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

[Skyscraper]

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.

I hear you. My comment was more aligned with the fact that i usually run dungeons/castles etc... in a way i find to be more dynamic myself. I do not set up a 3-4 room encounters. The entire castle is a multi-room encounter. When the PCs arrive towards a room in a structure inhabited by enemies, i'll be looking at everything they do and have done to see how the enemies react. Assuming very good stealth during a sleeping period, they can take down enemies in their sleep. Assuming poor stealth, the entire castle minus the minimum sentries will be after them within a few minutes time, after having organized if possible and if they are of a type of creature that organizes. If the alarm is raised, there will be very few rare creatures singled out in rooms, they'll be massing together to find and take down the opponents in the best possible way. One such encounter occurred a year ago in my campaign, which led to 2 of the party dying, 3 being captured and 2 escaping. They didn't take the time to loot an underground temple before taking out the other inhabitants after that, let me tell you.

Also, very rare (though existant) are the creatures that remain in a room all day long. Think of people you know: how many actually remain in the exact same place day after day? None. People go out, eat, sleep, hire guards, buy from merchants, worship demons or whatever it is that they do.

This actually touches one point that i dislike in the recent encounter formats that i've seen in WotC products, e.g. 3.5 Raventloft. For each encounter, whatever the previous actions by the PCs, the creatures will be at exactly the same spot as marked on the mini-map that comes with the encounter description, waiting in ambush or whatnot. This is railraoding in its purest form IMO. There is no leeway for the DM in the adventure format which is suggested. You've done a great job in being stealthy? Screw you, you're still surprised by the monster in the closet!

Anyway, that's just my two cents. I haven't read that many adventures either, so my impression may be unfounded. But i dislike static settings where X, Y, Z wait in a room, or two rooms, or three rooms, which is the same concept as far as i'm concerned, for the players to arrive before the encounter is triggered.

So why was i cynical towards the post on the WotC site? Because in my opinion the problem doesn't come from the fact that the monsters are all waiting in a single room instead of three. The problem comes from the fact that the monsters are all waiting, period.

Sky

 

[Celebrim]

So . . . I was the wizard in this encounter.

Thanks for dropping in. I will endeavor not to ask any questions you can't answer, and if you don't want to say anymore, that's fine too.

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.

The problem I have with this is that if a third edition party had become separated and exposed, then its highly likely that the resulting four way encounter would involve alot of movement as the party tried to consolidate its position - and even more movement would probably be expended protecting party members that dropped. So, any special claim of dynamic movement is hard for me to swallow, especially since, if someone hadn't goofed, this whole fight would have likely occurred in some defensible bottleneck with the PC's using thier superior missile fire to force the monsters to come to them (the tactic generally employed by PC's I'm used to).

In your opinion, in this one particular case, and without going into details, did the 4E rules make the movement a more attractive option than it would have been under 3.X edition rules, and if so, did it do so at the expense of realism or detail? Or, was it the case that the movement was a tactical responce to the situation that was largely independent of the rules system involved? I am not asking you how the rules accomplished this. Obviously, that's Mearls job to decide whether to answer that sort of question.

PS: Just to be clear, I don't think that there is a right answer to this question. I'm just curious. If it works basically like 3rd in this situation, then that's a good thing because I like 3rd. If it is more dynamic than 3rd, that's a good thing, because I agree that combat can in some circumstances become too static in 3rd.

 

[Khur]

You're right. Any party in any game would have consolidated its position in the situation presented. I feel like the movement was more dynamic in this encounter than it might have been in 3e, largely because of the abilities some PCs (and monsters) have to move in special ways. I'm not sure how the rules would have done so at the expense of realism or detail.

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

Is it really widely acknowledged that the CR/EL system breaks down when dealing with very large numbers of enemies? I don't acknowledge that for numbers up to 20 or so. Designing encounters that involve multiple weaker enemies requires a bit of creativity, but if you do it well, the CR/EL system can give results that are roughly as good for mid-sized groups of foes as it does anywhere else.

Now, if 4e makes it easier to use large numbers of creatures against the PCs, that could be good. On the other hand, there are a few issues:

1. I don't much like the idea that first level characters can take on 20 goblins at once in a fair fight without too much challenge. Where is there to go from there? There's only so many supers you can put in front of "bad ass" before the exercise gets dull. IMO, when your fourth level character can look at 20 goblins and say "we can take them easily" there's a sense of accomplishment and growth there that is a good thing.

