Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="AbdulAlhazred" data-source="post: 5241232" data-attributes="member: 82106">Here's an interesting point though, the damage of MM1 monsters NEVER seems to have even been up to the levels set by the original DMG1 damage expressions. Gnoll Marauder is probably a bad example due to all the conditional bonuses it gets, but by the original damage expression table a level 6 brute should have done 2d8+4 (high normal damage expression). It should now be around 3d6+7 (single target 2d6+7 * 1.25). That means its averaging 18.5 now vs 13 before.Now, if we assume 50% of attacks are against bloodied enemies (probably an overestimate) and 50% get the +5 bonus (hard to say, but not a bad guess) that would make its damage output 1d8+6 + 2.5 + 1 = 1d8+9.5 or 3d8+1.5 and then if we add in Quick Bite damage (call it 1.5 more damage) or 3d8+3 roughly if it was one attack that pretty much means it was doing around 16.5 or about 1d6 above the old recommendation and 2 points below the new one.However this was a pretty good monster by MM1 standards, especially for a brute. Look at the Kruthik Young, doing 1d8+2 vs DMG1 2d6+3, or Dire Rat at 1d6+2 vs DMG1 2d6+3, etc. No doubt Keterys has a handle on the actual MM1 Brute avg damage output, but I'm pretty sure its consistently below DMG1's table and I'm pretty sure ALL MM1 monsters on average, even the low level ones I use here as examples, are below (and I expect it gets worse at higher levels). The question is really what SHOULD be the adjustment for MM1? Should MM1 monsters be doing errata level damage output, which seems to be at the lowest end about the same as DMG1 damage and at the higher end about 75% higher or should they be doing an equal proportion more damage than they are now, which mostly would probably just leave them around the old recommended damage at low level and maybe a BIT higher at best at the top (and thus a lot below errata damage at the top and at least somewhat less on average at the bottom)?</blockquote>

Verification