New Design & Development: Encounter Design

Mouseferatu said:
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.
I got my impression from this post, but it doesn't have a reference.

But it is logical - for a Dragon to make a good foe vs 5 Nth level characters, one doesn't want it to have the same BAB bonus as it would when used with 4 others against a party of N+4 levels. Otherwise the maths would not be in the "sweet spot."

So I think you're right about building encounters on an XP-basis, but I think it is logical that different monsters of a given level should be worth different XP totals.

As you say, we'll learn in due course.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

delericho said:
Oh, I sincerely hope not. A monster's appearance should play an integral part in the determination of its stats. Appearance, powers, and even such things as ecology and social structures should all be a part of a holistic design process that makes a monster what it is.

Otherwise, there's a terrible danger that they just become playing pieces on a board, and then we really are in WoW territory.

IMO, of course.
Well, I am not sure if this causes more or less worries, but the post quoted above regarding to the familiarity with the structure of the monster rules is part of a larger blog post that also includes a description of few encounters. (If I don't mix the posts up :) )

Basically, the blogger did use only the tables and knew "I want them to fight spiders, and spiders use webs to capture or hodl foes". So he used the standard numbers expected for monsters of that level and gave them a special ability suiting their purpose.

So, the scenario itself required a certain range of numbers. But the "flavor" of the monsters (Spiders) did lead to a specific selection of special abilities (Entangling Webs), and that's what made the whole encounter (and the monster) unique (well, as unique as fighting monstrous spiders can be. Personally, there isn't much special about them, so the way the encounter was created in a running game sounds pretty cool to me)

---

From what I understood, monsters will have a "level" and "XP". The level indicates against which type of characters you can reasonable use these monsters, and the XP determines, how many of them you can throw at the characters (and how much they get afterward, but who cares about that? :) )

This probably means that attacks, skills and saving throws (or defenses) are determined by level, but hitpoints and damage abilities or amount of actions available for the monster each round might be guided by the XP they grant.
At least that's the way I see it. You need to ensure your monsters can hit the characters and can be hit by characters abilities. To vary how many you can use, you need to determine how much a hit hurts the characters and how much a hit hurts them.
In 3.x, CR determines both aspects - how hard is the monster to hit, how easy can hit you, and how much damage does it to you. A monster that is easy to hit but deals a lot of damage is harder to balance in a 3.x system, and adding numbers always required you to reduce attack, hitpoints, damage and defenses of each individual monster, which can easily lead to less then exciting battles, since the monsters never hit and are feel outclassed by the PCs. Okay if used to show the PCs how good they are, but can get boring if used to often.
 

My only real problem with this is that designing from the assumption that you've got "a cool monster and his allies" is just as limited a basis as designing from the assumption that you've got "a single monster takes on the whole party". Sometimes you want one, sometimes you want the other.

To use his medusa example, perhaps its the lingering effects of Clash of the Titans but I -always- think of medusae as a single, terrifying foe rather than something that travels in packs. (Among other things, how does she keep from petrifying her teammates?)

-The Gneech :cool:
 

It seems likely that some monsters - such as dragons - will be designed in such a way as to be equivalent to 2 or more monsters. As we saw in the example of play with the red dragon, that's just one opponent but it's capable of holding its own against four PCs. I think the iconic dragon battle isn't "four dragons vs. four players" but "one multiattacking dragon vs. four players."

Cheers,
Cam
 

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
Basically, the blogger did use only the tables and knew "I want them to fight spiders, and spiders use webs to capture or hodl foes". So he used the standard numbers expected for monsters of that level and gave them a special ability suiting their purpose.

See, what I took from that example was "if the specific thing you need isn't available, we have some generic stats that will fit." Which is an absolutely genius innovation, and which gets a big "huzzah!" from me.

What I hope doesn't happen, though, is that where they have generated the specific thing that is needed, then in most cases, the creature is created as a whole unit - appearance, ecology, cosietal structure, intended purpose, and stats all informing one another. (It does not need to be this way in all cases - most of the 'real world' monsters can probably use the generic stats for their level without problems, for instance.)
 

The_Gneech said:
My only real problem with this is that designing from the assumption that you've got "a cool monster and his allies" is just as limited a basis as designing from the assumption that you've got "a single monster takes on the whole party". Sometimes you want one, sometimes you want the other.

To use his medusa example, perhaps its the lingering effects of Clash of the Titans but I -always- think of medusae as a single, terrifying foe rather than something that travels in packs. (Among other things, how does she keep from petrifying her teammates?)

-The Gneech :cool:

I don't think it's necessarily that they're forcing you into using monster groups, just that they're making it easier and cleaner for you to do so, compared to 3rd edition. A single drow or two orcs isn't really much of an encounter, but when you get to the point where you can use groups, they're not much of a challenge anymore. I think they're trying to build it to be scalable, so you can have your party fighting a small band of goblins at 1st level without being overwhelmed, and an entire army of them at 10th level without the challenge being trivialized.
 

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
From what I understood, monsters will have a "level" and "XP". The level indicates against which type of characters you can reasonable use these monsters, and the XP determines, how many of them you can throw at the characters

<snip>

This probably means that attacks, skills and saving throws (or defenses) are determined by level, but hitpoints and damage abilities or amount of actions available for the monster each round might be guided by the XP they grant.
Yeah, that's what I thought. It seems a sensible system.
 

Rechan said:
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)?

Some Giants bash the midgets with clubs. Some of them stand in the back and throw rocks (with greater ability, anyway). There's a giant shaman around someplace, doing magiky stuff. Just because all the combatants are giants doesn't mean they should all be homogenous.
 



Pets & Sidekicks

Remove ads

Top