Reducing Monster Hit Points?
- Thread starter MasterGarrow05
- Start date
Yeah, the Solo damage my method produces is scary. A quick fix would be to multiply the bonus damage by 1.5 for Elites and 2.5 for Solos. Any less would not compensate sufficiently for the HP loss.
I strongly stand by my minion suggestion as a quick fix to their uselessness for anyone. Even though it allows them to drop a player really fast with teamwork, it's not worse than at 1st level.
(A complete minion fix would entail reducing the resulting damage to about 75% and give minions a shared "HP bank". A minion has 1/4 its equivalent Standard monster's HP. When a minion takes damage -- up to its max HP -- note it. Damage is always applied normally, with no reserves about needing to hit and automatic damage. Whenever the total noted damage passes the minion max HP, take a minion out of the fight. I'd go on, but this is neither the place, the time nor the size.)
My suggested changes might seem really complicated, but they're adapted from my monster creation rules, where I use lower HP per level and my own damage tracks. I consider low level monsters to have almost the right balance but high level ones to have too much HP and not deal enough damage. While the changes I outlined take a long time to apply to existing monsters, at least they take a shorter time when I'm building new enemies. The changes also bring every monster closer to its role and elite-ness and bridge part of the unbalance gaps. As an answer to the thread's outlined problem, I might have gone slightly overboard, though.
Last comment:
-25% monster HP / +33% monster damage works.
Although it does nothing to correct the fact that monster HP raises too fast while their damage can't keep up (OK, last time I mention that), it is entirely balanced with the current rules. It might also be enough of a change for your group.
HP will be easy enough to modify, and for damage, just add to each attack 1/3 its expected damage. Note, however, that critical hits won't follow (which might not bother you anyway) and ongoing damage needs a 33% bump too.
I strongly stand by my minion suggestion as a quick fix to their uselessness for anyone. Even though it allows them to drop a player really fast with teamwork, it's not worse than at 1st level.
(A complete minion fix would entail reducing the resulting damage to about 75% and give minions a shared "HP bank". A minion has 1/4 its equivalent Standard monster's HP. When a minion takes damage -- up to its max HP -- note it. Damage is always applied normally, with no reserves about needing to hit and automatic damage. Whenever the total noted damage passes the minion max HP, take a minion out of the fight. I'd go on, but this is neither the place, the time nor the size.)
My suggested changes might seem really complicated, but they're adapted from my monster creation rules, where I use lower HP per level and my own damage tracks. I consider low level monsters to have almost the right balance but high level ones to have too much HP and not deal enough damage. While the changes I outlined take a long time to apply to existing monsters, at least they take a shorter time when I'm building new enemies. The changes also bring every monster closer to its role and elite-ness and bridge part of the unbalance gaps. As an answer to the thread's outlined problem, I might have gone slightly overboard, though.
Last comment:
-25% monster HP / +33% monster damage works.
Although it does nothing to correct the fact that monster HP raises too fast while their damage can't keep up (OK, last time I mention that), it is entirely balanced with the current rules. It might also be enough of a change for your group.
HP will be easy enough to modify, and for damage, just add to each attack 1/3 its expected damage. Note, however, that critical hits won't follow (which might not bother you anyway) and ongoing damage needs a 33% bump too.
PrecociousApprentice
First Post
So the 75% HP/1.33%Damage adjustment to monsters works, but I find it rather inelegant. I know that players don't like their HP lowered, but effectively, they have lower HP this way. On top of that, you have to do extra math on every damage roll during combat, which seems to be counterproductive to shortening combat.
The elegant fix is to go with 75% HP for everyone. You do the math once, up front, and everything stays the same. The fix is exactly the same from a math standpoint, only you just do it once, and out of combat at that. If your players can't handle the lower HP, they need to grow up. The fix you propose is the same as the fix I propose, only you need to work only a fraction of the time with mine to get the same output as yours.
