What do you prefer? - Downloaded from the Wizards Community, all coding removed by Solauren

What do you prefer?

Post/Author/DateTime Post
#1
october_darkness
May 07, 2009 14:54:25 Do you prefer facing off against a BBEG, like Sephiroth?... OR do you prefer fighting an evil group(same size as your party, evil counterparts of yourself)?

Sometimes I enjoy the whole party vs. party thing. I think it probably keeps it balanced, and is better for flavor.

Post up whatchu like!!!!
#2
silent_stone
May 07, 2009 15:22:10 Is "Both!" a valid answer? I like the variety.
#3
salla
May 07, 2009 15:30:53 I'm with silent stone. Sometimes the mob, sometimes the solo-with-sidekicks. I usually find 'just a solo' fights to be pretty dull, though. They really need some partners to really bring out the ouch.
#4
Macarius
May 07, 2009 18:22:06 I tend to have more fun fighting a group of baddies than just one uber-baddie.
#5
ytterbium_dragon
May 07, 2009 18:43:09 I like fighting a group, knocking them off one by one, with the leader being the BBEG. So both, I guess, but in a different sense.
#6
Simonides
May 07, 2009 21:09:52 Despite the existence of solo monsters in 4E, despite the basic assumption of 1 baddie for 4 heroes, I have found that D&D combat just doesn't really hold up for the lone boss monsters. Occasionally, you get a good one, but its the rare four-on-one fight that maintains a really exciting pace and flow. In the end it always comes down to: monster goes, player 1 goes, player 2 goes, player 3 goes, player 4 goes. Even with immediate actions, action points, and so forth, the dynamic just doesn't hold a candle to five-on-five or whatever.

So, give me a bunch of baddies to fight, or a boss and a bodyguard and a pet, or any other permutation other than dogpile-on-the-solo.
#7
ostracized
May 07, 2009 22:18:55 As a player, I dont like the BBEG. I like the group or even the group ran by a weak but dangerous man that you cannot kill outright.

As a DM, it doesnt matter, I can come up with what I think are cool BBEG with weaknesses and bonuses that the players dont know about (takes learning and research and experience and tactics) and I am not restricted to the "rules". Or I can create a tacticly minded team that works well together.
#8
tequila_sunrise
May 07, 2009 22:56:55 I like the group run by a BBEG. IME, solo BBEGs tend to either be dull or played by DMs who clearly have to pull punches in order to prevent a TPK.
#9
october_darkness
May 07, 2009 23:50:33 In my experience, the best campaign I ever played was The Temple of Elemental Evil. This campaign had everything a player could probably want(if they liked dungeon delves). The party was able to fight through the 7 or so levels there. At the end, Zuggtmoy, was a formidable BBEG. Also, she had her "lackies" there, which made it very difficult for our 10 player-character party to actually win.

That right there was an epic moment for all of us.
#10
CCS
May 08, 2009 1:39:34 Both.

And neither. I say this because I expect to have fights that aren't related to anything greater than just themselves. Every encounter does not have to be tied together on some overall grand scheme. I'm ok with fighting random monsters etc as I navigate the world the DMs laid out.
#11
october_darkness
May 08, 2009 2:17:05
Both.

And neither. I say this because I expect to have fights that aren't related to anything greater than just themselves. Every encounter does not have to be tied together on some overall grand scheme. I'm ok with fighting random monsters etc as I navigate the world the DMs laid out.

Wouldn't you say that could potentially be a "cop-out" on the DM's part? It's the same if I were to play an MMO, because I could just kill stuff and not worry about any storyline.
#12
_jayne_cobb_
May 08, 2009 8:21:30
Do you prefer facing off against a BBEG…

Yup.

like Sephiroth?...

Hell no!

OR do you prefer fighting an evil group(same size as your party, evil counterparts of yourself)?

It's an "and", not an "or" for me. I like 'em both.
#13
salla
May 08, 2009 9:46:07
Wouldn't you say that could potentially be a "cop-out" on the DM's part? It's the same if I were to play an MMO, because I could just kill stuff and not worry about any storyline.

There's a difference between an occassional unrelated fight and a campaign consisting of nothing but random groups of monsters thrown in front of the PCs. It's not that the storyline ceases to exist or matter, but not everything in the world relates to it.

