Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Nest
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
A Different Way To Run High Level Monsters
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="jgsugden" data-source="post: 9648047" data-attributes="member: 2629"><p>Right - and I posted how that breakdown doesn't align to your premise and your statements for why you made the system.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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. </p><p></p><p>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?</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="jgsugden, post: 9648047, member: 2629"] 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. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
A Different Way To Run High Level Monsters
Top