My target is a standard 4 person combat should take 4-6 rounds and last a relaxed 30 minutes, across the majority of the level range. That's 8 activations (4 monsters, 4 PCs) at the start, lowering as monsters get killed. 4-6 rounds, so around a minute per players activation, only half of which is used for action resolution.
- Granting everyone a +2 to hit?
- Halving monster HP, but giving them +lvl to damage?
- Moving all powers up a level in frequency?
- At wills -> Base attacks
- Encounters -> At-Will for PCs, Recharge -> At-Will for monsters
- Daily -> Encounter
- At wills -> Base attacks
I'm looking for suggestions that
- Keep the balance about the same, thus justifying the same amount of XP.
- Are easy enough to apply that I can adjust stat blocks during play. For example, halving HP just means you start at the bloodied HP line. The goal is to make it easy enough to use Dungeon/modules/etc without having to go through it in advance creating whole new stat blocks.
- Don't require constantly pushing the players to chose their action faster/constantly work on table efficiency. I want the player to have more time to work on RP, rather than spending all of their time choosing/resolving their action.
Suggestions so far:
- Adding character/monster level to all damage rolls
- Doesn't handle elites/solos right, as they don't get the same number of attack rolls as the equivalent party
- Increases the power of Artillery relative to strikers/brutes/lurkers
- Doesn't handle elites/solos right, as they don't get the same number of attack rolls as the equivalent party
- Halving monster HP but then leveling the monster up one level
- Lowers effective monster level.
- Lowers effective monster level.
- Give everyone +2 to hit
- I've not play tested this yet.
- I've not play tested this yet.
Links
so adjusting either HP or damage will have the same effect
HP / DPR = expected rounds of combat
so adjusting either HP or damage will have the same effect
My preference would be to modify monsters more than players, so I think I'd need to both cut monster HP and up monster DPR to keep balance.
My preference would be to modify monsters more than players, so I think I'd need to both cut monster HP and up monster DPR to keep balance.
I would say for every 4hp you remove from Monsters, increase their damage by 1d6, but it would take some time for me to find a good realistic balance.
You could give all the monsters +2 to hit and -2 to defenses.
(same as +2 to hit for everyone, really, now that I think about it)
This keeps the math pretty simple, and raises the expected DPR by increasing accuracy.
I think that is a better bet than messing around with damage, since the accuracy rolls scale more evenly with level than does damage.
More damage after bloodied should change how creatures react to end fights sooner. When creatures sense the bloody end, they may run sooner or surrender and beg for mercy. And even if they don't, at least the end will come sooner.
Cheers.
Fight combat normally for 5-6 rounds then use a way to judge which side is winning and describe the rest of the combat without fighting it out. This will take a bit away from the struggle to survive a combat but will hurry it up. For intelligent creatures you could make an attack vs their will once they are bloodied or the 6 rounds are up, the level of the PC party vs the creatures will defense or perhaps a defense of DM's choice? If they fail they give up the fight; maybe out of fear in case of will, physically exhaustion in case of fort, or mentally exhausted in case of reflex. Those who succeed fight on until next round; eventually all the creatures will be dead or given up.
Alternatively you could just double all damage. It's not exactly halving hp since there is a chance for misses and random damage amounts.
When a foe is wounded one more time after being bloodied, the attacker makes an attack to fortitude using the damage done as a modifier. For example, if the creature is bloodied and I hit it again for 8 points of damage, I get to roll +8 Attack vs. Fortitude.
Success = creature falls to knees and is prone/incapacitated.
This is harsh, but that's what you asked for.
Cheers.
When you get mass damaged, you go instantly to 0hp. (after fort save dc15)
you get double mass damage, you are killed instantly, as in bits and pieces. (fort save DC 20 and you just treat it as Normal massive damage)
This can quicken the game allot, with insta-kills
yea, berserk is that... evil, yea thats the word, evil.
Sample:
"you bring your sword down just short of him, then you rush in and pull up... in between the legs and right out through the head. his blood pushes the two halves of his body apart and his bowls trail behind... plus ten to intimidate checks this round and you need to clean your boots."
