldn`t throw more than 1 encounter very rarely that the party isn`t expected to be prepared for.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Oct 18, 2009)

I can´t imagine a reasonable setting, where a blue dragon hovers at maximum range and fires its breath weapon on a group of adventurers he has never encountered or heard of before...
at least he should announce that his last breath just knocks unconcious talk to the PCs after their defeat.

And yeah, it actually is the PCs responsibility not to get in such encounters unprepaired, but they must have a reasonable chance to do so.
(And i don´t mean they need a reasonable chance to defeat anything they encounter... scaling every encounter by level so that they are just walking xp bags is also bad design)

And it is the same bad design in any other RPG including 3rd edition and 2nd edition D&D.


----------



## keterys (Oct 18, 2009)

And in 3rd edition and 2nd edition, it didn't have the ability to outrange the party, and characters had methods of fast travel or other getaway methods.


----------



## KarinsDad (Oct 19, 2009)

keterys said:


> So we're back to the dragon having to specifically fight in a suboptimal (or downright stupid) manner so that the party has a chance?
> 
> I mean, I hope no adventure ever has a blue dragon in a desert. One of their preferred habitats.
> 
> The parties indicated, two fair examples of parties, have nothing they can do about the blue dragon.






> They can be found anywhere but prefer to lair in coastal caves, attacking and plundering ships that sail too close.
> 
> 
> Sages (and the Monster Manual) maintain that blue dragons prefer coastal regions. More precisely, blue dragons prefer areas subject to frequent, violent storms. Although coastal areas and seaside cliffs fit this description, so too do certain tropical isles and mountainous highlands not terribly distant from the pounding sea.
> ...




Where do you come up with a desert habitat? That was true in 3.5, but not 4E.

I think a party could easily head into the Dragon's cave and force it to either follow, or give up it's treasure.

And since Blue Dragons typically lair at high inaccessible elevations, the DM should rarely have them attack PCs out on the plains (or worse yet, deserts where violent storms are the exception instead of the the rule). The PCs should be looking for the Dragon, the PCs should be prepared for flight into the lair, the Dragon should not be aware of them until they are fairly close, etc. A Blue Dragon encounter should not be random and haphazard, but one PCs should prepare for precisely due to the type of lair the Dragon choses.


And, it's not suboptimal for a Blue Dragon to attack at range 20 when it can, but attack at closer range when it must.

I think you are skewing your example too far into the "unfair for PCs" direction and not acknowledging that your example does not take into account the habitat of the Dragon.


----------



## FireLance (Oct 19, 2009)

KarinsDad said:


> And, it's not suboptimal for a Blue Dragon to attack at range 20 when it can, but attack at closer range when it must.



So, the best way to fight a blue dragon is to *ready an action* to attack it when it comes within range?


----------



## DracoSuave (Oct 19, 2009)

keterys said:


> So we're back to the dragon having to specifically fight in a suboptimal (or downright stupid) manner so that the party has a chance?




The dragon is stupid for the players deciding to do something to counter death from above?

Isn't that like saying your banker is stupid because you didn't drink expired milk and ran out of money?



> I mean, I hope no adventure ever has a blue dragon in a desert. One of their preferred habitats.




A dragon is -mighty- in their element.  Not all adventures automaticly put -every- monster in their element.  And you can have a desert without having it be the sahara.  Like, every desert in North America, for example.  Desert != a featureless sea of sand.



> The parties indicated, two fair examples of parties, have nothing they can do about the blue dragon. In previous editions they'd possibly have access to some more flight mechanisms, a method of teleport, etc. And the party's ranged spells and weapons were almost always more than the dragon's breath weapon or spell options, whether bows or magic missiles.




And you as a DM know this, so you either choose to set up an encounter that allows the players to use their ingenuity to 'solve' the dragon, or you choose to toss them to the wolves to sink or swim.

And whatever happens, it is your choice.  You put the dragon there.  No one else did.



> So it's still not the DM trying to kill the party. It's a core game concept that is not jiving well.




Bull.  No where in the books does it say or even pretend to claim that all monsters are appropriate for all games and all parties.  The books actually tell you the exact opposite, that you are responsible for what goes inside, and that -appropriate- encounters are far healthier for games than random ones.

I don't know what DMG you've been pulling that 'core game concept' out of.  But it ain't the 4th edition one.



> You're not always within a minute of total cover. In fact, I'd imagine you're very, very often not within a minute of total cover. And the dragon only needs a minute to kill someone.




Yeah.  And you know this as a DM.  So be responsible.  Don't blame Wizards because you don't understand how -your- choices of which monsters to use when leads to party trouble.  The blue dragon is a -good- monster, but like -all- dragons it's not appropriate to -every- party -all the time-.



> Absolutely - but shouldn't it work a little better out of the box, too?




It works great out of the box.  The box even tells you how to use it, when, and why, and tells you to use it creatively and appropriately.  Failure to follow the instructions on the box is not the fault of the manufacturers of the box.  If you destroy your house because you used a chainsaw as a wirecutter, no amount of 'It should work better' will mitigate your own personal lack of responsibility.



> Mind you, I think my problem would be solved by the harpy not having its aura (which is retarded, anyways) and the dragon's range being 10 instead of 20. So maybe those are just simple mistakes, hopefully not repeated often at higher levels or in later MMs.
> 
> Or maybe flight is just a lot more powerful than it used to be and hover is given out just a bit too much. Or maybe the loophole of Grasping Javelins should be championed as a solution rather than the clear loophole that it is. Dunno.




Grasping throwing spears isn't a loophole, it's an intentional feature on a weapon.  Take number of spears that aren't polearms.  Notice how many are thrown;  all of them.  The 'spear' entry informs you that they knew full well what they were doing.

But it -is- a solution, and a useful tool.  I mean, hello!  Encounter power that is tactically powerful on an item?  That should recommend it right there.

Regardless, 'open featureless terrain' is frowned upon in 4e on every single level of the game.  Flying enemies aside, cover and other such terrain is not 'optional' but is a given assumption of encounter design according to the DMG.

If a monster breaks because you ignore the DMG design advice, that's not the -monster- that is doin' it wrong, is it?


----------



## FireLance (Oct 19, 2009)

DracoSuave said:


> Bull.  No where in the books does it say or even pretend to claim that all monsters are appropriate for all games and all parties.  The books actually tell you the exact opposite, that you are responsible for what goes inside, and that -appropriate- encounters are far healthier for games than random ones.



I think the key issue here is that some monsters are more iconic than others. "The party kills a dragon of every color" is, I believe, a fairly common campaign goal for several DMs. For some reason, quite a few DMs don't just want their players to fight one or two types of dragons, they want their players to fight _every_ kind of dragon over the course of a campaign. 

This means that these DMs will tend to scrutinize the dragons more carefully than most other monsters, and when they realize that because of their players' character choices, they are going to have a harder time fighting dragon type X than their balance-fu says that they should, they complain about it online. [Aside: In addition, you will get the odd DM who did not do the homework and only does the online complaining _after_ the PCs became dragon chow.] For such DMs, it doesn't matter that a character of Class A with Power B or Feat C or using Magic Item D could defeat Dragon X. The PCs in question just don't have the alphabet soup of game elements needed to do the job. 

Of course, after grumbling and venting a bit, any halfway competent DM will plant the necessary rumors, information, quests, treasure, etc. in the game, or engineer the circumstances of the meeting so that the PCs will have a fighting chance to defeat Dragon X by the time they get around to encountering it. However, it feels like extra effort, and not extra effort to make the encounter _awesome_ (which few DMs would have problems with), but extra effort to make the encounter _work_ in the first place.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Oct 19, 2009)

keterys said:


> And in 3rd edition and 2nd edition, it didn't have the ability to outrange the party, and characters had methods of fast travel or other getaway methods.



depends on the level and what you define as outrange

edit: oh and depends on equipment for meleeers (we are spaking of melee party)
i bet a dragon has dispell magic when fighters have equippment to fly


----------



## Neuroglyph (Oct 19, 2009)

KarinsDad said:


> Where do you come up with a desert habitat? That was true in 3.5, but not 4E.






KarinsDad said:


> I think you are skewing your example too far into the "unfair for PCs" direction and not acknowledging that your example does not take into account the habitat of the Dragon.




*Agrees with KD* 

Even if deserts were the optimal habitat for a Blue, what kinda desert do you envision?  All deserts are not the rolling coverless sand dunes of the sahara so often depicted in movies.  Pull up some pics of the US desert southwest, or the Kalihari or Gobi.  There are rocks, ditches, dense groves of spindly trees... all kinds of cover to make an aerial predator have to hit the ground sometimes to hunt.

Dropping the characters into the middle of a featureless wide open plain and then running an aerial encounter is not only unimaginative, but not even "realistic" given the terrain on our own planet.  Where magic can make flying earth nodes and the every D&D planet is riddled with passages into the underdark, no DM should throw out a flat grid map and say "So you're walking across the plains..."


----------



## lgw (Oct 19, 2009)

Things aren't what they used to be...



Spoiler



Why isn't there anybody concerned how easily your ranged focused Dragon hunting party get slaughtered in random pub fights, seeing how much more common pubs are compared to Dragons ?!


----------



## Destil (Oct 19, 2009)

You know, this is something 4E fixed in my book. Fliers are supposed to be powerful. Remember all the messed up high CR melee only monsters in 3E? The ones everyone's solution for was "flying for everyone and ranged it into dirt" from 5th level on? There's a reason you won't find flying effects before paragon tier generally.

The most likely could have errored on the side of caution with the effective ranges of flying opponents in the heroic and early paragon tier and things would have been a bit better balanced, but I can't really see it as a huge issue.


----------



## lukelightning (Oct 19, 2009)

lgw said:


> Why isn't there anybody concerned how easily your ranged focused Dragon hunting party get slaughtered in random pub fights, seeing how much more common pubs are compared to Dragons ?!




Step one: Tell the players the battle will involve a blue dragon.
Step two: Surprise! The Blue Dragon is the name of a rowdy pub!


----------



## keterys (Oct 19, 2009)

I actually totally agree that I prefer the players not flying all over the place. I actually prefer the monsters not flying all over the place too, but Hover seems to be given out as candy. More Altitude Limits, Overland Flight, and Clumsy Flight says me 

I was reading an adventure last night to see how I'd convert it to 4e, and one section reminded me of this discussion. There's a part where if things go wrong for the PCs, they face an unbeatable threat from all sides. So it says something like 'The PCs should have no way of winning against so many enemies, so will likely be forced to flee to safety via teleportation.'

Presumably in 4e terms you make it a SC to break through and escape, or just have the enemy attack in waves, taking 10 minutes or so to gather together for a huge final wave (long enough for a ritual casting, anyhow), but the 'Over our heads, gah, insta flee' is something that has largely been lost I think.


