I've had the opportunity to run a couple of one shot sessions of Next. Most recently for a group that really had never played d&d before, using my own adventure.
The party had 3 members: Elf/Fighter (Sharpshooter)/Soldier/Magic User Halfling/Rogue (Thief)/Artisan/Lurker Human/Fighter (Slayer, but used sword and shield)/Commoner/Healer
If you're interested in the entire session recap it's here: http://community.wizards.com/trebuchet/blog/2012/09/22/introducing_new_players_to_dd_-_session_recap
Now I definitely believe the monsters need to be adjusted, which seems to be the general census around here. However, after this most recent session, there are some aspects that I really like about how combat runs right now. Most notably, pacing:
Combat is quick. Sometimes it's a faceroll; In the first encounter, the party got the drop on a group of six goblins, and they were able to take them all out with ranged attacks and didn't sustain any injuries. But I think that feels right. A party of first level character should be able to easily defeat twice their number of goblins, if they have surprise.
Even the tough encounter, however, didn't take much time, and it flowed very smoothly. It was six goblins led by a bugbear, which, for a group of 3 PCs with no cleric, was a tough encounter. The bugbear 1-shot the rogue, which to me feels right for first level. It took a couple of blows from the longsword wielding fighter to kill the bugbear. Meanwhile, the goblins, using ranged attacks, were able to land enough hits to injure both the fighters, eventually dropping the elf. The combat ended with the remaining fighter dragging his fallen friends back behind cover while the last two goblins also ran away.
The best thing about this fight is that it was scary. When that bugbear hit, it HURT. Alone, the goblins weren't much threat, but with their big buddy, their arrows could get through, and the party took substantial damage from them.
Now, there are some things I realize. First, the group was small, so having even one party member fall is dangerous, which adds to the scary fights. Second, they had no cleric. Having a healer could have changed everything. Third, I did not min-max these characters at all. The rogue sort of is, but certainly not to be a combat powerhouse. I asked the players what kind of characters they wanted to play, and built them based on flavor. I'm well aware that a fighter or sorceror could be built with the ability to one-shot that bugbear, and with enough armor to not really be afraid of it.
There has been a lot of talk about monsters needing more to-hit bonus and raising hp. Now I think that monsters should be slightly tougher, especially for a very munched our party, but I really hope that the feel of combat stays close to what it's at now. Monsters don't NEED to hit that much if they hit hard.
Thoughts? I know this kind of rambles a bit, but I'd like to know if anyone else out there likes any part of the current monster stats. Is there a happy medium to be reached?
I hear what you are saying, and I totally agree that there needs to be a happy medium. I love the speed of combat that D&DNext is boasting right now.
I really do think that the monster vs. PC numbers are really off, and monsters can be made more challenging without adding time to the encounters.
In our last playtest (playing 2nd level PCs) it was even more obvious that the monsters were wimps, and I suspect that that feeling will get worse at 3rd and 4th and 5th level since bounded accuracy keeps the monster "to hit" scores so dang low. (I just posted my playtest experience before responding to your post).
The problem with many of the combats is that monsters don't always seem scary if they don't hit. In our first game, the players were able to surprise a bugbear and many goblins so the bugbear was gang attacked (first by the rogue with sneak attack) and then by others. The bugbear didn't get a chance to attack, and the goblin attacks were not so effective. In this last session, two bugbears were sneaking up on the PCs, but they were detected so they only lasted for 3 or 4 rounds (and they didn't even attack each of those rounds because they were hiding and sneaking for 1 or 2 rounds). So in total, I think the bugbears attacked only 3 or 4 times total, and they missed each time!!!! Maybe this is bad die rolling, but with that kind of performance, they are not scary.
I'm not sure what the answer will be, but I do feel that monsters should hit more, and some monsters should definately gain more hit points, so they last a little longer vs. PCs. I don't want to have to throw 10-12 monsters at the PCs in an encounter to make it challenging. There should be ways to use 1, 2, 3 or 4 monsters to challenge the PCs. I would think that 2 bugbears (6 level monsters) would be a little more challenging to a Party of 4 2nd level PCs.
