Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="ThirdWizard" data-source="post: 3737728" data-attributes="member: 12037">Let me expand on what I was saying before. This is all supposition, take it as you like.Check out the map here:<a href="http://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/4e/20070827a_drdd_1full.jpg" target="_blank">http://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/4e/20070827a_drdd_1full.jpg</a>That is being referred to in Mearls' article.7, 8, and 9 comprise a themed area. So instead of 7, 8, and 9 being distinct encounters in and of themselves, each makes up, say, Encounter A.Lets say, also, that we decide to combine 10, 11, 12, and 13 into another thematic encounter area, B. Now lets say that 13, 14, 15, and 16 make Encounter C. And, yes, I did notice that B and C share area 13. This works, because depending on which way the PCs come from, 13 might get involved in either. Because of the way encounters are designed, with multiple monsters making up each one, the dungeon can become much more organic naturally in this way.Remember, 20 goblins can be an interesting match up for a group of 5 1st level PCs. So, now I can put 5-6 goblins in one area, an few orcs or gnolls in another, a bugbear perhaps in another, and the EL doesn't ramp up as fast as it would in 3e. This makes encounter design more granular. I think that's an important part of how I see scalability as inherent in this design.In other words, adding 5 goblins to a fight probably won't turn the tide too far in 4e, whereas in 3e, it would be more of an upset. So, no, in 4e, each one of those numbers wouldn't be a big deal by itself. But, you won't be fighting those encounters by themselves.This is a case of the rules catching up to actual play.Much like other 4e decisions (eg magic items in the PHB) this is really just 4e cementing what should be the case and taking what 3e made more difficult even if people did it, and write the system to handle it much better. Now you can design your encounters as clusters of mini-encounters. And the rules now encourage this behavior.So good stuff, I say.</blockquote>

Verification