• NOW LIVE! Into the Woods--new character species, eerie monsters, and haunting villains to populate the woodlands of your D&D games.

D&D 3E/3.5 Does 4e sound more D&Dish to you than 3e did?

Celebrim said:
Dr. Awkward: I find your responce to be internally contridictory, which I suppose is a natural result of wanting to have your cake and eat it to.?
I guess the goal is this:
A fight against dozens of mooks, that still have a reasonable chance of hurting and possibly overpowering the PCs (at least one of them), but still favouring the PCs if they fight smart enough. (a typical EL = PL to PL +2 encounter in 3rd Edition). That's pretty difficult to pull off in 3rd Edition. It might also not be really that what happened in 1st Edition (I don't know, I began with 3rd edition).

In 3rd edition, it will probably fail because to get to the desired encounter level with a dozen "mooks", you would need mooks with a CR 5 points below the partys. Unless they are all equipped with Wands of Magical Missiles, they are probably incapable of hurting the PCs except when rolling natural 20s, and will probably "power-attacked" to death due to their low ACs, and fail most saves against spells from the caster... I suspect that the attack and AC difference in 1st edition between 1st level to 6th level monster wasn't as high as in 3rd edition...
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Amphimir Míriel said:
Why? most combats in those books involve the two heroes fighting against overwhelming numbers of low-level mooks... As previously stated here and elsewhere, in 3.5 this approach either means the mooks are not a challenge at all or they are an almost guaranteed TPK.
Well, there's your explanation:
Fafhrd & Grey Mouser were able to overcome overwhelming numbers because they were no challenge to them. Extremely easy to model with 3E because you basically have to choose creatures with a CR about 8 levels lower than the pcs' levels if you want high numbers.

It should actually become more difficult to model using 4E because large numbers of mooks are supposed to continue being a challenge for the pc party :)
 

pemerton said:
I wasn't really setting out either to advocate for or against 4e (that depends very much on playstyle preference, I think) but I'm glad I succeeded in depicting it as having a coherent design logic. Thanks!

I didn't get the impression that you were taking up a positive or negative position. I was just happy to finally hear a take on 4e that made sense to me. So far it's been too many trees and not enough forest from the folks at WotC. I prefer a straightforward, logical explanation to dozens of tidbits and hints and rumours. So, thank you.
 

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
I guess the goal is this:
A fight against dozens of mooks, that still have a reasonable chance of hurting and possibly overpowering the PCs (at least one of them), but still favouring the PCs if they fight smart enough. (a typical EL = PL to PL +2 encounter in 3rd Edition).

In my opinion, before a mook is even a reasonable challenge, it has to hit in a straight up fight more often than 1:20 times. It doesn't have to be much more than that, because we can leverage a good set of rules to give additional advantages for overwhelming numbers, but it does need to be more than that. So that gives us a minimum standard for mookishness.

On the other hand, much better than that and we have to consider whether the mook is really a mook. By mook, people generally really mean something that they could have concievably fought at 1st level. Hill Giants might become the mooks of a high level game in any edition, but they don't really feel like mooks because at one point in the character's career they felt really uber. This is a very tight constraint, and it prevents us from using as a mook anything tougher than an ogre.

Effectively this means that if the game scales up much beyond 10th level, we are going to reach the point where mooks - even mooks as tough as ogres - present no real challenge. This is going to be even more true if at 1st level hordes of these mooks (rather than merely a few) are to be considered a challenge. It's impossible to make the mooks both absolutely weaker and absolutely stronger at the same time. Yes, you could scale the mooks abilities to the level of the PC's, but you can do this in any edition (you always fight 1st level orc warriors at level 1, and then mysteriously always fight elite 4th or 6th level orc warriors latter on).

That's pretty difficult to pull off in 3rd Edition. It might also not be really that what happened in 1st Edition (I don't know, I began with 3rd edition).