----------



## KarinsDad (Oct 19, 2009)

keterys said:


> I was reading an adventure last night to see how I'd convert it to 4e, and one section reminded me of this discussion. There's a part where if things go wrong for the PCs, they face an unbeatable threat from all sides. So it says something like 'The PCs should have no way of winning against so many enemies, so will likely be forced to flee to safety via teleportation.'




I seriously dislike adventures with these types of elements in them. It reminds me of many of the 1E adventures where the power of the foes were sometimes totally random (archdevils in one room with orcs in the next).

My take is that if the designer of an adventure cannot make the adventure flow relatively smoothly without having a TPK in the wings, then that designer shouldn't be designing adventures. IMO. It's one thing to challenge the PCs. It's another to have a setup like this which will definitively happen in many DM's games, just because of the wide diversity of player actions (and dice rolls) in a game. It's some type of game designer power trip and should be discouraged by people refusing to buy such crap products.


----------



## keterys (Oct 19, 2009)

Well, it's only if the PCs really screw things up. Basically they choose to go to a place they know is filled with people who would kill them if they do the wrong thing... then if they do the wrong thing, the people try to kill them. 

Either way, I'm willing to give Paizo the benefit of the doubt on this particular one and not call it a crap product. They're just making an assumption that either the PCs will not screw up or will, at 10th or so level, have an escape option available.

Something that's a lot less likely in 4e, in general. Which is the part that actually interested me.


----------



## KarinsDad (Oct 19, 2009)

keterys said:


> Either way, I'm willing to give Paizo the benefit of the doubt on this particular one and not call it a crap product. They're just making an assumption that either the PCs will not screw up or will, at 10th or so level, have an escape option available.




It just seems to me that products that are designed for the PCs to fail (and to even get TPKed) will result in failure for some groups of players. I don't consider intentionally TPK design like this to be "fun".

Not too unlike some of the WotC adventures where the designers do not take into account the actual game guidelines with respect to foes, treasure, etc.

Case in point: Irontooth in Keep of the Shadowfell (which similar to your example above, is a scenario which is poorly designed to have many DM's games have a TPK).

When a company does this, we should not reward them by buying their product. IMO. We should hold them to a standard that results in challenging adventures, but not ones with a strong possibility of TPKs.

As a side note, adventure modules should either not hand out treasure and have the DM assign treasure based on his campaign, or it should hand out treasure as per the DMG guidelines. This too, to me, is an adventure design flaw when treasure is screwed up. Not all DMs have the time to read all of the posts on message boards to find out which adventures have issues and which do not.


----------



## keterys (Oct 19, 2009)

I'd imagine that some groups of players do, in fact, fail. I'd certainly hope so, even. Isn't that a feature, though?

What does that really have to do with the ability to get out of dodge when need be in prior editions that is much more difficult within 4e? That 4e requires far more strict regulating by the DM on what tactics they can take and how forcefully they need to steer their players? I... suppose... that might be the case. Certainly if I run this adventure I'd have to at least allow a skill challenge or combat method of escaping, even if they can't face them all.

Of course, if they persist in facing them all, despite obvious overwhelming force arrayed against them, not taking the option to escape... I imagine they'd die, having made their decision. I'd hope that both the threat of death is present _and_ that player decisions matter.


----------



## KarinsDad (Oct 19, 2009)

keterys said:


> I'd imagine that some groups of players do, in fact, fail. I'd certainly hope so, even. Isn't that a feature, though?




Not if it is designed as that to be a strong possibility.

Consider it a matter of probability. There are 100 thousand 4E groups playing the module (in the case of 4E adventures). With a normal distribution of player ability, drive, character design, etc., some small percentage of groups will have a TPK with any above average difficulty encounter. But when that percentage becomes high (which it did for H1), then there is a design flaw.

It's not a feature when a significant majority of groups have a TPK or near-TPK, it's only a feature when a very small minority of groups have this occur.



keterys said:


> What does that really have to do with the ability to get out of dodge when need be in prior editions that is much more difficult within 4e? That 4e requires far more strict regulating by the DM on what tactics they can take and how forcefully they need to steer their players? I... suppose... that might be the case. Certainly if I run this adventure I'd have to at least allow a skill challenge or combat method of escaping, even if they can't face them all.




I would drastically change the adventure. 4E is not design at early Paragon level to have the PCs teleport out of Dodge.



keterys said:


> Of course, if they persist in facing them all, despite obvious overwhelming force arrayed against them, not taking the option to escape... I imagine they'd die, having made their decision. I'd hope that both the threat of death is present _and_ that player decisions matter.




It depends on the group. If I had played with a DM who had never thrown overwhelming forces at us ever, I would be a bit surprised when 40 foes was not 40 minions (or possibly 39 minions and 1 normal foe).


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Oct 19, 2009)

Hmm... actually my group only consisted of 3 players at Lvl 1 when they attacked irontooth and survived (ok, i gave them their lvl 2 utility powers when they were brought down before the last 3 kobolds)

the fight would have been easy if they had retreated in the middle of the fight. And with a controler (the role they lacked) it would have been even easier.

Fact is: fleeing is and should be an option when facing overwhelming odds. This is part of the fun. Alternatively surrender is another option which can be fun sometimes. Even when it happens the first time. Maybe an insight check or perception or int chack can be allowed to recognize them as overwhelming odds.


----------



## jedrious (Oct 19, 2009)

DracoSuave said:


> A dragon is -mighty- in their element.  Not all adventures automaticly put -every- monster in their element.  And you can have a desert without having it be the sahara.  Like, every desert in North America, for example.  Desert != a featureless sea of sand.




*Looks outside to double check that the baren desert with only Joshua trees(i.e. no cover whatsoever provided) and houses to break up the featureless sea of dirt (there is a difference between sand and dirt), double checks the map to make sure California is still located in North America*

Um, Lucy, you got some esplainin to do here, deserts are horrible places to find somewhere to hide from aerial notice.


----------



## Camelot (Oct 19, 2009)

I DM by the philosophy that the players aren't made for the campaign, the campaign is made for the players.  If the majority of your players are melee characters, don't set them up against so many flying creatures unless you have a way for them to win.  If you have mostly ranged characters, adjust to that by using flying monsters that they can fight.

Killing the players is not fun.  Almost killing them is.


----------



## KarinsDad (Oct 19, 2009)

UngeheuerLich said:


> Hmm... actually my group only consisted of 3 players at Lvl 1 when they attacked irontooth and survived (ok, i gave them their lvl 2 utility powers when they were brought down before the last 3 kobolds)
> 
> the fight would have been easy if they had retreated in the middle of the fight. And with a controler (the role they lacked) it would have been even easier.
> 
> Fact is: fleeing is and should be an option when facing overwhelming odds. This is part of the fun. Alternatively surrender is another option which can be fun sometimes. Even when it happens the first time. Maybe an insight check or perception or int chack can be allowed to recognize them as overwhelming odds.




Fleeing is a good strategy if it can work.

Our group had one of the outside Kobolds from the first encounter flee into the caves and when the PCs entered (without taking a rest because they did not want this Kobold to warn others), the foes inside were ready. Our group also had one of the players use his Encounter class and racial powers in the outside encounter, even though they weren't really needed (his rationale was that every single Encounter power was always supposed to be used in every single encounter, an early 4E player misconception). Even though I had Irontooth and some of the other Kobolds come around the outside of the cave (and hence, enter the fight 3 or 4 rounds later), the PCs ended up getting surrounded and quickly trounced.

There were 13 foes outside and 17 foes inside in a scenario effectively designed for starting players and first level PCs (so yes, tough scenarios for when players are not quite familiar with the game system and its nuances is not really good adventure design either, IMO).

So sure, if the DM plays it like WOW where foes 20 feet away will not attack until attacked, it's pretty easy. If played plausibly (since most foes can see or hear many of the PCs a high percentage of the time), the PCs are outnumbered by 3 to 1 in two back to back encounters and the second encounter had 10 same level minions, 3 same level normal foes, 2 n+1 foes, and 2 n+2 foes.

Note: Our players also were extremely lucky in the outside encounter, hitting probably 80% of the time due to sheer luck. So when they headed into the caves, they were not bloodied or in need of a rest other than a few encounter powers. As players, they did not yet have the experience to tell them whether to rest up or not, they were concerned with the tactical element of stopping a fleeing foe of warning others. A typical concern that the designers should be aware of if they playtested the module to any significant extent.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Oct 19, 2009)

My players rested outside and were careful about beeing surrunded.

No, usually monsters recognize that they are attacked, especially if some monster can raise the alarm (my players couldn´t stop the kobold running inside, so the knew that the enemy is warned and running hastily behind it won´t do it)

Maybe this encounter is a bit hard... especially for players inexperienced with RPG in general. It has nothing to do with 4e design though. In every other RPG (except your beloved WOW) it is the same: think before you run into a kobolds home and take precautions and dnon´t get surrounded.

edit: also the encounter was written as attacks in two waves and a chieftain that is not that smart... if DM´s ignore such assumptions... well then they must modify those encounters.


----------



## the Jester (Oct 19, 2009)

KarinsDad said:


> Not if it is designed as that to be a strong possibility.
> 
> Consider it a matter of probability. There are 100 thousand 4E groups playing the module (in the case of 4E adventures). With a normal distribution of player ability, drive, character design, etc., some small percentage of groups will have a TPK with any above average difficulty encounter. But when that percentage becomes high (which it did for H1), then there is a design flaw.
> 
> It's not a feature when a significant majority of groups have a TPK or near-TPK, it's only a feature when a very small minority of groups have this occur.




Or else it was designed as a tough encounter.

Not a flaw. A decision.


----------



## KarinsDad (Oct 19, 2009)

UngeheuerLich said:


> Maybe this encounter is a bit hard... especially for players inexperienced with RPG in general. It has nothing to do with 4e design though. In every other RPG (except your beloved WOW) it is the same: think before you run into a kobolds home and take precautions and dnon´t get surrounded.




Actually, it has everything to do with 4E design.

That was the first 4E public adventure ever (outside of some early prototype convention ones) that the vast majority of new 4E players would experience. It had a level 6 encounter located relatively close to a large level 1 encounter.

A level 6 encounter is outside of the recommendations of the DMG for level 1 PCs.

A hard encounter is n+2 to n+4.

This was n+5.

Sorry, but that's totally ridiculous for a first time ever adventure for a new game system.

And it has nothing to do with experienced RPGers. Every player at my table has varying levels of RPG experience (most of them well over a decade). It had to do with a too powerful encounter put into a first module game adventure before the players had an opportunity to understand how to play the game system and to understand how their individual PCs could best work together.

