Monster Math - Update = WAD?

20 posts / 0 new
Last post
From the patch notes:
The new Adventure Tools application uses the old rules for leveling up and creating monsters.

Does this mean that you are not going to update the Monster Builder to use the new math?

Celebrate our differences.

I took it that that was the bug listed in the list of issues so hopefully they fixed that, though I haven't had a chance to try it out yet.

OD&D, 1E and 2E challenged the player. 3E challenged the character, not the player. Now 4E takes it a step further by challenging a GROUP OF PLAYERS to work together as a TEAM. That's why I love 4E.

"Your ability to summon a horde of celestial superbeings at will is making my ... BMX skills look a bit redundant."

"People treat their lack of imagination as if it's the measure of what's silly. Which is silly." - Noon

"Challenge" is overrated.  "Immersion" is usually just a more pretentious way of saying "having fun playing D&D."

"Falling down is how you grow.  Staying down is how you die.  It's not what happens to you, it's what you do after it happens.”

Hmm, just made a standard 17th level soldier and a single target basic melee attack does 4d8+7 dmg when according to what I read from the July 2010 DMG eratta it should be 3d8+12.  Also, it indicates in the errata that soldiers should get a +4 bonus to initiative but the MB indicates it should be +2.  All the other numbers I can see so far - HP, AC, other defenses, attacks vs AC, attacks vs other defenses - all those look correct though.

Am I correct in what I'm assuming the new numbers should be?

OD&D, 1E and 2E challenged the player. 3E challenged the character, not the player. Now 4E takes it a step further by challenging a GROUP OF PLAYERS to work together as a TEAM. That's why I love 4E.

"Your ability to summon a horde of celestial superbeings at will is making my ... BMX skills look a bit redundant."

"People treat their lack of imagination as if it's the measure of what's silly. Which is silly." - Noon

"Challenge" is overrated.  "Immersion" is usually just a more pretentious way of saying "having fun playing D&D."

"Falling down is how you grow.  Staying down is how you die.  It's not what happens to you, it's what you do after it happens.”

Hmm, just made a standard 17th level soldier and a single target basic melee attack does 4d8+7 dmg when according to what I read from the July 2010 DMG eratta it should be 3d8+12.  Also, it indicates in the errata that soldiers should get a +4 bonus to initiative but the MB indicates it should be +2.  All the other numbers I can see so far - HP, AC, other defenses, attacks vs AC, attacks vs other defenses - all those look correct though.

Am I correct in what I'm assuming the new numbers should be?

For what it's worth, 4d8+7 is mostly equivalent to 3d8+12 - they both average 25 damage (well, 25 and 25.5), which is what a soldier of that level should deal. The formula for average damage on a normal monster is 8+level.

If this all works as intended (and it looks like it does), it will be a huge improvement for the monster builder. I am exhausted of updating old monsters by hand... 
My blog about 4e rules and news: Square Fireballs The Magic Item Reset: A standalone set of items for 4E
I took it that that was the bug listed in the list of issues so hopefully they fixed that, though I haven't had a chance to try it out yet.

It was probably just really bad wording on their part, if your follow-up post provides an example of the new math, which Psikus seems to acknowledge.  I would have expected the notes to read "The monster builder now correctly uses the new calculations" or some such.

I'm at work so it's hard for me to review right now.  I was trying to decipher what the patch notes were saying. 

Celebrate our differences.

Hmm, just made a standard 17th level soldier and a single target basic melee attack does 4d8+7 dmg when according to what I read from the July 2010 DMG eratta it should be 3d8+12.  Also, it indicates in the errata that soldiers should get a +4 bonus to initiative but the MB indicates it should be +2.  All the other numbers I can see so far - HP, AC, other defenses, attacks vs AC, attacks vs other defenses - all those look correct though.

Am I correct in what I'm assuming the new numbers should be?

For what it's worth, 4d8+7 is mostly equivalent to 3d8+12 - they both average 25 damage (well, 25 and 25.5), which is what a soldier of that level should deal. The formula for average damage on a normal monster is 8+level.

If this all works as intended (and it looks like it does), it will be a huge improvement for the monster builder. I am exhausted of updating old monsters by hand... 

Yeah, I didn't run an assay table or anything, but I figured the median was still pretty close.  But of course the distribution of values and the min and max values are not the same.  I'm not a stats sticker but hey, when they say 3d8+12, it should be 3d8+12, not 4d8+7.  Unless I'm mistaken somehow and it's NOT supposed to be 3d8+12 ...

EDIT:  incidentally, for math sticklers, this is a pretty good site to show you the distribution of die rolls:  anydice.com/

OD&D, 1E and 2E challenged the player. 3E challenged the character, not the player. Now 4E takes it a step further by challenging a GROUP OF PLAYERS to work together as a TEAM. That's why I love 4E.

