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

[F4NBOY]

They really should put Iron Heroes on the "previews" list, alongside Bo9S and SWSE.

 

[ThirdWizard]

Iron Heroes Zones are awesome. I wrote this one for my very first Iron Heroes game:

Vat of Liquid Lead (Action Zone): Strength check DC 10 to overturn a vat of boiling lead in the center of the room. 5d6 fire damage Reflex DC 20 for half in a cone 10’ long. Anyone walking into the area the round after it has been spilled must make a DC 10 Balance check or fall prone and suffer 1d6 fire damage.

I made sure to tell the players that pushing over the vat would cover anyone nearby in the boiling liquid lead, but there were no takers. So, after giving them plenty of time, the NPCs pushed it. They've been eager to use Zones ever since, for some reason.

So, I'm all about Zone-like implementations in 4e.

On the monster group front: monsters have never really been designed with group synergy in mind. There's no real effects that monsters have that make them work well together, not like a PC group anyway. So, unless they're classes like a PC party, they don't have those cool mixing and matching abilities.

So, I'm guessing they'll have monsters to fill roles. You'll have perhaps leader-like monsters that command troops with group buffing abilities perhaps, or maybe something that can naturally heal - something that says "Use me with a group!" That's what it sounds like to me. So, in 4e maybe ogres will have some kind of "Fear me more than them" ability that makes their orc minions go into a frenzy or something like that.

Also I'm hoping for "classed but not really classed" monsters that have some of the cool class abilities without having being that class. Kind of like the monsters that "cast as an X level sorcerer" in 3e, but with just a few abilities. Maybe a goblinoid shaman type monster with eldritch blast and cure light wounds or something along those lines. That would be very cool.

 

[Victim]

I don't really agree with their explanation that older editions had fewer monsters per encounter. Based on the adventures I've played, 2e had much more foes per battle than 3e.

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.

 

[Kraydak]

Iron Heroes Zones are awesome. I wrote this one for my very first Iron Heroes game:

Vat of Liquid Lead (Action Zone): Strength check DC 10 to overturn a vat of boiling lead in the center of the room. 5d6 fire damage Reflex DC 20 for half in a cone 10’ long. Anyone walking into the area the round after it has been spilled must make a DC 10 Balance check or fall prone and suffer 1d6 fire damage.

I made sure to tell the players that pushing over the vat would cover anyone nearby in the boiling liquid lead, but there were no takers. So, after giving them plenty of time, the NPCs pushed it. They've been eager to use Zones ever since, for some reason.

And that is why I, personally, strongly dislike the IH zones. I see a str check DC 10 to overturn vat of boiling lead and I think 1d6 damage in a 10' cone (maybe 2d6, because damage in DnD is wonky and scaling to 1st level characters causes issues), ref DC 10 negates. We aren't talking that much lead here. Oh, and 1d4 fire damage to person touching the vat to spill it, no save.

I remember one IH action zone somewhere fairly official that make a *bucket on a rope* more dangerous than a spiked chain. I fear plate glass windows that somehow do more damage to someone jumping through them than a greatsword wielded by a strong man. And somehow hit through full plate...

Simply, if action zones were so good, why would people use weapons? If they can't compare with weapons, why would be use action zones? There will be appropriate times for such things, but those times won't come often. I hate the idea of action zones having an effect far out of scale with their nature, or being activatable with extremely easy DCs, just because its "cool".

-Kraydak

 

[MerricB]

What I don't understand is how multiple monsters per encounter is new. I'm use to 6-player parties and when you send one monster against 6 PCs, combat lasts 1 round maybe 1.5 rounds. Either the monster is taken out quickly or a TPK happens because the monster is too good. There very little area in between that yields a meaningful battle lasting several rounds. No, you must have other monsters around to support the main foe just like the players need each other to support one another.

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!

 

[F4NBOY]

I believe that by what they've said, you can put more monsters and different monsters with less trouble and more harmony between them.

So when they say 4E will have more monsters per encounter, they mean "you will want and will be able to put more monsters in your encounters, instead of "you can put more monsters in your encounters.

 

[Zurai]

I hope encounters are simply like this:
You have 4 5th level characters, that means 20 lvls of power. If you want a hard encounter(50% chances of winnings for both sides) just put 20 1st lvl monsters, or 10 2nd level monsters.
If you want an easy/moderate encounter(75% of winning for the PC side) just put half of that, like 3 3rd lvl monsters plus a 1st level monster=10 lvls.
I don't know if something like this would be possible to achieve, but it would make creating encounter damn easy!

So a level 20 wizard is an appropriate challenge for 4 level 5 characters?

Yeah, I thought not.

 

[ThirdWizard]

And that is why I, personally, strongly dislike the IH zones. I see a str check DC 10 to overturn vat of boiling lead and I think 1d6 damage in a 10' cone (maybe 2d6, because damage in DnD is wonky and scaling to 1st level characters causes issues), ref DC 10 negates. We aren't talking that much lead here. Oh, and 1d4 fire damage to person touching the vat to spill it, no save.

I don't see the problem. I created the Zone, and you would create yours. There's no rule I used to determine the damage and such. The point is that it gives the PCs something interactive in the world around them with a solid benefit behind it.

 

[F4NBOY]

So a level 20 wizard is an appropriate challenge for 4 level 5 characters?

Yeah, I thought not.

No, but maybe 4 5th level monsters would be a good challenge against a 20th lvl character.
We don't know yet how the power scales through out the 30 levels.
Stay tuned!

 

[Kraydak]

I don't see the problem. I created the Zone, and you would create yours. There's no rule I used to determine the damage and such. The point is that it gives the PCs something interactive in the world around them with a solid benefit behind it.

In DnD, if I'm swinging a sword, I don't have to worry about the DM going "oh, I think swords are overrated, greatswords should do d6+str, not 2d6+1.5str". If someone is shooting a longbow at me, I don't have to worry about the DM going "the english were cool at Agincourt, longbows do 4d6 damage and ignore armor".

Unlike weapon damage and spells, action zones are inherently unstandardized. They are designed by people who think they are cool (why bother, else). They are designed by people who *want* them to work, to be used, and to be effective. This results in their stats being out of whack with their description.

I, as a player, do NOT want to have to second guess just how cool the DM thinks something is, so as to know if I should use an action zone. I, as a player, do not want to get penalized for knowing that boiling lead was beyond European ability until very, very recently (and certainly involved enough apparatus to make spilling it virtually impossible). I don't want to get penalized for knowing that to cover a 10' cone .5 inches deep takes about 500 lb of lead. (ok, that last did take some quick calculations, but my first guess was 400lb). I'm not counting the weight of the "vat" in that.

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. Were I a player in your game who got hit by that vat of lead, I'd feel like you "forgot" to mention that the axe wielding guy was *actually* a 20' giant, not a kobold, like all the other guys in the room. That has been my reaction to *every* (only 3 or 5ish, admittedly) action zone I've ever seen written up. Players need accurate descriptions of the world they are interacting with, because thats all the information they get. If a given mechanic cannot be described accurately, it should not be used. If, when you describe an action zone, you detail the mechanics behind it, more power to you, and I withdraw some of my complaints (although I'd expect arguements over what the mechanics realistically should be).

-Kraydak