Monster Damage

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

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.

The MV owlbear is fine. For those who don't have the MV it's an 8th-level elite brute. The typical damage for an 8th-level monster is 16 (with the "new math"), or 20 with a brute. Each owlbear attack does 4d6+6 damage in the MV, average 20 damage. It gets two attacks because it's an elite. Or it can use beak snap, which does an average of 40 damage... exactly the damage it would have done had it chose to claw the same victim twice in a round like any elite could. The owlbear follows the math to a "T".

That silt runner seems ridiculous though, but the problem is the monster, not the new damage system. The silt runner is problematic because it is not following the new system. That's like complaining 4e is broken because there's a broken ranger power that gives (or used to give) potentially infinite attacks. It's just a designer being too lazy to catch an issue.

 

[Aegeri]

The MV owlbear is fine.

This is comparatively. You need to compare it to the MM1 version: Which does nowhere near the effective damage of its MV counterpart. Note that this is also against it's normal party, because the MV brute is more accurate (+2 accuracy in fact) over the MM one. So it's more likely to hit a target with both claws, dealing 8d6+12 damage, compared to 4d6+10.

Then the beak of course which auto hits, dealing 4d8+22, compared to 4d8+5.

Assuming both claws hit (which actually is HARDER for the MM Owlbear, he only has +3 vs. AC compared to the MV Owlbears +4): 4d6+10+4d8+5 = 47 average damage (not that unimpressive).
MV Owlbear: 8d6+12+4d8+22 = 80 damage.

Yeah, PCs will never notice that difference. One of those practically automatically drops a level 7-8 character, the other gives you a big chunk of damage but doesn't drop you. Also note that the MV owlbear "Frontloads" more damage, especially through the higher static damage of the beak.

So which one after using it's dual claw attacks do you want it to action point and beak you MORE (they are elites, that action point can make a massive burst difference!)? I know none of my players are going to say "Yeah, we're not going to notice the difference in the MV owlbear". That was the point: Monsters at all tiers are not afraid to do ridiculous damage if they feel like it. Also, as a brute limited power it can do up to 50% (or even 75%, depending on the author) damage. The silt runner is just taking the extremity of that percentage. I actually use them against higher level PCs and they can be obscenely nasty. I never use them against low level PCs though (my PCs see them around level 4 or even 5!).

This isn't the point. Abduls point is that "Heroic MM3+ monsters are pretty similar to those in the MM". This is plainly and utterly false. My players have been able to almost routinely pick what monster comes out of what book for some time now. There are two ways they can tell: Powers and damage. Damage is the most obvious but powers also make a huge difference as well.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

This is comparatively. You need to compare it to the MM1 version:

I'm not bothering. Too many MM1 monsters were poorly designed. The purple worm comes to mind as not being nearly threatening enough for something of its level. (Mainly due to poor solo design.) I was actually going through Thunderspire Labyrinth earlier today and nearly groaning at how lame the elites were. (Mind you, there tended to be lots of monsters of levels quite a bit above PC level. Seems to me the proper solution would be to us elites of the PCs' levels.)

I am comparing the owlbear to the new MM3 rules though. I haven't run an owlbear encounter myself (currently doing 3rd-level Dark Sun, there are no owlbears there) but I'll see if I can reflavor it and report it once the PCs are around 8th-level or so.

because the MV brute is more accurate (+2 accuracy in fact) over the MM one.

Also in the new rules.

So it's more likely to hit a target with both claws, dealing 8d6+12 damage, compared to 4d6+10.

That's what it's supposed to do.

Then the beak of course which auto hits, dealing 4d8+22, compared to 4d8+5.

Once you've been grappled. The escape DC is pathetic, being only 16. Even an untrained 8th-level character with Strength and Dex 10 will hit that DC more than half the time. In effect, it's not auto-damage. It's anything but, with one exception (see below).

Which one after using it's dual claw attacks do you want it to action point and beak you MORE?

