Dark Sun Creature Catalog: Damage Inflation

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

I didn't know about the new damage rules, and have downloaded the errata. Thanks.

I always felt high-level monsters didn't do enough damage, but am quite unsure about the lower-level examples I gave there.

 

[Spatula]

The dwarf sunpriest (level 5 artillery) does 1d10+8 radiant damage. (None of its stats are high enough to justify this, either.)

And the human gladiator novice (a 4th-level soldier) is just... confusing. He has Strength 20 and Dex 15. He is armed with a short sword. He does 2d8+3 damage, which is probably not too ridiculous for his level, but ... none of his stats justify a +3 bonus, a short sword shouldn't do 1d8 damage, and it certainly shouldn't do 2d8.

They (thankfully) fully divorced monster & equipment stats from monster attacks around the time of MM2. Requiring that a monster's weapon attack "makes sense" is part of what was keeping monster damage too low in high-heroic and in paragon, IMO.

If I'm building a monster that uses weapons, I will usually make the damage dice match those of the weapon (d6s for a short sword, d8s for long sword, etc.). The monster builder has a neat feature for that, which preserves the average damage. And I don't try to justify the size of the bonus to the roll.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Mostly what the folks up there said - it uses the revised damage tables from MM3.

However, I'd also like to note that in 4e, damage isn't related to a monster's stats, weapon, or anything else - it's based only on a table. The dwarf sunpriest does 1d10+8 because he's Level 5 Artillery, not because of his Wisdom bonus. The human gladiator does 2d8+3 because he's a skirmisher, not because his stats should give him a +3 bonus or shortswords should do 2d8 damage.

-O

Sorry, but why not just give it 2d6+5 damage instead?

Yes, you should look at the gladiator as a monster, but why not use PC compatible dice + mod, whenever possible?
You also have different AC guidelines, but If my monster is a brute with low AC, I won´t put it in plate armor but use hide armor with low dex/int instead...

Should you put a lot of effort into perfectly mathematically correct stats? By all means, no... but it is not difficult to come up with a weapon, Armor and stats that follow the guidelines more or less...

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Mostly what the folks up there said - it uses the revised damage tables from MM3.

However, I'd also like to note that in 4e, damage isn't related to a monster's stats, weapon, or anything else - it's based only on a table. The dwarf sunpriest does 1d10+8 because he's Level 5 Artillery, not because of his Wisdom bonus. The human gladiator does 2d8+3 because he's a skirmisher, not because his stats should give him a +3 bonus or shortswords should do 2d8 damage.

-O

Sorry, but why not just give it 2d6+5 damage instead?

Yes, you should look at the gladiator as a monster, but why not use PC compatible dice + mod, whenever possible?
You also have different AC guidelines, but If my monster is a brute with low AC, I won´t put it in plate armor but use hide armor with low dex/int instead...

Should you put a lot of effort into perfectly mathematically correct stats? By all means, no... but it is not difficult to come up with a weapon, Armor and stats that follow the guidelines more or less...

 

[Derren]

Its not that this setting is high powered. That is just the normal power creep, just this time applied to monsters as the originals were too weak.

 

[mgbeach]

Sorry, but why not just give it 2d6+5 damage instead?

Yes, you should look at the gladiator as a monster, but why not use PC compatible dice + mod, whenever possible?
You also have different AC guidelines, but If my monster is a brute with low AC, I won´t put it in plate armor but use hide armor with low dex/int instead...

Should you put a lot of effort into perfectly mathematically correct stats? By all means, no... but it is not difficult to come up with a weapon, Armor and stats that follow the guidelines more or less...

The monster manuals (and by extension, the creature catalog) are there to allow a DM to put together an encounter on the fly if necessary. That is, without stopping to consider exactly how each gladiator on the field is armed and armored.

If you want a different level of detail to your game, there is nothing wrong with essentially making up your own DM-PC gladiators to pit against the party - taking into account all of their idiosyncrasies and backstory and how they came to wield Thorngrym, Blade of the Bloodied Silt.

But, the creature catalog exists for the DM who just had their PCs decide to go become gladiators when all of his prep time had gone into them joining a caravan.

 

[renau1g]

But, the creature catalog exists for the DM who just had their PCs decide to go become gladiators when all of his prep time had gone into them joining a caravan.

or for those who feel the cost/benefit of getting down to that finite level of detail for every enemy isn't worth it

Maybe the BBEG, or the championship round of said tournament

 

[Obryn]

Sorry, but why not just give it 2d6+5 damage instead?

Yes, you should look at the gladiator as a monster, but why not use PC compatible dice + mod, whenever possible?

*shrug*

You certainly can, but it's not an error to do otherwise. IMO, for monsters, it's more important to look at considerations of minimum and maximum damage - and even then it's a matter of preference.

-O

 

[mgbeach]

or for those who feel the cost/benefit of getting down to that finite level of detail for every enemy isn't worth it

Maybe the BBEG, or the championship round of said tournament

Exactly. And I would still come down on the side of using the MM version and spending the extra time on story.

And, say they had gone the route of making the gladiator entry match up to PC statistics. Well, that's still only one of a multitude of options. You're still getting the average gladiator.

Someone posted earlier that the error in the thought process was not looking at opponents as "monsters" even when they are playable races, and I totally agree.

 

[Colmarr]

The monster manuals (and by extension, the creature catalog) are there to allow a DM to put together an encounter on the fly if necessary. That is, without stopping to consider exactly how each gladiator on the field is armed and armored.

I interpreted UngeheuerLich as meaning "why [didn't WotC] just give it 2d6+5 damage instead?" He wasn't so much suggesting that the DM modify damage expressions on every monster he uses as much as he was suggesting that WotC should check the damage expressions on every monster it creates.

That's a fair enough question/suggestion. The specific monster (the gladiator) WotC designed is wielding a shortsword, so why not base its damage expressions on the appropriate die for a shortsword?

I appreciate that the answer may be "the software we use defaults to d8 and it's faster/easier to not fiddle with it", but if that is the answer it's a little lacklustre.