Monster bonus damage on multiple attacks?

[Stalker0]

I don't agree with this. I miss the days of the monster that was threatening enough to drop a pc in one round if their luck is hot.

However, 4e made it a design goal to reduce a PCs ability to die through sheer bad luck.

Now DMs are always welcome to adjust their game to fit their own tastes. People who want more lethal games can bump the monster damage, add more damage on crits, etc.

But the baseline should hold to the design goals, and there are a few monsters out there that break that guideline.

 

[Flipguarder]

I don't agree with this.

Don't agree all you want, doesn't change the fact that it is pretty clearly a 4e design goal that has failed in this case.

 

[DracoSuave]

However, 4e made it a design goal to reduce a PCs ability to die through sheer bad luck..

Reduce != eliminate, they still want that ability in the game.

 

[FurryFighter]

All I'm saying is that the max damage for a level 1 monster should not be 48. Thats ridiculous.

Crits should never bring a target from unhit to unconscious. level 1 is where this is most possible

So you're saying that its just like the good old days when characters were feebler at level 1 and could die stubbing their toes. And that this is a bad thing, yes? I've seen level 1 PCs breeze encounters because of bad rolls on behalf of the monsters. I've seen level 1 PCs get torn to shreds because of good rolls. And that wasn't even the halflings. I suppose in a roundabout way that goes to prove halflings are so deadly, but still, we're talking lots of factors and luck. I like PCs appearing 'mortal' and 'heroic, although still only just a cut above average'.

 

[keterys]

You can decide how deadly you want your games and build the encounters however you want... that doesn't mean that a monster should be more than twice as effective as other monsters of its level. That's a statistical anomaly that should be rectified. And one that's not easy for a DM to detect until they're pretty experienced.

Y'know, a newbie DM not knowing any better shouldn't go 'Okay, so these 2 Needlefang Drake Swarms, 2 Hobgoblin Slingers, and a Hobgoblin Warcaster... that's an n+1 fight so should be no problem for my newbie group, and then watch them be torn to shreds, while another DM throws some giant rats and human bandits and is like 'Wow, my guys are invulnerable, they breezed through that no problem!'

Least, that's my theory and why I started trying to find outlier monsters who deal far too little or far too much damage.

 

[Flipguarder]

So you're saying that its just like the good old days when characters were feebler at level 1 and could die stubbing their toes. And that this is a bad thing, yes? I've seen level 1 PCs breeze encounters because of bad rolls on behalf of the monsters. I've seen level 1 PCs get torn to shreds because of good rolls. And that wasn't even the halflings. I suppose in a roundabout way that goes to prove halflings are so deadly, but still, we're talking lots of factors and luck. I like PCs appearing 'mortal' and 'heroic, although still only just a cut above average'.

So the good old days and pcs appearing mortal should be reserved for 1st-3rd level only? Because thats whats happening right now. I have no problem if YOU want to make games more dangerous. But right now by current 4e rules the game is SIMPLY UNBALANCED AT LOW LEVELS.

Again, if you want to have games like that, thats fine. But I don't think the designers intended it that way.

 

[FurryFighter]

So the good old days and pcs appearing mortal should be reserved for 1st-3rd level only? Because thats whats happening right now. I have no problem if YOU want to make games more dangerous. But right now by current 4e rules the game is SIMPLY UNBALANCED AT LOW LEVELS.

Again, if you want to have games like that, thats fine. But I don't think the designers intended it that way.

If thats how you want to take it, then yes.

They should have limited CA attack bonuses globally to only one time per main action, no matter how many multiple attacks a creature gets.

 

[sfedi]

No, it's the Halfling Slinger.

That's insane then. A 1st-level standard monster that can do 6d6+12 damage to three separate targets or just one target.

This is easy.

A Halfling Slinger (HSl) should not apply sneak damage to it's multiple target attack.

His Sling attack, is below the damage normal artillery should deal.
With sneak damage, it's a little bit over that normal damage.
So it evens out (he should use Hide to gain CA)

Multiple target damage should be Low, just like his normal Sling Attack damage is. Plus it's less accurate. Thus the -2.
That's why you shouldn't apply the extra sneak damage on this attack.

OTOH, this monster has less to-hit than normal artillery, but it seems compensated by the fact it has way more defenses than a normal Artillery of it's level.

 

[Saeviomagy]

If thats how you want to take it, then yes.

They should have limited CA attack bonuses globally to only one time per main action, no matter how many multiple attacks a creature gets.

Take a look at the WOTC optimization board, and you may end up agreeing with me that this should be a blanket rule for ALL damage bonuses (at least on the players side).

 

[abyssaldeath]

Take a look at the WOTC optimization board, and you may end up agreeing with me that this should be a blanket rule for ALL damage bonuses (at least on the players side).

Most of the optimization board is theoretical best case scenario and most likely would never work in a real encounter. At least not to the extent that they claim.