D&D General Hot Take: D&D Has Not Recovered From 2E to 3.0 Transition

[EzekielRaiden]

but would level 8 minions even scratch level 17 PCs in 4E?

No idea. Let's do the math! By the MM3-on-a-business-card, a level 8 monster should have the following statistics.

Spoiler: We do the Monster Math

AC: 14+8 = 22
Def: 12+8 = 20 (read: 4e's equivalent of "Constitution saves" and the like)
Hit: 5+8 = 13
Average (baseline) damage: 8+8 = 16 (probably best represented as 4d6+2 or 2d6+9, but there are other options.)
Damage modifiers: Encounter actions (+25% to +50%), Brute role (+25%), AoE effects (-25%)
Minion: half damage
Elite: x2 HP
Solo: x4 HP

HP (and any modifiers to AC) would then be determined by monster role:
Skirmisher: 24+8*8 = 88 HP (closest to the "baseline" role: stands out via mobility and abilities, not stats per se)
Controller: 88 HP (same calc)
Soldier: 88 HP, +2 AC (the "high defense" type)
Brute: 26+8*10 = 106 HP, -2 AC (the Barbarian-type, more beef and damage, but lower defenses)
Artilery: 21+8*6 = 69 HP (nice), -2 AC
Lurker: 69 HP (same calc; this is the Rogue-type, sneaky damage dealer)

A typical level 17 character in 4e (in this case, a Sorcerer) should have (roughly) +20 attack bonus and deal (roughly) 1d8+20 damage with an At-Will attack (3d8+18 damage on a multi-target Encounter attack, for comparison.) And they should have roughly AC 32, and 104 HP, give or take.

With +13 to hit, the level 8 minion only hits on 19 or 20. Due to the way 4e crits work, this means half the time that they hit they'll do their average damage, and half the time they'll do maximized damage (possibly with a small rider), so if we go with 2d6+1 as their normal damage range, they'll be putting out 0.05(8+13) = 1.05 average damage per round. This, obviously, isn't much, but against a very large number (say, 20+), this can actually add up to something serious. When they hit, they actually do a moderate amount of damage--on a crit, even this weak minion does 1/6th of a Sorcerer's HP, so there's still some risk, even though it's low on a per-monster basis.

If we made them brutes (fragile but harder-hitting) and gave them some kind of attack-boosting buff or benefit (perhaps they have a battle standard that boosts them, or a leader far in the back giving them buffs), their damage would be reasonably decent. E.g. let's say they get a +3 to attack, allowing them to hit on 16+. That would mean, on average, a group of 10 of them should hit roughly 2-3 attacks per round; a group of 20 should hit 5 per round. That's enough to still be scary en masse, even though they don't do that much damage (brute would increase damage by roughly 1/3, to about 10 damage on a normal hit.)

Keep in mind that this is combining both "this monster is easily defeated by someone of its listed level" and "this is far below the level of the PCs." If we used minions of a higher level...which the way the minion rules were designed to be used...no further embellishments would be required. And you can make the MM3-on-a-business-card monster in about two minutes by just using the formulae on it. The only difficult part is giving it interesting actions or properties other than its fundamental statistics. Given that's the part where DMs are showing their creativity, it should be the "difficult" part of designing a monster.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

But you needed the entire minion concept because level 8 monsters couldn't have touched those 17th level PCs in 4E. Which, if you want sell more books with versions of monsters at higher levels is a good thing. From a world building point of view? I didn't think so. To me it didn't make sense that the orcs that showed up at higher levels could suddenly hit much more often than their brethren.

See above. Level 8 monsters can, but it would be unlikely. En masse, they could still do some harm.

Also, you are conflating the mechanical expression with the ecological nature* of the thing in question. The single terrifying orc soldier you barely overcame at level 1 (level 1 solo) is exactly the same physical organism in the world as the pair of soldiers you held your own against at level 6 (two level 6 elites), the platoon you took head on at level 12 (six level 12 standards) and the throng you batted aside like it was nothing while gunning for their sorcerous master at level 17 (ten level 17 minions.) Much as, for example, each successful swing of the orc's axe does not do perfectly identical damage, even though the orc is using the exact same physical object, because the rules do not represent a universal and objective singular thing, but rather a spectrum of related things that vary in impact (pun not initially intended) depending on context.

The ecology of something does not need to sync 1:1 with the mechanics thereof. Indeed, it often shouldn't, because the mechanics are an abstraction intended to communicate an experience or relation, not a hard-coded objective baseline against which everything is universally and perfectly measured. In fact, even in 5e, there's often a many-to-many relationship here: there are many different mechanics which may represent the same physical creature depending on context and what is currently relevant about it, and multiple different creatures may all be validly represented by identical mechanics because that's what is the best fit for the current context.

