Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Blackbrrd" data-source="post: 6282603" data-attributes="member: 63962">Defcon1 explains it better in the next post:Just because the rules make it easy to scale monsters shouldn't have made it the norm for the game, because of the highlighted quote above.It's not really an inherent flaw in the rules of 4e, but of how the rules were used to create the monster manual and the adventures. In other words, it's something you can relatively easily work around as a DM. Typically you could:- Use less solo monsters that where medium or smaller- Don't scale traditional humanoid monsters that look the same at level 1 and level 15.- Avoid using minionsThis would give you a less gamey and more simulationist game if that's your thing. If you like your game to be gamey, sure just use everything as it is.In my own game, I am doing the things above and basically using bounded accuracy. That is, when looking at what the monster to-hit/defences should be, I consult a chart which has 5 entries that compares the PC level to the monster level. +2, +1, 0 , -1 and -2. If the monster is outside this chart it ends up using the to-hit/defences of the +2 or -2 (if it's higher/lower level than the PC's). It uses the original damage though. This makes it relatively likely that a level 1 Kobold will hit a level 10 PC, but the damage will be very low. So, a few such Kobold's won't be an issue, but 10-20 of them can be a problem, but nothing a daily or two won't solve.I have done it this way because it's just easier for me as a DM to adjust these numbers on the fly, instead of recalculating everything. It also makes large orc armies quite scary on their own, even if they are all quite low level, and the same holds for the human/elf/dwarf armies defending against them. Numbers actually count for something.My conclusion: having good tools doesn't mean you don't have to be careful when using them, otherwise you can end up with a game that feels completely different from what you set out to create.</blockquote>

Verification