GM Prep Time - Cognitive Dissonance in Encounter Design?

[Neonchameleon]

Most certainly correct. Within that ballpark, the abilities and resources of different parties can vary by quite a bit even if the number of players and character levels are identical. Consider a 4th level encounter against a party of 5 PC's. Party #1 is made up of all rogues and party # 2 is an all cleric party. The dynamic will be totally different and published encounter may not consider either of these parties during the design process.

Of course - and it's part of the GM's job to cope with the difference. But when the difference is not just forseeable but expected (and 3e to 4e is that different), you take the two parties into account. Or the clerics will breeze past the undead while the rogues will be unable to sneak attack and get slaughtered. Or the rogues will sneak half way through the adventure and the clerics will have to fight everyone. (Or both could be intended features).

Why not?

Motivation is different. Attitude is different.

 

[ExploderWizard]

As for minions, why don't they have meaning in a game?

Minions are a literary construct that have meaning in a story. If you are crafting a story they have a purpose.

 

[Imaro]

Because we mentally discard options that suck. There are very few occasions where power attack is mathematically a good idea. The hit penalty is just too high. And for that matter it just replaces an attack that deals damage with an attack that ... deals slightly more damage.

Trip isn't worth it. It leaves you wide open, as does disarm. Overrun both leaves you wide open and your opponent just steps out of the way. Feint costs an attack to do very little. Common use of Sunder will get things thrown at the DM by the players.

A monster has the option to come into battle bouncing on a pogo stick, and attack by taking his armour off and throwing it at people. That doesn't mean that you count it when listing options. (The other thing is that Power Attack unless used at high modifier isn't very different from a basic attack. But people notice Skullthumper even if they aren't following the math of the fight.)

I'm sorry... I guess I'm not part of your "we". Even in 4e, I select options that fit the themes and narratives of the combat and monster. I don't use a power because it happened to recharge this round, and I don't believe every monster should do the most mathematically optimal thing in combat each round, because in narratives, life and movies this isn't always what happens (in fact I would argue that many villains use sub-optimal tactics.). The point is I have the option to play the monster the way I want to, not how it is dictated I play it by the 4 precise powers it has... so yeah I guess there's a big disconnect in playstyles here.

 

[billd91]

And I'll say for 3e it was a vast step up on AD&D. Few of the criticisms levelled by AD&D supporters hold water - and most of those that do are playstyle differences.

I'm a long time player since the AD&D days and though my game of preference is 3.5/Pathfinder even I know this isn't accurate. A lot of criticisms leveled at 3e generation D&D mechanics, particularly achieving combat balance between spellcasters and martial characters, from an AD&D perspective have been pretty cogent. They hold water just fine and don't boil down to play style differences.

 

[Imaro]

I think though you can't really compare these as "added options" because how monsters are built in 4e is different then in 3e.

Sure, there aren't any rules for adding feats to monsters in 4e, but it's not a lacking feature because they don't accomplish the same end result as they did in 3e.

In 3e in order to legally "unlock" certain attacks/abilities you needed certain feat chains.

In 4e the same end result is accomplished by just giving the creature that ability/power- No feats are needed. Same thing if you want it to have a non attack power that a feat might have accomplished in 3e; again you just give it that power.

Same I feel is true for 3e style templates. A lot of what they were designed to accomplish is now done by simply changing the powers a bit, or choosing another monster "role."

They're not a lack of options in my opinion because there's no longer a need for them. The way they're built from the start gets me to the end monster I want/need more quickly.

Could the game use more options? Hell yeah, added stuff I can play with is always cool... But I don't feel as if I'm lacking any options I once had as a DM in 3e now that I play 4e. In fact, because it's more easily accomplished I feel like I customize monsters far more often then I ever did with 3e. This design model works well for me I guess.

If 3e's design model worked for you though- right on. I bow to your superior 3efoo.

Hey Scribble, just a quick note... if in the 2 DMG's and/or 2 going on 3 MM's 4e had given us a breakdown and rules for comparing and balancing powers... I would be right there with you... but it hasn't, so in essence even with powers replacing feats in 4e (Which is not something I necessarily agree with, especially as we get more feats that do more than just grant a minor bonus) IMO, we are still lacking in the customization aspect of 4e's monsters and NPC's.

