Question about avoiding death in epic level play

15 posts / 0 new
Last post


   I am wondering how I could have avoided taking 1600 hit points of damage in one round....The group I am with are all 25th level characters, and in a recent battle with two hydras and the following damage occurred in one round.


Undying Hydra 1 Goes: 8 attacks averaging 50 of damage per head....
Undying Hydra 1 Action Points: 8 attacking averaging 50 points of damage per head    

Total Points of damage from all attack from hydra that round: 800 points

Undying Hydra 2 Goes: 8 attacks averaging 50 poins of damage per head
Undying Hydra 2 Action Points averaging 50 of damage of damage per head.     


Total Points of damage from all attacks from Hydra that round: 800 points.


This attacks were from the hydra's at-wll attacks, these attacks were not encounter powers or rechargeable powers. 


My character has resist 5 so the radiant damage from each head that hit was minimal, and the 50 points I am quoting is after the resist 5 was applied...


I am not sure of the type of hydra, because I don't want to know too much about the module that I am currently in...I am concerned that the defender will continue to die in every fight if the later levels (26 to 30) this is the norm amount of damage in a round instead of the exception...I was healed by the leader...I used my own healing but their are only so many interrupts one can use in a round.

I am currently wearing +6 Plate with resist 5 and I am using a shield.


Is this damage normal in Epic Level?

Any suggestions to modify the amount of damage taken and survive this one round?
        

So the DM attacked your character 32 time in one round? and hit all 32 times?...  Somebody forgot Wheaton's Law.  


TjD

Hitting 32 times is somewhat unlikely. But I guess it happens. Don´t worry - any character dies when it's hit 32 times by a solo. Your DM might've pulled his punches a little there. 
Yes, you could have avoided it.

There is a giant library of magic items who have triggers of "hit by an attack" and result in you going insubstantial, teleporting 5 squares, etc.

At level 25, you should probably have realized by now that AC + NADs often fail to protect.  The real safety net comes in utility powers and items that trigger as immediate interrupts and reactions to things like enemies moving next to you or you being struck.

Quick example:  Cape of the Mountebank.  After the first attack is resolved your immediate reaction triggers and you teleport away.

Oh yeah, and your DM is full of it or your defenses are shockingly bad.  32 consecutive hits at +31 to hit against a level 25 is beyond extremely unlikely.  He's going to average a 41 to hit.  At level 25 your AC defense should be around 35-40 (we'll assume 37).  He's got a 20% chance to miss with each attack.  The probability of him avoiding that 20% miss rate roll 32 times consecutively is tiny (like, p=.00155).
32 consecutive hits at +31 to hit against a level 25 is beyond extremely unlikely.  He's going to average a 41 to hit.  At level 25 your AC defense should be around 35-40 (we'll assume 37).  He's got a 20% chance to miss with each attack.  The probability of him avoiding that 20% miss rate roll 32 times consecutively is tiny (like, p=.00155).


Sorry to pick on this, but the last three posters have made the same unwarranted assumption.  The original poster didn't say that all 32 attacks hit.  He said that the attacks dealt an average of 50 damage each.  So it's possible that some missed and others hit for 100 damage, for example.

Now, having said that, I bet the original poster intended to say that all 32 attacks hit.  It's just that the precise language he used is compatible with the possibility that some hit while others missed.
His first sentence says:  "how I could have avoided taking 1600 damage" and proceeds to detail the number of attacks and damage taken on each.

It's true you could read that to mean it didn't happen but is theoretical, but it certainly implies that it occured because he spoke in past tense about the damage dealt.

Not that you're mincing words or anything ;) 
At the epic level?  Well, looking up hydras, it seems you were fighting something very similar to the Black Blood Hydra.  

The damage expressions seems rather high, especially since some of those 32 attacks should have been missing.  Basically, as a defender, it's very possible your defenses are too low.  You should be hit roughly on 15s, meaning the attacks were averaging around 200 damage a hit (even on 11s, it's 100 damage a hit).  That's a minimum of 20d6+30 damage a head... yeah, I'm thinking there's some exaggeration going on here.  

Basically

-  The controller should be debuffing solos.  
- Hydras have innate action economy, but dazes and stuns are still useful (each cuts down on one head attack)
- Hydras tend to have very few encounter powers, doing mostly insane at-will damage


Chances are your defenses are a little low, your controller didn't have time to act (or didn't choose the right action), and your leader didn't buff you up (lousy iniative roll?).   It's epic tier.  Wait a few minutes and then come back and wave to the party.  "Hi, I died.  Yeah.  Didn't take."  

