Scales of War 4th. WHAT IN THE NINE HELLS?!

[Mystic Muse]

I'm wondering. was this thing playtested? we went through the first dungeon as level 6s part o the way and two of our characters STILL died. and you're supposed to be level 3 by the end of the dungeon. the major problems were.

1. in order to have any chance you need to take an extended rest after each encounter which to most wouldn't be possible because due to the nature of the quest it sounds timed.
2. some of the enemies weren't level appropriate at all. there are rage drakes, ghouls, ettercaps, magma claws and a carnage demon. the lowest level of these monsters is 4.

none of the battles involving any of these monsters were level appropriate. did the designers think through this at ALL when they created it?

[NPCMook]

I've wanted to run this little story arc, but haven't gotten around to giving it a shot. What is your current party make of? Also are you sure the DM didn't bump the level of the encounters? If they did, did they do it properly?

[Elderac]

Which adventure were you playing? It sounds like the first, but I would like to be sure before making any other comments.

[Mystic Muse]

yeah it was the first adventure. our party was

a paladin.
a rogue (me)
a wizard
I think a cleric.

the DM has been DMing for a while and would know what's reasonable for our party to face. he also wouldn't set us up against anything TOO powerful because we're just beginners.

[Gralamin]

I'm wondering. was this thing playtested? we went through the first dungeon as level 6s part o the way and two of our characters STILL died. and you're supposed to be level 3 by the end of the dungeon. the major problems were.

1. in order to have any chance you need to take an extended rest after each encounter which to most wouldn't be possible because due to the nature of the quest it sounds timed.
2. some of the enemies weren't level appropriate at all. there are rage drakes, ghouls, ettercaps, magma claws and a carnage demon. the lowest level of these monsters is 4.

none of the battles involving any of these monsters were level appropriate. did the designers think through this at ALL when they created it?

The adventure itself looks fine. Only a few opponents are to high of a level (Ogre Savage, which is also a brute), but otherwise everything else is within acceptable boundaries. Your problem is probably one of the following:
A) The Adventure was made harder by the DM
B) The PCs used Terrible tactics
C) You have fewer players then five, and it wasn't adjusted based on that.

[Elderac]

I flipped through it and there are a couple of tough encounters. Part of the problem may be that there were only 4 PC's. If the GM didn't adjust for the smaller party, they become that much more difficult. Also, each encounter has monster tactics listed, which if not followed could make things more difficult for the PC's.

I think the toughest encounter is probably the one with the rage drakes. Their tactics note that they will not leave room 11, so attacking them from the safety of the hall with missile weapons to soften it up and then finishing it off might work.

Also, as a GM, I would mark the location of the various mushrooms and let the PC's make nature/dungeoneering rolls to determine what each one does. With that knowledge, they can avoid the bad ones and perhaps lure/slide the monsters into the area effect of the harmful ones.

Some of the creatures are a higher level than I might use as a designer, but on paper, they seem survivable. I haven't checked the WotC boards for other comments. Perhaps you could look there as well.

[Kurald Galain]

Also, each encounter has monster tactics listed, which if not followed could make things more difficult for the PC's.
It strikes me as bad design if an adventure is only balanced as long as the DM uses inferior tactics.

[Mystic Muse]

another bad part was the DM didn't explain the mushrooms well enough. WE thought the mushrooms were giant mushrooms. not the puny normal ones.

[Elderac]

It strikes me as bad design if an adventure is only balanced as long as the DM uses inferior tactics.

Most of the time, the tactics listed are pretty good. I won't say 100% because I haven't read every tactics listing.

The tactics are not intended to dumb down the monsters. In one particular case in the module, there are a considerable number of monsters raiding a tavern. In the tactics, it explains in words to the effect that the monsters shouldn't all be attacking the PC's, but also attack other patrons in the tavern. That seems rationale, since the monsters (and I believe they were goblins) entering a tavern wouldn't necessarily know who the PC's were. Using this tactic should allow the PC's to thin down the attackers before the bulk of the attacks were focused on them. If the GM had all the goblins immediately focus on the PC's they could very well be overwhelmed.

