D&D 4E 4e - More monsters per encounter?

[MoogleEmpMog]

-snip-

I would definitely describe the mechanics of any action zone I implemented. I would put them on a card and put that card on the table for players to reference. What's more, I suspect D&D 4e will probably apply more consistent mechanics (based on cool, not one or more designers' ideas of "realism") for creating zones, making it more like Spirit of the Century than Iron Heroes in this respect.

I can only pray that D&D will completely reject all vestiges of Threefold Model Simulationism (creating a "realistic" physical simulation of a world) in favor of GNS Simulationism of sources such as sword and sorcery and electronic fantasy games (creating worlds that bring the awesome).

EDIT: I want to clarify something about the dueling Simulationisms. The reason I say "I want D&D to reject one type" is because D&D, as it stands, has nods to each type at different times. I feel the game would be better served by accepting one or the other, because, unlike most of the various "stances," out there, these actually do directly butt heads. If it went the opposite way of what I like, I'd wish it the best and play something else; it wouldn't be a big deal. I just wish it would do one or the other, because every nod to one makes the implementation of the other worse.

 

[ThirdWizard]

I'm aware that I'm inherently criticizing you for your design, and I regret it, but I feel the object lesson at hand is worth it. Most every player knows the rough damage ranges of the weapons in the PHB. They know how effective their armor is. They have *no clue* how effective an action zone will be.

Iron Heroes makes it quite clear that players should be told the effectiveness of the Zones. No guessing involved.

The reason, I've found, people don't use them is not because they aren't tactically useful. It's because its different, its outside the normal comfort area of tactics they are used to. They just need a push into seeing that doing something besides charge, full attack, full attack, can be a good tactic because they're so trained into do that.

 

[Ant]

Sure, you'd have battles with more than one monster, but the way the system worked (or didn't) made bigger combats less thrilling for the most part - or too much trouble to DM.

I guess they're fixing this problem in 4e.

As DM for a number of groups, I wasn't aware that this was a problem. I regularly throw masses of minions at the party. Last session holds the current record -- 6 PCs (ranging from levels 6 to 12), 12 NPCs and 2 animal companions vs approx. 50 monsters of various species and races (with CRs ranging from 1 to 12). Monsters used special abilities, cast spells and used tactics to work in harmony. Terrain played an important role. Players strategised and used feats and spells and their own special abilities. We got the entire combat (which occured in waves, which added to the elapsed time) done in just three very enjoyable hours. On top of that there was a healthy dose of roleplaying that added up to our regular four hour session. Prep. time was a couple hours.

All this despite having to struggle with the "horrors" of iterative attacks, large stat blocks and the like.

 

[Jhaelen]

Monsters made to work in groups seems like a good idea. Recently, I've noticed that too many samey monsters in the fight make the encounter less interesting. Monster variants set up to add as teams instead of swarms should be a big help.

Actually, MM5 can be considered as a preview for this concept. It was already designed using the concept of monster roles: Mastermind, Brute, Artillery, Mook, Lurker, Decathlete, Special (see the Design & Development articles).

MM5 has several groups of monsters that have been designed to work well in groups, having good synergy: Rylkar, Tirbana, Ushemoi, Skull Lord, Mindflayers of Thoon, Elemental Magi, Hobgoblins, etc.

 

[marune]

In 3e, the design paradigm was very heavily weighted towards lone foes, or no more than 8 (simple) opponents. Sure, you'd have battles with more than one monster, but the way the system worked (or didn't) made bigger combats less thrilling for the most part - or too much trouble to DM.

I guess they're fixing this problem in 4e.

Cheers!

One way to fix it would be to remove the need to roll 20 saving throws when you hit a group of orcs with a fireball. I hope they did go in that direction.

 

[pawsplay]

One difference between d20 Star Wars and D&D is that in D&D, you eventually stop fighting orcs, at least, run of the mill orcs. In Star Wars, it's still sometimes necessary to mow down a dozen or so stormtroopers. It would be nice if 4e brought that back... it was still an element of AD&D, but by AD&D 2.5 or so and into 3.0, those poor orcs didn't really serve any purpose.

 

[Ant]

One way to fix it would be to remove the need to roll 20 saving throws when you hit a group of orcs with a fireball. I hope they did go in that direction.

But ... but surely you could just do one saving throw and apply it to the orcs? They're likely just mooks anyway. Please, please don't tell me that we need WotC to release a whole new edition of D&D to save us from thinking for ourselves.

One difference between d20 Star Wars and D&D is that in D&D, you eventually stop fighting orcs, at least, run of the mill orcs. In Star Wars, it's still sometimes necessary to mow down a dozen or so stormtroopers. It would be nice if 4e brought that back... it was still an element of AD&D, but by AD&D 2.5 or so and into 3.0, those poor orcs didn't really serve any purpose.

Again, I'm totally not understanding this. We need a new edition of D&D to allow us to fight mooks? My current group range from level 6 to level 12 and they still fight your basic, run-of-the-mill orc (see my previous post). It's great! The group loves it! They have fun! We're playing 3.5!

 

[pawsplay]

Again, I'm totally not understanding this. We need a new edition of D&D to allow us to fight mooks? My current group range from level 6 to level 12 and they still fight your basic, run-of-the-mill orc (see my previous post). It's great! The group loves it! They have fun! We're playing 3.5!

It's quite the side-excursion. They don't represent a real threat, and aren't worth a whole lot of XP. In Star Wars saga, they're still speed bumps, but you have to be a Jedi Master or something before stormtroopers really don't matter any more.

 

[Plane Sailing]

One thing that seems to come up in virtually every other preview is that 4e will have more monsters per encounter. Now maybe this is just because combat is streamlined and significantly faster... Maybe combat groups are stated out in the MM.

One aspect may be that there were various things that got in the way of larger groups in 3e... For example, you want an EL6 encounter? Well thats 1 CR 6 monster, or 2 CR 4s, or 4 CR 2s (approximately 2 CRs per doubling of number). Well, CR 2s are pretty weak against CR 6 PCs just in terms of to-hit power.

One of the biggest benefits they could bring would be to ditch the 'assumed four person party' and stat challenges on a 1-1 basis, thus making it easier to scale up for a party of any arbitrary size.

I believe that Star Wars Saga does something along these lines.

 

[Ant]

It's quite the side-excursion. They don't represent a real threat, and aren't worth a whole lot of XP. In Star Wars saga, they're still speed bumps, but you have to be a Jedi Master or something before stormtroopers really don't matter any more.

Ah, yes. A fair point. Still, a little planning can make even low CR monsters fun to kill (which, ultimately is the point of the exercise, I think).

With regards to XP, if you fold the orcs in with higher CR monsters then that solves this problem (or if you're DM is more disposed to granting story XP as well as monster-bashing XP). In the case of mixing low and high CR monsters, the orcs are also important because they become a resource drain on the good guys in battle. This can be particularly nasty if the DM is evil and insidious.