# July Rules Update DMG: Errata needed?



## Jhaelen (Jul 7, 2010)

TBH, the only piece of the rules update that currently interests me was the new 'damage by level' chart and the accompanying 'monster statistics by role'.

So, I immediately dug in and analysed the changes:

1) Damage By Level:
The table is now very clean and the math obvious:
Single Target damage on average is always (level + 4). Nice!
I also like that dice expressions only go up to 4 dice.
This also means that damage should be adjusted by +/-1 per level when adjusting monster levels (rather than by +/- 0.5).
Everything else follows from there:
- Multi-target damage is simply 25% less. 
- Brutes will get 25% more, and limited expressions are 25-50% more.
- Minions aren't mentioned, but using the DMG2 guidelines, probably should use 50% of the new average damage.
- Lurkers aren't mentioned, which is odd but confirms my suspicions after analysing the MM3 Lurkers:
Lurkers no longer do high damage. Imho, that's a bad change. Lurkers are generally designed to only deal damage every other round. What's the point of using a lurker if that damage isn't noticable?

2) Monster statistics by role:
- The first row has a formatting error: Brute should say '-', soldier '+2', and lurker '+4'
- changes to attacks:
- Brute: +2 vs. all defenses - this change had already been mentioned by Greg Bilsland.
- Soldier: -2 vs. AC but not vs. other defenses. I believe this hasn't been mentioned before but was something I noticed when analysing MM3, however:
I believe the table is in error and the attack vs. other defenses should be reduced by 2, as well. Almost all MM3 soldiers have reduced attack values vs. every defense. Interestingly many MM3 soldiers have a +2 bonus to immediate and opportunity attacks.
- Controller: -1 vs. other defenses. This change might make sense in an attempt to streamline attack values overall. Looking over the MM3 there are quite a few controllers that still have a higher to hit chance for _some_ of their attacks. So, maybe the footnote for the artillery should be applied to controllers, too.
- Artillery: -2 vs. all defenses, but because of the footnote, it's really only the melee attacks that are reduced.

*To sum it up:*
- Lurker damage needs to be increased by 25%
- Soldier attack vs. other defenses should be +3
- Controller attack vs. other defenses should get a footnote


----------



## Aegeri (Jul 7, 2010)

> Minions aren't mentioned, but using the DMG2 guidelines, probably should use 50% of the new average damage.




Minion damage hasn't changed, they still use the DMG2 table as far as I know.



> Soldier: -2 vs. AC but not vs. other defenses. I believe this hasn't been mentioned before but was something I noticed when analysing MM3, however:
> I believe the table is in error and the attack vs. other defenses should be reduced by 2, as well.




That is confirmed to be an error. 



			
				Greg Bilsland said:
			
		

> Yes, it is a typo; RT @loganbonner The update has level + 5 for the soldier's attacks vs. AC or other defenses. Typo?




It also appears there is more general "wiggle" room to reduce attacks up and down as the DM wants. There are a few brutes that still use +3 or even +4 to AC in MM3 for example.


----------



## Jhaelen (Jul 7, 2010)

Aegeri said:


> Minion damage hasn't changed, they still use the DMG2 table as far as I know.



Hmm, but wouldn't that be too low, then?



Aegeri said:


> That is confirmed to be an error.



Ah, good to know! Thanks for the confirmation 



Aegeri said:


> It also appears there is more general "wiggle" room to reduce attacks up and down as the DM wants. There are a few brutes that still use +3 or even +4 to AC in MM3 for example.



Yup, I noticed (just posted my observations in my other thread ). The questions is: Are all of the different attack bonuses intentional or are some of them in error?

I haven't checked them all (yet!) but in most cases the differences in attack bonuses seem plausible, so I'm cautiously optimistic


----------



## Jhaelen (Jul 7, 2010)

Jhaelen said:


> *To sum it up:*
> - Lurker damage needs to be increased by 25%
> - Soldier attack vs. other defenses should be +3
> - Controller attack vs. other defenses should get a footnote



There's something else I forgot to mention:
There's a tiny hiccup in the 'Damage By Level' table in the 'Two or More Targets' column:
Average damage at level 25 is 25.5, and at level 26 it's 25. It's the only place where average damage goes down.

