D&D 4th Edition RulesAsk questions about 4th-Edition rules and the like in here. General discussion about 4E or any other game belongs in General RPG Discussion, above.
I am a bit puzzled having just picked up the 4E mmII. I had heard about the changes to hit points from (5x) to (4x) even though the DMG says a new solo should have (5x) the usual number if it is 11th level or higher.
I understand that this was a suggestion, as is the damage table for monster powers in the DMG, but here's the pickle. The MM monsters are all or nearly all following the 'suggestions' in the DMG by roll instead of figures for defences, to hit and damage based on ability score and level. These however, do not follow either one. Demogorgon or Dagon can't do better than a 3d8+8 with a basic attack? Their strength scores alone would lead to a higher damage bonus than that. Why if the DMG is going to suggest such design hand waving based on level or roll do these creatures disigns not follow the publishers own suggestions? For a high level creature like Demogorgon who a party is going to encounter once at the end of a high level campaign the difference between 3d8+8 which is actiually less than the suggested damage for a creature of lower level per the DMG, not only have hundreds fewer hit points than another controller of a lower level but arbitrary damage less than the norm? Was this poor proof reading, or was there errata that I missed (and that should have been included with the book)? perhaps damage tables and the like have been extended beyond 30th level, and I missed it. If that is the reason though, why give a monster a 32 str. If even Demogorgon or Dagon can have it and still not do more than +8 damage with a basic attack, why bother.
Other creatures in the book have similar design differences, but I chose a high level example or two as an extreme case.
According to the DMG p185 the basic attack for a creature in that range should do between 2d8+11 and 4d8+12 depending on how you want to extend the scale, with 3d8+11 probably being about the right median point.
It's only 3 off from that. They could have instead of 3d8+8 (avg 21.5) done it as 3d6+11 and that would have matched Str 32, but it really has no need to do so.
Demogorgon or Dagon can't do better than a 3d8+8 with a basic attack? Their strength scores alone would lead to a higher damage bonus than that.
Their Strength score has nothing to do with their basic attack. Monster damage is simply determined by role and level. Strength score doesn't figure in there at all. (To answer: Why give him a 32 Strength, the answer is "to know how much he can lift/move/etc for non-combat stuff, how good he is at Athletics, and his effectiveness at Bullrushing and grabbing. Every non-attack power use of Strength, really.)
Focusing just on the monster's basic attack is misleading, though, especially for a solo who will be using recharge or encounter attacks most turns (and have reactions and interrupts and auras to do additional damage). Orcus might never use his basic attack except for when taking OAs.
There was a slight change in Solo design in the MMII, that involved them having a lower HP total than MMI solos, but doing more damage when bloodied. And possibly lower defenses overall... I don't recall the details, exactly.
I am a bit puzzled having just picked up the 4E mmII. I had heard about the changes to hit points from (5x) to (4x) even though the DMG says a new solo should have (5x) the usual number if it is 11th level or higher.
Solo monsters in MM2 have x4 HP in the DMG's formula regardless of their level, and have the normal defenses for their role/level (unlike in MM1, where there defenses are generally 2 higher than a normal monster of their role/level). To compensate, MM2 solos do much more damage than MM1 solos.
Note that solo HP is independent of role- i.e., Brute Solos, Artillery Solos and Skirmisher Solos all use the same formula. There's a lot more discussion in Monster Manual 2 and Elite/Solo design.
Their Strength score has nothing to do with their basic attack. Monster damage is simply determined by role and level. Strength score doesn't figure in there at all. (To answer: Why give him a 32 Strength, the answer is "to know how much he can lift/move/etc for non-combat stuff, how good he is at Athletics, and his effectiveness at Bullrushing and grabbing. Every non-attack power use of Strength, really.)
Focusing just on the monster's basic attack is misleading, though, especially for a solo who will be using recharge or encounter attacks most turns (and have reactions and interrupts and auras to do additional damage). Orcus might never use his basic attack except for when taking OAs.
