There was some interesting chatter on Twitter on Wednesday January 19, 2011 regarding tactics. @newbiedm mentioned wanting something akin to the “Player’s Strategy Guide” that Wizards of the Coast released, but for DMs. Basically, something that told DMs, “Okay, your party has x, y, z characters, here’s how you challenge them!”
As I wrote to both him and @SarahDarkmagic, I don’t believe that something like that is appropriate. I think that the key to challenging PCs in a 4th Edition D&D encounter is building the enemy “party” just like a player party would. What you want to focus on is the tactics within the enemy party, rather than build ways to stop the players’ characters.
As in most sports, the best defense is a good offense. Knowing your own game plan and executing it at your best ability is key to making a challenge, well, challenging. I’d compare it to what I say about my favorite football team, the NY Jets, which is a paraphrase of something said many a time, “Run the ball until they prove they can stop you. Then run it some more. Pass only when you have to.”
What I mean is, bring out your bag of tricks and gotchas on players. Do things that they don’t expect, rather than try to stop them. Sure, you can have your kobold shaman immobilize the party’s rogue, thereby removing his ability to get into position for combat advantage, but then the party’s fighter will mark the target and that changes everything anyway.
The fact is, players are going to work together to break whatever plans you design. That’s okay; because armed with a different mindset you can “beat” them. You want to see some gaping mouths? Have your goblin shaman teleport. Steal the power from a totally different creature (the Shardmind Dominator has a very interesting teleport ability). Throw a group of monsters at them that they think they already know everything about. Your group is level 9? Send a group of kobolds against them. They’ll stop grinning when the shaman pulls out “Dark Blessing” (Monster Manual: Deathpriest of Orcus) and hits for 2d8+3, and grants all allies +2 to AC for the rest of the encounter.
As @TheAngryDM pointed out on Twitter, you as a DM have an advantage the PCs don’t: telepathy. All of your monsters know exactly what each other is going to do every turn. Coordinate that well and suddenly you have a well-oiled machine of destruction ready to rain terror down upon the souls of your players’ characters.
As I wrote on Twitter, the key to my position on this topic is my history playing the D&D Miniatures game. In that game, you built a squad of creatures to work together, but with no idea regarding the composition of your opponent. The key was to design a unit that worked cohesively, with powers that complimented each other, rather than worrying about having abilities that stymied your opponent’s creatures. The same design elements go into 4E encounter design. Avoid worrying about what your players can do, and concentrate on what your creatures can do.
The best defense is a great offense.
Good article. I would point out that the fact you played the D&D Miniatures game make the comment that these things are obvious a bit suspect. :)
I’ve been advocating monster synergies for a while now. However, I think it is important to use the info about the party makeup when picking your monsters. Throwing waves of minions at a party without a controller with area effects might not make for the best table experience in many cases but might be just what the doctor ordered to provide an interesting challenge. Using soldiers against a party without a defender might get you into similar trouble. It’s all about the experience you’re aiming for at the table and what type of challenge (and how much of one) you want to present.
Also, in order to do the unexpected you need to know what’s expected. :)
@SarahDarkmagic you make a good point, and perhaps I’m using the wrong word when I write “obvious.” What I am trying to say is that the only time you need to worry about mixing or matching powers based on the PCs’ capabilities are in situations such as you described, where you just want to make sure you don’t unbalance the encounter. In that case, you’re right that it’s not necessarily “obvious” but it is knowledge the system sort of expects you to have when you DM. Whether that’s fair or not is probably up for discussion, but I think there’s enough information in the DM resources to get the point, though that’s of course a personal opinion.
That said, I firmly believe you can build a hard-but-survivable encounter in 4E, even without any prior knowledge of the group that will face it, if you strictly adhere to the XP chart and make the encounter equal to the party’s effective level. It may kill some of the party, but if they work well together they should be able to survive no matter the composition of the enemy party. If they don’t work well together, well, then I guess Bruce Cordell collects more souls. ;-)
One thing I find irritating about a lot of 4e encounters is the enemy “parties”. Having the PCs battle an evil “party” of 5 or 6 monsters gets old quick. Its good to go squad vs. squad on occasion, but I find its much more interesting to have a massive group of minions, or a solo elite in the middle of an adventure, just to keep the PCs on their toes. Not only that, it seems to me somewhat more realistic to have a group of heroes vs. a horde, or a singular massive threat; certainly more cinematic that way.
@Thorynn Interestingly enough, someone on Twitter actually made that point the other day through their blog. It was actually something I hadn’t even realized was fatiguing me in 4E. There is a huge emphasis on encounters as the vehicle to advance characters, but that’s not a great idea in terms of playability. As you said, it gets old quick. I’m actually going to move toward more cinematic play, where a climactic battle is the capstone of an adventure after role-play has been thoroughly explored in the scenario.
The subject matter in this post is probably implying a need for party after party of villains, however, the context of the conversation was how would a DM construct a properly challenging encounter in 4E. Obviously you can mix in various encounter types, but the key to the conversation was how would one make a balanced encounter if one were to decide that a particular encounter type is desired.
I personally believe that the key to a challenging and fun encounter is a healthy mix of monster roles, terrain, at least one enemy with a “gotcha” power, and some helpful synergy if possible.
For example, the Ettercap Landing encounter from Rescue at Rivenroar is fun and challenging because the enemies have beneficial terrain and frightening synergy.
In contrast, the Foiled Ambush encounter from The Lost Mines of Karak may be challenging, but it’s unlikely to be fun because it includes 5 of the same monster.
“Gotcha” powers (powers which change or avoid the normal rules of the game) IMO are the single best addition to 4e, because they really do allow the DM to keep the players on their toes. Powers that teleport enemies or allow allies to shift and powers that allow monsters to make attacks when they are bloodied or killed ensure that each combat poses its own unique tactical challenges. I like to try to fit at least one such power into an encounter.
@Colmarr I completely agree. The “gotcha” powers really make your players stop and say “Whoa!” In a recent game I stole a teleport power from another creature for my solo. He was getting off an attack every round and then blinking across the room. The party was freaking out and on the chase the whole battle. It really made a solo feel like it was a creature that hang on its own.