I'd rather get a chance to escape first Yes, the owlbear can brutalize one PC. Dual claw, then use its sole AP to beak them. It's attacks would deal 80 damage, enough to down but not kill most 8th-level PCs. (I think even a wizard would survive.) As some people have pointed out, the new monsters do punish PCs for using bad tactics. If the owlbear (an Int 2 monster) somehow managed to jump the mage (it probably is smart enough to attack whoever is at the back, and maybe that's the mage), the party's defender should mark the owlbear and draw its attacks, giving the leader the chance to heal the mage.

I know none of my players are going to say "Yeah, we're not going to notice the difference in the MV owlbear". That was the point: Monsters at all tiers are not afraid to do ridiculous damage if they feel like it.

Also, as a brute limited power it can do up to 50% (or even 75%, depending on the author) damage.

I'm actually confused by this specific point. Were you saying MM1 monsters could do ridiculous damage (and so there's no need for new rules) or are you complaining that MM3/DSCC/MV monsters can deal ridiculous damage because they could dish out a massive amount of damage with an encounter power?

(And on that note, elites are actually kind of nerfed when it comes to dishing out heavy limited power damage, since their encounter powers only deal regular limited damage for a monster of their level. And the owlbear's encounter ability doesn't do damage at all.)

This isn't the point. Abduls point is that "Heroic MM3+ monsters are pretty similar to those in the MM". This is plainly and utterly false.

I get this point. I don't think that MM3+ monsters are similar to those in the MM1. I happen to think that's a good thing though.

 

[Aegeri]

I get this point. I don't think that MM3+ monsters are similar to those in the MM1. I happen to think that's a good thing though.

It seems we have the exact same point but we're talking past one another. This is precisely the argument I am making, this is precisely the opposite argument that Abdul was trying to make earlier.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

It seems we have the exact same point but we're talking past one another. This is precisely the argument I am making, this is precisely the opposite argument that Abdul was trying to make earlier.

The one advantage of online arguments; at least we can take time to cool down while writing posts

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

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.

I never said or implied (or meant to imply certainly) that MM3 monsters don't generally outdo say MM1 monsters, that was I think pretty much the whole point with MM3/MV. My point was that it is not universally true that there is a huge difference and that the example was an extreme one. Your average low level humanoid in MM3 or MV is doing some extra damage, but nothing much beyond that. Other differences are largely either more flavorful mechanics, anti-grind measures, or just more tactically interesting options.

As for cherry picking, I wasn't accusing you of doing that. I was purely pointing out the above. It is worth DMs knowing that, particularly for low level play, using MM1 monsters works pretty well most of the time. Using the MM3/MV equivalents may still work better, but at those levels it is rarely going to make a really huge difference in play. I mean take the Owlbear example. The old Owlbear was a pretty good monster. Simple but dishing out enough damage to be a scary encounter. Upping its damage is nice and getting rid of the stun is nice too, but the old one DOES work pretty well, I can attest to that, having used it a decent amount. The level 14 MM1 Winterclaw Owlbear OTOH is poop. It does if anything probably less damage than the level 8 version. I think that kind of sums up where I'm at, heroic tier MM1 monsters are mostly pretty decent. They usually do get better with the new numbers, but honestly I'm not sure some of the MV versions at those levels haven't gone a bit to the opposite extreme.

 

[Mengu]

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.

Maybe my players just aren't doing it right. For instance, in a standard encounter, the dwarf paladin may be healed once by the leader, and second winds once. Then at the end of the encounter, he may need to spend 3 healing surges to heal up to full. That's 5 surges. A second encounter like that, and he is down to 2 surges. Say he loses a surge in a skill challenge, but the party has a way to recover a surge, and that cancels out. If he is in a third encounter, after the short rest, he is going to be out of surges, and probably right at or slightly above bloodied. A fourth encounter with a defender in that condition is pretty suicidal.

It's not unusual for me to plan 4-5 encounters. Let's say 6-7 is a pipe dream and forget about it, and I want to run 4-5 combat encounters.

Is it better to tweak monster damage down to somewhere between MM1 and MM3 to reach that goal? Or maybe reward a healing surge at the end of each encounter, or maybe at each milestone, or some other solution?

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

It's not unusual for me to plan 4-5 encounters. Let's say 6-7 is a pipe dream and forget about it, and I want to run 4-5 combat encounters.