This is the sort of instance I was referring to.

[Jayabalard]

It strikes me as bad design if an adventure is only balanced as long as the DM uses inferior tactics.It's often quite inappropriate for a particular monster to use anything other than sub-optimal tactics. The example above is quite good: it's optimal for the enemies to focus on the PC's instead of the other patrons, but that's not really a reasonable way to play the encounter.

[Blackfang108]

It's often quite inappropriate for a particular monster to use anything other than sub-optimal tactics. The example above is quite good: it's optimal for the enemies to focus on the PC's instead of the other patrons, but that's not really a reasonable way to play the encounter.

Especially bacause the monsters don't know there are anything but commoners in the Tavern.

[Oracle_Hunter]

It strikes me as bad design if an adventure is only balanced as long as the DM uses inferior tactics.
No, the DM is supposed to use appropriate tactics; y'know, appropriate to the monster INT level, behavioral characteristics, and the like.

I'll admit that I haven't read the module, but I'm willing to bet it doesn't say "the orcs always stop attacking people who are bloodied and never flank."

EDIT: Flanking ninjas! :smalleek:

[ColdSepp]

I read through it a while ago, it seemed balanced. Yes, there where some tough fights, but not all fights should be easy. Some are supposed to harder then normal.

[ZeroNumerous]

No, the DM is supposed to use appropriate tactics; y'know, appropriate to the monster INT level, behavioral characteristics, and the like.

'Cept for dragons. Dragons have to be downplayed to be killed,

[Oracle_Hunter]

'Cept for dragons. Dragons have to be downplayed to be killed,
Well, it depends on whether you use their behavioral characteristics.

Back in AD&D, all dragons had certain general traits - Bronze Dragons love bargains, Gold Dragons like helping out Worthy People, Red Dragons are supremely arrogant, and Black Dragons are cowardly. Even with high INT, these traits can be used to find a weak point in the dragon.

Of course, in AD&D wizardry wasn't a Win Button; when it was not feasible for dragons (or other 'casters) to have ridiculous levels of arcane contingencies to protect their hordes and selves, manipulating your enemies was a feasible battle tactic.

[Kurald Galain]

The tactics are not intended to dumb down the monsters. In one particular case in the module, there are a considerable number of monsters raiding a tavern. In the tactics, it explains in words to the effect that the monsters shouldn't all be attacking the PC's, but also attack other patrons in the tavern. That seems rationale, since the monsters (and I believe they were goblins) entering a tavern wouldn't necessarily know who the PC's were.

Okay, that would be sensible (and good DM'ing).

I hadn't played SOW, but I've seen a few other adventures where the rules text gives bad advice for the DM that he is expected to follow, just like how some character builder advice suggests taking Careful Strike. I was hoping we wouldn't see more of that.

[Sebastian]

I would not be so sure, a group of 3rd level adventurer ina tavern full of commoners should stand out like an oak in a strawberry field, just to say one thing they should be the only one with weapons and armor and even at 3rd level they should be loaded with magic items like the proverbial Christmas tree.

I would not say it is completely logical if the goblins don't focus on them within 2 or three rounds from the start from the combat. Of course I know nothing of this adventure maybe it contains details that make the situation different.

[Blackfang108]

I would not be so sure, a group of 3rd level adventurer ina tavern full of commoners should stand out like an oak in a strawberry field, just to say one thing they should be the only one with weapons and armor and even at 3rd level they should be loaded with magic items like the proverbial Christmas tree.

The adventure was written for 1st level PCs, and the monsters are there to break stuff, hit/kill a few people, and leave.

[FatR]

Of course, in AD&D wizardry wasn't a Win Button;
You haven't seen much AD&D, right? Yes it was. At least as much, if not more than in 3.X. You just had a harder time getting through low levels and spells took relatively long time to recover. But after 7th level wizards ruled all. Dragons, however had lower levels of spellcasting, compared to 3.X.

