D&D 4E Ben Riggs' "What the Heck Happened with 4th Edition?" seminar at Gen Con 2023
- Thread starter Alzrius
- Start date
Zardnaar
Legend
50% iirc
fluffybunbunkittens
Hero
I ran release 4e by not rolling damage, every damage die was just maximized. Even that way, the initial monsters felt too spongy..
AbdulAlhazred
Legend
This is just a rumor. The MM1 monster hit points are pretty logical and match with the DMG1 monster design process. Their damage output however is generally below what the DMG chart states, considerably at high levels. So, the internal evidence would point more to a late revision there.
But what I found was that MM1 monsters are pretty much spot on if you are running scenarios that don't involve wiping out every monster, and/or involved traps, SCs, etc. replacing some of the monsters. All of this is found in the encounter building guidelines.
Agreed. And contrary to popular opinion, there is no significant change in hp between the MM and the MM3/Essentials MV except that solos have only 4x rather than 5x hp.
The DMG suggests damage equal to 1d8 + half level. I think most MM monsters match this. MM3 and MV step this up to 1d8 + level. Which in my experience works better (though at Heroic tier the difference is not great; hence why MM monsters are generally fine at Heroic tier).
The later monster also does not give Brutes a -2 to hit compared to other creatures of that level.
I found them generally fine except for needing damage to be stepped up at Paragon and Epic tier. And sometimes Brutes needed to have the -2 to hit removed.
AbdulAlhazred
Legend
Yeah, it's been a while, but my recollection is that many heroic tier monsters have low baseline damage (using the damage expressions by level chart), but not by a lot at heroic. However, the non-basic daily/recharge/situational values are often drastically short of the ones in the damage expression chart. Brutes were then supposed to get a 25-50% bonus on all damage, but many didn't, especially on their signature attacks.
So the -2 brute attack penalty is bad BECAUSE they lack sufficient excess damage. Soldiers, a very common monster type, also got a defense bonus, usually on top of some added mechanics like the infamous hobgoblin phalanx bonuses.
There are definitely sloggy monsters that are insufficiently dynamic in MM1, but the main issue is encounter design. 4e is terrible at traditional room fights.
I also just think that hitting is more interesting! Not only does it bring associated effects/forced movement into play, but it sets up the context for the players to respond (via interrupts or reactions, healing, etc).
Not to say that you want auto-hit from brutes, as the chance to avoid the big hit is also a feature of the game. But the -2 penalty on the whole isn't that good in my view.
I didn't use any Hobgoblins at 1st level, which has the greatest risk of "slog" (because there are no below-level monsters, and players have their lowest possible bonuses). I did use them around 4th or 5th level, and at least as I remember it they were fine.
Two monster that I used around 3rd/4th level were wraiths, and a black dragon. The wraith was frustrating in the way one would expect - insubstantial (so half damage) and able to inflict weakness (for half damage again). So you wouldn't use it every time. But it didn't wreck the game or anything.
The black dragon attacked the PCs while they were in an amphitheatre-ish space, I think with a portico or similar on one side. I don't remember all the details (from 15 or so years ago) but there were a couple of Gnome enemies also, and I remember a fair bit of mobility in that fight. And the PC wizard, who was carrying a statue of an Elven god/fey spirit, called on the statue's power to conjure light to dispel the dragon's darkness (page 42!).
To me, it seemed that at least some of the complaints about slog came from not following the DMG advice (which warns about soldier AC, talks about the importance of movement and terrain, etc) and not designing encounters with an eye to the sort of interesting experience they can give rise to.
TwoSix
Everyone's literal second-favorite poster
Which is a shame, 2006 or so are when the 3.5 design actually got interesting.
Zardnaar
Legend
I didn't really like that stuff back then. And I have a lot of product.
I think the internet over playeded it's appeal and who had access to it. Bo9S was heavily banned fo example at least contemporary posts about it that weren't huh?
I've acquired it since but it's just another headache to keep track of.
Late 3.5 for me was the fluff. Mechanic burnout. FR, the APs, Hordes of Abyss, Lords of Madness etc.
Rereading it now barely used the 50-60 books I owned.
Last edited:
TwoSix
Everyone's literal second-favorite poster
Can't argue taste. Tome of Battle, Tome of Magic, PHB2, Incarnum, Complete Mage and Complete Champion all saw a decent amount of play at our tables. Especially since we didn't switch over to PF1 until 2012.