 

[Scribble]

Hey Scribble, just a quick note... if in the 2 DMG's and/or 2 going on 3 MM's 4e had given us a breakdown and rules for comparing and balancing powers... I would be right there with you... but it hasn't, so in essence even with powers replacing feats in 4e (Which is not something I necessarily agree with, especially as we get more feats that do more than just grant a minor bonus) IMO, we are still lacking in the customization aspect of 4e's monsters and NPC's.

There I do agree with you to an extent.

Part of the idea of not giving hard and fast numbers seems to be because they don't want to be "locked" into those numbers. IE it's not supposed to be a hard X = X damage thing... I don't really even believe the WoTC designers have hard rules they use.

But I DO wish they at least had maybe a dungeon article about improving your skills at doing this stuff. Make it like the ruling skill challenges article.

Yeah- some feats do do more then grant small bonuses, but in this regard I think the difference lies in the very fact that monsters and PCs are made differently.

PCs can take some feats to unlock stuff still... but monsters you just kind of assume they already took whatever they need to have that ability, and give it to them.

 

[Jhaelen]

Yet whenever a new class was published for 3.x I could instantly apply that class to a monster or NPC.

So there are no rules for this, thus supporting my argument. Thanks.

So again you support my position, and as far as whether skill customization is a good thing or not, let's just leave it at personal opinion...and thank god for the OGL. I'm curious though... how do vague guidelines make customization easier? How does guesstimate= easier... faster maybe, but then I could just as easily guesstimate in 3.x.

Are you for real?

4e doesn't _need_ monster customization rules because monsters don't share the same rules that pcs do. That's the main difference and the major advantage of 4e's approach.

If you want to create an npc Artificer you're not limited to Artificer powers because npc Artificers can be anything you want them to be. You can grant them the powers of any other existing monster or simply make up your own as long as the result is within the limits given in the DMG (i.e. hp, attacks, defenses, damage).

Making stuff up is always easier than looking up dozens of 3e books to find the combination of feats, templates, and class levels that make your customized monster competitive for its CR. If you truly believe customizing monsters in 4e is more difficult than it is in 3e then you have never tried it.

 

[Mallus]

The great stories are never about balanced encounters because in stories, million to one chances come up nine times out of ten.

And the reason why that happens is because most stories aren't about the 999,999 other guys.

Exactly. Comparing role-playing game characters to fictional characters requires a little more nuance.

This reminds me of why I think all those 'but Frodo was a 1st level thief' arguments get things ass-backwards. They start with assumptions --such as 'Frodo Baggins is a 1st level thief'-- instead of examining what the character actual does during the course of the story --for instance, surviving getting stabbed by a g-ddamn Nazgul when he's barely out of the Shire-- and let that information inform their character modeling. A better transcription of Frodo into D&D terms places Frodo between 5th-7th level, if not a little higher.

Likewise, if I'm going to recreate Perseus and the Medusa in D&D terms, I'd give him at least 50/50 shot against the her gaze attack, and that's before Perseus's teammates toss buffs his way...

Well, I'm glad I got that off my chest.

 

[MrMyth]

I am going to concern myself with these two examples since this is where the crux of your more options for melee monsters/NPC's lie... and actually I will have to comment on the Bulette later, but I will quickly comment on the Bugbear...

Our 4e Bugbear is a level 5 monster (I'm not certain how it compares to the CR 2 3.x Bugbear), who has a simple melee attk w/ a morningstar (easily covered by the 3.x Bugbear), it has Skullthumper... which is an attk that requires combat advantage and a morningstar... it does the regular damage for a morningstar but allows the bugbear to knock an opponent prone and daze him. Finally Predatory Strike allows the Bugbear to deal extra damage 1x per encounter. He can also, per 4e rules,... charge, bull rush and grab.

Our 3.x Bugbear already has a morningstar basic attack... now for one of his racial feats lets give him power attk... he can now deal extra damage anytime he wants by taking a reduced chance to hit. He also has a ranged attack with the javelins... so we're already at three different options by just switching a feat out... a regular attk, power attk and ranged attk. On top of this he can implicitly grapple, trip, feint, sunder, bull rush, charge, disarm, overrun etc. I'm not understanding how your 4e Bugbear has more options in combat by the rules?

