PDA

View Full Version : Dungeon Design 4E



kpenguin
2007-08-27, 04:26 AM
What does everybody think about the article (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/drdd/20070827a)about 4E dungeon design? Points of interest:

Encounter level is now based on multiple opponents fighting the party rather than a single enemy.

The difference between CR levels is lower

XP is by encounter, rather than by CR.

Minion rules (?)

Matthew
2007-08-27, 04:37 AM
Well, it is nice to see them finally admitting that the Encounter Rules and Challenge Ratings are not very sensible (or accurate) in 3e. I'm also happy to hear that Encounter Creation and the resultant Experience Points are going to be more straight forward. It is good to see them harking back to previous editions, though they seem to be leaving out the fact that parties were/are generally assumed to be larger than four individuals for Keep on the Border Lands and Temple of Elemental Evil. Interesting, anyway.

Reinforcements are something that feature frequently in my own games. The strategic and tactical complications that they create does indeed make for more dynamic combats, I can agree with Mearls there. However, that was something present as much in my 3e games as my 2e games or my 1e games. I know that the Free Downloadable 3e Adventure The Burning Plague discusses how the Monsters in other locations react to Adventurers causing a ruckus in another, which I think is pretty much the sort of thing under discussion.

Jarlax
2007-08-27, 07:49 AM
i read the article but i am worried about this new format for encounters, i like a lot of what they are doing in 4E but this in particular doesn't seem like a good move.

the example encounter provided in the article is saying that this would be a difficult but otherwise standard encounter, that consists of:

4 Goblins
2 Hobgoblins
1 Bugbear

now this seems ok to me but using these monsters general power as a guide lets go up a few levels and switch from a humanoid theme to a spider theme.

4 Ettercap
2 Aranea
1 Phase Spider

putting their CRs aside. in a single encounter a DM would be tracking the damage taken by all these monsters, all webs put down by the monsters and remaining duration, the poison checks and effects of every monster on every PC and duration for each, the alternate form for the arenas and the ethereal jaunt on the phase spider.

strictly speaking this is still a pretty basic encounter. these monsters have no regeneration or fast healing to remember each round, no spells or spell like abilities that need to have their effects and durations tracked, and no spells that alter a monster's stat block.

all this before anything the PCs place on the monsters. even then these monsters still have no minions yet, which the article implied increases the number of monsters on the field again.

while they have promised to simplify combat and i do like the idea of putting more monsters into a single combat, what is being described here speaks to me like a headache for the DM. while the load on the PCs is the same as 3E, the load on the DM, even if encounters are getting streamlined. Seems like it would be getting a lot greater.

Dausuul
2007-08-27, 08:41 AM
putting their CRs aside. in a single encounter a DM would be tracking the damage taken by all these monsters, all webs put down by the monsters and remaining duration, the poison checks and effects of every monster on every PC and duration for each, the alternate form for the arenas and the ethereal jaunt on the phase spider.

strictly speaking this is still a pretty basic encounter. these monsters have no regeneration or fast healing to remember each round, no spells or spell like abilities that need to have their effects and durations tracked, and no spells that alter a monster's stat block.

all this before anything the PCs place on the monsters. even then these monsters still have no minions yet, which the article implied increases the number of monsters on the field again.

while they have promised to simplify combat and i do like the idea of putting more monsters into a single combat, what is being described here speaks to me like a headache for the DM. while the load on the PCs is the same as 3E, the load on the DM, even if encounters are getting streamlined. Seems like it would be getting a lot greater.

You're assuming that 4E will have the same plethora of buffs, debuffs, durations, and special effects to track that 3E does. This is unlikely to be the case. Moreover, nothing says you have to put scads of monsters on the battlefield--you can still have a single Big Bad fighting the entire party on its own, as the dragon article demonstrates.

They've said that they're clarifying the intended roles for monsters. I imagine part of that will be indicating which monsters are suitable for use in big groups and which should be used sparingly. The more special abilities a monster has and the more bookkeeping it requires, the less suitable it is for mook status.

Sulecrist
2007-08-27, 08:59 AM
From Dave Noonan's MMV design article (this predates the 4E announcement): http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/dd/20070727a

[There are several roles that monsters fall into. Mastermind, Lurker, Brute, and Artillery are the primary roles, supported by Mook (does nothing well), Decathalete (does several things well), and Special (does something weird).]

