MM3 Damage Expression Table

[Jhaelen]

Since I couldn't resist the urge to sate my curiosity, and I've apparently got too much time on my hands, I decided to create an Excel table with all damage expressions in Monster Manual 3

I was particularly interested how accurate the Quick Fix suggested by Greg Bilsland was and if I would notice any changes to damage per monster role. The bolded rows represent the average damage as per the DMG damage expression table with the following adjustment:
- double static damage bonus in paragon tier (level 10-18),
- triple static damage bonus in epic tier (level 19-30).

As a reminder, here's how we're supposed to use the damage expression table in the DMG:
low: artillery melee, area effects & nasty conditions
high: brutes & lurkers
limited: attacks that can be used once or twice per encounter

When calculating average damages, I simply added ongoing damage and vulnerable x to the normal damage. I know that's not particularly accurate but judging from how the numbers add up, that's exactly how the Monster Manual designers have done it. Since I was unsure what conditions were sufficiently nasty to warrant a move into a lower damage column, I didn't move any.

Here's some of the other adjustments I made:
- When I felt an aura would apply in most cases,
I added the aura's effect to the applicable damage expressions.
- I didn't differentiate between the various kinds of dominate that appear in MM3.
- I also didn't enter any attacks that I couldn't map to any of the standard conditions.
- I also ignored some of the minor actions and penalties or bonuses to anything but damage.
- If attacks could be used one or more times, I always used the highest number.

You'll notice quite a few outliers. Most of them can be explained by the following:
- Lurkers: For some reason lurkers only rarely do the high damage they're supposed to do.
- Soldiers: Almost all soldiers use low damage expressions for their ranged attacks.
- Base attacks: Often, base attacks are only inteded to be used for opportunity attacks
or they are only present because they're building blocks of the 'real' attacks.
In many cases they can be used two or more times with a single standard action.
- High Epic: In the high epic levels most assumptions break completely down.
It doesn't really make much sense to analyze single attacks in isolation.

But there still remain lots of cases where there's no real explanation for the deviation from the expected average damage. This could be the basis of a detailed analysis of the monsters in question, I guess

I intend to use this table to verify some of my own ideas about how the damage progression table should _really_ look like (which I posted in the 4e Houserules board a while ago). Maybe someone else will find it useful, too.

Enjoy!

 

[Aegeri]

The new damage expressions will be in the errata tomorrow actually.

Nice work though!

 

[Jhaelen]

The new damage expressions will be in the errata tomorrow actually.

Nice work though!

Ah, good to know

 

[Jhaelen]

After analyzing the July Rules Update (see here), I decided to verify the attack bonuses in MM3. Below is a list of the irregularities, I've found.

Note, that as mentioned in my other post, I'm pretty sure there's an error in the new 'monster statistics by role' table: Soldier Attack vs. other defenses should be +3, not +5.

Anyway, I'm equally sure that most of these deviations from the norm are intentional, especially in the cases where monsters have two different attack values. In some cases, the name of the attack already gives a hint, that it is either more or less accurate than the norm.

I've also noticed something that I consider a 'dangerous' practice, though:
E.g. the shadow stalker has an attack that is two higher than it should be, however, this attack can only be used after it used another ability that grants a +2 bonus to attacks. Apparently, they already included that bonus in this attack without mentioning it. As written, the bonus would be applied _again_.
There are also quite a few monsters with special charge attacks that already include the +1 bonus for charging.

Anyway, in many if not most cases, these deviations in the attack bonuses explain the deviations I noticed in damage expressions.
Examples are the girallons who are less accurate but do more damage, and the catastrophic dragons which have more accurate attacks that deal less damage.