So level 26 should read '4d6+12'.


----------



## Gort (Jul 7, 2010)

Jhaelen said:


> hick-up




Hiccup :eng101:


----------



## keterys (Jul 7, 2010)

Lurkers do more damage if you count them as using Limited attacks... which they generally should count as using.

And yeah, I've advocated +/-1 damage per level for a long time  Nice to see it backed up.


----------



## Scribble (Jul 7, 2010)

Gort said:


> Hiccup :eng101:




Y'all git'up here n hep me update these here Monstas before we grab us a 6 pack a Bud, n hit up some NASCAR.


----------



## Joshua Randall (Jul 7, 2010)

Jhaelen: nice analysis. You should post this on the Errata forum on WotC's boards.


----------



## SabreCat (Jul 7, 2010)

Has anyone worked out elegant damage expressions for the +25% and +50% suggestions? I'd guess for d8s you upgrade to d10s and d12s, respectively, as well as apply the modifier to the static bonus, but I'm not as sure what to do with the d6 expressions.

EDIT: Well, 4d(any) is easy, as is +50% on 2d(any)... still chewing on the rest ^.^


----------



## SabreCat (Jul 7, 2010)

Work in progress, including Jhaelen's level 26 fix: (never mind)

Unfortunately the most difficult expressions to work with are right at the start of the paragon tier, which is where my current campaign is... ^.^;

Removing the hyperlink since Jhaelen's table later in the thread has it complete. I'll repost if I put anything else together.


----------



## Jhaelen (Jul 7, 2010)

Gort said:
			
		

> Hiccup :eng101:



Thanks, fixed.


			
				keterys said:
			
		

> Lurkers do more damage if you count them as using Limited attacks... which they generally should count as using.



Exactly! That's why I'm suggesting a comment needs to be added to the Rules Update. Just like Brutes, their damage needs to be increased.

I've not fully analyzed the MM3 Lurkers yet, but from noting down all damage expressions I came away with the impression that their damage is too low. It could be misleading because they're all accompanied by nasty conditions, but I don't think so.


SabreCat said:


> Has anyone worked out elegant damage expressions for the +25% and +50% suggestions?



I'm working on it 

Edit: I've attached the (average) 'damage by level' table I'm using as a basis for the new damage expressions table. Since the minion damage values are fixed, they are usable right away. I've also decided to expand it to level 40 - because I can 

- std avg is identical to level + 8 and corresponds to the 'Single Target' column
- std low is std avg - 25% and corresponds to the 'Two or more Targets' column
- std high is std avg +25% and to be used for Brutes (and Lurkers), and encounter or recharge powers of different monster roles
- ltd high is std avg +50% and to be used for Brute (and Lurker) encounter or recharge powers

The minion damage is simply 50% of the corresponding std damage columns (rounded down).


----------



## Jhaelen (Jul 8, 2010)

And here's the first version with damage expressions, using up to 5 d6 or d8. Whenever I've had to choose whether to increase average damage by +0.5 or -0.5, I've picked the lower damage expression. 

I'm going to create another version for my own games, though, redoing the damage expressions from the July update, since I'd like it to use the other dice, too, and taking levels above 30 into account.


----------



## keterys (Jul 8, 2010)

Jhaelen said:


> Exactly! That's why I'm suggesting a comment needs to be added to the Rules Update. Just like Brutes, their damage needs to be increased.




Except, their basic and at-will type attacks don't necessarily need to be. Their lurking mechanism should count as a Limited attack that gives +25% to +50% damage as appropriate, which should give them the damage they need.



> - std avg is identical to level + 8 and corresponds to the 'Single Target' column
> - std low is std avg - 25% and corresponds to the 'Two or more Targets' column
> - std high is std avg +25% and to be used for Brutes (and Lurkers), and encounter or recharge powers of different monster roles
> - ltd high is std avg +50% and to be used for Brute (and Lurker) encounter or recharge powers
> ...