I'm glad your uber players managed it with only 3 PCs. Course, I seriously have to wonder what other bones you threw at them. Your story sounds extremely suspect since the action economy between foes and PCs nearly doubles in your scenario. An extra second level utility power each really doesn't make up for 2 missing PCs.



UngeheuerLich said:


> edit: also the encounter was written as attacks in two waves and a chieftain that is not that smart... if DM´s ignore such assumptions... well then they must modify those encounters.




Actually, I did run it in two waves. I even set it up so that some Kobolds could not get to the PCs during certain rounds. It didn't really matter.


----------



## keterys (Oct 19, 2009)

This like the Tomb of Horrors debate? Where getting through without deaths basically implied cheating, and multiple TPKs were actually fairly likely, and perhaps a majority didn't even finish it?


----------



## keterys (Oct 19, 2009)

KarinsDad said:


> Actually, it has everything to do with 4E design.
> 
> That was the first 4E public adventure ever (outside of some early prototype convention ones) that the vast majority of new 4E players would experience. It had a level 6 encounter located relatively close to a large level 1 encounter.
> 
> ...




So, just so I'm clear... the system design says "Don't do that" and when it was done, it was bad... and you're saying that has something to do with the system design? Seems to me like it's just validating what the system says. Y'know, don't do that.

I am curious what the percentage of deaths and TPKs from that fight actually is, though... I mean, I really didn't hear that many complaints about it except in one thread on a message board with I want to say under a hundred responses.



> And it has nothing to do with experienced RPGers.




It does seem a bit odd that your experienced RPGers rushed into a kobold den, historically known to be filled with traps, without preparation.

It's also a bit unfortunate that the experienced DM chose to incite their behavior by having an enemy flee towards all those extra dangers, despite knowing they should rest before going in.


----------



## Neuroglyph (Oct 20, 2009)

Camelot said:


> I DM by the philosophy that the players aren't made for the campaign, the campaign is made for the players. If the majority of your players are melee characters, don't set them up against so many flying creatures unless you have a way for them to win. If you have mostly ranged characters, adjust to that by using flying monsters that they can fight.
> 
> Killing the players is not fun. Almost killing them is.




Amen brother!


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Oct 20, 2009)

KarinsDad said:


> I'm glad your uber players managed it with only 3 PCs. Course, I seriously have to wonder what other bones you threw at them. Your story sounds extremely suspect since the action economy between foes and PCs nearly doubles in your scenario. An extra second level utility power each really doesn't make up for 2 missing PCs.




Ok i ignore that you accuse me of lying, so i explain how it was possible:

No cheating, but rolled up characters with good stats i admit. But using a chokepoint and not running stupidly into a trap. 

I handled a free cure light wounds and regeneration (cleric and fighter utility).

Also the ranger picked the aoe lvl 1 encounter power and was a dwarf with a minor action second wind (a blessing when you can attack with twin strike with two waraxes and +2 damage and have +2 defense when you stand in the middle of some foes)

The cleric is an elven strength cleric with good wisdom and healing strike as encounter power using a fullblade

oh, and the fighter was a warforged battlerager with an executioners axe... yes, this could be called cheating since my minions didn`t do so much damage... forgot to mention it *shame on me*

All had action points remaining. 

Did i mention the warforged run into the cave. Got to bloodied by ranged minions and retreated. short rest. 

Later Kobolds sent out 3 minions and the slinger and the surviving skirmisher to first look what those adventurers are doing, but just when they tried to sneak up from behind. the warforged decided to run in a second time with back up from the ranger and the cleric catching the kobolds somehow flatfooted. when the warforged battlerager arrived in melee with all those minions, he generated temporary hp nearly as fast as they could bring them down. 
The shaman couldn´t really use his blast because of friendly fire, but he and the slinger could get some good shots in. before the second wave arrived, they had killed most minions and the slinger and ran out. The goblins from behind arrived and held them in place for only a short time, because the cleric and the ranger mowed tham down. then the dragonshields and irontooth arrrived with little backup and nearly killed my players (although irontooth was first weakened by the ranger daily) and bloodied him with twinstrike. And Avenging flame from the cleric did most of the rest.

Then the warforged went down, flanked by two dragonshields. The ranger went down and the cleric was nearly out too, so i gave them their utility powers from lvl 2.


But still i say: five players not running inside a cave full of kobolds should not die.
In night below (ADnD 2nd edition) there are more than one cave full of enemies where you could run into and die... and if you play shadow run, a run without preperation will certainly kill you.

The main thing in KotS is: you are not under time pressure before you kill the kobolds. The pressure starts after the kill. So you have enough time sneaking up and scout to know how much Kobolds there are inside the cave and prepare.

Your only defense is: it is an introductory adventure. And up to a certain point you are right. 

The mistake of the designers were a) assuming the wizard gets picked and can dea with minions quickly and b) after playing and optimizing too long in their playtest they forgot how hard it is to get used to good tactics.


----------



## KarinsDad (Oct 20, 2009)

keterys said:


> I am curious what the percentage of deaths and TPKs from that fight actually is, though... I mean, I really didn't hear that many complaints about it except in one thread on a message board with I want to say under a hundred responses.




I do remember it was discussed quite a bit a little over a year ago, but I have no statistics. Maybe a poll?

I just did a Google on: TPK H1 Shadowfell, and got 1620 hits. That does seem like quite a few. Granted, some of those discuss not getting TPKed. But, it's still a good sized number. People have talked about it.



keterys said:


> It does seem a bit odd that your experienced RPGers rushed into a kobold den, historically known to be filled with traps, without preparation.




How exactly did they know it was a kobold den? Were they supposed to be psychic to know that 17 more foes awaited them within? Is that typical for adventure modules?

They had just had a very lucky large encounter with 13 foes, 12 of which they killed quickly, and were not really wounded with all of their Dailies and most of their Encounters. Why would they think (as new 4E players) that they had to go rest right away? That comes from experience, not necessarily rational forethought.

Armchair analysis often makes assumptions about many things.



keterys said:


> It's also a bit unfortunate that the experienced DM chose to incite their behavior by having an enemy flee towards all those extra dangers, despite knowing they should rest before going in.




Experienced with 3.5 and earlier. Not experienced with 4E at the time. Sure, lot's of things look 20/20 in hindsight.


----------



## Saeviomagy (Oct 20, 2009)

It'd be kinda nice if KarinsDad would stop accusing everyone who won that fight of being a cheater. The argument that the fight is too hard is amply proven by the fact that it violates the encounter design rules.


----------



## renau1g (Oct 21, 2009)

keterys said:


> It's also a bit unfortunate that the experienced DM chose to incite their behavior by having an enemy flee towards all those extra dangers, despite knowing they should rest before going in.




Actually, an experienced DM wisely played an intelligent, cunning, cowardly monster exactly the way he should have. If a group of people rolled up to your house with guns, blasted all your friends in the front yard, would you stand there and wait to be mowed down, or would you run inside where Arnold is waiting with a grenade launcher for them to walk in the front door? (ok poor analogy) 

Also, KD wasn't calling anyone a cheater. 3 22 Point buy PC's would likely get slammed quite easily by it. I have 4 PC's of approx 32 PB (we rolled as well) that got nearly TPK'd (I had to pull punches at the end). He was only saying it was an extremely difficult encounter, especially for the first adventure in 4e.


----------



## KarinsDad (Oct 21, 2009)

Saeviomagy said:


> It'd be kinda nice if KarinsDad would stop accusing everyone who won that fight of being a cheater.




It'd be kinda nice if people would learn how to read.

I didn't say anyone cheated. I said that I wondered what other bones he threw to his PCs. I don't buy the fact that anyone could play 3 1st level PCs straight up in that encounter without significant help from the DM. As it turned out, my suspicion was vindicated. He upped their level to ~1.5 (the extra 2nd level daily powers and extra hit points from good stats), the PCs had higher than normal point buy, the PCs were designed with stronger weapons and abilities (especially Battlerage) that were not available when the module came out, and he played the enemies real dumb (allowing the PCs to retreat without following them, and then when they came back, he still did two waves that late and allowed the PCs a choke point). Battlerage alone was designed without the designers taking into account minions.

So sure, the enemy was a lot less effective because the DM was pulling for the PCs, even to the point of doing a Deus Ex Machina and giving the PCs powers they did not have once two PCs fell.

"Thou shalt not die" said the DM.


----------



## renau1g (Oct 21, 2009)

Yeah as a 4e newbie DM, I didn't realize _how_ much ability scores mattered so we rolled up using my tried and true method from 3.x days. Either 4d6, or 3d6 and re-roll 1's. 
Now I know better, although from what I've heard of the later WOTC adventures, the desingers haven't really learned how to do a good encounter yet. I'm hopeful for EN Publishing though, I've got the first few 4e WoTBS addies and they look good (with a few minor exceptions)


----------



## KarinsDad (Oct 21, 2009)

renau1g said:


> Yeah as a 4e newbie DM, I didn't realize _how_ much ability scores mattered so we rolled up using my tried and true method from 3.x days. Either 4d6, or 3d6 and re-roll 1's.




Yup. In 4E, scores are god (that and splat book abilities). And, it is fairly different to DM than earlier versions.

We once had a player roll 2 16s, 2 17s, and 2 18s in a 2E 5D6 drop lowest 2 dice method years ago. He was good in 2E, but he would have kicked major butt in 4E.


----------



## renau1g (Oct 21, 2009)

Yeah, I had 3 18's in a 2e game (my DM rolled a set and we did in that game, he rolled them for me), so I played a paladin, 18 Cha, 18 Str, 18 Con(or WIS, can't remember)... good times.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Oct 21, 2009)

Wow, we're back to Irontooth?  Our party managed to get through it, though it was a tough fight.  But we were a large party (7) that included a wizard and two leaders, and our DM wisely didn't boost the encounter like he normally would have.  We were PH-only, by-the-book characters, and still getting used to 4e.

Kalarel, and later Paldomar, though, were absolutely horrid.  Irontooth was a brute, you could still /hit/ him, overleveled though he was.  Elite overleveled controllers, OTOH... :shudder:


Oh, and as far as the Blue Dragon being able to hover just out of range of everything but a longbow by targeting it's burst at extreme range /just/ over the targets' heads... that's just a tad cheesy.   Sure, it works, and PCs do things that cheesy all the time.  But I'd bet the guy that gave it a Burst 1 w/in 20 didn't have that in mind.


