How good is the new MM? (Thread split)

[KarinsDad]

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.

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. The concept of adding the monsters stat mod is just buried within the text, but not clearly stated anywhere. 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!

It varies. Use the monster rules in the DMG with Level +12 for all roles.


Take any monster. In this case, I'll pick two controllers:

Meazel Strangler Level 13

Average highest ability score: 13 + 1/2 level = 19

Fort 24 (with Str 16, stat -1)
Reflex 26 (with Dex 20, stat +0)
Will 24 (with Cha 16, stat -1)

So, Level + 12 = 25. Reflex is high by 1. The DMG rules state to go 2 higher or 2 lower than the average. Since Dex is 4 higher than the other 2, it does seem reasonable for Reflex to be 2 higher than the other 2. This one is close to being reasonable, but doesn't precisely match the DMG rules.


Blue Arcanian Level 10

Average highest ability score: 13 + 1/2 level = 18

Fort 22 (with Con 17, stat -0)
Reflex 21 (with Int 19, stat +0)
Will 19 (with Wis 13, stat -2)

So, Level + 12 = 22. Reflex is low by 1. Will is low by 1.

Int is higher than Con, but Fort is higher than Reflex.


If I go into a different role:

Derro Warrior Level 13

Average highest ability score: 13 + 1/2 level = 19

Fort 24 (with Con 17, stat -1)
Reflex 27 (with Dex 22, stat +1)
Will 24 (with Cha 14, stat -2)

So, Level + 12 = 25. Reflex is high by 1. Will is high by 1.

Con is 3 higher than Cha, but Fort is the same as Will.



If there is a modification of the general equation that changes the numbers to what they show up for monsters, please let us know.

Is it based on role for different defenses? Not according to the two controllers above.

 

[KarinsDad]

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.

But, then it is not an equation.

What they should do is vary the ability scores for Author fiat and leave the equation alone.

 

[Aegeri]

It varies.

I think I've stated this multiple times now

Use the monster rules in the DMG with Level +12 for all roles.

Which disproves your assertion there isn't a formula for monsters NADs. There is. It varies because of the stat and sometimes the author throws extra points on just because. Usually if it is felt something should be harder to target on at least one defense.

Point is that the expected NAD is level + 12. Then stats impact upon that. Authors frequently just boost NADs by various levels at their own whimsy, particularly if whoever is making it feels that a creature should be harder to hit on X defense in particular. This can be seen in the MB where there are tabs for having a higher or lower average for a defense (I believe Wizards might use this, but I cannot be entirely sure).

Edit: Examining both monsters in the MB and DMG, the Meazel is exactly right. It has lower than average strength/con and wis/cha. So -1 to both NADs. It has above average dex, so +1. It's bang on the forumlae.

The Blue Arcanian is an exception, but it uses the tabs in the monster builder to modify expected defenses. It's reflex and will are both much lower than average, they've had a -3 penalty applied to them.

Note that there is no written rules anywhere from wizards if the monsters builders "Increase or decrease defense" tabs are what you're supposed to use if you feel like it or similar. But neither of these are actually random deviations whatsoever, they're just following the modifiers that wizards programmed into their own MB (noting that this is not an official rules resource). It is easy to see what is going on in this monster, though the oddity is that it's reflex has been penalized by 1 (whereas it should have +1 reflex for int 19). It's fort looks high because it hasn't been modified with a -3 penalty, which the reflex and will has been. It's will has been penalized an additional -1 as well, but due to its very poor wis/cha it is within reason.

It only looks exceptional because it uses the average penalties from the MB in it.

Edit: Checked the Young Earthquake Dragon, which is a level 9 elite soldier.

It should be NAD + 12 + Stat mod.
So it's ended up with Fort 22/Reflex 22/Will 20.

Has strong Strength/Con so +1 fort. Has strong dex/int (ironically) so +1 reflex. It has equally good wis/cha, but the author clearly decided it should have a weak defense and penalized its will by 1. So again we see where the rules were followed precisely and then when the author used their judgement to give a creature a weaker defense (which is encouraged in the rules).