This, really is the important part. I don't think it's really necessary to have dice listings if you know the average damage - or, at least, you might as well list dice that give you exactly the average damage. It's probably simpler to just say:

Multiple targets: Shift 1 column lower
Brute: Shift 1 column higher
Recharge/Encounter or Easy Lurking Mechanic: Shift 1 column higher
Difficult Lurking Mechanic: Shift 2 columns higher

Part of me dislikes that there's no distinction between recharge 456 and encounter, in theory, or that multiple recharge/encounter powers (see Duergar Theurges for example) don't really register in the system... but hey, that's why it's an art not a science


----------



## Jhaelen (Jul 8, 2010)

keterys said:


> This, really is the important part. I don't think it's really necessary to have dice listings if you know the average damage



Agreed. What I love about the new damage progression is that I just need to remember a single number: '8'. Add the monster's level, maybe add/substract 25% (or 50%), half it for minions. That's it. You no longer even need the table if you're one of those people who can do quick calculations.

Dice expressions are really just a convenience. The only things varying them does is: change the minimum and maximum damage. The latter is somewhat important for crits. In theory dice expressions also define the degree of swinginess, but that's largely irrelevant, once you start rolling more than 3 or 4 dice.


keterys said:


> Part of me dislikes that there's no distinction between recharge 456 and encounter, in theory, or that multiple recharge/encounter powers (see Duergar Theurges for example) don't really register in the system... but hey, that's why it's an art not a science



Yup, I've been thinking about this, as well. I tried to approach it with the question: 

[off-topic]
How many rounds does (or should!) a combat take on average?

I've started with a relatively low number: 6 rounds. That's the number of rounds I'd like a combat to take. Interestingly, after investigating an iconic sample party (fighter, cleric, rogue, wizard, ranger) average damage output would be sufficient to achieve this at every level (assuming 4 encounters per day)! In reality combat can take longer for a variety of reasons, mostly, having to deal with conditions and being prevented from effectively using their powers.

Round six might also be a good point to investigate the current situation and decide which side seems to have the upper hand. Maybe it would make sense for one side to retreat, surrender, or flee.

Anyway, using that number, an attack that is usable once per encounter becomes identical to recharge 6 and an ability that recharges when bloodied becomes identical to recharge 5,6. This leaves recharge 4,5,6, attacks that can recharge multiple times depending on circumstances, and all of the 'combo' attacks that have a requirement attached (very common for lurkers).
For the former two it makes sense to use limited damage expressions, but the third isn't really represented by a column.

Elite and minion monsters work quite well with these assumptions, but solos present their own challenges. For them the comparison to five standard monsters breaks down pretty soon.[/off-topic]


----------



## Psikus (Jul 8, 2010)

keterys said:


> This, really is the important part. I don't think it's really necessary to have dice listings if you know the average damage - or, at least, you might as well list dice that give you exactly the average damage.




It's not that difficult to work out with the new values, but I've written down some easy to remember formulas for average monster damage. I find them rather useful:

 - *Low *(Area): 6 + 0.75*Level
 - *Medium*: 8 + Level
 - *High *(Brute/Limited): 10 +1.25*Level
 - *Very Hig*h (Limited): 12+1.5*Level

Minion Damage
 - *Low*:   3 + (Level -1)/3 
 - *Medium*:  3 + (Level -1)/3 + (1* Tier)
 - *High*:   3 + (Level -1)/3 + (2* Tier)

They are discussed in more detail here and here.


----------



## Jack99 (Jul 8, 2010)

Have you considered adding Encounter/Limited Powers for Brutes?


----------



## Jhaelen (Jul 8, 2010)

Jack99 said:


> Have you considered adding Encounter/Limited Powers for Brutes?



I think that's what the +50% damage column is for (ltd high on my table). Or are you referring to something else?


----------



## Jack99 (Jul 8, 2010)

Jhaelen said:


> I think that's what the +50% damage column is for (ltd high on my table). Or are you referring to something else?