"Your ability to summon a horde of celestial superbeings at will is making my ... BMX skills look a bit redundant."

"People treat their lack of imagination as if it's the measure of what's silly. Which is silly." - Noon

"Challenge" is overrated.  "Immersion" is usually just a more pretentious way of saying "having fun playing D&D."

"Falling down is how you grow.  Staying down is how you die.  It's not what happens to you, it's what you do after it happens.”

From the patch notes:
The new Adventure Tools application uses the old rules for leveling up and creating monsters.

Does this mean that you are not going to update the Monster Builder to use the new math?


Those are the patch/release notes. That particular entry is listed under "Addressed a number of issues, including:", so it should be read as that was a bug that got fixed.
Paolo Marcucci "Building better worlds"
From the patch notes:
The new Adventure Tools application uses the old rules for leveling up and creating monsters.

Does this mean that you are not going to update the Monster Builder to use the new math?


Those are the patch/release notes. That particular entry is listed under "Addressed a number of issues, including:", so it should be read as that was a bug that got fixed.

Thanks for the clarification, Paolo!    Great patch!!

Celebrate our differences.

At least when I play around with the one test monster I created, it appears that all damage is based off of d8s; no d6s anywhere.  And if you compare it with the table, even the values that are supposed to be Xd8+Y are not what they should be.

I'll play around some more and see what other people are experiencing before I submit a bug report though.

OD&D, 1E and 2E challenged the player. 3E challenged the character, not the player. Now 4E takes it a step further by challenging a GROUP OF PLAYERS to work together as a TEAM. That's why I love 4E.

"Your ability to summon a horde of celestial superbeings at will is making my ... BMX skills look a bit redundant."

"People treat their lack of imagination as if it's the measure of what's silly. Which is silly." - Noon

"Challenge" is overrated.  "Immersion" is usually just a more pretentious way of saying "having fun playing D&D."

"Falling down is how you grow.  Staying down is how you die.  It's not what happens to you, it's what you do after it happens.”

At least when I play around with the one test monster I created, it appears that all damage is based off of d8s; no d6s anywhere.  And if you compare it with the table, even the values that are supposed to be Xd8+Y are not what they should be.

I'll play around some more and see what other people are experiencing before I submit a bug report though.



Open the damage workshop and simply change the dice size. It will keep the average damage value and adjust the number of dice and +x damage to match. I think d8's are just the default damage die for new power creation.
At least when I play around with the one test monster I created, it appears that all damage is based off of d8s; no d6s anywhere.  And if you compare it with the table, even the values that are supposed to be Xd8+Y are not what they should be.

I'll play around some more and see what other people are experiencing before I submit a bug report though.



Open the damage workshop and simply change the dice size. It will keep the average damage value and adjust the number of dice and +x damage to match. I think d8's are just the default damage die for new power creation.

Right, but if I understand how it's supposed to work, you shouldn't have to do that.  And even if you do set it to the correct die type, the damage does not set to what it's supposed to be according to the table. 

For example, for a 1st level standard soldier the standard damage for a single target attack should be 1d8+4 according to the DMG July 2010 update table.  The first time I tried to create a new attack power it defaulted to 1d8+5 with the damage workshop showing the damage die as a d8.  Then I created another identical monster, did the same thing, and this time it instead defaulted to 1d10+4 with the damage workshop showing the damage die as d10.  That was surprising ... it wasn't even consistent.  So then I tried to set the damage die down to d8 on that second monster and it changed the damage to 1d8+5.  None of those values are 1d8+4, as it should be by default.  Unless, of course, they're intentionally using some other method for calculating default damage than the one found in the DMG July 2010 errata.

At least, from what I can see so far, if I set the damage manually it doesn't seem to change it to something else, like it was doing before the update.

In most cases I tested, the average damage comes out equal to the average damage you would get by using the table but not in all cases.  Sometimes the average damage can be off by a full point - possibly even more - I didn't test all cases.  The averages being off a bit doesn't really bother me that much though - it's the differences between maximums and minimums, and the variance, that disturb me a bit.

Maybe I am a stats geek.   

So basically, what I'm getting at is that when the table say a 15th level monster should do 3d6+13 damage, that's what it should default to, not to something else.  Using another die roll with the same average damage is not the same thing.  Then there's also the matter of some initiatives not being right either.

OD&D, 1E and 2E challenged the player. 3E challenged the character, not the player. Now 4E takes it a step further by challenging a GROUP OF PLAYERS to work together as a TEAM. That's why I love 4E.

"Your ability to summon a horde of celestial superbeings at will is making my ... BMX skills look a bit redundant."

