My Grind Fix: Half hp, 2/3 Xp

[BartD]

In this thread I have read a few suggestions along this vein:

So wouldn't it just be easier to lower monster levels while tweaking their stats by a few points?

In (many) other threads, a "math problem" (PCs' attacks and defenses fall behind monsters' so that players rarely hit while monsters rarely miss) has been discussed at length and there has even been published feats to remedy this.

Without having played at higher levels, it sounds like to me like the easy one-step solution is to just use monsters of slightly lower levels than recommended, say 1/2/3 levels lower from level 5/15/25.

This will
- give monsters lower defenses and fewer hitpoints so they go down faster
- let the DM use more monsters because lower-level ones are cheaper
- solve all math-problems wrt PCs and monsters ability to hit each other

Or did I miss something?

 

[Starfox]

The problem with monster level tweaks is that critters end up doing very little damage. While I can see ways to remedy this, I prefer to let this thread be dedicated to the solution proposed here; half hp and more critters. There are other threads covering other solutions as well as more general discussion threads illustrating the problem in a wider perspective.

 

[Sigurd13]

The problem with monster level tweaks is that critters end up doing very little damage.

Not necessarily.

According to DMG pg. 174, if you're only adjusting monster levels up or down by 5 or fewer levels you're only going to end up changing the damage by 2 points at most if you are using Monsters as written from the MM and changing their level using the DMG rules.

Likewise, if you are creating monsters and want to change their damage expressions for level according to the chart in DMG pg. 185, you'll only be changing the average damage by about 3 points or less so long as you don't alter their levels by more than 5.

Of course, this may get a little hairy as you add more and more dice since the stats are going to get slightly more variable as you hit paragon tier, but the damage is similarly stable within 3 or 4 levels of each other.

So unless you feel the RAW on damge are already too low, low damage shouldn't be an issue...

Also consider that you are adding more monsters. Which means that the monster party will A) hit more often overall (since there will be more attack rolls) and B) do more damage.

By way of example:
Let's assume an Adventuring Party of four 10th level characters.

A normal 10th level encounter would feature four 10th level monsters doing 1d8+5 damage (according to DMG185) about twice a round, assuming they hit about half the time. This is assuming the monster are sticking to their normal at wills and that none of them are brutes (in which case the damage would be greater).

If you make that same encounter from seven 7th level monsters, all getting a +1 or +2 to their attacks and defenses (to make them about even with 10th level baddies) then the party will still be taking 1d8+5 damage, but now they'll be getting it about 3.5 times per round.
You just increased your damage output by at least 50%.

Let's say you want to have even more monsters on the field and you intend to make that same 10th level encounter with ten 5th level monsters. Remember, these are STANDARD monsters that are not brutes. Adjust their attacks and defenses to keep them near those of 10th level monsters (but they'd have 5th level damage and hp) and now they're dealing 1d6+4 damage about 5 times a round.

Four 10th level mobs = ~18 damage/round (average roll for 1d8+5 x(4/2))
Seven 7th level mobs = ~27+ dmg/rnd (ave for 1d8+5 x(7/2))
Ten 5th level mobs = ~35 dmg/rnd (ave for 1d6+4 x(10/2))

And this is only at heroic! The damage dice and the size of the dice keep going up from here on out. There's no way that adding more monsters to the field will somehow lower the damage rating if you make sure to adjust their attack and defenses appropriately.

 

[Sigurd13]

a "math problem" (PCs' attacks and defenses fall behind monsters' so that players rarely hit while monsters rarely miss) has been discussed at length and there has even been published feats to remedy this.

Without having played at higher levels, it sounds like to me like the easy one-step solution is to just use monsters of slightly lower levels than recommended, say 1/2/3 levels lower from level 5/15/25.

If it is, in fact, the case that the issue is less about monsters doing damage and more that they always hit, then I agree that this is a spot on solution. Lowering level and adding more mosnters to maintain the overall level of the encounter *would* not only lower the monster's chance to hit (making them more on par with player to-hit chances) but also would maintain (or even improve) damage output per round due to having more monsters on the field.

Seems like a sound assumption Bart. ^_^

However, you say there have been published feats to remedy this...which ones and in which book? Als, has anyone play tested them to see if this is it still even a problem I wonder?

 

[BartD]

...
However, you say there have been published feats to remedy this...which ones and in which book? Als, has anyone play tested them to see if this is it still even a problem I wonder?

I was thinking of these feath from PHB2: Implement Expertise, Weapon Expertise, Paragon Defenses, Robust Defenses, and Epic Fortitude/Reflex/Will (there may be more). All those (and maybe masterowrk armors? I dunno) seem like part of a "math-fix" to do something about the apparant divergence of PCs' and monsters' hit-chances by making PCs more difficult to hit while letting them hit monsters more easily, increasingly so at higher levels. I personally think this is a clunky way to fix the divergence, as it effectively pre-selects quite a few feats.

In this thread a "grind-fix" is proposed. I have not played the game (high) enough to really notice the problem but it seems like a very common experience and I even think some designers have acknowledged it so I believe there is a problem to be fixed. The proposed fix (50% more monsters each with 2/3 hp giving the same total hp) sounds like a really good idea imo.

However, the two things seem to be connected. And I think it may be possible to do something about both at the same time and do so without all those ugly feats.