page	role		name				vs. AC	vs Def
11	brute		silverback ape			3	1
11	soldier		ape temple guardian		7	5
14	artillery	godslayer inferno		3	3
15	brute		light of amoth			5	2
16	artillery	green arcanian			-	1/3/5
17	artillery	red arcanian			-	1/3
22	artillery	beholder spawn			3	3
22	lurker		eye of shadow			3	3
28	brute		cave fisher spawn		3	-
28	lurker		cave fisher angler		5	4
36	skirmisher	craud impaler			5/7	-
37	soldier		craud king			5	5
42	brute		maw demon			3	-
42	brute		greater maw demon		3	2
54	soldier		corrupted glutton		-	5
55	artillery	corrupted monger		-	2/5
69	soldier		earthquake dragon		5/7	-
72	brute		volcanic dragon			4/6	-
75	soldier		dread guardian			5/7	-
78	artillery	drow archmage			5	5
85	skirmisher	forsaken infiltrator		4/5	-
102	brute		girallon			4	2
105	soldier		gnoll war fang			7	-
115	skirmisher	servant of the fire lord	6	4
126	lurker		lolth				5	3/1
129	soldier		eclavdra			5	5/3
139	controller	elder brain			3	4
142	controller	nagpa corruptor			-	4
146	soldier		kalareem nerra			5	6
147	soldier		delphar nerra			5	5/3
148	soldier		norker stone shield		7/5	3
149	brute		norker grunt			3	-
151	controller	spring nymph			-	5/3
152	soldier		wood nymph			5	5/3
163	controller	earth cultist			3	-
163	soldier		fist of the stone tyrant	7/5	-
164	brute		stone thrall			5/3	-
168	brute		scarecrow shambler		3	-
169	lurker		scarecrow haunter		5	5/3
170	controller	enigma of vecna			5	4/3
172	lurker		shadow stalker			-	5/3
185	controller	emissary of caiphon		-	5/3
189	soldier		su ambusher			7	3
196	brute		tulgar warrior			5/3	-
197	controller	tulgar spirit talker		5	5/3
199	soldier		astral hulk			5	5/3
204	controller	thought weaver			5	5/4
209	controller	xivort net caster		5	4
210	soldier		yeti hunter			5	5/3
213	controller	coil of zehir			5	5
215	skirmisher	molt of zehir			5	4

 

[Aegeri]

You know, it's worth noting the Jackalwere is 4Es "Almost one shot any PC" monster. With its allies that can render a PC unconscious, a Bravo can strike the PC with a coup de grace for 26+2d4 damage. 28-34 damage against a level 1-3 PC is absolutely insane.

That should probably be looked at.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I've also noticed something that I consider a 'dangerous' practice, though:
E.g. the shadow stalker has an attack that is two higher than it should be, however, this attack can only be used after it used another ability that grants a +2 bonus to attacks. Apparently, they already included that bonus in this attack without mentioning it. As written, the bonus would be applied _again_.
There are also quite a few monsters with special charge attacks that already include the +1 bonus for charging.

I'm not so sure about this, nor about the +5 for soldiers vs NADs being an error. One thing that has always struck me as odd is the way that previous monster designs never took advantage of the concept of drama. If you have a monster that has an exciting special power that it only gets to use once in a while or under some circumstance that is hard to achieve or unusual why shouldn't it have a greater chance of hitting? You WANT the Shadow Stalker's special attack to land, at least a decent amount of the time, because that's what makes them scary. Nothing IMHO is more disappointing to a DM then to finally grab the enemy and manage to hold onto him and then pfffft you roll low and the nasty brain sucker sucks wind. Obviously its dramatic if these powers miss too, but by making them exceptionally accurate you shift the thrill to avoiding the bad situation where the monster can unleash them in the first place and when it does happen the players get to squirm a bit.

I think soldiers get an accuracy boost on NAD attacks for a somewhat similar reason. Most of these attacks are secondary types of powers that are supposed to help the monster pin down its enemies in some fashion. Making them extra accurate allows the monster to be especially sticky and really do its job.

Personally I think the flattening out of differences in monster NADs etc is somewhat of a shame. I think having some roles of monster with OVERALL tougher defenses wasn't great, but I also think, especially at lower levels where players really have to think about which powers to use to get an edge, that having one particularly low NAD and one particularly high one are more interesting. And I really don't think 1-2 points is distinctive enough. I think it should be 3-5 points. That's a lot, but you know the weak willed goblins (or whatever) REALLY should be distinctively weak in that area. As it is, and especially with the newer monsters, they almost might as well just have 1 defense number that never varies by level and a +2 if you use an implement attack. I know its inviting getting a lot of monsters easily wiped out by giving them a significant weakness, but It also seems a lot more flavorful to me.

 

[Aegeri]

I'm not so sure about this, nor about the +5 for soldiers vs NADs being an error.

