Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Jhaelen" data-source="post: 5206973" data-attributes="member: 46713">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 <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />*: 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.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 <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />).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.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.</blockquote>

Verification