"People treat their lack of imagination as if it's the measure of what's silly. Which is silly." - Noon

"Challenge" is overrated.  "Immersion" is usually just a more pretentious way of saying "having fun playing D&D."

"Falling down is how you grow.  Staying down is how you die.  It's not what happens to you, it's what you do after it happens.”

For example, for a 1st level standard soldier the standard damage for a single target attack should be 1d8+4 according to the DMG July 2010 update table.  The first time I tried to create a new attack power it defaulted to 1d8+5 with the damage workshop showing the damage die as a d8.  Then I created another identical monster, did the same thing, and this time it instead defaulted to 1d10+4 with the damage workshop showing the damage die as d10.  That was surprising ... it wasn't even consistent.  So then I tried to set the damage die down to d8 on that second monster and it changed the damage to 1d8+5.  None of those values are 1d8+4, as it should be by default.  Unless, of course, they're intentionally using some other method for calculating default damage than the one found in the DMG July 2010 errata.


This could be a simple rounding error.  
Level (1) + 8 = 9

1d8 + 4 = 8.5 (9)
vs.
1d10 + 4 = 9.5 (9)
vs.
1d8 + 5 = 9.5 (9)
For example, for a 1st level standard soldier the standard damage for a single target attack should be 1d8+4 according to the DMG July 2010 update table.  The first time I tried to create a new attack power it defaulted to 1d8+5 with the damage workshop showing the damage die as a d8.  Then I created another identical monster, did the same thing, and this time it instead defaulted to 1d10+4 with the damage workshop showing the damage die as d10.  That was surprising ... it wasn't even consistent.  So then I tried to set the damage die down to d8 on that second monster and it changed the damage to 1d8+5.  None of those values are 1d8+4, as it should be by default.  Unless, of course, they're intentionally using some other method for calculating default damage than the one found in the DMG July 2010 errata.


This could be a simple rounding error.  
Level (1) + 8 = 9

1d8 + 4 = 8.5 (9)
vs.
1d10 + 4 = 9.5 (9)
vs.
1d8 + 5 = 9.5 (9)

Yeah, good eye.  I see where you're coming from.  Still, at first level one point in damage (1d8+4 vs 1d10+4) makes a much bigger difference than it might at 30th level.  And strangely enough, it's always defaulting to 1d10+4 now for a 1st level standard soldier.  Maybe I did something weird the first time I tried it when it defaulted to 1d8+5 since I can't make it reproduce that behavior anymore.  Ugh.

And I just want to stress - this is not a dealbreaker for me by any means.  I just think that if they say there's a certain amount of damage in the guildelines, that's what it should default to.  Having the same average damage would be fine but the situations where you get a bigger variance with lower mins and/or higher maxes irk my mathglands.

OD&D, 1E and 2E challenged the player. 3E challenged the character, not the player. Now 4E takes it a step further by challenging a GROUP OF PLAYERS to work together as a TEAM. That's why I love 4E.

"Your ability to summon a horde of celestial superbeings at will is making my ... BMX skills look a bit redundant."

"People treat their lack of imagination as if it's the measure of what's silly. Which is silly." - Noon

"Challenge" is overrated.  "Immersion" is usually just a more pretentious way of saying "having fun playing D&D."

"Falling down is how you grow.  Staying down is how you die.  It's not what happens to you, it's what you do after it happens.”

Great to hear there is a fix! Now we can all test it and see what it does, particularly when leveling creatures up and down. I hope to test tomorrow...

Follow my blog and Twitter feed with Dark Sun campaign design and DM tips!
Dark Sun's Ashes of Athas Campaign is now available for home play (PM me with your e-mail to order the campaign adventures).

Incidentally, re my previous posts, the initiative numbers ARE correct.  I was looking at old information.  Damage though, is not.  Though it may be close enough for some - YMMV.

OD&D, 1E and 2E challenged the player. 3E challenged the character, not the player. Now 4E takes it a step further by challenging a GROUP OF PLAYERS to work together as a TEAM. That's why I love 4E.

"Your ability to summon a horde of celestial superbeings at will is making my ... BMX skills look a bit redundant."

"People treat their lack of imagination as if it's the measure of what's silly. Which is silly." - Noon

"Challenge" is overrated.  "Immersion" is usually just a more pretentious way of saying "having fun playing D&D."

"Falling down is how you grow.  Staying down is how you die.  It's not what happens to you, it's what you do after it happens.”

Re: the default damage for new attacks on newly created monsters being incorrect, I have submitted a bug report.

OD&D, 1E and 2E challenged the player. 3E challenged the character, not the player. Now 4E takes it a step further by challenging a GROUP OF PLAYERS to work together as a TEAM. That's why I love 4E.