----------



## eamon (Oct 21, 2009)

Tony Vargas said:


> Wow, we're back to Irontooth?  Our party managed to get through it, though it was a tough fight.  But we were a large party (7) that included a wizard and two leaders, and our DM wisely didn't boost the encounter like he normally would have.  We were PH-only, by-the-book characters, and still getting used to 4e.
> 
> Kalarel, and later Paldomar, though, were absolutely horrid.  Irontooth was a brute, you could still /hit/ him, overleveled though he was.  Elite overleveled controllers, OTOH... :shudder:




Also, the Kalarel encounter made fleeing pretty impossible and it included a portal with a save-or-die pull effect which our party didn't realize until we were suddenly lost our full-hitpoint ranger striker one moment.  It wasn't exactly the funnest of battles.  (The DM probably should have hinted at the save-or-die pull effect, but that kind of extra info wasn't his style - and I don't think he'd really thought about it until it happened).

As for irontooth; that happened to be a cake-walk in our campaign due to sheer luck; the mis-optimized warlord (higher int than str and a +2 high-damage weapon resulting in a very low to-hit) happened to crit him with his daily "Lead the Attack", granting everyone a huge bonus to-hit.  Irontooth went down within one round and never managed to use any of his more dangerous attacks.  That was probably the only time that character _ever_ hit with _any_ daily; he got replaced fairly quickly, though.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Oct 21, 2009)

KarinsDad said:


> It'd be kinda nice if people would learn how to read.
> 
> I didn't say anyone cheated. I said that I wondered what other bones he threw to his PCs. I don't buy the fact that anyone could play 3 1st level PCs straight up in that encounter without significant help from the DM. As it turned out, my suspicion was vindicated. He upped their level to ~1.5 (the extra 2nd level daily powers and extra hit points from good stats), the PCs had higher than normal point buy, the PCs were designed with stronger weapons and abilities (especially Battlerage) that were not available when the module came out, and he played the enemies real dumb (allowing the PCs to retreat without following them, and then when they came back, he still did two waves that late and allowed the PCs a choke point). Battlerage alone was designed without the designers taking into account minions.
> 
> ...



no, not really dumb, but too cautious. They also didn´t really know what awaits them and decided it is better to set a trap. Battlerager vigor however spoiled their plan. (Better weapons against minions doesn´t do that much)

And the PCs had enough experience for lvl 2 before the encounter but didn´t do an extended rest. So I didn´t want a TPK there. Especially not a TPK that close.

Maybe the designers were a bit annoyed that common believe was PCs are too tough at lvl 1, so maybe they designed this encounter consciously as a near TPK. (The encounter level should be a hint)

to scores: i don´t think scores are worth so much more in 4e. It is  just that you had a big gap where stats don´t count anything in 2nd edition.

In 2nd edition you could always make use of 16 con, dex 18 and your main score for every class.

its a big difference in HP, AC and damage. (compare str 15 fighter with 14 con to a fighter with 18 str and 18 con) 

but the difference between 9 con and 14 con is very low.

to come back to the topic:

the dragon in ADnd had very low (good) AC and high magic resistance and good ranged attacks. Staying at range against a typical party whithout potions of flying meant TPK. And then the dragon could retreat until potions and spells wore off and attack again later. 

The difference however doesn´t really ly in the rules, but in the mindset of the players. When you had to face overwhelming odds you began thinking out of the rules what you can do to stack the odds in your favour.

1. Try to get onto the dragon and attack
2. Use illusion spells to shape the surrounding
3. Use terrain to your favour

You have at least option 1 and 3 in 4e to get an advantage.


----------



## keterys (Oct 21, 2009)

Irontooth only lived for two rounds in the game I ran... and given he came out while they were fighting, that really says something. I don't remember if they critted or not, but they definitely dailied him up a bit.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Oct 21, 2009)

yeah 100 hp go down really fast in a nova turn


----------



## KarinsDad (Oct 21, 2009)

Tony Vargas said:


> Oh, and as far as the Blue Dragon being able to hover just out of range of everything but a longbow by targeting it's burst at extreme range /just/ over the targets' heads... that's just a tad cheesy.   Sure, it works, and PCs do things that cheesy all the time.  But I'd bet the guy that gave it a Burst 1 w/in 20 didn't have that in mind.




Actually, he might have. The MM states that that Blue Dragons prefer to attack from the air at range and the Draconomicon states that they not only want to attack from long range, but also prefer to hit and run minutes and even hours later, over and over again. It's even cheesier if the Dragon attacks later when the PCs are in a different encounter.


----------



## keterys (Oct 21, 2009)

Yeah, the blue dragon is one of my poster children for something that's designed unfun.


----------



## Dr_Ruminahui (Oct 21, 2009)

Well, from my own DMing experience, its plenty fun if you give the advantage to the players - I used a leveled down version instead of the white in the Kobold Hall delve in the DMG, and the palyers had a great time.

That said, that put it in a small room where it couldn't get away from my melee focused party.

So I guess in this case its fun based on how you play it - that said, it seems that running the dragon intelligently falls under the "not fun" category, which is certainly a problem for some players/DMs.


----------



## keterys (Oct 21, 2009)

Yeah, its design is that it hovers out of range and bombards the party with big area effects. This is fairly low damage output and combined with its vast hp and range can make it a dreadfully slow and boring combat, or even an impossible one...

Once you get past that and have it start clawing and goring, breathing on people up near it, etc it's not so bad...

At least until higher level when it gets a close burst stun at-will. Then it's dreadful again


----------



## Dr_Ruminahui (Oct 21, 2009)

Ugh... That's ugly.  I haven't looked at the higher level dragons (my party just hit level 6) - I think its a good thing dragons don't play a prominent role in my campaign. 8)


----------



## Jhaelen (Oct 22, 2009)

keterys said:


> Yeah, the blue dragon is one of my poster children for something that's designed unfun.



Well, the Ashen Crown adventure includes an encounter with a blue dragon while the party's travelling on an airship. In this encounter the dragon has to land on the airship since he isn't able to fly as fast as the airship...


----------



## KarinsDad (Oct 22, 2009)

keterys said:


> Yeah, the blue dragon is one of my poster children for something that's designed unfun.




I think everything is situationally dependent.

Like Jhaelen's example, the DM has to adjust the encounter so that the unfun part is less of an issue.

I could see a running attack by a Blue Dragon where the PCs have to go from shelter point to shelter point over many sessions as a lot of fun. It would be a challenge that once accomplished by the players would be remembered for years, just because of how difficult it was at the time. If the DM runs it straight up without helping the PCs at all, then it would be great fun. The DM has to be careful in such a scenario. For example, if the PCs get attacked by other foes, they have to be less threatening than normal and are only a major threat because the Dragon comes in and strafes the PCs for a half a dozen rounds. And have the Dragon attack both PCs and NPCs, just to get to the PCs is also fun. Ending this up with the PCs chasing the Dragon back to it's lair in order to finish it off (PCs have a lot more ways to heal than Dragons, especially between encounters, so eventually, they would wear it down) and looting it's massive treasure is the heart of DND.

The major thing about the Blue Dragon, I think, is that it's not designed for a more typical encounter straight out of the box. The DM has to put some thought into it so as to make the Dragon seem alive and not yet another same ole same ole encounter.

"Blue Dragon, yup, killed one of those in a mine where it couldn't get away." 

The DM should avoid that. It's just not written in the Monster Manual, so many DMs, until they come to various forums, might not figure that out ahead of time.

In fact, that's the great thing about these forums. I now have a Blue Dragon encounter in my head that I will be springing on the PCs early next year. I never would have thought of it if wasn't for this thread.


----------



## keterys (Oct 22, 2009)

KarinsDad said:


> Like Jhaelen's example, the DM has to adjust the encounter so that the unfun part is less of an issue.




Yep! Though I'm not sure I'd even want to try on the high level one without changing its burst stun at-will.



> I could see a running attack by a Blue Dragon where the PCs have to go from shelter point to shelter point over many sessions as a lot of fun.




I'm not entirely sure the players would agree... until they finally kill it, anyways, then they'd exult a bit 



> In fact, that's the great thing about these forums. I now have a Blue Dragon encounter in my head that I will be springing on the PCs early next year. I never would have thought of it if wasn't for this thread.




Excellent!


----------



## KarinsDad (Oct 22, 2009)

keterys said:


> I'm not entirely sure the players would agree... until they finally kill it, anyways, then they'd exult a bit




It depends on the players. Some like the DM to throw curve balls, stuff they've never seen before. Others are content to do the status quo. I personally think the status quo gets a bit boring after a while, so I like to mix it up a bit.

I also run with house rules such as standard action ritual scrolls, and power scrolls that allow the players to mix it up as well. Retreat, make some scrolls, surprise the heck out of the Dragon next time. 19 times out of 20, the players would probably not use these types of options. But, they are there for when challenges are too unusual or difficult.


----------



## keterys (Oct 22, 2009)

Amusingly, standard action ritual scrolls deals entirely with my complaints about them not having a recourse for dealing with the hovering dragon.


----------



## Garthanos (Oct 22, 2009)

keterys said:


> Amusingly, standard action ritual scrolls deals entirely with my complaints about them not having a recourse for dealing with the hovering dragon.




I can do anything cause I am batman abilities can have that effect....


----------



## keterys (Oct 22, 2009)

Yeah, I'd definitely prefer something a bit more mainstream... like a consumable item specifically for the purpose, rather than opening it up to all possible rituals. But, whatever, really.


----------



## KarinsDad (Oct 22, 2009)

Garthanos said:


> I can do anything cause I am batman abilities can have that effect....




Actually, the scrolls are limited to ones that have a 10 minute cast time.

Floating Disk, Knock, Speak with Dead. All the kind of miscellaneous stuff that could be cast in or out of combat quickly during 3.5. And, versatility comes at a cost, i.e. gold. And the time restriction prevents it from being done for big time rituals like Raise Dead or View Location or anything like that.


Trust me. The players haven't even made a single ritual scroll yet. But, we are doing a big adventure, raise 3 levels, next big adventure, raise 3 more levels in an attempt to get to level 30 within a reasonable time frame. So, it looks like they might create a few now that they just jumped to 10th level.


----------



## renau1g (Oct 22, 2009)

Jhaelen said:


> Well, the Ashen Crown adventure includes an encounter with a blue dragon while the party's travelling on an airship. In this encounter the dragon has to land on the airship since he isn't able to fly as fast as the airship...




How does it catch up to the ship then?


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Oct 22, 2009)

renau1g said:


> How does it catch up to the ship then?



from the front...?


----------



## renau1g (Oct 22, 2009)

But if the ships going faster, the dragon would get slammed into by the ship, no? It certainly would have significant trouble landing on it. The ship should be able to see the dragon coming a mile away (advantage of the airship) and be able to dodge it no problem (as it's faster).


