N monsters of level X vs N characters of level X

[jmucchiello]

Well I would say that failure = 1 or more character deaths, but maybe 4e is going to make resurrection very easy...

Like when you pass near a savepoint pedestal all the dead characters just reappear?

 

[frankthedm]

This is a question that has been bothering me a lot since they started discussing monster design. They keep talking about monsters, but "hostile class-based PC races" haven't seemed to be on the horizon here. My campaigns involve a whole lot of opposition from humans and other PC-race individuals. It's not that I think I'm S.O.L.; I'd just like some hints as to how they're handling this. The fact that I can judge the strength NPCs-with-PC-class-levels in this way is one of the great strengths of 3.x combat.

Haven

NPCs are not supposed to be the Normal foe in Dungeons and Dragons. Most people don't like living in slimy subterranean regions. Only a select few NPCs ever reach high levels, and to get to that potency, they have to have been through a lot in thier short life spans. High hit die Monsters just have to have eaten their fill and not have been eaten by something even bigger.

Maybe I am biased, but few things bug me more than seeing high levels just being thrown onto foes because I’m stronger. Foe every 10th level barbarian orc I face, I want the visceral pleasure of mowing through 30-100 orc warriors.

 

[Jer]

Mmm... are you really sure what I am thinking about?

50% chance that the party "wins" means that all the monsters are killed, but doesn't mean that all PCs will live.

In a fight with 50-50 chance of winning, the probability that the 1 or more characters die is much higher than 50%, perhaps even 80% or more... Such a balanced encounter is most probably going to end with 1 character only standing for the winning side.

I don't think this is what players really enjoy in a campaign, it would work only in one-shot games.

Actually, this IS the dynamic that I'd like to see in encounters, because it's meaningful. An even match is an even match and I don't have to have a lot of guesswork to see if I need to tone things back or beef them up. And since we don't get to run a lot of combat in one session (we're lucky to have one or two combat encounters a night) I want every combat encounter to be meaningful and fun, which means "life-or-death" at my table. Occasional "characters are more powerful than their foes" encounters are fine (and add a bit of realism to the game), but those should run fairly quickly and not be the norm in my opinion - the norm should be that you take your life into your hands when you decide to go into combat and you should generally be going up against opposition that is equal to your capabilities.

(And as an aside, a LOT of battles at my table end up with only one character standing on the winning side and everyone else battered and unconscious. My players generally have better tactics than me (and if you knew my players you'd weep at how poor my tactics must be), so they usually end up with the "last person standing", though some really good games have come out of players trying to figure out how to get out of the mess they've found themselves in once they've been battered into unconsciousness and captured).

But I suppose that I'm in the minority on that opinion, and you're probably right that "monster of level X" will mean more along the lines of "character level X has a 25% chance of dying against creature of level X" or something like that. Not my preferred balance metric, but I've fought against 3e's CR mechanic long enough that I can figure out my way to fix a new mechanic I suppose.

 

[Shieldhaven]

frankthedm, you and I aren't speaking the same language of gaming at all. I mean, I really have no idea where you're coming from on this. Eberron's stated design philosophy, at least, explicitly agrees with you, but as far as I am aware Forgotten Realms and many other published products set PCs up to fight humans with levels quite often.

In every campaign I've run since the dawn of 3.0, my PCs have fought more human (and elven, etc.) opponents than all other types put together.

Most of my campaigns don't take place in slimy subterranean regions, though there is some of that. The adept is certainly not a sufficient NPC class for the spellcasters I'm interested in portraying.

I don't really understand your objection to leveled opponents. Why does that bug you, when taking on a templated monster (still only because you're able to handle the fight) doesn't?

Haven

 

[Li Shenron]

NPCs are not supposed to be the Normal foe in Dungeons and Dragons. Most people don't like living in slimy subterranean regions. Only a select few NPCs ever reach high levels, and to get to that potency, they have to have been through a lot in thier short life spans. High hit die Monsters just have to have eaten their fill and not have been eaten by something even bigger.

So no evil humans in your campaigns?

 

[Li Shenron]

Actually, this IS the dynamic that I'd like to see in encounters, because it's meaningful.

....

If that's ok with your group, no problem.

But it doesn't make sense to make this a default, because for each encounter that gives a 50% chance of TPK, that implies a 50% of ending the adventure and the campaign.

A 50% chance of TPK also leads probably into an average of more than 50% of the PCs in need for a resurrection after each fight, even when not a TPK.

 

[Jhaelen]

What is wrong with a fair fight?

Nothing, as long as it isn't the default for an encounter.

If 13 encounters of that difficulty are required to gain a level, I'd say about 28 of those 30 levels in 4th.ed. will never see any use in a typical campaign (assuming it starts at 1st level).

That's one of the things 3rd.ed. got right.
I'd like to add that using balanced encounters all the time is not what is recommended in 3rd.ed. 5% of all encounters should have an EL of party level +5 and about 25% should have an EL of party level +1 to +4. It's right in the DMG but often forgotten, judging from the posts I see on D&D message boards.

 

[Umbran]

This is a question that has been bothering me a lot since they started discussing monster design. They keep talking about monsters, but "hostile class-based PC races" haven't seemed to be on the horizon here.

Maybe the "hostile class-based PC races" are typically dealt with differently than PCs are. There may be, things like "spellcasting elven monsters" - so you can develop what used to be an NPC with class levels (and all that complexity) as something much simpler, without worrying if the thing is precisely a wizard of sorcerer or whatever.

 

[Malhost Zormaeril]

Well I would say that failure = 1 or more character deaths, but maybe 4e is going to make resurrection very easy...

You're forgetting about the option to flee, aren't you? Personally, I expect my players to get a couple of good beatings, then learn. They're resourceful, so they should figure out at least a couple of ways to disengage and flee from most combats they get into... or at least not to get into a combat they can't see any way to break out of.

Regardless, it all means very little. If you think PCs should have a greater than even chance, make them fight four equal-levelled monsters rather than five. With an extra man (or elf or dwarf) they will have a definite edge over the opposition...

 

[Gort]

Well, I'm expecting that PCs will have the advantage of their triple hitpoints at first level, plus their maneuvers. That should be more than enough to sway most fights in their favour.