4th Edition and the Immortals Handbook

[Fieari]

Well, it says that this number should be "the higher of the ability score pair" (based on the defenses), but then goes on to say that you determine the +/- from this number, and also that the stat that is tied to it's primary attack should be three higher. Make of that what you will.

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hey Fieari mate!

Well, it says that this number should be "the higher of the ability score pair" (based on the defenses), but then goes on to say that you determine the +/- from this number, and also that the stat that is tied to it's primary attack should be three higher. Make of that what you will.

Never mind that - I now have the books, the rest is childsplay.

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hey there!

Okay. After wrestling with the books last night it appears that instead of 13/16 + 1/2 level for the main stats that, for epic level monsters anyway, something akin to...

19 + 1/2 level = Best score
16 + 1/2 level = Second best score
13 + 1/2 level = Third best score

...works best.

I think if you wanted to mix and match you could have

3 Ability Scores = 16 + 1/2 level
(other three 10 + 1/2 level or less)

or even...

6 Ability Scores = 13 + 1/2 level

Example of first method:

Orcus: L33 (Top 3 Ability Scores)

19 + 16 = 35
16 + 16 = 32
13 + 16 = 29

There are two (epic) monsters in the book that notably break this, the Tarrasque and the Godforged Colossus.

Frankly, I am not happy with the Tarrasque. Even going by their own monster creation rules in the DMG it should be dealing 4d8+12 instead of 1d12+16. I mean I know it gets the +15 ongoing damage but it should have that on top of the higher base damage.

By comparison the Godforged Colossus deals 4d12+15 with its basic attack! Its actually smaller than the Tarrasque, weaker, lower level and only Elite where the Tarrasque is a Solo monster. Yet its dealing on average 18 points more with a basic attack. Before you say, well what about the Tarrsque's +15 ongoing damage. Well the Godforged Colossus gets a secondary attack that deals 3d6 psychic damage and stuns you.

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hey there!

Have extended the damage tables to 70th, and they flow quite well. Also added a fourth damage column for the limited damage expressions to accomodate one off attacks such as the Balor's Death Throes explosion.

For choosing columns I think limited damage attacks should use:

Low...when recharge is
Medium...when recharge is
High when recharge is
Maximum...when can perform only once in total

Working on something to give me an idea about PC powers as high as 60th.

Its actually quite interesting to note that the MM often ignores the DMG parameters for monster damage.

eg. Hill Giants deal 1d10+5 when the DMG suggests 3d6+6

eg. The Pit Fiend deals 1d12+11 when the DMG suggests 3d8+9

eg. Orcus deals 2d12+12 when we can extrapolate the DMG to suggest 4d8+11

 

[Ltheb Silverfrond]

Having thrown together an encounter of my own (Solo lvl 7 version of an Immolith-type monster) I must comment that the given damage expressions seem high. Individually, they seem fine; but in my encounter, my sample (defense-optimized) characters would find themselves losing half their life in the first round or two! (Sample party was Bow-Ranger, Nimble Rogue, Enabler Warlord, an status-condition wizard; No fighter or Paladin, since no one in my group expressed an interest) (HP for ~ 7th level char: 45-50) Plus, said characters would need 10-30 rounds to kill the thing! It's defenses, being below that of a comparable monster (Solo Lvl 7 Red Dragon) still proved high enough to warrant 10's on most occasions. 4E combat has a lot of luck involved, it seems. Further, the characters used the most intelligent tactics available, attack weaker defenses, getting combat advantage, and readying actions like Commander's Strike, and still they seem a bit outclassed.

 

[Fieari]

So what IS the system for increasing damage? The strangely staggered nature of the +x bonus really has me confused.

 

[historian]

Hey U_K!

Hey there!

Okay. After wrestling with the books last night it appears that instead of 13/16 + 1/2 level for the main stats that, for epic level monsters anyway, something akin to...

19 + 1/2 level = Best score
16 + 1/2 level = Second best score
13 + 1/2 level = Third best score

...works best.

I think if you wanted to mix and match you could have

3 Ability Scores = 16 + 1/2 level
(other three 10 + 1/2 level or less)

or even...

6 Ability Scores = 13 + 1/2 level

Example of first method:

Orcus: L33 (Top 3 Ability Scores)

19 + 16 = 35
16 + 16 = 32
13 + 16 = 29

There are two (epic) monsters in the book that notably break this, the Tarrasque and the Godforged Colossus.

Frankly, I am not happy with the Tarrasque. Even going by their own monster creation rules in the DMG it should be dealing 4d8+12 instead of 1d12+16. I mean I know it gets the +15 ongoing damage but it should have that on top of the higher base damage.

