D&D (2024) A Different Way To Run High Level Monsters

[jgsugden]

In post #27, I gave an example of what the damage tracks looked like.

Right - and I posted how that breakdown doesn't align to your premise and your statements for why you made the system.

Specifically, the PCs in your simulations were taking down a Colossus in less than 2 rounds EVERY time you ran it. This is what inspired you to make the system - the PCs were overwhelming the CR 25 beasts.

That would require about 80 damage per activation on average if they're going to get there in less than 2 rounds and the party size is not ridiculously large (8?). Yet you indicate the PCs consistently did an average of about 40 damage per activation throughout the actual runs.

And you indicated that you used the same pregens for the analysis and the con - so it isn't a change in the PCs. What accounts for the con run being less than half as effective as your simulations over several rounds of combat?

If the goal is to create and share a system that, even if only conditionally, is an improvement on the base design, the math needs to add up. Right now, either the PCs should not have been dealing that much damage in the simulation, or you have the opposite issue in that they should, and that means you're frontloading the damage to take out the hit box in a round and leaving other PCs with less important tasks if they roll a low initiative, which is something I consider a significant flaw as it means that a low initiative relegates your role.

Personally, my experience is that 2 rounds to take out a Colossus is about right. I have not used one in 2024, but it isn't that different than a 2014 Tarrasque - and I've run that combat several times. You get a few PC turns with 100 to 200 damage each and then a lot of clean up. My combats tend to have different goals included (You're fighting the Tarrasque while simultaneously trying to help the city survive the Tsunami that accompanies it, etc...) but the 2 rounds sounds about right when you focus on the threat - and the Tarrasque had more hps.

That means that the reason for your system seems sound - but it also means that the concerns I have that it relegates people into clean up roles based upon initiative is also sound - and perhaps needs to be something you consider addressing.

 

[Reynard]

Right - and I posted how that breakdown doesn't align to your premise and your statements for why you made the system.

I am getting pretty tired of you telling me that my experiences were not, in fact, my experiences.

Specifically, the PCs in your simulations were taking down a Colossus in less than 2 rounds EVERY time you ran it. This is what inspired you to make the system - the PCs were overwhelming the CR 25 beasts.

That would require about 80 damage per activation on average if they're going to get there in less than 2 rounds and the party size is not ridiculously large (8?). Yet you indicate the PCs consistently did an average of about 40 damage per activation throughout the actual runs.

And you indicated that you used the same pregens for the analysis and the con - so it isn't a change in the PCs. What accounts for the con run being less than half as effective as your simulations over several rounds of combat?

If the goal is to create and share a system that, even if only conditionally, is an improvement on the base design, the math needs to add up. Right now, either the PCs should not have been dealing that much damage in the simulation, or you have the opposite issue in that they should, and that means you're frontloading the damage to take out the hit box in a round and leaving other PCs with less important tasks if they roll a low initiative, which is something I consider a significant flaw as it means that a low initiative relegates your role.

Personally, my experience is that 2 rounds to take out a Colossus is about right. I have not used one in 2024, but it isn't that different than a 2014 Tarrasque - and I've run that combat several times. You get a few PC turns with 100 to 200 damage each and then a lot of clean up. My combats tend to have different goals included (You're fighting the Tarrasque while simultaneously trying to help the city survive the Tsunami that accompanies it, etc...) but the 2 rounds sounds about right when you focus on the threat - and the Tarrasque had more hps.

That means that the reason for your system seems sound - but it also means that the concerns I have that it relegates people into clean up roles based upon initiative is also sound - and perhaps needs to be something you consider addressing.

You run it. Stop relying on white room theory crafting. That is the WORST way to design.

Honestly, I don't even know why you're here if your whole point is to argue against the premise.

 

[dave2008]

I am getting pretty tired of you telling me that my experiences were not, in fact, my experiences.

You run it. Stop relying on white room theory crafting. That is the WORST way to design.

Honestly, I don't even know why you're here if your whole point is to argue against the premise.

Personally, I don't think he is arguing against your experience, he is arguing against your explanation of your experience.

 

[Reynard]

I have added the (rough) draft of the rules to my repository thread.

You can feel free to comment here or there, if so inclined.

 

[Reynard]

I will post some example stat blocks when I get a chance, but it might be a few days as I have other responsibilities looming.

 

[Reynard]

So.

 

[Reynard]

I can't help but feel a little frustrated that this thread died as soon as it stopped being vague arguments and I posted real concrete design intent.

But that's just the internet I guess.