The elegant fix is to go with 75% HP for everyone. You do the math once, up front, and everything stays the same. The fix is exactly the same from a math standpoint, only you just do it once, and out of combat at that. If your players can't handle the lower HP, they need to grow up. The fix you propose is the same as the fix I propose, only you need to work only a fraction of the time with mine to get the same output as yours.
MasterGarrow05
First Post
Ceraus: I definitely will implement your minion suggestion for damage. And will think about the 1/4 hit points for later sessions. I think the two in combination will probably make them way too powerful.
Also, I have not experimented with the system long enough and suck at math too much to have come to your conclusions, or any conclusions about the hit point / damage ratio of monsters over levels. It deserves some more thought. But I just don't want to reinvent too much of the game.
Precocious: You are absolutely right that your suggestion is faster and simpler. In my defense, I must reiterate that I am no longer "rolling" damage dice for monsters, so it's easier to calculate ahead of time. My reluctance to modify PC hit points comes not from any explicit resistance from my players, but merely the fact that some are more impressed than others with 4E, and it seems every week there is another player or DM change to the "interface" of our game, be it new attempts at character sheets or power cards, or a wacky try to use different things to mark conditions or use chips for power surges, etc. I feel like our group needs a little more continuity and consistency with how the game is played, and if I can make the experimental changes I feel are needed on just my side of the screen for now, I will.
If it works out great my way for long enough, I'll put it forth to the group to just reduce every monster and PC hit points by 25%. But you are absolutely right about the mathematical sameness of the two methods and the advantage goes to your method.
So officially, I think the simplest, most elegant solution put forth thus far is Precocious's, based on Keterys's initial proposition way back at the second post:
subtract 25% hit points from both monsters and PCs
Your mileage may vary, and for more in depth analysis of the game itself, Ceraus's method is definitely worth looking into.
Also, I have not experimented with the system long enough and suck at math too much to have come to your conclusions, or any conclusions about the hit point / damage ratio of monsters over levels. It deserves some more thought. But I just don't want to reinvent too much of the game.
Precocious: You are absolutely right that your suggestion is faster and simpler. In my defense, I must reiterate that I am no longer "rolling" damage dice for monsters, so it's easier to calculate ahead of time. My reluctance to modify PC hit points comes not from any explicit resistance from my players, but merely the fact that some are more impressed than others with 4E, and it seems every week there is another player or DM change to the "interface" of our game, be it new attempts at character sheets or power cards, or a wacky try to use different things to mark conditions or use chips for power surges, etc. I feel like our group needs a little more continuity and consistency with how the game is played, and if I can make the experimental changes I feel are needed on just my side of the screen for now, I will.
If it works out great my way for long enough, I'll put it forth to the group to just reduce every monster and PC hit points by 25%. But you are absolutely right about the mathematical sameness of the two methods and the advantage goes to your method.
So officially, I think the simplest, most elegant solution put forth thus far is Precocious's, based on Keterys's initial proposition way back at the second post:
subtract 25% hit points from both monsters and PCs
Your mileage may vary, and for more in depth analysis of the game itself, Ceraus's method is definitely worth looking into.
PrecociousApprentice
First Post
Coming from your standpoint, I fully understand now why you are going your way. If there are no damage rolls, the number of calculations for your method is cut way down. Considering your group, I also understand the ruluctance to just cut all HP by 1/4. A little extra work on your part behind the scenes will probably pay off big time later, and players won't even have to know about it until your experiment is done. Nice.
Sorry, but I don't think this helps swingyness much, because you are still getting a binary result: hit or miss. For the obvious example, imaging a hypothetical monster attack: +8 vs. AC 19; 4d8+12 damage. You need to roll an 11 or better to hit. Rolling 1d20, that's a 50% chance of hitting. Rolling 2d10, that's a 55% chance of hitting. So it's the equivalent of a +1, but the real take-away is that a single die roll stiil means the difference between 0 damage and 30 damage, which is kind of a lot. In fact, the expected value of the attack is 15 damage, but there's no way to actually ever get that result (since the minimum damage here is 16).