----------



## KarinsDad (Oct 22, 2009)

renau1g said:


> But if the ships going faster, the dragon would get slammed into by the ship, no? It certainly would have significant trouble landing on it. The ship should be able to see the dragon coming a mile away (advantage of the airship) and be able to dodge it no problem (as it's faster).




It's a fantasy world. The dragon approaches from below, from within a cloudbank, etc. It lands no problem on the ship because it is fantasy physics, not real world physics. No actual problems, at least according to the rules.


----------



## Garthanos (Oct 22, 2009)

KarinsDad said:


> Trust me.




If you say so ... but I recall in earlier versions of the game ... pcs with bags of holding full of just the right magic item I am envisioning batman again.


----------



## KarinsDad (Oct 22, 2009)

Garthanos said:


> If you say so ... but I recall in earlier versions of the game ... pcs with bags of holding full of just the right magic item I am envisioning batman again.




Like I said, none of my players has taken advantage of this yet. In fact, they've only used a few rituals total from levels 1 to 7, even though they have acquired about 12 of them in various ways.

My group just isn't passionate to the degree that any of them want to become Batman.

Even so, who really cares if one PC spends his money on Scrolls of Knock, Floating Disk, Arcane Lock, etc. How is that so much more unbalanced than spending money on magical or alchemical potions? I'm not really understanding your objection to it.


----------



## Garthanos (Oct 23, 2009)

KarinsDad said:


> I'm not really understanding your objection to it.



Just cautious... I like the idea of extra components allowing accelerated casting or something similar... but think going from 10 minutes down to 1. So that my allies have to hold the bad guys off for a few rounds.. not so I can go boom and its done.

I went through the various rituals looking at the 10 minute ones... at low levels there are probably very few that I would object to being standard actions... but as the levels go up we start getting in to things I start getting leary of

Example:
12th level Mark of Justice the target needs to be helpless during the casting... can you get a bad guy "helpless" for the duration of a standard action at level 12?


----------



## keterys (Oct 23, 2009)

I think I'd rather go through the rituals and make all the ones I think are good 1 minute. And then let scrolls turn that into 1 round and maybe a feat. Plus 1 minute is short enough that ritual casting can make it happen between fights.


----------



## KarinsDad (Oct 23, 2009)

Garthanos said:


> I like the idea of extra components allowing accelerated casting or something similar... but think going from 10 minutes down to 1.




I understand the caution, I'm just not seeing basically DND 3.5 miscellaneous (not generally attack) spells (which many 10 minute or less casting rituals are for the most part) brought to DND 4E and still requiring a standard action to cast PLUS having a component cost and a market price as being unbalanced.

I really do think that WotC has done a superb job of selling 3.5 stuff that wasn't really unbalanced as unbalanced, all in the name of balance. It really is an amazing marketing job that has convinced a lot of gamers into a brand new mindset.

If I would have said to you 2 years ago:

"I think Tenser's Floating Disk should take 10 minutes to cast and cost 60 GP for the first time cast", you probably would have considered me nuts. 

So yeah, I think your caution is way overblown.

A single scroll with a single charge is nothing compared to 3.5 Wands with 50 charges.



Garthanos said:


> Example:
> 12th level Mark of Justice the target needs to be helpless during the casting... can you get a bad guy "helpless" for the duration of a standard action at level 12?




Not seeing it.

A helpless NPC? Who multiple PCs could Coup De Grace?

You consider giving that NPC a 10 vulnerability or some such if he does a given action overpowered for 1000 GP when he was already helpless???

This actually makes Mark of Justice useful.


----------



## Garthanos (Oct 23, 2009)

KarinsDad said:


> market price as being unbalanced.



one time cost to learn?



KarinsDad said:


> I really do think that WotC has done a superb job of selling 3.5 stuff that wasn't really unbalanced as unbalanced, all in the name of balance.




Sorry I dont recall being brain washed in to thinking the wizard at high level had abilities allowing him to overshadow and obsolete all the other classes shticks... of course I didnt play 3.5 (except once) maybe they fixed that problem from the earlier edition... 
I seem to recall they could stealth and pass through barriers better than thieves and shapechange into big enough things that fighters were superfluous... and mostly with long duration utility spells... not attacks its been many years though and they might have messed with my memory


----------



## Jhaelen (Oct 23, 2009)

KarinsDad said:


> If I would have said to you 2 years ago:
> 
> "I think Tenser's Floating Disk should take 10 minutes to cast and cost 60 GP for the first time cast", you probably would have considered me nuts.



True, that


----------



## eamon (Oct 23, 2009)

KarinsDad said:


> "I think Tenser's Floating Disk should take 10 minutes to cast and cost 60 GP for the first time cast", you probably would have considered me nuts.




It is a shame how many of the fun utility spells seem gone or worthless now.  A fun part of the game was finding the right spell for the right purpose; and it automatically gave the storyline a natural growth; certain types of restrictions just fell away as levels rose.  Maybe it's just me, but I remember Wind Walk and teleport fondly; that kind of stuff lifted your campaign into what would now be "upper paragon" I suppose.

I can imagine it was tricky for some DM's though; particularly for those that weren't rule nuts (since you really needed to take them into account when writing the campaign).


----------



## keterys (Oct 23, 2009)

Amusingly, Tenser's Disc at 10g a cast is totally worth casting every day at high level. No idea why it needs to take 10 minutes though.

It also easily could have been made less effective, and accordingly cheaper. They also could have easily given the wizard some sorta free rituals like the bard.


----------



## Nichwee (Oct 23, 2009)

eamon said:


> It is a shame how many of the fun utility spells seem gone or worthless now.  A fun part of the game was finding the right spell for the right purpose;




The problem in the odder editions was always that the utilities (bar some that were so strong they overshadowed campaigns) never/rarely got used. 
You had limited spell slots and damage was the most consistantly useful factor. When you starting getting really high you would mem a shedload of low level utility in Lvl 3 slots, but otherwise you only used them if you knew in advance you needed them.
This meant DMs either had to allow you time to mem the right spells for the occasion (at which point you could gimp almost any issue - as the utilities did insane amounts) or they had to give you a dozen ways round the issue in case you failed to mem the right spells that day. Or they made the entire campaign a "guess right or be fooked".
To maintain utility a Wizard lost an insane amount of his constant damage potential (and with no At-Wills this meant he was pointless in a fight).

4E has at least made utility spells something you don't have to sacrifice basic combat functionality for. And rituals allow a almost endless set of possibilities if you want to maintain them. Plus many are 10mins to an hour, which is a reasonable "scouting time" stop, rather than the "Ok, it may be only lunch time, but I don't have the right spells today. We need to camp for the night" issue it used to be.
I am making great use of rituals in the game I am playing in. I even have the rest of the party offering to buy me components as I use them so often to help out.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Oct 23, 2009)

I think utility spells should all be combat focused. Especially somethink like feather fall and fly should not exist there.

But IMHO there should be rituals for wizards only which he can cast for free once or twice per day or in less time. Feather fall a ritual which allows you to use a feather  as focus to save you as a free action.
Maybe a ritual which binds utility powers into a scroll etc would also be helpful to make out of combat/mobility spells really useful.

Speaking of rituals i could imagine following scenario:

Dragon attacks using hit and hover/run tactics.
You need to search for shelter.
You begin a ritual which allows you to fly or to earthbind the dragon
Problem is that you need to get the dragon to the ritual place
And now the other chars have to do a skill challenge to lure the dragon to you and you contribute to that challenge with some arcana checks

ritual casting time maybe 1 minute or 10 whatever seems fit and cost of an appropriate amount of money (rare spider web etc)


----------



## Nichwee (Oct 23, 2009)

UngeheuerLich said:


> I think utility spells should all be combat focused. Especially somethink like feather fall and fly should not exist there.
> 
> But IMHO there should be rituals for wizards only which he can cast for free once or twice per day or in less time. Feather fall a ritual which allows you to use a feather  as focus to save you as a free action.




Can't say I like that idea. Utility Powers shouldn't just be combat - or you just said goodbye to all non-combat DnD for all non-Ritual Casters.
And going with FeatherFall etc as rituals means rituals just become more Utility Powers - so you basically go "Take Ritual Caster feat and have infinate utility".

Utility Powers for the "Right Now!" effects, rituals for the "Ok, I think I can sort this out if you give me a little while" stuff works well imo.

Stopping for 2 short rests is hardly insane if you use the time to solve a big issue you are having - hell it would probably take as soon to define your problem in the real world (i.e. to scout the outside of the castle you plan to get into, or look for a bridge/shallow section across the river you need to cross) - so I see no issue making the PCs stop and think a sec, rather than having all effects as "Instant On Tap". 

A feat (or utility power) to allow a ritual to be cast really fast once a day or some such might not too bad though.


----------



## keterys (Oct 23, 2009)

Nichwee said:


> Can't say I like that idea. Utility Powers shouldn't just be combat - or you just said goodbye to all non-combat DnD for all non-Ritual Casters.




I actually think that they needed a second bucket. People shouldn't have to make a choice between 'teleport 3 squares and get +2 to defenses' and 'get +4 to a bluff check'. 

I'm totally for a second bucket for feather fall, crucial advice, etc though.



> Stopping for 2 short rests is hardly insane if you use the time to solve a big issue you are having



Perhaps, but a ten minute Knock feels really, really dumb 

Similarly when a PC wanted to use Tenser's Disc to save someone from being swept downriver towards a waterfall, I felt a little bad telling him about the amount of time it took, since it was otherwise a perfectly decent idea.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Oct 23, 2009)

We have a precident with bards who have bard only rituals. The same could be done with other classes and these rituals could be more lenient with costs and time.

As keterys said: you should not have to make a choice between in and out of combat.
For a wizard this is less bad, because you have 2 utility spells you can exchange. So you can take a combat and an out of combat option.

And what is so bad about: as a wizard you can use your arcane energy to cast rituals with component costs of 100 g or less for free or you can use those components and can cast the rituals as a standard action.

Taking the knock spell as an example, you don´t make the rogue obosllete, because he needs at most 2 mins to open the lock. But lacking a rogue you can still be helpfull.

And the best, you can create a wizard only feat, which does exactly as i proposed. 

And the second ritual, which binds any (wizard) utility spell (you need to learn it for each utility spell) into a scroll for an appropriate coast also doesn´t sound so wrong. 
(Daily spells cost way more than encounter spells and using it is a daily item use)

Maybe this ritual can only be accessed through a feat.


----------



## Nichwee (Oct 23, 2009)

UngeheuerLich said:


> And what is so bad about: as a wizard you can use your arcane energy to cast rituals with component costs of 100 g or less for free or you can use those components and can cast the rituals as a standard action.




