-
The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Preliminary idea: Humanoid monster Hit Point-shaving.
- Thread starter Rachel
- Start date
Tequila Sunrise
Adventurer
I invented what I call the "goon" type monster; essentially a two-hit minion. They deal static damage, though more than minions, and they have 2 hit points. A hit from a non-striker at-will power bloodies a goon, while a striker hit or a crit or an encounter/daily power or a hit the goon is vulnerable to outright kills it.
They're easy for me to use and my players seem to enjoy them. (Especially my striker players, who hate minions.)
eriktheguy
First Post
Do strikers kill the minions only when they use their striker advantage (ex rogue needs sneak attack, assassin can't put shroud on a main target and use a normal attack on the minion).
Tequila Sunrise
Adventurer
Yes; a striker needs to do their 'striker thing' to outright kill a goon.
Rachel
First Post
Rachel
First Post
I've seen this suggestion all over the forums. Definately taking it into consideration.
I find an amazing amount of insight in your posts, Amaroq, and I'm not just saying that. You may have nailed me dead-on with this, because I *have* considered two-hit minions and because that example you give in paragraph two is exactly what I like. Bravo!
@TequilaSunrise: I'm taking a hard look at your "goons" idea. Thnx for sharing it.
Thank you, Rachel!
There's another potential approach, which I just thought of: increased damage output.
Here's why I was thinking about this: in a recent Level 2 encounter, the enemy archers had a 1d10+4 attack. When this hit the defender and the monster rolled a 2, it was negligible. When this hit the bard and the monster rolled a 10, it was absolutely brutal .. well, perhaps 'cause she took two hits for a 14 and 12 points respectively, going from unbloodied to on her last legs.
That got me thinking about this conversation some more, and a few things stood out:
First, the "to hit" roll simply indicates "did you make contact, and find a gap in the armor?"
Second, the "damage" roll indicates "how hard did you hit them". So, when that arrow rolls a 2, it was a grazing shot that scored the arm .. when that arrow rolled a 10, we imagined the arrow buried almost to the fletching in the bard's torso.
Third, the "to hit" roll's feedback into "damage" is restricted to the "critical" mechanic, but there are plenty of powers, weapons, feats, and class paths which increase the chance of dealing criticals to encourage an "I hit harder" feel.
Fourth, it got me thinking, if I'm reading your posts on this subject correctly, you seem to want an "all hits are hard hits" mechanic.
Fifth, "grind" is an oft-complained problem at higher levels, which seems to stem from the fact that it can take a long while to whittle down the very high numbers of hit points of either the villains (brute, soldier, solo, and elite, especially) or the characters, if they're losing.
If that's the case ..
Are we better served by reducing hit points - whether its the humanoid fix here, or the other two common fixes (HP / 2 and HP * 2 / 3) - .. or are we better served by increasing attack values?
Three ideas came to mind once I started thinking about that:
A. Increase damage dice as follows: d4 becomes d6, d6 becomes d8, d8 becomes d12, d10 becomes 2d8, and d12 becomes 3d6 or d10+d8. Essentially, I could imagine a very satisfactory mechanic where the base long sword attack value was d12 instead of d8 .. this would really add to the "Yeah, I hit him hard!" feeling for the players. Doing it across the board makes it easy to take published monsters and convert them the same way.
- Upside: possibility of harder hits, tends to scale with level as powers start to pick up additional dice of damage at higher levels
- Downside: more variability in the amount with which people hit; in general, more randomness favors the underdog, which is the monsters. Also, the highest damage dice pick up a central tendency that they hadn't had before.
B. Add a 1[W] damage modifier into the PC's weapon output, and an extra die to each monster's attacks. Simplicity, again; again, it gives the player a "I hit him hard" moment when they roll good damage dice.
- Upside: possibility of harder hits.
- Downside: all damage dice pick up additional central tendency. Doesn't scale with level, and in fact will be less of a factor at higher levels than at lower levels. I suspect that favors the PC's, as it lessens the variability of damage dealt within an encounter.
- Mixed: This change makes Dailies and Encounters a little less powerful compared to At-Wills, relative to the base game. That could be good, making for a slightly more tactical, less formulaic game for the players; it could be bad if it slows your players down a little as they debate whether their characters' At-Will's secondary effect is worth giving up an extra die of damage.
C. Add a constant damage modifier to PC's damage output, possibly +4/+6/+8 for the three tiers.
- Upside: possibility of harder hits, and also eliminates much of the "low end" of damage. Quick and easy to deal with.
- Downsides: minimal relative to the other two.
Global downsides to all "fixes" in this area are that they start pushing everybody up towards "striker" damage, which tends to reduce the value of being a striker relative to the other major classes; also tends to reward area-effect powers, so favors controllers and spell-casting strikers such as sorcerer and warlock.
Sorry, I don't mean to hijack your thread; just musing on this topic, still.
There's another potential approach, which I just thought of: increased damage output.
Here's why I was thinking about this: in a recent Level 2 encounter, the enemy archers had a 1d10+4 attack. When this hit the defender and the monster rolled a 2, it was negligible. When this hit the bard and the monster rolled a 10, it was absolutely brutal .. well, perhaps 'cause she took two hits for a 14 and 12 points respectively, going from unbloodied to on her last legs.
That got me thinking about this conversation some more, and a few things stood out:
First, the "to hit" roll simply indicates "did you make contact, and find a gap in the armor?"
