Can we fix the monsters next packet?

Honestly guys. The problem with monsters that suck is we can't actually identify what's wrong.


When things are too hard, it's easy to say why. This system is rubbish, that specific maneuver doesn't do well, etc. When it's all too easy, you don't need anything but your basic attack. Everything else is wasted and it's impossible to get any real gameplay evidence that something is borked.


Basically I can't playtest this system properly with the mobs this easy. I've started to double all the HP values of all the monsters and that's given me a little bit more, but the accuracy is weird too. ACs on the higher end are far, far too low.


Can we just crank up the diff and make this big weepy eyed puppy into a dire wolf with chainsaws for teeth? Then we'll really be able to tell you what's underperforming.

Why is easy.  They don't hit you, and if they do hit you, your dead.

So increase their to-hit, or decrease armor (or both).
And add more hit points, or decrease damage (or both).

Try +5 to hit and double the HP. 

guides
List of no-action attacks.
Dynamic vs Static Bonuses
Phalanx tactics and builds
Crivens! A Pictsies Guide Good
Power
s to intentionally miss with
Mr. Cellophane: How to be unnoticed
Way's to fire around corners
Crits: what their really worth
Retroactive bonus vs Static bonus.
Runepriest handbook & discussion thread
Holy Symbols to hang around your neck
Ways to Gain or Downgrade Actions
List of bonuses to saving throws
The Ghost with the Most (revenant handbook)
my builds
F-111 Interdictor Long (200+ squares) distance ally teleporter. With some warlord stuff. Broken in a plot way, not a power way.

Thought Switch Higher level build that grants upto 14 attacks on turn 1. If your allies play along, it's broken.

Elven Critters Crit op with crit generation. 5 of these will end anything. Broken.

King Fisher Optimized net user.  Moderate.

Boominator Fun catch-22 booming blade build with either strong or completely broken damage depending on your reading.

Very Distracting Warlock Lot's of dazing and major penalties to hit. Overpowered.

Pocket Protector Pixie Stealth Knight. Maximizing the defender's aura by being in an ally's/enemy's square.

Yakuza NinjIntimiAdin: Perma-stealth Striker that offers a little protection for ally's, and can intimidate bloodied enemies. Very Strong.

Chargeburgler with cheese Ranged attacks at the end of a charge along with perma-stealth. Solid, could be overpowered if tweaked.

Void Defender Defends giving a penalty to hit anyone but him, then removing himself from play. Can get somewhat broken in epic.

Scry and Die Attacking from around corners, while staying hidden. Moderate to broken, depending on the situation.

Skimisher Fly in, attack, and fly away. Also prevents enemies from coming close. Moderate to Broken depending on the enemy, but shouldn't make the game un-fun, as the rest of your team is at risk, and you have enough weaknesses.

Indestructible Simply won't die, even if you sleep though combat.  One of THE most abusive character in 4e.

Sir Robin (Bravely Charge Away) He automatically slows and pushes an enemy (5 squares), while charging away. Hard to rate it's power level, since it's terrain dependent.

Death's Gatekeeper A fun twist on a healic, making your party "unkillable". Overpowered to Broken, but shouldn't actually make the game un-fun, just TPK proof.

Death's Gatekeeper mk2, (Stealth Edition) Make your party "unkillable", and you hidden, while doing solid damage. Stronger then the above, but also easier for a DM to shut down. Broken, until your DM get's enough of it.

Domination and Death Dominate everything then kill them quickly. Only works @ 30, but is broken multiple ways.

Battlemind Mc Prone-Daze Protecting your allies by keeping enemies away. Quite powerful.

The Retaliator Getting hit deals more damage to the enemy then you receive yourself, and you can take plenty of hits. Heavy item dependency, Broken.

Dead Kobold Transit Teleports 98 squares a turn, and can bring someone along for the ride. Not fully built, so i can't judge the power.

Psilent Guardian Protect your allies, while being invisible. Overpowered, possibly broken.

Rune of Vengance Do lot's of damage while boosting your teams. Strong to slightly overpowered.

Charedent BarrageA charging ardent. Fine in a normal team, overpowered if there are 2 together, and easily broken in teams of 5.

Super Knight A tough, sticky, high damage knight. Strong.

Super Duper Knight Basically the same as super knight with items, making it far more broken.

Mora, the unkillable avenger Solid damage, while being neigh indestuctable. Overpowered, but not broken.

Swordburst Maximus At-Will Close Burst 3 that slide and prones. Protects allies with off actions. Strong, possibly over powered with the right party.

The first playtest did feel better to me.  I think that the first method of determining PC hp, while not perfect, was better than the current system.  I'd rather see front loaded hp and slower progression with limited or no Con bonus added per level. 

The monsters probably just need a slight boost to hit for starters.  I think +1 brutes, +2 normal, and +3 highly skilled would be a good start and see how that feels.

The pack tactics using monsters were fine on to-hit. I'd throw a boatload at players, they'd get hit once and that hit was significant.


I don't think a universal hit boost is necessary for that reason.



Mostly my problem are the hit points, but again it's difficult to playtest the game as written if I have to go and rewrite all the monsters, and my blanket changes are creating inconsistencies. Honestly, I just want the core abilities - to hit, ac, hit points - to be completely reworked.


Some indication of challenge rating would be nice too, so I have a notion of what monster is designed for what level range.  ... I just had a horrible thought. They didn't have challenge ratings or somesuch, do they? Like have I been grumbling about this the whole time and they've been there?

For most monsters, I don't mind the hit points, but I do like to boost HP for special representatives, making Elite types for leaders or warriors, etc. (For that reason, I'd love for WotC to develop a standard template for an elite monster). 

I've been playing with +2 to hit for all monsters and it has worked well for my group.   At first level, the damage the monsters do is a little scary, but once the PCs get past 1st level it becomes more manageable.   To vary the damage, I often give different monsters of the same race different weapons so that I can vary their damage.   My players enjoy encountering Orcs that wield shortswords, longswords, battle axes, maces, and one or two of the great axe wielding kind.   This also lets me make some encounters less dangerous or more dangerous based purely on the weapons the monsters use.

Bigger mobs are still dangerous even without the added to hit bonus, so I try to limit numbers vs. the PCs most of the time.    Even with the 2nd playtest package, when 4 stirges swarmed around the rogue, my rogue player freaked out....and almost died twice.  He was drained to about 2 hp...ran back to the cleric...got a CLW, and then was drained again to 3 hp before he could detach all of the little nasties.




  

A Brave Knight of WTF - "Wielder of the Sword of Balance"

 

Rhenny's Blog:  http://community.wizards.com/user/1497701/blog

 

 

I did a huge long post that showed lots of math, but the forum ate it, but it basically boiled down to this is what we should have to get monsters taking two hits to die and being able to bring the fighter down with the average of 60 attacks per day where 2 monsters per round attack the Fighter on average:

Level     Fighter     Monster     Fighter     Monster   Fighter   Monster
          Hit Points   Hit Points    Attack      Attack    Damage  Damage
1        27              11             +8           +2          14.5       2.5
2        36              12             +8           +3          15.5       3.5
3        44              12             +8           +3          15.5       4.5
4        53              16             +9           +3          19          5.5
5        61              16             +9           +3          19          6.5
6        70              24             +9           +3          31          7.5
7        78              24             +9           +3          31          8.5
8        87              26             +9           +3          34          9.5
9        95              28             +10         +3          34          10.5
10      104            33             +10         +3          40.5        11.5

Fighter hit points have to be Constitution + Max Hit Dice at level 1 and average hit dice + constitution mod at every level.

The monsters hit points have to average out to the numbers given.

If you want to increase the monster hit chance you would have to lower the average damage:

Level     Fighter     Monster     Fighter     Monster   Fighter   Monster
          Hit Points   Hit Points    Attack      Attack    Damage  Damage
1        27              11             +8           +2          14.5       2.5
2        36              12             +8           +4          15.5       2.5
3        44              12             +8           +4          15.5       3.5
4        53              16             +9           +5          19          3.5
5        61              16             +9           +5          19          3.5
6        70              24             +9           +5          31          4.5
7        78              24             +9           +6          31          4.5
8        87              26             +9           +6          34          4.5
9        95              28             +10         +6          34          5.5
10      104            33             +10         +7          40.5        5.5

This would allow for monsters to last 2 rounds and 2 monsters to attack the Fighter. The average AC of the Fighter would be 15. The numbers should jump up a bit if you assume Fighters have AC 17 or 18.

