Were MM1 monsters truly underpowered?

[DEFCON 1]

Whenever topics come up with regards to the deadliness of battles in 4E in its current form... the first thing mentioned is to use MM3 damage expressions, because monsters from MM1 & 2 are underpowered and don't cause enough damage. Now I certainly understand this and would agree that in the game as it currently stands, they definitely are. However, many times it seems that as I read it, the point is made now that these MM1 & 2 monsters were always underpowered. Which seems a bit at odds to what I remember from the earliest part of the game and I'm wondering if that was truly the case?

The reason I bring this up, is because I think that it is hard for us to recall just how the game originally played before the splatbooks and Dragon articles opened the rules options up. When looking at just the baseline powers available to the eight original classes (averaging about 4 powers per level per class), the combinations that could be put out onto the battlefield interacting with each other during a fight did not seem to have the same escalation in synergy and effectiveness that things do now. So at the time, the monsters from MM1 appeared (at least to me) to be perfectly adequate in providing a challenge to the PCs. (BTW - for the sake of this discussion I'm ignoring MM1 Solos, because there's much more evidence to suggest that the Solos truly were underpowered even compared to normal MM1 monsters. I'm talking just standard and Elite monsters here.)

It was only after the the release of all the additional books, adding in all manner of new class powers, magic items, special rules etc., that building PCs that worked synergistically with each other without even planning or thinking about it became much more commonplace. Much of this was simple power escalation due to expansion, as invariably there were always new powers introduced to the system that for any particular DMs game, had a much better chance of being overpowered in that game based upon how that DM ran it. That was just simple odds. And much of this was also WotC (or anybody for that matter) just not being able to foresee or playtest how every power/item/feat/boon created in every new book/article would interact with every other power/item/feat/boon currently in the game, when facing every new monster/encounter. There was only so many PC power combinations any particular playtest group would experience versus any select monster encounter combinations. Throw in parties that added a sixth, seventh, eighth player etc. to the battlefield (and thus all those other potential options to work in synergy during a fight) and your PCs grew exponentially more powerful as time went on.

But the question still stands... were the regular monsters of MM1 actually underpowered when compared to the PCs built from PH1? Or did they only devolve that way as PC options became greater over time?

 

[Aegeri]

When looking at just the baseline powers available to the eight original classes (averaging about 4 powers per level per class), the combinations that could be put out onto the battlefield interacting with each other during a fight did not seem to have the same escalation in synergy and effectiveness that things do now.

That is just absolutely not true. Nothing pre-MM3 could challenge a party with a warlord and if you threw in a wizard with bloodmage you just added insult to injury. These were probably two of the strongest classes in 4E, both from the PHB and in fact they still are. Rangers are another example, it is indisputably the strongest striker in 4E and all the things that make that true are in the PHB.

I actually played and ran a game in epic that was well before all the splatbooks came out. I can 100% affirm that monsters pre-MM3 were just as hopeless against an actually well put together party then as they would be now.

I think it's too easy for people to forget there is a huge errata document that nerfs the living crap out of the PHB. It's for good reason, because some of the most absolutely ridiculous stuff is based on the PHB (and in fact, still is like multiple attacks + frostcheese - something that could be done right out of the PHB from release).

But the question still stands... were the regular monsters of MM1 actually underpowered when compared to the PCs built from PH1? Or did they only devolve that way as PC options became greater over time?

They started out crap and weren't really helped. The best thing to do is to take a decent PHB1 no errata party and play with MM3 monsters. When you realize that when things like surgeless healing and ridiculous attack powers like righteous brand, lead the attack, relentless assault, rain of blows being 4 attacks, bloodmages being the "I win 4E DnD" choice of paragon path etc were in there from the start: paragon/epic monsters never stood a chance. MM3 creatures stand a good chance against this, but even they aren't capable of handling some of the raw bs PHB1 classes produce routinely.

It takes some major loops of logic to make MM1 monsters at paragon/epic look good compared to the sheer ridiculousness of many PHB options. Especially doing this in an apples to apples way: Take the errata off the PHB and bring all that really broken crap back into the game. See how well they do then and I can assure you - having done it at the time - it was actually much worse. For comparison, I've actually done the "MM3 maths vs. PHB only unerrata'ed options" test. MM3 monsters really struggle with a decent PHB only party, partly because the core broken elements of that party are obscenely broken. At least they are able to challenge the PCs - something their forebears could not do.

