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

[Plane Sailing]

Just seen a thread which mentions

XP will be easier; no more comparing CR to party level to find out how much they're worth. CR is also gone, melded into monster level. To build an encounter, you determine the XP value you want, and then pick out monsters that total that XP value. This should also make it easier to modify encounters.

So presumably if you want your party of 4 10th level PCs to gain 1000xp each from a particular encounter, you know that you want 4000xp worth of monsters - which might work out as (guessing here) 200 goblins or 8 trolls or a mind flayer and 4 grimlocks etc. etc.

It sounds like it could be a really neat system for working out an appropriate threat level.

 

[Remathilis]

Not to be a cynic (since I like all the ideas 4e has thrown out but...)

Anyone else read "More monsters/dynamic settings" as "buy more minis and dungeon tiles?"

Sorry, returning to optimist mode...

 

[jmucchiello]

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!

{Scratches head} No, all my groups' combats involved multiple foes for the most part. 5 different DMs, 5 different observations that lone monsters are speed bumps against parties of 6. You spent an hour statting up on big foe only to watch him destroyed in 1 round once before you learned to always include support staff and other "champions" among the foes.

Any combat with less that 4 opponents, to me, is less thrilling. Now reducing the amount of work for the DM, I'm all for. (Though I'll have to unlearn all my old shortcuts to learn the new ones.) But sending a party of 6 against lone foes was never "normal" in my experience. And that's where I find the "change" not a change.

 

[pawsplay]

Just seen a thread which mentions



So presumably if you want your party of 4 10th level PCs to gain 1000xp each from a particular encounter, you know that you want 4000xp worth of monsters - which might work out as (guessing here) 200 goblins or 8 trolls or a mind flayer and 4 grimlocks etc. etc.

It sounds like it could be a really neat system for working out an appropriate threat level.

Well, it worked well for Basic D&D...

 

[Ogrork the Mighty]

I thought the problem was too many monsters and the inability of a single BBEG to stand up against a party, rather than too few monsters...

 

[SHARK]

Greetings!

Hmmm...so, what's with the complaints? More monsters in an encounter--so when did this become *new*?

In my 3.5E games, I have routinely used 30, 40, 50 or more orcs to attack a party of 12-20 members.

Or maybe a marauding force of 60 orcs, 18 ogres, 12 Human/Half-Black Dragon Fighters serving as mercenaries, led by a Human/Half Black Dragon Fighter/Cleric; while the overall force is led by an especially intelligent Ogre Barbarian, and his advisors of three Annis Hag lovers. Oh, and a pack of 15 Black Targants. (Medium to Large-sized Eight-legged, regenerating Dimetrodon-like creatures that have shimmering black scales.)

Fireballs unless hitting a leader character are used one roll for the group in the blast zone; i.e. (10 orcs and 2 ogres; and 1 half-dragon; the half dragon gets a separate save; the rest in the blast zone make a single save.)

The orcs use spears to form phalanxes, boxing pc's in, or otherwise controlling the battlefield; while the half-dragons sweep in from the flanks, and the ogres are held in reserve to make a crushing counterattack at the right moment; or alternatively, the orcs open ranks, and the melee begins with a ferocious charge by the ogres, with the orcs following, using phalanx tactics, as well as having 6 or a dozen or so hang back and act as archers, targeting pc wizards and clerics first.

Combats are always fun, wild, and crazy. The gang loves them! When do people just fight *one* creature? I mean, yeah, it happens when it's appropriate, but I have never felt constrained to *NOT* use larger numbers of creatures, or mix them up, as in the example above.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

 

[Droogie]

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.

Thats exactly how it works. A CL 1 enemy is a challenge for a single 1st level character, not for a party of 4.

The CL is more dynamic, too. If the enemy made good use of cover or other tactic that made things more difficult for the heroes, the rules suggest bumping it up a point.

 

[der_kluge]

3rd edition characters scale up in power exponentially. A 10th level character is not twice as powerful as a 5th level character. He's exponentially more powerful.

That makes the CR system complicated. Perhaps they've found a way to make a 10th level character only twice as powerful as a 5th level character. That will go a long way towards solving the problem right there.

 

[Zoatebix]

...
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.

My sentiments exactly. D&D should return all the ingredients from GURPS:Vehicles' kitchen and start shopping at Spirit-of-the-Century Mart.

 

[Frostmarrow]

I hope monsters haven't learned how to routinely heal each other. Combats will last forever!