Anything less is Rocket tag as we have right now, or low level characters being able to solo higher level monsters in order to actually be a challenge...

Elite or solo monsters would look like this:

Level     Fighter     Monster     Fighter     Monster   Fighter   Monster
          Hit Points   Hit Points    Attack      Attack    Damage  Damage
1        27              48             +8           +3          14.5       3.5
2        36              48             +8           +4          15.5       3.5
3        44              48             +8           +5          15.5       3.5
4        53              64             +9           +5          19          3.5
5        61              64             +9           +5          19          4.5
6        70              96             +9           +6          31          4.5
7        78              96             +9           +6          31          4.5
8        87              104           +9           +6          34          5.5
9        95              112           +10         +7          34          5.5
10      104            132           +10         +7          40.5        5.5

This would allow 4 attacks on the solo/elite per round and it would deal the same damage to a target as 2 monsters...
"Unite the [fan] base? Hardly. As of right now, I doubt their ability to unite a slightly unruly teabag with a cup of water."--anjelika
1-4E play style
The 4E play style is a high action cinematic style of play where characters worry less about being killed in one hit and more about strategy and what their next move is and the one after it. The players talk back and forth about planning a battle and who can do what to influence the outcome. 4E play is filled with cinematic over the top action. An Eladrin teleports out of the grip of the Ogre. The Fighter slams the dragons foot with his hammer causing it to rear up and stagger back in pain. The Cleric creates a holy zone where their allies weapons are guided to their targets and whenever an enemy dies the Clerics allies are healed. 4E is about knowing when to lauch your nova attack, whether its a huge arcane spell that causes enemies to whirl around in a chaotic storm, or if its a trained adrenaline surge that causes you to attack many many times with two weapons on a single target, or a surge of adrenaline that keeps you going though you should already be dead. Its about tactics and the inability to carry around a bag of potions or a few wands and never have to worry about healing. Its about the guy that can barely role play having the same chance to convince the king to aid the group as the guy that takes improv acting classes and regularly stars as an extra on movies.
Stormwind Fallacy
The Stormwind Fallacy, aka the Roleplayer vs Rollplayer Fallacy Just because one optimizes his characters mechanically does not mean that they cannot also roleplay, and vice versa. Corollary: Doing one in a game does not preclude, nor infringe upon, the ability to do the other in the same game. Generalization 1: One is not automatically a worse role player if he optimizes, and vice versa. Generalization 2: A non-optimized character is not automatically role played better than an optimized one, and vice versa. ...[aside]... Proof: These two elements rely on different aspects of a player's game play. Optimization factors in to how well one understands the rules and handles synergies to produce a very effective end result. Role playing deals with how well a player can act in character and behave as if he was someone else. A person can act while understanding the rules, and can build something powerful while still handling an effective character. There is nothing in the game -- mechanical or otherwise -- restricting one if you participate in the other. Claiming that an optimizer cannot role play (or is participating in a play style that isn't supportive of role playing) because he is an optimizer, or vice versa, is committing the Stormwind Fallacy.
The spells we should getLook here to Check out my adventures and ideas. I've started a blog, about video games, table top role playing games, programming, and many other things its called Kel and Lok Games. My 4E Fantasy Grounds game is currently full.
I did a huge long post that showed lots of math, but the forum ate it,




How did you get that, seems to me it was mainly met with derision, aside from the "gang"?Smile
I thik the best solutio is to have hidden monster roles. Monster Roles like 4e but hidden in the system.

Every monster gets a bonus to hit, to AC, to HP per HD, or to damage based on the level.

Orzel, Halfelven son of Zel, Mystic Ranger, Bane to Dragons, Death to Undeath, Killer of Abyssals, King of the Wilds. Constitution Based Class for Next!

I did a huge long post that showed lots of math, but the forum ate it,




How did you get that, seems to me it was mainly met with derision, aside from the "gang"?



I have no clue what you are trying to say here? Are you inebriated?Smile
"Unite the [fan] base? Hardly. As of right now, I doubt their ability to unite a slightly unruly teabag with a cup of water."--anjelika
1-4E play style
The 4E play style is a high action cinematic style of play where characters worry less about being killed in one hit and more about strategy and what their next move is and the one after it. The players talk back and forth about planning a battle and who can do what to influence the outcome. 4E play is filled with cinematic over the top action. An Eladrin teleports out of the grip of the Ogre. The Fighter slams the dragons foot with his hammer causing it to rear up and stagger back in pain. The Cleric creates a holy zone where their allies weapons are guided to their targets and whenever an enemy dies the Clerics allies are healed. 4E is about knowing when to lauch your nova attack, whether its a huge arcane spell that causes enemies to whirl around in a chaotic storm, or if its a trained adrenaline surge that causes you to attack many many times with two weapons on a single target, or a surge of adrenaline that keeps you going though you should already be dead. Its about tactics and the inability to carry around a bag of potions or a few wands and never have to worry about healing. Its about the guy that can barely role play having the same chance to convince the king to aid the group as the guy that takes improv acting classes and regularly stars as an extra on movies.
Stormwind Fallacy
The Stormwind Fallacy, aka the Roleplayer vs Rollplayer Fallacy Just because one optimizes his characters mechanically does not mean that they cannot also roleplay, and vice versa. Corollary: Doing one in a game does not preclude, nor infringe upon, the ability to do the other in the same game. Generalization 1: One is not automatically a worse role player if he optimizes, and vice versa. Generalization 2: A non-optimized character is not automatically role played better than an optimized one, and vice versa. ...[aside]... Proof: These two elements rely on different aspects of a player's game play. Optimization factors in to how well one understands the rules and handles synergies to produce a very effective end result. Role playing deals with how well a player can act in character and behave as if he was someone else. A person can act while understanding the rules, and can build something powerful while still handling an effective character. There is nothing in the game -- mechanical or otherwise -- restricting one if you participate in the other. Claiming that an optimizer cannot role play (or is participating in a play style that isn't supportive of role playing) because he is an optimizer, or vice versa, is committing the Stormwind Fallacy.
The spells we should getLook here to Check out my adventures and ideas. I've started a blog, about video games, table top role playing games, programming, and many other things its called Kel and Lok Games. My 4E Fantasy Grounds game is currently full.
I thik the best solutio is to have hidden monster roles. Monster Roles like 4e but hidden in the system.

Every monster gets a bonus to hit, to AC, to HP per HD, or to damage based on the level.




For DMs (like myself) that like to tinker with monsters, make their own monsters and give 'levels' to monsters... 'hiding' things is the worst.

Seeing the math and being able to manipulate it is key for me.

I rather they create templates or monster/npc 'classes' or even 'roles' that are not hidden and can be applied to monsters by the DM.
I think one of the biggest problems for monsters is that a fighter should not be starting with +8 to attack, that is just rediculous (and currently possible) The fighters base attack bonus really needs to be +1, this allows you have lower monster AC without the need to increase it by +2.

I absolutely agree that monsters need work to playtest the game. This is part of the reason I haven't started playtesting yet, as monsters that suck simply won't allow a great game experience. 
I did a huge long post that showed lots of math, but the forum ate it, but it basically boiled down to this is what we should have to get monsters taking two hits to die and being able to bring the fighter down with the average of 60 attacks per day where 2 monsters per round attack the Fighter on average:

Level     Fighter     Monster     Fighter     Monster   Fighter   Monster
          Hit Points   Hit Points    Attack      Attack    Damage  Damage
1        27              11             +8           +2          14.5       2.5
2        36              12             +8           +3          15.5       3.5
3        44              12             +8           +3          15.5       4.5
4        53              16             +9           +3          19          5.5
5        61              16             +9           +3          19          6.5
6        70              24             +9           +3          31          7.5
7        78              24             +9           +3          31          8.5
8        87              26             +9           +3          34          9.5
9        95              28             +10         +3          34          10.5
10      104            33             +10         +3          40.5        11.5

Fighter hit points have to be Constitution + Max Hit Dice at level 1 and average hit dice + constitution mod at every level.

