Doing the Monster Math for the original MM

[keterys]

So, your bloodied purple worm could make five attacks (3 bites, a drag, and a sting) and an auto-grind on a single target in one round, for a possible 24*3+28+34+24 = 158 damage in one round. Coincidentally, average hp at level 15 (the level you'd fight this guy probably) is 110 or less.

While the original Purple Worm is pretty awful, dealing not even a quarter of the damage he should while being boring to boot... you do generally want to make sure that solos spread damage at least a _little_. That said, your overall damage is right on track assuming it takes the party 5ish rounds to kill it and are missed about half the time (which depends a lot on the low NADs around it and the party's defender, but eh, close enough).

 

[Aegeri]

While the original Purple Worm is pretty awful, dealing not even a quarter of the damage he should while being boring to boot... you do generally want to make sure that solos spread damage at least a _little_. That said, your overall damage is right on track assuming it takes the party 5ish rounds to kill it and are missed about half the time (which depends a lot on the low NADs around it and the party's defender, but eh, close enough).

You're exactly right, I forgot to specify that the multiple attack power has to target multiple creatures - as I gave it an extra minor action attack. Good catch there! Always something you overlook. I have corrected the power. Tremorshock is supposed to get around defender marks - he's not supposed to be able to eat any character alive in a single round too easily. He still will of course, what he'll do to a wizard or a relatively squishy striker is just obscene. But that's the way life should work. I also removed the recharge on drag under, as it is better as a limited encounter power (and powerful enough to warrant that).

Edit: Either way, it gets the general point across now about the new maths, HP, defenses and such forth. Providing a general point of comparison.

 

[Jhaelen]

Edit: Either way, it gets the general point across now about the new maths, HP, defenses and such forth. Providing a general point of comparison.

Unfortunately I cannot reward you with XP again, but I really like what you did with the purple worm.

The main problem I see with the original 4e MM1 purple worm isn't so much that it's underpowered (though it is), but that it's incredibly boring. I'm also unsure if it really should be a solo.

I'd like to note that the one time I actually used a purple worm in 3e was extremely underwhelming, as well. The fight was over in a single round. Basically, the worm attacked, grabbed a pc and was preparing to swallow him but was blasted to smithereens before being able to do so.

I had similarly bad experiences with ropers and umber hulks in 3e. Neither was more than a speed bump for a party of equal level.

Back to 4e:
It's actually easy to create encounters involving a purple worm without having the rest of the opposition be allied to the purple worm. It just appears (rather like a lurker) and wreaks a bit of havoc while the party is busy with another encounter. So, there's really no compelling reason why it absolutely has to be a solo.

 

[Aegeri]

My final updated version of the purple worm can be found in AngryMojo's thread, as well as some other general MM creations that have been updated. I will have the epic MM Hydra done in a couple of days. I intend for it to be more straightforward than either the purple worm or the dracolich.

 

[ourchair]

In general, I cheat in monster math.

It's horrible, I know.

If I can't call a monster up on my laptop, find it on a book or whatever, I just take the player's general hit point average divide it by 2-4, depending on how harsh I want to be and then find the damage expression that can best achieve that target number. And I've never ever been called an unfair DM for it.

 

[jhallum]

So I am pretty new to the art of making new monsters (and 4e in general), and do have some confusion about the new tables. What does this mean for monsters that are obviously using the Low tables on the old chart? Up the damage to the new chart and full speed ahead? Or modulate the new tables down a little bit?

Jeremy

 

[Aegeri]

Everything just uses the same damage now, so it's pretty consistent and the only real exception are brutes (who get +25% damage). So for a single power, you use that table and for a power that targets multiple creatures you use the second column. Then adjust up and down depending on mood, strength of the powers control (stun, dominate and large amounts of ongoing damage) and similar.

Failing that, look at monsters around the level you're making and type, then use their damage expressions (or roughly so). This is often the easier way of doing things when you're new to making monsters.

 

[Dr_Ruminahui]

I remember some people saying there is a way to get monster builder to automatically update the damage for older monsters when modifying the creature. I tried it out a few days ago, and couldn't figure out how other than looking at the chart provided in this thread (which is awesome, BTW) and entering that into the average damage field.

Any other suggestions?

 

[Aegeri]

Delete the original attack entry entirely in the monster builder and then replace it. When it replaces it the program automatically does so with a higher damage expression and the correct attack bonus.

 

[keterys]

Mine is still doing soldiers at +2 attack and brutes at -2 attack, I think, and I seem to recall the damage still being off.

Maybe it's cause I've been mostly doing minions lately though, and they're just a bit off.