Making combat more challenging: increase monster level or monster number?

cmbarona · Oct 26, 2009

A quick question from the DMs perspective. When designing encounters, I like to challenge my players. I notice that the standard encounter (Level=N) is a bit of a pushover for experienced players, so I'd like to create a bigger challenge for them. However, I'm worried about taking this to an extreme.

To give a little background:

I play in a game where the DM frequently uses the standard encounter XP budget, and in his old 3.5 fashion, frequently uses a series of lower-level standard monsters in order to fill out the encounter. What ends up happening from a player's perspective is that they are more of a nuisance than a challenge.

At the same time, I recently tried to challenge my group and made them face a series of level N+3 opponents and the Ranger ended up griping the whole time because it was so difficult for him to hit (to his benefit, I didn't plan well for the enemies' AC and to-hit reducing abilities). My bad, time to learn from my mistake.

So... advice? Should I keep higher-level opponents and just keep a closer eye on the inherent math? Or should I use same-level monsters but throw more of them at the players? What are the benefits and/or complications of each approach?

Chadarius · Oct 26, 2009

After recently DM'ing the first Scales of War adventure, I found it easiest to add to the numbers of existing monsters. We have a large group, usually about 8-10. So even just doubling the number doesn't always work well. I've found, like you, that just adding to the minions doesn't do much. I still do it. Often the encouters have a set of minions/low level monsters, some medium level monsters, and one or two tougher monsters. For my group of 8-10 I will double the number across the board, but will usually add at least 1 or 2 extra of the medium/tough monsters in the encounter.

What often happened if there weren't enough targets was that the party would gang up on the one really tough monster and would quite often kill them before they really got to shine with some of the nastier powers. I wanted them to at the very least be able to soften the party up with some cool powers. This meant that I would have to give them a much better initiative roll (yes sometimes I would cheat) to get them near the top of the order.

The Scales of War by design isn't supposed to be a super high challenge level for a normal party of 4-6. My goal was to get at least 1 party member close to death per encounter. That seemed to keep the party at a good level of "what if its me next" tension.

Nichwee · Oct 26, 2009

Personally I'd go with a few more N to N+1 Level monsters.

A low number of N+lots monsters just means PCs missing a lot to create difficulty = bad morale, as who wants to spend all night missing. This runs the risk of becoming "So will I finally roll a Hit before I'm dead?".

A large number of N monsters means the Hit/Miss ratio is still ok but more damage needs to be dished out and dealt with. This in my mind is more "Can we do this?". Plus more enemies, means more for Defenders to run around after, more for controllers to pin down, more use of shifty abilities/leaders moving peeps around. A little risky chaos in a fight makes it exciting imo.

Of course an itelligent mix of both is always best, to avoid all fights following a similar trend.

I'm sure someone will give you the exact opposite advice (as this is a forum with hundreds of users and no two are likely to agree completely - so odds are some, if not many, will have an opinion greatly removed from mine), but that is how I'd look to do it.

Blackbrrd · Oct 26, 2009

I like using 5 mobs. For every player over 5, I exchange one normal mob for an elite.

KarinsDad · Oct 26, 2009

I think you should change your poll to:

Use higher level monsters
Use more same level monsters

The way you have it written, people might get confused that you mean the word "fewer" to mean less than five.

D3nt3 · Oct 26, 2009

Try trapping them with 2 normal encounters in a row without giving the short rest, so they cant heal or regain encounter powers.

CapnZapp · Oct 26, 2009

This should not be an opinion poll.

Very much unlike 3E, high-level monsters don't work well in 4E. They aren't much scarier than a monster five level lower, but the combination of high defenses and lots of hit points make the encounter drag out onto the at-wills.

Sometimes you can get away with one or two high-level foes of course, but this poll puts the general question.

In which case adding monster number is MUCH SUPERIOR to adding monster level.

Infiniti2000 · Oct 26, 2009

I agree 100% with Nichwee. It's also from the player's perspective. Every once in a while a high defense baddie is okay, but every combat and every baddie? That plain sucks and suckage = bad game.

frankthedm · Oct 26, 2009

lots of bodies is almost always better.

Markn · Oct 26, 2009

I vote neither (although if I HAD to vote I would pick more monsters and not higher level monsters).

Basically, I've found that by adding more monsters, fights take longer. By adding higher level monsters instead, fights take longer cause no one hits. I'd look at the terrain, hazards, traps, one-shot effects, minions, skill challenge or some other element to constrain the PCs rather than just a straight up fight. For example, the players needs to rescue some prisoners before they die or save the relics before they are destroyed.