I'm not sure what the answer will be, but I do feel that monsters should hit more, and some monsters should definately gain more hit points, so they last a little longer vs. PCs. I don't want to have to throw 10-12 monsters at the PCs in an encounter to make it challenging. There should be ways to use 1, 2, 3 or 4 monsters to challenge the PCs. I would think that 2 bugbears (6 level monsters) would be a little more challenging to a Party of 4 2nd level PCs.
Thanks for the response Rhenny.
I think you allude to a good point here: monsters should be considered on a case by case basis, as opposed to flat increases across the board.
Looking at the Bugbears, for example, I would propose something like a slight accuracy increase, a slight hp increase, and to leave their damage and ac alone. If it had +4 or +5 to hit, it would become more of a threat to the PCs with higher AC, so that fighter standing toe-to-toe with him might take some damage, or even drop if the bugbear rolls well. If its hp was increased to 25 or so, he could still be focused down by a first level party fast enough to be use a bugbear at that level, and still be able to survive long enough that 2-3 bugbears would be dangerous for 2nd or 3rd level PCs. I think orcs and hobgoblins should be treated similarly so that at first one or two are scary, but later on you can throw a whole bunch at the party effectively.
I'm going to play devil's advocate with the lesser humanoids though, and suggest that greater numbers is the answer. A slight increase in hp for goblins and kobolds could be benificial. Enough that sometimes they don't get 1-shot. I slight bonus to hit, like +1, might be nice for these monsters, but I wouldn't want it so high that a) their damage has to be reduced or b) twice the number of goblins/kobolds to PCs is an impossible encounter. Considering how Rapid Shot and Two-Weapon Fighting work at the moment, I think that low hp on these monsters is desired, so that a half-damage hit will still probably drop a goblin, assuming a average to good damage roll. Between those abilities, fighters with cleave eventually, and any aoe spell, I think most parties will be able to quickly tear through hordes of goblins. Personally, I would be fine needing 10-12 goblins (if using only goblins) to challange the party.
Tougher monsters, the ogres, trolls, minotaurs, etc... should probably get comprehensive buffs. Right now I think a 1st level party has a decent chance of beating these guys, which is silly. A single ogre should wipe out the 1st level party more often than not, and continue being a challange through 5th or 6th level when encountered in small groups. Only at 7+ should a large band of these monsters be a possibility.
I'm not sure what the answer will be, but I do feel that monsters should hit more, and some monsters should definately gain more hit points, so they last a little longer vs. PCs. I don't want to have to throw 10-12 monsters at the PCs in an encounter to make it challenging. There should be ways to use 1, 2, 3 or 4 monsters to challenge the PCs. I would think that 2 bugbears (6 level monsters) would be a little more challenging to a Party of 4 2nd level PCs.
Thanks for the response Rhenny.
I think you allude to a good point here: monsters should be considered on a case by case basis, as opposed to flat increases across the board.
Looking at the Bugbears, for example, I would propose something like a slight accuracy increase, a slight hp increase, and to leave their damage and ac alone. If it had +4 or +5 to hit, it would become more of a threat to the PCs with higher AC, so that fighter standing toe-to-toe with him might take some damage, or even drop if the bugbear rolls well. If its hp was increased to 25 or so, he could still be focused down by a first level party fast enough to be use a bugbear at that level, and still be able to survive long enough that 2-3 bugbears would be dangerous for 2nd or 3rd level PCs. I think orcs and hobgoblins should be treated similarly so that at first one or two are scary, but later on you can throw a whole bunch at the party effectively.
I'm going to play devil's advocate with the lesser humanoids though, and suggest that greater numbers is the answer. A slight increase in hp for goblins and kobolds could be benificial. Enough that sometimes they don't get 1-shot. I slight bonus to hit, like +1, might be nice for these monsters, but I wouldn't want it so high that a) their damage has to be reduced or b) twice the number of goblins/kobolds to PCs is an impossible encounter. Considering how Rapid Shot and Two-Weapon Fighting work at the moment, I think that low hp on these monsters is desired, so that a half-damage hit will still probably drop a goblin, assuming a average to good damage roll. Between those abilities, fighters with cleave eventually, and any aoe spell, I think most parties will be able to quickly tear through hordes of goblins. Personally, I would be fine needing 10-12 goblins (if using only goblins) to challange the party.
