Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="kaomera" data-source="post: 5538623" data-attributes="member: 38357">I'll admit that MM1 elites and solos have their defenses set too high. And while this could be dealt with, it tended to push players into choosing powers specifically to deal with the big bads. Add that to the fact that the higher defenses really didn't protect the elites and solos from the effects that really mattered (action-denial) and that's why I prefer the design of the newer stuff. There seems to have been some disconnect at some point between the idea that there was an optimum number of rounds that a combat should last and how to actually give elites and solos enough effect on the fight to make them &quot;worth&quot; 2 or 5 regular monsters. Giving everybody (PCs and monsters) would have been a good idea, IMO, but the math fix in terms of PC defenses tends to negate that.There's also the question of &quot;which monsters&quot;, of course. A lot (the majority? idk, I never really sat down and went through them that closely, but that would be my guess based on my experiences) of MM1 monsters do less damage than the formula in the DMG would suggest. If you're using ones that do &quot;normal&quot; ammounts of damage, or correcting the low damage values, or using a lot of custom creatures, then there's going to be much more of a problem.Of course. And I'm sorry if my over-quotation of the phrase math fix seems snarky (and it is a bit snarky). I just feel like talking about the 4e math is kind of confusing because there's a very specific thing that people tend to mean by the term, and the math fix was more of a resetting of base values than an actual fix, although given that the stuff that came after it was (IMO) generally better it did have that effect in the end.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="kaomera, post: 5538623, member: 38357"] I'll admit that MM1 elites and solos have their defenses set too high. And while this could be dealt with, it tended to push players into choosing powers specifically to deal with the big bads. Add that to the fact that the higher defenses really didn't protect the elites and solos from the effects that really mattered (action-denial) and that's why I prefer the design of the newer stuff. There seems to have been some disconnect at some point between the idea that there was an optimum number of rounds that a combat should last and how to actually give elites and solos enough effect on the fight to make them "worth" 2 or 5 regular monsters. Giving everybody (PCs and monsters) would have been a good idea, IMO, but the math fix in terms of PC defenses tends to negate that. There's also the question of "which monsters", of course. A lot (the majority? idk, I never really sat down and went through them that closely, but that would be my guess based on my experiences) of MM1 monsters do less damage than the formula in the DMG would suggest. If you're using ones that do "normal" ammounts of damage, or correcting the low damage values, or using a lot of custom creatures, then there's going to be much more of a problem. Of course. And I'm sorry if my over-quotation of the phrase math fix seems snarky (and it is a bit snarky). I just feel like talking about the 4e math is kind of confusing because there's a very specific thing that people tend to mean by the term, and the math fix was more of a resetting of base values than an actual fix, although given that the stuff that came after it was (IMO) generally better it did have that effect in the end. [/QUOTE]

Verification