[Oracle_Hunter]

You haven't seen much AD&D, right? Yes it was. At least as much, if not more than in 3.X. You just had a harder time getting through low levels and spells took relatively long time to recover. But after 7th level wizards ruled all. Dragons, however had lower levels of spellcasting, compared to 3.X.
Surely you're ignoring all the System Shock checks, the permanent CON loss for making any effect Permanent, and the inherent uncertainty (and danger) of using high-level effects.

A Win Button that may kill you anytime it is pressed is not a Win Button at all.

[Kurald Galain]

You haven't seen much AD&D, right? Yes it was. At least as much, if not more than in 3.X.
No, because getting hit in combat meant they lost their spell. And spells had drawbacks. And there were no metamagic feats to quicken or persist anything. And so on and so forth.

[FatR]

No, because getting hit in combat meant they lost their spell.
Stoneskin. Also, 3.X-style ways of not getting hit worked in 2E too.


And spells had drawbacks.
To compensate for their generally greater power. You can't shoot SoDs out of 1st level slot in 3.X.


And there were no metamagic feats to quicken or persist anything.
You didn't need them nearly as much, because many spells has longer durations, direct damage from a single spell per round was devastating, etc.

[FatR]

Surely you're ignoring all the System Shock checks,
You don't need spells that force them that much. Also, IIRC you had spells that allowed rerolls outside of core.


the permanent CON loss for making any effect Permanent,
Magic Jar + (for good-aligned casters) paying some peasant a hefty sum for his Con .


and the inherent uncertainty (and danger) of using high-level effects.
Because there was no such uncertainty.

[Kurald Galain]

To compensate for their generally greater power. You can't shoot SoDs out of 1st level slot in 3.X.
It goes without saying that certain spells in 2E were broken; I believe you're referring to Chromatic Orb here, which is certainly ridiculous (albeit only at caster level 11 or more, IIRC). Like in 3E, those are the exceptions.

That doesn't change the fact that magic is much more powerful in 3E, in large part because nearly every single spell that had a drawback in 2E had that drawback removed for 3E.

For example? If you use the 3E Fly spell and it gets dispelled, you float down gently. If you use the 2E Fly spell and it gets dispelled, you fall to the ground and take a large chunk of damage.

[FatR]

That doesn't change the fact that magic is much more powerful in 3E, in large part because nearly every single spell that had a drawback in 2E had that drawback removed for 3E.
Not true. For example, all direct damage spells gained drawbacks in translation to 3.X (necessity to contend with inflated hit points, while doing the same damage or even lower), instead of losing them. Which drawback had Rock to Mud, that killed everything on legs without save? Or look as such staples/former staples as Color Spray, Glitterdust, Hypnotic Pattern, Stoneskin and Invisibility. 2E versions are clearly superior, in some cases vastly superior. Only two significant drawbacks remained in force at mid-to-high levels - long memorization and the fact that at these levels SoLs were losing much of their efficiency, due to save system. You didn't care much about the second, because your direct damage killed things anyway.

Also, 2E supplements gave us alot of additional spells that allowed to unload more than one spell per round - Spell Triggers and the like.

[Myrmex]

It strikes me as bad design if an adventure is only balanced as long as the DM uses inferior tactics.

I doubt a creature called a "Rage Drake" would be any sort of Sun Tzu.

[Haven]

I doubt a creature called a "Rage Drake" would be any sort of Sun Tzu.

I'd say the Rage Drake knows a little bit more about fighting than you do, pal, because he invented it! And then he perfected it! So that no living man could best him in the ring of honor!

Yeah, you're probably right.

[Blackknight1239]

I'd say the Rage Drake knows a little bit more about fighting than you do, pal, because he invented it! And then he perfected it! So that no living man could best him in the ring of honor!

Yeah, you're probably right.

UNLESS IT'S A FARM!