What 2d10 does do (or 3d6, another popular alternative to 1d20) is clusters results around the center, effectively giving a bonus on attacks that are lower than 50% and a penalty on attacks that are higher than 50%. Imagine an extreme case, where monsters always Take 10 on attack rolls. Now, the PCs get in a fight, they are either going to get slammed hard on every round, or the monsters will be completely ineffective. To me, that's extremely swingy: even though the results are predictable round-by-round, when the combat starts the PCs don't know whether this encounter is going to be the TPK or the cake walk -- there is no middle ground.
To me, a rule that would decrease swingyness is something that would give a less binary result: A smoother damage curve per attack, rather than a smoother hit curve per attack (which is what 2d10 gets) or a smoother damage curve per hit (which is what using average damage instead of rolling gets).
For example: Monsters all get +5 to hit, but do half damage; if they hit by 10 or more, they do full damage. Thus our hypothetical attack above (+8 vs. AC 19; 4d8+12 damage) no longer has a 50% chance of 0 damage and a 50% chance of 30 damage; it has a 25% chance of 0 damage, a 50% chance of 15 damage, and a 25% chance of 30 damage. The expected value is still 15 damage and is now the most common result, instead of an impossibility. (I'm ignoring crits, which are by their nature swingy.)
I'm not advocating something like this as a house rule (it seems like it would be too much trouble to convert the monsters, especially dealing with attacks that impose conditions+damage, or those that already deal half damage on a miss), just saying that I don't feel using a normal curve (2d10 or 3d6) reduces swingyness any when the check is producing a binary result. Any time the check can be reduced to a % chance of pass/fail, the die-rolling system is just a stand-in for 1d100, regardless of the distribution of the actual dice you are rolling.
-- 77IM
My personal take is make the changes that are the easiest to run as a DM.
For example, I think the bloodied damage bonus requires too much extra thought, where a permanent damage bonus is more easily applied.
Also, I recommend when possible, changing things from a player side more than the DM side. The players have to make a chance once, Dms have to do it for each monster.
For example, lowering player hitpoints is one way. You could for example raise the starting amount just a tad, and then give them less hp per level.
I like the -2/2 per level idea for hitpoints on monsters, that seems like a nice, quick fix even if it does have to be applied to every monster.
For example, I think the bloodied damage bonus requires too much extra thought, where a permanent damage bonus is more easily applied.
Also, I recommend when possible, changing things from a player side more than the DM side. The players have to make a chance once, Dms have to do it for each monster.
For example, lowering player hitpoints is one way. You could for example raise the starting amount just a tad, and then give them less hp per level.
I like the -2/2 per level idea for hitpoints on monsters, that seems like a nice, quick fix even if it does have to be applied to every monster.
dammitbiscuit
First Post
2d10 changes way, way more than people seem to realize.
2d10 will make it much harder to fight a Solo creature, as you need the higher-ended rolls which become more rare.
2d10 makes any bonus to attack (such as from your buddy's Furious Smash) increasingly awesome as your probability nears and passes through the "average" roll zone, then insignificant as your odds get higher.
2d10 will make it much harder to fight a Solo creature, as you need the higher-ended rolls which become more rare.
2d10 makes any bonus to attack (such as from your buddy's Furious Smash) increasingly awesome as your probability nears and passes through the "average" roll zone, then insignificant as your odds get higher.
How has this been working out? How many APs do the players typically have? Do you allow multiple AP use per combat? Per round? Do you give the monsters extra AP to compensate for the player's extra AP?
I want to try this system but I'm concerned that it will make the game too easy. This might be worthy of its own thread.
Thanks,
-- 77IM
My group encountered the same dilemma, so we basically doubled all damage inflicted by PC's and opponents. While this does indeed speed up combat considerably, we found it still did not adjust the pace of combat to our tastes. What we've actually concluded is that damage is too flat and predictable. After a few rounds, everyone has an idea of how long the combat is going to take and when heals should drop. 4e combat has a very mechanistic feel to it, in spite of all the fancy manoevres you can pull.
Similar Threads
