How important is variety of target numbers?

[S'mon]

Did they change that too? Where does 13 + 1/2 level / 16 + 1/2 level come from?

4e defense stats key off Role + Level (not 1/2 level). Actually they mostly just key off level, since NADS are typically all 12 + Level whatever the Role, then "tweak to taste".

Eg:

Role: Soldier gives base AC 16, then add Level.

Role: Brute gives base AC 12, then add Level.

A DM might give a Brute high CON and a bonus to Fort, but there's no inherent mechanical link in the system between high monster CON and high monster Fort.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

Yep, the variance is more in the powers. The question is would standardizing the defenses take out any appreciable flavor. With only 4 defenses, I say that making them rigidly standard does take out appreciable flavor, but it doesn't take much to fix this.

With 4 defenses, you've got a very limited number of variations that will be noticed. You can have a monster sitting at baseline for his level on all defenses, of course. Then you can have:

• Appreciably better at one of the four things.
• Appreciably worse at one of the four things.
• Appreciably better at two of the four things.
• Appreciably worse at two of the four things.

That's it! Appreciably better at three of the four things is the same as, "higher level, but worse at the remaining thing." When I said 80% by the system specified, my thinking is that the two out of four cases won't get noticed much by the players.

Take a dragon, for instance. Dragons are either standard, or they are "Bad Reflex"--most likely. They might be "Good Fort" or "Good AC" for some people. They have thick scales. They are tough. They are often stubborn. So depending upon how you want to do it, you make them higher level with "Bad Reflex" or you make them lower level with "Good Fort" or "Good AC". The only corner case you are missing is if you absolutely want AC and Fort to be appreciably better, Will to be standard, and Reflex to be substandard. The players won't notice that based on defenses alone. If you want them to notice that kind of subtle distinction, you'll need powers that make it clear, anyway.

That said, my idea is merely a simple example. You could just as easily stick to something closer to the current method by defining a handful of standards for each type. If soldiers get one adjustment and skirmishers get another, fine. But once you get, say, around 6 variants that cover most of the defense cases, you really aren't buying yourself much to finish filling out the rest.

In an otherwise standard creature, -1 Reflex and -1 Will is mere noise.

Note that there may be more serious repercussions in the actual results, due to changes in the math. I don't know about that either way--don't even really have a hunch. My claim is merely that the players won't notice the changes, absent serious and sustained investigation into the math.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

4e defense stats key off Role + Level (not 1/2 level). Actually they mostly just key off level, since NADS are typically all 12 + Level whatever the Role, then "tweak to taste".

Eg:

Role: Soldier gives base AC 16, then add Level.

Role: Brute gives base AC 12, then add Level.

A DM might give a Brute high CON and a bonus to Fort, but there's no inherent mechanical link in the system between high monster CON and high monster Fort.

Eh, 4e monster defenses don't key off stats at all?

That's not what it says in the DMG1, p184.

Determine ability scores section sets an average ability at 13 + 1/2 level.

Then in the calculate other defenses section, it says "a given defense based on an average ability score is equal to 12 + the monster's level. For every 2 points the ability score varies from the average, adjust the defense by +1 (if higher) or -1 (if lower)."

I suspect these rules have been updated, but I can't find anything about that in the DMG2. There wasn't any change in the errata for the DMG1.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

That's not what it says in the DMG1, p184.

Determine ability scores section sets an average ability at 13 + 1/2 level.

Then in the calculate other defenses section, it says "a given defense based on an average ability score is equal to 12 + the monster's level. For every 2 points the ability score varies from the average, adjust the defense by +1 (if higher) or -1 (if lower)."

I suspect these rules have been updated, but I can't find anything about that in the DMG2. There wasn't any change in the errata for the DMG1.

There has never been a comprehensive errata on the design procedure text, no. OTOH this stuff is all guidelines. If you look at the MB I think currently it doesn't factor in stats into defenses. There is a role-based baseline for defenses, and then MB lets you increase or decrease them as you see fit. It really isn't all that systematic. The other thing is if you're modding existing stat blocks you've got to pay attention to what the baselines are since there may already be some variance in there, moving the numbers around some more could vary them more than you intend from baseline.

Really though, I agree that +/-2 is not really significant. OTOH +/-4 IS more significant and provides a greater incentive for players to look for ways to hit specific defenses. Given that few classes can really pile a whole lot of attacks on one defense in a given encounter chances are the effects on balance are limited, but it can still be a factor in the player's decision about what power to use at a given point in an encounter.

