Were MM1 monsters truly underpowered?

[Obryn]

and my point of view is that a monster with a 20 str should do more damage with an axe than a monster with a 12, and it is NOT "baked in" that way. Simple fix on my end.

It's already built in. Take my word for it. Monster Strength values are there for mostly descriptive purposes, and for skills.

High Strength shouldn't always mean more damage. For example, a Warden is Strength-primary and does fairly low damage. A Barbarian is also Strength-primary and does high damage. In monster terms, the first is a Soldier and the second is a Brute.

Leave the damage up to formula.

-O

 

[UngeheuerLich]

IMHO there is definitively a need for Lvl 0 monsters. This quick fix would make lvl 1 a lot easier. (in fact, we have a nearly level 0 monster minion: the human goon)

It really would be no problem at all lowering the level to 0, an easy fix. Level 1 is really that hard, because you can´t encounter monsters that are under your level, and you have no utility powers that can help you. Lvl 2 utility powers are generally very very potent in some cases... so it makes a great difference.

To the damage problem: Yes, Lvl 1 is hard, but 4e was regarded as easy mode D&D, because of high hp and damage... no, it isn´t... HP and AC work differently than in 3.5. (Not that a TPK could happen in 3.5 very easily at level 1)

So lvl 1 is nearly as deadly as in previos editions. Not much less deadly, but definitively not more.

At higher levels i once again want to explain the effect of increasing damage:

Problem:
-> monsters did ridiculous low damage, especially some brutes. (A giant dealt less damage with his club than a lvl 1 fighter)

-> solutions of many DM´s increase monster level to deal with players (instead of adding more monsters which would have yielded a better result in general)

-> Monsters hit very well but still do low damage. Monsters AC also skyrocketed and are hit not so often in return, their hp also increases

-> you are hit nearly all the time, monsters are very tough to get down and combats often feel like carving thorugh a giant bag of hp

solution:
-> increasing damage (often to reasonable values. A rogue with a dagger may do more damage than a brute with an axe... but special attacks do more damage on CA or allow slides, where special attacks of the brute knock prone or push)

-> Monsters of equal level are threatening. No need to adjust as a DM

-> Monsters in generall can miss, but a hit feels like a hit, not just a scratch. Non damaging effects are not always applied, but only sometimes. HP and AC of the regular enemy are in a range, that using a daily or fokus firing one down actually can work, which makes tactical combat a lot more interesting.

-> Monsters of lower level are still threatening, but quite easy to focus down. A good alternative to minions in some cases.

-> here again I want to stress how nice it would be to be able to scale down monsters to level 0 in the monster builder. As Monsters 1 level lower are especially interesting as they would pose an interesting threat to lvl 1 or lvl 2 players.

 

[Dausuul]

and my point of view is that a monster with a 20 str should do more damage with an axe than a monster with a 12, and it is NOT "baked in" that way. Simple fix on my end.

This would certainly explain why you're not having problems with monsters doing enough damage. In addition to having a 3rd-level party, you're adding a ton of damage over and above the listed stats.

Given the number of things other than Strength that can affect a combatant's damage output, I see no reason to pick out that one thing to focus on. Maybe the monster with Strength 12 is just better trained in combat than the one with Strength 20. Less brute force, but it knows how to apply the force it does have for maximum impact.

If it really bothers you, why not adjust the monster's Strength instead of its damage? It'd be a lot easier.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Really there's no reason to assume that monster's damage output is all dependent on STR anyway. Just like PC powers can use any old stat there's no reason why monsters aren't doing the same thing. Certainly a lot of monsters are using STR, but many could also be using DEX, some could be using other stats. They could also have feats, etc. All of that stuff is just rolled into their simplified design. So the end result is monsters pretty much hit and do damage proportional to their levels. I see very little logical reason to change that. So the simple answer comes back to just adjusting damage output to reasonable numbers, which the MM3 damage outputs do quite nicely.

So... Really what works best is going to be somewhat dependent on the players and other table factors. At 3rd level? The difference between a new and an old monster is generally about 1 DPR. The new monsters will have a bit lower defenses for the most part, and brutes will be more accurate and may put out a bit more damage depending on the monster.

Some monster types, soldiers and some lurkers particularly, but also some others, are also just better designed now. I tend to jigger a lot of monster's powers slightly, it almost always helps things. MM3/MV for instance gives soldiers real useful marks, those can be backported to older soldiers.

