4e increased my DM prep time...

[bagger245]

I started playing 2e and my prep time was mostly story and plot. I want an enemy and I can just stat one up according to the player's level. I did the same when I converted to 3e. Yes, I cheated in 3e where I never used the monster building rules. I just eyeballed HP AC and damage that was needed for a monster. If it was strong to the players, i just lowered the HP on the fly. If I wanted to scare the players, I just up the damage.

As for 4e, yes, I am much more inclined to provide a balanced encounter, following strict rules that the DMG provides. I might in the end winging it again, creating HP, AC, NAD and damage based on the guidelines and add racial traits. Might go gridless as well

 

[Truename]

In 4e, I need to mix and match at least 4-5 different monsters, each of which has their own abilities and powers to use. I also need to present a battlegrid that is "interesting," in that it needs to contain terrain features, traps, hazards, or other rules bits to interact with (when I did that in 3e it was icing on the cake, but 4e kind of requires it).

This is the hardest part for me. (Although I mostly run pre-written adventures.) Have you considered mining Dungeon adventures for your encounters? Despite the flaws WoTC's in WoTC's adventures, they've put out some fantastic set-pieces. You can refluff, reskin, or completely repopulate. Seems like it could help a lot.

Also, answering questions like "why is this monster here?" or "what's the backstory for this bit of dungeon dressing?" might help with the inspiration side of things.

 

[FireLance]

But, do you have advice for me?

You should hire someone to write your adventures for you. This chap says he's kind of a genius.

 

[MrMyth]

It's interesting. I have always been inclined towards long prep time, lots of encounter design and detail spent plotting out where the PCs might go, who they might interact with, etc. The few times I tried winging it in 3rd edition went poorly - grabbing monsters out of the books just ran into too many problems due to the occasionally poor balance of the CR system.

4E didn't really change that - prep became easier, but it was still my habit. Until a few weeks ago, when the party went on a completely different mission than I was prepared for... and I discovered it was very, very simple (at least for me) to just run things on the fly. I knew the basics of the plot, and for the encounters, I just grabbed the books, some appropriate (or reflavored) monsters, and went from there.

I can definitely understand how it might seem a harder challenge, if you expect to grab 5 or 6 monsters in a fight... but you don't always have to. Use of elites, solos, or simply grabbing a couple similar monsters and adjusting them a bit on the fly.

One of the encounters I ran like this - it was a group of Ice Devils sent to assassinate the party. 6 Ice Devils seemed rather boring, so I divided them into groups of three, had each pair seem slightly different (one group had oversized longspears, another were big and bulky, the last was quick and agile), and then slightly modified each group accordingly - choosing one key aspect of the Ice Devil and adjusting it for each group. The longspear guys got an extra square of reach and a small slide on their longspear attack. The bulky guys got a slightly larger breath weapon and cold aura. The agile guys got to swing twice with their claw attack.

The final result - 20 seconds of minor adjustments, and the enemies felt distinct on the field, and I was still able to run out of one page in the MM. I think coupling interesting abilities with good descriptions is the key, especially with decent set pieces. It doesn't require tons of planning to get decent terrain, either - even just a fight in an inn gives you windows to throw people through, tables to get tossed onto, stuff like that.

While I understand your point that overpowered elements in 3rd might have been more memorable (like unstoppable grapple checks), those memories aren't always good ones - whereas harpooning someone through a second-story window in an inn isn't going to end the combat for them, but should still be a memorable moment!

Anyway, I'm definitely not trying to discount your experience or dismiss your issues - mainly just give examples that I feel the same sort of moments can come up in 4E without having to spend hours prepping for them. Running entirely on the fly - or prepping some basic encounters and using reflavoring and good in-combat description to personalize them - could still be a viable option if you are willing to genuinely give it a try. Try slightly more condensed fights - an elite leader, a couple similar henchman (though they can be distinct in appearance even if mechanically similar or the same), and you shouldn't be overwhelmed with too many monsters to keep track of. Add in the occasional fully-statted encounter for a key moment, and you have a decent approach without too much advance prepwork.

Part of what I'm saying here is that, as careful as the numbers may look in 4E... you really can get away with quite a bit of fiddling with things on the fly. You don't need to redesign the centaur from the ground up to run it as an ally - maybe level off hp to be close to the group, and avoid use of any attacks that are too powerful (mass stuns, etc.) The companion rules are great for designing a long-term party member, sure - but just running a slightly modded monsters is still functional, in the end.

