Monster Damage

[Mengu]

We've been using the increased monster damage values from MM3 for a while. And while I'm likely to be in the minority, I'm not sure I like the repercussions.

Pre-MM3, I could run 6-7 encounters in an adventuring day without problem. Now my players are tapped out on healing surges and daily powers after 3-4 encounters.

Pre-MM3, players didn't need a lot of ways to trigger healing surges during an encounter. Now every encounter sees one or two PC's drop or get close to it, and they are spending feats and powers on ways to trigger more healing surges to survive. Side effect of this resource expenditure is that they are not spending as many resources on actually killing the monsters faster, which makes encounters go longer, which costs them even more healing surges.

Pre-MM3, some encounters were pretty safe and gave the group confidence to continue on their adventuring path. Now, even level equivalent encounters give them pause, and gets them looking for ways to take an extended rest.

I also like using a lot of terrain, often giving monsters a bit more of an advantage than PC's. If the terrain causes any delay, it's just that much more damage coming at the PC's, making the encounters more dangerous now, than they did pre-MM3.

Pre-MM3, I liked making encounters with numerous low level opponents, rather than few high level opponents, since the numerous low level opponents seem to die easier. But with the increase in damage output, the alpha strike of a large group of even lower level monsters is pretty devastating.

I'm half tempted to go back to pre-MM3 damage expressions, or at least shave a few points off the MM3 expressions. I like a mix of marathon adventuring days, and days where there are 1 or 2 encounters. I don't like the module-style 3 predictable encounters a day. I like to be able to use interesting terrain without impacting combat difficulty too much. And I don't want players to feel they need more healing all the time. One leader and maybe one daily emergency heal should be plenty of healing for a party of 5-6. And a party should even be able to get by without a leader.

Since the MM3 damage expressions have been around for a while, what are your experiences? How did it change your games? How did it impact your encounter designs?

 

[Pickles JG]

I have only run high heroic/low paragon stuff since the new expressions were formalised, & my PCs are absolutely hammering everything still, more than before oddly - paragon made a big difference to their power. They are comfortable with 5 encounters of about their level & can do more if I can contrive it.

I am surprised lower level monsters are threatening as they always struggle to hit my guys moreso with AC attacks but enough that the increased damage from a pack of them is noticably offset by the reduced accuracy.

One thing I noticed though is that I am generally using very close to level encounters while before I would be using ~level +2 ones a lot. If you were doing this & have not adjusted then that might explain increased deadliness?

I do think it will be very hard to get much more than 5 fights out of a day with the new damage - the surges do get ground away even if the fights are not too threatening individually. I was planning to try to get in some really fast fights to break up the 75+ minute encounters maybe using mostly 2 hit "fat" minions.

On the whole though I like the MM3 damage better than the old model. It is obviously based on a neat formula rather than being carefully balanced for each level. I expect the linear increases give blips where it is above or below the ideal value, so in htese cases some tweaking would not hurt

 

[Nemesis Destiny]

I have yet to play in a game involving the new monster numbers, so I guess this isn't much help, but I'll throw my two bits in anyway.

My initial experience with the old math at the dawn of 4e was that it was plenty challenging as-is. Influencing factors included the fact that at the time we were all pretty new to 4e, and our DM tended toward the extreme end of the difficulty scale. Lots of Level +3 or level +4 encounters, one-on-one encounters with single regular monsters of level +5 or whatever it takes to make a level 1 or 2 encounter. Lots of whiffing, lots of players near death, but mostly lots of frustrating, drag-inducing whiffing.

That may be as much inexperience with the system as any issue with the math, but anecdotally, I found that plenty hard. When I heard they were re-doing the math to make monsters harder I cringed. Less of a whiff fest? Sure. Harder? Not sure it is needed.

On the other hand, our current DM says she has trouble challenging us. This may be that we're getting better at playing, but may also speak to the need for some stronger monsters, if not constantly, then at least as an option.

Different types of monster for different situations; if you want to go 5-7 encounters in a marathon of adventuring, use the old math. If you are looking for a day with fewer but challenging battles, go for the new math. I don't know if that will work, but it sounds logical.

I should note that both DMs I described above are fans of the fewer-is-better school of encounter design.

So I guess I share your apprehension about the new math, though I have yet to DM a single 4e session (we're taking turns in our group, and my turn has yet to come up after 2.5 years; I'm getting the itch to DM again).

 

[aurance]

My initial experience with the old math at the dawn of 4e was that it was plenty challenging as-is. Influencing factors included the fact that at the time we were all pretty new to 4e, and our DM tended toward the extreme end of the difficulty scale. Lots of Level +3 or level +4 encounters, one-on-one encounters with single regular monsters of level +5 or whatever it takes to make a level 1 or 2 encounter. Lots of whiffing, lots of players near death, but mostly lots of frustrating, drag-inducing whiffing.

