Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon 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 Next
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
*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!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
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
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
Lots of statistics from the Monster Manual
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="Eric Finley" data-source="post: 4762371" data-attributes="member: 83401"><p>(BUMP)</p><p></p><p>Oddly enough, while trying to fix the battlerager (my fix follows below, if you're interested) I ended up doing exactly that. Using searches from the Compendium, here are the percentages of all monster entries which are capable of various kinds of attack:</p><p>[code]</p><p> All %All |Hero %H |Para %P |Epic %E </p><p>Number of Entries 2133 100% |1203 100% | 683 100% | 247 100%</p><p>-------------------------------+----------+----------+---------</p><p>With ranged attacks 926 43% | 520 43% | 291 43% | 115 47%</p><p>With close attacks 898 42% | 366 30% | 368 54% | 164 66%</p><p>With area attacks 396 19% | 179 15% | 148 22% | 69 28%</p><p>With only melee 690 32% | 472 39% | 175 26% | 43 17%</p><p>With only mle/cls 1083 51% | 636 53% | 336 49% | 111 45%</p><p>-------------------------------+----------+----------+---------</p><p>Doing fire damage 258 12% | 94 8% | 112 16% | 52 21%</p><p>Doing cold damage 112 5% | 57 5% | 38 6% | 17 7%</p><p>Doing poison damage 209 10% | 105 9% | 79 12% | 25 10%</p><p>Doing necrotic dmg 417 20% | 156 13% | 175 26% | 86 35%</p><p>Doing lightning dmg 102 5% | 57 5% | 24 4% | 21 9%</p><p>Doing thunder dmg 85 4% | 34 3% | 27 4% | 24 10%</p><p>Doing psychic dmg 243 11% | 94 8% | 105 15% | 44 18%</p><p>Doing acid damage 89 4% | 42 3% | 32 5% | 15 6%</p><p>Doing radiant damage 80 4% | 39 3% | 27 4% | 14 6%</p><p>Doing force damage 70 3% | 49 4% | 14 2% | 7 3%</p><p>Doing only untyped 913 43% | 657 55% | 216 32% | 40 16% [/code]Not a lot of surprises there, exactly, but some of the magnitudes are interesting. For example, close attacks scale upward more rapidly from Heroic to Epic than area ones do; I'd have expected the reverse. More interesting yet was the amount by which resist necrotic is more valuable than even resist fire - it totally runs away with the win there. And how relatively unuseful resist cold is; I'd have expected it to be somewhat closer to fire than it is. Psychic damage is also noticeably more common than I'd have expected.</p><p></p><p>Methodology:[sblock]You can't search for [all creatures]. You need a search term. I used "vs" for this - so if there are any monsters which don't have an attack "vs" a defense (even a basic attack), well, I missed those.</p><p></p><p>The ranged/area/etc readings were based simply on searches for those exact keywords... so if it shows up in the "ranged" line, it had the word "ranged" somewhere in the monster text. This is probably only 99% accurate for finding ranged attacks, as there was no easy way to distinguish between an attack reading "Ranged 10; +N vs. blah" and a power text saying something like "When the smurfkin is the target of a ranged attack, it uses <em>smurfity smurf</em> as an immediate reaction." But it's a pretty good estimate anyway, IMO. These numbers do not of course add up to 100% because "ranged" counts all monsters with <em>at least</em> a ranged attack, it tells you nothing about whether it's also got an area attack or whatever.</p><p></p><p>With regards to damage types it was a little trickier; the individual totals are small enough that phrases like "if the pyrabbit takes cold damage, it turns into a normal bunny" distorted the results noticeably. So I had to refine the search to eliminate the two most common forms of this phrasing I could find. It's probably at that point more accurate than the previous set, but obviously there will still be false positives here and there. Luckily, the word "damage" isn't included in things like keywords and resistances, so this search is actually finding monsters capable of dealing fire damage, for the most part.[/sblock]</p><p> <p style="text-align: left">And, if interested, my battlerager fix:[sblock] <strong><span style="font-family: 'Arial'">Battlerager's Vigor (Class Feat<span style="font-size: 10px">ure)</span></span></strong><span style="font-size: 10px">[FONT=&quot]</span></p> <p style="text-align: left"><span style="font-size: 10px"><span style="font-family: 'Arial'"><em>You have resistance equal to your Con modifier to all melee and close attacks. Furthermore, anytime this resistance kicks in and you are wearing chain armor or less, you gain a +1 damage bonus to your next attack on the source of that hit, or +2 with a mace, axe, or hammer. This bonus goes away as soon as you lose real HP (not temp HP) for any reason – although if you lost them to a melee or close attack, then it comes back again as normal.</em></span></span></p> <p style="text-align: left"><span style="font-size: 10px"><span style="font-family: 'Arial'"></span></span></p> <p style="text-align: left"><span style="font-size: 10px"><span style="font-family: 'Arial'">The above research was me trying to figure out whether "to untyped damage" would be a possible stand-in for "to a melee or close attack" since we're much more used to applying resistances to damage types than to attack forms. The answer is that on paper, at Heroic, it's really close... 55% of monsters do only untyped damage, 53% have only melee or close attacks. (No word, of course, on <em>how often</em> they may use each type of attack, but this will do as a first-order approximation.) However, I realized that there is a clumping issue here... we usually organize adventures around a theme, and the correlation between "inflicts typed damage" and "all of the same theme" is very high. So you'd have entire adventures (the war on the kobolds or whatever) which never really saw typed damage, but you'd also have entire adventures which saw nothing but. Too lumpy, and therefore discarded.