D&D 4E 4e Dungeon Design - New Article
- Thread starter Andor
- Start date
IME, the main things you need to run big combats are:
- simplification of monster hp
- simplification of abilities they have
When you have 20 orcs on the table, keeping track of which one has 5, 7, 12 or 15 hp remaining is a pain. What I've generally done is say that if you deal X points of damage in one hit (X ~ 10-15 depending on party level), the orc is dead. If you don't deal X damage, the orc is "wounded" and I put a die next to its mini to indicate this. The next hit kills it, regardless of damage dealt.
Similarly you don't want to track limited-use abilities for big groups of monsters: which one has a fireball left, which one has a CLW, etc. Give them all an axe, which they can swing every round. For special stuff, assume that the group as a whole has a limited number of uses in the encounter (1 fireball, 3 cures (removes the "wounded" die from a mini), etc) which can be carried out by anyone.
- simplification of monster hp
- simplification of abilities they have
When you have 20 orcs on the table, keeping track of which one has 5, 7, 12 or 15 hp remaining is a pain. What I've generally done is say that if you deal X points of damage in one hit (X ~ 10-15 depending on party level), the orc is dead. If you don't deal X damage, the orc is "wounded" and I put a die next to its mini to indicate this. The next hit kills it, regardless of damage dealt.
Similarly you don't want to track limited-use abilities for big groups of monsters: which one has a fireball left, which one has a CLW, etc. Give them all an axe, which they can swing every round. For special stuff, assume that the group as a whole has a limited number of uses in the encounter (1 fireball, 3 cures (removes the "wounded" die from a mini), etc) which can be carried out by anyone.
Celebrim
Legend
Grog said:
They keep saying that, but there are only 18 numbers between 1 and 20 and there is only so much you can do in that range without making things more complicated. More monsters plus more complication doesn't necessarily scare me (I regularly do both already), but it will turn all these optimists who have impressed on 4E all thier hopes and dreams for a simplier faster system into raving haters faster than I can type out a 5 paragraph rant.
Anyway, I don't see how they can change the math and make the game simplier without turning the system into D36 or something. Forget the books, I'm not buying 20 new dice.
Actually, that's not quite right either. The big problem with the 3rd has with groups is the same problem D&D has always had - large groups of mooks become ineffectual against PC's as soon as the PC's AC approaches the level that the mooks need a 20 to hit. Additionally, right around that time you get area of effect spells, and then its just a matter of whether you want to cleave the mooks down or waste a fireball on them to save the party the loss of a dozen or so hit points amongst them.
How much XP you give for laying waste to mooks is much less of a problem. I've been using my judgement when assigning EL's in situations that the rules don't handle well for the last five years or so. It's not a big problem to give relative XP depending on the strengths of the party and the situation.
What Mearls seems to be suggesting is that they can make both mooks less dangerous at low levels and more dangerous at high levels. That's going to be quite a magic trick. The only way I've figured how it could be done thus far is to make monster power level relative to the PC's, and that's not going to be less complicated than just adjusting the XP.
If someone wants to let me in on the magic trick, I'd be happy to hear it. Until then, I remain a skeptic.
The key is probably to make mooks more dangerous on the offense, but also easier to kill. Glass ninjae, IOW. This way a large group of them can still pose a substantial threat, so that fights don't become meaningless rote-work; however, you can still take down large numbers each round, so contributing to the "mowing down huge hordes" feeling.
In turn, that probably implies rejigging attack bonuses and AC, and how they scale by level. Spells like fireball will undoubtedly also be changed so that it's no longer trivial to kill big groups with one casting: no point having all these mobs, when everyone's favourite blast spell can take them out with ease.
In turn, that probably implies rejigging attack bonuses and AC, and how they scale by level. Spells like fireball will undoubtedly also be changed so that it's no longer trivial to kill big groups with one casting: no point having all these mobs, when everyone's favourite blast spell can take them out with ease.
Skyscraper said:This being said, what's this rambling about monsters actually reacting to battle in the next room? Are we supposed to read this and say "ohhhh, neat, monster not dumb anymore: monster hear fight, monster open door, monster hit wizard on head with big stick"? Man. Heh
No, I don't think that's what it was.
Rather than "Monsters act naturally", it's that "The encounter is expected to be split between several rooms, and not all the monsters are in the same place."
The way you guys make it sound like, they were intended to be three different encounters, but since the PCs did something dumb and the alarm got raised, all three low level encounters got smooshed into one big encounter.
