Higher Damage in Monster Manual 3

[Obryn]

Please tell me that the monsters also have lower hit points as well. What 4E needs more than anything is monsters that have a lot less hit points and do a bit more damage. Then maybe 4E combat can be quicker and more exciting than the many snorefest, grindy combats I have experienced. If their hit points are reduced significantly, it would almost make me consider breaking my WotC boycott.

The horse? She is dead. You may stop beating her.

HPs are unchanged from MM2; they calculated correctly when I put a few monsters into Adventure Tools for export to Masterplan. What this will do, if anything, is encourage DMs and adventure writers to use level-appropriate threats (with level-appropriate HPs and defenses), rather than going with higher-level threats to get more damage.

-O

 

[Shazman]

I guess that will be better than nothing. Too bad that it is probably going to be a long wait before this happens enough to be noticable.

 

[Mengu]

In home games I've been either cherry picking high damage monsters (skirmishers with extra damage features, artillery, gnoll-type creatures that grant each other damage bonuses, swarms, multi-attacker, etc) or upping the limited damage expressions on my monsters, to be able to use lower level creatures as greater threats, making level and level+1 encounters typically difficult than a cake walk (though sometimes when they get initiative, the PC's can still destroy an encounter quickly).

So for us, the problem never really has been the monster hit points, but more the lack of threat monsters pose on the offense. When monsters can open up with mass damage and control, it can quickly set a different tone for the encounter.

I purposefully keep most monster basic attacks weak because I want PC's to feel a little more comfortable provoking opportunity attacks, and that's why I tend to increase the damage on their recharge and encounter powers. I found that sometimes those expressions in MM1 and MM2 weren't even up to the level of the DMG recommended damage.

I'm really looking forward to playing with MM3 monsters, though I do have one fear. In low magic campaigns with underequipped PC's I fear MM3 monsters may be a little too lethal, or wear out the PC resources a little too fast, shortening the adventuring day. There's hoping DM's can fully grasp what playing with these various knobs and dials on monsters will impact in their games.

 

[Joshua Randall]

Well, if you have underequipped PCs then of course the monsters are going to be too tough.

Solution: don't have underequipped PCs. Or, compensate them with inherent bonuses as suggested in the DMG.

 

[Aegeri]

Please tell me that the monsters also have lower hit points as well. What 4E needs more than anything is monsters that have a lot less hit points and do a bit more damage. Then maybe 4E combat can be quicker and more exciting than the many snorefest, grindy combats I have experienced. If their hit points are reduced significantly, it would almost make me consider breaking my WotC boycott.

The new maths and the way monsters powers are designed really changes this. One of the reasons that epic combats were both grindy and boring was because the DM was forced to use much higher level monsters (3+ levels) over the PCs. This is because even level monsters weren't doing enough damage and wouldn't survive long enough to do it (because they needed to stick around for a long time). Higher level monsters not only have more HP, they stay around longer meaning they would do more.

This is no longer required and now even level monsters fight very well. They can challenge PCs and they don't take forever to die. This reduces the "grindy" feeling a lot and also means that adjusting HP is not required in any manner. When PCs aren't missing over half the time (due to inflated defenses from using higher level monsters) and monsters are actually dealing good damage with their attacks it's actually working out really well.

This is also an interesting "transition" period where PCs are suddenly being shocked by larger amounts of monster damage and resilience.

 

[Obryn]

Solution: ... compensate them with inherent bonuses as suggested in the DMG.

This was going to be my suggestion. If you use inherent bonuses, the math gets taken care of for you - unless it's AC, and then you still need to worry about masterwork armor.

-O

 

[Mengu]

Well, if you have underequipped PCs then of course the monsters are going to be too tough.

Solution: don't have underequipped PCs. Or, compensate them with inherent bonuses as suggested in the DMG.

Sadly, 1. currently underequipped PC's can handle equal level threats just fine. 2. inherent bonuses alone don't offset the ton of item optimization, and are clunky/don't work with things like dual implement, healer's implement, etc. 3. not every DM thinks equipment is a PC's "right".

The development direction of 4e seems to be going with the assumption that PC's will be both build and item optimized to a degree.

 

[Matrix Sorcica]

A little sidetrek.

Should the recommended damage boost for paragon and epic critters apply to everything designed before MM3, or is it only MM1 where it's a necessity?

How about MM2? Draconomicon? others?

Thanks.

 

[Shazman]

The horse? She is dead. You may stop beating her.

HPs are unchanged from MM2; they calculated correctly when I put a few monsters into Adventure Tools for export to Masterplan. What this will do, if anything, is encourage DMs and adventure writers to use level-appropriate threats (with level-appropriate HPs and defenses), rather than going with higher-level threats to get more damage.

-O

Did they at least increase the exp value of the monsters? If they didn't, I don't see it helping much because you just have to put more monsters in the encounters to spend the exp budget. More monsters that do more damage means PC spending more time on defensive actions or unconcious which will undo the benefit of using lower level monsters.

 

[Obryn]

A little sidetrek.

Should the recommended damage boost for paragon and epic critters apply to everything designed before MM3, or is it only MM1 where it's a necessity?

How about MM2? Draconomicon? others?

Thanks.

I think everything before MM3, should you choose to use it.

Did they at least increase the exp value of the monsters? If they didn't, I don't see it helping much because you just have to put more monsters in the encounters to spend the exp budget. More monsters that do more damage means PC spending more time on defensive actions or unconcious which will undo the benefit of using lower level monsters.

I don't really have the slightest idea what you're on here, so I'm going to assume you're talking about the same idiosyncratic issues that your group has had. I'm seeing nothing of this in my games with upgraded damage numbers.

-O