As a player/DM do you prefer one powerful monster or many weaker ones?

[dreaded_beast]

As I get more experience DMing I find that I have a much easier time, as well as a much more enjoyable one, running (when compared to the adventuring party) a "relatively" powerful monster, instead of many weaker monsters.

As a player however, I sometimes enjoy being able to kill a horde of weaker foes, but I still prefer killing a single "powerful" creature.

What are your preferences?

 

[Telperion]

As a DM I used to create dangerous encounters by playing with big, strong and very versatile monsters. Like a 12th level vampire monk, or something like that...

Then I started to realize that the world can't really be heavily populated by such creatures, and started using weaker creatures. These days the greatest pleasure comes out of playing smart, but weak, antagonists. It's a real pleasure to set a 4th level wizard, and say four CR 1 - 2 aberrations, agaisnt my players. They are currently around level 8, so they can handle themselves without a great deal of problem, but after a good fight they usually don't believe me if I happen to let slip how low-power that wizard really was.

There's some great utility in low-level NPC's and I enjoy using those much more than having to sit infront of my computer for 1 - 2 hours creating a lich with a boat load of spell casting and other abilities. Then the party cleric rolls a good Turn Undead check, and the lich is destroyed during the 1st round of combat .

So, I tend to create lower level antagonists and instead spend some time thinking about valid tactics and personalities. This hobby gets more enjoyable every year =).

 

[ltclnlbrain]

While it is certainly easier to run a single powerful monster against a party, you run the risk of it actually not lasting very long at all. Especially at higher levels with all those save or die spells flying back and forth, it only takes one poor roll for the monster to go down without much of a fight. A solitary monster also gives the players the opportunity to gang up on it and bring it down quickly.

For these reason, I usually prefer running several slightly less powerful monsters of differing abilities at once, usually about 3 or 4. This tends to draw out the encounters so that they don't end within a round or two, and it also gives the players more tactical choices as they much decide which foes to concentrate on and allow the use of skills like Tumble and feats like Mobility to manuever around a more crowded battlefield.

 

[Zappo]

I like running single powerful creatures, but I also use plenty of weak foes. Basically, I use whatever makes sense.

 

[blargney the second]

Then I started to realize that the world can't really be heavily populated by such creatures, and started using weaker creatures. These days the greatest pleasure comes out of playing smart, but weak, antagonists.

So, I tend to create lower level antagonists and instead spend some time thinking about valid tactics and personalities. This hobby gets more enjoyable every year =).

I really like this approach, Telperion! I've been doing something similar while preparing my upcoming campaign, although I hadn't considered heavily the roleplaying benefits to be had from focussing on an antagonist's strategies.

-blarg

 

[Sejs]

I like quantity over quality. It's been my experience that a single powerful baddie tends to get gangbanged into submission pretty quickly. Which usually leads to a less than satisfying grueling-battle type experience.

Big, powerful badguy type with a sampler pack of mooks also in tow, however... that's more like it.

 

[kamosa]

A mixture of both is appropriate for any campaign. IMHO there are more flaws with running single large creatures than running lots of low level creatures. The big one that usually comes up is that magic is usually either really powerful or really lame when there is only one opponent.

A lot of spells tend to disable a single target in some fashion. Either entangle them, blind them, or stun them. If these spells work against a single oponent, than the combat is lame. If they never work, playing a spell caster gets really frustrating really quickly. There doesn't seem to be a happy middle ground either, so it's tough.

For this reason I like to run more combats with multiple opponents than combats with a single BEBG.

 

[BiggusGeekus]

Both is always good.

However, PCs will tend to swarm over one big foe and it is easier to sow confusion with lots of little foes.

 

[Wombat]

Depends on my needs.

I often have a single Big Bad that the group will eventually take on (end of the whole campaign), but a couple times it has been a Big Bad Collective as well.

Mixing it up is probably the best way as it forces the players to think in many different ways about how to handle obstacles; I also like presenting them with "unkillable" monsters, critters they cannot (at least currently) handle who they have to figure out a way around rather than trying to kill.

Tangental thought: I wonder just how many monsters the average character has killed on his/her way to, say, 10th level? The reproduction rates of orcs and goblins must be staggering and there must be whole schools of necromancers out there that do nothing except churn out more skeletons and zombies...

 

[two]

I am strongly against Party vs. one opponent fights.

I think, in general, they fall into the trap of "TPK or Cakewalk".

i.e. party monk gets initiative, grapples evil sorcerer at start of first round -- it's all downhill after that.

or, party enchanter feebleminds, BBEG fails save, done. Wow. Fun.

Or, evil sorcerer has a few rounds to prep (or simply wins initiative) and puts up spell defenses. Then Gates in pals to keep people busy, eventually easily winning.

I just don't think there are any winners. It's very tough for the GM to judge these types of fights, and it's not much fun for players most of the time (enemy is either very hard to hit and hurt, or has a weakness which is exploited boringly).

The best fights I've ever been in have involved not a monster of CRX, rather 2-3 of CR X-2 or X-1. Or a nice mix. That way, the fighters can use their tactical feats with some effect; spell casters can be successful without ending the encounter; battles last longer than 2 rounds; TPK/Cakewalk possibilities much diminished.