Ridiculous, insane things are par for the course in epic tier.  "In heroic, the DM should be kind.  In Paragon, even handed.  In epic, the DM should be a bastard."
His first sentence says:  "how I could have avoided taking 1600 damage" and proceeds to detail the number of attacks and damage taken on each. 


He described the average damage per attack.  This does not imply that every attack hit.  Analogously, saying that the average household has 2.3 children does not imply that every household has at least 1 child.

(Sorry to derail the thread.  I'll stop now.) 
This is all according to  the mm3 monster damage chart I use (forums.rptools.net/viewtopic.php?f=19&t=...)

Pushing the boundaries here - say it was a level+5 solo (i.e. level 30).

The high limited damage for a level 30 standard is 4d8+39 (average 57). A solo ought to be worth 5 standards, so that would be 285 damage per round or at a max 570 on an AP round and that's with everything hitting.

1600 damage in a round? I'd call BS.
Back to Basics - A Guide to Basic Attacks You might be playing DnD wrong if... "Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former." Albert Einstein
This sounds like Morgol the Undying, which does 5 attacks, (but up to 8 when it's almost dead).  Those attacks deal an average of ~25 damage.  With MM3 expressions it might be closer to 40, including the radiant damage.  So 50 damage per hit on a multi-attack at-will is really pushing it, but that's not the worst thing going on here.

The issues were 1) making an encounter with 2 solos just straight-up attacking (there is a reason this is a unique, named monster), 2) use of action point just to try to kill a single player rather than do something more cool/thematic (breath weapon is the obvious go-to here), and 3) focusing all attacks on one player.

This was not about making a cool or fun encounter, it was about trying to kill someone.  And if that's the DM's goal, he will achieve it sooner or later.  This was not the OP's fault, nor can it just be waved away as "epic is crazy." It's bad encounter design.  To be fair, it's pretty hard to find the sweet spot for challenging encounters in epic, but this example just doesn't even come close.

As for hit rate, baseline AC for a defender should be level +18, and monster attacks vs. AC are level +5.  Morgol attacks at +31 vs. AC and with plate and a heavy shield at 25 the OP should be at around 44-45 AC.  So the hit rate should be about 40%.

I see he also has +2 to hit and +10 damage when you mark him.  That brings damage in line with about 50 (before raidant resist), but still is just a 50% hit rate. 
An at-will attack from a monster of any level (post errata) does Level +9 damage (although it really could be 1-2 points higher).

For simplicity, i'll assume it was a level 30 hydra, and was doing level +10. This would indicate a statistical average damage of about 40. If the DM was rolling hot, the player may have percieved the average damage to be around 50. Still a bit high, but understandable. We've all been there...


Here's where the encounter starts to break down, a solo should make 4 attacks per round (maybe 5). This is usually through a variety of standard actions, minor actions, and a burst or two; take a random dragon from the MV, 2 claw attacks as a standard (or a breath that hits 2-3 players), some kind of minor action attack, and some other attack that occurs on a separate initative.

The hydra in question has a single at-will that makes 8 attacks (if the AP let him repeat all 8 attacks, it must have been a single power),  and all of them are at full level appropriate damage (or maybe a little high). Right away this seems off, but hey, it's epic tier, so maybe that's ok... And it's probably ok that this solo was at level +5.
But not two of them.


This was either a case of really sloppy dm'ing (he created something and didn't actually think about it until it was too late), or blatently intentionally overpowering the fight with the specific desire to kill some pc's.

 
 
FWIW [4e designer] baseline assumption was that roughly 70% of your feats would be put towards combat effectiveness, parties would coordinate, and strikers would do 20/40/60 at-will damage+novas. If your party isn't doing that... well, you are below baseline, so yes, you need to optimize slightly to meet baseline. -Alcestis
This sounds like Morgol the Undying, which does 5 attacks, (but up to 8 when it's almost dead).  Those attacks deal an average of ~25 damage.  With MM3 expressions it might be closer to 40, including the radiant damage.  So 50 damage per hit on a multi-attack at-will is really pushing it, but that's not the worst thing going on here.

