Question is, are new adventures going forward going to use these charts?
I would not expect DM's to change existing mods, but I am sure they could. The charts are a mixed bag of more damage, less accuracy , and some initiative changes.
We've noticed that monsters that have attack rolls increasing at +1 per level quickly overtake non armor class defenses. Almost all the monsters now have level + 3 to attack NAD's. I did a quick build on about 8 classes up to 20th level and the average non armor class defense was 28. If you're fighting monsters at the PC's level (which usually it's level +1 to level +3) the monsters will be attacking with +23 vs. the average NAD of 28. that means monsters hit on average roll of 5 (80% of the time). If you're fighting monsters 2 levels higher than the PC's they will hit 90% of the time.
This mirrors my experience with higher level play where most of us accept we'll be hit "most of the time"... For game flavor I wish this was not the case. I'd like to see a greater chance you will not be hit so there is some drama in the game when monsters attack non armor class defense. Right now there is a low expectation of being missed.
Would older monsters being used in these new adventures be updated to reflect these charts?
Monsters from old books (assuming no new version is made new books, or maybe an update from DDi in the compendium) will remain the same and would be used as such. Beefing up a monster is always within the realms of DME I suppose if the players complain that they are having too easy a time of it.
Is it acceptable for DM's to apply these values to existing mods if they desire?
Technically, DME does not allow it. The monster itself did not receive errata (which the CCG would allow you to apply). What received errata were damage guidelines.
You could consider making the modification, but I would suggest two things:
1) Know the adventure so that you know whether it requires this change. Many adventures that have a good challenge level might become bad/unfair with those changes.
2) For everyone's sanity, ask your table to be sure they are ok with the changes.
You can visit the D&D Encounters pages to see how well the new monster damage is going over at H1 in that program. (Hint: It hurts, it hurts, it... oh, I'm dead).
You can visit the D&D Encounters pages to see how well the new monster damage is going over at H1 in that program. (Hint: It hurts, it hurts, it... oh, I'm dead).
Well, we are talking about somewhat badly build 1st level characters with some of the fights taking place under extremely bad circumstances (e.g. nasty opponents with ranged attacks in a region were melee fights will take damage if they get in close). I did use some of the newer monsters in my home campaign and some of the currently worked on LFR adventures at H3 and up and against not particular optimized PCs and it did increase the challenge but not to the killing levels.
It is really easy with just MM2 to make some very hard heroic encounters - the specials are proof of this. Throw in MM3 and you can just about certify death even for mixed H1 tables, let alone all 1st level.
While being level one is a big factor and differentiates from LFR, the biggest issue with Encounters is the damage expressions. It seems as if the default damage is 1d10+4, with lots of 2d6s. Here are some DDE examples:
I: Basic attack 1d10 + 5; Recharge 6 area burst 1 1d10 + 5 1/2 on miss; 3/ectr to have every ally w/in 5 make a basic attack.
2XR: Aura 1 with possible 2dmg; Basic 2d6 + 5; 3/ectr 4d6 + 4 (!!!) with one time adding vulnerable 5 to all damage sources!!! All attacks have reach 2.
2xD: Basic ranged 1d10 + 4; Recharge 5-6 ranged 2d10 + 3 and immob with aftereffect slow, 1/2 dmg on miss.
Terrain: Autodamage 2 to all combatants at start of their turn.
Time: 5 rounds, then a new set of foes appears. PCs must also spend minor actions to perform an action related to the plot.
Compare to a recent LFR H1:
G: basic 1d4 + 4; +2d6 with CA (and has a ectr stdrd action to be invis).
R: basic reach 2 2d4 + 4 and mark; 2d4 +4 and prone; bonus to flank with W.
W: basic 1d4 + 6; shift 4 and basic; bonus to flank with R; plus 1d6 if CA.
Here's the surprising catch: The LFR example is a level 3 encounter, the DDE example is level 1! The LFR example is the third (and hardest) combat and they then get an extended rest. The DDE is the first combat of the day and they have to pass four more fights before they get an extended rest.
A lot of factors make the DDE deadlier, but the main thing is the damage output. Two monsters can take down a PC in a single attack, or at least set it up for complete annihilation if the enemies concentrate fire. It is almost impossible not to take out at least a PC a round if you concentrate fire and keep I close to the Rs. At our location, Is did not use their inspirational power, the 4d6 became 4d4, the 1d10s became 1d8 or 1d6, and DMs did not use ideal tactics. It was still incredibly difficult.
All of this is to say that DMs need to be really careful about increasing the damage of monsters. A lot of MM3 seems to me to be forward thinking towards future PC optimization and not ideal for current PC Heroic optimization.
I think a big part of the problem with Encounters as compared to LFR is that you are dealing with strictly level 1 PCs. If you think back on the first LFR at GenCon, a lot of people had difficulty with those first adventures. Some of that was a lack of expertise, but a lot of it was because everyone was 1st level. Simple things like everyone missing a lot of the time is just really rough. The same thing happened at the next GenCon with Paragon play. People were all at the minimum level (11th) and therefore the mods were much harder than they are now (where you can have several PCs at or near 14th).
The culture here with LFR, and I'm guessing you saw the same at GenCon, is all-high all-the-time. People seem to refuse to accept the idea that they should be playing on low tier if their characters are of that level. Some of the more recent modules are more difficult, and I see a lot of bitter players who think that their 1st level party should be able to handle Arts, for example, on high tier, with ease, and find themselves disabused of that notion.
I find the idea that modules won't be written with certain iconic MM1 monsters disappointing. While I've seen all the goblin hexers I ever want to see, the idea of never seeing "goblins" again would be disappointing.
