How good is the new MM? (Thread split)

[Aegeri]

This stuff happens sometimes. Not every single encounter and definitely not every single round.

You know, I'm going to have to back up Abdul here and say that in my experience this is exactly true. The amount of difference the most simple bonus in the game, combat advantage makes in a variety of situations is immense. Combat advantage and the -2 penalty from a mark are the two most game changing bonuses in 4E. They have enabled or saved more hits than I can possibly count. Certainly not every round, but every single encounter? I can't think of an encounter where it hasn't mattered at least once. Or for that matter where it would have mattered in the case of the fighter in my epic tier game with uncanny dodge. They are so common their effect on an encounter is bound to actually matter, so your argument is simply flat out absurd.

Are you being honest with yourself here?

For someone who complained about being insulted you really haven't done your argument any service by claiming he is being disingenuous or lying. Especially because I can firmly say that my experience exactly matches his with this point.

I don't mean to bring in a Argumentum ad populum fallacy into this, but everyone else who has responded in the thread has firmly disagreed with your views. Perhaps the exception in the argument is you and not everyone who has disagreed with you?

especially with a Charge worse case scenario.

Which ends its turn, preventing the potential use of move, minor and other attacks that round. If you make it charge just to get an attack in, then you have won. Especially because the vast majority of monsters with double or triple attack standard actions cannot use them on a MBA. Get a solo monster to have to charge you and you just prevented three attacks. That's not parity that's huge.

This is again the absolute definition of control in 4th edition. Making a monster do something it did not want to do on its turn.

So, the monster doesn't go around it to attack the Cleric, the monster goes the opposite way and attacks the Avenger.

This is the worst example you could pick, because Avengers have ridiculous defenses and are secondary defenders. The monster not attacking the leader and instead going for one of the highest AC strikers in the game is a victory for the PCs. By forcing the monster to attack the avenger, you know I'm not going to repeat myself but you know who I think won that battle. It's not the monster.

But even here, if it is used against a standard monster, that means that the Wizard gave up his action in order to take away the action of a single foe.

Except that's what a controller does. That's not parity, that's being a good controller.

It's just not "ALL of the time" like you claim. That's an exaggeration.

I have to disagree with you, because I see those bonuses make huge differences consistently. You can read my thread on my games to see how often I note down where those bonuses made such a huge impact. Or how simple mistakes one round can add up to a dramatic battle (My dark sun game with the Silk Wyrm as a key example).

 

[KarinsDad]

Elites no longer get bonuses to defenses anymore, so they are exactly the same as normal creatures. Same with solos. So I am genuinely confused what your point here is.

They are not exactly the same (on average).


I said: "Will is typically the easiest NAD to hit with a range of Level+9 through Level+14 (for will resistant elites) and a typical average of Level+11." and this is a relatively true statement.

As an example, the Will range for 12 level MM2 and MM3 elites are 21 to 26 or Level+9 through Level+14 and an average of Level+12.

Level 12 Elites in MM3:

23 Adult Blizzard Dragon
25 Cambion Infernal Scion
24 Eye of Shadow
25 Oblivion Moss Mindmaster:

24.25 average


Level 12 Elites in MM2:

22 Bone Golem
21 Gorechain Devil
26 Oni Overlord
25 Phoelarch Mage/Phoera
25 Phoelarch Warrior/Phoera

23.8 average


Non-elites, you won't find too many (if any) 26 Wills in MM2 or MM3 at level 12. They pretty much top out at 25. And the average is closer to 23 for Standard level 12 monsters in these books (i.e. Level+11 like I said).

As a general rule though, Elites still have slightly higher Will defenses (about 1 higher on average) than Standard monsters. They might not be Level+16 max anymore, but they are still often (maybe half the time) at the high end at Level+13 or Level+14 and average Level+12, whereas Standard monsters are more often in the Level+11 range.


