Making combat more challenging: increase monster level or monster number?

[Infiniti2000]

All of these apply to the 4 encounters in 1 situation that you were just saying was suckage. The only difference is using Encounters once each instead of four times each. The At Wills and Dailies and Skill Usage is the same.

Once each, yes, and that equates to a huge difference in percentage over the total number of rounds. So, when the encounters are spaced out, the percentage = not suck (e.g. 2/6), but if you allow no rest then the percentage = suck (e.g. 2/24).

 

[Herschel]

Variety is the spice of life. I love throwing a higher level soldier or two in the mix every now and then to shake them out of just assuming they hit on an 8. Suddenly charging, combat advantage and buffs get a LOT more attention. Other times, a few waves of minions to flank for lurkers and such are fun. I detest games where it turns in to most encounters just seeing who can out-pound the other in damage-per-round contests.

 

[Ryujin]

Well, if 'more monsters' comes to you before 'more hazards' than you should be introducing more hazards. Hazards make an encounter more memorable, and introduce challenges beyond a series of combat stats.

As well, sometimes players can commandeer certain hazard/traps and that's just awesome and fun to do some times.

Even simple things like terrain that's advantageous to the opposition can turn a simple battle into a tough one. Put the artillery on high ground, so that they're tough to reach. Why would the Controller/Leader put himself in the thick of it, when he could find a place that gives a view of the whole battlefield? Have the Soldiers set up on the other side of difficult terrain, so that the characters have to work just in order to get to them.

In most cases the opposition got their first, so they get to choose the battlefield.

 

[cmbarona]

I hear a lot of people advocating for using traps/hazards. That's all good and well, but I honestly consider that to fall under the "more monsters" category since they are treated like monsters for the purposes of incorporating them into encounters. Or am I misinterpreting the intent of these posts?

 

[Dr_Ruminahui]

Well, that may or may not be correct - certainly for traps they count towards to the XP budget and are analogous to monsters. Hazards, on the other hand, are not. So, making the hazards more favorable to the monsters or more dangerous to the PCs has an effect on the encounter that isnt reflected by the xp budget.

For me, I will typically play more (rather than tougher monsters), but not always. In cases where I want one of the combatants to appear noticeably stronger than his cohorts, I will tend to up the level of that particular monster. Additionally, upping the level of the BBEG really helps him feel nastier. That said, it may lead to more grind, which just means you need to do other things to make the encounter more interesting - which is where terrain and hazards come in.

 

[DracoSuave]

I hear a lot of people advocating for using traps/hazards. That's all good and well, but I honestly consider that to fall under the "more monsters" category since they are treated like monsters for the purposes of incorporating them into encounters. Or am I misinterpreting the intent of these posts?

Traps and Hazards are doohickies that make the combat allow for interactions outside of the powers standpoint. Including them allows for more improvisation and can change a combat from 'Hit the dragon till it dies' to 'Hit the dragon, but try to knock him into that tesla coil, and try not to stand where he can return the favor.'

The big difference between Traps and Monsters as that traps actually -change- how the encounter is played by their existance... the players can often subvert traps and hazards to their own benefit, meaning that just having one sit there gives the players the option to play a game other than 'flank it til it dies.'

This makes the combat have more challenge (more things to do and avoid) without affecting the basic probability of dierolls (more misses isn't actually more challenge, it's just more misses).

 

[babinro]

Personally, I'm finding that more creatures of same level with fewer hit points really goes a long way to making a challenging but enjoyable encounter.

For example, a party of four characters fighting a group of 6 same level PC's with 80% of maximum health makes for a fun encounter that can be challenging but also doesn't drag on too long.

Or using 2 solo creatures of the same stats, but with Max HP equal to its bloodied value. Throwing in your lackies/traps as you normally would of course.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I think the MM2 monster design guidelines for Elite and Solo monsters also makes a big difference when you use those. Since they no longer have higher defenses than normal monsters you can afford to up them a couple levels if you want to present a really tough boss monster and they don't become unhittable. Still best to avoid Soldiers for these purposes though. The real potential drag situations were always N+4 Solo Soldier plus minions. By the DMG1/MM1 guidelines that thing has defenses that are at least 8 higher than normal. Nobody is going to hit it very well, they'll be lucky to hit on a 15 and if they have the misfortune to need to use a power that goes against an extra strong defense, forget it.

Now at least with MM2/DMG2 numbers you get an N+4 Solo has defenses 4 higher than normal and only 400% normal hit points. That's much better. Most PCs will still hit on 11-13 which CAN be a bit low at times, but then again they have leaders, right? I mean you don't have to make the baddies TOO soft.

Other than that I too advocate quantity over quality. Not only does it make for faster battles, there just isn't a lot of tactics involved in 5 PCs on 3 monsters and even 5 monsters isn't always a great fight. But throwing 8 monsters at them, now they have to really think. Of course if 3 of those are traps that works too.

 

[cmbarona]

Hmmm... I'm quite interested in this concept of keeping same-level defenses. Is this spelled out anywhere in the MM2 explicitly? Or is it more of an implicit design assumption based on their stats? I haven't done a stats comparison of my MM2 yet, and I'm at work, so that would have to wait. Whatever the case, how would this affect the design principles in the DMG? Should I just remove the lines about increasing defenses in the elite & solo design sections?

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Hmmm... I'm quite interested in this concept of keeping same-level defenses. Is this spelled out anywhere in the MM2 explicitly? Or is it more of an implicit design assumption based on their stats? I haven't done a stats comparison of my MM2 yet, and I'm at work, so that would have to wait. Whatever the case, how would this affect the design principles in the DMG? Should I just remove the lines about increasing defenses in the elite & solo design sections?

Yup, DMG2 just removes the defense increases for Elite/Solo monsters entirely. It also has ALL solos getting 4x normal monster hit points instead of only low level ones getting that. A higher level soldier monster in general will be hard to hit, but a solo version won't now be virtually unhittable. Of course they also recommend a more significant set of power ups for bloodied status, emphasize minor actions and condition negation powers more, etc. So the basic DMG2 solo design philosophy is to have them doing more stuff, harder to lock down, but with an overall modest decrease in basic toughness.

If you survey the MM2 solos you'll find they pretty much fit this new model. The dragons are a good point of comparison. I'd recommend retrofitting MM1 solos this way as well if you're up for tweaking them. Most are not too bad as they are but the chromatic dragons (red especially) can be pretty rough.