It's pretty difficult to pull off in any edition. The way 1st edition accomplished it in the ideal was to make significantly improving AC beyond what you had at 2nd level 'hard'. An armored character that could afford plate mail and shield, would see only small incremental improvements in his AC. AC's much better than -4 were difficult to achieve, so a character after 2nd level might reasonably expect only 6 or so improvements in his AC over the entire course of his career. Unfortunately, even an AC 2 was enough to protect him adequately from mooks, and upon obtaining anything better than AC 0 he was pretty much gold. You could cap out at -10 AC in a game that had gotten a little monte hall, but since Thac0 for monsters capped out at around 7, this still meant that some of the toughest monsters in the game would miss you on 80% of thier attacks. Few monsters by comparison had AC's higher than 2, and 5-6 was more typical, so high level fighters generally only missed on any of thier attacks on a 1. As a result, the expected damage taken in a fight was very low. Players did not have the expectation that any single fight with just about anything would seriously challenge them and the real terrors of the game were special effects - poison, level loss, etc. - that strongly encouraged you not to even risk the 1 in 20 chance of getting hit if you could manage it.

As you can see, 4e seems to be moving in the opposite direction. It remains to be seen if this is a real improvement. In any event, I'm quite confident that the math can't be 'fixed', because it is inherently tied to the systems chosen randomization device - the D20.

In 3rd edition, it will probably fail because to get to the desired encounter level with a dozen "mooks", you would need mooks with a CR 5 points below the party.

One thing that always bothered me was the tendency of 3rd edition players to treat CR/EL as a hard and fast rule rather than guidelines with known and even stated limitations. A DM that said, "According to the rules this was a EL 5 encounter, so I don't understand why it was too hard/too easy." doesn't get alot of sympathy from me. I think that 4e is going to make it much more explicit that ultimately, balance is up to the DM and not to the numbers of some system. IME, very low level mooks in large numbers yielded a EL according to the numbers much much higher than the actual challenge the encounter represented. I did not feel at all obligated to think that 32 orcs was necessarily a EL 9 encounter, when the reality was that for 9th level PC's it was closer to EL 5.

Unless they are all equipped with Wands of Magical Missiles, they are probably incapable of hurting the PCs except when rolling natural 20s

Level independent attacks are really interesting, and monsters which have level independent attacks (by that I mean that they represent some threat regardless of the level of the PCs), are one of the most valuable tools in a DM's arsenal precisely because they can reoccur as villains again and again over the course of the player's career.

I suspect that the attack and AC difference in 1st edition between 1st level to 6th level monster wasn't as high as in 3rd edition...

I'm not sure I can answer that in a simple way. AC didn't climb in 1st edition much, but AC doesn't necessarily climb in 3rd edition (especially 3.0) either. Attack bonus climbs really fast between 1/2 HD (kobolds) and 3+1 HD (bugbears) in first edition, but then levels off quickly compared to 3rd mainly because of the fact that most monsters had no strength scores. First edition also had facing, which made being surrounded more brutal than being flanked which was some limited help. More importantly, 1st edition had weapon vs. AC modifiers - but I was one of the few DMs that advocated thier use (in no small part because they could keep mooks dangerous). IME, first edition's rate of advancement was much slower, which meant more of your career was spent fighting orcs and such compared to 3rd edition, but other people with different experiences regarding the availability of treasure found 1st edition to be just as fast as 3rd.

I think the one sentence summary though is as much as has changed in the game, the problem has stayed the same. And, I don't see 4e changing that in any way. You can't give a 1st level mook attack bonus/hit points/damage that threatens the AC of a 7th or 10th level character and allows it to survive area of effect attacks from that level, and not have it be overwhelming to 1st level characters. You can't - especially if you are determined to let 1st level characters face hordes of mooks.
 

There should have been a poll with this.

My answer is: No. Very little of what WotC is pushing sounds like D&D to me.

Paizo, Necromancer Games, and Green Ronin (for example) "get" D&D. It seems to me, more and more, that WotC just doesn't "get it".

RC
 

Celebrim said:
In my opinion, before a mook is even a reasonable challenge, it has to hit in a straight up fight more often than 1:20 times. It doesn't have to be much more than that, because we can leverage a good set of rules to give additional advantages for overwhelming numbers, but it does need to be more than that. So that gives us a minimum standard for mookishness.

On the other hand, much better than that and we have to consider whether the mook is really a mook. By mook, people generally really mean something that they could have concievably fought at 1st level. Hill Giants might become the mooks of a high level game in any edition, but they don't really feel like mooks because at one point in the character's career they felt really uber. This is a very tight constraint, and it prevents us from using as a mook anything tougher than an ogre.

