I think they did plenty of playtesting, in fact i KNOW they did plenty of playtesting, but if you consider the difference between epic characters NOW and epic characters 3 years ago there is a significant difference.
I disagree.
Many of the strongest options available to characters are still from PHB1. Actually, to verify that my new tables are not based on wrong assumptions, I created a 'standard' party using only PHB1 classes (to wit: wizard, fighter, cleric, rogue, ranger), powers, paragon paths and epic destinies. Even without considering feats, magic items powers, critical hits, and action points you end up with a Level 30 party that will eliminate a monster group of an equal level within six rounds*:
The average damage potential in a single round at level 30 was almost 400. With an average to hit percentage of about 55% this is sufficient to do the 1340 damage required to kill a group of five L30 skirmishers.
I'd post more about some of the assumptions I've made to get these numbers but I don't want to derail the thread more than I already have
*: note that these are six rounds of basically uninterrupted damage dealing. It's mostly due to the effects of conditions that combat will usually take twice as many rounds.
Also I think there are somewhat different goals for epic tier now than there were originally. Epic tier was always more about telling a story than having PCs on the hairy edge of death at every turn. I don't think run-of-the-mill epic monsters were ever SUPPOSED to be a huge threat, more set dressing and a speed bump on the way to the big bads.
Now that's something I've given some thought, too. One of the assumptions I made for my updated damage table was that an encounter at level 30 should be just as challenging for a L30 party as a level 1 encounter for a L1 party. So, if that was not a design goal, you'd need to use a balancing factor to reflect the intended improved survivability of epic characters. I did some experimenting with this (mostly because I was a bit scared about the damage expressions I had calculated
).
I think they mostly underestimated the ability of characters to lock down and neutralize the heavy hitters, which again is a lot more prevalent than it was with PHB1 alone. The thing is you can test stuff all you want, but you almost always end up confirming your existing ideas about things.
That's also probably true. Or rather: They underestimated the willingness (and pervasiveness) of players to optimize their characters. I.e. they seem to have based their numbers on a thoroughly unoptimized party.
Note too that the existing damage progression chart was NEVER followed, not even close, in MM1 and even MM2 monsters are STILL significantly below the numbers in the DMG at higher levels. In fact the few monsters I've seen that actually have damage that hits the numbers in the DMG are usually considered tough monsters.
Well, that wasn't even part of my calculations - I only used the values from the DMG, because there is evidence that the MM1 monsters represent different stages in the evolution of monster design. This is most noticable with the minions:
If you look at their ability/skill bonuses, you'll notice that all of them are wrong unless their level is a multiple of five! For the ability/skill bonuses to be correct, you'd have to change their level to the closest multiple of five.
So, the minions at least underwent some hurried last minute changes before the books went into print.