I look at it like this ... one game I was running was very lizard/dragon focussed; the PCs went several encounters fighting nothing but kobolds, drakes, and other reptiles. That gets a little dull, so I threw in an encounter that had nothing to do with the mammal/reptile dichotomy just to shake things up and keep things more interesting.
#14
oxybe
May 08, 2009 12:06:33 the main metagame problem i have with the one "Big Bad" scenario is what could be called the "conservation of actions".

basically he gets one round while the party gets 4-5.

this means the party has a LOT of time to do setups and combos. most Big Bad types might get 2 action points but otherwise they're still stuck with the standard/move/minor that everyone else gets. parties with good knowledge on how to make every attack work at best can make short work on these enemies unless...

they're strong. REAL strong. they hit harder & more accurately, have wider AoE attacks from longer range, higher defenses and HP by the truckload. now while this does work great in making the "big bad" feel big AND bad. the higher attack and damage values can really cause problems if he focuses on the squishies, and the higher defenses means he can actually afford to ignore the tanks who'll have problems hitting him anyways.

while this solves the issue of the party making mincemeat of him, it can also create an enemy that is so strong that the fight will drag on for a long time after the party has drained all it's resources and it comes down to a fight of attrition.

so the best way, IMO, to solve this issue is by having a strong (elite enemy 1-2 level above party) "Big Bad", his general who's equivalent or slightly stronger to a PC, and some throw-away flunkies (or second general). this way the big bad can show off stuff by posing a threat to two pcs while the third PC goes toe to toe with the general and the fourth PC faces off against the horde or other general.

in short: In-game, as a Player i like both, as long as it's appropriate for the story. as a GM i prefer group Vs group.

just a big IMO.
#15
suzaku455
May 08, 2009 12:44:02 I prefer a group of minions with a leader because in 3.5 a single opponent tends to fall fairly quickly.
#16
icuall
May 08, 2009 13:19:33 I prefer brunettes.