Tougher monsters, the ogres, trolls, minotaurs, etc... should probably get comprehensive buffs. Right now I think a 1st level party has a decent chance of beating these guys, which is silly. A single ogre should wipe out the 1st level party more often than not, and continue being a challange through 5th or 6th level when encountered in small groups. Only at 7+ should a large band of these monsters be a possibility.
True. Lesser humanoids (minions/mooks) can be weak. That would be fine, and sometimes quite satisfying. I guess what's tough right now is that monster level and xp values are basically useless for designing encounters since they seem to be almost arbitrary. When WoTC gets the numbers calibrated to PC levels, then it will be much easier for DM to design easy, moderate and difficult encounters.
As it is now, I need to adjust so much on the fly so playing Blingdenstone as written is nearly impossible. I know after WoTC works out the threat levels and the attack/damage ratios it will be easier, and I have faith that that will be done.
To be honest, I've been ignoring monster level and for the most part just putting together encounters based on what I *think* a 1st level party should be facing.
I have run two sessions of Blingdenstone so far, and was unimpressed. The setup is so non-linear, and PCs level so fast, that it's easy to get encounters that are no challenge whatsoever. Because monsters just aren't that tough at the moment, I think it's really hard for the opposite to be true; having some stupidly hard encounters you can run into is pretty important for a non-linear adventure like Blingdenstone.
That scenario aside, my other sessions with custom adventures played really well, challange wise. They were for smaller groups though, which always makes things harder for the party. In all the sessions, whether my own or Blingdenstone, the players had fun. Because of that I'm very happy with Next so far, even though it still needs some refinement.
In our last playtest (playing 2nd level PCs) it was even more obvious that the monsters were wimps, and I suspect that that feeling will get worse at 3rd and 4th and 5th level since bounded accuracy keeps the monster "to hit" scores so dang low.
Yes, it gets worse at higher levels. The gap between PC AC and monsters bonus to-hit widens even more once PCs can equip heavier armor (plate), get the increase in DEX (lvl 4) and loot +1 magical shield. Wizards and Warlocks are the exceptions but they can compensate their low AC with protection spells, invocations and clever positioning.
Thank you for mentionning the bounded accuracy issue because many playtesters tend to forget it. I've read many times that monster HP is the main problem, I admit they are a bit low (in most of the cases) but I still don't think a raise in HP (even a very specific one) will fix the current balance of the game. Actually the bounded accuracy mechanic should set the monster to-hit bonus a little higher so that they can still threaten PC AC at higher levels.
I hear you all, facing several of your issues here... my party is six-strong, and 4 of those six are 3.5E power-gamers. Making challenging encounters for them is a nightmare . Just a few comments: Having the ability to throw a horde of individually useless creatures at the PCs is invaluable, even just for the fun of it. At 1st or second level, they can actually pose some threat. For the higher levels, one has to either throw at the PCs higher-level monsters, or beef up the existing ones. I'm a 3.5E supporter, so I did what every 3.5E DM worth his salt does: I gave any monsters I wanted to be tough, PC class levels. A bugbear rogue is pure pain. And wait till you fight a kobold sorcerer. I figured out class levels equate to average difficulty, so the XP value of a monster with class levels is equal to its base XP value, plus the XP value of an average encounter of the monster's class levels (e.g. a 1st-level kobold sorcerer is worth 70 [kobold] + 165 [1st-level average XP value, from the table in the DM Guidelines module] = 235 XP). It has worked out well so far, mostly because a) Classes have few options and simple mechanics, and b) Nothing depends on character level now, so calculations degenerate to simple addition. As a side note, I use the "Tough" column when adding class levels in elite or solo monsters. I also modified the XP per level listed in the Character Advancement table (found at the end of the "Character Creation" module), by multiplying each value by 10. Up to 3rd level (current level of PCs), it works out to a slow, 2E-like progression. I guess a faster one (maybe 5x) is better, but for now, with everyone learning the game, a slow progression works fine. Plus, there's currently nothing beyond 5th-level
. 
