D&D 4E 4e Dungeon Design - New Article

Grog said:
The problem with building mass encounters in 3E is that, in order to add enough monsters to make it a "mass" battle, you have to make the monsters so weak that they're not much of a threat to the PCs anymore, even in a large group.

The CR/EL system says that 16 orcs are an EL 7 encounter. But are orcs, with their 5 hit points, 13 AC, and +4 attack bonus, really a threat to 7th level characters? The fighter can cleave through them with ease. The wizard can wipe out the whole horde with just a spell or two. Even the rogue isn't going to have much trouble.

This is a very good point, Grog.

But in my opinion, the flaw here is in the assumptions made about CR in general.

There is a huge problem with CR/EL as 3e presents it: it does not accurately model the power jumps from CR to CR. Moving from CR1 to CR2 is a huge relative increase in power; moving from CR10 to CR11 is a much smaller relative increase. Yet the CR/EL/XP system treats them as if they are equivalent jumps in power.

16 orcs are actually much closer to 3rd level (using Chi/Rho for my guesstimate).
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Grog said:
I've seen it stated many times over the years, both here and at other forums. It's certainly been my experience, as well. The problem with building mass encounters in 3E is that, in order to add enough monsters to make it a "mass" battle, you have to make the monsters so weak that they're not much of a threat to the PCs anymore, even in a large group.

I agree, but let me refine that answer. The CR/EL system breaks down for large numbers of enemies where the CR is less than 2 below the character level of the party they are supposed to challenge. This is particularly true for 'balanced' creatures (like say the Gnoll) with no significant strengths to pit against player's weakness, and less true for specialists (like say the Ogre) whose bruising strength gives them at least some threat for several levels beyond what you'd expect for thier CR. It's also less true for creatures who have a degree of level independancy in thier attacks (say a ranged touch attack like 'acid spit' or the ability to use magic missile as a spell-like ability) that allow them to at least be a nuisance to higher level characters. It's also less true for high CR creatures rather than low CR ones, precisely because high CR creatures are likely to be strong specialists and/or have attacks which are still somewhat effective regardless of the level of thier target.

But, in general, it is certainly true, and to the extent that it is not, the reasons for why it is not only demonstrate and highlight how little the CR/EL system actually takes into account when trying to rate the difficulty of the encounter.

The CR/EL system says that 16 orcs are an EL 7 encounter. But are orcs, with their 5 hit points, 13 AC, and +4 attack bonus, really a threat to 7th level characters? The fighter can cleave through them with ease. The wizard can wipe out the whole horde with just a spell or two. Even the rogue isn't going to have much trouble.

In truth, it probably takes about 64 orcs to be a EL 7 encounter for a 7th level party, while at the same time 64 orcs is probably closer to EL 11 for a 3rd level party. This is because the challenge is actually relative to who is being challenged.

The problem I have is that it seems like the design team is going to take that insight, and instead of making the XP of the encounter relative, is instead going to make the encounter itself relative to whoever faces it. That approach is perfectly fine for a gamist approach, but it throws consitancy and versimlitude completely out the window.

And yes, I know that I could probably create a situation where the orcs ambush the PCs and use terrain advantages, traps, etc., to make the encounter a challenge. But the fact that I'd have to put a lot of work into an encounter that the CR/EL system says should be an appropriate challenge by default, tells me that the system doesn't handle this type of combat very well. And my experience with 7 years of playing 3.x D&D bears that out.

Mine as well. I would not that the example you raise doesn't just highlight how badly the CR/EL system handles this sort of encounter, but how badly it handles encounters in general. The fact is that you could grant the same terrain advantages to something that is assuredly CR 7, and come up with an encounter that is much harder than its EL suggests. Now, I can handle that sort of thing ad hoc, but it would be better if the system explicitly reminded new DM's that favorable or unfavorable terrain changes the encounter level sometimes dramaticly.

Who said there wouldn't be much challenge?

Not much of a challenge compared to how much of a challenge it would be in 3rd edition.

Look, I know that these design & development articles are frustratingly vague, but inventing things that the developers didn't say only makes the problem worse.

Maybe so, but it would be nice if we read each others comments generously. I don't think he meant to imply that it would be a pushover, merely that 20 goblins appears to be the new 4 (or 8) goblins.

There are plenty of 3E campaign worlds that do this, too (I'm looking in your direction, Forgotten Realms).

Yes, and it sucks and is widely ridiculed. But its not the fault of 3E, it is actually a legacy of 1st edition which had the same sort of problems we are here describing (0 level 'minions'). The flavor just stuck.

I seriously don't know where you're getting this.

