What's wrong with Epic Tier and how do we fix it?

[Derulbaskul]

John Cooper is still needed!!!

(snip) But also if you look at the table of monster damage output by level in the DMG, many if not most of the creatures in the MM fall well short of the suggested low end damage for their level. And there's nothing in the DMG or MM to explain this discrepancy. (snip)

I will note with mild amusement that the Monster Builder tool on the WotC website delivers monsters with the correct damage output from the DMG. Perhaps we need to petition WotC to have their monster designers use their own tool.

One of the things that 4E was supposed to fix was the inordinate number of errors in monster stats that plagued all of WotC's 3E and 3.5E products. 4E seems to have the same problem. I can only assume that the monster design guidelines were finalised separately to the design of the monsters in the MM and nobody was acting as gatekeeper to go back and ensure that the monsters followed the design rules. Thankfully the monster builder on the website makes that easy enough to fix (but how I wish it was fully upgraded to do elites and solos and to add templates etc...).

 

[Runestar]

One of the things that 4E was supposed to fix was the inordinate number of errors in monster stats that plagued all of WotC's 3E and 3.5E products.

Except it didn't fix anything. 4e simply glossed over this issue by removing any correlation a monster's stats may have with its HD/level. This way, you can simply make up a bunch of numbers and there is no way the players/DM can ascertain whether those figures are accurate or not. And if they can't tell, they can't complain of potential errors.

In 3e, players can quickly tell at a glance if a monster has 1 bab too many, or if its saves are erroneous, because all this can be directly derived from its HD. But this also made game designers prisoners of their own rules, since they now had to make special provisions in its stat block if they so much as wanted to give it an extra point of bab or extra hp.

But in 4e, there is nothing short of issued errata to tell us if a monster has twice as many hp as it is supposed to have, or if its damage is lower than what it ought to be dealing. We know that epic monsters are dealing much less damage than what the DMG guidelines suggest, but is this a genuine oversight, or an intented result of vigorous playtesting?

 

[Derren]

In 3e, players can quickly tell at a glance if a monster has 1 bab too many, or if its saves are erroneous, because all this can be directly derived from its HD. But this also made game designers prisoners of their own rules, since they now had to make special provisions in its stat block if they so much as wanted to give it an extra point of bab or extra hp.

Considering WotC "skill" in editing I don't think "the designers being prisoner of their own rules" was the real problem.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

One of the things that 4E was supposed to fix was the inordinate number of errors in monster stats that plagued all of WotC's 3E and 3.5E products. 4E seems to have the same problem. I can only assume that the monster design guidelines were finalised separately to the design of the monsters in the MM and nobody was acting as gatekeeper to go back and ensure that the monsters followed the design rules. Thankfully the monster builder on the website makes that easy enough to fix (but how I wish it was fully upgraded to do elites and solos and to add templates etc...).

The guidelines are guidelines, not rules. The designers don't have to follow those guidelines, nor do you. They provide an approximation, but depending on what powers the monster has and other specific effects, you might want to diverge from the guidelines.

Now, whether such reasons exist or not, I have no idea. But if anything, combats at epic level should get tougher, since everything suggests that your attack bonus and defenses advance slightly slower than that of the monsters.

 

[FourthBear]

Except it didn't fix anything. 4e simply glossed over this issue by removing any correlation a monster's stats may have with its HD/level. This way, you can simply make up a bunch of numbers and there is no way the players/DM can ascertain whether those figures are accurate or not. And if they can't tell, they can't complain of potential errors.

But anyone can complain about the far, far more important issue: that the resulting numbers don't result in a good experience playing at the table. In fact, I believe this entire thread demonstrates that players/DMs are able to spot issues with the resulting numbers for opponents and figure out that there's a problem.

The changes to opponent generation in 4e were made primarily to make creating opponents far easier. The 3e system of creating opponents via a PC-like process of assigning hit dice, opponent type and calculation of derived characteristics such as BAB, skill ranks, feats and the like didn't result in better monsters because there were calculations to back check. An opponent lives and dies based on the final numbers, not how they were originally assigned. If anyone feels a monster doesn't do enough damage or has other game mechanical characteristics, they can criticize exactly as they wish. It is my hope that the 4e method of opponent generation concentrates complaints on where they should be: how the opponent behaves at the table, rather than some kind of complaint that the calculations needed in monster generation weren't executed correctly.

