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.