Players: +4 dmg vs Bloodied Foes
Quicky, dirty, and easy.
Monsters: -3 AC & Defenses, 50% HP, +2 Damage
Players: +4 dmg vs Bloodied Foes
Quicky, dirty, and easy.
I keep meaning to try and use some models to see how much difference these suggestions should make, but can't seem to find the time. I also recall someone giving a nice argument why halving monster HP was equivilent to dropping the monster by one level, but now my google skills are lacking too.
But that's the type of suggestion I'm looking for, now if I could only find the time to model it.
So rather than missing 1 out of 2 rounds, we're bumping that up to 1 out of 3 rounds which will reduce your rounds needed by 25%.
"All creatures are minions... Including PCs"
O did that earlier this week... It was definitely brutish.
That would also apply to multiple players versus solo's.
Just something to be aware of, changing the hit percentage = variable changes based on the number of creatures or more correctly the number of attacks any creature is forced to undergo before it can act again.
Actually now that I think about it, changing the to hit percentage is bad or can be. Between two creatures it's a non-issue. But for the players who typically fight multiple creatures, the more attacks they undergo between their round the more a + to hit will affect them. Any boost in to hit is going to scale horribly the more creatures there are to hit any one target.
That shouldn't affect "standard" encounters to much, except that it will really speed up the end game. But it will really affect solo encounters. Especially given that there are a lot single-target "control" powers. Changing the hit ratio of "hit and target blind" powers will have a very dramatic effect on balance.
So ... if I want to drop the HP of a solo, I'd likely have to give them a relative boost to defenses, I think.
There are a lot of monsters who also have such abilities. That will definitely make combat more brutish...
The biggest balance issue I see there is improving Ranger powers that are balanced against other strikers based on a 50% hit rate. But that's probably acceptable.
Let me look at some math, thinking out loud, any statisticians or probability theorists out there feel free to correct my likely mistakes.
I think something like:
x rounds = total hit points / average damage per round.
Average damage per round = total possible damage / average chance to hit.
So let's say that if player 1 has a 50% chance to hit and will average 8 points of damage per round and player 2 has a 40% chance to hit and will average 10 points of damage per round, that comes down to a 45% chance to hit and 9 points average damage. So average damage per round over the long haul is 9*.45 or 4.05 points. I'm sure the math folks are cringing now.
And that doesn't take into account criticals because that's a function of the number of dice rolls involved blah blah blah. So we have a boss with 100 total hit points counting any healing possibilities.
24.x = 100 / 4.05 or 24 rounds.
Drop the bosses health by 50 and you'll get 12 rounds. You've also nerfed the bosses ability to deal damage because now his life expectancy is 12 rounds rather than 24 rounds. I'd think as a result he'd almost have to be worth half the experience.
And if you drop its health by 50 and bump it's defenses by say 4 the numbers work out to:
22 = 50 / 2.25 or 22 rounds (or almost the same things as making no changes)
(-50 health and +2 defenses )
15.x = 50/3.15 or 15 rounds.
Because of the 'economy of actions' anything that affects the length of the combat is through waterfall effect affecting a lot of other things. So if you reduce the lifespan of a creature for it to be worth the same it has to now cram in as many actions as it would have had into the shorter span. If you exactly half it you could simply double the number of attacks it gets per round, not a perfect solution but possibly a workable one.
Essentially you can decrease the number of rounds, add bonuses to hit or damage or add negatives to hit points or defenses.
But changing the number of rounds directly affects any combat that doesn't involve strictly one on one combat. It also adds in more wildcard factor from 'streaky' dice on one side or the other. It also increases the power of encounter powers and to a smaller extent daily powers. If a combat takes 20 rounds then an encounter power only counts as 1/20 of the combat. Decrease the round count to 10 and the encounter power now counts as 1/10th of the combat so it's relative worth to the combat as a whole is doubled.
I'm not by any means saying it wouldn't be a good idea to reduce combat round count but that the ripples as a result need to be considered to ensure there's no change in balance one way or the other that isn't desired.
So ... if I want to drop the HP of a solo, I'd likely have to give them a relative boost to defenses, I think.