In the end, I think the key is to worry less about the mechanics and focus first on what is going on. Skill challenges shouldn't be driven by one specific solution to a problem - instead, see where the party takes it. Throw some DCs at them, let the challenge evolve from there based on what they try to do and whether they start seeing successes or failures. It's definitely an art to do so, and no easy trick - but it sounds like that sort of improvisation is your style, if you are willing to simply run with it. The rules are in place to let you do so - don't be afraid to try pushing beyond the raw formulas, and see what happens.

 

[S'mon]

3e takes less time than 4e? You're weird.

After many years with 3e, I now wing it, discarding the Monster Manual and most other GM's-side stuff, and the game breezes along. But default 3e is horrible prep-wise, and the claimed balance is often a trap, eg NPCs usually have an effective CR well below their level.

I do spend a lot of time prepping 4e, but only because I enjoy it. Playing around with Dungeon Tiles, tweaking critters in the Monster Builder, putting Dungeon Delves into my sandbox setting, building nice encounter groups. It takes less time and is far more fun for me than building a 3e NPC or monster by the RAW, anyway.

If 3e just works better for you though, I guess maybe you should use it or eg Pathfinder.

 

[S'mon]

"if the party, say, decides to recruit the centaur instead of kill it, I can't just run the monster sheet, I need to use the DMG2 and re-format the thing"

I don't find this at all. The MM listed combat stats work fine for creatures accompanying the PCs, IME. The lack of healing surges just means they don't hog the limelight all the time, which is a Good Thing IMO.

My group often has accompanying NPCs; I just hand the players the Monster Manual and say "OK, Torbin is a Dwarf Hammerer, there are the stats for you to use", or I hand them a print-out from the Monster Builder.

Edit: If a monster has a very powerful Encounter power listed, treat it as a Daily.

 

[S'mon]

if you have super-min-maxed PCs, though ... I guess you can just be glad you aren't playing high-level 3E!

If the group is super-min-maxed in 4e you can just count them as being higher level; typically around +2 from what I've seen discussed on rpgnet. Use larger monster groups, or higher level. The PCs will level up a bit faster, but that's ok as a reward for effective play.

 

[S'mon]

I
I can definitely understand how it might seem a harder challenge, if you expect to grab 5 or 6 monsters in a fight... .

The 4e DMG specifically says NOT to use 5 (or more!) different monster stat blocks in a fight. I find even 4 is really too much, except for minions who are very simple. I find the ideal is usually 2-3 different sorts of monster, though the occasional wolf pack works ok.

 

[Windjammer]

"if the party, say, decides to recruit the centaur instead of kill it, I can't just run the monster sheet, I need to use the DMG2 and re-format the thing"

I don't find this at all. The MM listed combat stats work fine for creatures accompanying the PCs, IME. The lack of healing surges just means they don't hog the limelight all the time, which is a Good Thing IMO.

My group often has accompanying NPCs; I just hand the players the Monster Manual and say "OK, Torbin is a Dwarf Hammerer, there are the stats for you to use", or I hand them a print-out from the Monster Builder.

Edit: If a monster has a very powerful Encounter power listed, treat it as a Daily.

Thanks, that's terrific advice.

To be honest, I never understood why the 4E rules didn't utilize a basic thought underlying encounter design more widely - whereby 1 level n monster is roughly equal to 1 single level n PC (major difference: the healing surges).* I mean, so the party is short on one PC, say 3 of 4 guys turned up? Easy, henchman there, tank henchman level 4 = soldier level 4 right out of the MM, slap some other flavour on top of the stat block, done. Whence the multiplication of stat blocks beyond their bare minimum?

But other than keeping to your advice or following the 'basic thought' I just mentioned... I'm fully with the OP. In 3E you ever only needed one stat block for abear. In 4E, the bear's stats change thrice when you first attack it, then make it your animal companion, and later learn how to shape change into a bear. That's quite a lot of bears!

*If this simplification is mistaken, please let me know!

 

[S'mon]

But other than keeping to your advice or following the 'basic thought' I just mentioned... I'm fully with the OP. In 3E you ever only needed one stat block for abear. In 4E, the bear's stats change thrice when you first attack it, then make it your animal companion, and later learn how to shape change into a bear. That's quite a lot of bears!

*If this simplification is mistaken, please let me know!

The DMG2 Companion rules are completely optional, to address a perceived problem, only use them if they seem helpful. I doubt I'll use them.

You shapechanging into a bear - in 4e you are not a bear, you just look like one!