4E Article - Encounter Design

[Beleriphon]

http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/drdd/20070921

I like that. While the exact details have yet to be revealed the idea that an environmental hazard can take the place of a creature is interesting. I'm also fond of the idea of giving monsters broad rolls that they are best suited for, while the idea was certainly included in 3E I think specifically calling those sorts of broad roles out will help build more interesting encounters. If nothing else it will help me create encounters faster since I can just pick the types of creatures that I want and then look to see what fits the level range I want.

Interesting stuff all around.

[Saph]

Honestly, there's not much substance here. You can already make mixed enounters in 3.5. He's talking about some kind of system for calculating it, but he's telling us nothing about how the system works, apart from that it's great. I'd much rather see some mechanics.

- Saph

[psychoticbarber]

Designer: "No really, it's great!"
Player: "Why is it great?"
Desinger: "Because it is! ..trust me."

[Kurald Galain]

Yeah, what Saph and Barber said. 4E may turn out very nice and all that, but these previews are starting to get boring because almost none of them show any substance. We get it already, they've changed a lot of things and they believe the result is the Best Gaem Ev4r. But that's what they say about all their games.

[kamikasei]

Honestly, there's not much substance here. You can already make mixed enounters in 3.5. He's talking about some kind of system for calculating it, but he's telling us nothing about how the system works, apart from that it's great. I'd much rather see some mechanics.

- Saph

It sounds like they're overselling it, but the basic idea seems clear enough. More monsters in the default encounter = finer granularity of encounter elements = easier swapping out of parts of the encounter. What concerns me is how they'll make more monsters fit into the default encounter. If all the monsters individually will have to be significantly weaker than individual party members...

[Beleriphon]

Yeah, what Saph and Barber said. 4E may turn out very nice and all that, but these previews are starting to get boring because almost none of them show any substance. We get it already, they've changed a lot of things and they believe the result is the Best Gaem Ev4r. But that's what they say about all their games.

So you want a "Here's how it works! But it might be changed by the time you get the book, so don't get too attached to the idea" articles instead?

I'm finding the articles very interesting because they are more about design philosophy. Mechanical aspects I can deal without for the moment so the ideas that are going into mechanical decisions are much more interesting to me right now.

[AKA_Bait]

Must agree with above. The only thing this article is leading me to think is that they have changed the concept of balance they are working with (which they have hinted in other places) from the party v. bad guys to player (or monster) v. player (or monster) of equal level. Even that isn't explicitly stated and is my interpretation of what I've read and given that it was hinted in other spots this article really didn't tell me anything other than that they seem to have decided to balance monsters against a single player in the same way. ::shrug::

[Zherog]

While the exact details have yet to be revealed the idea that an environmental hazard can take the place of a creature is interesting.

This already exists in 3rd edition. All sorts of environmental encounters have a CR assigned. An avalanche, for example, is a CR 7; a forest fire is CR 6. And so on.

So this idea isn't new to 4th edition. They might be able to better refine it, of course.

[horseboy]

Oh, at least a "This is what we're trying this week." Followed by a "Here's what worked about it, and here's the problems we see." They want to pretend that they're having a transparent development, and that's clearly not the case.

[Kurald Galain]

So you want a "Here's how it works! But it might be changed by the time you get the book, so don't get too attached to the idea" articles instead?

Rules get fixed earlier than you think. Just like the card text on Magic sets is fixed almost a year before release, they will have solidified the core rules by now, or they wouldn't have announced it. The rest of the year goes to copyediting, getting artwork, minor balance tweaks if that is even possible, and printing and shipping the full print run.

[AKA_Bait]

Oh, at least a "This is what we're trying this week." Followed by a "Here's what worked about it, and here's the problems we see." They want to pretend that they're having a transparent development, and that's clearly not the case.

And really, why would they release any specific or (even more dangerous) semi-specific mechanics? That's just asking to get them stolen before publication.

[Nonah_Me]

I wanna say that the monster "roles" they spoke of here bear alot in common with the monster "roles" in Dungeonscape.

[horseboy]

And really, why would they release any specific or (even more dangerous) semi-specific mechanics? That's just asking to get them stolen before publication.

And how, pray tell, could one "steal" something that's being done for free, via OGL?

[Zherog]

And how, pray tell, could one "steal" something that's being done for free, via OGL?

Two points.

1) I'm sure not everything will be OGC, just like not everything in 3.x is OGC

2) Even if this material would be designated OGC, it would still be to another company's benefit to take something they know WotC will be releasing in 7 months and get it in print before them.

[Lord Iames Osari]

I like the About the Author section.

[Draz74]

This already exists in 3rd edition. All sorts of environmental encounters have a CR assigned. An avalanche, for example, is a CR 7; a forest fire is CR 6. And so on.

