Maybe I'm not understanding the way encounter building in 4E works, but don't you pick a certain amount of exp you want for each PC, and spend that exp on monster and traps? So if 5 n+2 level monsters fills your exp budget, but you now want to use n level monsters from MMIII, wouldn't you have to use more of them? Their defenses and hit points would be lower, but there are more of them so wouldn't it be a wash as far as speeding up combat goes? If they increased monster exp value along with monster damage, then you could use the same number of lower level monsters for the same exp as the higher level monsters from previous MM's and have quicker combat that is also more challenging for the PC's. My point is this. Increasing monster exp values and monster damage would be a step in the right direction, while increasing monster damage with no increase in exp value would seem to be a wash.
Higher Damage in Monster Manual 3
- Thread starter the Jester
- Start date
malraux
First Post
You should be scaling back the XP budget. Instead of 5 n+2 level monsters, your budget should be 5 n level monsters, that is, an equal level encounter. Because the damage is increased, you shouldn't need to use the higher level encounter.
Yes, but DM's won't feel forced to make level+2 encounters quite as often, when they can challenge the PC's with a level equivalent encounter. And for difficult encounters, I've seen DM's go for level+5 when this will be completely unnecessary if a level+3 encounter can give the PC's a hard enough time with the increased damage expressions.
The overall effect is that DM's will be able to keep the virtual challenge level the same, while using numerically lower level encounters, which both increases threat of monsters, and decreases their pool of hit points, leading to the most wanted fast and furious encounters.
Well for published adventures or LFR mods where exp and PC leveling are at pretty standardized levels, you would need to use more of the lower level monsters to get the right amount of exp or have more encounters. Perhaps the writers could throw in more "quest" exp or another skill challenge to compensate. I hope that would be the direction they go with.
Here is the logic (and one supported strongly by my own experience with a highly optimized group):
Previously, to present an appropriate challenge for the PCs, I had to simply use higher level encounters, involving either higher level monsters, or larger quantities of lower level enemies.
This meant that for average encounters, it might be a Level +2 fight, and for a boss fight, it might be a Level +4 or +5 fight.
Using more monsters or higher level foes succeeded in presenting more of a threat, but also meant more hps and possibly higher defenses. Hence: the potential for grind. It also meant that PCs tended to level faster than some might find comfortable - my group was levelling every other session, at this pace.
The common workaround I used was to focus heavily on fragile but dangerous enemies like Artillery. With decent success.
MM3 takes that approach across the board, by making monsters appropriate dangerous from the start.
This means I can now include an @Level encounter and have it provide the PCs the appropriate danger for a standard fight, or a Level +3 encounter for a boss fight.
Thus, less hps to deal with in these fights, so the same danger for the party with less grind. And, ideally, a more reasonable levelling pace.
You don't need to put more monsters in to spend the xp-budget, because you were having to go over the budget in the first place to threaten the PCs! Now, you can spend the budget properly, and everything falls into place.
(As a qualifier, I'm not going to say these issues were all encompassing, nor that every fight with pre-MM3 enemies was trivial for the PCs. It was simply a general trend mostly obvious from a distance, and one that the MM3 goes a long way to fix, for which I am certainly grateful.)
Joshua Randall
Legend
But the game does. The game assumes you will have +1 equipment at levels 1-5, +2 equipment at levels 6-10, etc. This is not a secret.
If you reject that assumption and don't give the PCs the plussed items that the game assumes they have, then of course the math won't work.
Where's the :deadhorse: smiley when we need him?Mengu said:
Obryn
Hero
Yep. Some monsters in MM1 are much better than others. Some - especially, I'm finding, in upper Paragon - need some help.
I'm running P3, and I'm finding there are a lot of L+3 encounters, and some monsters who are up to L+5 or so. It's some work, but I'm going through and changing them to mostly L+0 or L+1 encounters with either MM3 monsters, or older monsters with...
* Brutes getting +2 attack
* Almost all monsters doubling static damage modifiers except on burst/blast effects, unless they were already top-tier opponents (like the Angel of Vengeance, frex)
-O
I'm not disagreeing. That's why I started the sentence with "Sadly". I'd love to fire the grognard DM's who are blindly anti-treasure because they think hoarding loot is for munchkins, and the leet roleplayers can fight with rusty swords and their ham fists. 4e doesn't work that way, at least not out of the box unless you implement some house rules.
Joshua Randall
Legend
That's perilously close to saying you agree with me. Clearly you're new at this Internet thing.
Nah, just kidding. Sorry to be overly argumentative.
Similar Threads
