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: 5431934" data-attributes="member: 78116"><p>And yet it's a higher chance to hit is a higher chance to hit. When that chance to hit knocks the fighter unconscious and ends marks - it's suddenly a very important difference. </p><p></p><p>Consistently. In fact I keep track of this and thus far, having combat advantage has let monsters hit my Eberron games AC 21 paladin approximately 9 times. Without the +2 bonus from CA he would have been missed <em>nine</em> additional times. So +2 bonuses make a significant difference. </p><p></p><p>Not to mention the higher damage of any of the other at-wills provides a chance of killing the creature outright, completely removing <em>any</em> chance of another attack whatsoever. While MM, unless the creature is <em>precisely</em> within the game of damage it does will do absolutely nothing.</p><p></p><p>Your argument is just not considering the tactical realities of how 4E plays.</p><p></p><p>But not in any way killing it, or preventing it from potentially hitting by denying it a bonus that can very well be the difference between the fighter getting his next to finish it off or being unconscious.</p><p></p><p>That's not an insignificant difference.</p><p></p><p>So? If it prevents the enemy from hitting it's done a better job than MM which has done <em>nothing</em> to stop that.</p><p></p><p>As much as you try to avoid this point, denying an enemy CA or imposing a -2 penalty is significant. Especially if we're looking at the bloodied leader adjacent to a creature that is marked (but not punishable by the defender). When you stick on a further -2 penalty with illusory ambush you are doing a better job for your team than pinging away at it for seven damage.</p><p></p><p>And yet I constantly see the mage and wizard PC in my games make significant differences to combat on a consistent basis. <em>With their at-wills</em>. The only time that they fail to do so is when they get MM happy. </p><p></p><p>They are both marked, fighters can AoE mark and dual strike lets you mark two creatures at once. Additionally if the other creature delays you've won, because now the fighter can get his turn and kill it (or someone else can kill it before the other creature can act).</p><p></p><p>Congratulations, you're a controller <strong>because you've just forced the enemy to do something on its turn it didn't want to do</strong>. Whereas before? You've not accomplished anything or made the monster change its turn in any significant manner.</p><p></p><p>Incidentally the example I am using? <strong>It's a real one</strong>. The monster missed by 1. That 1? Precisely the difference CA would have made. </p><p></p><p>Checking my stats (I run my games in maptools, so keeping track of things is easy), the number of times that CA made a difference last session was 4 times. My level 5 controller with a +10 attack attacked the AC 21 paladin a total of ten times (it's an elite with a natural double attack). Against the paladin it rolled as such:</p><p></p><p>Round 1: 17, 10 (Total 29 and and 22, both hits)</p><p>Action Point: 14, 8 (Total 26 and 20, one hit and one miss)</p><p>Round 2: 11, 9 (Total 23 and 21, both hits - significantly misses without CA and the paladin remains distinctly conscious)</p><p>Round 3: 20, 10 (Critical hit, 32 and 22, both hit again - paladin rendered unconscious once more!).</p><p>No Combat advantage after this round. Paladin was no longer dazed and his flanking buddy was dead.</p><p>Round 4: 6, 10 (16, 20 one is a clear miss but the other <em>would</em> have hit, knocking the current 6 HP paladin unconscious again).</p><p></p><p>I looked at the previous combat.</p><p></p><p>The Ankheg in the farm (level 3 lurker, attack bonus +8) waited until it had CA with an ally deliberately before using its double attack on the paladin. When it attacked it rolled 18 for damage and got 11 on the attack roll. 11+8 is a miss (AC 21 remember), but oh wait, <em>combat advantage</em>. So it hit and knocked him unconscious. You can even read my game session notes to see I made a special note of that at the time.</p><p></p><p>It is easy to see how being able to deny a creature - at-will - bonuses like combat advantage <strong>over an entire combat rapidly add up</strong>. As my DPR calculations from a few pages clearly show.</p><p></p><p>Whereas as I've already repeatedly argued, all MM does is an insignificant amount of damage and is only really useful when you know a creature is near death. Any other time another control power <em>is a better option</em>.