I think that the 'ability clarification' and monster roles will have another critical effect. Say your players only want to play Strikers. I think that the monster roles will help DMs, particularly new ones, build challenging encounters that don't cater exclusively to those weaknesses. Four Strikers? Fine! Challenge them with a Mastermind, two Artillery, and five Mook monsters. They'll have to choose where to concentrate their damage but they won't need to worry about getting one-shotted by Brutes. And so forth.

Citizen Joe
2007-08-27, 09:26 AM
I think that somewhere in the past some DM thought "Hey, if I evenly match my monsters against the party's power level then that will be a fair fight." What that DM did NOT notice was that he had unlimited resources and could continue to send wave after wave. Suddenly the fair fight became one sided. So then some DM thought, "If I give them a chance to recover, then its a fair fight again." Which leads to the idea that you can send a fair fight at the party once per day or divide it into smaller threats multiple times per day. This generated the 4 encounters per day with each encounter draining 1/4th of the party's resources.

The problem is that this is all a metagame argument and has nothing to do with the way players think nor how monsters think. Neither side wants a fair fight.

I think that article is touching on that slightly. I think its becoming more of a resource allocation based encounter system. Figure it like this. An encounter is all the resources that can be brought to bear on the party in one day's time. If the DM wants to be 'fair' the 'threat level' of that encounter should be comparable to the 'threat level' of the party. Since the party has a concentrated 'threat level' they should easily handle ill prepared monsters, since their 'threat level' is diluted, as in, innocently going about their business when the rogue sneak attacks. However, given the chance, the monsters will concentrate their 'threat level' to fight off the party. I good example of this is Tucker's Kobolds.

In a multi racial dungeon, areas would get sectioned off with borders patrolled by partially concentrated forces. Each section would then get a combined threat level and the DM could go about allocating resources as he feels logical. Now, with resource management you need to know when to cut your losses. So, while a specific encounter may involve someone calling for reinforcements, you'll also see opponents fleeing when a quarter of their resources are expended. Now you get to recombine those that fled with a larger force and be prepared. This becomes more of a strategic/tactical game where your encounter events are usually relatively easy to start and then get harder or easier depending on precautions taken by the players.

Of course that assumes an intelligence behind the monsters' actions.

Sulecrist
2007-08-27, 09:45 AM
Of course that assumes an intelligence behind the monsters' actions.

And the DM's. :smallwink:

I agree, though. The new rules are in place to keep the flow right instead of shoehorning the game into a 4/day mechanic.

Citizen Joe
2007-08-27, 10:28 AM
Part of the difficulty is balancing things out for level 1 parties. They tend to be very frail and a couple bad rolls would result in TPK.

Personally, I wouldn't send a group out into the wilderness alone until at least 3rd level. Remember that I'm proposing resource management. When the party goes into the wilderness, their resource allocation becomes strained, which makes everything harder. A 'fair' threat in the wilderness would have to be so biased for the players that anything 'fair' that they encountered would immediately flee. I'm actually ok with that too, since I think random encounters don't advance the story line at all and actually detract and distract from it.

Anyway, that assumes going out alone. If they went out as caravan guards, then I could pinch off a small portion of a larger group and call that an encounter. Since both sides could draw reinforcements during the fight and restock afterwards, it would be much easier to have a worthy fight without making it unfair.

I also favour questy experience which can avoid much of the stabbities. I also recommend that parties have some sort of quest giver (in Shadowrun this is called a fixer) that can find jobs for them. This could be Sergeant of the Watch, a tavern keeper with a help wanted board, an enchanter that needs stuff for himself, or even a simple hireling that the party pays to keep an ear to the ground for adventure possibilities. What you don't want is to FORCE the players to do some job. So the best thing is to offer several plot hooks and see which ones they bite... or outright ask them what kind of adventures they are looking for.