[Kurald Galain]

Not true. For example, all direct damage spells gained drawbacks in translation to 3.X
That's a silly argument.

Aside from that, the big drawback of fireball/lightning bolt in 2E was that they had a very big potential of hitting your allies. This is, of course, gone in 3E. Besides, I didn't say that all 2E spells had drawbacks, which you appear to be arguing against. And finally, just because it's possible in 2E to cast two spells in around doesn't change the fact that it's much easier in 3E to do that.

[Grey Paladin]

Saving throws got better, while Save penalties were generally a minor annoyance at best. Failing a saving throw on a high-level spell was devastating because they were written on the assumption that your opponent will make his save most of the time.

When a single point of damage is all it takes to shut you down, you can't really be called overpowered.

[potatocubed]

I ran SoW for four people (swordmage, bard, sorcerer, wizard - all arcane, all the time!). The ogre was a pushover. They suffered one almost-TPK at the hands of the gnomes-and-magma-things - which actually led to a cool moment where the bard rescued everybody using skill and diplomacy and slamming a gnome's head in a door until he stopped moving - and then an actual TPK at the hands of the ettercaps.

I think it's pitched way too difficult.

[Cherubim]

I ran this adventure too and my group (Paladin,Thief, Wizard, Cleric) didn't have much trouble at all. It was challenging, but they made it with only the Thief hitting negatives once.
I was kind of disappointed because I didn't even adjust it down for four people and it still went fine. Admitted - the cleric had a lot to do and the overall performance of the group and their dice was extremly noteworthy.

[Deliverance]

Seems like the biggest problem the OP and potatocubed had is running the game with fewer players than designed for without a proper reduction in power of the module?

If an RPG module is well-balanced for five people then it should be at the very least a challenge for four people, possibly verging on deadly (depending on party composition, luck at dicerolling, and skill)

[FatR]

That's a silly argument.
That is a fact. Evocation went from godly to useless.


Aside from that, the big drawback of fireball/lightning bolt in 2E was that they had a very big potential of hitting your allies.
This was more than compensated by their potential to hit more enemies/hit enemies several times. Removal of fireball expansion/lightining bolt rebounds was a nerf.


This is, of course, gone in 3E. Besides, I didn't say that all 2E spells had drawbacks, which you appear to be arguing against.
You said: "because nearly every single spell that had a drawback in 2E had that drawback removed for 3E."


And finally, just because it's possible in 2E to cast two spells in around doesn't change the fact that it's much easier in 3E to do that.
Except, in 2E your spells were much more effective. Also, easyness of this in 2E depends on the sources and setting-depended spells allowed.

[FatR]

Saving throws got better, while Save penalties were generally a minor annoyance at best.
Uh, yeah. How about -4 to the value that went from 1 to 20?


When a single point of damage is all it takes to shut you down,
Again, Stoneskin. That's if opponents can even attack an invisible, flying mage in the system, where other classes weren't guarateed to have any magic items.


you can't really be called overpowered.
Uh, yeah, sure. The class that had more no-save battlefield control and instant win goodness than it retained in 3.X, but largely didn't need it because direct damage just killed everything is not overpowered?

[XiaoTie]

Thread derail in 10...9...wait, crap, it was already derailed!


The adventure itself looks fine. Only a few opponents are to high of a level (Ogre Savage, which is also a brute), but otherwise everything else is within acceptable boundaries. Your problem is probably one of the following:
A) The Adventure was made harder by the DM
B) The PCs used Terrible tactics
C) You have fewer players then five, and it wasn't adjusted based on that.
This.


another bad part was the DM didn't explain the mushrooms well enough. WE thought the mushrooms were giant mushrooms. not the puny normal ones.
It wasn't his fault. When you assume, sometimes, you can make an A** of U and ME. Besides:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v454/Loce/miscommunication.jpg

[Grey Paladin]

Scrolls are like any other magic item, and the chance to roll them isn't much greater.

Alchemist's Fire and Oil get through Stoneskin and by the time the Wizard had the funds to learn high-level spells the price of those items is meaningless to a Fighter.