The DM planned to have Goblins, Hobgoblins and a Bugbear in the same encounter. But instead of just putting them all in one room, he put them in seperate (but very close) rooms, and waited for the PCs to tick one off. This way the encounter would be more exciting.
Last edited:
Celebrim
Legend
Rechan said:
That isn't it at all. If I designed it, it would be, there are three allies near each other. If they are aware of an attack on one, they will (tend) to treat it as an attack on all. Deal with it. I won't think of it in terms of encounters. I won't decide whether its going to be one encounter or three except to the extent that I'm doing so by placing the allies near each other and giving them the means to communicate with each other. What I intend doesn't really matter. The player can decide to approach the situation in a way that makes them one encounter or three.
Absolutely not a gaurantee. Alot of times these complex cascading encounters where the whole dungeon comes running when battle breaks out just because tedious slogs. That's because one of the things you have to consider in these cases is that the whole complex comes running, and if this happens because of some mundane thing that the PC's do you don't want to TPK the party over it.
If you're having trouble imagining combat moving faster than in 3E while still retaining interesting choices, take a look at Savage Worlds, which was designed to be Fast! Furious! Fun!
Removing stats that need tracking does a lot to speed up multi-minion battles. Hit points require tracking; damage saves do not.
Removing stats that need tracking does a lot to speed up multi-minion battles. Hit points require tracking; damage saves do not.
Irda Ranger
First Post
I am mildly heartened that 4e is being designed to allow for "mook horde" combats that are both challenging and fun. That's how I like to play, so hopefully 4e won't require as much fudging by me to "get it right." I don't know how they're going to do it (and the proof will be in the implementation), but at least I think they're trying to solve the right problems.
Generally speaking though, this is an incredibly badly written column. I totally see where Celebrim is coming from. Mearls was hacking down strawmen like they were 1/8 CR kobolds, and whipping up imaginary improvements like a 1e illusionist looking to sell a trinket at the bazaar. This entire article could have been boiled down to one sentence:
"In 4e, we're trying to design rules where you still kill things and take their stuff; you just get to kill more of them at a go."
All that stuff about bigger rooms and boring tactics was complete bs, since his example neither had bigger rooms nor more tactics, and nothing in the article suggested that 4e rules would inherently support "more monsters in the room" (we still have a 5' grid) or "good tactics" (because no rule set can - that's the player's job).
Generally speaking though, this is an incredibly badly written column. I totally see where Celebrim is coming from. Mearls was hacking down strawmen like they were 1/8 CR kobolds, and whipping up imaginary improvements like a 1e illusionist looking to sell a trinket at the bazaar. This entire article could have been boiled down to one sentence:
"In 4e, we're trying to design rules where you still kill things and take their stuff; you just get to kill more of them at a go."
All that stuff about bigger rooms and boring tactics was complete bs, since his example neither had bigger rooms nor more tactics, and nothing in the article suggested that 4e rules would inherently support "more monsters in the room" (we still have a 5' grid) or "good tactics" (because no rule set can - that's the player's job).
Khur
Sympathy for the Devil
So . . . I was the wizard in this encounter.
It did occur in hall, but as Mike described, the ranger and the rogue had scouted into room 8, bringing on a 3-front fight. The fight was very dynamic, with lots of PC and monster movement—something a little more unusual in 3e, and something hard to do if you're just using a door as a bottleneck against a room full of creeps.
I had to maneuver to escape the bugbear, allowing the paladin to move in to provide a front line against that guy. I took out the goblins with a well-placed spell, but the hobgoblins were beating the crap out of the rogue and ranger. With a little focus fire, we took out the bugbear and then whipped those hobgoblins just after the ranger went down. It was a tense fight—totally our fault for skipping the door to 7.
It did occur in hall, but as Mike described, the ranger and the rogue had scouted into room 8, bringing on a 3-front fight. The fight was very dynamic, with lots of PC and monster movement—something a little more unusual in 3e, and something hard to do if you're just using a door as a bottleneck against a room full of creeps.
I had to maneuver to escape the bugbear, allowing the paladin to move in to provide a front line against that guy. I took out the goblins with a well-placed spell, but the hobgoblins were beating the crap out of the rogue and ranger. With a little focus fire, we took out the bugbear and then whipped those hobgoblins just after the ranger went down. It was a tense fight—totally our fault for skipping the door to 7.