Well, I think others may have had a different experience than you did with the extra combat options. At least in my experiences, most DMs avoided having monsters grapple, trip, sunder, disarm, overrun, etc - unless the monster was designed for it. Because typically it was a weak option, and for most DMs, required picking up the PHB and looking through those rules every time it actually came up.

Similarly, when a DM grabbed the Monster Manual to run a group of bugbears, most aren't going to start swapping their feats on the fly to expand what they can do. Instead, they will end up with a group of identical monsters that do pretty much one thing - hit people with morningstars. And occasionally throw javelins if they need to.

When I grab some in 4E, they will hit people with morningstars - and smash some enemies to the ground, while their buddies pop up and strangle them from behind. Even if they don't have a huge host of options within that, each round feels a bit more fluid, a bit more dynamic.

And even more important - a bit more distinct to the monster itself. The complaint against melee attacks in 3.5 was that everything pretty much came down to rolling to hit and dealing damage. A group of bugbears and a band of earth elementals and a handful of hill giants all swing their weapons/fists/etc at the PCs, and do some damage. Note that even adding class levels and feats doesn't change things too much - rage might alter a monster, but it is still just rolling attacks and dealing damage. A ranger might get more attacks from two weapons, and deal more damage to certain enemies. A fighter might be more accurate, a rogue might deal lots of damage with sneak attack, and people with power attack can trade accuracy for damage. But again - melee guy rolls to hit, and deals damage. In 4E, each enemy tends to have some unique flavor that plays out differently.

Now, I'm not by any means saying all melee monsters in 3.5 were identical. There were certainly special abilities that keep things distinct, whether it is poison or regeneration or actually investing in the feats to trip/disarm/grapple.

But the default options for melee attackers tended to be much more limited, in my experience, than the default abilities for most enemies in 4E.

 

[Neonchameleon]

I'm sorry... I guess I'm not part of your "we". Even in 4e, I select options that fit the themes and narratives of the combat and monster. I don't use a power because it happened to recharge this round, and I don't believe every monster should do the most mathematically optimal thing in combat each round, because in narratives, life and movies this isn't always what happens (in fact I would argue that many villains use sub-optimal tactics.). The point is I have the option to play the monster the way I want to, not how it is dictated I play it by the 4 precise powers it has... so yeah I guess there's a big disconnect in playstyles here.

There is a difference between not optimal and sucking. Someone who hasn't been trained (or experienced) in tripping people trying to trip them sucks. And the only sane Sunder attempt I know of from an untrained sunderer was Edmund in The Lion, The Witch, and The Wardrobe (and that still got him stabbed). To take a recent example, I had a group of first level thugs led by a fifth level Human Noble - the Noble was the strongest and the toughest of the group. And still got everyone else to make the attacks because that's the kind of guy he was.

And, for the record, the simplest tweaking you can do within the rules, and one that's extremely powerful is finding a monster that does about the right thing and changing its race. But yes, monster design is more art than science. This was true in 3e especially with the class balance (and that a monster spellcaster often could go in expecting one fight in the day - the daily spell limit is such an odd one for people who are only going to be in the foreground once before they die). Yes, you could add class levels within the rules. Didn't mean it was balanced.

I'm a long time player since the AD&D days and though my game of preference is 3.5/Pathfinder even I know this isn't accurate. A lot of criticisms leveled at 3e generation D&D mechanics, particularly achieving combat balance between spellcasters and martial characters, from an AD&D perspective have been pretty cogent. They hold water just fine and don't boil down to play style differences.

Point. Linear Fighter/Quadratic Wizard was particularly bad in 3e as they removed most of the locks on the Wizard.

Minions are a literary construct that have meaning in a story. If you are crafting a story they have a purpose.

And if you are using your game as a form of colaborative storytelling? For that matter, they make sense in the game world if used carefully (they are the guys who run away at the first hit or the pets who provide a distraction). If I wanted a pure game I'd probably play Descent. Or (more likely) Dominion or Wings of War. Or even Mass Effect or Team Fortress 2.