2. Starting the power scale high also strains the credibility of a campaign world. If first level adventurers can take out dozens of goblins, how could they threaten the village? And if ordinary folks are so weak that the goblins are a threat, how do they survive in a world that also contains threats for 6th level characters in numbers great enough to generate 20 monster encounters on a regular basis? And, for that matter, how does the city watch or the town sheriff keep PCs in line? (Presumably PCs either get the invincible trait very early or (as is more likely since that is what happened in 1e and 2e which had the same official power difference between PCs and NPCs as the 20 goblins aren't too bad for first level adventurers but would wipe out a village scenario) published worlds will suddenly fill up with mid level PC types in law enforcement and authority positions, thus reversing the problem). Then again, maybe the ability to create logical and self-consistent campaign worlds in not a design value in 4.0--most everything I've seen in the previews seems to indicate that it's not a concern of the designers).

3. Facilitating large numbers of opponents vs. a group of PCs encounters requires balancing two competing goals: the ability of the monsters to do something interesting to the PCs (as opposed to simply attacking and fishing for 20's) and the ability of the PCs to survive the larger number of monsters. There may be ways to balance the two (higher attack bonuses, lower damage, for instance), but a perfect solution to the dilemma seems like the elusive square circle.

4. Facilitating larger numbers of opponents may be possible through streamlined rules, but there's only so much you can streamline.

On the whole, Mearls' article seemed like he was setting up a straw man (I, for one, have not had too much trouble setting up dynamic encounters with multiple foes in 3.x), and then claiming that 4e is going to make it easy for DMs to set up square circles. Color me unimpressed.

You seem to be missing one of the major points of the article - that the default assumptions for combat encounters have changed in 4E. It's widely acknowledged and agreed that 3E's CR/EL system breaks down when dealing with very large numbers of enemies. But 4E is being designed from the ground up to handle just that sort of combat, and that appeals to me.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

Very good post, Elder-Basilisk.

My biggest concerns with 4e are congealing around "stylistic choices."

I am all for streamlining the play and fixing the kludgy mechanics, but not at the expense of changing the stylistic feel of D&D.

Simply changing the paradigm to "per encounter" abilities is, perforce, going to increase the power of the PCs, and I can accept that, to a degree. I don't have a problem with the PCs keeping about the same power level they have in 3.5, but allowing them to apply that power more consistently across the span of the adventuring "session" without having to derail the fun while they recharge.

I do have a problem with cranking the power level up so that four 1st level PCs can handle 20 goblins. That's not a design change that I have ever craved, consciously or subconsciously.

And, incidentally, we can gather from other playtest reports that PCs are going to be getting a lot more powerful compared to their counterparts, without the necessity of magic items...

 

[RangerWickett]

but you'd be fine with four 4th-level PCs taking down 20 goblins, right? They seem to be implying that 1st is the new 4th.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

but you'd be fine with four 4th-level PCs taking down 20 goblins, right? They seem to be implying that 1st is the new 4th.

4th is the new 1st, you mean.

You are correct, I wouldn't have a problem with four 4th level PCs taking out 20 goblins.

But I do have a problem with arbitrarily losing 3 levels of play and beginning my campaign at 4th level.

EDIT: Again, fixing/streamlining mechanics is driving a stylistic change at the same time.

 

[Kid Charlemagne]

The "first level party taking down 20 goblins" thing is probably the first thing that I've heard that concerns me about 4E. I'm not sure how to take it in light of the overall lack of info, but its seems a little over-the-top.

 

[grimslade]

Mike Mearls has a new blog post up about the Dungeon article. The idea is to 'chunk' encounters together. Instead of a Bugbear in rm 7, 2 Hobbos in rm 8 and 6 gobbos in rm 9, Mike made an encounter of a torturer and his thugs in the torture chambers. Nothing revolutionary, just another way of organizing a dungeon to make more sense. The sort of design advice that needs to be in the DMG. With the way tactics are being inserted into the monster stat block in the new MM, I'm sure that encounter tactics will be included in Adventure write ups.

 

[el-remmen]

Mike Mearls has a new blog post up about the Dungeon article. The idea is to 'chunk' encounters together. Instead of a Bugbear in rm 7, 2 Hobbos in rm 8 and 6 gobbos in rm 9, Mike made an encounter of a torturer and his thugs in the torture chambers. Nothing revolutionary, just another way of organizing a dungeon to make more sense. The sort of design advice that needs to be in the DMG. With the way tactics are being inserted into the monster stat block in the new MM, I'm sure that encounter tactics will be included in Adventure write ups.

Link?

I don't see it on his LJ.