When I think more about it, generally picking monsters form 1/2/3 levels lower only reduces xp per monster by something like 13/25/35% and will therefore only add that many extra monsters to an encounter. It also reduces hitpoints per monster by something like 8/14/20% so total hitpoints are reduced by around 5/10/15%. [Disclaimer: Very approximate calculations here]

So while I think picking weaker monsters should be a decent fix for the "math-problem" it is not sufficient to match the proposed N+50%/HP-33% grind fix.

Starfox: No more about monster levels from me. It just seemed like an easy way to fix two thinks at once. Having thought a little more about it, I think a bit of both may work best.

 

[Nikosandros]

Someone just pointed out this thread and I'm rather intrigued by this idea. My gaming sessions are rather short, so that shorter combats would definitely be a good thing. How do you handle minions? Do you cut down their XP value as well?

Bumping my own question.

 

[evilbob]

Just wanted to share my own experiences with reducing grind, since they actually are the exact opposite of the inferences in this thread. I, too, used to think that having more low-level monsters might help reduce grind. In practice, I found this to have the opposite effect. Then, I used a couple published encounters that have monsters that are a few levels higher than the PCs: this had an amazing effect on reducing grind.

My interpretation is that this made the monsters stronger, they did more damage, but there were fewer total enemy HPs on the board. Ultimately, that is what was making "lots of little guys" so grindy: sure they get hit easy, but their total HP wasn't much lower, so it still took almost as long to kill them. Higher-level guys have just a bit more HP, but fewer of them means there is fewer total HPs for the PCs to grind through.

And this makes sense with what is being posted in this thread: people are lowering the total HPs and making monsters more dangerous. Well, I think this is effectively the same as just using higher level monsters. Try an encounter with a bunch of n+3 guys and see what happens. You'll probably only have 3 of them, but they will be deadlier and the battle will still be faster since you only have 3 bags of HP to go through.

The only issue this does not solve is the whole "I want PCs to fight dozens of guys" scenario. But I think this is what minions were made for. Two n+3 enemies plus 8 n+3 minions is still lots of guys, and they're still all dangerous.

Ultimately, I think the main issue with grind comes from the DMG's inability to express what makes a good encounter: namely, fewer monsters that are slightly above the party's level. Without this bit of guidance DMs are throwing tons of low-level guys at their groups and it is taking forever.

 

[Starfox]

The proposed fix (50% more monsters each with 2/3 hp giving the same total hp) sounds like a really good idea imo.

Actually, the proposed fix is 1/2 hp and 2/3 xp. This is a small but significant difference. The number of enemies increases by 50% while hit points are halved, reducing the total number of hps in the fight to 3/4 normal. Additionally, those hps are divided over several critters. In general, it is easier to lightly damage two enemies than to seriously damage one.

The overall effect is that the enemy starts at 50% more damage-dealing capacity, but the fight is about half as long. Fights become a little swingier and slightly easier. I think the idea works well for groups that like to have fights in their game, but do not want them to completely dominate. It leaves time for planning, recon, and role-play.

Lowerling monster levels doesn't do this - I tried that first. Lowering levels makes combat more predictable and generally safer. But low-level enemies have a lot of hit points, especially at the upper levels. Fight against many low-level opponents get extremely grindy. Much better then to increase the level and use minions or an option like this one.

To Nikosandros about minions; yes, I increase the number of minions. I feel minions are not worth 1/4 of a regular monster at the old hp values. Introducing minions felt like throwing free xp at my players. With regular monsters getting half hp, 4 minions seem about as dangerous as one regular monster, which they should be.

 

[Sigurd13]

Starfox-

Considering I'm not talking out of experience here (and I am assuming you are) I'm gonna say that I think overall this is a pretty good concept worth further inquiry. Your fix will tend to make monsters more deadly- but with glass jaws...which I can only image *would* tend to make encounters more 'swingy.'

The only thing I'd be worried about (and this is only because I like a dash of realism... or do I really mean post-modernism?) is the part about you saying it makes combat a little 'easier.' I'd monitor the party's power/surge/healing usage to make sure combats aren't *so* easy that they can blow through them one after the other with little resource expenditure. They'll eventually get bored if it's not too challenging.

Of course, this isn't a HUGE issue. Especially if you run a really high fantasy, heroic game where the characters are SUPPOSED to handedly win in every battle. Otherwise I think, different mathematical approaches aside, that we agree.

Good fix. ^_^

 

[Starfox]

I feel the swinginess handles the smoothness well. As long as the players stay in their toes, combat is quick and relatively easy. They take damage, especially in the beginning of a fight, but once the fight is decided, it ends quickly. I feel surge usage is about normal. With easy, I mean that it feels more glamorous - with shorter fights, players much more rarely use at-will powers, relying on the fancier encounters and the occasional daily.

My fighter has been complaining a little, saying that defendering becomes much less interesting when individual foes stay around such a short time. This could be an angle worth watching. I think more elites and solos should brighten his day, and he is still definitely doing well, but he might be a little overshadowed by the strikers. He is pretty high damage - where a striker takes down a half hp foe in 2 strikes, he needs three.

The wizard player recreated his character as a Swordmage. I think a controller could prosper under these rules, but this player is much too aggressive to play a 4E wizard.

Does anyone else have actual play experience with this variant? We only used if for 4 sessions or so.