First, the data. Hopefully. I'm assuming that player attacks follow, or at least scale the same as, the various damage expression in that table. I'm assuming the "average" monster has 21+8.5*Level hit points (assume that Con is 13+1/2 level, use the Skirmisher HP formula as representative).
This table should give the number of HITS to drop an "average" monster for a given damage expression. Sorry for the ASCII art here, I don't see how to do tables:
I think I'd like that to be a more constant 3. So I'd apparently rather have a correction factor that scales somewhat. Here's what you get if you add the level directly to the damage:
Just to point this out, but the -4 HP happens once to a monster, while the extra 1d6 damage would happen every time it swung.
You could give all the monsters +2 to hit and -2 to defenses.
(same as +2 to hit for everyone, really, now that I think about it)
This keeps the math pretty simple, and raises the expected DPR by increasing accuracy.
I think that is a better bet than messing around with damage, since the accuracy rolls scale more evenly with level than does damage.
Actually they don't. +1d6 is a pretty static 1-6 damage increase
+2 to hit produces a +1 damage/+10 expected damage, meaning as monsters level their DPR increases at a dramatic rate compared to a more static +XdY format for damage.
This table should give the number of HITS to drop an "average" monster for a given damage expression. Sorry for the ASCII art here, I don't see how to do tables:
I think I'd like that to be a more constant 3. So I'd apparently rather have a correction factor that scales somewhat. Here's what you get if you add the level directly to the damage:
How about this (in jest, I'm sort of making it up as I go for humor sake):
All creatures start with 1 HP, players start with 2, and get 1 HP per level beyond.
All creatures/players get 1/4 their level added to weapon/spell damage.
All critical hits do max [w] damage plus 1/2 creature/player level added.
Healing surges do 1HP plus 1/2 player level.
All other stats remain the same.
5th level warrior has 2+1+1+1+1 = 6 HP
5th level warrior does 2 HP damage normal
5th level warrior does 3 HP damage on a critical with a 1[w] weapon.
Spell damage and weapon damage remains the same 1[w] = 1, 2[w]=2, and so on. Any recurring damage is worth only 1 point.
Round 1, my 5th level warrior gets hit with a 2[w] spell (4th level monster), and takes 2 damage + 1, and gets recurring 1 (save end). He now has 3 HP.
Round 2, my 5th level warrior takes 1 recurring and makes his save, but then gets hit by a 1[w] weapon. 3-1-1, he is now at 1 HP.
Round 3, my 5th level warrior uses a healing surge and gets 3 HP restored, but is hit by a 1[w] weapon and a critical 2[w] spell (4th level monster). He goes from 1+3 = 4, 4-1 = 3 and 3-(2+2)=-1 he is unconscious.
:P
I've run the maths on this, halving a monster's HP is roughly equivalent to dropping its monster level by 1. That's step 1. Step 2 is to use the DMG-mandated method for increasing a monster's level by 1; +1 to attacks, defenses, I also add the +1 to damage, and one level's worth of HP.
So monsters should be a fair bit more offensive, while going down more quickly. It works out to just about exactly what you want.
Good gaming!
4e has different mechanics, though, including the very helpful bloodied number. I might institute an effect like ongoing 10- con mod damage every round until dead or healed. That way, It's not that they're half down when bloodied, but fading fast and getting desperate.
PCs are much more likely have allies willing to heal them, though. But that hit that takes you down to 7hp becomes a lot more noteworthy.
Here's a simple houserule that would work pretty well here:
I've run the maths on this, halving a monster's HP is roughly equivalent to dropping its monster level by 1.
I recall you posted that justification before, but I can't seem to find it. Could you post it again?
That's step 1. Step 2 is to use the DMG-mandated method for increasing a monster's level by 1; +1 to attacks, defenses, I also add the +1 to damage, and one level's worth of HP.
Thanks. I'll give that a try next session.
Here's a simple houserule that would work pretty well here:
I've run the maths on this, halving a monster's HP is roughly equivalent to dropping its monster level by 1. That's step 1. Step 2 is to use the DMG-mandated method for increasing a monster's level by 1; +1 to attacks, defenses, I also add the +1 to damage, and one level's worth of HP.