"Your ability to summon a horde of celestial superbeings at will is making my ... BMX skills look a bit redundant."

"People treat their lack of imagination as if it's the measure of what's silly. Which is silly." - Noon

"Challenge" is overrated.  "Immersion" is usually just a more pretentious way of saying "having fun playing D&D."

"Falling down is how you grow.  Staying down is how you die.  It's not what happens to you, it's what you do after it happens.”

Yeah, some damages still aren't right.

I leveled up a Gray Wolf to 13, and it's bite was being listed as 2d6+9 (semi equivalent to the 2d8+6 medium expression for level from DMG1, or the 2d8+7 for "2 or more targets" expression from new numbers), when a level 13 should be doing 3d6+11. 

After this experiment, I created a custom standard skirmisher, gave it the same stats, and then gave it a bite attack that did the same damage, and when I leveled it up to 13, it's damage is 3d6+8.. so, not quite up to the level 13 damage, but then 1d6+5 starting for level 2 isn't up to the 1d8+5 "norm" either.


So, with as much data as my limited selection of monsters allows, it looks like the new MB is using the new values for some things, but not all things. 
"Five million Cybermen, easy. One Doctor? NOW you're scared!" - Rose Tyler
Hi!

I play 4e online via Fantasy Grounds, so I spend a lot of time putting together books and modules scraped from my DDI account. I have recently been making updates to the monster information and for the last week have been extensively using the updated monster builder and checking the data for damage versus the table for monster damage provided in the pdf upadte from wizards.

Its been my expereince so far after going through roughly 100 different monsters that at least 7 times out of 10 the damage info listed currently is NOT correct. Granted this is almost always the case for monsters in books prior to the release of the MM3 (since monster vault monsters have the newer math those seem to be okay).

The AC, defenses, initiative and such seem to be invariably correct most of the time (I have found very few errors). The damage is still off however, although I think its "better" than it was, but thats going on memory and not any hard facts.

In conlcusion, MM3 and later monster book entries seem to have less errors that MM1 and MM2 era monster entries whose damage numbers are still "off".

Primarch
Hi!

I play 4e online via Fantasy Grounds, so I spend a lot of time putting together books and modules scraped from my DDI account. I have recently been making updates to the monster information and for the last week have been extensively using the updated monster builder and checking the data for damage versus the table for monster damage provided in the pdf upadte from wizards.

Its been my expereince so far after going through roughly 100 different monsters that at least 7 times out of 10 the damage info listed currently is NOT correct. Granted this is almost always the case for monsters in books prior to the release of the MM3 (since monster vault monsters have the newer math those seem to be okay).

The AC, defenses, initiative and such seem to be invariably correct most of the time (I have found very few errors). The damage is still off however, although I think its "better" than it was, but thats going on memory and not any hard facts.

In conlcusion, MM3 and later monster book entries seem to have less errors that MM1 and MM2 era monster entries whose damage numbers are still "off".

Primarch


What you are describing is "by design".  Monsters in the compendium (and the builder) should exactly match their printed source material or the latest errata for that critter (even if this means the critter will not match up to the MM3 math update).
Yes, I don't know what WoTC's idea/plan is for it, but as I see it monsters in the MB should match exactly what was published and I do not want to see them apply wholesale changes to their math.

For new monsters I create, however, or monsters I modify, I'd like to see the MB default to the damage from the MM3/DMG update, and they don't do that yet.  CS has stated to me in my open cases that they are aware of the issue and are analyzing it.  I don't know why they couldn't get the damage numbers right in the last update but I suspect it had something to do with coding the MB to use an average damage based on level for new monsters (which is wrong in the MB sometimes), then having the program work backwards from that to determine what die expression should be used - and getting it wrong every time.  That's just a guess though cause I don't have any info how they code this stuff, of course.  If they really are working the calculations based off an average damage value, they're doing it exactly backwards.

1d8+4 means 1d8+4, not 1d10+2 or 1d8+5.    Yeah, you can change the damage to the correct values, but that doesn't save me any time over how I had to do it before.  At least all attack bonuses, hit points, initiative and defenses seem correct as far as I can see, and that's definitely progress.

OD&D, 1E and 2E challenged the player. 3E challenged the character, not the player. Now 4E takes it a step further by challenging a GROUP OF PLAYERS to work together as a TEAM. That's why I love 4E.

"Your ability to summon a horde of celestial superbeings at will is making my ... BMX skills look a bit redundant."

"People treat their lack of imagination as if it's the measure of what's silly. Which is silly." - Noon

"Challenge" is overrated.  "Immersion" is usually just a more pretentious way of saying "having fun playing D&D."

"Falling down is how you grow.  Staying down is how you die.  It's not what happens to you, it's what you do after it happens.”

Sign In to post comments