It is an error:

Yes, it is a typo; RT @loganbonner The update has level + 5 for the soldier's attacks vs. AC or other defenses. Typo?

As for this:

If you have a monster that has an exciting special power that it only gets to use once in a while or under some circumstance that is hard to achieve or unusual why shouldn't it have a greater chance of hitting?

Against a wide variety of PCs, some NAD attacks are actually nearly always an automatic hit because some NADs just tank by epic. For example, the Wizard is never missed by a creature on his fort and the Barbarian - let's just say nothing ever misses his will defense (unless I roll a 1). Also, the maths in MM3 seem to suggest room to fiddle now - exactly what you'd want.

As for defenses, with the expertise feats, bonuses, combat advantage and such forth PCs aren't having troubles hitting anymore. We don't have the horrible comedy of everyone flailing around at one another never hitting at epic.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Against a wide variety of PCs, some NAD attacks are actually nearly always an automatic hit because some NADs just tank by epic. For example, the Wizard is never missed by a creature on his fort and the Barbarian - let's just say nothing ever misses his will defense (unless I roll a 1). Also, the maths in MM3 seem to suggest room to fiddle now - exactly what you'd want.

As for defenses, with the expertise feats, bonuses, combat advantage and such forth PCs aren't having troubles hitting anymore. We don't have the horrible comedy of everyone flailing around at one another never hitting at epic.

Mmmm, I wasn't talking about PC NADs especially, I was talking about monster NADs only. The considerations for PC NADs are different. I think a variance of a couple points for PCs is probably about right. The PC has a 'weak spot' but it need not be all that weak and players can grow tired of always being hit by certain attacks. I think ironically the way things have turned out in 4e you have monsters with generally too uniform defenses, which appear rather colorless, and PCs with defenses that vary too much. Its easy to find fighters for instance with an AC of 24 and a Reflex of 17 at high heroic tier and there isn't a heck of a lot the player can do about it. When you hit paragon you can take a feat to help equalize things some. Overall its rather tedious for players though when they KNOW they will be hit on a 3 every time the Fort, Will, or Reflex targeting attacks come out as the case may be. What adds flavor for monsters ultimately just turns into a mundane and somewhat irritating fact of life for PCs.

I do wonder if anything in Essentials will work towards fixing that. Honestly from the standpoint of pure game design Essentials being entirely 4e compatible is sort of bad. Its nice that it will be, but the scope of what they can actually improve is going to be too limited. There are a lot of little ways 4e could be improved, most of them would break compatibility.

 

[pemerton]

I think ironically the way things have turned out in 4e you have monsters with generally too uniform defenses, which appear rather colorless, and PCs with defenses that vary too much. Its easy to find fighters for instance with an AC of 24 and a Reflex of 17 at high heroic tier and there isn't a heck of a lot the player can do about it. When you hit paragon you can take a feat to help equalize things some. Overall its rather tedious for players though when they KNOW they will be hit on a 3 every time the Fort, Will, or Reflex targeting attacks come out as the case may be. What adds flavor for monsters ultimately just turns into a mundane and somewhat irritating fact of life for PCs.

This is a good post. Unfortunately I can't give you XP at the moment.

 

[Kerranin]

Mmmm, I wasn't talking about PC NADs especially, I was talking about monster NADs only. The considerations for PC NADs are different. I think a variance of a couple points for PCs is probably about right. The PC has a 'weak spot' but it need not be all that weak and players can grow tired of always being hit by certain attacks. I think ironically the way things have turned out in 4e you have monsters with generally too uniform defenses, which appear rather colorless, and PCs with defenses that vary too much. Its easy to find fighters for instance with an AC of 24 and a Reflex of 17 at high heroic tier and there isn't a heck of a lot the player can do about it. When you hit paragon you can take a feat to help equalize things some. Overall its rather tedious for players though when they KNOW they will be hit on a 3 every time the Fort, Will, or Reflex targeting attacks come out as the case may be. What adds flavor for monsters ultimately just turns into a mundane and somewhat irritating fact of life for PCs.

Players can often have one really good non-AC defense (fort for fighters), but this is a choice that players can make. If a player chooses to focus all their attribute points into one stat then they should get a commensurate weakness. (in this case Reflex/Will defenses)

Ultimately players have choices, if they go for all-out-attack, then their defenses suffer. This seems right and proper to me.