July Rules Update DMG: Errata needed?

[Jhaelen]

1. How are attacks with ongoing damage accounted for in the new monster damage equations, or aren't they?
2. How are attacks that have nasty riders, for example, dazed, stunned, pushes, etc., (especially, multiple nasty effects) accounted for in the new monster damage equations? Or aren't they?
3. How are standard at-will attacks that can be used twice in a turn as a standard attack (for example, Double Attack) accounted for in the new monster damage equations? Or aren't they?

1) AFAICT, you just subtract the ongoing damage from the total as if it was a static modifier, e.g. an attack that does 1d8+5 is equivalent to an an attack doing 1d8 + ongoing 5.
2) Just compare the damage expression against the old table: what column is it closest to? Then use the same column in the new damage progression chart.
3) See 2), though I'd be surprised if you ever find it uses a different column than the low damage one for standard monsters. For elite monsters it could also be the std damage column.

So far I've found changing the damage expressions is pretty straightforward.

It only gets more complicated if you're looking at a monster that deviates from the average attack bonus. Hobgoblins are an example for this. Apparently, some monsters are supposed to trade-off damage potential for better accuracy or vice-versa.

 

[Xyrlove Woodsoul]

1) AFAICT, you just subtract the ongoing damage from the total as if it was a static modifier, e.g. an attack that does 1d8+5 is equivalent to an an attack doing 1d8 + ongoing 5.
2) Just compare the damage expression against the old table: what column is it closest to? Then use the same column in the new damage progression chart.
3) See 2), though I'd be surprised if you ever find it uses a different column than the low damage one for standard monsters. For elite monsters it could also be the std damage column.

So far I've found changing the damage expressions is pretty straightforward.

It only gets more complicated if you're looking at a monster that deviates from the average attack bonus. Hobgoblins are an example for this. Apparently, some monsters are supposed to trade-off damage potential for better accuracy or vice-versa.

1. Awesome. That's what i've been doing for ongoing damage. I did something right! I'm so proud of myself haha. I was just a bit leary because ongoing damage is well, sometimes, ongoing more than once. But I guess I just wanted a science, in a game that's not science. But I'm content now.

2. Hmm. I think I get what you're saying. I'll have to take a look at the old chart. But isn't there like 2 other old damage charts (erratta)?

3. I think I get what you're saying. And that's what i was doing. I think. But i didn't refer to the old chart though. For example, for standard monsters, I just used the new standard average (non brute), if say, the monster only attacked once with the power, then shifted to standard low if it attacked twice with the same power (a la "Double Attack."). Thus, same power, but using different damage expressions, depending.

Am I close? I must say, I like these new damage expressions. It makes things more fun, and less time consuming. Thanks a lot. I very much appreciate your help. And I use your chart (including the lurker and controller modifications). I'll have to take a look at the old charts too, that never occurred to me.

 

[Jhaelen]

Am I close? I must say, I like these new damage expressions. It makes things more fun, and less time consuming. Thanks a lot. I very much appreciate your help. And I use your chart (including the lurker and controller modifications). I'll have to take a look at the old charts too, that never occurred to me.

Yep, sounds good to me - and you're welcome!

 

[SabreCat]

And I use your chart (including the lurker and controller modifications).

I skimmed back through the thread and didn't see mention of these. What modifications?