 

[Alisair Longreach]

You're right, monster math doesn't level correctly. The golden standard for monster stats is N + Level, but PC stats just can't keep up with that pace, with the exception of AC. Other PC defenses and attacks only scale at 4/5 PC level, so by 30th level the monsters are ahead by 5 points in all defenses and all attacks vs. NADs (non-armor defenses).

This is what is wrong with 4E, wonky and unfair Monster vs PC Math.

This wonkyness increases the "Whiff" factor of the game and makes it more unfun as you go up in levels. Players can reduce this unfairness by min-maxing at character creation but this leads "Cookie-cutter PCs).

So if you want to safeguard your fun as a player you have to create Human/Dragonborn/Half-Orc/Warforged Longsword Fighters, Human/Eladrin/Elf/Halfling/Gnome Dagger Rogues, Human/Tiefling Tactical Warlords and Human/Eladrin/Tiefling Wizards. Anything else and your PC will be sub-optimal and you will be suffering instead of having fun.

How do we fix this?

Some suggested increasing the bonuses PCs get as they level up. Other suggested nerfing monsters and keeping tight control of monster levels vs party level.

Taking certain feats would also help reduce the monster/PC disparity but this leads to the "Feat-Tax". You can't take the interesting Racial/Class feats because your PC would then be sub-optimal with a lowered survival ability and combat efficiency. You have to take Weapon/Implement Expertise (from PHB2) to increase your Attack bonus, Toughness for extra hit points, Armor/Shield specialization for the AC increase, Great Fortitude+Iron Will+Lightning Reflexes to augment your Defense scores and finally Weapon Focus to increase your damage output.

 

[Plane Sailing]

As to monster damage, I think this may be a case of the monster designers not following the DMG's own suggestions. According to the table on page 185 of the DMG, at 25th level, a monster's basic attack should be doing 3d8+9 points of damage and its special attacks 5d10+9. A quick flip through the MM shows that many monsters at or near this level have far lower damage expression.

On that last point, as others have noted, virtually every epic monster in 4E falls short of the mark. A few will be on the mark with one attack, but well down again with others. Unfortunately, this also seems to hold true not just in the Monster Manual but also in the likes of the Draconomicon, Manual of the Planes and Open Grave. Basically the damage output of almost every epic monster is sub-par.

Very interesting comments, you two.

I wonder what monsters would look like if they were given damage levels in keeping with the DMG guidelines for their type and level?

 

[Alisair Longreach]

Increasing the damage output according to the guidelines of the DMG of the Epic monsters in the Monster Manual would reduce "Grindspace" at the Epic tier but only because the Epic monsters is tearing the PCs to shreds in every encounter and making Epic tier play even more deadly.

 

[Logan_Bonner]

In 3e, players can quickly tell at a glance if a monster has 1 bab too many, or if its saves are erroneous, because all this can be directly derived from its HD. But this also made game designers prisoners of their own rules, since they now had to make special provisions in its stat block if they so much as wanted to give it an extra point of bab or extra hp.

A missing point of BAB didn't actually indicate whether a monster was meeting, exceeding, or missing the accuracy it really should have to hit PCs of a suitable level. It should be easier to tell, by looking at the monster creation numbers from the DMG, if a 4E monster's attack bonuses or defenses are way off, because those numbers actually indicate how often the monster should be hitting or being hit.

As far as solving problems with elite monsters, the suggestion of reducing HPs is good, but accuracy is more important. I'd suggest reducing monster defenses and/or increasing PC accuracy, because hitting more ends fights more quickly AND hitting is fun. The point about solos and elites is also valid; since those monsters are more plentiful at epic, your PCs are swinging at higher defenses a lot of the time. It becomes more important not to throw monsters at PCs that are of a much higher level.

 

[Jack99]

Very interesting comments, you two.

I wonder what monsters would look like if they were given damage levels in keeping with the DMG guidelines for their type and level?

Well, for example the melee attack of the drow arachnomancer would be doing 1d10+6 + immobilize instead of 1d6 + immobilize...

I have been using this method for a lot of my monsters for a few weeks, and it does make for more lethal encounters in general. I have strongly been considering implementing it for all of them, while removing 20-25% of their hit points. Not because combats lag for us (around 1 hour at level 12) but simply because I want them even faster