Lots of statistics from the Monster Manual

[Jhaelen]

I decided to determine a couple of statistics as well, since I'm more interested in the distribution of certain characteristics among monsters of a given role or origin.

For example here's the distribution of attacks per role:

Attacks     vs. AC | vs. Fort | vs. Refl | vs. Will
----------------------------------------------------
Artillery:  43.0%      18.3%      28.5%      10.2%
Brute:      67.3%      10.6%      18.2%       4.5%
Controller: 34.8%      20.6%      17.6%      27.0%
Lurker:     57.0%      13.0%      18.0%      12.0%
Skirmisher: 72.1%       9.1%      13.6%       5.2%
Soldier:    60.5%      16.3%      16.3%       6.9%
Leader:     51.7%      18.3%      14.2%      15.8%

Some observations:
- So, the majority of monsters attacking Reflex Defense have the Artillery role.
- Similarly, the majority of monsters attacking Will Defense have the Controller role.
- Controllers have the most even distribution of attacks against the diffferent defense types.
- A majority of Skirmishers only have attacks against AC.

Anyone else determined something like this?

 

[cooperflood]

This thread is great, I have already referenced it several times for various reasons. I hate to ask, but I was wondering if it would be possible to add some information on the type of attack not just what defense it targets. For example what percentage of monsters have melee, ranged, area, close, burst, or blast attacks. A variety of paragon tier feats, magic items, and various other effects give specific bonuses against only a certain attack. The reason why this question came up origionally was in a discussion on the value of Combat Anticipation. If it were further divided up by which defense those attack types attacked would be even better. For example I think (with no real evidence) that 90% of all Melee attacks will target AC.

I have been debating cracking open the MM my self, but if someone else wants to do it...

 

[Alaxk Knight of Galt]

Thanks for putting this together Kerbarian. All sorts of interesting information.

 

[Magus Coeruleus]

Since various people are taking these data and reporting different analyses from them, perhaps there could be a Wiki entry on this so that instead of sifting through the thread one could check out the entry. Someone asked about a PDF/DOC before but if people continue to add interesting stuff to this then an evolving wiki entry might be better.

 

[Mistwell]

So it seems to me that radiant damage that attacks will is very useful.

Having a high will defense of your own, however, isn't as useful as having other high defenses.

 

[Voadam]

You don't need to grok the math to make an interesting story. The math is balanced behind the scenes already and you just have to follow the xp budgets and guidelines. The only math required is simple addition. Everything else is worthless and takes away from the game.

Analyzing the math can show whether it is balanced behind the scenes and works how you want it to.

Do creatures in the MM fit within the DMG guidelines?

Do statistics/attacks/defenses vary by monster role as you'd expect them to?

If you try and match attacks to creature weaknesses described in flavor is that effective?

I see three ways to determine that the numbers are balanced.

1 Faith: You can take WotC's word for it that things are balanced.

2 Experience: You can take an MM creature and see how it works through actual play.

3 Analysis: You can analyze the numbers.

Option 3 seems a valid method for determining how well the numbers work and do their job.

 

[TikkchikFenTikktikk]

First, as a DM this is very useful. Thanks for the hard work, kerbarian.

The guidelines in the DMG are generic to the system. But this kind of info will help me design adventures tuned to the characters my players are actually running. It also helps me advise players (especially new players) on how to develop their characters be effective in my game.

Anyone who replies with "a good DM could do without" gets a big, premptive you.

Second, this a great peer review of the 4E designers' work. This is the kind of analysis that keeps WotC honest (more honest, at least).

 

[Zeroth]

Hey, I was wondering if you could make the raw data available? The analysis, while useful, is still flawed. Means are susceptible to outliers, of which I know there are several in the MM. I'm interested in seeing the median, the quartiles, and the standard distribution of the data.

This, I feel, is more useful for the DM, to learn what really is a challenge, what is exceptionally weak, etc. In addition, I have a gut feeling the data isn't centered around a single median, but has a few clumps.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Hey, I was wondering if you could make the raw data available? The analysis, while useful, is still flawed. Means are susceptible to outliers, of which I know there are several in the MM. I'm interested in seeing the median, the quartiles, and the standard distribution of the data.

This, I feel, is more useful for the DM, to learn what really is a challenge, what is exceptionally weak, etc. In addition, I have a gut feeling the data isn't centered around a single median, but has a few clumps.

I suppose the raw material is called "Monster Manual".

 

[Zeroth]

I suppose the raw material is called "Monster Manual".

I'm inherently lazy. OP has already done the hardwork, and has achieved the kudos for it, so why not share the raw data if he has it?

Besides, I want to use my Stats knowledge on actual data sets instead of ridiculous and silly data sets. :/