If that isn't a firm enough statement I would say that you could not pay me to DM a game with MM1 monsters in paragon/epic vs. the original PHB stuff. I really don't believe anyone has played enough epic to see stuff abused routinely like destructive salutation (Bloodmage), bloodpulse, legions hold (close burst 20, stun on hit and daze on a miss! And turn it into an encounter power once you got high enough with archmage, WHEEEEE. PS Archmage is in the PHB and is STILL probably the best wizard epic destiny in the game IMO), relentless assault (infinite attacks!), lead the attack (The I win button of DnD), rain of blows (4 attacks originally) and such forth. There is a really good reason that stuff from the PHB is still some of the best in the game and why much of it was pounded by errata so much.

Edit: It is SUPER important as well to realize the designers had no concept of just how ridiculous PCs got (especially in terms of healing resources and damage resilience) by epic tier. MM1 monsters true flaw isn't maths: It's how poor their powers are. They aren't as condition resistant. They can't do the same things as MM3 creatures (compare apocalypse spells to equivalent level creatures from MM1). In short they can't handle epic PCs because aside from their damage being so poor you might as well use level 20+ housecats, they just don't have the power options to let them compete.

 

[filthgrinder]

The simple answer is "yes" they were always underpowered.

However, they work pretty well throughout the heroic tier. So, that problem wasn't really that apparent. However, as soon as you hit paragon, the problem shows up right away.

Let's take a look at one of the early paragon tier monsters. The hill giant.
It's WAS a level 13 brute, with 159 hit points, two at will attacks, the basic melee is a greatclub attack which does 1d10+5, and a rock throw which does 2d6 + 5.

*blink* *blink*

Checking the compendium, we now see that the hill giant's attacks do 3d10+11 and 2d+8

It's attack bonus used to be +15 and now it's +18. Characters who will be fighting these guys should have AC's in the high 20's. So they would be getting hit less than 50% of the time, and 1d10+5 is barely a dent in their hit points.

Hell, 1d10+5 is barely scary in the heroic tier. Thats not going to phase a level 5 PHB character.

 

[the Jester]

Whenever topics come up with regards to the deadliness of battles in 4E in its current form... the first thing mentioned is to use MM3 damage expressions, because monsters from MM1 & 2 are underpowered and don't cause enough damage. Now I certainly understand this and would agree that in the game as it currently stands, they definitely are. However, many times it seems that as I read it, the point is made now that these MM1 & 2 monsters were always underpowered. Which seems a bit at odds to what I remember from the earliest part of the game and I'm wondering if that was truly the case?

Yes.

Note that not all MM monsters are underpowered- the halfling with the triple shot, the needletooth drake swarm and the deathjump spider are all good to too good as-is (and the spider and swarm have both seen errata).

The reason I bring this up, is because I think that it is hard for us to recall just how the game originally played before the splatbooks and Dragon articles opened the rules options up. When looking at just the baseline powers available to the eight original classes (averaging about 4 powers per level per class), the combinations that could be put out onto the battlefield interacting with each other during a fight did not seem to have the same escalation in synergy and effectiveness that things do now.

I disagree. A lot of the best classes and powers remain the earliest classes and powers (see: Come and Get It).

Much of this was simple power escalation due to expansion, as invariably there were always new powers introduced to the system that for any particular DMs game, had a much better chance of being overpowered in that game based upon how that DM ran it. That was just simple odds. And much of this was also WotC (or anybody for that matter) just not being able to foresee or playtest how every power/item/feat/boon created in every new book/article would interact with every other power/item/feat/boon currently in the game, when facing every new monster/encounter. There was only so many PC power combinations any particular playtest group would experience versus any select monster encounter combinations. Throw in parties that added a sixth, seventh, eighth player etc. to the battlefield (and thus all those other potential options to work in synergy during a fight) and your PCs grew exponentially more powerful as time went on.

But the question still stands... were the regular monsters of MM1 actually underpowered when compared to the PCs built from PH1? Or did they only devolve that way as PC options became greater over time?

4e has been amazing about keeping power creep to a bare minimum. Like I said, a lot of the most powerful options are from the PH1. I think you're overvaluing the ability to choose from a wider palette of options when it comes to powers- you still only get one.

In short, MM monsters fell behind very quickly. It's not an illusion or trick of memory- they were no better on day 1 than they are now in year 4 or whatever.

 

[Argyle King]

PHB1 made Orcus a sad panda.

 

[Dausuul]

The big problem IMO is not so much that high-level MM1 monsters were underpowered (although they were). It was that their damage expressions were too low relative to defenses and hit points.