There was a slight change in Solo design in the MMII, that involved them having a lower HP total than MMI solos, but doing more damage when bloodied. And possibly lower defenses overall... I don't recall the details, exactly.
But the level (34th, which I would image as being more than the 27th - 30th bracket) and role of Demogorgon and Dagon are not reflected by 3d8+8. That damage does not appear anywhere in the DMG design suggestions. If it was 3d8+11 or even more, I wouldn't take issue, but neither the level/role specifications used in MM nor the level/ability type equations that a character or NPC might use are represented.
What I am asking is how these figures are arrived at. If the answer is arbitrary hand waving, so be it, but if so, it defeats the purpose of having suggested design parameters. The value of these was the reason for using them in MM. Any changes could certainly have been included in the book. (for difficult people like me). :-)
I ued the basic attacks as a simple example, but the different kinds of powers accross the book do not follow the values listed in the DMG.
Solo monsters in MM2 have x4 HP in the DMG's formula regardless of their level, and have the normal defenses for their role/level (unlike in MM1, where there defenses are generally 2 higher than a normal monster of their role/level). To compensate, MM2 solos do much more damage than MM1 solos.
Note that solo HP is independent of role- i.e., Brute Solos, Artillery Solos and Skirmisher Solos all use the same formula. There's a lot more discussion in Monster Manual 2 and Elite/Solo design.
But then if part of the design change was less hit points, and defense, more damage, why does damage for these high level opponents quote less than what level/role in the DMG, (assuming a level 34 has at least as much as a 27th-30th)? 3d8+8 does not appear anywhere in the DMG tables and there are higher damage recommendations that do appear for lower level creatures than these. For demogorgon as an example, I would not have batted an eye at 3d8+11, or more.
The same is true for others in the book with rechage, encounter, and other powers.
If the answer is arbitrary hand waving, so be it, but if so, it defeats the purpose of having suggested design parameters.
That's not necessarily true. If their original system only worked within the parameters of levels 1-30 than arbitrary hand waving could be completely viable for monsters designed above the levels allowed in the parameters for balance issues.
fair enough, but the damage figure in my example is actually lower than some that do appear in the DMG for lower level creatures, and the MMII has other creatures also sub par for their level on damage (going by the DMG suggestions). If it's a balance issue, why not then give Demogorgon or Dagon a 26 strength instead of 32.
I know, you can't please everyone. Maybe in playtesting, they did go higher and got TPKs
fair enough, but the damage figure in my example is actually lower than some that do appear in the DMG for lower level creatures, and the MMII has other creatures also sub par for their level on damage (going by the DMG suggestions). If it's a balance issue, why not then give Demogorgon or Dagon a 26 strength instead of 32.
I know, you can't please everyone. Maybe in playtesting, they did go higher and got TPKs
You are under some mistaken assumption that there needs to be any correlation between its Strength score and its melee damage. The DMG guidelines are 1) just guidelines 2) specifically say they're not the same as official monster manual design 3) have no rules requiring that basic attack damage have anything to do with Strength or any other ability.
It's not expected that Solos are even all that likely to use their basic attacks, and even then may use their basic attacks many times - such as a hydra - so it is the expectation that a solo's results would vary from that damage chart, not that they would follow it.
Now, personally, I think a lot of the original monster manual - with some glaring exceptions, like needlefang drake swarms - deals far too little damage, and I've no doubt that there are cases of inadequate damage in the monster manual 2, but you're definitely quibbling over minor details here. If you'd really like it to deal at least +11 damage and retain the same average damage (roughly) do 3d6+11 instead of 3d8+8.
Their Strength score has nothing to do with their basic attack. Monster damage is simply determined by role and level. Strength score doesn't figure in there at all. (To answer: Why give him a 32 Strength, the answer is "to know how much he can lift/move/etc for non-combat stuff, how good he is at Athletics, and his effectiveness at Bullrushing and grabbing. Every non-attack power use of Strength, really.)
