Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Obryn" data-source="post: 5538213" data-attributes="member: 11821">Yup.  Both mathematically and otherwise.Soldiers and Brutes were the worst offenders.  Soldiers were actually designed specifically to grind - they hit often, but for low damage, and have defenses high enough not to get hit, themselves.  Brutes' inherent -2 to attacks made them effectively useless against at-level PCs once you hit Paragon.As a specific example, look at the Cyclops entry.  Any of them, really.  The L16 Soldier deals 1d12+7 damage per attack (or an average of 13.5).  While it may get more attacks for mark violation, odds are, that's it.  Assume he hits 60% of the time (being a soldier) and we're talking about 8 DPR.  At this level, even a Wizard has 10x that many.  The javelin-chucking Cyclops can deal reasonable damage only on a Recharge 6 power.  The Rambler ... moves a lot and does 1d12+6 damage.  Basically, they're useless all around.  (In comparison, the Soldier's damage is what you'd expect a level 5 or 6 monster to do under the new math.  A L16 soldier itself should be dealing an average of 24 per attack, so more like 2d12+11 would be acceptable.)As a different example, check out Doresain, King of the Ghouls.  Check out his stats, and what he can do, and I think you can see how shockingly boring he is.  He has two attacks, both of which are boring, and can do something neat if he recharges on a 6.  Yay?It's not about power creep or anything of that nature.  Plain and simple, the designers didn't understand 4e yet when the core books were first released.  This isn't to condemn them - I admire that they were willing to adjust the game once it hit actual players.  But I still think 4e would be better off today if they'd playtested more.-O</blockquote>

Verification