The monsters hit points have to average out to the numbers given.

If you want to increase the monster hit chance you would have to lower the average damage:

Level     Fighter     Monster     Fighter     Monster   Fighter   Monster
          Hit Points   Hit Points    Attack      Attack    Damage  Damage
1        27              11             +8           +2          14.5       2.5
2        36              12             +8           +4          15.5       2.5
3        44              12             +8           +4          15.5       3.5
4        53              16             +9           +5          19          3.5
5        61              16             +9           +5          19          3.5
6        70              24             +9           +5          31          4.5
7        78              24             +9           +6          31          4.5
8        87              26             +9           +6          34          4.5
9        95              28             +10         +6          34          5.5
10      104            33             +10         +7          40.5        5.5

This would allow for monsters to last 2 rounds and 2 monsters to attack the Fighter. The average AC of the Fighter would be 15. The numbers should jump up a bit if you assume Fighters have AC 17 or 18.

Anything less is Rocket tag as we have right now, or low level characters being able to solo higher level monsters in order to actually be a challenge...

Elite or solo monsters would look like this:

Level     Fighter     Monster     Fighter     Monster   Fighter   Monster
          Hit Points   Hit Points    Attack      Attack    Damage  Damage
1        27              48             +8           +3          14.5       3.5
2        36              48             +8           +4          15.5       3.5
3        44              48             +8           +5          15.5       3.5
4        53              64             +9           +5          19          3.5
5        61              64             +9           +5          19          4.5
6        70              96             +9           +6          31          4.5
7        78              96             +9           +6          31          4.5
8        87              104           +9           +6          34          5.5
9        95              112           +10         +7          34          5.5
10      104            132           +10         +7          40.5        5.5

This would allow 4 attacks on the solo/elite per round and it would deal the same damage to a target as 2 monsters...



Interesting.  I'm against adding con to hp every level though because the gap between Con 10 and Con 18 screws with the numbers too much at higher levels.  Adding half your Con bonus per level would probably work out ok or they could cap Con bonus per level to level 10 and I do think pitching the average AC at 15 is probably short-sighted, since after your first adventure you are going to upgrade to a higher AC. 

So are we saying that monster damage needs to come down a bit if accuracy increases?  Do those calculations include parrying?

well I don't mind the attack bonuses where they are; I'd rather deal with the characters as they are and make monsters subservient in the design. So if players have bonuses that are universally too high, we just need to raise mob AC.


I've been doing what I've always done: look at my 2e monstrous manual and eyeballing stats on the fly.

YEah, I'm not sure what the solution is, but I think making monsters more challenging would help me guage some of this stuff more honestly. Of course, on the flipsdie, it might be easier to make all the classes "even" before getting to that.

Either way, it wont matter since we seem to be obsessed with making sure characters are at their full potential from lvl 1 here. 
A few guidelines for using the internet: 1. Mentally add "In my opinion" to the end of basically anything someone else says. Of course it's their opinion, they don't need to let you know. You're pretty smart. 2. Assume everyone means everything in the best manner they could mean it. Save yourself some stress and give people the benefit of the doubt. We'll all be happier if we type less emoticons. 3. Don't try to read people's minds. Sometimes people mean exactly what they say. You probably don't know them any better than they know themselves. 4. Let grammar slide. If you understood what they meant, you're good. It's better for your health. 5. Breath. It's just a dumb game.
YEah, I'm not sure what the solution is, but I think making monsters more challenging would help me guage some of this stuff more honestly. Of course, on the flipsdie, it might be easier to make all the classes "even" before getting to that.

Either way, it wont matter since we seem to be obsessed with making sure characters are at their full potential from lvl 1 here. 



Heh well I for one am not that worried about full potential from lvl 1, but I definitely have an easier time identifying an overpowered class when the monsters can bite back.


Things like flurry vs deadly strike. Currently (as much as I hate to admit it), flurry is infinitely better than deadly strike simply for the fact that the fighter hardly ever needs that extra damage in a single hit. Having more hits per round is really valuable. My lvl 1 monk has double the kill rate of my brother's lvl 1 fighter because of it.


There are situations where the monster design works well. I like the pack tactics creatures that mob guys and have no HP. The design suits that kind of fight really well but if I wanted a more squaring up match for the fighter to really strut his stuff... well I can't do that with the beastiary. I have to go make stuff up; I have no problem making stuff up but it'd be nice to see how they would do it so I can base my assumptions about playability on something I know they're doing.

I think one of the biggest problems for monsters is that a fighter should not be starting with +8 to attack, that is just rediculous (and currently possible) The fighters base attack bonus really needs to be +1, this allows you have lower monster AC without the need to increase it by +2.


I agree with this guy.

If you have to resort to making offensive comments instead of making logical arguments, you deserve to be ignored.

I did a huge long post that showed lots of math, but the forum ate it, but it basically boiled down to this is what we should have to get monsters taking two hits to die and being able to bring the fighter down with the average of 60 attacks per day where 2 monsters per round attack the Fighter on average:

Level     Fighter     Monster     Fighter     Monster   Fighter   Monster
          Hit Points   Hit Points    Attack      Attack    Damage  Damage
1        27              11             +8           +2          14.5       2.5
2        36              12             +8           +3          15.5       3.5
3        44              12             +8           +3          15.5       4.5
4        53              16             +9           +3          19          5.5
5        61              16             +9           +3          19          6.5
6        70              24             +9           +3          31          7.5
7        78              24             +9           +3          31          8.5
8        87              26             +9           +3          34          9.5
9        95              28             +10         +3          34          10.5
10      104            33             +10         +3          40.5        11.5

Fighter hit points have to be Constitution + Max Hit Dice at level 1 and average hit dice + constitution mod at every level.

The monsters hit points have to average out to the numbers given.

If you want to increase the monster hit chance you would have to lower the average damage:

Level     Fighter     Monster     Fighter     Monster   Fighter   Monster
          Hit Points   Hit Points    Attack      Attack    Damage  Damage
1        27              11             +8           +2          14.5       2.5
2        36              12             +8           +4          15.5       2.5
3        44              12             +8           +4          15.5       3.5
4        53              16             +9           +5          19          3.5
5        61              16             +9           +5          19          3.5
6        70              24             +9           +5          31          4.5
7        78              24             +9           +6          31          4.5
8        87              26             +9           +6          34          4.5
9        95              28             +10         +6          34          5.5
10      104            33             +10         +7          40.5        5.5

This would allow for monsters to last 2 rounds and 2 monsters to attack the Fighter. The average AC of the Fighter would be 15. The numbers should jump up a bit if you assume Fighters have AC 17 or 18.

Anything less is Rocket tag as we have right now, or low level characters being able to solo higher level monsters in order to actually be a challenge...

Elite or solo monsters would look like this:

Level     Fighter     Monster     Fighter     Monster   Fighter   Monster
          Hit Points   Hit Points    Attack      Attack    Damage  Damage
1        27              48             +8           +3          14.5       3.5
2        36              48             +8           +4          15.5       3.5
3        44              48             +8           +5          15.5       3.5
4        53              64             +9           +5          19          3.5
5        61              64             +9           +5          19          4.5
6        70              96             +9           +6          31          4.5
7        78              96             +9           +6          31          4.5
8        87              104           +9           +6          34          5.5
9        95              112           +10         +7          34          5.5
10      104            132           +10         +7          40.5        5.5

This would allow 4 attacks on the solo/elite per round and it would deal the same damage to a target as 2 monsters...



Interesting.  I'm against adding con to hp every level though because the gap between Con 10 and Con 18 screws with the numbers too much at higher levels.  Adding half your Con bonus per level would probably work out ok or they could cap Con bonus per level to level 10 and I do think pitching the average AC at 15 is probably short-sighted, since after your first adventure you are going to upgrade to a higher AC. 

So are we saying that monster damage needs to come down a bit if accuracy increases?  Do those calculations include parrying?




8 points between 20 levels is less than a point per level. They also were talking about adding con to starting level hp, not every level. Only con mod.

AC 15 is the mid point between lowest possible AC of 10 and super hard to get high aC of 20. So it works because some characters are going to have High AC and others low AC.

Due to how hit points work monster damage can't increase by very much and due to how characters damage increases monsters hit points have to sky rocket to remain relevant.

