Note to Self - Do NOT use an 'All Soldiers' encounter again....

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

How so? Both are simply guidelines aimed at suggesting just how tough a certain creature is expected to be against a party of a certain level. But clearly, as is the problem with any 1-size-fits-all rule, there are bound to be exceptions to this rule which fall through the cracks.

Well, the encounter design guidelines contain of more then just the XP values in 4E. They also include guidelines on monster groupings. Holy Bovine just didn't use these groups, and got a suboptimal result. (Without any attack on Holy Bovine - there were obviously good reasons for him trying this encounter setup, and DMs will always experiment with rules and figure out what works and what doesn't).

Basically, since he used only one part of the rules, he got the flaws of 1-size-fits-all rules. If you do mix the roles of monsters, you will usually get better results. (Of course, even here, this can never be guaranteed. Even a "2-dimensional" system of guidelines doesn't encompass the full complexity of monster interaction.)

My experience so far suggests that mixing roles is important to make an encounter interesting.

Maybe that's the fundamental flaw of Solo encounters - if you don't mix, you're losing out something. Even if it isn't related to power or balance, it can be to interestingness. Hence the suggestion of Mike Mearls to use a varied terrain and add further options in combat are cruical - what you can't get from monsters with roles, you might get from terrain, hazards and stunts.

 

[Anthony Jackson]

Elf Rogue
Xeph Ranger
Warforged Paladin
Human Fighter
Goblin Warlord
Human Cleric
....
Except for the lack of a Controller it is a well balanced team overall.

Except for the massive lack of non-AC attackers. The Ranger, Paladin, Fighter, and Warlord are all pretty much pure AC attackers (in theory, they could have some non-AC encounter powers). The Rogue and Cleric, depending on build, might also be AC attackers (depends on pick of at-will powers).

If you have a group full of characters who attack vs AC, high AC monsters will be a big problem.

 

[CapnZapp]

Well, what I'm seeing in that party is an almost complete martial party, so no surprise you won't see many vs Reflex/Will/Fort attacks there...

 

[Plane Sailing]

I've been finding that "mopping up" after a fight, when there's still a few enemies left on the board, but the PCs have undoubtedly won the battle, can get sort of tedious. Especially when seeming fodder like goblins or kobolds can still have many hit points in 4e.

I'll probably just start letting these guys die like a minion once the fight reaches that point.

I would have thought that the most reasonable thing to happen in most cases once that situation is reached is that the monsters either rout and run for it, or surrender and offer to give up their treasure and secrets for their freedom. Only a very tiny number of creatures should really fight to the bitter end (I think that KotS makes a bad job as an adventure by saying that pretty much everything fights to the bitter end. Rubbish!)

Cheers

 

[KidSnide]

I would have thought that the most reasonable thing to happen in most cases once that situation is reached is that the monsters either rout and run for it, or surrender and offer to give up their treasure and secrets for their freedom. Only a very tiny number of creatures should really fight to the bitter end (I think that KotS makes a bad job as an adventure by saying that pretty much everything fights to the bitter end. Rubbish!)
Cheers

I agree. As a general rule, creatures should fight for as long as the fight is interesting. It's more realistic and more fun!

- - - - -

Related to the general point about a party that's dominated by AC attacks, this is a general issue of party and encounter design. Certain party combinations have a harder time with certain types of creatures. Martial characters have a harder time with soldiers. Low-AC parties are more vulnerable to brutes. Low mobility melee parties get killed by artillery + terrain.

If you're forming a group to play generic modules, parties need to be aware of the dangers of over-specialization. And, if you're a GM putting encounters together for a pre-existing group, you need to be sensitive to what type of encounters are more dangerous (or simply less interesting) for your group.

-KS

 

[Victim]

I've been finding that "mopping up" after a fight, when there's still a few enemies left on the board, but the PCs have undoubtedly won the battle, can get sort of tedious. Especially when seeming fodder like goblins or kobolds can still have many hit points in 4e.

I'll probably just start letting these guys die like a minion once the fight reaches that point.

Our rogue died in the last phase of the fight against a single, badly wounded enemy.

 

[chronoplasm]

How many soldiers are we talking here?

Lets say I want to do an encounter where the four level one players are fighting two human guards perched on a wall and firing arrows. Would that be too difficult?

 

[Holy Bovine]

Well, the encounter design guidelines contain of more then just the XP values in 4E. They also include guidelines on monster groupings. Holy Bovine just didn't use these groups, and got a suboptimal result. (Without any attack on Holy Bovine - there were obviously good reasons for him trying this encounter setup, and DMs will always experiment with rules and figure out what works and what doesn't).

No offense taken at all since you nailed exactly what I did wrong here.

Basically, since he used only one part of the rules, he got the flaws of 1-size-fits-all rules. If you do mix the roles of monsters, you will usually get better results. (Of course, even here, this can never be guaranteed. Even a "2-dimensional" system of guidelines doesn't encompass the full complexity of monster interaction.)

My experience so far suggests that mixing roles is important to make an encounter interesting.

Yup - this is how I'll be building encounters in the future. Much more of a mix of roles but I am getting good at making interesting (and dangerous!) terrain features. So far the group has fought in burning ruins, weak floor areas, falling debris, innocent civilians as cover etc. The players really like the extra dynamic.

 

[Holy Bovine]

Except for the massive lack of non-AC attackers. The Ranger, Paladin, Fighter, and Warlord are all pretty much pure AC attackers (in theory, they could have some non-AC encounter powers). The Rogue and Cleric, depending on build, might also be AC attackers (depends on pick of at-will powers).

If you have a group full of characters who attack vs AC, high AC monsters will be a big problem.

Actually I think every PC has at least one non-AC encounter power now. We ported this group over from 3E and matched up classes as best be could. I'll just have to be extra careful in the future about throwing highish AC monsters at them.

Oh and thanks for all the feedback guys! It is really helpful to hear from others and their experiences.

 

[eamon]

Actually I think every PC has at least one non-AC encounter power now. We ported this group over from 3E and matched up classes as best be could. I'll just have to be extra careful in the future about throwing highish AC monsters at them.

Oh and thanks for all the feedback guys! It is really helpful to hear from others and their experiences.

Well, a 1/encounter attack against non-AC doesn't really suffice to be able to deal with high-AC critters. Rangers, Fighters, Paladins, at least, will be feeling fairly useless. Rogues and cleric's have at-will's vs. reflex (and hope they took em), a warlord has one vs. Fortitude, and Wizards and Warlocks are fairly flexible.

Anyhow, soldiers in the MM don't just have highter AC; according to...
http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?t=229092
their other defenses are above average as well (and simply outclass those of the brute's)