Variety is the spice of life

[Kzach]

Since 4e came out it was touted as having a wide-variety of creatures. We were encouraged to spice up encounters with multiple types of monsters. But even in these examples, it was still often 5 of this type, 2 of this type, 3 of that type.

As I'm trawling through the Compendium for the minimal prep I do for one of the games I run, I notice that I'm spoilt for choice. Not only can I put together encounters with multiple different monsters of the same race, but many of them are balanced around having the different roles as well. In fact, in some cases I can go so far as to have several encounters of the same species with nary a repeated monster.

Well... aside from minions, but who cares about them?

Take this as an example:

Kobold Cleavers x 5 - 155xp
Kobold Miners x 5 100xp
Kobold Dragonshield - 125xp
Kobold Spiker - 150xp
Kobold Wyrmpriest - 150xp
Kobold Chieftain - 200xp

880xp

That's a really good final encounter for a kobold tribe for a 2nd-level group. And the only repeats are minions. And that's not even half the variety available for kobolds.

So I was curious if many DM's take advantage of this fact or if they keep their encounters simple and just have two or three different monsters with several multiples?

 

[Rechan]

For some monsters I feel there's less variety. For instance, my campaign has a lot of ghouls. Well, all the ghouls that are presented are soldiers. I don't want to overuse soldiers. So I have to make my own ghouls.

Compare this to gnolls, whom I'd love to use (but my group took the wrong direction and decided to chase the ghouls). Were I using gnolls, I'd definitely abuse the variety present.

 

[fba827]

So I was curious if many DM's take advantage of this fact or if they keep their encounters simple and just have two or three different monsters with several multiples?

*If* I had better mental capacity, I might enjoy using a wider variety of monsters.
But, as it is, I have trouble keeping track of all the different stuff, so I tend to take 2-3 different types of creatures and have multiples of them. it's just easier for me to keep track of and few powers for me to have to scan/catch the gist of.

Plus, doing it this way lets me save the 'other types' of that same creature to be featured as surprises in subsequent encounters rather than showing off 'all the possible tricks' early on.

 

[Kzach]

*If* I had better mental capacity, I might enjoy using a wider variety of monsters.

Heh, I choose 'encounter sets' of monsters and then convert them all to fit onto cards (nine to a sheet, like power cards). When a combat starts, I use the collectible card holder plastic folder inserts (nine card slots on each side of the clear plastic holder) to put PC cards from the character builder (the one with basic stats) along with the monsters all in initiative order.

I then use dry-erase markers on the plastic sheathes of each card to count hit points, or put 'marks' on and take them off, or condition reminders, etc.

This makes it a lot easier to keep track of everything.

 

[wedgeski]

I then use dry-erase markers on the plastic sheathes of each card to count hit points, or put 'marks' on and take them off, or condition reminders, etc.

Excellent idea.

 

[Nebulous]

So I was curious if many DM's take advantage of this fact or if they keep their encounters simple and just have two or three different monsters with several multiples?

As much as i LOVE the variety of 4e monsters, i have found over and over again that if i mix too many up, i forget their powers. Auras slip my mind. At will-reactions are forgotten. Extra attacks granted by leaders are skipped. If i tighten my focus with fewer options i can make a much more dangerous encounter. That's just me though. DMs with better memory or attention to detail could (and probably SHOULD) go hogwild with variable enemies. I just can't keep track of it all.

 

[Blackbrrd]

I have found that using 3 different types of mob is the sweet spot. More and combat slows down as I have problems running the different mobs properly. Fewer and combat is kinda boring and static.

As a player I could probably handle 4-5 different types without too big problems.

Having 3 different types of mob + a really different mob might work as well. For instance a Dragon with minions*

*Not the monster type with 1hp.

 

[Rechan]

While I also agree with Kzach that it's awesome you can have multiple encounters of a certain race and have no overlap, having one kind that is common through-out can be satisfying.

There is a certain kind of glee, I think, from a DM when a PC recognizes a certain monster they've fought before and go "Oh crap, it's one of those guys again".

In the game I play in, those were Goblin Skullcleavers. As the group healer, I dreaded those bastards. As soon as we saw one, we tried to kill them as fast as possible.

 

[S'mon]

The DMG says not to use more than 4 different types of monster in an encounter. I think that's great advice, and usually 2-3 is best.

 

[Dausuul]

*If* I had better mental capacity, I might enjoy using a wider variety of monsters.

You aren't the only one. I like to think I'm a pretty smart guy, but I generally avoid having more than 3 types of monsters in an encounter. Actually, it doesn't just benefit me; it's handy for the players too, giving them a chance to figure out how monster X works and then actually apply that knowledge. If there's only one of something, then by the time they get a handle on how to fight it, it's dead.