Disclaimer: MM3 is flying off the bookshelves here in Phoenix, so I haven't been able to get a copy of it from a FLGS yet. For all I know there's a whole chapter on goblins.
The culture here with LFR, and I'm guessing you saw the same at GenCon, is all-high all-the-time. People seem to refuse to accept the idea that they should be playing on low tier if their characters are of that level. Some of the more recent modules are more difficult, and I see a lot of bitter players who think that their 1st level party should be able to handle Arts, for example, on high tier, with ease, and find themselves disabused of that notion.
Agreed. People do seem to want high all the time, though that wasn't so true at GenCon - most people seemed pretty tentative for the new tier, except for those groups that were pretty confident of their play style/capabilities/optimization.
I find the idea that modules won't be written with certain iconic MM1 monsters disappointing. While I've seen all the goblin hexers I ever want to see, the idea of never seeing "goblins" again would be disappointing.
Disclaimer: MM3 is flying off the bookshelves here in Phoenix, so I haven't been able to get a copy of it from a FLGS yet. For all I know there's a whole chapter on goblins.
I think making the modification is totally fine for authors. When writing an encounter, I could argue that the campaign should allow an author to update the damage for an old monster to the new standards. They will then playtest that version. This is very different than playtesting saying what an author wrote is fine, and then a DM unleashes the "corrected" version on an unsuspecting table. That could go very poorly at some tables.
I am curious whether the Globals think an author can, given the new rules, make changes to a monster during the authoring process to correct for the new damage levels.
I did a quick build on about 8 classes up to 20th level and the average non armor class defense was 28. If you're fighting monsters at the PC's level (which usually it's level +1 to level +3) the monsters will be attacking with +23 vs. the average NAD of 28. that means monsters hit on average roll of 5 (80% of the time).
I've seen +23 to hit on monsters since P1 and P2 just made the bonuses higher. So, it has already been this high for a while now.
- Difficulty: we have strong characters and generally play them well so we just aren't challenged by a lot of modules
- Loot: if we can't get items we consider good that are at least level+3 we feel robbed ;)
The former is easily fixed just by putting in the tougher monsters ..though it would be nice to have some way to actually tell before we TPK or walkover. If the change is as big as those examples indicate then I'd definitely like some kind of indication to appear in the blurbs.
The Loot is mostly about our (my) expectations and not necessarily something that the admins should be addressing ..I still think bundle slots should be tied to item levels and that would perhaps make me more inclined to look pick up lower level bundles (cos a level+1 slot can never be used on a level+4 item even if I find one) -not that I wouldn't still want to play the tougher mods for better loot ;)
I find the idea that modules won't be written with certain iconic MM1 monsters disappointing. While I've seen all the goblin hexers I ever want to see, the idea of never seeing "goblins" again would be disappointing.
I think you misunderstand. In some upcoming products (such as the essentials line) they are making more versions of all the iconic D&D monsters. So its not just an errataed ogre, its an ogre ravenger (just making up a name); but when it comes choosing an ogre for an adventure, we are more likely to use the newer versions as their damage expressions are better balanced as R&D believes they should be.
I am curious whether the Globals think an author can, given the new rules, make changes to a monster during the authoring process to correct for the new damage levels.
We have specifically been told that doing so would constitute a "new monster" and would therefore require it to be reviewed by R&D, just as all our new monsters are (and thus would put your adventures release at R&D the mercy of R&D's freetime to actually review your monster). Generally, it isn't worth it.
The best I've been able to do is increase damage by 1 for every level, rather than every 2... so at least that's something.
I'm hoping that when the globals have more control over the campaign, they can have some more leeway in allowing changes to monsters when they're appropriate.
I mean, _most_ do, but a shotgun approach could potentially be horrible.
+1 damage per level is pretty much always good, though - I've been confused by their +1/2 level thing since the game came out. Works okay for minions, but otherwise, no. Course, it hurts downgrading monsters ;)
I figure that monsters that are new can use the chart, but old monsters could be tweaked like Dkay has been fighting for. Old monsters won't use the new charts, only newly created MM3 or later critters will. But, a modest uppage of static damage bearing in mind playtesting is within the bounds of measure.
Clever use of status effects makes the game more challenging (I'm blinded by the dust elemental's aura until end of turn, better hold off on my daily until next round, but I lose nothing if I miss with an at-will). Tactics helps, too - and if the enemy is INT > 1, shouldn't it act to boost his own strengths?
As a semi-optimizer, I'm not sure that this change was all for the best. Ideally, the low-end version of a mod will keep low-end damage and the high-end version can use the new high-end damage. And for the really (over)confident, R&D can come up with assassin-level damage.
Dragomyr: Will future AGLA mods do something with the untranslatable tome from AGLA 1-1?
It's *very* important that GMs use the tactics spelled out int he modules. Those ought to be affected by the attributes of the monsters but are very often far from the most lethal or obvious actions to a GM thinking in terms of "my team". Of course the fight won't be entirely predicted by those but I thought it needed saying given how much difference it sometimes makes. (EG Inheritence fight 2)
Dragomyr: Will future AGLA mods do something with the untranslatable tome from AGLA 1-1?
The Major Quest involving the Tome of Twilight Boughs (which began with AGLA1-1 Lost Temple of the Fey Gods and continued with AGLA1-4 Through Twilight Boughs), is concluded in AGLA 1-7 Twilight Ambitions.
It just took awhile to get them all released. The good news is the series is complete, and spans H1, H2, and H3.
AGLA 2-4 will be the finale of a Major quest and it will be a P3. The quest series includes AGLA 1-3, and 1-6. H3, P1, and now P3 for the finish.