Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Nest
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
How good is the new MM? (Thread split)
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Aegeri" data-source="post: 5425550" data-attributes="member: 78116"><p>For someone who claims they are a "tactical" player, your ability to actually make a good argument on sound tactics isn't very good. <strong><span style="color: red">Admin here. Your point becomes much weaker when you have to insult someone to make it. Don't do this again, please. ~ Piratecat</span></strong></p><p></p><p>Firstly, let's look at the DPR of a power before and after the penalty is applied.</p><p></p><p>Edit: I changed the maths below because I realize an illusionist mage proves my argument <em>so hard</em> it isn't funny.</p><p></p><p>A creature with a 60% chance to hit dealing 4d6+6 damage, +6 vs AC attack against a PC with AC 14 (which is pretty bad I must admit): </p><p></p><p>Avg damage: 4d6+6 = 20 points of damage (ouch).</p><p></p><p>Actual DPR of the power (including accuracy) is,</p><p></p><p>Damage = ((0.6*20)+(0.05*20)) = 13 DPR. </p><p></p><p>With -2 penalty from illusory ambush. -4 penalty if we're talking about an illusionist mage who is being attacked by that creature.</p><p></p><p>Damage = ((0.5*20)+(0.05*20)) = 11 DPR.</p><p></p><p>Damage = ((0.4*20)+(0.05*20)) = 9 DPR (against yourself).</p><p></p><p>So even though your argument seems correct, the actual effect is immediate. Dropping the monsters damage quite a bit. Especially the illusionist mage.</p><p></p><p>Now hitting the AC 18 defender (not even the best for a defender, but solid IMO).</p><p></p><p>Damage = ((0.4*20)+(0.05*20)) = 9 DPR. </p><p></p><p>With -2 penalty.</p><p></p><p>Damage = ((0.3*20)+(0.05*20)) = 7 DPR.</p><p></p><p>Now we'll put on apprentice illusionist and a mark, hitting the previously squishy character - who is the mage in this case - of AC 14 (to get your 60%). The mark imposes a -2 penalty and illusionist wizard apprentice feature imposes a -2 penalty, for a grand total of -6 penalty on illusory ambush.</p><p></p><p>With -2 penalty for the mark alone.</p><p></p><p>Damage = ((0.5*20)+(0.05*20)) = 11 DPR.</p><p></p><p>With a -6 penalty from Illusory Ambush + Apprentice Illusionist + mark.</p><p></p><p>Damage = ((0.3*20)+(0.05*20)) = 7 DPR (less than half without the mark)</p><p></p><p>Without the mark and a mere "-4" penalty. This would be illusory ambush + apprentice mage.</p><p></p><p>Damage = ((0.4*20)+(0.05*20)) = 9 DPR (Still a considerable reduction).</p><p></p><p>So we immediately see where your argument falls over flat. When we combine that -2 penalty with the easily available feature for the illusionist mage, plus a mark that penalty suddenly becomes an insurmountable problem for the creature. Where before he could do a very solid amount of damage, the penalties ensure that the creatures DPR against the non-defender (especially the wizard who imposed it to begin with) is plain awful. When attacking the defender the accumulated penalties negates combat advantage and makes their life very difficult. So here we see where a control power like illusory ambush is flat out superior to MM - unarguably.</p><p></p><p>The penalty to hit impacts a creatures DPR negatively the higher its damage actually is as well. When you combine illusory ambush with the penalty for mark you increase the defenders resilience again (now the defender is effectively in full plate + heavy shield), but you also vastly reduce the creatures ability to hurt anyone else if it somehow escapes the defender. The wizard with 14 AC looks a lot better when the monster is attacking it at equal AC to the defender effectively (due to -2 penalty mark, -2 penalty psychic bolt). In addition to this, the above is an encounter power and the monster either lands it or waffs it. The more chance of the monster waffing the power the better for you. This is why MM is inferior to PB control wise. MM doesn't stop that creature slamming a poor defense character with that power anywhere near as effectively. In fact, it doesn't do absolutely anything whatsoever except inflict a poor amount of damage.