Parrying shouldn't be counted in the base line because it is only in two of the many fighting styles the fighter gets. Its impact should be minimized because otherwise its a broken option that everyone will want. Really they just need to figure out what they want to do and then build the math around it.
I think one of the biggest problems for monsters is that a fighter should not be starting with +8 to attack, that is just rediculous (and currently possible) The fighters base attack bonus really needs to be +1, this allows you have lower monster AC without the need to increase it by +2.


I agree with this guy.




Yeah, really they could start with +1 on the Fighter and they would still be the best with weapons because they would deal 5% more damage per round than the Rogue, Cleric, or Monk if they got +0 per round.

Level   Weapon Attack
           Cleric   Fighter   Monk   Rogue   Wizard
1         +0       +1         +0      +0        +0
2         +0       +1         +1      +0        +0
3         +1       +1         +1      +0        +0
4         +1       +2         +1      +1        +0
5         +1       +2         +2      +1        +1
6         +2       +2         +2      +1        +1
7         +2       +3         +2      +2        +1
8         +2       +3         +3      +2        +2
9         +3       +3         +3      +2        +2
10       +3       +4         +3      +3        +2
11       +3       +4         +4      +3        +3
12       +4       +4         +4      +3        +3
13       +4       +5         +4      +4        +3
14       +4       +5         +5      +4        +4
15       +5       +5         +5      +4        +4
16       +5       +6         +5      +5        +4
17       +5       +6         +6      +5        +5
18       +6       +6         +6      +5        +5
19       +6       +7         +6      +6        +5
20       +6       +7         +7      +6        +6

If we do this the monsters will be able to have a pretty decent AC spread. The Rogue will now be able to have spiky damage because they will miss more often than the fighter, but when they hit they can be allowed to deal more damage. The Monk is still pretty competent and the cleric can hold their own. They won't dominate the monsters either.
I think I'd rather preserve the class bonuses and halve stat bonuses to attack rolls.  It will only bring down maximum attack rolls slightly but it will even out the highs and lows.  Or alternately, remove them altogether. 

I agree that class balance needs more work, but I'd prefer to actually leave the classes alone for now and change the monsters around. The methodology is more sound that way 'cause if you make only one large change at a time it's easier to isolate what's different and why.


Maybe the classes need a nerf too, but right now their balance is pretty clear - meaning, it's reasonably clear why they're not working but they work well enough for our purposes.


I'd much prefer to make small tweaks for the obvious problems (rogue) and have monsters in the next packet balanced against the character balance we've got now. See how it works, then make a determination about whether we should look at the character classes again.

I did a huge long post that showed lots of math, but the forum ate it, but it basically boiled down to this is what we should have to get monsters taking two hits to die and being able to bring the fighter down with the average of 60 attacks per day where 2 monsters per round attack the Fighter on average:

Level     Fighter     Monster     Fighter     Monster   Fighter   Monster
          Hit Points   Hit Points    Attack      Attack    Damage  Damage
1        27              11             +8           +2          14.5       2.5
2        36              12             +8           +3          15.5       3.5
3        44              12             +8           +3          15.5       4.5
4        53              16             +9           +3          19          5.5
5        61              16             +9           +3          19          6.5
6        70              24             +9           +3          31          7.5
7        78              24             +9           +3          31          8.5
8        87              26             +9           +3          34          9.5
9        95              28             +10         +3          34          10.5
10      104            33             +10         +3          40.5        11.5

Fighter hit points have to be Constitution + Max Hit Dice at level 1 and average hit dice + constitution mod at every level.

The monsters hit points have to average out to the numbers given.

If you want to increase the monster hit chance you would have to lower the average damage:

Level     Fighter     Monster     Fighter     Monster   Fighter   Monster
          Hit Points   Hit Points    Attack      Attack    Damage  Damage
1        27              11             +8           +2          14.5       2.5
2        36              12             +8           +4          15.5       2.5
3        44              12             +8           +4          15.5       3.5
4        53              16             +9           +5          19          3.5
5        61              16             +9           +5          19          3.5
6        70              24             +9           +5          31          4.5
7        78              24             +9           +6          31          4.5
8        87              26             +9           +6          34          4.5
9        95              28             +10         +6          34          5.5
10      104            33             +10         +7          40.5        5.5

This would allow for monsters to last 2 rounds and 2 monsters to attack the Fighter. The average AC of the Fighter would be 15. The numbers should jump up a bit if you assume Fighters have AC 17 or 18.

Anything less is Rocket tag as we have right now, or low level characters being able to solo higher level monsters in order to actually be a challenge...

Elite or solo monsters would look like this:

Level     Fighter     Monster     Fighter     Monster   Fighter   Monster
          Hit Points   Hit Points    Attack      Attack    Damage  Damage
1        27              48             +8           +3          14.5       3.5
2        36              48             +8           +4          15.5       3.5
3        44              48             +8           +5          15.5       3.5
4        53              64             +9           +5          19          3.5
5        61              64             +9           +5          19          4.5
6        70              96             +9           +6          31          4.5
7        78              96             +9           +6          31          4.5
8        87              104           +9           +6          34          5.5
9        95              112           +10         +7          34          5.5
10      104            132           +10         +7          40.5        5.5

This would allow 4 attacks on the solo/elite per round and it would deal the same damage to a target as 2 monsters...



Interesting.  I'm against adding con to hp every level though because the gap between Con 10 and Con 18 screws with the numbers too much at higher levels.  Adding half your Con bonus per level would probably work out ok or they could cap Con bonus per level to level 10 and I do think pitching the average AC at 15 is probably short-sighted, since after your first adventure you are going to upgrade to a higher AC. 

So are we saying that monster damage needs to come down a bit if accuracy increases?  Do those calculations include parrying?




I, also, dislike the adding of con at every level.  However, one of my primary reasons for disliking it is that it skews the racial distribution within an average group.  Humans and dwarves tend to come out on top in this system; people, in general - yes there are exceptions to this -, like to come out on top.  This gives certain races an inflated racial population at gaming groups (especially public groups).  I don't like that and don't think it is a good thing for the game.

Back on topic though, I really think that classes need to be balanced before the monsters can be properly balanced by the developers.  Classes represent the players, and the game is about the players.  In my opinion, you gotta get the classes to generally the right spot mechanically to impart to the player a good "feeling" for the class.  After that, you start balancing creatures to that standard.

Of course, you can do it the other way, I just think it's backwards.  But then that's just my opinion on it.    
Back on topic though, I really think that classes need to be balanced before the monsters can be properly balanced by the developers.  Classes represent the players, and the game is about the players.  In my opinion, you gotta get the classes to generally the right spot mechanically to impart to the player a good "feeling" for the class.  After that, you start balancing creatures to that standard.

Of course, you can do it the other way, I just think it's backwards.  But then that's just my opinion on it.    



You need an IDEA of what the opposition is like to balance classes.

If Mob Rule with 3HP each is how monsters damage people then multiattack powers (volley, whirlwind attack, area effect spells, flurry of blows) rule, and deadly strike drools.

If we have big monsters with lots of HP then Deadly Strike and single target spells are the power.

Parry and related defensive manuevers are overwhelmingly good when they work, if most monsters have spell-like attacks targetting saves then that's not a big deal. If most monsters are melee brutes then it is a big deal.

We don't need the monsters in their final form or perfect to test class balance. But we need SOMETHING to use as a baseline. My players aren't interested in playing a game where a level 2 fighter is effectively invincible against what's supposed to be overwhelming odds. We need some reasonable monsters to playtest.

You can't judge class power in a vacuum, and the current test monsters are nothing, it's a threat vacuum. Fighters that emphasis defense appear to be invulnerable, is that real, or is it that the monster attacks are 3 points too low? Could be either, without knowing what monsters are supposed to be like I don't really know if fighters are overpowered.
Back on topic though, I really think that classes need to be balanced before the monsters can be properly balanced by the developers.  Classes represent the players, and the game is about the players.  In my opinion, you gotta get the classes to generally the right spot mechanically to impart to the player a good "feeling" for the class.  After that, you start balancing creatures to that standard.

Of course, you can do it the other way, I just think it's backwards.  But then that's just my opinion on it.    