The Wizard could be pre-buffed with Invisibility and Flight, but the Fighter could be with the counters.

The Wizard is a glass cannon in second edition, not an orbital bombarment system like in 3.X.

Are Wizards the best class at soloing in second edition? yes
Is a party of 4 Wizards better than a party of a Wizard and 3 Fighters? no

[Mystic Muse]

um guys? can you take your discussion about 2nd and 3rd edition magic elsewhere? it's not really on topic.

[Yakk]

Level 6 x 4 = 1000 XP
Level 1 x 5 = 500 XP
Level 2 x 5 = 625 XP
Level 3 x 5 = 750 XP

So by the end of the adventure, a group of level 3 is 3/4 as "powerful" by XP budget as a group of 4 Level 6s.


I hadn't played SOW, but I've seen a few other adventures where the rules text gives bad advice for the DM that he is expected to follow, just like how some character builder advice suggests taking Careful Strike. I was hoping we wouldn't see more of that.Some monsters don't have optimal tactics for their powers. They can be balanced around sub-optimal tactics.

If you play a monster that intends to have sub-optimal tactics optimally, they get harder.

There are concrete examples -- like monsters that once bloodied, enter melee. Balacing such a monster should take their sub-optimal tactics into account.

[Bassetking]

(1) Battlerager Vigor Dwarf Mordenkrad Fighter.

(1) Paladin of Bahamut

(1) Bard

(1) Wizard

(1) Bow Ranger

(1) Wild Magic Sorcerer (me)

We ran at level. There was nothing in the entire dungeon that even came close to being a challenge. We cleared the entire crypts of Rivenroar with ONE extended rest. We fought every encounter in every room in the crypts. The only fight that put even one party member under half HP was the Ochre Jelly room, since the wizard decided standing in the portal would be a great idea.

[CockroachTeaParty]

I ran Scales of War with a five (or was it six) player party... All went pretty well. They only rested once within the dungeon, and they pretty much owned everything.

Now, the second installment of Scales of War was where they ran into trouble. All was going well, until the encounter near the end of the first part with the fire, the Orog champion, and the Orc Cleric of Gruumsh. Things got really ugly, really quickly, and then, bam, TPK.

I've found with 4th edition that things are usually okay, but there comes a time in tough encounters when you pass the point of no return, and a TPK becomes all but inevitable. The trouble is it's kind of hard to identify... One round you're thinking, "Yeah, we got this. There's still some healing left, we're okay," and then the next round, you realize to your utter horror that you're out of healing, people are dying, and you're out of good attack powers.

In 4th edition, one must learn when to flee. My halfing rogue is still alive to this day because he knew when to get the hell out of dodge, there at the bottom of the Keep on the Shadowfell...

[Irreverent Fool]

This thread has been derailed.

I do not have the Scales of War adventure, but in situations such as this, unless your characters were brutally murdered in one or two rounds, perhaps the fault did indeed lay in the tactics of your characters.

Retreating to regroup and discuss combat options is a viable tactic.

On the other hand, I have very often found adventure modules which -- even at the upper limit of the suggested character level -- are quite deadly to any party other than the one the designers envisioned. I would not be surprised to find that in fact many of these such adventures had not been playtested. This is the trouble with modules. They are rarely, if ever, tailored to suit a particular group. Unfortunately not all DMs have the time or inclination or skill to create custom adventures.

Edit:
one must learn when to flee.

Ninjas!

obnoxious
sig

[Delta]

We ran at level. There was nothing in the entire dungeon that even came close to being a challenge. We cleared the entire crypts of Rivenroar with ONE extended rest. We fought every encounter in every room in the crypts. The only fight that put even one party member under half HP was the Ochre Jelly room, since the wizard decided standing in the portal would be a great idea.

Well that sounds like you may have had the exactly same problem as the OP, but where they had 1 PC less than what the adventure was built for you had one more, looks like the adventure wasn't adjusted for that in both cases, and the results were as was to be expected.

