Were MM1 monsters truly underpowered?

[Aulirophile]

Two competent strikers can remove two standard threats from the board round 1, two optimized strikers can remove two elites from the board, and could easily remove a solo who didn't have some kind of defense mechanism (MM3/MV solos basically always do which is one more reason those monsters are better and MM1/2 monsters were underpowered) with a single setup leader.

A single striker with two setup leaders cannot remove two threats from the board round 1.

Two strikers is better in basically every standard case. You could concoct non-standard ones, but they'd only be relevant in that specific instance. Standard encounters, LFR, etc., two strikers is definitely better.

 

[keterys]

Are you assuming action point and/or daily spent to get there? It seems a bit high, otherwise. (Most strikers don't do better than 2 round normals by default, even optimized ones)

 

[Aulirophile]

Are you assuming action point and/or daily spent to get there? It seems a bit high, otherwise. (Most strikers don't do better than 2 round normals by default, even optimized ones)

Standard encounter nova. You're correct that two rounds is highly optimized... for at-will DPR (4 is baseline, 3 is optimized, 1 is broken). Doesn't count Encounter powers. A standard Striker should be able to easily remove a Standard with an AP and some Encounter powers (or standard+minor(s)). Elites might take dailies. Actually one of the reasons minor action attacks are so strong is because it allows you to remove something without an AP.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Two competent strikers can remove two standard threats from the board round 1, two optimized strikers can remove two elites from the board, and could easily remove a solo who didn't have some kind of defense mechanism (MM3/MV solos basically always do which is one more reason those monsters are better and MM1/2 monsters were underpowered) with a single setup leader.

A single striker with two setup leaders cannot remove two threats from the board round 1.

Two strikers is better in basically every standard case. You could concoct non-standard ones, but they'd only be relevant in that specific instance. Standard encounters, LFR, etc., two strikers is definitely better.

Yeah, I think you play in an entirely different environment than anyone I've ever played 4e with. Certainly at low levels this isn't realistic.

As a simple example consider some level 1 strikers:

A stabby rogue with CA doing an alpha strike on round 1, you could drop a 2W encounter power plus a 2W daily, that gives you 4W+STR+STR+DEX+DEX+2d6 which assuming you hit with both attacks WILL drop your average level 1 standard monster (around 30 HP). Of course you have only about a 60% chance to hit with both attacks...

A bow ranger could manage 5W+DEX+DEX+1d6 with d8 W that would be about the same damage and would assume hitting at least 3 times, probably 4, which is going to happen under 50% of the time.

Now, with serious optimization at high levels? Yeah, maybe. In heroic tier? Not in my experience. Realistically replacing one of the strikers with a leader won't make a lot of difference right off, but now that your strikers are done with their opening nova you're probably about equally well-off from a damage output standpoint from then on, but considering all the other dynamics of a full party it is probably a toss-up, which is pretty much what you'd expect.

 

[Aulirophile]

Yes... in low heroic where you have almost no encounter resources it is indeed a little difficult.

Mid-heroic on it is quite doable for Ranger, Rogue, Sorcerer (serious), Barbarian, Avenger, Rogue, Thief, Slayer, etc., and at Paragon+ it is trivial. It is quite possible all the Strikers you've played with just didn't build their characters for alpha striking. Though since that is the most effective way to build them in 4e..... /shrug. If you can't remove a standard from the board at level 11+ as a Striker you're not competent, as far as I'm concerned.

 

[Pelenor]

I just want to reinforce the idea that MM1 monsters are way underpowered. The only reason I can challenge my main gaming group with them is because I try to find optimized tactics for the monsters and the players don't for their characters.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Yes... in low heroic where you have almost no encounter resources it is indeed a little difficult.

Mid-heroic on it is quite doable for Ranger, Rogue, Sorcerer (serious), Barbarian, Avenger, Rogue, Thief, Slayer, etc., and at Paragon+ it is trivial. It is quite possible all the Strikers you've played with just didn't build their characters for alpha striking. Though since that is the most effective way to build them in 4e..... /shrug. If you can't remove a standard from the board at level 11+ as a Striker you're not competent, as far as I'm concerned.

Oh, I think at 11+ you CAN do it, how easily and with what resource expense will depend on your level of optimization. It also is a question of just how worthwhile it is.

It seems to me that there are a couple different equations with leaders though. At low levels a second leader vs say a 3rd striker is likely a wash. The second leader can do a few things, offload healing so that both leaders can concentrate mostly on boosting offense, do a pretty reasonable amount of damage, and generally boost the other strikers a good bit. At higher levels the strikers don't benefit quite as much from the help, but by that point things shift off to just keeping them ticking over, dropping extra saves on them, stuff like that.

I don't really know exactly how that balances out at all levels, and it will be heavily group dependent, but I can believe from what I've seen that if the players really tweak their characters to work off of each other that leader vs striker can be a pretty neutral trade-off. It is going to be more straightforward to just have more strikers though.