Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Enchanted Trinkets Complete--a hardcover book containing over 500 magic items for your D&D games!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Jhaelen" data-source="post: 4756011" data-attributes="member: 46713">You're right of course. But the numbers are not the much conjured spectre of 'you get hit on a 2' and 'you only hit on a 20'.I specifically disagree with the OPs conclusions because- they're based on the DMG guidelines to design monsters- the calculations don't properly model a standard party in a standard encounter- the calculations neither take powers, nor terrain, nor tactics into accountBasically, my original position is that calculating to-hit chances and dpr is not a useful tool to decide if encounters in the epic tier are unbalanced. To prove my point I decided to play the OPs game.Surprisingly, I found, that even when I'm just crunching the numbers, I come to completely different conclusions.And that is a perfect example of what I'm criticizing in this argument:The githzerai are _not_ flawed because they don't exactly match the numbers given in the _guidelines_ for DMs when they want to design their _own_ _new_ monsters. Do you really believe that the numbers in the DMG are the ones the designers used for the MM1 monsters?If they used them at all, they were only used as a starting point. Then, after eyeballing the results and maybe some playtesting they tweaked the numbers to get the result they wanted.I also believe the guidelines are simplified to make them easy to use. OF COURSE they don't give you all the minor details required to properly create a balanced monster.Apart from that: No guidelines can do that because difficult encounters can sometimes turn into a cakewalk if a single specific power is available to the party and successfully used. The opposite can also happen (though less likely, imho).Well, if the githzerai represent a flawed design it's because of their at-will stun ability. But that's a problem with the stun condition and _not_ with flawed math.I don't remember anything of that kind. I do remember a poll on these boards asking what was generally considered a 'good chance' to hit. IIRC, the average was at about 60%.Well, KarinsDad did.And that is exactly the point I'm trying to make and which my calculations so far seem to support.The math works. It just doesn't work the way many people expected.KarinsDad asked two interesting questions:1) Do the increased resources (items, powers, abilities) of pcs make up for the attack/defense disparity?2) Are epic level combat encounters fun?Originally, I thought the answer to 1) would be: Yes they do.After my calculations I'm inclined to say: The increased resources aren't even necessary to make up for the disparity. The math works even without them. So, basically, they're just there to make encounters more fun.2) I'm not actually sure about this one. Epic level combats ARE on average longer than combats in the heroic tier. Not hitting as often is also probably less fun than hitting often. So, I'm inclined to agree, it might be worth trying to change the numbers so combats become shorter and pcs hit more often.But these changes have to be offset by something, otherwise things become _way_ too easy.As a slightly related afterthought, there's one oddity I noticed:In the epic tier (and probably before that) effects that last for a single turn are actually _worse_ than effects with a duration of (save ends). There's tons of powers, items, and feats that grant extra saves or improve saves.But there's very few ways to actually negate conditions. The only PHB power I found was the Warlord's Level 22 Utility Power 'Heart of the Titan'.There are other ways to avoid getting affected by them though:There are quite a few immediate interrupt powers that can help.And of course: Gaining the initiative and making sure the monsters don't even get to use their nasty powers.</blockquote>

Verification