You need an IDEA of what the opposition is like to balance classes.

If Mob Rule with 3HP each is how monsters damage people then multiattack powers (volley, whirlwind attack, area effect spells, flurry of blows) rule, and deadly strike drools.

If we have big monsters with lots of HP then Deadly Strike and single target spells are the power.

Parry and related defensive manuevers are overwhelmingly good when they work, if most monsters have spell-like attacks targetting saves then that's not a big deal. If most monsters are melee brutes then it is a big deal.

We don't need the monsters in their final form or perfect to test class balance. But we need SOMETHING to use as a baseline. My players aren't interested in playing a game where a level 2 fighter is effectively invincible against what's supposed to be overwhelming odds. We need some reasonable monsters to playtest.

You can't judge class power in a vacuum, and the current test monsters are nothing, it's a threat vacuum. Fighters that emphasis defense appear to be invulnerable, is that real, or is it that the monster attacks are 3 points too low? Could be either, without knowing what monsters are supposed to be like I don't really know if fighters are overpowered.



But, I wasn't referring to the playtest.  I was referring to the design approach.  This is the stuff that's suppose to happen prior to releasing a playtest. 

Personally, I would not  have released the first or latest packet for "traditional" feedback.  I might do it for broad feedback on certain components of the game system; not for general feedback on the entire system itself.  The math is just too atrocious in my opinion for a good, productive playtest release. 

I agree that class balance needs more work, but I'd prefer to actually leave the classes alone for now and change the monsters around. The methodology is more sound that way 'cause if you make only one large change at a time it's easier to isolate what's different and why.


Maybe the classes need a nerf too, but right now their balance is pretty clear - meaning, it's reasonably clear why they're not working but they work well enough for our purposes.


I'd much prefer to make small tweaks for the obvious problems (rogue) and have monsters in the next packet balanced against the character balance we've got now. See how it works, then make a determination about whether we should look at the character classes again.



This is the catch. They're not *quite* done with the classes yet. Until they're done with the classes there's no point tweaking monsters, as they'll just have to tweak them again the next time they change classes. Get the classes just right first and then fix the monsters once. It's much more time effective. 
There's 101 monsters in the packet. If they spent 10 minutes giving each monsters a once-over tweaking the attack numbers and double checking the math for attack/damage/AC it will take 16 hours (and change) to complete. Or two full work days. You don't want to do that more than once.

5 Minute WorkdayMy Webcomic Updated Tue & Thur

The compilation of my Worldbuilding blog series is now available: 

Jester David's How-To Guide to Fantasy Worldbuilding.


I agree that class balance needs more work, but I'd prefer to actually leave the classes alone for now and change the monsters around. The methodology is more sound that way 'cause if you make only one large change at a time it's easier to isolate what's different and why.


Maybe the classes need a nerf too, but right now their balance is pretty clear - meaning, it's reasonably clear why they're not working but they work well enough for our purposes.


I'd much prefer to make small tweaks for the obvious problems (rogue) and have monsters in the next packet balanced against the character balance we've got now. See how it works, then make a determination about whether we should look at the character classes again.



This is the catch. They're not *quite* done with the classes yet. Until they're done with the classes there's no point tweaking monsters, as they'll just have to tweak them again the next time they change classes. Get the classes just right first and then fix the monsters once. It's much more time effective. 
There's 101 monsters in the packet. If they spent 10 minutes giving each monsters a once-over tweaking the attack numbers and double checking the math for attack/damage/AC it will take 16 hours (and change) to complete. Or two full work days. You don't want to do that more than once.



The problem is they can never know how effective the classes are until they get the monster math right. "search and replacing" an extra  +2 to +3 on every creatures would be a 5 minute job...Smile
"Unite the [fan] base? Hardly. As of right now, I doubt their ability to unite a slightly unruly teabag with a cup of water."--anjelika
1-4E play style
The 4E play style is a high action cinematic style of play where characters worry less about being killed in one hit and more about strategy and what their next move is and the one after it. The players talk back and forth about planning a battle and who can do what to influence the outcome. 4E play is filled with cinematic over the top action. An Eladrin teleports out of the grip of the Ogre. The Fighter slams the dragons foot with his hammer causing it to rear up and stagger back in pain. The Cleric creates a holy zone where their allies weapons are guided to their targets and whenever an enemy dies the Clerics allies are healed. 4E is about knowing when to lauch your nova attack, whether its a huge arcane spell that causes enemies to whirl around in a chaotic storm, or if its a trained adrenaline surge that causes you to attack many many times with two weapons on a single target, or a surge of adrenaline that keeps you going though you should already be dead. Its about tactics and the inability to carry around a bag of potions or a few wands and never have to worry about healing. Its about the guy that can barely role play having the same chance to convince the king to aid the group as the guy that takes improv acting classes and regularly stars as an extra on movies.
Stormwind Fallacy
The Stormwind Fallacy, aka the Roleplayer vs Rollplayer Fallacy Just because one optimizes his characters mechanically does not mean that they cannot also roleplay, and vice versa. Corollary: Doing one in a game does not preclude, nor infringe upon, the ability to do the other in the same game. Generalization 1: One is not automatically a worse role player if he optimizes, and vice versa. Generalization 2: A non-optimized character is not automatically role played better than an optimized one, and vice versa. ...[aside]... Proof: These two elements rely on different aspects of a player's game play. Optimization factors in to how well one understands the rules and handles synergies to produce a very effective end result. Role playing deals with how well a player can act in character and behave as if he was someone else. A person can act while understanding the rules, and can build something powerful while still handling an effective character. There is nothing in the game -- mechanical or otherwise -- restricting one if you participate in the other. Claiming that an optimizer cannot role play (or is participating in a play style that isn't supportive of role playing) because he is an optimizer, or vice versa, is committing the Stormwind Fallacy.
The spells we should getLook here to Check out my adventures and ideas. I've started a blog, about video games, table top role playing games, programming, and many other things its called Kel and Lok Games. My 4E Fantasy Grounds game is currently full.
The problem is they can never know how effective the classes are until they get the monster math right. "search and replacing" an extra  +2 to +3 on every creatures would be a 5 minute job...


Right, but right now they're making sure the classes feel like the classes and function on a basic level. Things like changing turn undead, adding Expertise Dice to the rogue, and the like. That's the focus. 
They've also said they're testing a number of monster fixes at the moment, seeing which combination of changes is the most effective. 

As for search and replace, look up the hilarious story of DaWizard sometime.

5 Minute WorkdayMy Webcomic Updated Tue & Thur

The compilation of my Worldbuilding blog series is now available: 

Jester David's How-To Guide to Fantasy Worldbuilding.

If monsters accuracy isn't fixed by the next playtest packet i think i'll have all my monsters refuse to fight and go on strike to revandicate it until its done Tongue Out
If monsters accuracy isn't fixed by the next playtest packet i think i'll have all my monsters refuse to fight and go on strike to revandicate it until its done Tongue Out



Maybe you can organize a union and get political contributions...   You know to help with their development...
I did a huge long post that showed lots of math, but the forum ate it, but it basically boiled down to this is what we should have to get monsters taking two hits to die and being able to bring the fighter down with the average of 60 attacks per day where 2 monsters per round attack the Fighter on average:

*snip*




I am so glad, that you don´t design next. Your tables are terrible. It looks like the most boring game ever created. Monsters and players are so far away from each other, that I can´t imagine how you could play that game in a sensible way.

Maybe they don't want to keep tweaking monsters but if they want me to playtest with the monsters in the packet then they're going to be disappointed. I've all ready pretty much given up with what they've written and I've started inventing things on my own. I'll be sure to say so in the survey as well but I'd rather not have to. I'd rather just use what's in the playtest as written so I can give them feedback on what they've written.


If I have to scrap whole sections of the playtest to keep things fun for my group then the packet isn't very successful to me.

I did a huge long post that showed lots of math, but the forum ate it, but it basically boiled down to this is what we should have to get monsters taking two hits to die and being able to bring the fighter down with the average of 60 attacks per day where 2 monsters per round attack the Fighter on average:

*snip*




I am so glad, that you don´t design next. Your tables are terrible. It looks like the most boring game ever created. Monsters and players are so far away from each other, that I can´t imagine how you could play that game in a sensible way.




