How to run encounters with oversized parties

[Blackbrrd]

I have been running a few sessions with parties of 6-8 players.

At first I added an extra enemy per player over 5, but that made the encounters really swingy.

My second attempt was to change one enemy from normal to elite per extra player. I usually went for the soldier or brute, and once for a swarm. This works out very nicely. Area of effect powers aren't overpowered and the monsters get to do their thing. It is also less work for me as a DM.

My "quick" way of making an elite is just to double hp, add two to all defenses and two to hit.

 

[baberg]

Is there a reason you didn't follow the DMG "XP Budget" to figure out how many XP to add when there's different amounts of players?

I run a game that is usually 5 players, sometimes 6 and sometimes 4. When I prep the game I decide the overall level of the encounter, and from that XP total I determine how many of each creature I'll have within the XP budget for 4, 5, or 6 players. At gametime I just put out the minis that I see in that chart and I know I've got a balanced encounter.

 

[Blackbrrd]

I did follow the DMG XP Budget.

An elite = 2x the xp of a normal mob of the same level.

So if you have 5x level2 creatures (5x125=600xp) and makes one of them an elite you get 4x125+1x250=725xp. Exactly the same as adding an additional mob. The difference is that you don't have to run an additional mob, and the controller doesn't get overpowered.

 

[the Jester]

At first I added an extra enemy per player over 5, but that made the encounters really swingy.

That's weird, adding an additional monster per player ought to work fine without increasing swinginess. What made the combats you ran this way swingier? I have a large group too, and I'm always looking for insights that I may have missed regarding large-party gaming.

 

[KarinsDad]

That's weird, adding an additional monster per player ought to work fine without increasing swinginess. What made the combats you ran this way swingier? I have a large group too, and I'm always looking for insights that I may have missed regarding large-party gaming.

It's a number of foes issue.

Encounters do not typically line up:

NPC1 vs. PC1
NPC2 vs. PC2
NPC3 vs. PC3
NPC4 vs. PC4

Instead, they often end up (at least temporarily):

NPC1 and NPC2 vs. PC1
NPC3 and NPC4 vs. PC2
Nobody vs. PC3 and PC4

or some such.

When one increases the number of participants on each side, this can become:

NPC1 and NPC2 and NPC3 and NPC4 vs. PC1
NPC5 and NPC6 and NPC7 and NPC8 vs. PC2
Nobody vs. PC3 and PC4 and PC5 and PC6 and PC7 and PC8

Now, this is a bit of an extreme example, but it illustrates the point. The more enemies that there are, the greater the number of enemies might be attacking a given PC.


Our group just increased to 6 PCs, so I am very interested in this topic and possible solutions to issues found with it.

 

[Pour]

Also looking for insight into this topic since I just allowed 8 players into my live game.

Fate happened to take care of the initial threat of an underpowered encounter, though. Only 6 were able to attend the last session and they ended up pitted against a standard encounter 1 level above them. That might have been an easy fight, but for some cosmic strangeness I rolled 7 natural 20's and nearly wiped their party...

I'm considering the 1/2 HP and increased damage method some people have been doing.

 

[Imaginary Number]

My game typically has between six and eight players each session. I've found that the DMG XP budget system has worked very well, with a couple of caveats. First, in designing encounters you need to resist the temptation to fill up your budget with monsters above the party's level, particularly solos. As has been mentioned elsewhere, encounters with solo monsters can become "grindy" because the PCs can have difficulty hitting the solo's defenses and because the solo's attacks do not do enough damage to wear down a PCs hit points quickly. That problem becomes even worse with larger parties, when the PCs still individually have problems getting around the defenses and the monster has to divide its attacks among even more PCs. Putting in more regular monsters of the party's level works best in my experience; although the monsters then have more opportunities to focus fire on a single PC, as KarinsDad pointed out, even my non-tactically-minded players usually manage to arrange themselves on the mat such that the defenders, who can take the heat for a round or two, are the subject of the focused attacks. Second, and more obviously, you need increase the physical size of your encounter areas to accommodate the additional PCs and monsters. Particularly in published adventures, the encounters areas as written are too small to hold larger than average groups of PCs and monsters without overcrowding.

 

[KarinsDad]

Second, and more obviously, you need increase the physical size of your encounter areas to accommodate the additional PCs and monsters. Particularly in published adventures, the encounters areas as written are too small to hold larger than average groups of PCs and monsters without overcrowding.

Good point.

 

[evilbob]

First, in designing encounters you need to resist the temptation to fill up your budget with monsters above the party's level ... Putting in more regular monsters of the party's level works best in my experience...

I have to admit I completely disagree with this advice. I also ran large games for a while and I also tried to "fix" the problems associated with them by increasing the total monsters on the board with equal-level additions. I have come to the conclusion that this is a bad idea. My battles weren't "swingy" necessarily - but they took forever.

A much better idea is to lower the total number of monsters and raise the monsters' level slightly. Three n+3 monsters against 6 PCs makes a much, MUCH better battle than six n monsters. Part of the issue is the grind: more monsters = more total HP the PCs have to slog through. Fewer monsters that are higher level = fewer total HP but monsters still stay dangerous.

I think the OP's idea of making one monster elite is a great one. That may even be easier than making several monsters a higher level, depending on the encounter.

 

[Imaginary Number]

I maintain my position despite evilbob's objection, although our disagreement may be nothing more than a difference in preferred playstyle. The default encounter in 4e involves one monster per PC (or more if you use minions). The OP and evilbob assert that this default causes problems with large parties of PCs, either because the encounters become swingy when the number of combatants increases or because the resolution of the encounters takes forever. The strategy of throwing a smaller number of monsters that are more powerful than the default encounter calls for against a large party has the effect of reducing the number of actions the monsters have in a given round and therefore indeed can limit the monsters' ability to swing the encounter in their favor and shorten the combat. My response is that, in my experience with running adventures with large parties, the default 4e encounter design works just fine in practice and that there are no problems in need of fixing. The default encounter works well because 4e monsters have different roles that are designed to synergize with one another; if some of those roles are missing because the DM regularly uses fewer monsters relative to the number of PCs, the DM's ability to use those monsters effectively to create interesting encounters for the PCs likewise will be limited. My alternate strategy for avoiding grindy combats is to have reasonably intelligent monsters retreat or flee when the encounter obviously is going against them, but YMMV.