 

[AeroDm]

Let's say for sake of argument that running it the way you did it eventually takes out an amount of flavor equal to X. (Silly, I know.) Then I say that if you get a lot of positive things out of doing it that way, find a way to put back in most of the flavor while keeping your method.

For example, I bet you'd get about 80% of the noticeable flavor back by simply putting in a single note on monsters where it made sense, and standardizing on that. For example, you can tag any monster with "Good AC", "Good Fort", etc. You can also do the same thing with "Bad" versions. You don't do this with monsters unless it leaps out.

So goblins, orcs, bandits, etc. use your system. You grab a zombie. They are thought of as slow. So you slap the "Bad Dex" label on it. Then they meet a big, sleek cat monster. You slap "Good Dex" on it. Start with these labels as +2 or -2, for good and bad respectively. Adjust values as needed to make it work the way you want. Limit yourself to only one label per monster, and only on the ones where it leaps out at you.

There, most of the flavor of the old way in a faction of the mind space.

I fully agree with this.

In my mind the calculus of "is it worth it?" has to balance the carrying cost of having to look up or reference rules versus the added variety that it introduces to the game. Let's say that you can summarize for your given level that "hard" ACs should be 18. Some monsters are actually 19, some 17, and a fair amount come in right at 18.

If you generalize all of them to 18, you reduce the carrying cost of those rules substantially. However, you only lose variety or "flavor" when someone rolls a 17 and you declare that they miss when, had you referenced the rule, they would have hit. Since only 5% of die rolls hit exactly, that means the loss of variety and flavor is pretty minimal.

 

[LostSoul]

I think that a big difference - let's say instead a noticeable difference, something that will show up on the attack roll, so probably bigger than +/- 2 - between the defences is useful if you want the players to have valid choices about which defence to attack.

1. The difference has to be big enough so that it's a good idea to choose one power over another based on which defence they attack. If your PC only hits one defence, then there's no choice and it doesn't matter. If your PC only has good attacks vs. one defence, then there's no choice and it doesn't matter. If your PC has multiple options then it does matter.

2. You need to determine how to give the players the information they need to make that decision. Monster knowledge checks are supported but I don't know if that's the best way to deal with it. Then gathering information comes down to an extra die roll for each monster - that seems boring.

2a. You could just tell the players what the different defences are, hoping that making the decision between which power to use is compelling enough.

2b. You could require the players to rely on their own skill when determining which defence is weak, based on in-game cues. That way there can be an optimal solution for which power to use but it's not obvious to start off with.

There's probably more to consider here.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I think that a big difference - let's say instead a noticeable difference, something that will show up on the attack roll, so probably bigger than +/- 2 - between the defences is useful if you want the players to have valid choices about which defence to attack.

1. The difference has to be big enough so that it's a good idea to choose one power over another based on which defence they attack. If your PC only hits one defence, then there's no choice and it doesn't matter. If your PC only has good attacks vs. one defence, then there's no choice and it doesn't matter. If your PC has multiple options then it does matter.

2. You need to determine how to give the players the information they need to make that decision. Monster knowledge checks are supported but I don't know if that's the best way to deal with it. Then gathering information comes down to an extra die roll for each monster - that seems boring.

2a. You could just tell the players what the different defences are, hoping that making the decision between which power to use is compelling enough.

2b. You could require the players to rely on their own skill when determining which defence is weak, based on in-game cues. That way there can be an optimal solution for which power to use but it's not obvious to start off with.

There's probably more to consider here.

I think monster knowledge checks are fine. Its a good way to make a variety of skills interesting and useful and allows for some characterization. It doesn't need to be the ONLY way to do it, and some characters may simply know things due to their history etc. Player knowledge always exists too of course, but I find with 4e that you generally have a pretty wide variety of monsters, so that doesn't come up too much. Players can guess too, which if the numbers are logical and correspond reasonably with the in-game narrative then those guesses will probably not be bad.

 

[jester_gl]

When I create monster (often on the fly) I use the simple mechanic of level+14 for AC and level+12 for NAD and adjust +-1 or +-2 here or there, rarely changing the AC. It gives boring defense of something like 20, 19, 18, 17 for a standard level 6 monsters. Never have my players complained about boring/bad design because of this.

Creating special encounter, weird monster and abilities and being fair to the players is what the player notice. And when the time come that they actually miss on a 19, then they notice that (it was a displacer beast and you miss on every odd roll) and monster knowledge check occured.