Course, MM1 monsters are still being used by people as well, so one cannot assume that these monsters are not possible:

Level 12 Elites in MM1:

28 Dusk Unicorn
26 Ettin Spirit-Talker
22 Flesh Golem
22 Guardian Naga
26 Lamia
27 Umber Hulk

25.16 average

 

[KarinsDad]

You know, I'm going to have to back up Abdul here and say that in my experience this is exactly true. The amount of difference the most simple bonus in the game, combat advantage makes in a variety of situations is immense. Combat advantage and the -2 penalty from a mark are the two most game changing bonuses in 4E. They have enabled or saved more hits than I can possibly count. Certainly not every round, but every single encounter? I can't think of an encounter where it hasn't mattered at least once. Or for that matter where it would have mattered in the case of the fighter in my epic tier game with uncanny dodge. They are so common their effect on an encounter is bound to actually matter, so your argument is simply flat out absurd.

I wasn't talking about bonuses in that discussion that you replied to.

I was talking about the frequency of utility of Storm Pillar.

Way to take my words out of context.

And, monsters get Marks and Combat Advantages as well.

Do you take that into account in your analysis?

I don't mean to bring in a Argumentum ad populum fallacy into this, but everyone else who has responded in the thread has firmly disagreed with your views.

But you will anyway.

That's a strong argument.


I do notice that you ignore what I state about the proper controlling powers being useful often and in the circumstances where they are useful, and focus instead on thinking that that the math I write which illustrates that the frequency of any given controlling power's utility is what is limited, is instead a position by me that they are not useful.

Sorry, but they are useful. It's the frequency of the controlling aspect of any one of them at the moment being useful is what I call into question.

 

[KarinsDad]

Likewise, tactical placing of the storm pillar can be brutally effective even in larger areas. Take a fighter and a storm pillar like this:

WXXXXXXW
WEEEOOOW
WESEOFOW
WEEEOOOW
WXXXXXXW

This is a 6x6 corridor, or just area on the battlefield. More than sufficient room for many typical 4E dungeons (probably a bit above). But here we see the sheer power of storm pillar. The storm pillar occupies the entire opposite side of the fighter, giving every creature in the encounter an absolutely crappy choice.

Yes, this can be useful and powerful (note: dropped the extra F in your drawing).

It can also be a tactical error.

Not every encounter is one with just melee NPCs.

So while yes, the melee NPCs are limited to attacking the Fighter or taking damage, they still can attack him 3 on 1 without taking damage.

The NPCs can also have Controllers or Artillery that can also attack the Fighter.

So while the NPCs have all 5 NPCs attacking the Fighter (5 on 1), the PCs only have at most 4 PCs attacking any given NPC since the Wizard is maintaining the Storm Pillar. And, the PC who has a significant portion of area powers is busy maintaining SP.

5 on 1 vs. 4 on 1

Focus Fire for the enemies is stronger than that of the PCs.

Now, it does set up future favorable situations (such as an Avenger moving past SP on the left side, or the Fighter marking all of the foes and the Wizard then doing a 3 foe area effect the next round), but it's not necessarily all Win Win for the PCs. Having 5 NPCs attack the Fighter on a given round because they are mostly prevented from attacking other PCs can make an encounter swingy. And marks drop the moment the Fighter drops as well. Course, the Fighter could just be flooded as well with 5 melee NPCs swarming and flanking him where his mark only gives him a single extra attack.

Doing this a lot might suck through a lot of healing surges for the Fighter, especially with the increased damage of the latter MMs.

 

[Kingreaper]

The NPCs would have had the option of focus firing the fighter anyway, but they wouldn't have taken it.

Why?

Because they would also have had the option of focusing a squishy, without the blockade in the way. The squishy would have gone down under the focus, whereas the fighter will take it, heal/be healed, and keep going.

 

[Aegeri]

As an example, the Will range for 12 level MM2 and MM3 elites are 21 to 26 or Level+9 through Level+14 and an average of Level+12.