 

[evilbob]

I can't help but feel a little frustrated that this thread died as soon as it stopped being vague arguments and I posted real concrete design intent.

I feel your pain.

Most of my posts on ENworld over these many... many years don't result in a response that I'm actually looking for. I get a lot of tangential or unrelated unsolicited advice, and people telling me I'm wrong about something that isn't what I'm trying to get feedback about. (I'm doing this to you now!) I've always assumed I ask questions poorly - and I'm sure I do! - but I've come to understand this forum doesn't suit my needs for a sounding board for new ideas unless I happen to catch someone at the right moment who happens to share the same basic assumptions. As broad as D&D is: this doesn't happen much.

This board is great for getting in long, pedantic arguments about obscure details and minutia - which sounds like a dig but it can be great for forcing you to clarify your thoughts on a topic. You can also try reddit, but the community is less experienced and (like all reddit) the groupthink is overwhelming and deviation is not tolerated. The official forums are a bit more bombastic but you might get a bite there.

As for your post: I stand by my first comment that this seems neat. I like HP breakpoints in other gamey games, final-boss style, and I share your assumption that tier 4 players destroy "deadly" encounters for breakfast. This seems like a neat fix.

What's stopping me, personally, from investigating more is that it's a lot to parse. Some of that is part and parcel: it's a conplex idea! Also, your thoughts are spread across several posts and threads; it's not clear if you're asking for critiques of your mechanical ideas or the scenarios. It may be helpful to take another pass with the clearest summary of your idea you can make, along with a specific feedback request, without any additional details. For example: unless the different bosses are crucial to what you're asking, I'd focus on one example, with no narrative, and just describe the specific crunch, intended use, and no more. Then go back and try to make it even more concise. (Sadly I'm terrible at this, as evidenced by this comment.) I can't promise it will help, but it also can't hurt.

 

[J-H]

My Baldur's Gate II party is about to drop onto Jierdan Firkraag, an ancient red dragon.
The 5.14 MM dragon is pretty solidly threatening, although I was planning to also drop in a "spit fire" ranged attack in place of the bite. I didn't feel like the a5e Red Dragon was as strong or useful.

I'm tempted to try this model though. I do not want to add a bunch of minions. Would you mind offering some feedback?

Head 125hp
If disabled, no Bite attack

Body 150hp
If disabled, no breath attack or fire spitting

Wings 100hp
If disabled, no flight, no Wing attack LA

Tail 125hp
If disabled, no tail attack LA

Lair Action
At the beginning of his turn, coins from his hoard fly towards the dragon, melting in the heat of his blood and restoring 1/2 the maximum HP of his most injured body part.

New Legendary Action options
Activate spell tattoo: The dragon activates a tattoo carved into one of his scales. Each may be used once per battle. Spells: Heal (70hp), Fire Shield, Blade Ward, Blur (requires Concentration)

Other Changes
A claw and bite attack can be removed in favor of casting a spell. Spell DCs are Charisma-based. Spells are cast at 5th level. Spells known: Fireball, Wall of Fire (C), Dispel Magic, Elemental Bane: Fire (C, 2 targets)

 

[Reynard]

My Baldur's Gate II party is about to drop onto Jierdan Firkraag, an ancient red dragon.
The 5.14 MM dragon is pretty solidly threatening, although I was planning to also drop in a "spit fire" ranged attack in place of the bite. I didn't feel like the a5e Red Dragon was as strong or useful.

I'm tempted to try this model though. I do not want to add a bunch of minions. Would you mind offering some feedback?

Head 125hp
If disabled, no Bite attack

Body 150hp
If disabled, no breath attack or fire spitting

Wings 100hp
If disabled, no flight, no Wing attack LA

Tail 125hp
If disabled, no tail attack LA

Lair Action
At the beginning of his turn, coins from his hoard fly towards the dragon, melting in the heat of his blood and restoring 1/2 the maximum HP of his most injured body part.

New Legendary Action options
Activate spell tattoo: The dragon activates a tattoo carved into one of his scales. Each may be used once per battle. Spells: Heal (70hp), Fire Shield, Blade Ward, Blur (requires Concentration)

Other Changes
A claw and bite attack can be removed in favor of casting a spell. Spell DCs are Charisma-based. Spells are cast at 5th level. Spells known: Fireball, Wall of Fire (C), Dispel Magic, Elemental Bane: Fire (C, 2 targets)

Overall I think the 2024 dragons are better. But if I really wanted a well crafted dragon I would use one by @dave2008

Maybe consider rolling separate initiatives each for the head, tail and wings, so the dragon's regular attacks are not bunched up.

Let us know how it goes.