Solo or Horde in D&D3

[Bullgrit]

I've seen mention of this apparently "new" concept in D&D game design: combats are "no longer against just single enemies." I've seen this mentioned by the WotC game designers, I've seen it mentioned here, and I've had a friend recently mention it when we were discussing encounter design concepts.

I find the idea that this is a new concept to be odd. So I'm curious if I'm the only DM who regularly designed D&D encounters with multiple enemies.

The only times I've "regularly" designed D&D encounters with single enemies is when the group of PCs numbers less than 4. (Few PCs suffer more from being outnumbered.)

So, as a DM, when you make a [pre 4th edition] D&D encounter, do you regularly (more than half the time) use one monster?

Bullgrit
Total Bullgrit

 

[Shroomy]

I usually used multiple monsters, but usually only 2 or 3 since I didn't want to just throw out under-powered cannon fodder nor did I want to cause an outright TPK. I don't think I would use the numbers we're regularly seeing in 4e adventures in a 3.x adventure, at least not on a regular basis.

 

[Aus_Snow]

Usually multiple.

 

[HeavenShallBurn]

Almost always multiple unless it was an encounter with something that in-itself was overpowered compared to the party.

I design encounters using the comparative CR of PCs rather than EL and usually have one equal CR enemy per PC for an encounter of average difficulty. Less difficult get more but lower CR monsters, more difficult stay close in individual monster CR but add more opponents.

 

[roguerouge]

Mostly multiple. It just makes for more interesting tactical encounters for the player.

 

[Jhaelen]

Having 8 players I mostly used larger numbers of enemies. Since I try to keep things variable I've also included the occasional solo monster. They're difficult to pull off, though, since they tend to be extremely swingy. There's always a very high high chance of 1+ dead characters.

I've also had encounters with _really_ large numbers of enemies. It's possible to make them work, if there's lots of synergy effects and using a simplified version of 'aid another'. They do take rather long to play through, though.

 

[Dice4Hire]

I voted mostly hordes, as solo monsters have too much of an action deficit to really be successful.

 

[Ginnel]

Hordes are not a new concept, now a horde which is balanced and threatening, that is apparently something the official rules support now.

Oh and I used multiple monsters, because fighting one monster and having it either hit or miss is a bit of a let down

 

[Ander00]

I've always liked having a mix of multiple monsters and/or NPCs with different classes (I might have gone a bit overboard at times, like when I had 17 different types of kobolds in one lair). The only new thing about it in 4E is that they now tell you that this makes for a better fight.


cheers

 

[korjik]

My experience is that any single monster encounter in 3.5 was a baby seal hunt. The sheer number of actions the party got compared to the monster would overwhelm it. This is experience as a player and as a DM.

Heck, it got to the point where we considered an unsupported dragon to be an ATM machine.