So this idea isn't new to 4th edition. They might be able to better refine it, of course.

Yeah, but how many people actually use it in 3E? Not many that I've heard of. If they can make it so that DMs actually use traps, and interactive terrain features, in battle, that will indeed be a cool improvement.

[psychoticbarber]

I'd just like to add that I'm excited an intrigued by the idea, but I'm not sold until I see something hard and fast that I like.

[DraPrime]

Would it hurt WotC to actually not be vague? Seriously, the past articles have said almost nothing. The most we've learned rules-wise was from the video of gen-con. It would be really nice if they didn't say "mumble mumble something about game being better mumble." Is it just too much to ask?

[Merlin the Tuna]

Honestly, there's not much substance here. You can already make mixed enounters in 3.5.

You can, they just don't work well because multiple lower CR enemies aren't equivalent to a single higher CR enemy. The system simply doesn't work for more than about 3 baddies.

A recent example -- but by no means the only one I've experienced even in my own comparatively brief time with D&D -- would be a module my group whisked through over the weekend while a few of them were in from out of town. As a "Clear a fort of orcs and undead" sequence for 5th level PCs, there was plenty of mooking. In the interest of saving time, I ended up combining a few battles. The bigger of the two was a EL 5 combined with a EL 7, consisting of 8 orcs, a CR 3 orc sergeant (whose warrior levels I replaced with Warblade levels without recalculating CR), and CR 6 orc cleric (whose gear I upgraded and domains I mixed around to have more combat-relevant abilities and to free up feats), 4 skeletons, and 4 zombies (all of whom were under the effect of Desecrate). This was supposedly a CR 8 encounter; as a PL+3, there should have been a fair chance of losing a PC. And yet when the best any of the mooks could manage was +4 to attack on PCs with armor in the low-mid 20s, they simply couldn't touch anyone except for the Barbarian that got caught in Hold Person for a round and was subsequently surrounded. (And after he got out, Cleave meant that two of them were dying each round, plus 2 more the time an enemy provoked an AoO). Aside from that, the PCs as a team were hit maybe... 3 times? Over the course of 4-5 rounds, with 18 enemies on the field to start? Not so threatening.

I also took the liberty of combining two battles against individual Trolls, who just happened to have Rings of Fire Resistance. 2 CR5s (making a CR 7 encounter, which should be an acceptable boss fight) against 4 5th level PCs, and these guys were covering up one of their major weaknesses (as well as neutering the Desert Wind-focused Swordsage for the most part). But they never got a chance to rend because their attack bonuses are an astounding +9. No rend means piddly damage, and ACs of 16 made them sitting ducks for the party. They were simply beaten unconscious, relieved of their rings, and subsequently burned to death.

Compare this to the actually CR 7 Huge Fire Elemental, who can make two hefty slams per round at +17 (enough to hit most of the party on about a 4) and forcing DC 22 Reflex saves each time to not light on fire. He also has a less-pathetic AC, DR 5/-, some immunities (including both crits and flanking), and the party Monk would've burned himself to death attacking it. Plus he's got better reach and Combat Reflexes as a default. And more HP than both Trolls put together. And Reflex and Will saves that don't say "OOH OOH THIS IS MY WEAKNESS."

If you don't want to give Mearls the benefit of the doubt, fine. But either way, the existing CR system is about as valuable as a flaming bag of dog poo for using enemy squads.

[Kurald Galain]

If you don't want to give Mearls the benefit of the doubt, fine. But either way, the existing CR system is about as valuable as a flaming bag of dog poo for using enemy squads.

Precisely. And the point is that, years ago, it was advertised as the best thing since sliced bread. And now, they're advertising a new system as the best thing since sliced bread, again - judged by their track record, it won't be nearly as fabulous as they think, and since they're not giving us anything else to judge it on, it is not an unreasonable assumption that this is a simple attempt at marketing hype.

[AKA_Bait]

If you don't want to give Mearls the benefit of the doubt, fine. But either way, the existing CR system is about as valuable as a flaming bag of dog poo for using enemy squads.

How optimized are your players? Are they WBL? I've found that their level of optimization and wealth has more of an effect than anything else. Still, the encounter levle are a good guideline, just like everything else really.

Also, your two CR 5's are on the lower end of a 'very difficult' encounter. I suspect your party might have made short work of cr 7 Fire Elemental too but probably not used the same tactics.

Yeah, but how many people actually use it in 3E? Not many that I've heard of. If they can make it so that DMs actually use traps, and interactive terrain features, in battle, that will indeed be a cool improvement.

I use it... the encounter calculator in the SRD makes it pretty easy actually...

[Zherog]

...The bigger of the two was a CR 5 combined with a CR 7, consisting of 8 orcs, a CR 3 orc sergeant (whose warrior levels I replaced with Warblade levels without recalculating CR), and CR 6 orc cleric (whose gear I upgraded and domains I mixed around to have more combat-relevant abilities and to free up feats), 4 skeletons, and 4 zombies (all of whom were under the effect of Desecrate).