Ratty the Snitch: Hey boss. Remember how you asked about finding some humanoids to fight? The other day a merchant came into town with his cart all shot up. I managed to get one of the arrows and the fletchings look goblinoid. He's still in town, I could set up a meeting with you if you like.
Bob the fighter: I dunno I'm getting bored of hobgoblins.
Ratty the Snitch: OK, well there's still that bounty on the great wyrm red dragon.
Bob the fighter: :smallannoyed:
Ratty the Snitch: Yea, that's been up there for years. The Brotherhood's still taking bets on when some fool will attempt it.
Carl the Rogue: :smallamused: Bets you say?...

Just stay prepared with a few adventuring hooks and be ready to build on player ideas.

bosssmiley
2007-08-27, 10:33 AM
Name me a half-decent DM who didn't implicitly do what the article is explicitly stating anyway. :smallconfused:

4 encounters/day? What? Does your minimum daily requirement of hack-and-slash work like your daily fruit allowance? Where's the fun in that?

We move at the speed of plot under the impetus of dramatic necessity my brethren; not at the speed of a (flawed, nay b0rked!) CR mechanism. If the plot calls for half-dragon atomic bulettes OF DOOM! to erupt from the ground or demons to rain from the skies, then so be it. The players just have to use the sense they inherited and pick their fights a little more carefully. :smallbiggrin:

Wrong: "Sure, the world is going to hell in a handbasket, but c'mon guys! it's a CR-balanced encounter; we can beat this easily."
Right: "Aaaaaargh! Get it off me!" "It took his head off with one swipe!" "ZOMG HAX!!!" "That's it, we're boned!" "I want me Mum!" "What's it doing to my face??? (http://www.vgcats.com/comics/?strip_id=108)" :smallbiggrin:

I know which response brings delight to my evil DM-ish ears.

Sulecrist
2007-08-27, 10:50 AM
Name me a half-decent DM who didn't implicitly do what the article is explicitly stating anyway. :smallconfused:

4 encounters/day? What? Does your minimum daily requirement of hack-and-slash work like your daily fruit allowance? Where's the fun in that?

We move at the speed of plot under the impetus of dramatic necessity my brethren; not at the speed of a (flawed, nay b0rked!) CR mechanism. If the plot calls for half-dragon atomic bulettes OF DOOM! to erupt from the ground or demons to rain from the skies, then so be it. The players just have to use the sense they inherited and pick their fights a little more carefully. :smallbiggrin:

Wrong: "Sure, the world is going to hell in a handbasket, but c'mon guys! it's a CR-balanced encounter; we can beat this easily."
Right: "Aaaaaargh! Get it off me!" "It took his head off with one swipe!" "ZOMG HAX!!!" "That's it, we're boned!" "I want me Mum!" "What's it doing to my face??? (http://www.vgcats.com/comics/?strip_id=108)" :smallbiggrin:

I know which response brings delight to my evil DM-ish ears.

For a while, everyone in my world, including the gods, had the equivalent of horrible insomnia and was unable to rest. They had to use magical drugs and potions to recover spells and HP. Survival was a matter of hiding out and raiding supply caches. That was pretty ace, both because it sidestepped the ridiculous per-day mechanic (it's very hard challenging level 18 adventurers without resorting to enemies you'd rather leave for later levels) and provided an in-game reason for everyone to be clustering in specific places.

Matthew
2007-08-27, 10:50 AM
*snip*

You would think so, wouldn't you? It seems, though, that the designers and perhaps majority of DMs are perhaps not 'half way decent'.

Citizen Joe
2007-08-27, 10:53 AM
The players just have to use the sense they inherited and pick their fights a little more carefully. :smallbiggrin:

Unfortunately many players don't have that sense. Somewhere along the lines you need to tell them that there is a potential TPK out there and whether they encounter it or not is decided by their actions.

Likewise, there are DMs that believe every potential encounter must end with one side dead. Things need reasons to attack. Sometimes these are obscure reasons, sometimes they are obvious. But every encounter should be hazardous to both sides, and thus both sides need a reason to take that chance.

Rex Blunder
2007-08-27, 10:59 AM
Name me a half-decent DM who didn't implicitly do what the article is explicitly stating anyway.

You would think so, wouldn't you? It seems, though, that the designers and perhaps majority of DMs are perhaps not 'half way decent'.

Just from the (out of context) quotes above, it sounds like there's at least an outside chance that the 4th edition designers are 'halfway decent'.

3ed designers: Let's use mechanic A!