So monsters should be a fair bit more offensive, while going down more quickly. It works out to just about exactly what you want.
Good gaming!
Er, um... I get step 1, but you just halved their HP, then you add +1 to abilities, and then you add one level worth of HP? Didn't you just remove the HP?
Sorry, it's been a long day...
HP / DPR = expected rounds of combat
so adjusting either HP or damage will have the same effect
The guys on Afrika Corps (SPI) came up with a formula for calculating the time a fight would take to resolve. I don't have the book to hand, but I believe the factor that overwhelmed every other consideration was the number of steps in a turn, and the commensurate decision making.
To reduce the number of steps in a turn, elide steps that have an inevitable mechanical effect that can be reproduced simply.
-vk
the factor that overwhelmed every other consideration was the number of steps in a turn, and the commensurate decision making.
To reduce the number of steps in a turn, elide steps that have an inevitable mechanical effect that can be reproduced simply.
Could you go into more detail?
I recall you posted that justification before, but I can't seem to find it. Could you post it again?
Sure, it's over on the GitP forums. Here's the link to the justification. Read the entire thread for a bit more info.
Thanks. I'll give that a try next session.
You're welcome. If you wouldn't mind, could you PM me with any results?
Er, um... I get step 1, but you just halved their HP, then you add +1 to abilities, and then you add one level worth of HP? Didn't you just remove the HP?
Sorry, it's been a long day...
Step 1 removes far more HP than Step 2 gives back.
The remainder is made up by the bonuses.
Sure, it's over on the GitP forums. Here's the link to the justification. Read the entire thread for a bit more info.
Thanks. I added that link (and Yakk's very detailed math post about the issue) to the first post. (Now, if I could just find the time to analyze "Everyone's +2 to hit")
You're welcome. If you wouldn't mind, could you PM me with any results?
Well, hopefully I'll post them here.
Thanks. I added that link (and Yakk's very detailed math post about the issue) to the first post. (Now, if I could just find the time to analyze "Everyone's +2 to hit")
Good idea
Well, hopefully I'll post them here.
Okay, I'll check back here then.
you want to half HP
you want to go even faster
you want to be gritty and add the feeling of danger
*
make Bloodied a bad thing to be, like daced or something.. you can only make one action, you bleed... choose what you like
now add the half Lvl to damage as well (wherever you use the stats mod. you use the one on the right column... fast, easy, tasty!!!
maybe even -2 to defenses (easier to calculate than +2 to attacks as it is a static value instead of one to roll every time "oh and +2 by houserule") but I am not entirely sure about this
Maybe dont use the +1/2 LVL for players and - 2 for monsters?
Now your monsters try to flee/fall wounded when blodied
But maybe your characters want to exterminate them... or not
And they have something to do when Wounded/Bloodied besides diying (but keep having the feeling of beeing screwed
Okay, I'll check back here then.
Last night I ran two encounters, with relatively optimized level 30 PCs. There were 3 PCs, a Bugbear Rogue/Dagger Master, A Longtooth Shifter Cleric/Pitfighter, and a Githyanki Greatsword Pitfighter (with a free +1/+1 feat in the spirit of Hellfire Blood). All went Demigod.
In retrospect, a Tactical Warlord would have been a much better choice. Hitting was frequently a problem.
The encounter was the standard Level 34 Orcus encounter, split in two: The supporting staff as one encounter, and the Big O as the second one. I used Jaxgaret's suggestion of halving HP, and then leveling the monsters up one to compensate. I (obviously) left minions untouched.
Results:
The length of the battles was about right. So that worked about perfectly. However they were easier.
I'd estimate that the entourage encounter (the math suggests its a level 34 encounter for 3 PCs, IIRC) was actually effectively a level 28. It was dangerous, but not scarily so like I'd expect a level 34 encounter to be. Everyone was bloodied, no one dropped.