Minor nit picky quibble:

The two bolded pieces should be EL (encounter level), not CR.

[Merlin the Tuna]

Minor nit picky quibble:

The two bolded pieces should be EL (encounter level), not CR.

The alphabet soup has been stirred. Thanks for the heads up.

[Draz74]

Precisely. And the point is that, years ago, it was advertised as the best thing since sliced bread. And now, they're advertising a new system as the best thing since sliced bread, again - judged by their track record, it won't be nearly as fabulous as they think, and since they're not giving us anything else to judge it on, it is not an unreasonable assumption that this is a simple attempt at marketing hype.

Well, to some extent it's only natural that developing game theory will make the "best thing since sliced bread" into "kind of lame, has some loopholes" in a few years, if enough people are playing.

The CR system is still pretty nifty, except that we've gotten used to it, and we focus on its loopholes and weaknesses. One of those weaknesses being large groups of monsters instead of single-monster encounters. (The previous poster called the squad situation "a flaming bag of poo," not the whole CR system.)

So I think you're being a tad harsh on the CR system, concentrating on its problems and using those to represent the whole system (including its future 4E incarnation).

[Kyeudo]

I do like that the new CR system is going to include the monsters role in the challenge, so you can ajust easier if the party lacks, say, a cleric when fighting agains undead.

[Golthur]

The CR system is still pretty nifty, except that we've gotten used to it, and we focus on its loopholes and weaknesses. One of those weaknesses being large groups of monsters instead of single-monster encounters. (The previous poster called the squad situation "a flaming bag of poo," not the whole CR system.)

So I think you're being a tad harsh on the CR system, concentrating on its problems and using those to represent the whole system (including its future 4E incarnation).

I've noticed that CRs fall apart in quite a few situations:

• Lots o' monsters, especially of differing types.
• If you have different wealth levels than WBL, such as low magic (but, then again, you'll have other balance problems, too).
• When you add extra "stuff" to the encounter - such as an ambush, cover, the Flaming Pit o' DOOM (tm, pat. pending), etc.
• With specific monsters, whose CRs are just plain wrong, wrong, wrong (That Damn Crab!).
• With monsters whose CRs rely on the party being able to beat special ability X by level Y, and for some completely random reason your particular party just doesn't have the spells, items, what have you.

The UA fixed XP variant fares a lot better with respect to some of this stuff, but not all.

[Fax Celestis]

The UA fixed XP variant fares a lot better with respect to some of this stuff, but not all.

The art with that one? Freakin' hilarious.

[Draz74]

I've noticed that CRs fall apart in quite a few situations:

Oh don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to say that squads are the only problem the CR system has. No one would claim that if they ever fought That Damn Crab.

I'm just trying to say that the CR system isn't always a miserable failure, like some people have been implying, and that it was an interesting direction for game theory to take.

[Golthur]

The art with that one? Freakin' hilarious.

I forgot what it looked like. It's like a smorgasbord of XP goodness!

EDIT: P.S. Fax, love the crab avatar!

Oh don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to say that squads are the only problem the CR system has. No one would claim that if they ever fought That Damn Crab.

I'm just trying to say that the CR system isn't always a miserable failure, like some people have been implying, and that it was an interesting direction for game theory to take.

True, it isn't. So long as everything in your game is exactly the same as how the CR system is built to work (and you keep the crabs away), it creaks along somewhat smoothly.

Keep in mind, though, it's not like AD&D didn't have similar encounter-planning systems. I remember one from a Dragon article called "Plan it by the Numbers" which I used religiously at the time.

[Hallavast]

I've noticed that CRs fall apart in quite a few situations:

• Lots o' monsters, especially of differing types.
• If you have different wealth levels than WBL, such as low magic (but, then again, you'll have other balance problems, too).
• When you add extra "stuff" to the encounter - such as an ambush, cover, the Flaming Pit o' DOOM (tm, pat. pending), etc.
• With specific monsters, whose CRs are just plain wrong, wrong, wrong (That Damn Crab!).
• With monsters whose CRs rely on the party being able to beat special ability X by level Y, and for some completely random reason your particular party just doesn't have the spells, items, what have you.

The UA fixed XP variant fares a lot better with respect to some of this stuff, but not all.

Well... there is a little table in the corner that says to give more/fewer xp for appropriately tougher/weaker encounters. So I assume monsters with more shiny magic weapons or monsters who ambush the party are supposed to be worth more than their run-of-the-mill counterparts. The trick is getting a DM to acknowledge these circumstances. So I think the CR system deserves a little more credit than it's been given. A few bad or unobservant DMs can ruin just about any system...