4e "getting back to D&D's roots" how?

[Scribble]

Ummm . . . every 3e game I ever played in featured combat against multiple enemies. Guess we were doing it wrong.

Well if you had fun doing it you didn't do it wrong. You didn't do it "by the book," but that doesn't mean it was wrong.

I didn't go by the book much in 3e either...

I'm not sure I would say 4e is "back to the roots" so much as it takes the parts I found good in 3e and mixes it with parts I found good in previous editions, and comes up with something great.

 

[Spatula]

Well if you had fun doing it you didn't do it wrong. You didn't do it "by the book," but that doesn't mean it was wrong.

There's nothing in the 3e books that says not to have encounters against multiple opponents.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Ummm . . . every 3e game I ever played in featured combat against multiple enemies. Guess we were doing it wrong.

There are a lot of factors involved in what numbers of enemies tend to work.

You might ask yourself this:
- How many opponents where there usually? 1-4, or 3-12?
- What CR ranges where involved?
- How difficult did this encounters feel?
- How tricked out where your characters?
- How many of them did you have per day?
- How much time did you spend on these combats?

And then compare them to the answers for 4E. I would say the overall tendency would go towards "more monsters" "either higher level then it used to be, or more per day", "shorter durations", "challenges keep constantly (high) within a wider range of encounters per day / levels)

While the 3E encounter "calculation" system was based around one monster vs. one party of equal level, this didn't mean that was the standard encounter, too. Of course, most of the mechanics and CR rates where build around these guidelines, which means diverging from the "mathematical standard model" of encounters lead to certain side effects that were often not seen positive. 15 minute adventuring day or many "too easy" encounters. (But since the latter was usually perceived as a boring experience, I think the short adventure day become more common. Even if "unrealistic", it still meant a higher degree challenge and entertainment.)

 

[Simon Atavax]

There's nothing in the 3e books that says not to have encounters against multiple opponents.

Agreed. Certainly the published adventures for 3e don't reflect that either. Yet this whole "Yay! We can fight multiple enemies now!" vibe seems to be emerging as a major anti-3e myth of sorts.

 

[malraux]

Agreed. Certainly the published adventures for 3e don't reflect that either. Yet this whole "Yay! We can fight multiple enemies now!" vibe seems to be emerging as a major anti-3e myth of sorts.

Its not so much that you can, its that the system works better when you do.

 

[Remathilis]

Agreed. Certainly the published adventures for 3e don't reflect that either. Yet this whole "Yay! We can fight multiple enemies now!" vibe seems to be emerging as a major anti-3e myth of sorts.

Ok, lets say you create an encounter with a troll (CR 5), two gargoyles (CR 4) and 5 goblin warriors (CR 1/3) Is it an appropriate encounter level (EL) challenge for a 6th level party. Grab your DMG, I'll wait.

...

The beauty of 4e's multi-monster system is that to do that, you add up the XP cost of all monsters (5 goblin cutters, 25 each; 2 gargoyle 400 each, 1 troll (400 XP. 1325 xp or Level 6-7 encounter.)



(BTW: according to the Encounter Calc, its a EL 8 encounter)

 

[Simon Atavax]

Ok, lets say you create an encounter with a troll (CR 5), two gargoyles (CR 4) and 5 goblin warriors (CR 1/3) Is it an appropriate encounter level (EL) challenge for a 6th level party. Grab your DMG, I'll wait.

(Shrug) If the party enters an area occupied by a troll, two gargoyles, and 5 goblin warriors, then they're going to have to fight them (or flee) whether it's an appropriate encounter or not.

I've always played in groups with DMs who design a world, which may or may not always be perfectly balanced with the PCs. If you are desiring a strict, dogmatic adherence to the CR formula, then it could be a pain in the butt. If you're creating a living, breathing environment, then not so much.

 

[Remathilis]

(Shrug) If the party enters an area occupied by a troll, two gargoyles, and 5 goblin warriors, then they're going to have to fight them (or flee) whether it's an appropriate encounter or not.

I've always played in groups with DMs who design a world, which may or may not always be perfectly balanced with the PCs. If you are desiring a strict, dogmatic adherence to the CR formula, then it could be a pain in the butt. If you're creating a living, breathing environment, then not so much.

Well, if you go by that logic, you don't need CR. You could have the fight involve a titan, two very young black dragons, and 5 kobolds, since that's what the world designates.

 

[mmadsen]

The beauty of 4e's multi-monster system is that to do that, you add up the XP cost of all monsters (5 goblin cutters, 25 each; 2 gargoyle 400 each, 1 troll (400 XP. 1325 xp or Level 6-7 encounter.)

4Es multi-monster system may be easy, but that's only a boon if it's also a good measure of the combat strength of multiple monsters. Adding up XP costs is perfectly linear, and combat strength generally isn't; that's what 3E's system was trying to handle.

 

[ShinHakkaider]

Ok, lets say you create an encounter with a troll (CR 5), two gargoyles (CR 4) and 5 goblin warriors (CR 1/3) Is it an appropriate encounter level (EL) challenge for a 6th level party. Grab your DMG, I'll wait.

...

The beauty of 4e's multi-monster system is that to do that, you add up the XP cost of all monsters (5 goblin cutters, 25 each; 2 gargoyle 400 each, 1 troll (400 XP. 1325 xp or Level 6-7 encounter.)



(BTW: according to the Encounter Calc, its a EL 8 encounter)

It took me about 10min (at least 4 min was me trying to relocate the thread where the PDF of his method was posted...) using Wulf Rathbane's method (which in turn was based off of the 4E method) for me to get that it is roughly an EL 8 encounter.

Total CR was 2760, which puts it closer to CR8 (2880) than CR7 (1920).

I know most people here are full of 3E hate now, but for those of us who are still playing 3E / Pathfinder, I actually like using this method to calculate EL's. You can find the FREE 1 page PDF HERE

EDIT: Also to be fair I always liked flat XP costs / values for monsters and I find the 3.5 CR / EL system cumbersome, but I still dont think it's the deal breaker that alot of people make it out to be.