As a player/DM do you prefer one powerful monster or many weaker ones?

[kamosa]

I agree w this - 3e PCs lack the resilience of earlier editions when dealing with enemies, as damage seems to increase at least in line with hp. I suppose one can construct NPCs who have lots of hp & good saves but weak offense, they seem to make among the best foes. The NPC who killed 3 PCs in a round (Harecules from Lost City of Gaxmoor) was a bane of my campaign.

I'll third this. Seems like in 2e we had longer fights and the monsters didn't take down the party quite as fast. In 3E is seems the fight last longer in the realworld, but less time in the game world. Most fights are resolved in less than 5 rounds. Either the monster stomp the party, or the party stomps the monsters. You rarely see a long drawn out slugging match anymore.

You know the kind where the party and the monsters are both hanging at just a few hitpoints after pounding on eachother for 10-12 rounds. The players are anxious and then, boom the last blow is struck by a player, a cheer goes up around the table and the high fives begin.

Not that this can't happen in 3E, but it just happens less often.

 

[kleinetommy]

Actually there is a work-around on the whole TPK vs. Cakewalk thing.

Just make sure there is alot of enviroment to work with (tables to throw, ledges, cauldrons of boiling nastiness, sudden darkness, nearby open fires, combat on the roof of a coach: "Watch out for that Inn sign", Meat hooks, unsound constructions, etc) . As a DM you make the battlefield and you have plenty of time to think of an optimal way to use the enviroment. If it looks like it's going to be a TPK just stand in a more vulnerable area, and if it's a cake walk: well we always had the cauldron of boiling nastiness somewhere.

Ofcourse tactical "mistakes" made by the monsters are still just that: mistakes. But your players will not really notice it as much as say "Not first targeting the wizard with your most damaging thing". This also makes skills like Jump, Balance and Tumble and feats like Bull Rush more viable.

Also, with just a single foe you should prepare different stages of combat, like for example in most action movies showdowns start with a first battle, then a chase and finally a "Last stand".
Think of some different stages with different degrees of difficulty. If it's going badly for the PC's just skip the most dangerous stages and if it's all too easy, well use that stage that you never thought you would use.

The downside of this is that it's hard to award XP for these kind of combats: was the envoriment actually making the encounter easier or harder?

 

[diaglo]

I like running single powerful creatures, but I also use plenty of weak foes. Basically, I use whatever makes sense.

ditto.

 

[Whisper72]

I never use just ONE powerful enemy. Either there is a small group of powerful monsters who together go toe to toe with the party, or there is a powerful 'BBEG' in the background with a variety of mooks and middle management types.

The most fun is to simply have the BBEG make a stage appearance, then leave the PC's to fight a combo of mooks and middle management types and make them battle so intelligently the PC's need to do all they can to just survive and hang in there, dreading what the situation will be like once they finally manage to corner the BBEG and s/he throws in his/her weight into the fight on top of the underlings that will be present there (on top of several higher management side-kicks)....

 

[Psion]

First off, let me chime in that my general preferences are to one BBEG or one MBEG wiht a competent retinue of guards. As to why: they are easier to manage, and combat runs quicker when I am not making attacks and saves and tracking HP for a dozen bugbears or what have you.

Lemme grab two thoughts here.

I think, in general, they fall into the trap of "TPK or Cakewalk".

That doesn't match my experience. I have yet to have a TPK in 3.xe.

Do things vary a bit if the party has a good plan or good rolls? You betcha. But that's okay. I play D&D vice diceless/dramatist style games because I like variety and unpredictability.

As to why, I am reminded of my last session. The party was fighting a CR 9 black dragon. I expected one of two deaths, but in no small part to my crappy rolls they persevered and were pretty much laying the smack down on the dragon.

The dragon realized this and started to retreat. The only one who could really do anything had a sonic pistol with a crappy range increment. But she fired anyways... natural 20. With all damage rolled, the dragon was dropped to zero and had to use an action to land, whereupon it had -1 hp and was dying and the party finished it off.

I just don't get those "fickle fate smiled upon us" stories out of more deterministic games.

I should note that I use action points in this game. I think with action points, you are a lot safer "pulling out the stops", so to speak. The players will spend what they need to survive.

There's a problem in 3e that most of the big bad creatures are both tough and devastatingly effective at destroying PCs.

I like a little threat. Keeps the game exciting.

I do think, however, after the next probable encounter with a BBEG (a mind flayer against a 6th level party), it might convince the party to shore up their defenses a little. (The psychic warrior has announced his intention to take empathic feedback and hostile empathic transfer as his next two powers. I betcha he might think about a mental defense after next session.)

 

[d20Dwarf]

I like a little threat. Keeps the game exciting.

I agree, but the constant threat of claw attacks that can deal half your hit points in one strike is a little much.

A problem with using too many minions in the final battle is that it means you can't have a really strong antagonist without blowing the EL's through the roof (this is what Dungeon magazine does all the time). It's certainly tough to balance it.

 

[Psion]

I agree, but the constant threat of claw attacks that can deal half your hit points in one strike is a little much.

Oh yeah, I get you.

My segue into the next paragraph might have been a little undelicate, but I was trying to say that it's primarily PCs who skimp on defense who fall victim to this.

 

[Radiating Gnome]

This is exactly my tactic in many of my battles. My PCs are now about 18th level, after three years of playing. They don't get experience for even CR 10 opponents, which means I can stack up some pretty effective cannon fodder against them.

The other thing that lots of fodder lets me do is test tactcially much better. in combat, my players don't stick together very well, and if I set up a large battlefield with a lot of mooks, I can usually separate them pretty quickly. When they're not able to support each other because they're too far apart, I can use my BBEG to swoop in and pick them off one by one.

They'll figure it out sooner or later.

Single big monsters, like dragons, are fun, but if they're really on their own, they suffer for only having one action to hit the party with. With 4-6 PCs hammering on the dragon, it's very easy for two PCs to keep the dragon busy while the others make some sort of progress against it. It tends to go downhill very quickly.

-rg

 

[diaglo]

the problem with blown EL i see in many published adventures is:

the PCs enter area 1, a guarded entrance to the adventure... if they attack the guards or don't make some arrangements for limiting sound/ signalling/ or sneaking in... the guards alert the complex and locks down... most adventures handle that okay...

it doesn't say when the guards return to normal state.

so the poor PCs are pretty much screwed by inexperienced DMs.

 

[MerakSpielman]

I like fights with one powerful monster versus the party. It makes the fight go faster, and the players don't have to wait as long between turns.

Right now I only have 2 players. If I have a horde of mooks, it feels like I'm playing the battle mostly by myself, and they occasionally get to do a little something. That's not really much fun.