Second, the "damage" roll indicates "how hard did you hit them". So, when that arrow rolls a 2, it was a grazing shot that scored the arm .. when that arrow rolled a 10, we imagined the arrow buried almost to the fletching in the bard's torso.
Third, the "to hit" roll's feedback into "damage" is restricted to the "critical" mechanic, but there are plenty of powers, weapons, feats, and class paths which increase the chance of dealing criticals to encourage an "I hit harder" feel.
Fourth, it got me thinking, if I'm reading your posts on this subject correctly, you seem to want an "all hits are hard hits" mechanic.
Fifth, "grind" is an oft-complained problem at higher levels, which seems to stem from the fact that it can take a long while to whittle down the very high numbers of hit points of either the villains (brute, soldier, solo, and elite, especially) or the characters, if they're losing.
If that's the case ..
Are we better served by reducing hit points - whether its the humanoid fix here, or the other two common fixes (HP / 2 and HP * 2 / 3) - .. or are we better served by increasing attack values?
Three ideas came to mind once I started thinking about that:
A. Increase damage dice as follows: d4 becomes d6, d6 becomes d8, d8 becomes d12, d10 becomes 2d8, and d12 becomes 3d6 or d10+d8. Essentially, I could imagine a very satisfactory mechanic where the base long sword attack value was d12 instead of d8 .. this would really add to the "Yeah, I hit him hard!" feeling for the players. Doing it across the board makes it easy to take published monsters and convert them the same way.
- Upside: possibility of harder hits, tends to scale with level as powers start to pick up additional dice of damage at higher levels
- Downside: more variability in the amount with which people hit; in general, more randomness favors the underdog, which is the monsters. Also, the highest damage dice pick up a central tendency that they hadn't had before.
B. Add a 1[W] damage modifier into the PC's weapon output, and an extra die to each monster's attacks. Simplicity, again; again, it gives the player a "I hit him hard" moment when they roll good damage dice.
- Upside: possibility of harder hits.
- Downside: all damage dice pick up additional central tendency. Doesn't scale with level, and in fact will be less of a factor at higher levels than at lower levels. I suspect that favors the PC's, as it lessens the variability of damage dealt within an encounter.
- Mixed: This change makes Dailies and Encounters a little less powerful compared to At-Wills, relative to the base game. That could be good, making for a slightly more tactical, less formulaic game for the players; it could be bad if it slows your players down a little as they debate whether their characters' At-Will's secondary effect is worth giving up an extra die of damage.
C. Add a constant damage modifier to PC's damage output, possibly +4/+6/+8 for the three tiers.
- Upside: possibility of harder hits, and also eliminates much of the "low end" of damage. Quick and easy to deal with.
- Downsides: minimal relative to the other two.
Global downsides to all "fixes" in this area are that they start pushing everybody up towards "striker" damage, which tends to reduce the value of being a striker relative to the other major classes; also tends to reward area-effect powers, so favors controllers and spell-casting strikers such as sorcerer and warlock.
Sorry, I don't mean to hijack your thread; just musing on this topic, still.
Rachel
First Post
@Amaroq: Thread hijacker! KIDDING
Let me address: As per your Fourth point, that's waaaay off. Since I've been beating this proverbial dead horse across at least 3 separate threads, let me clarify for a final time what I "want".
Less hit points for humanoid creatures. Just humanoids. Because (most) humanoids should be less durable to damage than (many) magical beasts (with a few exceptions). Orcs with hundreds of hit points--too unrealistic for my abstraction abilities. A manticore with hundreds of hp, yes! Squishy squishy humanoids with hundreds of hp, no! Because a humanoid can only be so tough.
Now, I dont want to unduly unbalance them by reducing humanoid hp to a point it makes humanoids far less of a challenge. But I do want them to be a bit weaker when it comes to taking damage. Im not trying to get everyone to hit harder. If I wanted that, I would be saying all monsters should have hp shaved (not just humanoids). Or, I would have suggested some form of damage increase (like those ones you so perfectly modeled above in your post). Not sure where you could have gotten the idea in your Fourth point from...?
Okay so I cannot use any damage increases...because they would work across-the-board against everything, and I am just trying to shave a little durability off humanoids only....
Hope this clarifies.
Let me address: As per your Fourth point, that's waaaay off. Since I've been beating this proverbial dead horse across at least 3 separate threads, let me clarify for a final time what I "want".
Less hit points for humanoid creatures. Just humanoids. Because (most) humanoids should be less durable to damage than (many) magical beasts (with a few exceptions). Orcs with hundreds of hit points--too unrealistic for my abstraction abilities. A manticore with hundreds of hp, yes! Squishy squishy humanoids with hundreds of hp, no! Because a humanoid can only be so tough.
Now, I dont want to unduly unbalance them by reducing humanoid hp to a point it makes humanoids far less of a challenge. But I do want them to be a bit weaker when it comes to taking damage. Im not trying to get everyone to hit harder. If I wanted that, I would be saying all monsters should have hp shaved (not just humanoids). Or, I would have suggested some form of damage increase (like those ones you so perfectly modeled above in your post). Not sure where you could have gotten the idea in your Fourth point from...?
Okay so I cannot use any damage increases...because they would work across-the-board against everything, and I am just trying to shave a little durability off humanoids only....
Hope this clarifies.