Effectively this means that if the game scales up much beyond 10th level, we are going to reach the point where mooks - even mooks as tough as ogres - present no real challenge. This is going to be even more true if at 1st level hordes of these mooks (rather than merely a few) are to be considered a challenge. It's impossible to make the mooks both absolutely weaker and absolutely stronger at the same time. Yes, you could scale the mooks abilities to the level of the PC's, but you can do this in any edition (you always fight 1st level orc warriors at level 1, and then mysteriously always fight elite 4th or 6th level orc warriors latter on).



It's pretty difficult to pull off in any edition. The way 1st edition accomplished it in the ideal was to make significantly improving AC beyond what you had at 2nd level 'hard'. An armored character that could afford plate mail and shield, would see only small incremental improvements in his AC. AC's much better than -4 were difficult to achieve, so a character after 2nd level might reasonably expect only 6 or so improvements in his AC over the entire course of his career. Unfortunately, even an AC 2 was enough to protect him adequately from mooks, and upon obtaining anything better than AC 0 he was pretty much gold. You could cap out at -10 AC in a game that had gotten a little monte hall, but since Thac0 for monsters capped out at around 7, this still meant that some of the toughest monsters in the game would miss you on 80% of thier attacks. Few monsters by comparison had AC's higher than 2, and 5-6 was more typical, so high level fighters generally only missed on any of thier attacks on a 1. As a result, the expected damage taken in a fight was very low. Players did not have the expectation that any single fight with just about anything would seriously challenge them and the real terrors of the game were special effects - poison, level loss, etc. - that strongly encouraged you not to even risk the 1 in 20 chance of getting hit if you could manage it.

As you can see, 4e seems to be moving in the opposite direction. It remains to be seen if this is a real improvement. In any event, I'm quite confident that the math can't be 'fixed', because it is inherently tied to the systems chosen randomization device - the D20.



One thing that always bothered me was the tendency of 3rd edition players to treat CR/EL as a hard and fast rule rather than guidelines with known and even stated limitations. A DM that said, "According to the rules this was a EL 5 encounter, so I don't understand why it was too hard/too easy." doesn't get alot of sympathy from me. I think that 4e is going to make it much more explicit that ultimately, balance is up to the DM and not to the numbers of some system. IME, very low level mooks in large numbers yielded a EL according to the numbers much much higher than the actual challenge the encounter represented. I did not feel at all obligated to think that 32 orcs was necessarily a EL 9 encounter, when the reality was that for 9th level PC's it was closer to EL 5.



Level independent attacks are really interesting, and monsters which have level independent attacks (by that I mean that they represent some threat regardless of the level of the PCs), are one of the most valuable tools in a DM's arsenal precisely because they can reoccur as villains again and again over the course of the player's career.



I'm not sure I can answer that in a simple way. AC didn't climb in 1st edition much, but AC doesn't necessarily climb in 3rd edition (especially 3.0) either. Attack bonus climbs really fast between 1/2 HD (kobolds) and 3+1 HD (bugbears) in first edition, but then levels off quickly compared to 3rd mainly because of the fact that most monsters had no strength scores. First edition also had facing, which made being surrounded more brutal than being flanked which was some limited help. More importantly, 1st edition had weapon vs. AC modifiers - but I was one of the few DMs that advocated thier use (in no small part because they could keep mooks dangerous). IME, first edition's rate of advancement was much slower, which meant more of your career was spent fighting orcs and such compared to 3rd edition, but other people with different experiences regarding the availability of treasure found 1st edition to be just as fast as 3rd.

I think the one sentence summary though is as much as has changed in the game, the problem has stayed the same. And, I don't see 4e changing that in any way. You can't give a 1st level mook attack bonus/hit points/damage that threatens the AC of a 7th or 10th level character and allows it to survive area of effect attacks from that level, and not have it be overwhelming to 1st level characters. You can't - especially if you are determined to let 1st level characters face hordes of mooks.
Very interesting read (especially for the historical perspective :) )

A few points:
1) CR/EL Guidelines
I know that the CR/EL guidelines are just guidelines, but the problem is that I find it very hard to go beyond these guidelines and "guesstimate" the appropriate challenge if I diverse to much from the typical ratings. I am very happy with the fact that so far, I seldomly seem to underestimate the challenge of encounters, and I think I also have rarely overestimate it. There are a few things I know will not not work as powerful as suggested (any "big brute" monster that is not a dragon against a party is rarely worth its full CR, for example)