Bosssmiley and Matthew: No, that's stupid, let's use mechanic B instead.

4ed designers: After careful consideration, we've decided that everyone should be using mechanic B.

Kurald Galain
2007-08-27, 11:33 AM
4ed designers: After careful consideration, we've decided that everyone should be using mechanic B.

Yelimsssob and Wehttam: No, that's stupid, mechanic A was way better!

5th designers: After yet more careful consideration, fifth edition is switching back to mechanic A...

bosssmiley
2007-08-27, 01:57 PM
Unfortunately many players don't have that sense. Somewhere along the lines you need to tell them that there is a potential TPK out there and whether they encounter it or not is decided by their actions.

Likewise, there are DMs that believe every potential encounter must end with one side dead. Things need reasons to attack. Sometimes these are obscure reasons, sometimes they are obvious. But every encounter should be hazardous to both sides, and thus both sides need a reason to take that chance.

A thoughtful and interesting point, well and reasonably made. Are you sure you're in the right place? :smallbiggrin:


Yelimsssob and Wehttam:

"Oh come on. A mirror match against our evil goateed counterparts? What, you can't write your own NPCs any more? Scrape the bottom of that barrel harder. You suck as a DM!" :smalltongue: :smallwink:

Matthew
2007-08-27, 01:59 PM
*Laughs* Do Evil Mirror Counterparts have Goatees if the original sports a beard?

Starsinger
2007-08-27, 02:01 PM
*Laughs* Do Evil Mirror Counterparts have Goatees if the original sports a beard?

Stapled right on top of the beard.

Matthew
2007-08-27, 02:02 PM
Wow, he'd have good cause to be evil (or maybe just angry).

Jarlax
2007-08-27, 08:35 PM
You're assuming that 4E will have the same plethora of buffs, debuffs, durations, and special effects to track that 3E does. This is unlikely to be the case. Moreover, nothing says you have to put scads of monsters on the battlefield--you can still have a single Big Bad fighting the entire party on its own, as the dragon article demonstrates.

They've said that they're clarifying the intended roles for monsters. I imagine part of that will be indicating which monsters are suitable for use in big groups and which should be used sparingly. The more special abilities a monster has and the more bookkeeping it requires, the less suitable it is for mook status.

of course there will be buffs and debuffs and special effects to track, even the fighter class is getting more meat as far as abilities go and casters are getting an overhaul so that they can keep casting almost all day.

but the article outlines that a standard fight will now be a 1:1 ratio for monsters to PCs so in a standard group thats 4 monsters against 4 PCs which is easy enough to track. but these monsters can have minions, easy mooks who probably have no more than a attack and some hitponts but they can still get hit with anything the PCs throw at them that needs to be tracked.

but Wizards are also trying to mix encounters with monster fitting different roles. so each encounter is still only 4 but now it 3-4 different monsters in that group of 4, plus their minions. each one has its own abilities to track and while this is supposed to all be easier to do than 3E the DM is really running his own party now for each encounter, 4 creatures who fit different roles with different abilities and some henchmen is no different to 4 PCs with a tank, healer, skillmonkey and caster who have familiars, animal companions leadership feat, etc.

Dausuul
2007-08-28, 12:42 AM
of course there will be buffs and debuffs and special effects to track, even the fighter class is getting more meat as far as abilities go and casters are getting an overhaul so that they can keep casting almost all day.

Their spells are also getting an overhaul, however. To take a 3.5E example, you could "overhaul" wizards into all-day casters by turning them into warlocks; but a warlock won't generate nearly as much buff/debuff tracking as a wizard. Most warlock debuffs are concentration or one-round effects, which means only one will apply at any given moment, and most of their buffs are effectively permanent (and can thus be written down as part of the character's permanent stats with no tracking needed, unless an enemy caster uses dispel magic).

Compare to a wizard, who is apt to have a lot of 1 round/level buffs and debuffs; they will accumulate over combat and each one has to have its duration tracked separately.

TheOOB
2007-08-28, 12:58 AM
If the minion rules work the same as they do in most PnP games, minions will be binary entities that mob the characters, attack, and maybe have one simple special attack. Most likely any attack that hits will finish them off, making them cannon fodder compared to even a weak monster.