The Orcus battle was much easier, actually. They all went in with Divine Regeneration running. Orcus did drop the fighter twice, but he got better each time and neither of the other two characters were much affected. Orcus was difficult to hit (that +1 to defenses mattered), they killed him with the occasional really big hit, and damage-dealing stances/damage fields.
I think I'm next going to try halving monster HP, but adding +lvl to monster damage instead of leveling them up.
I'd also note that high-Epic feels different in kind than high Paragon. I think Padded Sumo was at it's worst in high Paragon. In Epic, the extra 1[W] on at-wills, the extra dice for sneak attack/Quarry/Curse, and the magic items all combined to elevate the damage faster than I think the mathematical models indicated.
Much nastier than mine.
Damage Threshold is the amount of damage a character can take in a single hit regardless of your total hp before your battlefield prowess is affected. The worse your condition is the worse you will fight.
To get your Damage Threshold score, you take your healing surge value+1/2 level+Constitution modifier + any size category modifier.
Normal Condition no penalties
-1 Step/+1Step
-1 all defenses
-1 Step/+1 Step
-2 defenses -1 attackrolls
-1Step/+1Step
-3 defenses, -2 attack rolls, -1 skills and checks
-1 Step/+1Step
Rendered, Helpless, Unconscious or Disabled.
Improving Condition. You may improve your condition (if not helpless disabled or unconscious) by one if you spend your movement action and roll a constitution check Dc10 for the first two steps, and Dc 15 for step three recovering. This improves your condition category by one. You can spend your second wind option, and improve your condition by two. Any healing ability raises your condition by three. (even if disabled, helpless, or unconscious)
why not just play 3.5? If you want quick combats, that's a much better system than 4E.
Don't make me laugh. 4e's combat is as quick as 3e's normally; if made any quicker, it would be faster than in 3e.
Results:
The length of the battles was about right. So that worked about perfectly.
Alright, great.
However they were easier.
I'd estimate that the entourage encounter (the math suggests its a level 34 encounter for 3 PCs, IIRC) was actually effectively a level 28. It was dangerous, but not scarily so like I'd expect a level 34 encounter to be. Everyone was bloodied, no one dropped.
The Orcus battle was much easier, actually. They all went in with Divine Regeneration running. Orcus did drop the fighter twice, but he got better each time and neither of the other two characters were much affected. Orcus was difficult to hit (that +1 to defenses mattered), they killed him with the occasional really big hit, and damage-dealing stances/damage fields.
Three things of note here: the PCs were highly optimized, all with the best Epic Destiny, which will skew the difficulty a fair bit. It would be a better test to run at a lower level, or to not give the PCs the broken Demigod ability.
The second thing is that Orcus' The Dead Rise and Master of Undeath abilities don't work in a fight without monsters around Orcus; his allies, once slain, also rise again to fight.
A third note is that high level Minions are basically road bumps to PCs. The first fight would have been better as 3 Atropals, since the big plus of having Minions around in the Orcus fight - after they die, they come back again as more Minions - was absent.
I think I'm next going to try halving monster HP, but adding +lvl to monster damage instead of leveling them up.
I've played around with a few alternate ideas, as well. I recommend increasing the attack bonus rather than damage, it will be more uniform in effect, since some monsters have more attacks than others, and some attacks are more about status effects than strictly damage. You can also try increasing non-attack abilities' effects by a point or two (Leader abilities, Auras, etc.).
I'd also note that high-Epic feels different in kind than high Paragon. I think Padded Sumo was at it's worst in high Paragon. In Epic, the extra 1[W] on at-wills, the extra dice for sneak attack/Quarry/Curse, and the magic items all combined to elevate the damage faster than I think the mathematical models indicated.
Could very well be. Let me know if you have any more information to impart, thanks
Don't make me laugh. 4e's combat is as quick as 3e's normally; if made any quicker, it would be faster than in 3e.
We actually got through 3.5 battles quite quickly, via the miracle of automation. (A spreadsheet capable of handling most all spells and doing stacking properly. Including polymorph effects). I've got the 4e sheet going, but 4e battles are still taking longer, due to a combination of things. We don't have the rules quite so lock-solid memorized. And even if we did, the Monsters Just Won't Die! Thus this thread.