</span></span></p> <p style="text-align: left"><span style="font-size: 10px"><span style="font-family: 'Arial'"></span></span></p> <p style="text-align: left"><span style="font-size: 10px"><span style="font-family: 'Arial'">But the data's still useful... hence this post.</span>[/FONT]</span>[/sblock]<span style="font-size: 10px">[FONT=&quot]<span style="font-family: 'Arial'"></span></span></p> <p style="text-align: left"><span style="font-size: 10px"><span style="font-family: 'Arial'"></span>[/FONT]</span></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Eric Finley, post: 4762371, member: 83401"] (BUMP) Oddly enough, while trying to fix the battlerager (my fix follows below, if you're interested) I ended up doing exactly that. Using searches from the Compendium, here are the percentages of all monster entries which are capable of various kinds of attack: [code] All %All |Hero %H |Para %P |Epic %E Number of Entries 2133 100% |1203 100% | 683 100% | 247 100% -------------------------------+----------+----------+--------- With ranged attacks 926 43% | 520 43% | 291 43% | 115 47% With close attacks 898 42% | 366 30% | 368 54% | 164 66% With area attacks 396 19% | 179 15% | 148 22% | 69 28% With only melee 690 32% | 472 39% | 175 26% | 43 17% With only mle/cls 1083 51% | 636 53% | 336 49% | 111 45% -------------------------------+----------+----------+--------- Doing fire damage 258 12% | 94 8% | 112 16% | 52 21% Doing cold damage 112 5% | 57 5% | 38 6% | 17 7% Doing poison damage 209 10% | 105 9% | 79 12% | 25 10% Doing necrotic dmg 417 20% | 156 13% | 175 26% | 86 35% Doing lightning dmg 102 5% | 57 5% | 24 4% | 21 9% Doing thunder dmg 85 4% | 34 3% | 27 4% | 24 10% Doing psychic dmg 243 11% | 94 8% | 105 15% | 44 18% Doing acid damage 89 4% | 42 3% | 32 5% | 15 6% Doing radiant damage 80 4% | 39 3% | 27 4% | 14 6% Doing force damage 70 3% | 49 4% | 14 2% | 7 3% Doing only untyped 913 43% | 657 55% | 216 32% | 40 16% [/code]Not a lot of surprises there, exactly, but some of the magnitudes are interesting. For example, close attacks scale upward more rapidly from Heroic to Epic than area ones do; I'd have expected the reverse. More interesting yet was the amount by which resist necrotic is more valuable than even resist fire - it totally runs away with the win there. And how relatively unuseful resist cold is; I'd have expected it to be somewhat closer to fire than it is. Psychic damage is also noticeably more common than I'd have expected. Methodology:[sblock]You can't search for [all creatures]. You need a search term. I used "vs" for this - so if there are any monsters which don't have an attack "vs" a defense (even a basic attack), well, I missed those. The ranged/area/etc readings were based simply on searches for those exact keywords... so if it shows up in the "ranged" line, it had the word "ranged" somewhere in the monster text. This is probably only 99% accurate for finding ranged attacks, as there was no easy way to distinguish between an attack reading "Ranged 10; +N vs. blah" and a power text saying something like "When the smurfkin is the target of a ranged attack, it uses [I]smurfity smurf[/I] as an immediate reaction." But it's a pretty good estimate anyway, IMO. These numbers do not of course add up to 100% because "ranged" counts all monsters with [I]at least[/I] a ranged attack, it tells you nothing about whether it's also got an area attack or whatever. With regards to damage types it was a little trickier; the individual totals are small enough that phrases like "if the pyrabbit takes cold damage, it turns into a normal bunny" distorted the results noticeably. So I had to refine the search to eliminate the two most common forms of this phrasing I could find. It's probably at that point more accurate than the previous set, but obviously there will still be false positives here and there. Luckily, the word "damage" isn't included in things like keywords and resistances, so this search is actually finding monsters capable of dealing fire damage, for the most part.[/sblock] [LEFT]And, if interested, my battlerager fix:[sblock] [B][FONT=Arial]Battlerager's Vigor (Class Feat[SIZE=2]ure)[/SIZE][/FONT][/B][SIZE=2][FONT="] [FONT=Arial][I]You have resistance equal to your Con modifier to all melee and close attacks. Furthermore, anytime this resistance kicks in and you are wearing chain armor or less, you gain a +1 damage bonus to your next attack on the source of that hit, or +2 with a mace, axe, or hammer. This bonus goes away as soon as you lose real HP (not temp HP) for any reason – although if you lost them to a melee or close attack, then it comes back again as normal.[/I] The above research was me trying to figure out whether "to untyped damage" would be a possible stand-in for "to a melee or close attack" since we're much more used to applying resistances to damage types than to attack forms. The answer is that on paper, at Heroic, it's really close... 55% of monsters do only untyped damage, 53% have only melee or close attacks. (No word, of course, on [I]how often[/I] they may use each type of attack, but this will do as a first-order approximation.) However, I realized that there is a clumping issue here... we usually organize adventures around a theme, and the correlation between "inflicts typed damage" and "all of the same theme" is very high. So you'd have entire adventures (the war on the kobolds or whatever) which never really saw typed damage, but you'd also have entire adventures which saw nothing but. Too lumpy, and therefore discarded. But the data's still useful... hence this post.[/FONT][/FONT][/SIZE][/sblock][SIZE=2][FONT="][FONT=Arial] [/FONT][/FONT][/SIZE][/LEFT] [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
Lots of statistics from the Monster Manual
Top