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Aegeri, post: 5431934, member: 78116"] And yet it's a higher chance to hit is a higher chance to hit. When that chance to hit knocks the fighter unconscious and ends marks - it's suddenly a very important difference. Consistently. In fact I keep track of this and thus far, having combat advantage has let monsters hit my Eberron games AC 21 paladin approximately 9 times. Without the +2 bonus from CA he would have been missed [I]nine[/I] additional times. So +2 bonuses make a significant difference. Not to mention the higher damage of any of the other at-wills provides a chance of killing the creature outright, completely removing [I]any[/I] chance of another attack whatsoever. While MM, unless the creature is [I]precisely[/I] within the game of damage it does will do absolutely nothing. Your argument is just not considering the tactical realities of how 4E plays. But not in any way killing it, or preventing it from potentially hitting by denying it a bonus that can very well be the difference between the fighter getting his next to finish it off or being unconscious. That's not an insignificant difference. So? If it prevents the enemy from hitting it's done a better job than MM which has done [I]nothing[/I] to stop that. As much as you try to avoid this point, denying an enemy CA or imposing a -2 penalty is significant. Especially if we're looking at the bloodied leader adjacent to a creature that is marked (but not punishable by the defender). When you stick on a further -2 penalty with illusory ambush you are doing a better job for your team than pinging away at it for seven damage. And yet I constantly see the mage and wizard PC in my games make significant differences to combat on a consistent basis. [I]With their at-wills[/I]. The only time that they fail to do so is when they get MM happy. They are both marked, fighters can AoE mark and dual strike lets you mark two creatures at once. Additionally if the other creature delays you've won, because now the fighter can get his turn and kill it (or someone else can kill it before the other creature can act). Congratulations, you're a controller [B]because you've just forced the enemy to do something on its turn it didn't want to do[/B]. Whereas before? You've not accomplished anything or made the monster change its turn in any significant manner. Incidentally the example I am using? [B]It's a real one[/B]. The monster missed by 1. That 1? Precisely the difference CA would have made. Checking my stats (I run my games in maptools, so keeping track of things is easy), the number of times that CA made a difference last session was 4 times. My level 5 controller with a +10 attack attacked the AC 21 paladin a total of ten times (it's an elite with a natural double attack). Against the paladin it rolled as such: Round 1: 17, 10 (Total 29 and and 22, both hits) Action Point: 14, 8 (Total 26 and 20, one hit and one miss) Round 2: 11, 9 (Total 23 and 21, both hits - significantly misses without CA and the paladin remains distinctly conscious) Round 3: 20, 10 (Critical hit, 32 and 22, both hit again - paladin rendered unconscious once more!). No Combat advantage after this round. Paladin was no longer dazed and his flanking buddy was dead. Round 4: 6, 10 (16, 20 one is a clear miss but the other [I]would[/I] have hit, knocking the current 6 HP paladin unconscious again). I looked at the previous combat. The Ankheg in the farm (level 3 lurker, attack bonus +8) waited until it had CA with an ally deliberately before using its double attack on the paladin. When it attacked it rolled 18 for damage and got 11 on the attack roll. 11+8 is a miss (AC 21 remember), but oh wait, [I]combat advantage[/I]. So it hit and knocked him unconscious. You can even read my game session notes to see I made a special note of that at the time. It is easy to see how being able to deny a creature - at-will - bonuses like combat advantage [B]over an entire combat rapidly add up[/B]. As my DPR calculations from a few pages clearly show. Whereas as I've already repeatedly argued, all MM does is an insignificant amount of damage and is only really useful when you know a creature is near death. Any other time another control power [I]is a better option[/I]. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
How good is the new MM? (Thread split)
Top