Level 12 Elites in MM3:

23 Adult Blizzard Dragon
25 Cambion Infernal Scion
24 Eye of Shadow
25 Oblivion Moss Mindmaster:

Actually all of those creatures fit the expected base defense, which is level +12 + stat mod for NADs. Exactly what I argued previously. Also note that you are falling into the trap that I laid for you. You haven't considered what type of creature those are and what the primary stat is. Controllers like the Blizzard Dragon and Oblivion moss are most likely to be wisdom/charisma primary (or at least a high stat). While soldiers and brutes are more likely to be strength/constitution primary. Some exceptions exist of course, like the Cambrion (who is a soldier) that has ridiculous all around stats.

Most of the problem with your comparison is you compare a small number of creatures, to a very high number of creatures of the same level that will be overloaded with brutes. If you take just controllers at level 12 (2 standard controllers and 2 elites in MM3) they have the exact same average will. This is because controllers tend to be wis/cha primary. Blizzard Dragons are also a bad example, because they are dragons they have strong stats across the board - unlike normal creatures.

Claiming that elites have higher will is actually an incorrect claim, it's more that certain roles have a higher will. The young volcanic dragon (Level 10 elite brute) has level + 12 for his Will (exactly what you'd expect). The awakened Rot Grub swarm has 22 will as well (level 10 standard monster).

When you control for role the difference you claim looks very unimpressive indeed. What boosted elites before (and solos) was the +2 to defenses they got. Without that they don't easily beat out standard creatures of the same role. The Oni in your MM2 example looks impressive, but if we control for role what do we find?

Oni = 26 Will
Bone Golem = 22 Will
Gorechain Devil = 21 Will

Standard Brutes (same level, same book)

Centaur Ravager = 23 Will
Bladerager Troll = 23 Will

Average of both of those? The same, 23 will for both.

So when we compare apples with apples, suddenly your point doesn't look too impressive. Because comparing apples to apples, what we find is that apples are more likely - but not always - to have the same primary stats. This naturally informs what defenses they have. So it isn't correct to claim elites have higher defenses, it's more correct to say that certain creature roles have higher defenses. If elites happen to fall into those roles more often in a book, they will end up with generally higher defenses. That's exactly what we see. Also note that these are very small sample sizes as well, making the swing more pronounced when you directly compare. If you compare a lot of creatures though and control for role vs. role, generally speaking elites are now no better off defensively than anything else within their own role. If they are it is only slight and caused by extreme outliers, such as Blizzard Dragons (and Dragons are good at everything stat wise, an exception).

Edit: For the above brutes, I also added the MV Flesh Golem. It has 21 will.

Oni = 26 Will
Bone Golem = 22 Will
Gorechain Devil = 21 Will
Flesh Golem = 21 Will

22.5 average.

All apples from post MM2 maths on defenses. Compared with other apples from recent post defense maths changes (MM2+ supplements).

Elemental Ooze (DMG2) = 22 Will
Centaur Ravager = 23 Will
Bladerager Troll = 23 Will
Girallon Marauder = 22 Will
Pale Bloodfiend = 23 Will
Su Alpha = 23 Will
Earth Archon = 21 Will
Snake Swarm = 23 Will
Chaos Phage Swarm = 23 Will
Kua-Toa Spearfiend = 23 will

Average: 22.6

Oh look, the standard monster brutes actually beat the elites for average Will on the same level. Fancy that when you're fairly comparing apples to apples. The actual difference winds up being pretty similar.

 

[KarinsDad]

The NPCs would have had the option of focus firing the fighter anyway, but they wouldn't have taken it.

Why?

Because they would also have had the option of focusing a squishy, without the blockade in the way. The squishy would have gone down under the focus, whereas the fighter will take it, heal/be healed, and keep going.

The Fighter will take it? Definitely?

Maybe, but the fight would have been 2 on 1 on the Fighter and 3 on 1 on the squishy without the control (and 5 PCs attacking, not 4).

Overall, this actually works better for the PCs than 5 on 1 on the Fighter in some cases. The Fighter takes 2 * 40% chance to hit * x damage or .8x average damage and the squishy takes 3 * 55% chance to hit * x damage or 1.65x average damage.

