Monster Math Old and New

[UngeheuerLich]

well, the reason I ask is it would seem if a player is hitting less often he is dealing less dmg/rd and apparently the monsters deal less dmg/rd
thats all

Again, I am a bit nervous about the future of our game, since we are still in the lower heroic tier I was able to hand the pc's their hats with a group of kenkus and then again with a mere 4 giant centipedes and some clever use of terrain. In both fights the players were crying the bad guys were "hitting too hard" - to which I responded boo freakin hoo -

Actually i had the same complains with MM1 monsters.

If you are coming from 3.5, you have to get used to the high amounts of damage you receive in 4e. AC and HP really work differently in those games.

There is a lot more up and down in 4e. In 3.5 you try and may achieve not to be hit excapt on a 18+. In 4e, you are struggling to be hit only on a 13+ or so.
The question is how many surges you need to spent after the fight. If each player spends only 1-2 and the defender 2-3, your players did fine.

 

[malraux]

There is a lot more up and down in 4e. In 3.5 you try and may achieve not to be hit excapt on a 18+. In 4e, you are struggling to be hit only on a 13+ or so.
The question is how many surges you need to spent after the fight. If each player spends only 1-2 and the defender 2-3, your players did fine.

Yeah, its not a real fight in 4e unless at least one player says "crap, I'm down."

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Not necessarily, but if you drained a daily and both encounter heals, it starts getting dirty...

 

[andy3k]

I want to comment on the suggestion that if the combats are not dangerous enough for the players then keep upping the monster levels. I vote that idea out. Yes, you can go Level+3 more often than stated in the book, but Level+5? I suggest not.

Higher level monsters have higher level defenses and better powers that the PCs are not prepared to handle when facing a whole horde of them. It is better to add more monsters, traps, terrain powers, etc. of the appropriate level. That will increase the chance of monsters to hit PCs and do more damage from hit frequency while not making it more difficult for the PCs to hit the monsters (not hitting is not fun). Traps give some players the chance to use their anti-trap skills and powers. More monsters gives the controller more to play with. More monsters also means the defender might not be able to hold EVERYONE in place and the party has to fighter smarter or run faster.

 

[WalterKovacs]

I want to comment on the suggestion that if the combats are not dangerous enough for the players then keep upping the monster levels. I vote that idea out. Yes, you can go Level+3 more often than stated in the book, but Level+5? I suggest not.

Higher level monsters have higher level defenses and better powers that the PCs are not prepared to handle when facing a whole horde of them. It is better to add more monsters, traps, terrain powers, etc. of the appropriate level. That will increase the chance of monsters to hit PCs and do more damage from hit frequency while not making it more difficult for the PCs to hit the monsters (not hitting is not fun). Traps give some players the chance to use their anti-trap skills and powers. More monsters gives the controller more to play with. More monsters also means the defender might not be able to hold EVERYONE in place and the party has to fighter smarter or run faster.

That was the problem from before ... the 'failings' of the monster damage, etc led to using higher level monsters, who had more HP and higher defenses that made it harder for the party to actually clear them out, while the damage didn't actually increase that much (it hit more, but still wasn't for good damage).

The defenses and HP issue, for Elites and Solos were addressed in DMG2 (and I think MM2 as well), with the defenses staying the same as standard monsters (and only 4x instead of 5x for the solo's HP), but with tricks added to deal with stuff like stun/daze/dominate/etc, and solo's getting more dangerous at bloodied. That, along with the expertise feats, were meant to monstly speed up the fights for the PCs ... with MM3 they increased monster damage to make encounters at lower levels more difficult (and thus reduce the use of higher level monsters ... and thus further reducing monster defenses and HP).

 

[Obryn]

well, the reason I ask is it would seem if a player is hitting less often he is dealing less dmg/rd and apparently the monsters deal less dmg/rd
thats all

Right, and in both cases, that stretches out combat.

Your party will get better with tactics as they advance.

I want to comment on the suggestion that if the combats are not dangerous enough for the players then keep upping the monster levels. I vote that idea out. Yes, you can go Level+3 more often than stated in the book, but Level+5? I suggest not.

The need to use higher-level monsters in order to pose an appropriate challenge under MM1 math was, I think, the main cause of grind in early 4e.

So yeah, that's right out.