Focusing just on the monster's basic attack is misleading, though, especially for a solo who will be using recharge or encounter attacks most turns (and have reactions and interrupts and auras to do additional damage). Orcus might never use his basic attack except for when taking OAs.
There was a slight change in Solo design in the MMII, that involved them having a lower HP total than MMI solos, but doing more damage when bloodied. And possibly lower defenses overall... I don't recall the details, exactly.
By the way, not to (continue to) be nit picky, but they aren't doing a standard by role/level either. The ancient gold dragon is the same rope as Demogorgon, and a lower (but still high) level, and even without the bonus dice does more damage with a basic attack.
Look at a few similar role/level creatures in MM II and you quickly see there is little correlation with level/role compared to each other. Perhaps they adjusted down for Demogorgon having reach 5, but the same comparisons hold true on encounter and recharge powers.
Tentacle Strike: 3d10 + 13 (8 more than the book on average)
Forked Tail: 2d10 + 13 (3 more than the book)
Tentacle Blast: 2d10 + 13 (7 more than the book)
Aemeul's Gaze: 2d10 + 11 (1 more than the book)
Hethradiah's Gaze: 2d10 + 11 (6.5 more than the book)
Dual Aspects of Demogorgon: 6d10 + 11 (12 more than the book)
By contrast, the Ancient Gold Dragon
Bite: 3d10 + 9 (2 more than the DMG on average)
Claw: 3d10 + 9 (2 more than the DMG)
Ancient Radiance: 3d10 + 9 (the DMG suggests 5d12)
Breath Weapon: 4d8 + 9 (DMG suggests 4d10)
Burning Tomb: 4d8 + 13 (DMG suggests 2d8)
Its not totally apparent from the DMG how to assign Limited Damage Expressions. As a rule of thumb I would suggest basing them on recharges 4 = Low, 5 = Medium, 6 = High.
One thing I am so thankful for in 4e is that they made the concession to say that monsters don't have to follow exact math formulas all the time. While a high level dragon does more damage than a small low level one, that doesn't mean the damage bump has to be +X for the hitdie and +Y for the strength and +Z for the size etc.
3e's system was too rigid in this response, and it made certain monster designs impossible or very clunky.
This is just an extension of the 3.xE problem. The designers couldn't get stat blocks right then and they cannot get stat blocks right now. It doesn't take much effort in 4E to use the DMG guidelines.
For my own solos, I use 4x the hit points based on their roles. I like the role to still play a part even if it is only a small difference.
__________________ Regards
D
The philosopher Herbert Spencer once observed: "The ultimate result of shielding man from the effects of folly is to people the world with fools."
You're making a mistake that they need to follow the DMG guidelines or that they can get a statblock wrong.
This.
The guidelines in the DMG are for DMs not for the game designers/developers.
My assumption has always been that the DMG guidelines are a streamlined, simplified version of the guidelines WotC uses internally. Additionally, I'm quite sure, some of the deviations from the guidelines can be explained by feedback from playtesting and some from the designers/developers simply eyeballing the monster's capabilities as a whole.
The DMG guidelines are guidelines, not hard rules. They give you a starting point with your monster when you as the DM create some.
If you don't do anything fancy, they will suffice. If you do something fancy - and that's what the designers typically try do - they might not and you will play around, based on "eye-balling", maybe behind-the-scenes math-crunching or playtest results.
Thoughts of the Arch Chancellor - My weblog on EN World - containing game related material, like: house rules, design theories, reviews, play reports, adventure ideas
Secret Member of <Think we would just hide our secret with a spoiler tag, eh?>
Personally, I find it a bit troubling they are not following their own guidelines (and rules) and conjuring numbers out of thin air. I had enough of that when I played 2E (how many XP does a rust monster award? there were 3 different values according to the source/formula you checked), and was happy when in 3E everything seemed to be done correctly. Now with 4E it seems they have gone back to the practices from the 80s. If the rules of a game system do not accommodate what the designers want to do with it, then the system isn't robust enough.
Linear Mode
And yet another word from our sponsors