</p><p></p><p>Edit: My arguments above are even more valid than I realized. An illusion mage gets psychic lock as an apprentice feature! Only when you are attacked, but none the less when we combine that with psychic lock at level 11 we end up with a monstrous attack penalty. That wizard will be quite able to secure his life against pesky enemies.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Aegeri, post: 5425550, member: 78116"] For someone who claims they are a "tactical" player, your ability to actually make a good argument on sound tactics isn't very good. [b][color=red]Admin here. Your point becomes much weaker when you have to insult someone to make it. Don't do this again, please. ~ Piratecat[/color][/b][color=red][/color] Firstly, let's look at the DPR of a power before and after the penalty is applied. Edit: I changed the maths below because I realize an illusionist mage proves my argument [i]so hard[/i] it isn't funny. A creature with a 60% chance to hit dealing 4d6+6 damage, +6 vs AC attack against a PC with AC 14 (which is pretty bad I must admit): Avg damage: 4d6+6 = 20 points of damage (ouch). Actual DPR of the power (including accuracy) is, Damage = ((0.6*20)+(0.05*20)) = 13 DPR. With -2 penalty from illusory ambush. -4 penalty if we're talking about an illusionist mage who is being attacked by that creature. Damage = ((0.5*20)+(0.05*20)) = 11 DPR. Damage = ((0.4*20)+(0.05*20)) = 9 DPR (against yourself). So even though your argument seems correct, the actual effect is immediate. Dropping the monsters damage quite a bit. Especially the illusionist mage. Now hitting the AC 18 defender (not even the best for a defender, but solid IMO). Damage = ((0.4*20)+(0.05*20)) = 9 DPR. With -2 penalty. Damage = ((0.3*20)+(0.05*20)) = 7 DPR. Now we'll put on apprentice illusionist and a mark, hitting the previously squishy character - who is the mage in this case - of AC 14 (to get your 60%). The mark imposes a -2 penalty and illusionist wizard apprentice feature imposes a -2 penalty, for a grand total of -6 penalty on illusory ambush. With -2 penalty for the mark alone. Damage = ((0.5*20)+(0.05*20)) = 11 DPR. With a -6 penalty from Illusory Ambush + Apprentice Illusionist + mark. Damage = ((0.3*20)+(0.05*20)) = 7 DPR (less than half without the mark) Without the mark and a mere "-4" penalty. This would be illusory ambush + apprentice mage. Damage = ((0.4*20)+(0.05*20)) = 9 DPR (Still a considerable reduction). So we immediately see where your argument falls over flat. When we combine that -2 penalty with the easily available feature for the illusionist mage, plus a mark that penalty suddenly becomes an insurmountable problem for the creature. Where before he could do a very solid amount of damage, the penalties ensure that the creatures DPR against the non-defender (especially the wizard who imposed it to begin with) is plain awful. When attacking the defender the accumulated penalties negates combat advantage and makes their life very difficult. So here we see where a control power like illusory ambush is flat out superior to MM - unarguably. The penalty to hit impacts a creatures DPR negatively the higher its damage actually is as well. When you combine illusory ambush with the penalty for mark you increase the defenders resilience again (now the defender is effectively in full plate + heavy shield), but you also vastly reduce the creatures ability to hurt anyone else if it somehow escapes the defender. The wizard with 14 AC looks a lot better when the monster is attacking it at equal AC to the defender effectively (due to -2 penalty mark, -2 penalty psychic bolt). In addition to this, the above is an encounter power and the monster either lands it or waffs it. The more chance of the monster waffing the power the better for you. This is why MM is inferior to PB control wise. MM doesn't stop that creature slamming a poor defense character with that power anywhere near as effectively. In fact, it doesn't do absolutely anything whatsoever except inflict a poor amount of damage. Edit: My arguments above are even more valid than I realized. An illusion mage gets psychic lock as an apprentice feature! Only when you are attacked, but none the less when we combine that with psychic lock at level 11 we end up with a monstrous attack penalty. That wizard will be quite able to secure his life against pesky enemies. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
How good is the new MM? (Thread split)
Top