Monster Damage

[the Jester]

Hmm, actually, using a mix of old and new damage monsters gives you a cool tool for fine-tuning encounters.

If the MM1 monsters are too weak for your taste, but the MM3 monsters are too rough- build an encounter with (say) 2 MM1 monsters and 3 MM3 monsters, or maybe an elite from MM3 and 3 MM1 critters. This should make one monster in the encounter a clearly heavier threat than the others after a round or two of combat, leading to potentially interesting tactical situations too (especially if, for instance, the MM3 guy is artillery behind a wall of lower-damage, more-durable MM1 monsters).

 

[Mercurius]

The difference between MM1 monsters and post-MM3 monsters is quite extreme. Here's an example for context:

MM1 Elder Blue Dragon
HP 960; AC 36, Fort 39, Ref 34, Will 34
Gore attack +25 vs AC; 2d6 + 8, plus 2d6 lightning damage (12-32 damage range)
Claw +23 vs AC; 1d8 + 8 damage (9-16).
Breath Weapon 3d12 + 17 (20-53).
Lightning Burst 3d6 + 7 (10-25) - burst 3.
Thunderclap 1d10 + 7 (8-17).

Monster Vault Elder Blue Dragon
HP 756; AC 34, Fort 33, Ref 30, Will 30
Gore 4d12 + 16 lightning damage (20-64).
Claw 4d8 + 13 damage (17-45).
Breath Weapon 4d12 + 16 (20-64).
Lightning Burst 3d12 + 13 (16-49) - burst 2.
Thunderclap 4d12 + 16 (20-64).

Some pretty extreme differences there, most especially with the claw attack - the MM1 has a measly range of 9-16, while the Monster Vault has a more satisfactory range of 17-45. We're talking about Elder dragon here, a level 20 monster. 9-16 damage for a claw attack? That's just embarrassing for the DM: "The dragon mauls you with its claw for, ah, 11 HP of damage."

It is also worth noting that the Monster Vault dragon has 200 less HP and lower defenses, from 2 (AC) to 6 (Fort). There are also changes to the other powers - I only included those things the two had in common - but the newer dragon has traits and a bit more in the way of triggered actions, but the MM1 dragon has the Draconic Fury power, which gives two claw attacks and one gore at will.

Now my sense is that the difference in damage output is so extreme - especially for Gore, Claw, and Thunderclap - that the new dragon is a completely different creature and the old MM1, and 2 to an extent, is virtually worthless in the next context and requiring of an update. This begs the question, will WotC update the core three? Or is the closest thing to the Essentials line? I still wouldn't be suprised to see revised version of the PHB1, DMG1, and MM1 either in late 2011 or early 2012. I'd buy them.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

[MENTION=59082]Mercurius[/MENTION] I don't disagree for the monster you picked, but it is probably JUST about the most extreme example. The old epic solo monsters really were pretty weaksauce. If you were to instead choose the other extreme, say a level 1 standard monster like say a kobold I think the difference is definitely there, but small enough that the players might not even notice unless they fare poorly for other reasons.

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".

Well, Mengu, I think personally my interpretation of the breakdown from DMG1 would be something like

• 3 combat encounters, averaging at level to level + 1. So maybe a level-1, a level, and a level +1 or level +2.
• 1 Major or 2 minor skill challenges totaling complexity 5 of equal level. This can be varied a lot too, so it could be somewhat more or less. Failure in a challenge COULD lead to an additional combat encounter, or otherwise burn resources.
• 1 major or a couple minor quest awards.

Basically an adventuring day is half a level worth of encounter XP. One way to think about it actually is instead of buying several encounters instead buy 5 encounters worth of 'stuff' and arrange it in a fashion logical for the situation, keeping in mind that you don't want to pile on much more than 30% of the day's XP into one (hard) encounter.

I'm using the new damage numbers. What I find is the encounters are more exciting and I do keep them a bit less difficult than before. Instead of tossing in some level+2 or 3 encounters I keep it pretty close to the original guidelines. Before level+0 was pretty much a worthless encounter. It just ate up time and MAYBE a few resources. Now it is a significant encounter.

In fact the game I ran tonight has been interesting. The PCs only hit 11th level in this particular campaign recently. So I have now in a day put them through what was supposed to be a combat encounter but which they avoided with a skill challenge (level+0). Then they decided on breaking into a temple, which required another level + 0 SC to get in OK. At that point there were enough enemies inside to make about a level + 1 or almost level + 2 encounter.