By comparison the Godforged Colossus deals 4d12+15 with its basic attack! Its actually smaller than the Tarrasque, weaker, lower level and only Elite where the Tarrasque is a Solo monster. Yet its dealing on average 18 points more with a basic attack. Before you say, well what about the Tarrsque's +15 ongoing damage. Well the Godforged Colossus gets a secondary attack that deals 3d6 psychic damage and stuns you.

Speaking of the Tarrasque, there is a thread on the general 4e page where a group of (IIRC) 5 PCs soundly thrashed the Big T w/o taking a single point of damage.

Very early into the comprehensive read, I am impressed with PC powers versus what I've seen in the MM.

What do you think of abilities like Seal of Binding (Cleric 25) and Epic Trick (Epic 26) by chance?

 

[Upper_Krust]

Howdy Ltheb mate!

Having thrown together an encounter of my own (Solo lvl 7 version of an Immolith-type monster) I must comment that the given damage expressions seem high. Individually, they seem fine; but in my encounter, my sample (defense-optimized) characters would find themselves losing half their life in the first round or two! (Sample party was Bow-Ranger, Nimble Rogue, Enabler Warlord, an status-condition wizard; No fighter or Paladin, since no one in my group expressed an interest) (HP for ~ 7th level char: 45-50) Plus, said characters would need 10-30 rounds to kill the thing! It's defenses, being below that of a comparable monster (Solo Lvl 7 Red Dragon) still proved high enough to warrant 10's on most occasions. 4E combat has a lot of luck involved, it seems. Further, the characters used the most intelligent tactics available, attack weaker defenses, getting combat advantage, and readying actions like Commander's Strike, and still they seem a bit outclassed.

Thats weird, a Level 7 Solo version of the Immolith (or something similar) would only be dealing an average of 2d6+5 (plus presumably an ongoing 5 fire damage). That said it would at least get two attacks, and have some 400 hit points.

One thing we may have to remember is that the monsters are created based on a five PC group structure. So it may move into the 'Hard' classification when your four PCs took it on.

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hiya Fieari dude!

So what IS the system for increasing damage? The strangely staggered nature of the +x bonus really has me confused.

The bonus is always equal to the average dice roll for the level group where you just changed the dice on the Low Column of the Normal Damage Expression Table. Its a tiny bit skewed at the lower levels (where they use a single die) because sometimes they round up.

But it should carry on as follows:

31-33 2d10+11 (Low) 3d10+11 (Med) 4d8+11 (High)
34-36 2d10+12 (Low) 3d10+12 (Med) 4d10+12 (High)
37-39 2d12+13 (Low) 3d12+13 (Med) 4d10+13 (High)
40-42 2d12+15 (Low) 3d12+15 (Med) 4d12+15 (High)
43-45 3d10+16 (Low) 4d10+16 (Med) 4d12+16 (High)
46-48 3d10+18 (Low) 4d10+18 (Med) 6d10+18 (High)
etc.
67-69 6d10+33 (Low) 8d10+33 (Med) 8d12+33 (High)

The Limited Damage Expression table works the same way though the bonus is always the same as the Normal Damage Expression Table, and the Low column is always in between the High (from the Normal Table) and the Medium (from the Limited Table).

So you have:

31-33 5d10+11 (Low) 6d10+11 (Med) 8d10+11 (High)
34-36 5d10+12 (Low) 6d10+12 (Med) 8d10+12 (High)
37-39 5d12+13 (Low) 6d12+13 (Med) 8d12+13 (High)
40-42 5d12+15 (Low) 6d12+15 (Med) 8d12+15 (High)
43-45 7d10+16 (Low) 8d10+16 (Med) 12d10+16 (High)
46-48 7d10+18 (Low) 8d10+18 (Med) 12d10+18 (High)
etc.
67-69 14d10+33 (Low) 16d10+33 (Med) 24d10+33 (High)

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hey U_K!

Hi Historian mate!

Speaking of the Tarrasque, there is a thread on the general 4e page where a group of (IIRC) 5 PCs soundly thrashed the Big T w/o taking a single point of damage.

Yes I saw that. Anything that stuns is helluva powerful, especially against solo monsters.

Very early into the comprehensive read, I am impressed with PC powers versus what I've seen in the MM.

I am sort of only getting started to take note of the PC stuff and there are clearly a few frightening abilities in there. As mentioned in a dozen threads Blade Cascade needs to be nerfed.

What do you think of abilities like Seal of Binding (Cleric 25)

If you have regeneration and the target doesn't then its a theoretical one hit kill. Don't see it mentioned in the text but I would definately give the target a save every round against the stunning.

and Epic Trick (Epic 26) by chance?

Awesome. Clearly I am going to have to 'get tough' on PCs with my monster designing, but I don't think Epic Trick is as potentially broken as Blade Cascade (and possibly Seal of Binding)