D&D 4E Using an absolute creature level scale in 4E

[Skyscraper]

Tnanks for the thoughts and comments everyone.

Concerning my statement that the monsters were set in absolute level value in 1E, I don't argue that it's the same as that of the PCs (which it wasn't), but they had an absolute power evaluation in themselves (roman numbered from I to X). There wasn't the relative concept of minion/solo/standard that 4E introduced.

Assuming the above is correct, I worked on a conversion table a while back that might suit your needs.

Solo <(-5) - (+5)> Elite <(-4) - (+4)> Standard <(-3) - (+3)> Mook* <(-5) - (+5)> Minion

Thanks for this. I pretty much arrived at similar conclusions, although the exact numerical conversion is not set to a specific value in my mind. The rough guideline I've been using is

solo = elite +4
elite = standard +4
standard = minion +6

Interesting to see we arrived at a very close result.

A mook is a concept I encountered on these boards a while back. Essentially, it's a standard monster with 50% hp and 66% xp value (3 mooks are worth the same xp as 2 standard creatures). They're a fun way to add a little more variety to encounters.

That's a pretty cool idea. I like how you relate the HPs to the XP. Simple and efficient. I dislike that most monsters of the same level than the PCs have more hit points than most PCs. This is especially true at level 1 where you don't have lower level creatures to pit against your PCs, you're stuck with either level 1 standard monsters or minions - nothing in between. (I wrote a post on this topic, if you're interested: http://www.enworld.org/forum/4e-discussion/293466-minion-level-1-power-step.html)

 

[Skyscraper]

For your withered witch idea, I'd recommend using the Mook rules. For the dark knight, I'd recommend creating a soldier. One of the things that I love about 4e is that a creature's power level is fairly tightly defined by it's xp value. If you want a dark knight who's hard to hit, for example, it's much more reasonable to put them up against a higher level soldier (not that I'd recommend it, as they tend to add a lot of grind to combat) because then the xp reward is equivalent to the risk. Same deal with the witch (who'd be a lot easier than a standard of the same level). There's nothing wrong with modifying a creature to more closely match a concept; I just recommend tweaking the xp value to reflect any significant changes that would affect the challenge level.

I'd most probably indeed use a soldier to represent a knight. The problem I see with using a higher level soldier to represent a knight on which I want a higher AC is of course that all other defenses go up simultaneously.

I guess what I'm saying is that it's OK to play with the math, as long as you do it with some measure of understanding. In days of old (read: 1E), I used to prepare large-scale battles with fighters having widely varying ACs, hit points and damage output. And it worked.

It's possible in 4E to change the math, as long as you're aware of what you're doing. There is no strict obligation to follow the monster creation rules by the letter. But one must be alert that if he increases an opponent's AC, it might result in the dreaded grind (which happens occasionally anyway). In general, if you give more to the opponents, the fight is tougher; and vice versa. I stayed true to the math for a while (I've DMed quite a bit), and now I feel comfortable in toying with it. I'm starting to introduce magic items with stronger powers for my PCs to find, I'll plug a standard monster with 150% HPs because he's an important bad guy, but I didn't feel his role justified using an elite, I use a low-magic setting (though some of my magic items are more powerful), I modify defenses to fit the creature's flavor such as a high AC, a very low Fortitude or Will (my dumb hill giant had a ridicilously hittable Will defense - the PCs quickly picked up on it and used this weakness to some measure of success), etc...

As a DM I find it unsatisfying that all NPC fighters (e.g. soldiers) of a same level have about the same number of hit points (CON or STR will vary the HPs slightly), the same AC, etc.. I like that different creatures be different mechanically. I like for the PCs to look an opponent and have an idea of what type of attack might work. I just played in a game where a dumb-looking, full-plate armored elite orog (I think he was an elite anyway, maybe a lower level solo) had high defenses all around. It's not forbidden to have such a creature of course, but as a player you end up thinking all of your attacks are the same anyway. I like for spells to be efficient because the wizard is capable of targetting creatures that he realizes are weak-willed or clumsy; just like I like that the weapon-using classes are pretty confident that they have more likelihood of success attacking a leather-armored opponent than a full-plate and large shield opponent. (Of course, some exceptions exist and the occasional leather-armored opponent will end up being extraordinarily agile.) If you stick to core 4E rules however, if you design a soldier of a given level, that soldier will have a set AC value notwithstanding what equipment he wears. Equipment is flavor.

Edit: oh and about XP... We can't be slaves to them, it's OK to modify monsters and wing XPs to some extent. A DM can vary XP anyway to represent quest awards and the like. So following a very strict XP chart is not that important. But if you feel it is, then sure, increasing XPs for a tougher opponent and vice versa, why not.