On a similar topic, I haven't DM'd 4E more than a couple times but what I've seen so far from SoW looks really interesting to me, I'd really like to have some opinions on the adventures and whether they'd be suited to be run by a DM without that much D&D experience (I've run lots of other games for quite some years, so I'm not a beginner in terms of game mastering as such)

[Bassetking]

Well that sounds like you may have had the exactly same problem as the OP, but where they had 1 PC less than what the adventure was built for you had one more, looks like the adventure wasn't adjusted for that in both cases, and the results were as was to be expected.

On a similar topic, I haven't DM'd 4E more than a couple times but what I've seen so far from SoW looks really interesting to me, I'd really like to have some opinions on the adventures and whether they'd be suited to be run by a DM without that much D&D experience (I've run lots of other games for quite some years, so I'm not a beginner in terms of game mastering as such)


Not really. The DM custom-adjusted every fight to take into account the additional player we had, and the group makeup we had.

To cite just a few of the many adjustments he made:

The Gnomes/Magma Beasts fight had an additional Gnome and Magma Beast than the encounter called for.

The Ettercap room had an additional warrior.

The Needlefang swarm-room had an additional swarm.

Heck, he advanced Sinruth's AC and gave him an additional square of reach on his spiked chain.

This wasn't a case of "Welp, you broke it because you had one dude too many."

This was a case of "If you used anything resembling reasonable tactics, it becomes trivially easy."

[Mando Knight]

The Needlefang swarm-room had an additional swarm.

And you survived? Bravo. Needlefangs are the #1 most-despised low-level creature in 4E. Of course, you did have a Sorcerer and a Wizard, so that makes things a bit easier.

[Tiki Snakes]

This was a case of "If you used anything resembling reasonable tactics, it becomes trivially easy."

I suspect that with the focus being on many foes rather than individual beasts, like previous editions could tend to be (so I understand), that it's basically a risk/reward thing.

If you have a larger than normal party, even against an adjusted force, you have the potential to clean up much easier and more forcefully. EQUALLY, if things go south, or you fail to even manage accidental teamwork, things can get very nasty very quickly.

I've not really seen the range of possible outcomes much, though, as my group are not exactly tactical geniuses.

Case in point - Last session saw the cleric forging ahead of the main pack of combat alone, to take out the dangerous supporting characters. Which would be a good idea, on some levels, but, like, they do have strikers. Lots and lots of strikers, in fact. 3 rangers and a rogue at last count. (Large group, got all the rolls covered, but mostly rangers. ;) )

[Kurald Galain]

In 4th edition, one must learn when to flee.

It's surprising how infrequently PCs consider fleeing, not just in 4E but in most fantasy games...

[Oracle_Hunter]

It's surprising how infrequently PCs consider fleeing, not just in 4E but in most fantasy games...
I wouldn't say that - my AD&D parties ran from crap all the time! Even crap that wasn't really that threatening, just spooky.

I'd say WotC D&D's emphasis on leveling probably built the "if it bleeds, we can kill it" mentality into contemporary gamers. What other fantasy games have you played where this was the case? :smallconfused:

[icefractal]

It's surprising how infrequently PCs consider fleeing, not just in 4E but in most fantasy games...Really though, how often does fleeing actually work? And how often would it work if the DM didn't take pity on you? These aren't preprogrammed monsters that won't go outside their zone - they are foes which are able and willing to chase you, and may in fact be considerably faster than you. Especially in 4E, where you can move+charge, catch up anybody of the same speed or lower, and hit as effectively as if you'd stood still and attacked.

Now if someone is willing to stay behind and sacrifice themself, fleeing can be a lot more plausible, but most parties don't want to lose a member when they have even a small chance at victory. Which ties into another issue - when your melee types have engaged the enemy and are surrounded, it makes it quite hard to retreat without losing them.

Now I'm not saying fleeing is never the answer, but neither is it the automatic "escape" button for deadly encounters.