-O

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

That was the problem from before ... the 'failings' of the monster damage, etc led to using higher level monsters, who had more HP and higher defenses that made it harder for the party to actually clear them out, while the damage didn't actually increase that much (it hit more, but still wasn't for good damage).

Alternatively, some DMs just used more monsters. Probably a little less frustrating for the PCs, and the damage output increased (but not predictably like the new expressions), but in some ways the grind was worse (got to chew through more hit points, divided among more monsters).

 

[TerraDave]

[MENTION=83666]Go[/MENTION]onlan,

With the new math, do you know how many rounds a typical fight lasts, at least in your game?

 

[Goonalan]

Alas I've not got there yet, the problem with doing the stats is I started at the beginning, so from memory, I didn't implement the new damage until the Pyramid of Shadows scenario (I think). That was the 8th scenario we played in this manner (gathering the stats)- alas I'm only writing up the third scenario so far- Thunderspire, the rest of it just exists as pages and pages of coded notes, it would (and does) take a good while to sort through and make sense of.

I've just had a look through my notes from the Pyramid and its not immediately obvious where the damage changed- I promise I'll get to it but... It's going to take some time.

Sorry to disappoint.

Cheers Goonalan.

Having said that I'm certain that we made lots of changes in P1, however that was the 13th scenario we played, I distinctly remember (some of) the fights being shorter- and all of them incredibly brutal. However that was as much to do with the Paragon Level PCs, look at this monster entry from my notes-

Dirty- Move. BS3 AoO Dirty; '2' Miss. Come & Get It- BS2 takes 5 damage as it is lured off a ledge (113)- Attack CA BS3; Hit 16 damage (103) & CA BS2; Hit 16 damage (97) & CA BS1; Hit 16 damage (102). Action Point- Phrenic's & Giantslayer = +6 To Hit/+5 damage/+4 AC. Scattering Blow BS3; Hit 35 damage (69) & BS2; Crit 54 damage (43 bloodied) Immediate Reaction BS2- Boneshard Burst Phrenic; '4' Miss & BS3; Hit 15 Necrotic damage -10 (Resist) = 5 damage (64 bloodied) & Dirty; Hit 15 Necrotic damage -10 (Resist) = 5 damage (111) & Grey; Hit 15 Necrotic damage (53) & BS1; Hit 15 Necrotic -10 (Resist) = 5 damage (97) & Kaspard; Hit 15 Necrotic damage (73)- Immediate Reaction BS3- Boneshard Burst Winstanley; Hit 8 Necrotic damage (79) & '3' Phrenic; Miss & Dirty; Hit 8 Necrotic damage -10 (Resist) = 0 damage & Grey; Hit 8 Necrotic damage (45) & BS2; Miss & BS1; Hit 8 Necrotic damage -10 (Resist) = 0 damage. Back to Dirty's Scattering Blow BS1; Hit 35 damage (62 bloodied) Immediate Reaction BS1- Boneshard Burst Phrenic; '2' Miss & BST3; Hit 10 Necrotic damage -10 (Resist) = 0 damage & Dirty; Hit 10 Necrotic damage -10 (Resist) = 0 damage & Grey; Hit 10 Necrotic damage (35 bloodied) & BS2; Hit 10 Necrotic damage -10 (Resist) = 0 damage & Kaspard; Hit 10 Necrotic damage (63) & all three Marked.

That's the domino effect we seemed to run in to at times- Boneshard Skeletons, don't you just love them. That said I also remember gangs of Trolls getting taken apart in 3-4 rounds...

 

[S'mon]

Alternatively, some DMs just used more monsters. Probably a little less frustrating for the PCs, and the damage output increased (but not predictably like the new expressions), but in some ways the grind was worse (got to chew through more hit points, divided among more monsters).

IME a long battle doesn't feel grindy as long as enemies are going down, and multiple monsters can be hit by area-effect attacks. For both those reasons 'more monsters' usually is better than 'higher level monsters'.

That said, anything more than about 8-9 non-minion monsters causes a book-keeping headache for the DM, moreso if they are of more than 3-4 different stat blocks. Therefore for large battles it's best to use lots of minions in conjunction with standard monsters, keep highest monsters level to around PC level +3 at Heroic (can go higher at higher tiers), and use elites and solos sparingly. Typically 1 Elite BBEG, 2-7 standard monster sub-bosses, and minion mooks works best.