Well it allows for 2 rounds from the Fighter to take down a monster and it allows the Fighter to take 60 hits in a day. Now if you want something better you'll have to specify some paremeters. This table is infinitely better than what we have now, even if it isn't anywhere near perfect. Its also the baseline. Some monsters would have higher or lower stats...Smile
"Unite the [fan] base? Hardly. As of right now, I doubt their ability to unite a slightly unruly teabag with a cup of water."--anjelika
1-4E play style
The 4E play style is a high action cinematic style of play where characters worry less about being killed in one hit and more about strategy and what their next move is and the one after it. The players talk back and forth about planning a battle and who can do what to influence the outcome. 4E play is filled with cinematic over the top action. An Eladrin teleports out of the grip of the Ogre. The Fighter slams the dragons foot with his hammer causing it to rear up and stagger back in pain. The Cleric creates a holy zone where their allies weapons are guided to their targets and whenever an enemy dies the Clerics allies are healed. 4E is about knowing when to lauch your nova attack, whether its a huge arcane spell that causes enemies to whirl around in a chaotic storm, or if its a trained adrenaline surge that causes you to attack many many times with two weapons on a single target, or a surge of adrenaline that keeps you going though you should already be dead. Its about tactics and the inability to carry around a bag of potions or a few wands and never have to worry about healing. Its about the guy that can barely role play having the same chance to convince the king to aid the group as the guy that takes improv acting classes and regularly stars as an extra on movies.
Stormwind Fallacy
The Stormwind Fallacy, aka the Roleplayer vs Rollplayer Fallacy Just because one optimizes his characters mechanically does not mean that they cannot also roleplay, and vice versa. Corollary: Doing one in a game does not preclude, nor infringe upon, the ability to do the other in the same game. Generalization 1: One is not automatically a worse role player if he optimizes, and vice versa. Generalization 2: A non-optimized character is not automatically role played better than an optimized one, and vice versa. ...[aside]... Proof: These two elements rely on different aspects of a player's game play. Optimization factors in to how well one understands the rules and handles synergies to produce a very effective end result. Role playing deals with how well a player can act in character and behave as if he was someone else. A person can act while understanding the rules, and can build something powerful while still handling an effective character. There is nothing in the game -- mechanical or otherwise -- restricting one if you participate in the other. Claiming that an optimizer cannot role play (or is participating in a play style that isn't supportive of role playing) because he is an optimizer, or vice versa, is committing the Stormwind Fallacy.
The spells we should getLook here to Check out my adventures and ideas. I've started a blog, about video games, table top role playing games, programming, and many other things its called Kel and Lok Games. My 4E Fantasy Grounds game is currently full.
I did a huge long post that showed lots of math, but the forum ate it, but it basically boiled down to this is what we should have to get monsters taking two hits to die and being able to bring the fighter down with the average of 60 attacks per day where 2 monsters per round attack the Fighter on average:

*snip*




I am so glad, that you don´t design next.



Yes, thank ye gods and little fishes.

Just adding the +2 back in really makes a difference. 



Adding a +2 back in just makes it more likely that the monsters will one shot characters. By exactly 10%. If that's what you like, then sure +2 works. Most people don't want to be one shotted by a random Orc though...Smile
"Unite the [fan] base? Hardly. As of right now, I doubt their ability to unite a slightly unruly teabag with a cup of water."--anjelika
1-4E play style
The 4E play style is a high action cinematic style of play where characters worry less about being killed in one hit and more about strategy and what their next move is and the one after it. The players talk back and forth about planning a battle and who can do what to influence the outcome. 4E play is filled with cinematic over the top action. An Eladrin teleports out of the grip of the Ogre. The Fighter slams the dragons foot with his hammer causing it to rear up and stagger back in pain. The Cleric creates a holy zone where their allies weapons are guided to their targets and whenever an enemy dies the Clerics allies are healed. 4E is about knowing when to lauch your nova attack, whether its a huge arcane spell that causes enemies to whirl around in a chaotic storm, or if its a trained adrenaline surge that causes you to attack many many times with two weapons on a single target, or a surge of adrenaline that keeps you going though you should already be dead. Its about tactics and the inability to carry around a bag of potions or a few wands and never have to worry about healing. Its about the guy that can barely role play having the same chance to convince the king to aid the group as the guy that takes improv acting classes and regularly stars as an extra on movies.
Stormwind Fallacy
The Stormwind Fallacy, aka the Roleplayer vs Rollplayer Fallacy Just because one optimizes his characters mechanically does not mean that they cannot also roleplay, and vice versa. Corollary: Doing one in a game does not preclude, nor infringe upon, the ability to do the other in the same game. Generalization 1: One is not automatically a worse role player if he optimizes, and vice versa. Generalization 2: A non-optimized character is not automatically role played better than an optimized one, and vice versa. ...[aside]... Proof: These two elements rely on different aspects of a player's game play. Optimization factors in to how well one understands the rules and handles synergies to produce a very effective end result. Role playing deals with how well a player can act in character and behave as if he was someone else. A person can act while understanding the rules, and can build something powerful while still handling an effective character. There is nothing in the game -- mechanical or otherwise -- restricting one if you participate in the other. Claiming that an optimizer cannot role play (or is participating in a play style that isn't supportive of role playing) because he is an optimizer, or vice versa, is committing the Stormwind Fallacy.
The spells we should getLook here to Check out my adventures and ideas. I've started a blog, about video games, table top role playing games, programming, and many other things its called Kel and Lok Games. My 4E Fantasy Grounds game is currently full.
They really got to fix accuracy.

My players finally caught on that the monsters can barely hit 15+ accuracy and started to using suicidal tactics when they noticed that I wasn't going to fudge dice because I was runningg a control session.

Imagine 16th-19th century musket firing lines except one side is 5 times as long, misses 65% of the time, and 25% of them are drunk.

They really should apply templates to combat heavy monster.

Brute, Lurker, Skrimisher, Soldier etc

Orzel, Halfelven son of Zel, Mystic Ranger, Bane to Dragons, Death to Undeath, Killer of Abyssals, King of the Wilds. Constitution Based Class for Next!


Maybe they don't want to keep tweaking monsters but if they want me to playtest with the monsters in the packet then they're going to be disappointed. I've all ready pretty much given up with what they've written and I've started inventing things on my own. I'll be sure to say so in the survey as well but I'd rather not have to. I'd rather just use what's in the playtest as written so I can give them feedback on what they've written.


If I have to scrap whole sections of the playtest to keep things fun for my group then the packet isn't very successful to me.




This is so true.  To really challenge my group, I've resorted to modifying many monsters adding +2 or +3 to hit, for leaders or more important foes I add hp, and even special abilities.   I'm just getting the hang of it now.   I basically use most of the monsters in the Bestiary as minion types or standard versions of each given race.  

For example, in Blingdenstone, I made the crown room encounter a bit more challenging for 3rd level PCs.   I added two Ogre Skeletons that wield huge clubs.  If they hit, the player has to make a DC 13 strength check to avoid being knocked prone.    I also gave the Drow Wight 50% more hit points and the ability to raise undead 1/encounter.   He can now bring the Ogres and the gnome skeletons back up at 1/2 hit points each when he uses his ability.  That really freaked my group out.   

For a long time, I was complaining about the monsters and the math, but now that I feel comfortable modifying for the PC group/levels, I kind of think that WoTC should keep the standard monsters on the weaker side because it is really easy to make them stronger if I want to challenge the PCs more in any given encounter.  

It would be terrific if they could give some guidelines how to make elite versions of monsters (add 50% hp, +2 to hit, 1 extra special ability - make a long list of possible abilities!!!)...and then Solo version (x3 hp, +3 to hit, multi-attack 2, 3, 4, 5 depending on level, 1 or 2 extra special abiliites).   I really want to see a "How to Make a Monster" module. 

A Brave Knight of WTF - "Wielder of the Sword of Balance"

 

Rhenny's Blog:  http://community.wizards.com/user/1497701/blog

 

 

I did a huge long post that showed lots of math, but the forum ate it, but it basically boiled down to this is what we should have to get monsters taking two hits to die and being able to bring the fighter down with the average of 60 attacks per day where 2 monsters per round attack the Fighter on average:

*snip*




I am so glad, that you don´t design next. Your tables are terrible. It looks like the most boring game ever created. Monsters and players are so far away from each other, that I can´t imagine how you could play that game in a sensible way.




