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

[the Jester]

A good mix of encounter types is key to a fun, varied game.

My party was typically 8 pcs. I would throw a mix of creatures of levels N-4 to N+4 or thereabouts at them. If a given encounter has a bunch of easy kills and a couple of tough ones, I found it was more satisfying overall (as long as the toughies aren't TOO tough!).

 

[KarinsDad]

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.

I think the poll is poorly worded.

If asked the question:

Is it better to have 6 10th level monsters or 5 11th level monsters for a party of 10th level PCs when increasing the difficulty?

The results of the poll might be different.

It really depends on how much the OP is trying to increase the difficulty. There is a major difference between just bumping the encounter to n+1 and bumping it up to n+3 when discussing increasing encounter difficulty.

Bumping it up to an n+1 encounter, the preference is often to bump up the level of the monsters since fewer monsters on the grid means more time spent on player actions than monster actions. More fun for the players. The +1 to defenses of the monsters means little.

Bumping it up to an n+3 encounter, the preference is often to increase the number of same level monsters since the players do not swing and whiff as much. More fun for the players.

 

[cmbarona]

Thanks for the responses, everyone. The poll is already producing some good results, although I'll take the advice that it needs to be reworded and try to edit it.

D3nt3: I'm afraid you missed the point of my question. Contriving my encounters to eliminate the possibility of a short rest isn't a good solution in my opinion. I'm looking for a repeatable concept that I can apply over a series of encounters; stacking encounters back-to-back isn't something I can do over and over without players calling shenanigans (or me calling shenanigans on myself).

To those who suggested other encounter variables: I do try to make the encounters more interesting by adding in varied terrain, objectives, and traps. With all due thanks and respect to those who posted along those lines, that wasn't the question at hand. My players are already good at interacting with more complicated encounter settings and using them to their advantage. What I'm really curious about is increasing the sheer difficulty of encounters in a way that feels rewarding to the them.

Edit: Huh. I guess I can't edit the poll. Oh well; I think most people got the gist.

 

[Infiniti2000]

Edit: Huh. I guess I can't edit the poll. Oh well; I think most people got the gist.

That's to keep you from changing them after people vote on them! No rigged elections!

 

[Quickleaf]

I think both are good approaches, so I don't have an opinion on the poll. However, I do have some specific advice that relates to the question of more monsters vs. higher-level monsters:

* If upping the number of minions, use waves.

* If using a small number of elites or solos give them some extra powers to (a) shake of "end of next turn" effects which can stunlock, and (b) make them more interesting opponents.

* Do not use higher level soldiers - their ACs are too good.

 

[renau1g]

I've realized that higher level soldiers are no fun...in one game I'm running here, the group is fighting a lvl 4 elite soldier and the lvl 1 shaman is missing on a 14... no good.

 

[Stalker0]

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.

This

 

[Rothe_]

I'd say it depends a lot on the group and what you have to work with. If your adventure allows using a lot of enemies (fits into the theme etc.) then that is probably the best way.

I also add a third option: Use better monsters and/or more difficult tactical situations.

Better monsters = Not higher level or higher amount, but better.
What I mean with this is that you have to pick monsters that do not fall too easily to your groups typical tactics, and do not use too many brutes for instance - they are not too efficient unless they have a good leader or something to boost them.

More difficult tactical situations would mean planning the environment to be better suited to your monsters and adding hazards that are part of the encounter. This is mostly when the characters assault a monster stronghold/lair, which is what most dungeon based adventures are about.

Also, avoid using higher level soldiers and controllers too much. Their defenses are too high. One is ok for a boss type or such. Higher level artillery, brutes and skirmishers are all ok, lurkers probably too.

I tend to think about how the encounter suits the adventure when deciding how to up the challenge. If the adventure is one that allows using lots of monsters, then that is usually what I do. Some adventures really don't work with numerous monsters so well, in those cases you can up some regular monsters to elites.

 

[CapnZapp]

Based on the fact 92% has currently voted "more monsters" I would say the poll works fine.

 

[Pickles JG]

. I'm looking for a repeatable concept that I can apply over a series of encounters;
quote]

I would avoid a formula like this & mix things up though with a tendency for "more" rather than "higher level" as indicated by the poll.