|
5 months ago ::
Jan 26, 2013 - 12:17PM
#1
|
Date Joined:
Oct 13, 2010
|
I can't help but feel that monsters have icredibly low AC and HP values for example a Glabrezu demon which is a level 11 encounter has and AC of 14 and 104 HP. Am I the only one who finds this to be odd when a player with a level 2 Fighter with leather armor has AC of 17 and HP 22.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 26, 2013 - 1:28PM
#2
|
Date Joined:
Apr 12, 2010
|
They are running with Bonded Accuracy. You are not going to have more than +7 or 8 to hit as an 11th level fighter in normal circumstances.
Check out the bonded accuracy thing somewhere. Monster HPs in current package are VERY low compared to player damage, they are adressing that next package as far as Im aware.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 26, 2013 - 7:47PM
#3
|
Date Joined:
May 11, 2004
|
The OP is not the only one who finds it odd. In the handful of DDN games I have played, missing an enemy seemed to be a rarity. Even with horrible die rolls (like 3 or 4) it seems that players never miss. On the other hand, it seems that way iwth monsters too. Which makes, IMO, AC almost unimportant and HP all-important. I think that is something that needs fixing.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 26, 2013 - 8:18PM
#4
|
Date Joined:
May 25, 2009
|
I finished my 7th session as a DM yesterday, and was going to come here to make the same thread. I hadn't really noticed it until this session. My players are level 5, and they had a fight with 4 zombies. According to the DMG, 6 level 5 characters call for 2280XP worth of monsters for an average encounter. I only had 4 zombies, so this one was supposed to be between easy and ave. Basically the party hit them every time they hit, but the zombies missed the party most of the time. When they did hit, they really hit hard.
I really got the feeling that monsters needed to be put down in the firt few rounds or the party would be in serious trouble. Up until the last session, I was 100% happy with the speed of encounters. Refreshing compared to 4e, but now that the party is gaining levels, making the kills quickly is getting to be the goal.
I couldn't really explain that. Of course killing mobs quickly is the point, but there is a line there. Something that I see optimizers and min/maxers use as a goal, instead of normal play. Kill in 2 rounds or die type of stuff instead of making a stand and having a fight.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 26, 2013 - 9:08PM
#5
|
Date Joined:
Dec 21, 2011
|
The newest bestiary is certainly better than the older one in terms of monsters and their "to hit" scores but overall, I think there needs to be more variety so that some monsters have lower "to hit" scores (we still should have some +1, and +2 monsters), while others have higher to hit scores. Also, some monsters of each type should have more hit points, and some should be more difficult to injure based on enhanced armor.
I like the idea that gives DM complete discretion to create elite types of any monster type by adding 50%-100% more hit points, giving it better armor (either by having it wear better armor, or by enhancing its hide or carapace), and special abilities to some monsters and spells to some wizard, priest or shaman versions of monster types. I've been modifying some monsters (and creating my own or converting prior edition monsters) in my playtests, I'm beginning to find it easier and easier to infuse variety of experiences and challenge levels in the adventures that I'm running.
I hope that WoTC will devote a section in their final bestiary or monster manual that details all the ways DMs can modify monsters. I really think this kind of tool has to be in the DMs arsenal because different groups like different play experiences. Some groups like to breeze through combat encounters so that they can continue with their story telling, exploring and roleplaying. Other groups like to dwell on longer, more tactical battles. Some groups like to vary it and change things up encounter to encounter (which I suspect is what most groups enjoy). To allow for each group/DM to create the kind of encounter, session or campaign he or she wants, there should be clear guidelines that make it easy.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 27, 2013 - 10:20AM
#6
|
Date Joined:
Jan 21, 2004
|
I would look to 1e monster stats for inspiration. There was a more bounded system than later editions where AC was 10 to -10 and the toughest non-deity had 200hp. Fighter attack rolls were capped at +17 which could have been adjusted by exceptional strength magic items and magical swords but +25 was probably going to be your max. Even then, that's 95% attack success for fighters - other classes were a lot lower. So I suppose that if a top fighter had a 95% chance to hit the toughest AC by level 20 then in DDN if you are looking at a similar % I suppose if you are looking at +15 to hit by level 20 AC-10 would have to be equivalent to AC17. You can see why monster AC has been capped so low.
If we look at 75% success as a more realistic goal we end up with AC21? Personally I think they could increase class level attack bonuses slightly and tease maximum AC up to AC21. I have no issue if peasant folk can only hit the toughest monsters on a natural 20 as long as it's a true rarity. Even Level 1 characters will usually have bonuses to attack, which in conjunction with advantage, spells, and combat manoeuvres should mean that they can still hit often enough to survive a fight. The key would be to balancing the monsters' other abilities to make sure a high AC monster is not unbalanced.
Quicklings had something like AC-7 in 1e? I'd be happy to see them with very high AC as long as their hp make them one-shot kills and their damage is kept low. I suppose if you use the 3e calculation it would be Dex29 for +9 and +1 for small size for AC20. That looks ok to me. Asmodeus had AC-9 so I'd probably pitch him at AC20 as well.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Feb 01, 2013 - 10:35AM
#7
|
Date Joined:
Dec 17, 2012
|
The idea of maxing monster AC/HP seems to be a coomon theme in the new playtests.
I wonder though, in the end isnt that what is allowing us to increase the speed of our encounters? If not what other variables can be tweaked that would allow for challenging combat encounter, while maintaining a higher paced game (with repect to speeds seen in 4E)?
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Feb 01, 2013 - 8:09PM
#8
|
Date Joined:
Mar 20, 2006
|
It is what's increasing the speed of combats... and it is much appreciated. However, there are still some challenges that should present, well, a challenge to the PCs and take a little more effort and time to defeat. When a party of level 2 characters blow through a level 5 challenge in 3 or 4 turns without needing to tap any spells, healing or any of their other resources, something is out of whack.
Yes?
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Feb 02, 2013 - 11:57AM
#9
|
Date Joined:
Aug 18, 2007
|
Yes, AC and HP are out if whack, currently. I've been almost doubling hit points in my sessions just to create sone tension in combat.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Feb 03, 2013 - 8:06AM
#10
|
Date Joined:
Apr 12, 2010
|
I did some quick estimations during my last game: Monster AC was slightly lower on average than the players Monster HP was on par with player HP Monster damage dealt (after parry and other tricks) was about 1/5 of player damage (and only because I cheated and gave the main bad guy double HP) My group was an all martial group of 5 players. So... if you want to emulate MMORPGs where 99% of fights outside of boss fights are no threat at all, then play DND next in the current version. Oh and to comment on my own comment above. They didnt adress anything of the sort, they just made it worse 
|
|
|