Actually, this sort of experience was exactly why the math was reworked. Your DM needed +X level monsters because even level monsters were not significant threats; however, using +3-5 level monsters means your PCs will be missing a lot more than they should. The new math fixes that so that even level monsters will significantly damage your PCs, yet will not be too tough for them to hit and kill.

Mengu - I guess my experiences are similar to yours, except that I liked those experiences. 6-7 encounters a day seems like a pretty big number; I like my PCs to try to rest after 3-4, or even 1-2 really tough encounters. It's also encouraged them to think much more tactically and with group synergies, whereas before in many cases individual swing-hit-swing-hit would've been enough to win encounters.

 

[Nemesis Destiny]

Actually, this sort of experience was exactly why the math was reworked. Your DM needed +X level monsters because even level monsters were not significant threats; however, using +3-5 level monsters means your PCs will be missing a lot more than they should. The new math fixes that so that even level monsters will significantly damage your PCs, yet will not be too tough for them to hit and kill.

My issue with this is that the DMG hasn't changed, in that it still indicates that using level +3 encounters are a fine way to challenge an average party now and then. So, you will have DMs that are throwing encounters of level+x at groups and wondering why they consistently TPK.

The DM I spoke of will do just that. If you want to run fewer encounters than expected, you will need to use higher level ones to make up for the XP, unless you don't mind it taking forever to level. I don't disagree with what they did, and in fact, I support it, I am merely pointing out a potential issue in some groups.

 

[MrMyth]

I'm pretty happy with the new math, though I've had limited opportunities to try it out.

My advice for the initial scenario is not to scale the numbers back down. Instead, if you want some combats that aren't really that dangerous, and don't have any need for PCs to spend healing surges during the combat itself... use lower level encounters. I think part of the problem with the old math was an an 'average' encounter could be trivial to overcome.

Now, if you want a trivial encounter, you are supposed to use one. Not just a normal encounter consisting of lots of lower level enemies. Instead, just an average number of lower level enemies. Or proper level enemies, but less of them.

The party should be able to go through some Level-2 fights, or whatever, and that should give about the right experience you are looking for.

 

[Mengu]

So with the new damage expressions, what do you think are the encounter difficulties?

Level-2: Very easy
Level-1: Easy
Level: Standard
Level+1: Hard
Level+2: Very hard
Level+3: Someone might die, chance of a TPK
Level+4: Someone will die, may be TPK

Does that sound right? For a long adventuring day, should I just vary the encounters between Level-2, and Level+1, with most encounters at Level-1?

Also with the old damage expressions, I was able to run a level equivalent encounter, and then the PC's were able to, without a short rest, go through another level equivalent encounter without being too terribly taxed. With the new damage expressions, I ran a level-1 followed by a level equivalent without a short rest (they weren't resting in a safe place), and one PC died, others barely survived.

With the new damage expressions, are short rests always a must have?

I'm fine with running more lower level encounters, but for the encounter to feel full, I'd have to use lower level creatures who can't hit the broad side of a barn. I'm fine with them being hit easily, taking fewer hits to go down, and doing less damage, but I don't like them missing a lot because they don't get to push, pull, daze, prone, or do any of the things that make the fight feel "right".

 

[Lancelot]

That looks right to me.

I used to plan for encounters between level and level+4 (as a DM). However, I've been finding lately that level-1 to level+1 is plenty challenging for even a party of experienced characters. Anything higher than that sometimes requires a bit of DM fiat to keep characters alive.

 

[aurance]

My issue with this is that the DMG hasn't changed, in that it still indicates that using level +3 encounters are a fine way to challenge an average party now and then. So, you will have DMs that are throwing encounters of level+x at groups and wondering why they consistently TPK.

The DM I spoke of will do just that. If you want to run fewer encounters than expected, you will need to use higher level ones to make up for the XP, unless you don't mind it taking forever to level. I don't disagree with what they did, and in fact, I support it, I am merely pointing out a potential issue in some groups.

I hear you, this is a problem. I would say most of the crunchy bits of the DMG are outdated now. I have been keeping up with every update and book so it's not so much a problem for me, but I'm sure I'd be pretty confused if I were a DM just picking up 4e. I guess I'd point those people toward Essentials.

 

[aurance]

So with the new damage expressions, what do you think are the encounter difficulties?

Level-2: Very easy
Level-1: Easy
Level: Standard
Level+1: Hard
Level+2: Very hard
Level+3: Someone might die, chance of a TPK
Level+4: Someone will die, may be TPK

Does that sound right? For a long adventuring day, should I just vary the encounters between Level-2, and Level+1, with most encounters at Level-1?

Yep, this is pretty much what I go by, Mengu. I find somewhere between Level +2 and Level +3 is that border between "extremely challenging but fun" and "just plain irritating".