*That is, what it "is in the world": its niche, its relationships with and to other creatures, its objective and universally-recognizable qualities, etc.

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

Y'all wanted classes to be SAD.

I think it was more "why are only some classes MAD?".

 

[Scribe]

Here we are again, in a thread turned into a 4e thread @EzekielRaiden

 

[payn]

I think it was more "why are only some classes MAD?".

Right. They should all be MAD.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Here we are again, in a thread turned into a 4e thread @EzekielRaiden

Yeahhhh...in fairness, someone said something couldn't be done before! It wasn't (just) my fault!!

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Right. They should all be MAD.

It should be one or the other, yes. Either everyone is MAD or no one is MAD. Believe it or not, I prefer everyone being MAD--but "MAD" more in the sense of "there are 2-3 distinct approaches which are all useful and fun." Which is more like "Multiple Attributes Are Useful" rather than "Multiple-Attribute Dependent."

 

[Jaeger]

Hot Take: D&D Has Not Recovered From 2E to 3.0 Transition​

Mechanically and in a game design/balance perspective. And I'm not talking about 2E being a paragon of perfection either.

Agree with the hot take, but I feel your breakdown misses some fundamental issues:

1- The Abandonment of Morale rules had a profound impact on combat in the game - as well as tying XP to mostly monster killing.

2- The Abandonment of Hit Dice limits - after 9hd you got a static +1, +2 or +3 hps no con mod. Adding a full HD all the way to Lvl 20 has fundamentally altered the way D&D plays and feels. It has had a cascade of effects on every WotC designed edition with HP bloat effects in every aspect of the game that they have never fully gotten a handle on.

3- The Abandonment of the traditional power checks for casters. Now instead of finding new spells, you have access to every spell as you level up. The systematic removal of the need for components and increase in the generosity of cantrips, etc, has just made them increasingly powerful under WotC stewardship. What really needed to happen with 3e was a top down re-think and organization of the spell lists, and how casters should acquire new spells; but now it's too late.


These three changes from 2-3e have had a far more fundamental effect on the direction of the game, and how it is now being played than any of the saving throw, class ability, stat bump, DC Scale, attack bonus, sideshow stuff being discussed.

Ascending AC was on point though...

 

[fjw70]

Reading this thread is making me nostalgic for 4e.

 

[Oofta]

See above. Level 8 monsters can, but it would be unlikely. En masse, they could still do some harm.

Also, you are conflating the mechanical expression with the ecological nature* of the thing in question. The single terrifying orc soldier you barely overcame at level 1 (level 1 solo) is exactly the same physical organism in the world as the pair of soldiers you held your own against at level 6 (two level 6 elites), the platoon you took head on at level 12 (six level 12 standards) and the throng you batted aside like it was nothing while gunning for their sorcerous master at level 17 (ten level 17 minions.) Much as, for example, each successful swing of the orc's axe does not do perfectly identical damage, even though the orc is using the exact same physical object, because the rules do not represent a universal and objective singular thing, but rather a spectrum of related things that vary in impact (pun not initially intended) depending on context.

The ecology of something does not need to sync 1:1 with the mechanics thereof. Indeed, it often shouldn't, because the mechanics are an abstraction intended to communicate an experience or relation, not a hard-coded objective baseline against which everything is universally and perfectly measured. In fact, even in 5e, there's often a many-to-many relationship here: there are many different mechanics which may represent the same physical creature depending on context and what is currently relevant about it, and multiple different creatures may all be validly represented by identical mechanics because that's what is the best fit for the current context.

*That is, what it "is in the world": its niche, its relationships with and to other creatures, its objective and universally-recognizable qualities, etc.

The encounter was designed to be a medium encounter and yes, it worked just fine. Even a little bit better than expected because the CR 7 wizard managed to dominate the paladin (I rolled to see which fighter type she dominated) and get in a couple of fireballs by standing back and ducking back under cover. The sorcerer and one of the fighters got grappled and stunned. I almost got a chance to polymorph the barbarian into a chicken before running away. Not that the chicken thing would have changed the tide of combat at that point, but it would have been funny. So even though the enemy was outmatched they were strategic in their attacks.

Maybe it didn't bother you that "the exact same orc" suddenly went from a + 9 to hit to a +14, it bothered me. Why would that orc that had a hard time hitting a lower level PC and then suddenly be better at hitting if the target is harder to hit? It felt like all the gains you made were just artificial to a large degree. If that doesn't bother you, it doesn't.

If I wanted throw an orc horde against my level 17 group I still can, although I would use mob rules to speed up combat. They would still be exactly the same orcs though.