New Design & Development: Encounter Design

[GoodKingJayIII]

deleted.

 

[Daniel D. Fox]

I sure hope they give us this formula for creature creation. As a DM, I like to create monsters, so having a list of 'An AC, HP and special abilities of these designate the monster is this level" would be a real big boon for me.

I like this, but under one caveat.

How do you make sure all those monsters make sense together? Why would all these monsters travel or hole up in groups? For instance, wouldn't you more than likely have a camp of giants, rather than a giant (brute), a harpy (ranged attacker), and a choker (lurker)?

That's up to the DM to adjucate. Personally, I've been doing this for years.

Dragons served by tribes of Kobolds.

Fire Giants summoning Azers to do their dirty work.

Goblin slaves, Hobgoblin masters with enslaved Ogres, all serving at the behest of a Cambion.

Make sense?

 

[delericho]

Sounds really good in principle. Defining formulae for the damage output and AC by 'monster level' is certainly a good move. However, it remains to be seen whether this change, in 'real world' use, will actually prove any more accurate than EL in calculating appropriate challenges.

I'm also not keen on them developing the system for "one monster per PC", any more than I liked them designing for "one big monster". The system should be able to handle many different sorts of challenges. And it's not too hard - insert 'recommended usage' details for the monsters, and you're sorted.

So, before I read this, anyone want to tell me what's wrong with this article and how it will make the game Not D&D/More like a video game/change for change's sake?

Belittling others' opinions before they've even had a chance to state them is much appreciated. Thanks.

If I really wanted to, I could comment on them changing "Challenge Ratings" to "Monster Level", since they're functionally the same thing. But I won't.

 

[Mouseferatu]

I'm also not keen on them developing the system for "one monster per PC", any more than I liked them designing for "one big monster". The system should be able to handle many different sorts of challenges. And it's not too hard - insert 'recommended usage' details for the monsters, and you're sorted.

I can't imagine it'll be any harder to run "party vs. one big monster" fights in 4E than it was to run "party vs. a number of smaller critters" fights in 3E. IOW, the "group vs. group" thing is an assumption, not a hard and fast rule.

For evidence, you need look no further than the fact that the very first example of 4E combat we got was a party vs. a red dragon.

 

[delericho]

I can't imagine it'll be any harder to run "party vs. one big monster" fights in 4E than it was to run "party vs. a number of smaller critters" fights in 3E. IOW, the "group vs. group" thing is an assumption, not a hard and fast rule.

Very true.

 

[Rechan]

It makes sense for some intelligent opponents. But there are traditional monsters that pretty much are "loners". Or unintelligent monsters. While Smart Monster X may use carrion crawlers, if you encounter the carrion crawlers by themselves they're not going to have any friends with range wandering around with them.

 

[Rechan]

Belittling others' opinions before they've even had a chance to state them is much appreciated. Thanks.

You're welcome.

 

[pemerton]

I can't imagine it'll be any harder to run "party vs. one big monster" fights in 4E than it was to run "party vs. a number of smaller critters" fights in 3E. IOW, the "group vs. group" thing is an assumption, not a hard and fast rule.

For evidence, you need look no further than the fact that the very first example of 4E combat we got was a party vs. a red dragon.

I thought that some monsters of level X will be designed to be used solo against a party of that level, others will be designed for group use. And while of the same level, those two different monsters would be worth different XPs if defeated.

 

[Zamkaizer]

Dear lord, I sincerely hope that that manticore sketch is a kitsch throwback to 1st Ed. because it embarrasses me to look at it.

The article's heart was in the right place, but it raises some questions. First, how can I balance battles against a single opponent? Does every monster having minions make sense? Second, will this lead to more of "lol, random," encounters? How plausible will monster combinations be?

 

[Mouseferatu]

I thought that some monsters of level X will be designed to be used solo against a party of that level, others will be designed for group use. And while of the same level, those two different monsters would be worth different XPs if defeated.

Not the impression I got at all. My understanding is that if you want to throw the party up against a single critter, you for one of higher level. Mixing and matching is done via adding up XP totals. (I.e. One creature with 10,000 xp is roughly the same difficulty of battle as two creatures worth 5,000 xp.)

But of course, either or both of us could be wrong. That's just my understanding of things from what I've read.