Were MM1 monsters truly underpowered?

[renau1g]

I have played with some decently optimized PC's. We started with E1 and after our first battle where nobody even dropped to bloody, the DM began combining encounters. I think with a n+6 encounter we were starting to feel the heat, but even n+4 encounters weren't too hard, with having access to all the encounter-long dailies that our barbarian, wizard, ranger, and warden had . Then with post-mm3 expressions an n+4 really put us to the edge of the TPK abyss.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

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

I cannot say it often enough: this is not completely true...

It is easier to play a leaderless party. The DM just has to reduce the enemy´s xp budget by reducing monster level by 2 levels or so.
Of course, fights are done faster. But in the end, it is also a lot more rewarding. Having no leader also means missing defense and depending on leader, attack bonuses.

Reduced monster level also means lower hp.
A striker may actually hit and eliminate a single monster in one hit. Which in return means a lot of damage mitigation. Chances are that the missing leader role is filled with another striker or controller. So even though a single enemy may strike harder on a hit, you should be well nad going, you just have to adjust tactics and you may have to rest a bit more often. But this was also true pre MM3 math.

 

[Jhaelen]

Agreed, but it REALLY depends a lot on the players. My reference group doesn't optimize.

This group isn't optimized either. It has six pcs, three of them leaders (!), then one pc of each other role. The striker and the defender player are the only ones capable of optimizing but haven't really done so. The leaders often ended up having to heal each other rather than doing something useful

 

[MrMyth]

I cannot say it often enough: this is not completely true...

It is easier to play a leaderless party. The DM just has to reduce the enemy´s xp budget by reducing monster level by 2 levels or so.
Of course, fights are done faster. But in the end, it is also a lot more rewarding. Having no leader also means missing defense and depending on leader, attack bonuses.

My Epic game consisted of a party of 5 strikers and 1 defender. (Well, 1 of them was a controller, but was a beast form druid that was basically handled as a striker.)

I threw Level+4 encounters and above at them - with MM3 level damage expressions - and they were able to handle it. Fighters were brutal and bloody affairs, but the leader role was not necessary. They were all, certainly, optimized characters, and having a defender was key - but by epic levels, PCs have enough survival tricks of various sorts that they can handle the absence of a pure healer.

I wouldn't say you should go ahead and do so with a group diving right in without any experience along those lines, but I also don't think that playing without a leader inherently means encounters need to be toned down a few levels. 4E supports a wide range of party builds, and while a balanced group is ideal, it is certainly not necessary.

 

[Johnnii]

This group isn't optimized either. It has six pcs, three of them leaders (!), then one pc of each other role. The striker and the defender player are the only ones capable of optimizing but haven't really done so. The leaders often ended up having to heal each other rather than doing something useful

The more leaders you have, the more overpowered the group actually becomes. No wonder your fights were walkovers (though I suspect pretty slow walkovers)

I find that groups with more than 2 leaders (assuming 4-5 mans) are always the hardest to challenge, and also ends up being the most boring groups. YMMV ofc.

 

[Jhaelen]

The more leaders you have, the more overpowered the group actually becomes. No wonder your fights were walkovers (though I suspect pretty slow walkovers)

I'm not sure about that. I think the group would be more powerful if they had a second striker. The group's advantage is that they can recover completely even after being hit really bad. But with a second striker they'd be able to get rid of the most threatening enemy very fast, avoiding a lot of damage.

It's true that combat tends to be slow - or at least feel slow. I've been tracking the number of rounds combat takes and it's (almost) always 5-6 rounds which I think is about average.

Or is this longer than it takes for groups with more strikers?

 

[UngeheuerLich]

My Epic game consisted of a party of 5 strikers and 1 defender. (Well, 1 of them was a controller, but was a beast form druid that was basically handled as a striker.)

I threw Level+4 encounters and above at them - with MM3 level damage expressions - and they were able to handle it. Fighters were brutal and bloody affairs, but the leader role was not necessary. They were all, certainly, optimized characters, and having a defender was key - but by epic levels, PCs have enough survival tricks of various sorts that they can handle the absence of a pure healer.

I wouldn't say you should go ahead and do so with a group diving right in without any experience along those lines, but I also don't think that playing without a leader inherently means encounters need to be toned down a few levels. 4E supports a wide range of party builds, and while a balanced group is ideal, it is certainly not necessary.

Thanks for the insight.

It however does not invalidate my point: MM3 maks fight not more deadly but more interesting.

Wonder how the fight you described went with old damage expressions. I guess an equally challenging fight would have been level+6 at least... which means either more monsters or monsters of higher levels...

How many rounds did this fight last?

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Thanks for the insight.

It however does not invalidate my point: MM3 maks fight not more deadly but more interesting.

Wonder how the fight you described went with old damage expressions. I guess an equally challenging fight would have been level+6 at least... which means either more monsters or monsters of higher levels...

How many rounds did this fight last?

Yeah, I think the switch to MM3 math just means you get more oomph but not more grind. When my players were 6th level and I had to run a level 9 encounter to make things really tough it was going to be sloggy with monsters having level 9 hit points and level 9 defenses just so they could maybe do enough damage to matter. Now the same encounter could be level 7, just as challenging, and the monsters are hittable and go down a bit faster.

 

[Aegeri]

I remember when in my epic tier game I was making an EL+7 encounter, with monsters 3-4 levels higher than my party just to vaguely "cat scratch" them. Oh yeah, those encounters also took four to FIVE hours to play. So I barely got through anything as well. I've said this before and I'll say it again, I will never go back to pre-MM3 damage expressions. You couldn't pay me to do it. Post-MM3 I could get through 3 encounters, at epic tier, per session! Because I wasn't using really absurd scenarios to make PCs not hit repeatedly and monsters didn't need to be hugely over leveled compared to PCs.

 

[WalterKovacs]

I'm not sure about that. I think the group would be more powerful if they had a second striker. The group's advantage is that they can recover completely even after being hit really bad. But with a second striker they'd be able to get rid of the most threatening enemy very fast, avoiding a lot of damage.

It does depend on the kind of leader. The healbot type wouldn't really help to make the group more damaging. But adding say ... a warlord to a group that already has a thief, or a barbarian, or a slayer, etc ... you are giving your striker (or even your fighter, who is pretty close to being a striker himself) extra attacks, giving group wide attack boosts and damage buffs, etc, etc, etc... Focusing on that kind of leader, and having two of them, can make for some very powerful combinations. For example, if one buffed the barbarian giving him say ... +3 damage on all attacks until the end of his next turn, and then both leaders find ways to give him attacks, in addition to the barbarian himself using his own attacks (and maybe an action point) and thus getting that extra 3 damage 3 or 4 times over ...

A leader can make other party members better, while a striker pretty much just can be as good as he can be. So, if a group of 4 is looking for a 5th and not sure which role to fill ... they would be comparing how much the striker is able to do and comparing that to what the leader can make the 4 members of the current party do. [Also, with two leaders, both can concentrate on buffing as they can rely on their combined 4 healing words to do most of the heavy lifting].