So yeah, MM1 monsters are ALL obsolescent. Some do work well despite that. Up to 5th level you'll only have a few problems. Hobgoblins for instance are extraordinarily grindy.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I wonder if the initial thinking was that parties would not have a leader, and that's why the damage was low initially?

No, I wouldn't think so. The PH1 was very clear that parties should cover the bases, and I think monsters were done with that expectation.

I think the idea was to have longer, more dynamic combats. That meant that both monsters and PCs should be able to weather OAs for tactical advantgae, for instance, so high-damage basic attacks would have gotten in the way. Thus, monsters had lots of hps and didn't do huge damage, so the fight could take longer, everyone could move around, and you'd have something more interesting than the stand-toe-to-toe damage trading and save-or-dies of 3e.

I think a lot of groups didn't catch on to that, and, due to DM and play styles, ended up trying to 'alpha strike' or 'nova' like it was still 3e, which, of course, failed since the monsters had so many hps, and devolved into static grinds after the first round or few. It also seems there was a trend towards increasing PC damage (there were few attack bonuses to exploit, at first, but it was possible to cheese up a lot of damage), which needed to be compensated for either with higher-hp or higher-damage monsters.

 

[cignus_pfaccari]

No, I wouldn't think so. The PH1 was very clear that parties should cover the bases, and I think monsters were done with that expectation.

The reason I think that might be is that they did provide a quasi-healer in the paladin's Lay On Hands, and with sufficient potion use, you might be able to take the low-damage monsters and run a no-Leader party.

Of course, that wouldn't work with modern MM3 and DSCC monsters that can take my psion from unhurt to almost down in one hit.

Brad

 

[TheUltramark]

This would certainly explain why you're not having problems with monsters doing enough damage. In addition to having a 3rd-level party, you're adding a ton of damage over and above the listed stats.

Given the number of things other than Strength that can affect a combatant's damage output, I see no reason to pick out that one thing to focus on. Maybe the monster with Strength 12 is just better trained in combat than the one with Strength 20. Less brute force, but it knows how to apply the force it does have for maximum impact.

If it really bothers you, why not adjust the monster's Strength instead of its damage? It'd be a lot easier.

whoa whoa whoa
It doesn't bother me in the least, i was trying to give ideas to the people who it does seem to bother. My first night 'on the job' went smooth, the guys didnt even leave town, so I don't know if things are underpowered or not, I jsut went by the 'build an encounter' (DMG pg 52-57) info and kept in mind I have 7 players, so everythings a bit tougher...in fact, I think I am going to have to scale back some...for example my first real encounter i am going to throw at them is some Kenkus who are part of an underground guild in the town they are in now, noticed them "throwing their money around" and wanna try em on for size.
I came up with: 1 ringleader, 3 warriors, a sneak, and 5 minions
I figure the ringleader will get away, lowering the xp some, but they'll win and I'll prolly give em 160 xp (in between a 3rd and 4th level encounter
am I doing it wrong????

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Nah, sounds fine.

 

[Jhaelen]

But the question still stands... were the regular monsters of MM1 actually underpowered when compared to the PCs built from PH1?

A resounding yes!

I actually got to test this since our group started playing an adventure before the errata, paused for one year, and then continued with the adventure using the (then newly released) errata.

One player actually mentioned "wow, I didn't remember that combat was so TOUGH in 4e!".

Before the changes the only combat that was actually difficult was a (level+4) encounter. After the changes even (level+1) encounters were very challenging.

And note that this was at low heroic levels (2-4), so I don't really want to know how weaksauce combat was in paragon or epic tier!

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

A resounding yes!

I actually got to test this since our group started playing an adventure before the errata, paused for one year, and then continued with the adventure using the (then newly released) errata.

One player actually mentioned "wow, I didn't remember that combat was so TOUGH in 4e!".

Before the changes the only combat that was actually difficult was a (level+4) encounter. After the changes even (level+1) encounters were very challenging.

And note that this was at low heroic levels (2-4), so I don't really want to know how weaksauce combat was in paragon or epic tier!

Agreed, but it REALLY depends a lot on the players. My reference group doesn't optimize. I mean they'll take some good feats but if the level 12 rogue does 50 points of damage on a hit it is notable. Fights were somewhat grindy but still not super difficult. Now with using more at-level encounters with the new numbers things are a lot less grindy, the PCs hit more, but the fights are also a bit more challenging.

With groups that were super well optimized even level+4 was not cutting it with old monsters. Now this kind of group will find level+2 encounters will at least beat them up some, but again they go faster.