N monsters of level X vs N characters of level X

[Shieldhaven]

I recognize the possibility, Umbran. I can't bring myself around to seeing this as a better way of doing things, because then I'd have to have a "defender" monstrous elf build, a "controller" monstrous elf build, a "striker" monstrous elf build, and a "leader" elf build at the very least. And the human, dwarf, etc., versions. Basically, it needs to be both possible and practical to turn the PCs' abilities back on them. I believe that players are happier if they see that the humanoid opponents are built by and living by the same rules as they are.

Haven

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

Currently, I know from experience that an enemy with level equal to the average party level takes up nowhere near 20% of the resources of the party like it is supposed to.

According to the current formula, an encounter with 4 NPCs, each with level equal to the average party level should be an overwhelming encounter of almost certain death. When in actuality, it normally uses up maybe 50% of the party's resources and the party wins a good 95% of the time. But it IS a lot more interesting since you have to worry about what spell the wizard is going to cast this round while preventing the rogue from sneak attacking you and preventing the fighter from getting into melee with your wizard.

So, in 4e all they are doing is changing the formula so it actually agrees with the math. Then it makes it so 80% of the resources of the party are renewable every combat. This allows you to throw as many of these encounters as you want against the party.

 

[Umbran]

I recognize the possibility, Umbran. I can't bring myself around to seeing this as a better way of doing things, because then I'd have to have a "defender" monstrous elf build, a "controller" monstrous elf build, a "striker" monstrous elf build, and a "leader" elf build at the very least. And the human, dwarf, etc., versions.

Well, in the specifically spellcaster case, the primary differences between them are not in the build, but in simple spell choices - with the same basic build you can have a whole bunch of spell lists that change the nature of the encounter.

However, consider that among the topmost complaints about 3.xe is the time it takes to create encounters. And the absolute worst offender there is probably PC-classes spellcasters. So, if they are trying to fix the problem, they are probably going to address this - and I'd not expect to be making monster NPCs the same way I'd make a PC...

Basically, it needs to be both possible and practical to turn the PCs' abilities back on them. I believe that players are happier if they see that the humanoid opponents are built by and living by the same rules as they are.

I believe that my players often cannot tell exactly what kind of opponent they face - Since each spell can be accessed by many different character classes, if there aren't blasting spells in evidence, they can't tell if they are fighting a cleric or a wizard. That is often communicated other than through the visible abilities. So, I don't know if it really matters so much that the bad guys actually use the same rules in every tiny detail.

 

[Li Shenron]

You're forgetting about the option to flee, aren't you?

No, I was deliberately keeping it out of the discussion.

 

[Lord Zack]

This is pretty easy. A monster of a CR (or whatever) equal to you're level in 4e will be equivalent to a creature of a CR that would it would take to make the EL=the party level in 3e.

 

[Li Shenron]

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.

Ok, so then it will simply mean that a monster level X is not equal but worse than a PC level X.

 

[Shieldhaven]

I agree that generating PC-class spellcasters is about as miserable and slow of an NPC-building experience as it is possible to have, Umbran. Maybe I'm being thick-headed about this, but I'll use an example from my current campaign to demonstrate the problem I have in mind.

Of the eight orders of magic, one is outlawed and declared anathema. Thanks to a brewing civil war, though, they have extraordinary political, financial, and military support. The PCs are approaching a major military showdown here. They know that the leadership of this order are wizards. There's really no way around it. Now, I'm either going through the effort of building these characters as if they are PCs, or I'm giving them abilities that break the cosmological rules of wizardry.

Am I missing something here?

Oh, and in my experience it's immediately obvious whether I'm facing a cleric or a wizard. One has armor and a melee weapon he'd actually hit someone with (oh, and a holy symbol). The other has, at best, bracers of armor, and a staff he'd never remotely consider using in melee. Aside from improving the fighter/mage's build options, the tidbits we've received so far don't seem to indicate that the divide between wizards (and other arcane casters) and clerics (and other divine casters) is even being weakened.

Haven