Well it allows for 2 rounds from the Fighter to take down a monster and it allows the Fighter to take 60 hits in a day. Now if you want something better you'll have to specify some paremeters. This table is infinitely better than what we have now, even if it isn't anywhere near perfect. Its also the baseline. Some monsters would have higher or lower stats...

60 hits in a day? no thanks...

maybe 20 hits in a day... that would be ok...

But please, not 20 hits in a single fight. Every fight should be exciting... not just some scratches for the fighter. Every hit should mean something.

Also, 60 to 20 looks like a terrible imbalance to me. I am not fond of equal level threats beeing meaningless...
I did a huge long post that showed lots of math, but the forum ate it, but it basically boiled down to this is what we should have to get monsters taking two hits to die and being able to bring the fighter down with the average of 60 attacks per day where 2 monsters per round attack the Fighter on average:

*snip*




I am so glad, that you don´t design next. Your tables are terrible. It looks like the most boring game ever created. Monsters and players are so far away from each other, that I can´t imagine how you could play that game in a sensible way.




Well it allows for 2 rounds from the Fighter to take down a monster and it allows the Fighter to take 60 hits in a day. Now if you want something better you'll have to specify some paremeters. This table is infinitely better than what we have now, even if it isn't anywhere near perfect. Its also the baseline. Some monsters would have higher or lower stats...

60 hits in a day? no thanks...

maybe 20 hits in a day... that would be ok...

But please, not 20 hits in a single fight. Every fight should be exciting... not just some scratches for the fighter. Every hit should mean something.

Also, 60 to 20 looks like a terrible imbalance to me. I am not fond of equal level threats beeing meaningless...



Well with 16-20 rounds that means 2-3 monsters attacking and hitting per round, which is going to happen short of going up against a solo...Smile
"Unite the [fan] base? Hardly. As of right now, I doubt their ability to unite a slightly unruly teabag with a cup of water."--anjelika
1-4E play style
The 4E play style is a high action cinematic style of play where characters worry less about being killed in one hit and more about strategy and what their next move is and the one after it. The players talk back and forth about planning a battle and who can do what to influence the outcome. 4E play is filled with cinematic over the top action. An Eladrin teleports out of the grip of the Ogre. The Fighter slams the dragons foot with his hammer causing it to rear up and stagger back in pain. The Cleric creates a holy zone where their allies weapons are guided to their targets and whenever an enemy dies the Clerics allies are healed. 4E is about knowing when to lauch your nova attack, whether its a huge arcane spell that causes enemies to whirl around in a chaotic storm, or if its a trained adrenaline surge that causes you to attack many many times with two weapons on a single target, or a surge of adrenaline that keeps you going though you should already be dead. Its about tactics and the inability to carry around a bag of potions or a few wands and never have to worry about healing. Its about the guy that can barely role play having the same chance to convince the king to aid the group as the guy that takes improv acting classes and regularly stars as an extra on movies.
Stormwind Fallacy
The Stormwind Fallacy, aka the Roleplayer vs Rollplayer Fallacy Just because one optimizes his characters mechanically does not mean that they cannot also roleplay, and vice versa. Corollary: Doing one in a game does not preclude, nor infringe upon, the ability to do the other in the same game. Generalization 1: One is not automatically a worse role player if he optimizes, and vice versa. Generalization 2: A non-optimized character is not automatically role played better than an optimized one, and vice versa. ...[aside]... Proof: These two elements rely on different aspects of a player's game play. Optimization factors in to how well one understands the rules and handles synergies to produce a very effective end result. Role playing deals with how well a player can act in character and behave as if he was someone else. A person can act while understanding the rules, and can build something powerful while still handling an effective character. There is nothing in the game -- mechanical or otherwise -- restricting one if you participate in the other. Claiming that an optimizer cannot role play (or is participating in a play style that isn't supportive of role playing) because he is an optimizer, or vice versa, is committing the Stormwind Fallacy.
The spells we should getLook here to Check out my adventures and ideas. I've started a blog, about video games, table top role playing games, programming, and many other things its called Kel and Lok Games. My 4E Fantasy Grounds game is currently full.
16-20 rounds? No thanks.

Maybe you should try better tactics than just standing there and getting hit... and maybe you should somehow medicate your wounds between fights...

I am against a game, where you can just go there and stand against so many equal level foes without help.

I am not against a level 5 fighter pulling off such things against level 1 monsters. I just believe, an equal level enemy should have a 50-50 chance of winning (ok, 40-60 chance) if the PC just goes in and attacks mindlessly.

The game should be balanced, that equal level threats are dangerous (like in late 4e), but lower level foes are flavour. The game should scale in a way, that lower level monsters still hit, but do low amounts of damage...

And I believe, wotc is on the right trackwith expetise dice as a universale damage scaling mechanic.

Note, that the level 1 fighter with parry has a great chance of standing against a lot of foes. But this is not, because they are doing only pityful damage, but the fighter can reduce 1 goblin´s attack to zero each round if he is not especially unlucky.
16-20 rounds? No thanks.

Maybe you should try better tactics than just standing there and getting hit... and maybe you should somehow medicate your wounds between fights...

I am against a game, where you can just go there and stand against so many equal level foes without help.

I am not against a level 5 fighter pulling off such things against level 1 monsters. I just believe, an equal level enemy should have a 50-50 chance of winning (ok, 40-60 chance) if the PC just goes in and attacks mindlessly.

The game should be balanced, that equal level threats are dangerous (like in late 4e), but lower level foes are flavour. The game should scale in a way, that lower level monsters still hit, but do low amounts of damage...

And I believe, wotc is on the right trackwith expetise dice as a universale damage scaling mechanic.

Note, that the level 1 fighter with parry has a great chance of standing against a lot of foes. But this is not, because they are doing only pityful damage, but the fighter can reduce 1 goblin´s attack to zero each round if he is not especially unlucky.



Those aren't my assumptions. That's the developer assumptions. 4-5 encounters of 4-5 rounds each. That's what they say should be the average day. If you are fighting 3-7 enemies the Fighter who is up front will likely get hit at least 2 times per round. That's just basic math...Smile
"Unite the [fan] base? Hardly. As of right now, I doubt their ability to unite a slightly unruly teabag with a cup of water."--anjelika
1-4E play style
The 4E play style is a high action cinematic style of play where characters worry less about being killed in one hit and more about strategy and what their next move is and the one after it. The players talk back and forth about planning a battle and who can do what to influence the outcome. 4E play is filled with cinematic over the top action. An Eladrin teleports out of the grip of the Ogre. The Fighter slams the dragons foot with his hammer causing it to rear up and stagger back in pain. The Cleric creates a holy zone where their allies weapons are guided to their targets and whenever an enemy dies the Clerics allies are healed. 4E is about knowing when to lauch your nova attack, whether its a huge arcane spell that causes enemies to whirl around in a chaotic storm, or if its a trained adrenaline surge that causes you to attack many many times with two weapons on a single target, or a surge of adrenaline that keeps you going though you should already be dead. Its about tactics and the inability to carry around a bag of potions or a few wands and never have to worry about healing. Its about the guy that can barely role play having the same chance to convince the king to aid the group as the guy that takes improv acting classes and regularly stars as an extra on movies.
Stormwind Fallacy
The Stormwind Fallacy, aka the Roleplayer vs Rollplayer Fallacy Just because one optimizes his characters mechanically does not mean that they cannot also roleplay, and vice versa. Corollary: Doing one in a game does not preclude, nor infringe upon, the ability to do the other in the same game. Generalization 1: One is not automatically a worse role player if he optimizes, and vice versa. Generalization 2: A non-optimized character is not automatically role played better than an optimized one, and vice versa. ...[aside]... Proof: These two elements rely on different aspects of a player's game play. Optimization factors in to how well one understands the rules and handles synergies to produce a very effective end result. Role playing deals with how well a player can act in character and behave as if he was someone else. A person can act while understanding the rules, and can build something powerful while still handling an effective character. There is nothing in the game -- mechanical or otherwise -- restricting one if you participate in the other. Claiming that an optimizer cannot role play (or is participating in a play style that isn't supportive of role playing) because he is an optimizer, or vice versa, is committing the Stormwind Fallacy.
The spells we should getLook here to Check out my adventures and ideas. I've started a blog, about video games, table top role playing games, programming, and many other things its called Kel and Lok Games. My 4E Fantasy Grounds game is currently full.
Yeah, but nowhere did they say, each enemy is a equal level enemy..., and nowhere do they say, that wizards won´t cast spells to decimate enemies before they arrive. Nowhere do they say, the cleric may not heal and nowhere do they say, the rogue won´t take out an enemy before combat really starts, not to mention the fighter ability to use a ranged weapon.