Three things of note here: the PCs were highly optimized, all with the best Epic Destiny, which will skew the difficulty a fair bit. It would be a better test to run at a lower level, or to not give the PCs the broken Demigod ability.
Only one player used the demogod ability in question, and it was a simple attack. The other two couldn't actually ditch all their encounter powers. For example, the Dagger Master encounter power is a free extra attack when you crit. He never crit.
And they had a strength cleric as the leader, not a tactical warlord. And the Cleric never hit with Righteous Brand, and so never gave out a To Hit bonus. So I wouldn't call it highly optimized. Just moderately optimized.
The second thing is that Orcus' The Dead Rise and Master of Undeath abilities don't work in a fight without monsters around Orcus; his allies, once slain, also rise again to fight.
Fully Agreed. Orcus, being a Leader type, needs his troops. So taking them away did highly reduce his effectiveness. That's part of why I didn't feel I could state the effect of the change to Orcus: the encounter didn't use him properly so It wouldn't have been a level 33 encounter anyway.
A third note is that high level Minions are basically road bumps to PCs.
Disagree, for parties like this one that lack a controller. They took a lot of damage from the minion auras, and took quite a while to kill the minions. If they had put up damage auras, they would have had a much easier battle ... but then couldn't have used them on Orcus.
I've played around with a few alternate ideas, as well. I recommend increasing the attack bonus rather than damage, it will be more uniform in effect, since some monsters have more attacks than others, and some attacks are more about status effects than strictly damage. You can also try increasing non-attack abilities' effects by a point or two (Leader abilities, Auras, etc.).
Right now I'm leaning toward increasing damage. Increasing To Hit can't elevate Orcus's Wand damage past 3d12+12, All it does is guarantee someone is weakened. Once someone is hitting 75% of the time (a good estimate here for Orcus) increasing to hit has a decreasing effect on DPR. Increasing damage can do more, and I think has a better feel. There should still be some randomness to the battle, or at least SEEM like there is randomness to the battle.
Saga's condition chart.
That's an interesting thought. I'm worried it might be more to keep track of. It also doesn't seem to handle Elites/Solo well.
To get your Damage Threshold score, you take your healing surge value+1/2 level+Constitution modifier + any size category modifier.
Basically, no one will Ever hit the damage threshold for solo or Elite, especially at high level. The best damage done last night was around 100. Orcus's threshhold would be more like 400. On the other hand, the Efreet Karadjin would have a threshhold of 98+Size Modifier. That's probably about right. That will get hit on a big attack, but not most at-wills.
Would it be better modeled as a fort attack somehow? If you crit, make an attack v. Fort. if you hit, reduced one on track? That's too unlikely...
If you get hit for max damage from an attack (Crit, or good roll), move down one level. If bloodied, move down one level. That might be worth playtesting.
Penalties expressed as Defenses/Attacks/Skills
0 <=> -1 <=> -2/-1 <=> -3/-2/-1 <=> Unconscious
Improving Condition. You may improve your condition (if not helpless disabled or unconscious) by one if you spend your movement action and roll a constitution check Dc10 for the first two steps, and Dc 15 for step three recovering.
That DC is completely free around 18th level, lower for brutes. (DMG p.184 Baseline stats also go up with 1/2 level, making the Ability check go up on 3/4 level) I think I'd rather it were a Saving Throw. "As a move action, make a save to improve your condition one step"
This improves your condition category by one. You can spend your second wind option, and improve your condition by two. Any healing ability raises your condition by three. (even if disabled, helpless, or unconscious)
Isn't using a second wind a healing ability? It might be better to swap those: A healing ability raises it by 2, second wind by 3 (completely removing it in any situation where you were able to voluntarily use your second wind). That makes the more limited action better.
Monster Damage: Divide by X.
PC Healing: Divide by X.
Doesn't change the balance at all (except encounter v. at-will balance, sustain balance), whereas upping everyone's attack would help low-attack people disproportionately.
Set X 0 Monster HP: Multiply by X.
Monster Damage: Divide by X.
PC Healing: Divide by X.
