Henry said:
It's an interesting guide, but I don't know if I agree with it. All the discussion about high level monsters being a good 4 or 5 points off from the PC capabilities seems to not take into account a lot of conditional effects that WILL make a difference in the game...
Ah yes, this argument has been made in every monster creation discussion I've seen. I'm not going to stand on a pedestal and tell everyone that circumstantial bonuses don't make a difference, but I will point out several things:
1. I have yet to see a power or circumstance that can consistently grant PCs the "missing" bonuses at high levels. I've been pointed to Righteous Brand (cleric at-will) as an example of how leaders are supposed to grant bonuses to other PCs. However such examples always fail to take into account important details such as 1) granting the bonus depends on the cleric hitting first, with the odds against him at high levels, 2) it only applies to melee attacks and 3) it is poor design to assume that a party will have access to any specific powers, or group of powers. Which leads me to my next point...
2. Assuming that every party will have a leader is alright, so long as the party doesn't
need a leader just to survive. So even if leaders are the "mising link" in my calculations, I think it's poor design to make PCs so dependant on the bonuses that leaders grant. I'd rather that leaders granted their allies bonuses that give the PCs an edge over their enemies, rather than merely drawing the PCs even with their enemies. After all, buffing and healing is what leaders
do so shouldn't the results be more impressive than "there you go Jimmy the Fighter, now you have a 50/50 chance to hit!"
3. Lastly I will point out that the 'N + Level' golden standard is inconsistent with itself. While most PC stats increase at about 4/5 per level, AC increases at about 1 per level. So shouldn't monster attacks vs. AC increase faster than other monster stats? I would think so, but they don't. It's unexplainable inconsistencies like that which make me suspect that the monster design golden standard is mistakenly oversimplified.
I actually sent an email to the WotC mailbag regarding this issue. I'd love nothing more to tune into next month's podcast and hear an explaination of monster design that proves my ideas wrong and proves that the designers did us DMs justice with their monster design guidelines. But I'm not holding my breath; even if they choose to answer my question I doubt that they'll have a really satisfactory explanation.
Plane Sailing said:
I've not read any of the guidelines (official or unofficial), but reading this point of Henry's made me wonder whether it is assuming +1 to +6 weapons being available at certain points too - or has that already been taken into account in assessing the 'problematic' situation?
I can't speak for others, but my calculations take into account all the bonuses that a casual gamer can be expected to have. By 'casual gamer' I mean a player who generally optimizes by the PHB suggestions and uses basic strategy, but doesn't seek out every last +1 bonus and isn't a historical war buff.
For example when I calculate how the AC of a heavy armor wearer increases during the course of one tier I account for:
+5 level
+3 masterwork armor
+2 armor enhancement
But not build-dependant or circumstantial bonuses like:
Armor Specialization
Assorted AC-Boosting Powers
Terrain Bonuses
Specific Armor Enchantments
TS