[Mystic Muse]

Really though, how often does fleeing actually work? And how often would it work if the DM didn't take pity on you? These aren't preprogrammed monsters that won't go outside their zone - they are foes which are able and willing to chase you, and may in fact be considerably faster than you. Especially in 4E, where you can move+charge, catch up anybody of the same speed or lower, and hit as effectively as if you'd stood still and attacked.

Now if someone is willing to stay behind and sacrifice themself, fleeing can be a lot more plausible, but most parties don't want to lose a member when they have even a small chance at victory. Which ties into another issue - when your melee types have engaged the enemy and are surrounded, it makes it quite hard to retreat without losing them.

Now I'm not saying fleeing is never the answer, but neither is it the automatic "escape" button for deadly encounters.

and there are several enemies with more than a speed of 7

[potatocubed]

On the other hand, I have very often found adventure modules which -- even at the upper limit of the suggested character level -- are quite deadly to any party other than the one the designers envisioned.

If you read the name 'Greg A. Vaughan' on an adventure, prepare for a TPK. His stuff is just ridiculous.

Fleeing was always a good option in 3.5, since you could pick up limited-use items of dimension door or teleport with no real trouble. Never mind magical flight, invisibility, etc. In 4e it's a lot harder, since most PCs are going to be moving at speed 5-6, most enemies are going to be moving at speed 6-7, and all the really good escape options are gone. You pretty much have to sacrifice somebody to ensure that everyone else can get out alive.

[Charity]

If you run twice with a move of 5 a move 7 monster would have to be next to you when you start running to pose a serious threat.
If it runs it gets minuses to hit the heavy armoured lumberers you leave behind... it usually is ok to run in 4e, there are exceptions of course, but generally even the tanks could get away as long as they run early.

[Mystic Muse]

(1) Battlerager Vigor Dwarf Mordenkrad Fighter.

(1) Paladin of Bahamut

(1) Bard

(1) Wizard

(1) Bow Ranger

(1) Wild Magic Sorcerer (me)

We ran at level. There was nothing in the entire dungeon that even came close to being a challenge. We cleared the entire crypts of Rivenroar with ONE extended rest. We fought every encounter in every room in the crypts. The only fight that put even one party member under half HP was the Ochre Jelly room, since the wizard decided standing in the portal would be a great idea.

beat the first chapter with people who've never played 4th edition. one player who's never really even played D&D, only 4 players, and no character deaths and then I'll be impressed.

[Deliverance]

beat the first chapter with people who've never played 4th edition. one player who's never really even played D&D, only 4 players, and no character deaths and then I'll be impressed.
To be fair to scenario writers, such a party probably shouldn't succeed unless the dungeon master reduced the challenge to fit the party.

The "I played the scenario with more people that it is designed for and found it easy" is just as worthless as "I played the scenario with less people than it is designed for and found it hard" for determining whether the scenario is properly balanced.

It is up to the DM to modify the experience to suit his group and sometimes even the best of DMs fail to adequately adjust things based on his group's capabilities - especially when either the DM or the players are in doubt about the rules or inexperienced with them. These things happen.

[Bassetking]

beat the first chapter with people who've never played 4th edition. one player who's never really even played D&D, only 4 players, and no character deaths and then I'll be impressed.

With the exception of myself, no-one in the group had ever played D&D before.

No character deaths.

[Mystic Muse]

With the exception of myself, no-one in the group had ever played D&D before.

No character deaths.

yeah you HAVE played before. that's the difference with my group. you also don't fill the criteria of only four players. even people who've never played can create decent characters.

sorry. not impressed.

[Eldritch_Ent]

yeah you HAVE played before. that's the difference with my group. you also don't fill the criteria of only four players. even people who've never played can create decent characters.

sorry. not impressed.

I don't see how that makes a difference, really, since I'd rather deal with a smaller group with two people who kinda know what they're doing, than a group of 6 who have no idea at all. I say you should just give him your impression already.