Well the thing I'd find dodgy about the 'free cast' option is Comprehend Langauages, Tensor's Flouting Disc, Planar Steed, etc. Long duration rituals that you could just prep in the morning to be used for free all day. Plus Hand of Fate for free = never make an uninformed discision again.

And Magic Circle as a standard action would be a touch sick for reasons I hope I don't have to go into.

I'm not saying they couldn't have made some rituals more Utility Power-esque, but as a default I think the idea of rituals as "Sit and pull out you toolkit to engineer your way around a problem" is a good one.

And I think you should be choosing between combat or non-combat utilities. It gives a way to represent more variance in PCs, as some will value combat over non, and some vice versa. 
Whereas, if you had a line for each, there would be a lot less choosing going on = more formulaic PCs (Same reason peeps talk of banning Iron Armbands, as it can cut valid choices out of the mix).


----------



## Jhaelen (Oct 23, 2009)

UngeheuerLich said:


> As keterys said: you should not have to make a choice between in and out of combat.



This is something I'm worried about, too. This is also quite noticable with rogues: they have the option of getting several really nice at-will utility powers that are reminiscent of the thief abilities of old, but they rarely (if ever) get chosen, because other utilities seem more useful in combat.

I've already thought, maybe everyone should get to pick two utility powers at every level utility powers are gained, similar to the Wizard's spellbook ability. 
However, rather than having to decide which one to use after every extended rest, it should be possible to choose after every short rest.


----------



## keterys (Oct 23, 2009)

Then people would choose from two decent combat utility powers 

Separate buckets are very good for allowing more choice without sacrifice.


----------



## Nichwee (Oct 23, 2009)

Tho for the same level of variation they have to produce twice as many options = more books = more cost.

Plus combat utility is normally a lot easier to do the math for, as combat is all about mathimatical balancing (unless you actually try not to optimise but IAoP show this isn't all that common, and can get other teammates upset you gimped yourself and the party) - so we get one or two prime choices being used all the time (any Rangers not taking Twin Strike these days?)


----------



## Garthanos (Oct 23, 2009)

keterys said:


> Perhaps, but a ten minute Knock feels really, really dumb




Isnt that what rogues are for?... I mean really really.... allowing the wizard or ritualist to over write everyones role... is that really really what people are after?


----------



## keterys (Oct 23, 2009)

Garthanos said:


> Isnt that what rogues are for?... I mean really really.... allowing the wizard or ritualist to over write everyones role... is that really really what people are after?




Of course not. But how is a ritual that costs more and is slower than breaking through with a crowbar good design? 

You're always going to go with the free and faster rogue option. But I've been in groups where the most correct answer after that was brute force because Knock was too slow, in addition to pure cost.


----------



## Nichwee (Oct 23, 2009)

keterys said:


> Of course not. But how is a ritual that costs more and is slower than breaking through with a crowbar good design?
> 
> You're always going to go with the free and faster rogue option. But I've been in groups where the most correct answer after that was brute force because Knock was too slow, in addition to pure cost.




I guess your team didn't have a reason to fear load noises attracting guards, or just the hassle that a gaping hole where a door used to be can bring.


----------



## Garthanos (Oct 23, 2009)

Nichwee said:


> I guess your team didn't have a reason to fear load noises attracting guards, or just the hassle that a gaping hole where a door used to be can bring.




Exactly... me warrior smash has a couple implications.. that aren't time and money though with a mend spell one can be turned into time and money and with a silence the  other can too.

I'm not saying the cost of any given ritual is even perfect... I want to figure out ways to encourage them more too....
I want the most likely caster of a cheap faster knock spell to be a rogue with a magical background or multiclassed/hybrid rogue wizard.


----------



## Garthanos (Oct 23, 2009)

We sure have rambled in to other subjects with this one.


----------



## keterys (Oct 23, 2009)

Nichwee said:


> I guess your team didn't have a reason to fear load noises attracting guards, or just the hassle that a gaping hole where a door used to be can bring.




In fact, no. It was actually a straight out advantage to get through faster.

And I don't know that I'd expect the Knock ritual to _not_ be a loud noise that might attract guards. It's 10 minutes of something, with probable chanting and ritual components, followed by an obvious glowing blue light, then a glowing door. It also costs 35g and a healing surge. And that healing surge can actually be a big deal for many of the characters who get ritual casting and Arcana.

In comparison, crowbaring open the door might take a single standard action (6 seconds) and create one source of noise quickly gone. No money. No surge. Far less time. No more attention.

There are times when you don't want to risk damaging contents or something similar, but Knock straight out costs too much in terms of time and components as far as I'm concerned. I'd happily drop it to just an Arcana check or Thievery + 5, instead of Arcana + 5, make it 1 minute and 10g.


----------



## Garthanos (Oct 23, 2009)

keterys said:


> I'd happily drop it to just an Arcana check or Thievery + 5, instead of Arcana + 5, make it 1 minute and 10g.




Well I think you addressed my fear of thieving being totally overshadowed... 

I think a loud knock spell might be fast... and a quiet one slow... would also be an interesting trade off... 

real world lock picking isnt as fast as crashing down the door usually.... but its highly dependent on the lock... and the door.


----------



## Garthanos (Oct 23, 2009)

I think the exercise points to the fact that blanket making rituals too checap, easy or fast without thinking about what you are doing does have a likelihood of stepping on toes. But maybe I am brainwashed. 

I will also say I approve of an individual DM going through and adjusting the level... cost and casting time of any ritual he wants to better express is own game world. Not being careful about it I don't recommend.


----------



## KarinsDad (Oct 23, 2009)

keterys said:


> Perhaps, but a ten minute Knock feels really, really dumb
> 
> Similarly when a PC wanted to use Tenser's Disc to save someone from being swept downriver towards a waterfall, I felt a little bad telling him about the amount of time it took, since it was otherwise a perfectly decent idea.




Precisely.

This is it in a nutshell and the reason I allowed 10 or less minute Rituals be placed on Standard Action scrolls.

This pulls back into the game system options that players want to do quickly, even out of combat.

I can create a Shield spell Force object in an instant, but it takes 5 minutes (via normal ritual scroll rules, 10 minutes without a scroll) to create a Floating Disk Force object. WT???

It not only limits creativity, but it creates (IMO) an inconsistency with how magic should work. Similar effects should take similar amounts of time.

I have no issue with Raise Dead taking hours since there are no in combat Raise Dead spells (TMK, Raise Dying, but not Raise Dead).


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Oct 23, 2009)

KarinsDad said:


> Precisely.
> 
> This is it in a nutshell and the reason I allowed 10 or less minute Rituals be placed on Standard Action scrolls.
> 
> ...




Given that we as DMs and players have NO idea how magic actually works in the game world inconsistency is a non-issue. If you wanted a rationalization then here it is though. Shield is just a hand gesture that creates a little "puff of force" that deflects an attack. For a few seconds after you cast the spell you can basically wave your hand and knock a sword or arrow off target a bit. Tenser's disk is a totally different thing, its a controllable (in fact semi-autonomous) long lasting magical effect. I don't see where there is any inconsistency. If there WERE some inconsistency then I issue forth some DM contrived mumbo-jumbo about "it takes a while to get the attention of the archritarcs that make TD work" or whatever. 

I'm still not sold on why a TD should be instantly castable. Its making the wizard Mr Answer Guy all over again. Why have a guy that can use a rope well and climb well if a quick TD will solve the problem? Same with knock. Why bother to have a rogue that can pick locks, just use a standard action and pop that lock open. 

As it is now there's a trade off. Cast a ritual which takes time and money, OR let the rogue do it. If a guy falls in the raging river, then have someone climb down and rescue him while he's snagged on a rock (skill challenge).

Also I just don't usually see 10 minutes as being a huge amount of time. If the party has noone actively out there looking for them and alerted then 10 minutes is nothing much. Even if you just raised an alarm REALISTICALLY its tough for an organized response to happen instantly. Its nice in theory to think the guys in the next room pour out in 3 rounds and join a fight etc, but watch a bunch of firemen when a call comes into the firehouse. They're ready to go and its still 2-3 minutes before they're out the door. Things don't happen as fast as people imagine. 10 minutes to cast a ritual is not usually a show stopper. What it does stop is making the wizard Mr Answer Guy again. 

Are all casting times/costs for rituals exactly ideal? No, maybe not, but honestly they are reasonable. I know the group I DM uses rituals. Not tons of them all the time, but they definitely get a bit of use and I think one big reason they don't see more use is just force of habit. Players are used to casting spells, not thinking ahead and using rituals ahead of time.


----------



## brassbaboon (Oct 23, 2009)

Wow, this is way off topic now. 

In our current campaign I've been through five five hour sessions, so 25 hours of play. Other than "enchant item" and "transfer enchantment" I don't think we've used a single ritual.

When I browsed through the rituals, my general reaction was "hmm... seems odd that it should take ten minutes to do THAT."

I am only DMing the Keep on the Shadowfell right now, and rituals haven't been an issue in that campaign, but going forward I would almost certainly house rule certain rituals to be able to be cast in much less time than ten minutes.


----------



## keterys (Oct 23, 2009)

AbdulAlhazred said:


> I'm still not sold on why a TD should be instantly castable.




It shouldn't, unless the cost is sufficient. I'd suggest nerfing TD for an instant one.



> Why have a guy that can use a rope well and climb well if a quick TD will solve the problem?




Err, what skill is 'use rope', persactly? And since when does TD let you climb?



> Same with knock. Why bother to have a rogue that can pick locks, just use a standard action and pop that lock open.




35g and 1 healing surge. Per lock. And the checks can fail. Plus 10 minutes.

Or, for KD's standard action method it's actually 210g and 1 healing surge. Per lock. And the checks can fail.

Not that I agree with KD's method, but I can sympathize with how he came to that decision. I wouldn't do it that way, but I would be okay encouraging more rituals.

In fact, I'll be doing just that in a game I'm starting in a couple weeks by separating out money for consumables and rituals from money for magic items.



> Also I just don't usually see 10 minutes as being a huge amount of time.




It's not necessarily a huge amount of time. It's just 100 times longer than the other available solutions. Which, I guess, does make it a huge amount of time.


----------



## DracoSuave (Oct 25, 2009)

keterys said:


> It shouldn't, unless the cost is sufficient. I'd suggest nerfing TD for an instant one.




But Tenser's Disc is a carry-stuff spell, at its heart.  Exactly why do you -need- 'Carry Stuff' to be instant?  Carrying Stuff is not exactly the sort of thing that -needs- a sense of urgency 9/10ths of the time.



> Err, what skill is 'use rope', persactly? And since when does TD let you climb?




It actually -does- give you a few more feet as a boost.