If it were just that the level ratings on MM1 stuff were too high, it would be easy enough to deal with; just crank your encounter levels up a couple of notches. But because MM1 monsters had appropriate hit points and defenses but weenie damage output, cranking the encounter level up meant they ended up with excessive hit points and defenses, and combat draaaaagggggggggeeeeedddddd.

Many factors can contribute to combat grind in 4E, but MM1 and MM2 were among the biggest culprits.

I disagree. A lot of the best classes and powers remain the earliest classes and powers (see: Come and Get It).

CaGI got whacked with the nerf-stick recently. It's still an excellent power, but it no longer turns the fighter into a black hole with a 3-square event horizon.

4e has been amazing about keeping power creep to a bare minimum. Like I said, a lot of the most powerful options are from the PH1. I think you're overvaluing the ability to choose from a wider palette of options when it comes to powers- you still only get one.

It's the standard pattern for WotC. It showed up in 3E and in Magic: The Gathering as well. First you get the early releases, where they haven't quite got a handle on balance yet; the early releases thus contain a mix of total weaksauce and crazy broken. Then they learn to balance things better. Since people rate the power level of any given release by the most powerful options it contains, this makes it look as if later releases have been nerfed. Power creep does set in eventually, but it takes a while and moves slowly, and it never reaches the level of the worst offenders in the early days.

Of course, "crazy broken" is relative. The gap between the strongest and weakest classes in 4E shrinks to nothing when you compare it to the gap between pretty much any 3E caster and any 3E noncaster, or put any latter-day M:tG card against the likes of Black Lotus and Time Walk.

 

[Aulirophile]

Yes.

 

[Arlough]

Of course, to counter balance the weak damage delivery, they had higher defenses. Well, actually we just had lower attacks, but it comes out to the same thing. A +1 per tier to attacks effectively increases our damage output which, in turn, makes them die sooner resulting in a lower damage output on their side.

Then, when you come up with all sorts of ways for us to no longer have a weakness, especially strikers (Hide Armor Expertise allowing Barbarians to add Con to AC instead of Dex, Battle Caster Defense allowing an Archer Ranger to use Shimmering Armor to make point blank ranged attacks with no consequence). And to top it off, we can now use weapons as implements, allowing us to create multi-typed damage by casting fireball through a frost-axe, therefore making sure that any resistance they have is void (per the resistance errata).

There are many ways for us to, as one of my players so humorously puts it, preemptively heal by killing crap so fast it can't really hurt us. It used to be a long process of grinding each side down, but now it is just "He who hits the nuke button first, wins!" except that in the case of pre-MM3 monsters, their nuke is really just a cannon with infinite rounds.

This doesn't mean the pre-MM3 monsters scaled well. In fact, I had a rule of thumb stating that I would add one encounter level for every demi-tier.

Level 1 to 5: L-3 to L+1
Level 6 to 10: L-2 to L+2
Level 11 to 15: L-1 to L+3
Etc.​

This compensated for the fact that at low levels there was very little difference between NPCs and PCs except that NPCs had a lot more HP, and that at higher levels the party was wiping stuff out.

So there was a gap, but I just don't think it was as bad as everyone is making it out to be. Hell, before the taxpertise feats, you were only hitting epic level monsters about 25% of the time. And they were, early on, hitting you 70% of the time. It just lead to long and grinding fights.

 

[TerraDave]

Back when we played 08 D&D with low level charecters, not underpowered per se. In some ways, these were the toughest low levels monsters D&D ever had. And it was good.

But, you could feel a little grind. A little.

From current perspective, mid to high level monster damage was obviously too low. And there is that whole daze and stun thing.

As for the PHBI, I will also agree: it has held up well in play. At least with the errata. My players all have access to the CB and use it, but we have several PHB powers used in play each session. 4.5 of 5 classes and 4 of 5 races are from the PHB. (the shifter is also a hybrid shaman).

 

[MrMyth]

In my experience, the majority of MM1 monsters were basically ok against an average group, but provided no real challenge against a truly hyper-optimized group like Aegeri presents. And, more than that, were especially vulnerable to certain tactics - such as stuns vs solos, or having even minor Resistance to damage against enemies who had trouble overcoming it.

These days, the default for a monster is pretty brutal, especially against, again, the afore-mentioned average group. But now that at-level encounters can be the norm again, it isn't going to necessarily overwhelm them, especially since there has been some power creep through the edition that will enhance the characters themselves.

I don't think the majority of MM1 monsters are completely hopeless, though some certainly are. I do certainly think the overall changes have been good for the game as a whole.