The issues were 1) making an encounter with 2 solos just straight-up attacking (there is a reason this is a unique, named monster), 2) use of action point just to try to kill a single player rather than do something more cool/thematic (breath weapon is the obvious go-to here), and 3) focusing all attacks on one player.

This was not about making a cool or fun encounter, it was about trying to kill someone.  And if that's the DM's goal, he will achieve it sooner or later.  This was not the OP's fault, nor can it just be waved away as "epic is crazy." It's bad encounter design.  To be fair, it's pretty hard to find the sweet spot for challenging encounters in epic, but this example just doesn't even come close.

As for hit rate, baseline AC for a defender should be level +18, and monster attacks vs. AC are level +5.  Morgol attacks at +31 vs. AC and with plate and a heavy shield at 25 the OP should be at around 44-45 AC.  So the hit rate should be about 40%.

I see he also has +2 to hit and +10 damage when you mark him.  That brings damage in line with about 50 (before raidant resist), but still is just a 50% hit rate. 




I looked up Morgol, and yes, this does sound a LOT like the fight the Op had. Good find!
He is a level 26 brute, so his adjusted potential damage output should be around 180/round (increasing this at Bloodied is ok, it's just part of solo design).
This damage is calculated as (level +10)*1.25(brute)*4(total attacks per round). = 36*1.25*4 = 180.

If we want him to have extra attacks, we basically just divide the total number of attacks he makes, thus the increased chance to hit is offset by the decreased damage (again, we just accept that his # of attacks increases as he gets weaker).

This puts his per hit damage back around 36. 

As written, he does 3d8+10 per hit (roughly 25) and if you get hit by him 2 or more times, you take an extra 10 damage (as a single event). even with this extra 10 taked on, it's clearly lower than current standards, and definately lower than the Op states.
 

I'd still bet the DM modified Morgol attempting to get to current damage expressions, but went a bit too far (that part may have legitimately been an accident). But putting 2 modified versions of him in there... not cool. Also his use of tactics (as mentioned) was defininately intending to kill...
FWIW [4e designer] baseline assumption was that roughly 70% of your feats would be put towards combat effectiveness, parties would coordinate, and strikers would do 20/40/60 at-will damage+novas. If your party isn't doing that... well, you are below baseline, so yes, you need to optimize slightly to meet baseline. -Alcestis
As others pointed out, the damage looks close enough for an high-level solo brute, and the problem seems to be that your defenses are too low (or your DM is incredibly lucky). Btw, how is focus firing a dick move now? PCs do it all the time, it's an optimal tactic.
An at-will attack from a monster of any level (post errata) does Level +9 damage (although it really could be 1-2 points higher).
 


Level+8 post errata.

I don't see how people can keep being wrong about this, average HP, and average defenses at this point.

Fardiz: The 2nd chart with the damage, hp, attack, and defenses is incorrect and should not be used without double checking. Likewise with the Misc Modifiers at the bottom, which should actually never be used, Solo's and Elites no longer get bonus defenses, Leaders don't have more HP or Action Points, etc.

Regardless, OP is lying, or DM is cheating.
"Invokers are probably better round after round but Wizard dailies are devastating. Actually, devastating is too light a word. Wizard daily powers are soul crushing, encounter ending, havoc causing pieces of awesome." -AirPower25 Sear the Flesh, Purify the Soul; Harden the Heart, and Improve the Mind; Born of Blood, but Forged by Fire; The MECH warrior reaches perfection.
Two reasons:

1) Because the errata charts aren't perfectly perfect. 3d8+anything isn't going to ever statistically give you level +8. At  best you get 7.5 or 8.5, and relatively often you get an adjusted statistaicl average of level +9 or level +10. Not that the Aventure Toolsis a resource, but i've seen results on there were at wills come up as level +20. Yeah, and i mean a single target (not something like true strike). I've also seen a brute recharge power come to to 200 damage average at level 30. C'mon, seriously?

2) Sometimes people just typo, and it isn't drastic enough to care about. A dude doing 38 or 39 average damage to epic tier characters isn't enough to even care about. Hell, even Chris Perkins only rolls a single d6 and adds a huge modifier to it.
FWIW [4e designer] baseline assumption was that roughly 70% of your feats would be put towards combat effectiveness, parties would coordinate, and strikers would do 20/40/60 at-will damage+novas. If your party isn't doing that... well, you are below baseline, so yes, you need to optimize slightly to meet baseline. -Alcestis
Sign In to post comments