2) Mooks
If mooks are only the weak monsters of the beginning of your career, you're probably correct that D&D will never be able to get them dangerous.
If mooks are just defined as "considerably weaker and appearing in high numbers to compensate", I think there is a larger window of what is possible. If you reduce the amount the numbers increase each level, monsters stay viable longer. They might deal a damage points and suffer hard from area affect attacks, but I think that's okay for mook fights. The important point is that there hit/success chances must be noticeably higher than 5 % (20-30% are probably enough).
If monsters can even inherently be designed to be mooks (=> minions in D&D 4?), the system works even better. They might have a CR/Level/Rank equal to that of the PCs, but they are still inferior in the damage dealing or survival department, so they pose a threat only in great numbers. 3rd Edition has no real mechanics suited for this, though you might be able to replicate it if you arbitrarily give monsters low constitution scores and very weak attacks, yet keep the HD comparable to that of the PCs. Or you just decide to arbitrarily half damage and hit points of a monster.
 

MerricB said:
Does 4e sound more D&Dish to you than 3e did?

Yes. I'm getting less of a 'constructionist' vibe and more of a 'sense of wonder vibe' which is reminding me of my early D&D days.

Of course, it is very early days yet, with just a few rumours around - when the details finally arrive I might find that I depart from this view!

Cheers
 

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
I know that the CR/EL guidelines are just guidelines, but the problem is that I find it very hard to go beyond these guidelines and "guesstimate" the appropriate challenge if I diverse to much from the typical ratings.

Old school players had to eyeball these things. We welcome the guidelines, but we can always still eyeball if we have to.

There are a few things I know will not not work as powerful as suggested (any "big brute" monster that is not a dragon against a party is rarely worth its full CR, for example)

I'm not sure I fully agree. I do agree that any single monster that loses its initiative roll is going to be in trouble, especially one with a low AC. Brutes do fine in some circumstances, and less well in others. I've seen giants of various sorts just level parties. My main experience is that non-monsterous NPC's are rarely worth thier full CR.

If mooks are only the weak monsters of the beginning of your career, you're probably correct that D&D will never be able to get them dangerous. If mooks are just defined as "considerably weaker and appearing in high numbers to compensate", I think there is a larger window of what is possible.

If mooks are defined that way, then I'm not sure there is anything like a problem. IME, one attribute of CR system is that as CR of an individual monster increases, doubling the number of monsters increases the actual EL by a greater incremental amount. For a 5th level party, doubling them number of a CR 1 creatures they encounter doesn't really increase EL by +2. For a 10th level party, doubling the number of CR 6 creatures comes much closer than increasing EL by +2, and by the time you get to CR 20, doubling the number of CR 16 may actually increase EL more than two.

In the case of something like a CR 12 monstrous foe, that might first be reasonable as a BBEG around 9th level, its going to be a long time before a party fully outgrows the challenge it presents. I think if by mooks you merely mean CR between -6 and -8 of party level, once the party level gets high enough we've got no problems in 3rd edition with challenge per se. If a mook encounter means '16 Mature Adult White Dragons', or '16 11-headed Pyrohyras', or '16 Abyssal Greater Basilisks', or '32 level 12 clerics', '16 Krakens', or '32 Collosal Monsterous Scorpions erupting out of the cavern walls all around you' then I think your problem won't necessarily be challenge, but the fact that such an encounter is a) ungodly complex, and b) potentially breaks versimilitude wide open to reduce such supposedly rare and awesome foes to the role of mooks. At high levels, attack bonuses tend to overwhelm AC's.

3rd Edition has no real mechanics suited for this, though you might be able to replicate it if you arbitrarily give monsters low constitution scores and very weak attacks, yet keep the HD comparable to that of the PCs. Or you just decide to arbitrarily half damage and hit points of a monster.

I get the feeling that part of the reason the 1st edition crowd might feel less constrained by 3rd edition is that we are much happier fudging the rules. Fourth edition might be a welcome break for you if only it says, "You are the DM. Rules are there to be broken."

In I3 Pyramid (my conversion available in the Library), Hickman plays fast and lose with the 1st edition rules to achieve the very effect you are going for. He has an encounter with 5HD monsters (in this case humans without class levels!), wherein most of them have fewer than 10 and often as little as 1 hp. The result is an encounter where the foes have a decent chance of hitting, but drop very quickly. That is what passed for elegant design in 1st edition.