If the Fighter takes 5 * 40% chance to hit * x damage or 2x average damage in the 5 on 1 case, the likelihood of him going down is probably similar to the squishy going down with 1.65 average damage case. And, the combat is also swingier if the DM gets a few hot dice rolls for the NPCs.

You are correct that the PCs will take more overall average damage when 2 foes attack the Fighter and 3 attack a single squishy, but not all attacks against the squishier PCs will necessarily be against the same PC. And, it's sometimes better to use up squishy healing surges than Defender healing surges, especially if the Defender has used up a lot of healing surges in earlier encounters.

But, check it out for yourself. Ask your DM to 5 on 1 the Fighter every single encounter for a single gaming day and see how many encounters the group can make it through (especially with a Shaman leader). Spreading damage over most of the group is sometimes better than every foe attacking a single PC, even if it is the Defender.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

There are plenty of interesting tactical points on all sides. Personally I find even at-will Wizard powers useful for helping to isolate monsters and mitigate exposure of PCs. KD and Aegeri will just have to arrange a series of fights, lol.

 

[KarinsDad]

Actually all of those creatures fit the expected base defense, which is level +12 + stat mod for NADs. Exactly what I argued previously. Also note that you are falling into the trap that I laid for you.

...

Lots of stuff.

Funny. It's still a Level+9 through Level+14 Will defense range. All of your math here didn't change that. My original math stands, regardless of your role vs. elite sidetrek. The range is basically that (actually, closer to Level+10 through Level+14 in nearly all of the cases, which supports my earlier POV a tiny bit more).


I will admit that elite does not appear to modify anything at all.

Also note: The equation is not Level + 12 + stat mod. There are tons of monsters whose NADs do not match that. In fact, nearly all of them. There does not appear to be a set equation.

 

[Aegeri]

Funny. It's still a Level+9 through Level+14 Will defense range. All of your math here didn't change that. My original math stands, regardless of your role vs. elite sidetrek. The range is basically that (actually, closer to Level+10 through Level+14 in nearly all of the cases, which supports my earlier POV a tiny bit more).

I never challenged this, because the basic math is (again) level + 12 + stat. The "+ stat" provides a considerable amount of variation, if the author even realizes that this is the case. The negative modifiers you see is because some monsters have terrible stats, but generally they are pretty consistent. Building creatures in the MB reveals that depending on the primary stat it should be level + 12 + 1. For example a level 10 dex based lurker as Reflex 23. If it has below average (for a monster of that level) fort/con it has fort 21 (not 22). If it has average will it has Will 22. There is room to add more or less to that if the author wants (or in some cases, clearly the whole stat mod).

Also note: The equation is not Level + 12 + stat mod. There are tons of monsters whose NADs do not match that. In fact, nearly all of them. There does not appear to be a set equation.

You are mistaken. Monster NADs are a set formula, exactly as I've described. The addition of stat mods is what causes the strange variations between creatures. But it is not correct there is not a set formulae because there is. See pages 184-185 in the original DMG. If you disbelieve, open the monster builder and just increase a creatures level. You will immediately observe that the NADs all rise uniformly by level + 12. To get the variations seen in most monsters, start modifying the stats of the creatures. I have to concede, this is possibly the most poorly understood aspect of making monsters in 4E - because wizards have not made it clear what you're supposed to add (and how much). The concept of adding the monsters stat mod is just buried within the text, but not clearly stated anywhere what that amount is. Not their stat mod + 1/2 level though, some of the monsters with silly nads are because the author didn't realize they shouldn't add stat + 1/2 level. Whoops!

Noting that when using the MB the amount the NADs vary is far less than when you're doing it by hand. The MB tends to give a bonus to a NAD depending on what type of creature you are building.

Edit: It's worth noting there is a huge amount of author fiat here as well. It is entirely possible to just throw extra points on a NAD deliberately to make it harder to target for some creatures. Hence the really ridiculous variations.