> 35g and 1 healing surge. Per lock. And the checks can fail. Plus 10 minutes.
> 
> Or, for KD's standard action method it's actually 210g and 1 healing surge. Per lock. And the checks can fail.




Or, roll Thievery, and stop trying to obsolete the use of skills in encounters.  The whole -point- behind making rituals non-instant is so that you're not making the Theivery skill obsolete.



> Not that I agree with KD's method, but I can sympathize with how he came to that decision. I wouldn't do it that way, but I would be okay encouraging more rituals.




More rituals is great.  Ten minutes is -no time- outside an encounter.

Anyone who says otherwise is lying.

'I cast a ritual.'
'DM: You do it.  Roll the dice.'
'That was easy.'



> In fact, I'll be doing just that in a game I'm starting in a couple weeks by separating out money for consumables and rituals from money for magic items.




Not a bad idea.



> It's not necessarily a huge amount of time. It's just 100 times longer than the other available solutions. Which, I guess, does make it a huge amount of time.




Actually, it depends.

Knock is not faster than a Theivery character, by design.  But if you -have- a Theivery character, WHY ARE YOU PICKING UP A REDUNDANT RITUAL IN THE FIRST PLACE?

Some of the rituals are designed to -replace- those skills should you have them missing.  So, if you -don't- have someone trained in Theivery, Knock becomes the superior and faster option.  Not fast enough to use in combat, but once combat is over, no problem.  Done.

Maybe the problem isn't that rituals aren't 'shiney' enough, but that you're picking the rituals that other members of your party can already cover.  Instead, take the rituals that -aren't- redundant, and you'll find them more satisfying.

'So, we have a Warlock, an Artificer, and a Rogue.  Wizard, what ritual do you want?'
'KNOCK!'
'You're an idiot, Steve.'


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Oct 25, 2009)

I agree with Draco. But I am still convinced having certain rituals hichyou can cast faster or cheaper won´t brak the game (see bard rituals)

My less-than-100gp for free was not well thought. Actually i didn´t like eschew material components from the beginnng... but maybe allow wizards to retain (some of) the components when casting.
Speeding up knock would be no problem IMHO. Maybe allow the wizard to use extra healing surges to speed up casting of rituals. (spend two extra healing surrges to cast it in 1 min or 4 extra surges to cast it as a standard action)
Maybe you could also make it: Spend HP equal to your HS value or spend HP equal to your bloodied value.
So you can cast it faster when it matters, but you pay a high price for it.


----------



## Garthanos (Oct 25, 2009)

UngeheuerLich said:


> Maybe you could also make it: Spend HP equal to your HS value or spend HP equal to your bloodied value.
> So you can cast it faster when it matters, but you pay a high price for it.




The idea of being able to "push their luck".... heros using risky short cuts to do whatever it is they do "better" or "more extremely" I rather like. Rather like Blood-mage with various flavors attached and perhaps other effects than just damage boosting.


----------



## keterys (Oct 25, 2009)

DracoSuave said:


> But Tenser's Disc is a carry-stuff spell, at its heart.  Exactly why do you -need- 'Carry Stuff' to be instant?  Carrying Stuff is not exactly the sort of thing that -needs- a sense of urgency 9/10ths of the time.




I don't. I actually meant that if you wanted it instant (so that you could use it for things like, say, being able to cart away a dead or dying ally in combat, get over a piece of harmful terrain, prop up a falling statue, that kind of thing, I imagine), you should reduce the power of the base ritual. Since Tenser's Disc is a great ritual, as written, and earlier I said that at high level it's worth casting every day.



> Or, roll Thievery, and stop trying to obsolete the use of skills in encounters.  The whole -point- behind making rituals non-instant is so that you're not making the Theivery skill obsolete.



And 35g and 1 healing surge per lock _attempt_ already does that. In fact, not dealing with traps already does that. Even in previous editions, Knock didn't trump lockpicks, because locks were no big deal.

And if by 'in encounters' you mean 'in combat' then the 1 minute time I suggested does _that_ too.

Again, I'm not the guy who suggested instant rituals.



> More rituals is great.  Ten minutes is -no time- outside an encounter.
> 
> Anyone who says otherwise is lying.
> 
> ...



And other than for item enchant/transferral/disenchantment, it would have instead been in the couple of modules where I've seen the rituals Tenser's Disc and Knock tried to use to solve problems:
'I cast a ritual.'
'DM: How long does it take?'
'10 minutes'
'DM: Okay, anyone else want to solve the problem before he wastes his time and spell components?'



> Knock is not faster than a Theivery character, by design.  But if you -have- a Theivery character, WHY ARE YOU PICKING UP A REDUNDANT RITUAL IN THE FIRST PLACE?



I wasn't talking about Thievery. I was talking about the 'Crowbar' skill. And fwiw, my artificer with thievery still has the Knock ritual. It was on a ritual book. I learned it. If I ever chose to cast it - and it'd need to be a lock that I couldn't get through on a 34 (+14 after bonuses, take 20), but thought was worth trying by rolling +20s at 35g and a surge each _and_ thought wasn't worth just destroying the lock.



> Some of the rituals are designed to -replace- those skills should you have them missing.  So, if you -don't- have someone trained in Theivery, Knock becomes the superior and faster option.  Not fast enough to use in combat, but once combat is over, no problem.  Done.



Knock isn't superior if you're worried about time. Or noise. Or expense. It's _only_ superior if you can't stand to break the lock you're going through _and_ can't use Thievery. Since opening a lock doesn't require training in the skill, that also means that the, say, archer who picked up thieves tools can 'take 20' (in one fifth the time required for the ritual) and get through any tier appropriate lock. 



> Maybe the problem isn't that rituals aren't 'shiney' enough, but that you're picking the rituals that other members of your party can already cover.  Instead, take the rituals that -aren't- redundant, and you'll find them more satisfying.



Oh, I have no particular intention of ever casting Knock. Even without access to someone with Thievery, Knock is so badly designed that its usability is minimal. Which is my point. There _are_ some good rituals, but Knock is a fantastic example of a _bad_ one. Which is partially what we were discussing (we have wandered far afield indeed).


----------



## KarinsDad (Oct 25, 2009)

DracoSuave said:


> But Tenser's Disc is a carry-stuff spell, at its heart.  Exactly why do you -need- 'Carry Stuff' to be instant?  Carrying Stuff is not exactly the sort of thing that -needs- a sense of urgency 9/10ths of the time.




I don't know. I can remember at least a few times in 2E and 3E where a Tenser's Disk was used to get a helpless PC out of danger in combat, or for other ways to move some heavy objects quickly in combat.



DracoSuave said:


> It actually -does- give you a few more feet as a boost.




Ooh. Good argument. Casting a Tenser's Disk several hundred GP ritual scroll to gain a few more feet for a Climb in combat is WAY unbalanced. BAN IT!!! 

I'm thinking a piece of furniture or other object will do just as well or better. And those are free. Or are your dungeons totally devoid of objects?



DracoSuave said:


> Or, roll Thievery, and stop trying to obsolete the use of skills in encounters.  The whole -point- behind making rituals non-instant is so that you're not making the Theivery skill obsolete.




And if none of the PCs have Thievery? Is the DM just supposed to unlock all the doors in the dungeon?

If the party does have Thievery, they won't often use a component costing Knock ritual, will they?



DracoSuave said:


> More rituals is great.  Ten minutes is -no time- outside an encounter.
> 
> Anyone who says otherwise is lying.
> 
> ...




Not the point. The point is to allow non-combat utility spells in combat so that players can do something other than:

"I swing, I hit, I swing, I miss"

which the vast majority of combat power are.

The few utility powers in the core game system are mostly combat oriented as well. Shield, Cure Light Wounds, Bless. The list goes on and on. Sure, there are a few movement powers, but even many of those are combat oriented and would rarely be used outside of combat. And, there might be a slim handful of utility powers that are not combat oriented, but meh.

The entire game except for skill challenges is combat oriented. If a player wants to do some miscellaneous task in combat, they are for the most part, handcuffed to the skill set which means that the player who wants to do this, only has a small number of options that can be reasonably successful because most PCs have only a handful of trained skills.

Want to find a secret door that you are confident is there in combat in order to have a choke point? Fine. Perception. Missed the roll? What can you do now to find it? Probably nothing.

If one had the Detect Secret Door 1 standard action ritual scroll, they'd have a good chance of finding it. And, at a GP cost.

There are hundreds of examples where a ritual scroll could help IF and only if a player wants to spend gold in order to have this level of versatility.

It isn't free.

And, 10 minutes is actually a HUGE amount of time in combat.



DracoSuave said:


> Actually, it depends.
> 
> Knock is not faster than a Theivery character, by design.  But if you -have- a Theivery character, WHY ARE YOU PICKING UP A REDUNDANT RITUAL IN THE FIRST PLACE?




Players probably wouldn't. It's an option.


You haven't written one thing that indicates that this is really a bad idea.

This is an idea that allows players to have fun. Obviously, players will not use Knock right away (too costly) if Thievery is available. Obviously, players will not use Knock on every single locked door if Thievery is unavailable (they'll run out of ritual scrolls and spend a lot of money). 


So explain the difference between Magical and Alchemical potions and other inexpensive miscellaneous spells ritual scrolls.

How is one SO acceptable and the other SO terrible?

I think thou dost protest too much.


----------



## AllisterH (Oct 25, 2009)

Money is not actually a limiting factor on the long run though.

At 1st level, sure, KNOCK is expensive not only to learn but also to CAST every time.

By 21st level though, a 1000 KNOCK scrolls is literally pocket change for any character.

And, like most rituals, Knock doesn't become less effective as you level. Rituals would need a balancing factor which is the time or you could use the Raise Dead method of increasing the ritual cost per tier so that players don't default to magic.

EDIT: Knock, technically, is superior to Thievery as your Knock roll can get higher than your Thievery roll (Knock gets a bonus)


----------



## KarinsDad (Oct 25, 2009)

AllisterH said:


> Money is not actually a limiting factor on the long run though.
> 
> At 1st level, sure, KNOCK is expensive not only to learn but also to CAST every time.
> 
> ...




Actually, I changed the monetary system first before anything else for 4E. I've always had a problem with the difference between high and low level treasure deltas.

The difference between a first level magic item in the book and a 30th level item is a factor of 8680 to 1.

In my house rules, it's 800 to 1.

That significantly increases the number of levels before a given item is pocket change.

And at Epic level, I have no problem with a pocket change Knock spell. The scale is Epic at that level. Pedestrian solutions should no longer apply. The 10 foot pole should be a thing of the distant past for the players at that point. PCs should blast their ways through dungeon walls with Passwall or blast their way through dungeon doors with Knock at those levels. IMO.