I don't think you have to bend the rules that much, but really you are the DM - you can give the monster however many hit points you want. DMs don't cheat. The only thing that a DM can do that is 'cheating' is remove the fun from the game. (Note: often DM fudging does remove the fun from the game. With great power comes great responsibility.)

What would be wrong with taking some low CR opponents and writing?

'Really Sharp Claws' (Ex): This monster gets a +5 bonus to attack.

or

'Really Strong Jaws' (Ex): This monster does +3 damage.

Problem solved?

Well, sorta. Because we are still breaking the simulation. We might as well have made all the new orcs 7th level warriors, or whatever. But if all you want is a mook and you don't want to worry about it, something like that works.
 

Celebrim said:
Old school players had to eyeball these things. We welcome the guidelines, but we can always still eyeball if we have to.



I'm not sure I fully agree. I do agree that any single monster that loses its initiative roll is going to be in trouble, especially one with a low AC. Brutes do fine in some circumstances, and less well in others. I've seen giants of various sorts just level parties. My main experience is that non-monsterous NPC's are rarely worth thier full CR.



If mooks are defined that way, then I'm not sure there is anything like a problem. IME, one attribute of CR system is that as CR of an individual monster increases, doubling the number of monsters increases the actual EL by a greater incremental amount. For a 5th level party, doubling them number of a CR 1 creatures they encounter doesn't really increase EL by +2. For a 10th level party, doubling the number of CR 6 creatures comes much closer than increasing EL by +2, and by the time you get to CR 20, doubling the number of CR 16 may actually increase EL more than two.

In the case of something like a CR 12 monstrous foe, that might first be reasonable as a BBEG around 9th level, its going to be a long time before a party fully outgrows the challenge it presents. I think if by mooks you merely mean CR between -6 and -8 of party level, once the party level gets high enough we've got no problems in 3rd edition with challenge per se. If a mook encounter means '16 Mature Adult White Dragons', or '16 11-headed Pyrohyras', or '16 Abyssal Greater Basilisks', or '32 level 12 clerics', '16 Krakens', or '32 Collosal Monsterous Scorpions erupting out of the cavern walls all around you' then I think your problem won't necessarily be challenge, but the fact that such an encounter is a) ungodly complex, and b) potentially breaks versimilitude wide open to reduce such supposedly rare and awesome foes to the role of mooks. At high levels, attack bonuses tend to overwhelm AC's.



I get the feeling that part of the reason the 1st edition crowd might feel less constrained by 3rd edition is that we are much happier fudging the rules. Fourth edition might be a welcome break for you if only it says, "You are the DM. Rules are there to be broken."

In I3 Pyramid (my conversion available in the Library), Hickman plays fast and lose with the 1st edition rules to achieve the very effect you are going for. He has an encounter with 5HD monsters (in this case humans without class levels!), wherein most of them have fewer than 10 and often as little as 1 hp. The result is an encounter where the foes have a decent chance of hitting, but drop very quickly. That is what passed for elegant design in 1st edition.

I don't think you have to bend the rules that much, but really you are the DM - you can give the monster however many hit points you want. DMs don't cheat. The only thing that a DM can do that is 'cheating' is remove the fun from the game. (Note: often DM fudging does remove the fun from the game. With great power comes great responsibility.)

What would be wrong with taking some low CR opponents and writing?

'Really Sharp Claws' (Ex): This monster gets a +5 bonus to attack.

or

'Really Strong Jaws' (Ex): This monster does +3 damage.

Problem solved?

Well, sorta. Because we are still breaking the simulation. We might as well have made all the new orcs 7th level warriors, or whatever. But if all you want is a mook and you don't want to worry about it, something like that works.
I totally agree with you that I always had th eoptions. But because they weren't presented in the 3rd edition Core Rulebooks, and I was an inexperienced DM by the time i started the game, it didn't occur to me many years later that I could do what I want if I kept a healthy sense of fairness with it. So, I think it's nice that they are putting rules or guidelines for this in the 4th edition rulebook, so that stupid and/or overtly "lawful" people like me immediately see their oppertunities. :)
 


Into the Woods

Remove ads

Top