My only concern right now is ranged weapons are doing too much damage, especially in the hands of goblins and kobolds who are rather dextrous than strong and benefit too much from their dexterity.

You also don´t take into account the fighter ability of reducing incoming damage.

So. Even though you are going by the developer´s assumptions, you don´t take into account that there are many abilitites on the PCs side to increase their chances of survival. And in my opinion, an interesting game should force you to do clever decisions.

As I said: your damage tables are only good for a boring game, that looks like this:

Hey, I am a fighter... I just go to the frontline and stand there, attacking once per round. And because equal level normal monsters do pitiful damage, I do this ever and all the time.

So I am still very glad, that you don´t design my game. Because it is boring.

And don´t bring up basic math again. As a math teacher I feel oblieged to remind you, that after modeling reality and get a solution, you need to evavulate, if your model really solves your problem. Which you did not. As you have forgotten to take a lot of factors into account. As shown above.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_model...
Yeah, but nowhere did they say, each enemy is a equal level enemy..., and nowhere do they say, that wizards won´t cast spells to decimate enemies before they arrive. Nowhere do they say, the cleric may not heal and nowhere do they say, the rogue won´t take out an enemy before combat really starts, not to mention the fighter ability to use a ranged weapon.

My only concern right now is ranged weapons are doing too much damage, especially in the hands of goblins and kobolds who are rather dextrous than strong and benefit too much from their dexterity.

You also don´t take into account the fighter ability of reducing incoming damage.

So. Even though you are going by the developer´s assumptions, you don´t take into account that there are many abilitites on the PCs side to increase their chances of survival. And in my opinion, an interesting game should force you to do clever decisions.

As I said: your damage tables are only good for a boring game, that looks like this:

Hey, I am a fighter... I just go to the frontline and stand there, attacking once per round. And because equal level normal monsters do pitiful damage, I do this ever and all the time.

So I am still very glad, that you don´t design my game. Because it is boring.

And don´t bring up basic math again. As a math teacher I feel oblieged to remind you, that after modeling reality and get a solution, you need to evavulate, if your model really solves your problem. Which you did not. As you have forgotten to take a lot of factors into account. As shown above.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_model...



The problem is the play test doesn't encourage what you are talking about. You literally don't have to do any special tactics to win at this point. All you have to do is hope you don't get hit at low level because it could end up knocking you out.

I like to encourage special tactics too, its why I play 4E. It has special tactics and interesting interaction built in.

My numbers take into account all of the special tactics and are meant to model 4000 adventuring days with average encounters. It is not meant to model a single combat perfectly. One combat the Fighter might get hit once, another not at all, and another 7 times.

If you would like what would you consider to be the average number of times a Fighter is going to get hit over 16-20 rounds? How many times should a Fighter need to hit a monster to take it down? How man hits should it take to take the Fighter down? What should the expected hit chance be for the Fighter? What should the expected hit chance be for the monsters?

These are the things I think the developers haven't asked.

I really refuse to try to play test the game until they fix the monster numbers because its pointless. The Fighter right now could stand out in the open and kill everything by themselves with little or no problems let alone other characters. Heck, someone started a thread where they attacked a level 1 party with a troll and the party won. If that doesn't show you how broken the numbers are nothing will...Smile
"Unite the [fan] base? Hardly. As of right now, I doubt their ability to unite a slightly unruly teabag with a cup of water."--anjelika
1-4E play style
The 4E play style is a high action cinematic style of play where characters worry less about being killed in one hit and more about strategy and what their next move is and the one after it. The players talk back and forth about planning a battle and who can do what to influence the outcome. 4E play is filled with cinematic over the top action. An Eladrin teleports out of the grip of the Ogre. The Fighter slams the dragons foot with his hammer causing it to rear up and stagger back in pain. The Cleric creates a holy zone where their allies weapons are guided to their targets and whenever an enemy dies the Clerics allies are healed. 4E is about knowing when to lauch your nova attack, whether its a huge arcane spell that causes enemies to whirl around in a chaotic storm, or if its a trained adrenaline surge that causes you to attack many many times with two weapons on a single target, or a surge of adrenaline that keeps you going though you should already be dead. Its about tactics and the inability to carry around a bag of potions or a few wands and never have to worry about healing. Its about the guy that can barely role play having the same chance to convince the king to aid the group as the guy that takes improv acting classes and regularly stars as an extra on movies.
Stormwind Fallacy
The Stormwind Fallacy, aka the Roleplayer vs Rollplayer Fallacy Just because one optimizes his characters mechanically does not mean that they cannot also roleplay, and vice versa. Corollary: Doing one in a game does not preclude, nor infringe upon, the ability to do the other in the same game. Generalization 1: One is not automatically a worse role player if he optimizes, and vice versa. Generalization 2: A non-optimized character is not automatically role played better than an optimized one, and vice versa. ...[aside]... Proof: These two elements rely on different aspects of a player's game play. Optimization factors in to how well one understands the rules and handles synergies to produce a very effective end result. Role playing deals with how well a player can act in character and behave as if he was someone else. A person can act while understanding the rules, and can build something powerful while still handling an effective character. There is nothing in the game -- mechanical or otherwise -- restricting one if you participate in the other. Claiming that an optimizer cannot role play (or is participating in a play style that isn't supportive of role playing) because he is an optimizer, or vice versa, is committing the Stormwind Fallacy.
The spells we should getLook here to Check out my adventures and ideas. I've started a blog, about video games, table top role playing games, programming, and many other things its called Kel and Lok Games. My 4E Fantasy Grounds game is currently full.
And you do believe, your numbers are better?

Right now the monsters numbers are indeed off. I nearly killed my 3 person lvl 3 party with just a few goblins and their leader, because of the advantage they had and their ranged weapons.

But all this makes the game interesting. The potential to kill unaware adventurers.

Numbers may be tweaked. But monsters and PCs need to have a common base. And PCs need abilities to change the odds in their favour.

Fighter gets Parry e.g.
This change allows monsters to have the same general accuracy like the mage at least. But a single monster will never ever get down the fighter. The secons one could greatly diminish his staying power.
The wizard has some spells to hinder the second guy so much, that the fighter again can win without fear of beeing hurt.
Right now it does not work too well. But from the latest legend and lore articles and mearls twitters, I am sure it will actually work out well.

Level 1:
2 hits should should take the average monster down on average
2 Hits should take the average adventurer down on average. A crit should not kill, but drop a level 1 character.

The average fighter however should take an average monster down with a single hit. And he should not drop before the 3rd hit. A crit should seriously hurt the fighter, but not drop him. This is covered by the highest HP of all base character classes and his constitution bonus.

When being prepared or fighting one on one, a fighter however should have a lot greater staying power due to his formidable abilities:
His parry ability allows him to reduce incoming damage by 1d4 or 1d6, which will reduce the average orks´s attack (1d8) to 0 (often) to 7 (only in the worst case) damage which averages to 1-2 or so per hit (a little difficult to calculate on the fly).

With 12 Hp a fighter can easily take a crit (the second kills him, if he can´t parry)
with 1-2 damage per hit, and an average chance to hit of 35%, that means, that the fighter can stay well over 15 rounds against this ork, but when the figter has taken his first 5 damage, every hit can possibly spell his doom. But it is highly unlikely.
Those are the numbers I expect. If the game is balanced that way, I would not be too concerned. The fighter is a professional who kills for a living and can take most average combatants without hurting himself too much.

His 60 hits that he should take over the course of the day will be covered by spending a hit die, replenishing his lost hp and maybe his cleric friend healing him once in a while.
Sign In to post comments