Favorite Combat opponents.
- Thread starter tjoneslo
- Start date
jmucchiello
Hero
Depends on the size of the party. At 2-4 characters, a single BBEG can be good but at 5+ a single BBEG will lose even to inferior forces. So at around the 4 party size I like equal numbers of opponents. As the party grows, the number of opponents should grow faster and as the party shrinks, the number of opponents should shrink faster. Even a group of 6 characters can handle double to triple their size in forces better than a group of 5 characters can.
fanboy2000
Adventurer
Tactical, my group loves them, and I enjoy running them. Also, I've found that thouse combats take longer, with out nesesarly using up more than 20% of the party's resources.
Li Shenron
Legend
I voted "any", as diversity on the long run is the winner 
The party vs one big creature is simple and leaves little to strategy, since each PC is just trying to using his best features. However it is good for those moments when you actually prefer something not too much tactic-intensive.
Party vs horde of cannot fodder is also nice because it sometimes make the characters feel powerful as they wade through the enemies defenses to reach the BBEG. The real drawback is that it could be very hard for the DM, so when it happens I often have to just skip the turn of a large part of the horde.
Party vs equal party has great strategic appeal, because each character generally has to "pick" his own target, only that the target which is weaker against your tricks usually has the tricks you are weakest against... so who do you take? Fighter vs fighter & wizard vs wizard or fighter vs wizard? Usually it's the most interesting combat situation, but with a serious drawback: if the opponent party is close to be on par with yours, death of some PCs is very likely (which just means that you cannot have a really matched party vs party combat every day), and if it is otherwise weaker it of course loses the appeal.
You can make the greatest use of this fights in campaigns with variants which allows for combat to end without real death more frequently.
The other 2 combats are much more rarer: one vs one (or "duel") only happens in very specific story circumstances, because letting one PC fight alone while the others do nothing is just unconvenient; the party+allies vs army (or "warfare") is very hard to run with core rules, and you definitely need some extra rules to make it work, and even then it is usually painful enough to make it happen only occasionally - not to mention that the whole D&D is focused on small-scale.
The party vs one big creature is simple and leaves little to strategy, since each PC is just trying to using his best features. However it is good for those moments when you actually prefer something not too much tactic-intensive.
Party vs horde of cannot fodder is also nice because it sometimes make the characters feel powerful as they wade through the enemies defenses to reach the BBEG. The real drawback is that it could be very hard for the DM, so when it happens I often have to just skip the turn of a large part of the horde.
Party vs equal party has great strategic appeal, because each character generally has to "pick" his own target, only that the target which is weaker against your tricks usually has the tricks you are weakest against... so who do you take? Fighter vs fighter & wizard vs wizard or fighter vs wizard? Usually it's the most interesting combat situation, but with a serious drawback: if the opponent party is close to be on par with yours, death of some PCs is very likely (which just means that you cannot have a really matched party vs party combat every day), and if it is otherwise weaker it of course loses the appeal.
You can make the greatest use of this fights in campaigns with variants which allows for combat to end without real death more frequently.
The other 2 combats are much more rarer: one vs one (or "duel") only happens in very specific story circumstances, because letting one PC fight alone while the others do nothing is just unconvenient; the party+allies vs army (or "warfare") is very hard to run with core rules, and you definitely need some extra rules to make it work, and even then it is usually painful enough to make it happen only occasionally - not to mention that the whole D&D is focused on small-scale.
Last edited:
Whisper72
Explorer
I voted overwhelming odds, though as a DM I like it best to throw a mixed bag. That is to say, bunches of mooks, some 'sergeants' and several higher powered foes. That way, all the PC's can shine in their own ways. The ones better at taking out enemy groups target the mooks, and those with more one-on-one skills head after the more powerful foes. IMHO makes for the nicest combats, especially if some of the more powerful foes are not easily recognizable as such.....
As GM I definitely prefer the equal number opponents; as player I'd say twice the party's number of weaker opponents is also good, 4-6 PCs vs 12 orcs, say, can be challenging and cool. A single powerful foe is NOT good to GM, either they die right away or they kill 1 (or several) PCs! No no no, not good! A huge horde of mooks can be good (though lengthy) as long as the mooks are still strong enough to challenge the PCs; like the DMG says, probably CR no more than 7 under the party level, which implies no more than about 16 mooks. Generally I've found that kind of horde-o-mooks fight work best with low-mid level PCs; ca 6th-8th level, above that either the Mooks can't hurt the PCs at all, or if the GM makes them elite mooks and uses a few tricks to up their damage output there's a huge risk of slaughtering the PCs.
I agree with Whisper that diversity is also good - a single BBEG of CR = party level backed up by a couple of sergeants and a squad of minor mooks can make a challenging & exciting battle. It's important that the BBEG not be too tough though, as I've said.
In 1e/2e my approach was "PCs - there's nothing they can't handle!" In 3e it's more like "PCs - if you think they might not be able to handle it, they can't..."
Partly it's my game group, although their tactics in moderate-challenge battles can be very good, some of the players have extremely shaky morale and their PCs will flee at the slightest sign of stiff resistance - in high-level Gygaxian D&D 'sligjhtest sign' prob means a dead PC or two - resulting in a cascade effect and lots of dead, non-recoverable PCs.
In 1e/2e my approach was "PCs - there's nothing they can't handle!" In 3e it's more like "PCs - if you think they might not be able to handle it, they can't..."
Partly it's my game group, although their tactics in moderate-challenge battles can be very good, some of the players have extremely shaky morale and their PCs will flee at the slightest sign of stiff resistance - in high-level Gygaxian D&D 'sligjhtest sign' prob means a dead PC or two - resulting in a cascade effect and lots of dead, non-recoverable PCs.
I'm actually surprised at the number of people who picked "any". I guess business is good.
It's been a while since I've GMed, and in the older D&D versions I would go with the overwhelming odds more frequently because it made for better combats. But the D20 system has changed combat enough that no longer seems the case.
It's been a while since I've GMed, and in the older D&D versions I would go with the overwhelming odds more frequently because it made for better combats. But the D20 system has changed combat enough that no longer seems the case.
Pielorinho
Iron Fist of Pelor
I agree that diversity is key: the same fight over and over can get really boring.
Last night I played one of the more interesting single-enemy fights I've done in awhile: 4 second-level PCs against a single 3rd-level tiefling wizard. Normally such a fight would be a massacre, but the wizard actually held her own for about five or six rounds, due to buffing and liberal use of webs and color sprays. I was surprised and gratified at how long she lasted, and at what a hurting she put on the PCs before going down
.
But normally I find it very difficult to challenge the PCs with a single enemy: a single enemy just has to be ridiculously powerful to present a real threat, in my experience.
Daniel
Last night I played one of the more interesting single-enemy fights I've done in awhile: 4 second-level PCs against a single 3rd-level tiefling wizard. Normally such a fight would be a massacre, but the wizard actually held her own for about five or six rounds, due to buffing and liberal use of webs and color sprays. I was surprised and gratified at how long she lasted, and at what a hurting she put on the PCs before going down
.But normally I find it very difficult to challenge the PCs with a single enemy: a single enemy just has to be ridiculously powerful to present a real threat, in my experience.
Daniel
Similar Threads
