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

Wulf Ratbane said:
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.

DM's don't have to put your 1st level party against a horde of something more dangerous than giant rats in 4E, but it sounds like they can. I don't see that as denying me 3 levels of play, but rather giving the DM more options.

I would think if you want to play 4E characters as neophytes just leaving the farm it would still be possible with standard 1st level characters without much work at all from the DM. Playing heroic 3E characters at 1st level is more problematic.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

I thought the article was mildly interesting, but I think it's hard to understand what he's trying to communicate about 4E since they aren't releasing any mechanical details. It sounds to me like there are more tactical choices in 4E, which sounds good, but it's maddening to not have any idea of why. :)

I do feel optimistic about the reference to minions and to the increased movement in combat. 3E penalized movement (AoO's, and more limited actions when moving), and it seems like 4E rewards it, and that sounds good to me.

Looking forward to the previews.
 

Wulf Ratbane said:
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.
While I like the change, I can certainly understand people who will want the granularity. I have to imagine someone will come up with an OGL method of handling the three levels between 0 and 1 in 4E.

Every problem in 4E is an opportunity for third-party publishers. ;)
 

Wulf Ratbane said:
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.

I have to agree with this. I've started thinking about starting my next campaign at 3rd level, but that doesn't mean I want to lose the option of 1st and 2nd levels. I've always started at 1st.
 

Whizbang Dustyboots said:
While I like the change, I can certainly understand people who will want the granularity. I have to imagine someone will come up with an OGL method of handling the three levels between 0 and 1 in 4E.

I guarantee "someone" will.
 

el-remmen said:
Link?

I don't see it on his LJ.

Linky McLink

http://forums.gleemax.com/showpost.php?p=13576517&postcount=14

Mike Mearls said:
It's late and I'm tired, so no crazy updates tonight. Huge amounts of work this week, so things will be nuts here. Plus, we welcomed aboard a new developer Monday. Everyone say hello to Peter. He's new, so be nice to him.

My dungeon article went up, and it's fun watching people react. The big thing about it (at least to me) is the idea of drawing out lots of dungeon rooms, but then bundling them together into one "encounter." I've started doing this with my dungeons, and it has worked out pretty well for a couple reasons:

1. It's a lot easier to remember a few big encounters than lots of little ones. I can more easily look at a network of rooms and remember, "That's where all the tomb wights are lurking. When the PCs cross that line, they start waking up," then to remember what's in each of the five burial chambers.

2. It makes it a ton easier to manage a dungeon on the fly. Fewer encounters means less stuff to rememberize. It's sort of like the old trick of grouping stuff together to memorize a long list. It's easier to remember one sentence than 15 separate words.

3. Those two points combine to lead to more strategic challenges. I know that the goblin king is going to flee through the secret door into the maze if the PCs kill his bodyguards. From there, he wants to wage a guerilla war against the PCs. It's easier to manage all those relationships in my notes if my dungeon is "chunkier".

Anyway, time to head home.
 

RangerWickett said:
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.

Then what is the new 3rd? New 2nd? New 1st? New 0th?

I would be alright if they said, 'Our new system has a longer sweet spot than previous systems, and you can go up to 30th level. We are presenting the option that default play begin at 4th level, because it gives new players not so many options that it overwhelms them, but not so few that they are frustated, and its easier for new DMs to write adventures if the PC's are a bit less fragile.' I'm fine with 4th being the new 1st, because if I want to I can ignore that and I get the impression many groups start out at 3rd or 4th anyway.

It's just the 1st being the new fourth that I have such a problem with. Do we have three or four 'minion levels' below 1st to represent the non-heroic population? This seems alot like painting the car and saying that the engine is fixed.
 
Last edited:

Elder-Basilisk said:
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.
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.

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.

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.

Elder-Basilisk said:
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.
Who said there wouldn't be much challenge? 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.

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

Elder-Basilisk said:
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).
I seriously don't know where you're getting this.
 


Whizbang Dustyboots said:
While I like the change, I can certainly understand people who will want the granularity. I have to imagine someone will come up with an OGL method of handling the three levels between 0 and 1 in 4E.

I think people are being a little premature in assuming that there'll be three levels between 0 and 1 in 4E. Everyone is basing their assumptions off 3E, but I don't think you can compare characters between editions so easily. Try comparing a 1E fighter of any given level to a 3E fighter of the same level and you'll see what I mean.
 

Remove ads

Top