Streamlined minions, for example. It's hard to get at this without creating a strawman to knock down, and we don't really know anything at this point, but it definately seems to be the trend.
 

Wulf Ratbane said:
16 orcs are actually much closer to 3rd level (using Chi/Rho for my guesstimate).

Having run that encounter, I'd say you are spot on. :)

With the redesign, I think it will be more clearly laid out what is an appropriate relative power level to run "horde" fights-- the sweet spot is tough enough to take some punishment and deal some damage, without overwhelming the PCs.

Unless, you know, you've got that guy as your DM. ;)
 

Wulf Ratbane said:
This is a very good point, Grog.

But in my opinion, the flaw here is in the assumptions made about CR in general.

There is a huge problem with CR/EL as 3e presents it: it does not accurately model the power jumps from CR to CR. Moving from CR1 to CR2 is a huge relative increase in power; moving from CR10 to CR11 is a much smaller relative increase. Yet the CR/EL/XP system treats them as if they are equivalent jumps in power.

16 orcs are actually much closer to 3rd level (using Chi/Rho for my guesstimate).

I could go for pages and pages (and have) describing why the CR/EL system can't be treated as anything more than a suggestion and a good jumping off point. You are correct, that's another one of the problems. I'd rate 16 orcs closer to 4th level. Four orcs each for a 3rd level character is a tough fight, and will certainly use more than 25% of thier resources.
 

Wulf Ratbane said:
Hey, let's give props to d20Modern's Ordinaries, shall we?

In the context of d20M, Ordinaries don't get Talents.

That one little rules shortcut cuts a big slice of power off them.

And as they are classed as Ordinaries-- sorry, Minions-- it is very easy to apply all sorts of other rules to them as the DM sees fit. Minions are dead, not unconscious, at -1. Minions always take 10 on saving throws. Minions can't score critical hits. Etc.

It's not cheating, it's just shorthand to keep the action moving.

[Shrug] Lots of DMs have been doing this for years. "In my game, goblins die at -1". There, done. It's not exactly revolutionary.
 

GreatLemur said:
The paradigm Mearls is advocating, here, where monsters in another room actually notice when you start a fight and come running

See, statements like this are really confusing me. Don't most of us ALREADY play 3.5 this way? I find it hard to believe that there are lots of 3.5 groups out there playing adventures featuring monsters that wait patiently while the PCs butcher their colleagues in an adjoining room.
 

hong said:
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.

I'm printing out this statement and clipping it in my DMG. Awesome ideas, hong. Thanks. ;)
 

Shortman McLeod said:
See, statements like this are really confusing me. Don't most of us ALREADY play 3.5 this way? I find it hard to believe that there are lots of 3.5 groups out there playing adventures featuring monsters that wait patiently while the PCs butcher their colleagues in an adjoining room.
Some do, but keep in mind that not every DM is experienced at this sort of thing. Even if it's written this way just to serve as an example to new DMs, that'd be a good thing. I'm all for more exciting encounters in any case.
 

Celebrim said:
I'd rate 16 orcs closer to 4th level. Four orcs each for a 3rd level character is a tough fight, and will certainly use more than 25% of thier resources.

Orcs are pretty crappy. 5 hp and AC13 doesn't go far.

This fight really should be fairly straightforward for a typical party.

In many ways four orcs per character is actually a more forgiving grouping for the PCs than the kind of gang-pile I would inflict on them.

I also just noticed that the 3.5 Orcs carry falchions instead of great-axes. Ha! Not IMC...
 

Wulf Ratbane said:
In many ways four orcs per character is actually a more forgiving grouping for the PCs than the kind of gang-pile I would inflict on them.

Well, I agree. Splitting up wouldn't necessarily be the tactics I'd employ here either. I was just pointing out that as a 3rd level anything but fighter, I'd not really want to be facing 4 orcs by myself. As a Wizard, I'm worried about getting one hitted and this encounter burns too many of my spells. As a Rogue, I'm not wanting to mix it up with bruisers like this. As a cleric, I'm thinking that even 13 AC is going to mean alot of my attack actions are wasted. In general, I'm thinking that we can't end this fight fast enough to avoid the chance of someone being dropped. As a player, my tendancy would be to want to begin to withdraw from the situation if my party of 3rd levels came up against 16 orcs.

I also just noticed that the 3.5 Orcs carry falchions instead of great-axes. Ha! Not IMC...

Mine either. They'd probably be a mixture of axe wielders and scimitar wielders with tower shields. Every orc in the war band would be carrying 2-3 javelins and have a dagger backup weapon. And I'm ignoring for now the fact that I'd have at least one leader for a warband of this size.
 

Remove ads

Top