They should have created a good plan to get in and out. Sadly for them they were sloppy, didn't do any research on the place, didn't really figure out what the plan was once the rogue and warlock were inside, etc. The end result being they took out a few minions and a standard monster while sneaking around, but then boiled up a hornet's nest. Now they're in the process of getting their backsides handed to them by basically an equal level encounter. Archers on a wall with cover, some bad dice rolls, and lack of good coordination. With the OLD numbers they'd have just broken out some AP and a daily or two and fixed it. They've already ALL burned their AP, and it is still NOT fixed at all. Instead half the party is bloody and that's only after burning a bunch of surges. The monsters are still able to dish it out good. They've really only managed to kill off a couple standards and some minions.

Now, this is kind of an example of the players being sloppy and not planning well and getting into trouble, but the thing is by the old numbers very few setups were REALLY dangerous even in that case. Now I have minions that are able to do noticeable damage, artillery that is downright lethal, a couple of brutes that can pound out great damage, and an elite that dishes it out pretty well too. I'm happy. The players are running scared but they'll still survive.

If they had planned well though, they'd have definitely been able to get through 4-5 encounters in a day.

 

[Aegeri]

Just a reminder:

if your players are wiping the flor ith monsters, by all means, use higher level MM1 monsters!

This is a truly terrible idea, because high level MM1 creatures are terrible but not significantly more threatening. All you will do is make them harder to hit, while still ineffectively "Cat scratching" PCs HPs and making a combat last vastly longer.

I don't disagree for the monster you picked, but it is probably JUST about the most extreme example.

Basically everything over paragon tier shows a massive difference - this is where the damage really adds up significantly. Heroic tier monsters have much better powers and abilities now since MM3 as well - especially in terms of the likes of minions (who started to see improvements in MM2). Heroic tier is closer, but by the time you're in paragon/epic those creatures are obliterating their MM1 counterparts.

Also, take a look at the likes of Wraiths to see where even heroic MM creatures are vastly outclassed by their later counterparts. Not just in damage, but in overall design and playability at the table.

Edit: Actually you aren't even correct on the most extreme example, this would go to the Balor - who has picked up a close burst 3 critical 15-20 attack that deals 74+3d12 damage on a crit. Lightning Sword has gone from a paltry 2d10+10 lightning damage (+3d10 on a crit), to an extremely impressive 6d10+11 (+3d10 on a crit). These power increases make the MV Balor significantly better, not to mention Demonomicon getting rid of the absolutely useless variable resistance for something brutally effective like Soul Stealer.

Original MM creatures are so far behind by paragon/epic they are practically worthless. The numerous threads about how epic PCs can't be challenged pre-MM3 except by ridiculously stacked/metagamed/vastly overlevel encounters attest to this.

 

[Jack99]

I fail to see a problem..

If the new monster math is too hard on your players, cut down the number of monsters you send against your players instead of switching back to the old and lame MM1 monsters. Combat would be faster, and that's never bad.

 

[Dragon Sin-Camealot]

I did have a RL discussion of this. The hard part about designing a game is finding a dynamic balance.

I have a feeling there's nothing we can do that won't alienate someone. Wanting a perfect gaming session is wishful thinking. Yet I can imagine some other problems with the game.

I will also affirm that your group and DM plan out a certain session, choose a command structure, so you can get what you want out of the game.

The key is to effectively control stuff that doesn't happen automatically imo.

 

[Aegeri]

You know, I completely forgot the most ridiculous combo in all of 4th edition right now, achievable with a single MM3 creature and the new Wraith - both heroic tier.

Level 4 Jackalwere Deceiver
Level 5 Wraith Ally (who conveniently starts combat invisible).

Jackalwere knocks PC unconscious with his power.

Wraith Coup De Graces PC.

Congratulations, no matter who you are you're now dead as you need a minimum of 78 HP to survive that (As a wraith will auto crit you for 38 points of damage - probably well above your bloodied value). Alternatively, if you feel the wraith is a disputable ally the level 3 Jackalwere Bravo gets 20+2d4 (22-28) points of damage on a Coup de Grace. That still one shots nearly every level 3/4 PC in 4E of course, it's just not as spectacular as the wraith is.

