Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="NotAYakk" data-source="post: 9013053" data-attributes="member: 72555">Rather than Paragon vs Elite, I have noticed we can just have Elite(2) and Elite(4).The point is by scaling Elite(N), we get a monster that can grow horizontally as the party size (or drama) requires.The math for &quot;a double-wide&quot; monster and a &quot;4x wide&quot; monster is relatively similar.Like, suppose you have an encounter for 4 PCs, but you have 6.&nbsp; You can make the Elite(2) an Elite(3) and take the 3 standard monsters and up it to 5.No, N here is how &quot;wide&quot; it is.&nbsp; Elite(2) is 2 monsters &quot;wide&quot; (counts as two monsters of the same level).&nbsp; Elite(4) is 4 monsters &quot;wide&quot; (4x).Scale HP by N (hence duration of the fight) and get a &quot;half damage&quot; Paragon action(s), plus some fudging on base stats, and you get a monster that &quot;auto-scales&quot;.Sure, I get that.&nbsp; But adding to a lower number is the same as adding and subtracting to a bigger number.Ie, if Soldiers are +2 AC and Brutes are -2 AC, we can just lower the baseline AC by 2 and make Soldiers +4, Brutes +0, and others +2.By making the Templates/Roles almost entirely additive and roughly as good as each other, adding a Template/Roll ups the power of the monster by a known amount.&nbsp; Then we budget for a certain number of them on a monster.This intentionally blocks &quot;I'll just use a vanilla monster&quot; because vanilla monsters aren't a thing; all monsters should have texture....The baseline I used was based off of a &quot;naked rogue&quot;.&nbsp; I didn't make it scale right, especially T3/T4.The templates where completely eyeballed and not even a balance pass done.&nbsp; I wanted Templates to have a significant impact (a Brute should feel very different than a non-Brute), so made Brute big.&nbsp; And you get 2 of them.Possibly I need to make them smaller....I like the &quot;1 attack per tier&quot; thing.&nbsp; But I think it also needs a dropping of the baseline damage for the math to work out.So a naive Rogue does 2d6+3 damage at level 1 (10), and goes up by about 2 per level.&nbsp; This is 8+2 per level.&nbsp; But that is a lie, because it neglects a bunch of non-naked Rogue power ups.In my first pass, I shaved a bunch off and then multiplied it by tier.&nbsp; But this gives a quadratic result, not enough damage in T1, and too much in T3/4.Like, (4+L)*Tier vs (8+2L), then relied upon templates to provide the gap.1:5 vs 10 (!)4:8 vs 16 (!)5:18 vs 1810: 28 vs 2811: 45 vs 30 (!)16: 60 vs 40 (!)17: 84 vs 42 (!)20: 96 vs 48 (!)If I change it to (7+L/2)*Tier it boosts level 1 monsters (even tier 1) a bit and pulls down later on:1:7 vs 104:9 vs 16 5:18 vs 1810: 24 vs 2811: 36 vs 30 16: 45 vs 40 17: 60 vs 42 20: 68 vs 48that works better.&nbsp; By T4, the &quot;naive naked rogue&quot; is relatively less powerful than it was at level 1.OTOH, I could just go with 8+2L.&nbsp; But I like the (damage times tier) thing.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="NotAYakk, post: 9013053, member: 72555"] Rather than Paragon vs Elite, I have noticed we can just have Elite(2) and Elite(4). The point is by scaling Elite(N), we get a monster that can [b]grow horizontally[/b] as the party size (or drama) requires. The math for "a double-wide" monster and a "4x wide" monster is relatively similar. Like, suppose you have an encounter for 4 PCs, but you have 6. You can make the Elite(2) an Elite(3) and take the 3 standard monsters and up it to 5. No, N here is how "wide" it is. Elite(2) is 2 monsters "wide" (counts as two monsters of the same level). Elite(4) is 4 monsters "wide" (4x). Scale HP by N (hence duration of the fight) and get a "half damage" Paragon action(s), plus some fudging on base stats, and you get a monster that "auto-scales". Sure, I get that. But adding to a lower number is the same as adding and subtracting to a bigger number. Ie, if Soldiers are +2 AC and Brutes are -2 AC, we can just lower the baseline AC by 2 and make Soldiers +4, Brutes +0, and others +2. By making the Templates/Roles almost entirely additive and roughly as good as each other, adding a Template/Roll ups the power of the monster by a known amount. Then we budget for a certain number of them on a monster. This intentionally blocks "I'll just use a vanilla monster" because vanilla monsters aren't a thing; all monsters should have texture. ... The baseline I used was based off of a "naked rogue". I didn't make it scale right, especially T3/T4. The templates where completely eyeballed and not even a balance pass done. I wanted Templates to have a significant impact (a Brute should feel very different than a non-Brute), so made Brute big. And you get 2 of them. Possibly I need to make them smaller. ... I like the "1 attack per tier" thing. But I think it also needs a dropping of the baseline damage for the math to work out. So a naive Rogue does 2d6+3 damage at level 1 (10), and goes up by about 2 per level. This is 8+2 per level. But that is a lie, because it neglects a bunch of non-naked Rogue power ups. In my first pass, I shaved a bunch off and then multiplied it by tier. But this gives a quadratic result, not enough damage in T1, and too much in T3/4. Like, (4+L)*Tier vs (8+2L), then relied upon templates to provide the gap. 1:5 vs 10 (!) 4:8 vs 16 (!) 5:18 vs 18 10: 28 vs 28 11: 45 vs 30 (!) 16: 60 vs 40 (!) 17: 84 vs 42 (!) 20: 96 vs 48 (!) If I change it to (7+L/2)*Tier it boosts level 1 monsters (even tier 1) a bit and pulls down later on: 1:7 vs 10 4:9 vs 16 5:18 vs 18 10: 24 vs 28 11: 36 vs 30 16: 45 vs 40 17: 60 vs 42 20: 68 vs 48 that works better. By T4, the "naive naked rogue" is relatively less powerful than it was at level 1. OTOH, I could just go with 8+2L. But I like the (damage times tier) thing. [/QUOTE]

Verification