I find it hillarious to consider 5 25th level demigod-like PCs with their shiny magic items and their artifacts, all standing around bored and impatient, waiting for 10 minutes for the Druid to cast an Animal Messager ritual. 

"Would you get on with it??? The volcano is going to blow at any minute."

The mental image is priceless.


I consider the lack of quick miscellaneous minor spells a major design flaw and omission to the 4E rules, so I fixed it for my game. Shrug.


----------



## AllisterH (Oct 25, 2009)

KarinsDad said:


> I find it hillarious to consider 5 25th level demigod-like PCs with their shiny magic items and their artifacts, all standing around bored and impatient, waiting for 10 minutes for the Druid to cast an Animal Messager ritual.
> 
> "Would you get on with it??? The volcano is going to blow at any minute."
> 
> The mental image is priceless.




Why would you consider it a hilarious idea that it takes 10 minutes for a person to get an animal to deliver a message to anyone that animal can reach in 24 hours?

EDIT: Note, there _IS_ an Epic Destiny that allows for a caster to use a ritual as a standard action. 30th level cap ability?


----------



## Derren (Oct 25, 2009)

KarinsDad said:


> It's a fantasy world. The dragon approaches from below, from within a cloudbank, etc. It lands no problem on the ship because it is fantasy physics, not real world physics. No actual problems, at least according to the rules.




Why doesn't the dragon disable the ship by destroying the mast (or whatever it uses for propulsion) and then take off again to "sink" the ship from below where the PCs can't attack it?


----------



## AllisterH (Oct 25, 2009)

Derren said:


> Why doesn't the dragon disable the ship by destroying the mast (or whatever it uses for propulsion) and then take off again to "sink" the ship from below where the PCs can't attack it?




Depends on how easily accessible the propulsion system is...

IIRC, in Eberron, it literally is easier to destroy the rest of the ship rather than release the elemental since there are so many protective charms and shielding on the propulsion.

Similarly, in Spelljammer, destroying the helm (the thing that actually allows for spelljamming) is a monumental task and the ship itself is easier to destroy....


----------



## KarinsDad (Oct 25, 2009)

AllisterH said:


> Why would you consider it a hilarious idea that it takes 10 minutes for a person to get an animal to deliver a message to anyone that animal can reach in 24 hours?




The hilarious part is these god-like Superheroes impatiently standing around unable to do anything. 

It's like the image of Superman pacing, waiting around for Wonder Woman to go pee before they can leave.

Sorry if you don't get the humor of a minor mundane event preventing the heroes from going off and saving the world.



AllisterH said:


> EDIT: Note, there _IS_ an Epic Destiny that allows for a caster to use a ritual as a standard action. 30th level cap ability?




Yup. And every single party has THAT ability.


----------



## AllisterH (Oct 25, 2009)

KarinsDad said:


> Sorry if you don't get the humor of a minor mundane event preventing the heroes from going off and saving the world.




Heracles and Beowulf are EPIC characters and neither of them possess this ability. 

The fact that you can get a message to anybody pretty much undetected (even with the existence and knowledge of rituals, who actually pays attention to the church mouse?) that said creature can travel in 24 hours is considered "mundane" I personally disagree with.

There are some rituals I think are too weak, namely the "scrying type rituals" but generally speaking, chalk me up as one that LIKES the fact that players have to think beforehand about using rituals.

For example, in your scenario, if the volcano is going to blow up in 10 minutes,  why would you bother with Animal messenger since the creature will only be able to travel in that 10 minute frame.

My group again uses rituals like they're going crazy but I think it helps that  rituals are seen as a group thing so even the guy playing the fighter is always looking for a way to use rituals.


----------



## DracoSuave (Oct 25, 2009)

KarinsDad said:


> I don't know. I can remember at least a few times in 2E and 3E where a Tenser's Disk was used to get a helpless PC out of danger in combat, or for other ways to move some heavy objects quickly in combat.




But, it's -design- is a carry stuff spell.  It still has uses outside that perview.  Yes, it had -other- uses in previous editions as well.  But that's not an argument to making it instant cast.  It's -purpose- is not made better by doing so, merely stuff that -isn't- it's purpose.  Most of that other stuff can be resolved by 'Dude, go pick that guy up' in combat.  The functionality is not required.



> Ooh. Good argument. Casting a Tenser's Disk several hundred GP ritual scroll to gain a few more feet for a Climb in combat is WAY unbalanced. BAN IT!!!




10 gold pieces.  No one uses ritual scrolls for level 1 rituals if there's a ritual caster in the group.



> I'm thinking a piece of furniture or other object will do just as well or better. And those are free. Or are your dungeons totally devoid of objects?




Good point.  Another reason Tenser's doesn't need to be instant.



> And if none of the PCs have Thievery? Is the DM just supposed to unlock all the doors in the dungeon?




Then you fulfill that function by mastering the Knock ritual.



> If the party does have Thievery, they won't often use a component costing Knock ritual, will they?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## KarinsDad (Oct 25, 2009)

DracoSuave said:


> Magic Circle doesn't show up in consumable form for a -reason.-




Magic Circle isn't affected by the house rule.

It has a casting time of one hour. For a -reason.-


Your arguments have nothing to do with fun or actual game imbalance.

Your arguments really boil down to "But, that's not how the designers designed 4E".

You play the game the way you want to have fun. I'll play it my way.

I prefer miscellaneous minor non-combat options in combat for a cost, not much different than potions. You prefer to be limited via the core rules.

Each is ok dude. Honest.


If I was talking Magic Circle or Raise Dead or Raise Land, then I could see a balance issue. I'm not. I'm talking Water Breathing. I'm talking allowing the rituals that could be cast anyway out of combat with two short rests to be cast in combat instead.


With my solution, a Rogue could, heaven forbid, not take the Thievery skill at all and use his Magic Ritual feat to handle some of that.

OH NO. The world is going to end if a player wants to play a Rogue without the Thievery skill. 

My solution gives balanced options for players. That equals fun in my book.


----------



## DracoSuave (Oct 25, 2009)

KarinsDad said:


> Your arguments have nothing to do with fun or actual game imbalance.




You missed the part where I flat out said it's not fun for non-ritual casters to be rendered obsolete by ritual casting.

That covers -both- those right there.



> OH NO. The world is going to end if a player wants to play a Rogue without the Thievery skill.
> 
> My solution gives balanced options for players. That equals fun in my book.




The problem is that it -isn't- balanced.  Ritual casting isn't something that gets more fun or better when more people have it.  You stick it on the ritual caster, and you go.  

So, yes, all this is more fun for the ritual caster, but a lot of it can come at a direct challenge to the roles and abilities of other characters.  Instant cast is -exactly- the sort of thing that you don't want.  Why bother with stunts and such when you can simply ritual yourself past the obstacle?

It's -only- more fun for -one- player, but it really sucks a -lot- of the fun out of the game for the rest.  Outside combat, it's not -so- bad because of the non-turn-based nature of the game, the -players- can collaborate a little better, and even then, ten minutes is -hardly- a long time.  Really.  it isn't.


----------



## keterys (Oct 25, 2009)

Can you guys stop arguing using Knock as an example? Cause it's a horrible ritual that completely invalidates many of the otherwise viable arguments that could be made on the topic?

Also, for clarity, KD's house rule requires a ritual scroll to be used to do standard action rituals and only works on rituals of 10 minutes or less. I don't advocate that solution, but at least if you're going to argue about it, get that detail straight


----------



## KarinsDad (Oct 25, 2009)

DracoSuave said:


> You missed the part where I flat out said it's not fun for non-ritual casters to be rendered obsolete by ritual casting.
> 
> That covers -both- those right there.




Obsolete?

See, that's where your argument falls apart.

You *assume* that the Ritual Caster using Knock once in two levels (the amount someone might want to spend ritual fees for in combat for that particular ritual) somehow invalidates the fun of the player using the Lock Picking portion of Thievery five or more times a level. And it does nothing to the Find Traps portion of Thievery.

"Ooh. The Rogue was busy in combat, so the Sorcerer rushed over and unlocked the door in combat.

I hope the player of the Rogue doesn't go home and cry."

That's what your POV sounds like.

Sorry, but it sounds totally whiny. As if the player of the Rogue is *entitled* to have the *only* PC that can open the locked door. It's not as if the Sorcerer will be creating 50 such ritual scrolls when there are so many other ritual scrolls that he might want as well.



DracoSuave said:


> The problem is that it -isn't- balanced. Ritual casting isn't something that gets more fun or better when more people have it. You stick it on the ritual caster, and you go.
> 
> So, yes, all this is more fun for the ritual caster, but a lot of it can come at a direct challenge to the roles and abilities of other characters. Instant cast is -exactly- the sort of thing that you don't want. Why bother with stunts and such when you can simply ritual yourself past the obstacle?
> 
> It's -only- more fun for -one- player, but it really sucks a -lot- of the fun out of the game for the rest. Outside combat, it's not -so- bad because of the non-turn-based nature of the game, the -players- can collaborate a little better, and even then, ten minutes is -hardly- a long time. Really. it isn't.




Quite frankly, this already happens in the game system.

My Rogue PC takes Perception. I'm at +12 with it. A different non-Rogue PC takes Perception, but he min maxes it and he is at +19.

Doesn't that still make my player feel a bit inadequate in a situation for which his role might be well suited?


Your imbalance claim and you lack of fun claim are assumptions. You assume that players won't have fun if the spell casters pulls out a ritual scroll in combat once in a while.

I call horse hockey on these assumptions.

Your claim boils down to claiming that people who play the game with the core rules have more fun playing the game then the people playing in my campaign.

My game is unfair. My game is unbalanced. My game is unfun.

What a load of crap.

This is like claiming that the only people who have fun playing DND is 4E players, not 3.5 players.


----------



## DracoSuave (Oct 25, 2009)

KarinsDad said:


> The hilarious part is these god-like Superheroes impatiently standing around unable to do anything.
> 
> It's like the image of Superman pacing, waiting around for Wonder Woman to go pee before they can leave.
> 
> Sorry if you don't get the humor of a minor mundane event preventing the heroes from going off and saving the world.




A more apt analogy would be Superman waiting a few minutes for Batman to hastily assemble his various Bat-a-whatevers for the fight ahead.... or Batman waiting while he analyzes a sample on his Batcomputeranaylzer....

....or Batman waiting while he Batanalyzes the construction plans of a place he is about to go in to.

We're not talking about waiting to pee.  We're talking about waiting for something important.  Stuff that happens off camera, and is thus glossed over, but it's unrealistic to think that the Superfriends are a bunch of ADHD obsessed crazies who'd leave Batman behind just cause Batman has some detective work to do for them.


----------

