4th Edition D&D

[Ranior]

Originally Posted by Taeblewalker

The system implies five, since a solo monster is good for five characters of the monster's level. Any fewer than three will likely lack the diversity of roles needed. Any more than seven probably slows down the game.

This fall semester at UW Madison some guys started up a DnD club. We had three guys and a DM the first time--that's a little rough but it can be done. Leave out the controller role and you can do it, but I'd say you really should aim for four.

We've gained a lot of members. One week we had 9 characters in the 4e game. NEVER AGAIN. Terrible, you can hardly get to your turns, and the monsters hardly can get enough attacks if they are a solo, and if it is a swarm they can gang up on one guy and largely take him out in a turn.

Right now we're at seven which is fine though. So really I agree with what the above says, but figured I may as well try and give my insight as well.

[Fuzzie Fuzz]

One PC is doable if the adventure is designed to be for solo characters. Two can also work, but again, it requires more work on the DMs part. Three can start to work pretty well, though the players have to be careful to cover for the role they're missing. Four through six is the preferred range, and above that, it's just a matter of how many players you want to fit around a table.

[Pilgrim]

I'm toying with 6-7 players, but didn't want too many, for fear of changing group dynamics in a negative way, and and in terms of making encounters overly time consuming. I don't like excessive player downtime.

[Fuzzie Fuzz]

I would say that six would be a good number, and seven or more would probably be pushing it. I'm a fan of small groups in general though; I like the small-group dynamic in which everyone must pull their own weight. I also feel it fosters effective roleplay if there are so few people that side conversations can't really occur.

[Pilgrim]

Originally Posted by Fuzzie Fuzz

I would say that six would be a good number, and seven or more would probably be pushing it. I'm a fan of small groups in general though; I like the small-group dynamic in which everyone must pull their own weight. I also feel it fosters effective roleplay if there are so few people that side conversations can't really occur.

Very helpful! Thank you. Never thought of the dynamic of side conversations.

[Chardris1287]

Hi, I'm the DM of my very own adventure. While I have the basic structure of the game worked out, the game is moving along very slowly. Particularly in the battle sections. I believe it may be my fault, so what tricks and shortcuts can I use to speed up the rounds? Currently, I have index cards of all the players, so I can quickly reference their defences and passives. I'm using a dry erase board to keep track of Initiative order, and monster HP. I have a graphing notebook for my maps, but I do not have an actual map for the players to play on. It's going on inside the imagination through discription. I have dungeon tiles, but not enough to make the maps I want, at least not to proper scale.

[Taeblewalker]

4E D&D combat takes longer than earlier editions, simply because everyone has more HP. I would use more minions. Also, make unintelligent monsters (hippogriffs, etc., run away when bloodied). Most predators won't fight to the death, anyway.

[Fuzzie Fuzz]

Also, if you have the MM3, the monsters there deal more damage and have less health, thus making combat shorter. I suggest using those when in doubt.

[Kepler]

Originally Posted by Fuzzie Fuzz

Also, if you have the MM3, the monsters there deal more damage and have less health, thus making combat shorter. I suggest using those when in doubt.

I think only the solos have reduced HP in MM3 (and the Monster Vaults). The damage is definitely higher and some of the defense numbers have come down for solos and elite I believe. Also, brutes are now more accurate and soliders less so (both now follows the level +5 model for attack numbers).