Oh, I am sorry i didn't read the OP questions. :embarrass
#17
mnm_toad
May 08, 2009 13:27:31 The only solo monsters I've ever seen that really hold a candle to 4 or 5 PCs are Dragons, and even then the environment has to favor the Dragon to make the combat interesting.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 october_darkness May 07, 2009 14:54:25	Do you prefer facing off against a BBEG, like Sephiroth?... OR do you prefer fighting an evil group(same size as your party, evil counterparts of yourself)? Sometimes I enjoy the whole party vs. party thing. I think it probably keeps it balanced, and is better for flavor. Post up whatchu like!!!!
#2 silent_stone May 07, 2009 15:22:10	Is "Both!" a valid answer? I like the variety.
#3 salla May 07, 2009 15:30:53	I'm with silent stone. Sometimes the mob, sometimes the solo-with-sidekicks. I usually find 'just a solo' fights to be pretty dull, though. They really need some partners to really bring out the ouch.
#4 Macarius May 07, 2009 18:22:06	I tend to have more fun fighting a group of baddies than just one uber-baddie.
#5 ytterbium_dragon May 07, 2009 18:43:09	I like fighting a group, knocking them off one by one, with the leader being the BBEG. So both, I guess, but in a different sense.
#6 Simonides May 07, 2009 21:09:52	Despite the existence of solo monsters in 4E, despite the basic assumption of 1 baddie for 4 heroes, I have found that D&D combat just doesn't really hold up for the lone boss monsters. Occasionally, you get a good one, but its the rare four-on-one fight that maintains a really exciting pace and flow. In the end it always comes down to: monster goes, player 1 goes, player 2 goes, player 3 goes, player 4 goes. Even with immediate actions, action points, and so forth, the dynamic just doesn't hold a candle to five-on-five or whatever. So, give me a bunch of baddies to fight, or a boss and a bodyguard and a pet, or any other permutation other than dogpile-on-the-solo.
#7 ostracized May 07, 2009 22:18:55	As a player, I dont like the BBEG. I like the group or even the group ran by a weak but dangerous man that you cannot kill outright. As a DM, it doesnt matter, I can come up with what I think are cool BBEG with weaknesses and bonuses that the players dont know about (takes learning and research and experience and tactics) and I am not restricted to the "rules". Or I can create a tacticly minded team that works well together.
#8 tequila_sunrise May 07, 2009 22:56:55	I like the group run by a BBEG. IME, solo BBEGs tend to either be dull or played by DMs who clearly have to pull punches in order to prevent a TPK.
#9 october_darkness May 07, 2009 23:50:33	In my experience, the best campaign I ever played was The Temple of Elemental Evil. This campaign had everything a player could probably want(if they liked dungeon delves). The party was able to fight through the 7 or so levels there. At the end, Zuggtmoy, was a formidable BBEG. Also, she had her "lackies" there, which made it very difficult for our 10 player-character party to actually win. That right there was an epic moment for all of us.
#10 CCS May 08, 2009 1:39:34	Both. And neither. I say this because I expect to have fights that aren't related to anything greater than just themselves. Every encounter does not have to be tied together on some overall grand scheme. I'm ok with fighting random monsters etc as I navigate the world the DMs laid out.
#11 october_darkness May 08, 2009 2:17:05	Both. And neither. I say this because I expect to have fights that aren't related to anything greater than just themselves. Every encounter does not have to be tied together on some overall grand scheme. I'm ok with fighting random monsters etc as I navigate the world the DMs laid out. Wouldn't you say that could potentially be a "cop-out" on the DM's part? It's the same if I were to play an MMO, because I could just kill stuff and not worry about any storyline.
#12 _jayne_cobb_ May 08, 2009 8:21:30	Do you prefer facing off against a BBEG… Yup. like Sephiroth?... Hell no! OR do you prefer fighting an evil group(same size as your party, evil counterparts of yourself)? It's an "and", not an "or" for me. I like 'em both.
#13 salla May 08, 2009 9:46:07	Wouldn't you say that could potentially be a "cop-out" on the DM's part? It's the same if I were to play an MMO, because I could just kill stuff and not worry about any storyline. There's a difference between an occassional unrelated fight and a campaign consisting of nothing but random groups of monsters thrown in front of the PCs. It's not that the storyline ceases to exist or matter, but not everything in the world relates to it. I look at it like this ... one game I was running was very lizard/dragon focussed; the PCs went several encounters fighting nothing but kobolds, drakes, and other reptiles. That gets a little dull, so I threw in an encounter that had nothing to do with the mammal/reptile dichotomy just to shake things up and keep things more interesting.
#14 oxybe May 08, 2009 12:06:33	the main metagame problem i have with the one "Big Bad" scenario is what could be called the "conservation of actions". basically he gets one round while the party gets 4-5. this means the party has a LOT of time to do setups and combos. most Big Bad types might get 2 action points but otherwise they're still stuck with the standard/move/minor that everyone else gets. parties with good knowledge on how to make every attack work at best can make short work on these enemies unless... they're strong. REAL strong. they hit harder & more accurately, have wider AoE attacks from longer range, higher defenses and HP by the truckload. now while this does work great in making the "big bad" feel big AND bad. the higher attack and damage values can really cause problems if he focuses on the squishies, and the higher defenses means he can actually afford to ignore the tanks who'll have problems hitting him anyways. while this solves the issue of the party making mincemeat of him, it can also create an enemy that is so strong that the fight will drag on for a long time after the party has drained all it's resources and it comes down to a fight of attrition. so the best way, IMO, to solve this issue is by having a strong (elite enemy 1-2 level above party) "Big Bad", his general who's equivalent or slightly stronger to a PC, and some throw-away flunkies (or second general). this way the big bad can show off stuff by posing a threat to two pcs while the third PC goes toe to toe with the general and the fourth PC faces off against the horde or other general. in short: In-game, as a Player i like both, as long as it's appropriate for the story. as a GM i prefer group Vs group. just a big IMO.
#15 suzaku455 May 08, 2009 12:44:02	I prefer a group of minions with a leader because in 3.5 a single opponent tends to fall fairly quickly.
#16 icuall May 08, 2009 13:19:33	I prefer brunettes. Oh, I am sorry i didn't read the OP questions. :embarrass
#17 mnm_toad May 08, 2009 13:27:31	The only solo monsters I've ever seen that really hold a candle to 4 or 5 PCs are Dragons, and even then the environment has to favor the Dragon to make the combat interesting.