Doesn't change the balance at all (except encounter v. at-will balance, sustain balance), whereas upping everyone's attack would help low-attack people disproportionately.
Why change PC healing? Won't doubling/one-and-a-halfing/whatever monster damage suffice?
That's an interesting thought. I'm worried it might be more to keep track of. It also doesn't seem to handle Elites/Solo well.
Basically, no one will Ever hit the damage threshold for solo or Elite, especially at high level. The best damage done last night was around 100. Orcus's threshhold would be more like 400. On the other hand, the Efreet Karadjin would have a threshhold of 98+Size Modifier. That's probably about right. That will get hit on a big attack, but not most at-wills.
Would it be better modeled as a fort attack somehow? If you crit, make an attack v. Fort. if you hit, reduced one on track? That's too unlikely...
If you get hit for max damage from an attack (Crit, or good roll), move down one level. If bloodied, move down one level. That might be worth playtesting.
That DC is completely free around 18th level, lower for brutes. (DMG p.184 Baseline stats also go up with 1/2 level, making the Ability check go up on 3/4 level) I think I'd rather it were a Saving Throw. "As a move action, make a save to improve your condition one step"
Isn't using a second wind a healing ability? It might be better to swap those: A healing ability raises it by 2, second wind by 3 (completely removing it in any situation where you were able to voluntarily use your second wind). That makes the more limited action better.
Well you could always take away the size category bit. I've not had alot of time testing the chart yet, but I am expecting issues. Was just hoping maybe it'd point you guys in a general direction to go with.
Only one player used the demogod ability in question, and it was a simple attack. The other two couldn't actually ditch all their encounter powers. For example, the Dagger Master encounter power is a free extra attack when you crit. He never crit.
And they had a strength cleric as the leader, not a tactical warlord. And the Cleric never hit with Righteous Brand, and so never gave out a To Hit bonus. So I wouldn't call it highly optimized. Just moderately optimized.
Okay, moderately optimized
Disagree, for parties like this one that lack a controller. They took a lot of damage from the minion auras, and took quite a while to kill the minions. If they had put up damage auras, they would have had a much easier battle ... but then couldn't have used them on Orcus.
The Cleric has a fair number of Controller abilities too, but yes, without the Controller, high-level Minions aren't as useless. I don't think they're worth their points, though.
Right now I'm leaning toward increasing damage. Increasing To Hit can't elevate Orcus's Wand damage past 3d12+12, All it does is guarantee someone is weakened. Once someone is hitting 75% of the time (a good estimate here for Orcus) increasing to hit has a decreasing effect on DPR. Increasing damage can do more, and I think has a better feel. There should still be some randomness to the battle, or at least SEEM like there is randomness to the battle.
Good point. Maybe just do the +1 to hit and defenses, and add as much damage capability as you feel it merits? That way you can just ignore the single level of HP you are supposed to add back in from leveling them up; that would save some time during creation.
I've also considered just giving them a flat +1 to everything. +1 to all defenses, attacks, damage dice, saving throws, skill checks, initiative, auras, etc. It would be easy to keep track of, certainly.
I may futz with this in my D&D game. To make combat grittier and quicker, I may have everyone roll a "Wild Die". (not sure what kind yet or what percentages would work) Maybe a d12 (they aren't used so much). Then, if the roll is a "12" something good will occur (perhaps +6 to die roll or something), but I will not have do anything bad if a "1" is rolled.
This will skew the math for skills and attacks, but I like that. I believe that player's should not always rely on the odds to make decisions. They should live it up.
If I give the opponents this same ability, it will make combat very dangerous for everyone. It will most likely send the PCs home in a coffin more often too, unless they get great healing support. I'll have to watch out for that.
Cheers.
I may futz with this in my D&D game. To make combat grittier and quicker, I may have everyone roll a "Wild Die".
Isn't that what a critical already is?
It would not be the same as a critical. It could enhance a critical, but it may just turn a miss to a hit and or add more damage exclusive of the critical.
It would add +6 to hit, skill check, or damage about 8% of the time if I use the 12 sided die.
Cheers