I always felt 3.x and even 4e try to shoe-horn too many encounters per day. This is especially problematic in dungeon pre-written adventures, where the PCs have to re-raid the dungeon every day (you're not going to do all 20 or so encounters in one day).

Outside of a dungeon, the GM controls the number of encounters in a day. If the PCs are running low on steam, it's time to give them a break (unless they're being stupid, that is). If the PCs are wimping out because they're out of dailies, by all mean use an excuse for the NPCs to find them and force that extra encounter (on the NPCs' terms). If the PCs decide to rest up and try to confront the boss first encounter of next day, well, they've already disrupted his operations and gave him a night to prepare. He's recruited more bad guys and distributed them around his trap-filled keep. He's resurrected the mage they killed and has him preparing anti-teleport traps, etc.

Is it better to tweak monster damage down to somewhere between MM1 and MM3 to reach that goal? Or maybe reward a healing surge at the end of each encounter, or maybe at each milestone, or some other solution?

You might want to cut down the number of encounters per game day. Nothing says you can't use 4-7 encounters over two days instead.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Maybe my players just aren't doing it right. For instance, in a standard encounter, the dwarf paladin may be healed once by the leader, and second winds once. Then at the end of the encounter, he may need to spend 3 healing surges to heal up to full. That's 5 surges. A second encounter like that, and he is down to 2 surges. Say he loses a surge in a skill challenge, but the party has a way to recover a surge, and that cancels out. If he is in a third encounter, after the short rest, he is going to be out of surges, and probably right at or slightly above bloodied. A fourth encounter with a defender in that condition is pretty suicidal.

It's not unusual for me to plan 4-5 encounters. Let's say 6-7 is a pipe dream and forget about it, and I want to run 4-5 combat encounters.

Is it better to tweak monster damage down to somewhere between MM1 and MM3 to reach that goal? Or maybe reward a healing surge at the end of each encounter, or maybe at each milestone, or some other solution?

Hmmm, lets say each of the 2 possible SCs might cost an HS, but with those being a complexity 2 and a complexity 3 then yeah, probably at worst an HS gets burned. Now you have basically 3 level + 1 encounters to get through. Supposing you have a tough dwarf fighter with 11 surges you probably have to keep your surge use down to 3 per encounter, roughly.

The question is how many surges are the OTHER PCs burning? Are they basically still well stocked at the point where the defender runs out? If so then the party should think about letting other characters "off-tank" some. There is such a thing as being TOO GOOD a defender. The real art of being the defender is to be able to regulate the amount of a beating the other PCs are taking, and giving them space to pull off moves when they need it. Part of that is regulating the damage the defender himself takes. If he's getting beat down bad then he should probably let an enemy go. Let the STR cleric or someone else that can mark pick that enemy up, or something. Basically it isn't efficient to have a defender at 0 surges and 3 other PCs still holding onto 6.

I think the other thing is the players need to be willing to pull out the stops as needed. This can be tougher at really low levels, but they generally need to be smart about not hording resources. The party should be burning daily powers at a decent clip for instance. Naturally they will want to hold back a BIT, but all party members can burn an AP in 2 encounters, maybe even all 3 with a bit of luck, and at least one or two total daily at level 1, up to 3-4 at top of heroic. That SHOULD keep them in HS. Admittedly there will be days when things don't go so well. I've had parties get the tar beat out of them in the first encounter, it happens, but probably shouldn't happen too often.

Remember too, ideally the last encounter of the day should be a bit of a nail biter. I always like to see the PCs reaching pretty deep every day, or at least on every day they're in the thick of things.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

But I believe it is right, that an owlbear is able to kill a wizard in a single round.

monsters of MM1 were fine. Their damage output quite ok.

The mistake of the designers was applying 3.5 logic to the game: an encounter of equal level should be an easy challenge. This is what made combats frustrating. As the average encounter was L+2 and thus monsters were too hard to hit.

The only thing which worries me is the lack of level 0 monsters. Easy non-minions i can use at level 1. The level 1 solo white dragon was a step into this direction, as a level 3 solo is nearly undefeatable at level 1.
And adding level 0 monsters would be the easiest thing to do. Just allow going down to 0 in the monster builder.