This is probably the most extreme example in 4E of abusing monsters that I can think of (and really relies on the flawed Coup de Grace rule). Of course any DM who ever does this either hasn't thought about their encounter design at all or is just a dick.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Basically everything over paragon tier shows a massive difference - this is where the damage really adds up significantly. Heroic tier monsters have much better powers and abilities now since MM3 as well - especially in terms of the likes of minions (who started to see improvements in MM2). Heroic tier is closer, but by the time you're in paragon/epic those creatures are obliterating their MM1 counterparts.

Also, take a look at the likes of Wraiths to see where even heroic MM creatures are vastly outclassed by their later counterparts. Not just in damage, but in overall design and playability at the table.

I wasn't disagreeing at all that MM3 monsters are better. Was just pointing out that you picked an extreme example to illustrate it. If someone wants to use certain MM1 monsters at heroic tier without making any changes they will often not really notice much difference. Surely that isn't true of ALL MM1 monsters. The wraith etc were just monsters that turned out poorly for various reasons. It wasn't especially related to damage output in most of those cases though.

And in all fairness, MM1 has some fine paragon monsters, like actually the paragon dragons were mostly pretty nice. I've used some of them and had fun battles. I wouldn't bother to use them now with better designs out there, and always made a few tweaks anyway for my own purposes, but they weren't unusable or totally outclassed. They were tricky to use well though.

Edit: Actually you aren't even correct on the most extreme example, this would go to the Balor - who has picked up a close burst 3 critical 15-20 attack that deals 74+3d12 damage on a crit. Lightning Sword has gone from a paltry 2d10+10 lightning damage (+3d10 on a crit), to an extremely impressive 6d10+11 (+3d10 on a crit). These power increases make the MV Balor significantly better, not to mention Demonomicon getting rid of the absolutely useless variable resistance for something brutally effective like Soul Stealer.

I didn't say it was THE most extreme example, just that it was AN extreme example, and one of the most extreme ones you can easily make. Yes, the Balor is also a good extreme example and I had it in mind when I was reading your post in fact. I'm actually not sure I would consider it more extreme. The old Balor was poor even for an MM1 epic monster in the damage department. Never used one (except in a fun gauntlet encounter where it got a single swing at a 9th level PC, lol did that freak the player out, it was fun).

Original MM creatures are so far behind by paragon/epic they are practically worthless. The numerous threads about how epic PCs can't be challenged pre-MM3 except by ridiculously stacked/metagamed/vastly overlevel encounters attest to this.

Eh, a little extreme. Remember, I've read all of those same threads you have. EPIC MM1 monsters are close to useless as-is. High paragon ones are mostly not going to be much use as-is either if you want fun encounters, though some of them can be QUITE threatening in the right situation. Up to 15th level the old monsters held up OK. The new ones in that half of the game are better is all. It also vastly matters what type of group you were running. I've run a couple groups through that really didn't care much about optimizing and aren't tactically all that adept most of the time. They found most MM1 monsters to be OK challenges, just mostly a bit boring. The new monster numbers definitely work better, no argument there.

 

[sobchak]

So far as a player I like the new monster damage scales. We are using them in a new campaign, level 1, only 4 battles so far. I like fast, deadly and challenging combat. I love it. I wonder if our party will suffer. We have a few classes that are considered weak by some standards (my shielding swordmage and a seeker). Our protector shaman lies to mix it up in melee also. AC 14.

Mistakes, bad luck, and bad tactics are punished pretty severely by the new damage. New players and sub-optimizers will probably have a harder time surviving. New players being driven away could be a problem for the game as a whole. I'm not sure if care about scads of minotaur bards, goliath wizards or gnome fighters dying.

 

[Aegeri]

I didn't say it was THE most extreme example, just that it was AN extreme example

There are lots of these examples though, where would you like me to start and finish? We could look at the humble Owlbear, whose MV version is devastating. We could look at the Dark Sun Creature Catalog Silt Runner, who does 4d6+4 damage with an encounter power at level 1 (that specifically targets bloodied enemies). Did I mention the power gives you vulnerable 5 all while it's at it?

I mean stating that MM3 and beyond books regularly outdo the original MM in damage AND effects is just a correct statement. There is no cherry picking of examples - which is the implication I got from you post - because it's the regular rule they are far and away more powerful. At all tiers.