I know many people refuse this kind of approach categorically. You know what? Don't tell your players. Have fun playing, dish out XPs every few sessions to represent game advancement (i.e. game advancement is my free-form reward that replaces quest awards, i.e. if the players end up doing 3 RP-only sessions with no battle and no real quest accomplished but everyone had fun and it pushed the story in a fun direction, for me the purpose of the game is fully accomplished and XPs will be awarded equally to everyone) and creatures killed, and everyone is happy.

I like having some "oh this guy is tough" comment, who cares about the math? I have to care as a DM to avoid TPKs or fights that are too easy; but for the players, the mechanics need to be invisible, and I want them to think in-character instead of metagaming according to strict, predictable 4E rules. I understand that some players don't like this style, I'm just sharing my approach.

 

[KidSnide]

This brings me to think about creatures in my game world as having an absolute power level. This absolute power scale is referenced to in PC-equivalent levels, from zero to whatever amount is necessary. For example, a given creature might be "level 1" or "level 10" or "level 15". The role of that creature, however, and its actual relative level, is only determined when the PCs face it: I'll then compare the absolute level of the opponents with that of the PCs, and fit the opponents into roles and relative level as appropriate.

It's odd to think "fighting a monster should be fair," and while I understand what the system is designed to be, I think we're missing out on some of the classic "AAAAAAAAAAAAAAGH! We're all gonna die!" appeal of monsters from back in the day.

As a DM I find it unsatisfying that all NPC fighters (e.g. soldiers) of a same level have about the same number of hit points (CON or STR will vary the HPs slightly), the same AC, etc.. I like that different creatures be different mechanically. I like for the PCs to look an opponent and have an idea of what type of attack might work.

I think this is all pretty much right.

If you're thinking of a continuing world, I agree that it's best to think of characters and creatures as having an absolute power level that is translated into different mechanics depending on the level of PCs that are facing him.

I also agree that the 4e guidelines are very nice and helpful, but the game does tend to lack in terms of dramatic scariness. You can do it with careful combinations of conditions, but it's tough. There is a tension between the scariness of knowing that you're one die roll away from death, and the desire to avoid the arbitrary swinginess of being one die roll away from death. 4e erred on the conservative side and I think adjusting this balance is one of the great unsolved problems of the edition.

I also agree that it's important to use the guidelines as a guide and attacks and defenses should be adjusted to reflect the type of creature.

-KS

 

[S'mon]

I also agree that the 4e guidelines are very nice and helpful, but the game does tend to lack in terms of dramatic scariness.

My 4e players have repeatedly told me that they are scared.

I think the reduced randomness compared to 3e actually increases the scare factor. Random deaths aren't scary; the unexpected defeat (& likely consequent death, campaign went on hiatus there) of Beljeth & Fargrim, the leading two PCs in my Vault of Larin Karr campaign by hellhounds with a boosted breath attack was too unexpected to be scary. The earlier near-death of experience of Beljeth when she accidentally 'zapped' a Roper at 2nd level *was* scary - the vast power disparity made it so.

 

[Tequila Sunrise]

...

Your ideas pretty much reflect what castes are intended to be. (I call them 'castes' to separate the minion-to-solo roles from artillery/brute/etc. roles.)

I think it's a shame that most monsters appear in only one caste in the MMs; dragons are always solos, bulettes only appear as an elite, etc.. I understand why WotC didn't stat each monster four times, but it's a shame because most DMs lack the confidence or time to re-caste monsters themselves.

To help with re-casting and monster writing in general, I'm writing a Marvelous Monster guide. It includes a fifth monster caste, the goon, and expanded damage tables.

I also wrote 30 different black dragon stat blocks, just because I'm that compulsive.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Eh, I think it is fine to tweak defense numbers. I'd stick with hit points determining level personally, and then possibly increase some numbers a bit. A weaker than normal monster is a couple levels lower, but maybe it has an AC that is higher than normal for its level, so it isn't especially a lot easier to hit. It could also benefit from some sort of effect that lets it make some more accurate attacks, or gain some extra defense (cover or something).

In any case, I've found through experience with 4e that it is best to look at what you're going to do right now in this encounter as what matters, and so if you have a weaker former opponent, then downgrade him to a higher level creature of a lower type, or for that matter just give him a few levels. The PCs went up N levels in the meantime, no reason the bad guys can't level up to. It certainly seems more satisfying to the players to have an old foe come back to challenge them again, vs having him come back and instantly go down (though now and then they'll love that too).

 

[Skyscraper]

Tequila Sunrise: it appears like you went through a thought process very similar to mine, albeit the implementation is not identical. You idea for minions and goons is interesting. I'm not sure I'd use that in my games, but I like what you've done.

 

[Tony Vargas]

This brings me to think about creatures in my game world as having an absolute power level.

In a sense, such a scale already exists: experience points. For instance, a level 1 Solo, level 6 Elite, level 10 standard and level 18 minion are all worth 500 exp. So, they could be considered of equivalent power - could even be the same monster, just encountered at different times in the PC party's career.

 

[pippenainteasy]

Isn't a PC roughly equivalent to an Elite of its same level?