Interesting. It could very well be. Somehow, I thought that the 25%-50% variable was just that, a variable for powers, with recharge 4 powers being more towards the 25% and encounter powers being more towards the 50% - since there is a significant difference in how many times they can be used in a combat, especially if its a solo who has it. This made me believe that I would have to make separate calculation for brute (+ lurker) damage, ie +56 and +87% respectively.

Your way makes things a lot simpler though. 

Thanks for making that table btw.


----------



## SabreCat (Jul 8, 2010)

Thanks much for the table, Jhaelan! I'm going to run that off and stick it into my DMG, I think.

If you do create a table with damage expressions above 30, I'd like to see it. It seems like something of an oversight that the DMG table doesn't go that high.

EDIT: Nitpick - you didn't include your fix for level 26. Average damage goes down from 25.5 to 25 from 25th to 26th level on the standard-low progression.


----------



## SabreCat (Jul 8, 2010)

I've done up Jhaelen's tables in spreadsheet format here: https://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc...WJQU0lQUDdCT3pSVENVcGc&hl=en&authkey=COvH8tIH

The average damage for the expressions can be found in hidden columns.

Let me know if there are any data entry errors...


----------



## Oldtimer (Jul 8, 2010)

SabreCat said:


> Let me know if there are any data entry errors...



I think the level 17 Minion High is missing something...


----------



## SabreCat (Jul 8, 2010)

Oldtimer said:


> I think the level 17 Minion High is missing something...



Hah, indeed! Fixed.


----------



## Matrix Sorcica (Jul 8, 2010)

Jhaelen said:


> I'm going to create another version for my own games, though, redoing the damage expressions from the July update, since I'd like it to use the other dice, too, and taking levels above 30 into account.



Post it, please.


----------



## Jhaelen (Jul 9, 2010)

Matrix Sorcica said:


> Post it, please.



Here you are:

First my apologies to you d4 fans out there: I didn't use any of the d4 dice expressions.
This is because 
a) it has a very low number range, and 
b) there are always other dice expressions with the same maximum damage.

I picked 12 different dice expressions, three for each other type of dice (d6, d8, d10, d12), using up to four dice.

One picture shows just the damage expressions, as before; the other includes info on:
- minimum damage (min), 
- calculated average damage (calc), and 
- the actual average damage of the dice expression I used (avg).

In the .zip archive is the original Excel Sheet if you'd like to tinker with it.

Enjoy!


----------



## SabreCat (Jul 9, 2010)

Cool! Looks like you decided to deviate some from the official table, but since it's based on the official math, it all works out. Thanks!

EDIT: Oh, duh. You stated that you wanted to use more dice types. I overlooked that in my excitement for levels 31+


----------



## Jhaelen (Jul 9, 2010)

SabreCat said:


> Cool! Looks like you decided to deviate some from the official table, but since it's based on the official math, it all works out. Thanks!
> 
> EDIT: Oh, duh. You stated that you wanted to use more dice types. I overlooked that in my excitement for levels 31+



Yup. Extending the table while keeping the original dice expressions would have worked, but I'd have had to go up to six dice and the gaps between average and max damage would also go up more than I like.

I prefer never rolling more than four dice. Otherwise the bell curve gets too centered on the average results for my taste. It similar to what we did in 3e: Instead of rolling 10d6 for a fireball, we'd roll 4d6+21. This doesn't really make a lot of difference in practice, since it's incredibly rare to e.g. roll a six ten times.

As I mentioned earlier, in 4e it does actually make a difference, since the maximum result is used when a crit happens. Limiting myself to a maximum of four dice limits the swinginess of high crits somewhat.

Please let me know if you discover any mistakes - it was rather late when I created the tables


----------



## SlyFlourish (Jul 10, 2010)

Thank you Jhaelen!

These charts are awesome. All we need is to add DCs, defenses, and attack scores and we'd have the new best Page 42 cheat sheet ever.

I just cut and pasted (literally) into my DM Screen. My players are in for a treat!

"You just stepped into a nasty necrotic bog in the Abyss, you take 4d8+29 damage"


----------



## TarionzCousin (Jul 10, 2010)

mshea said:


> My players are in for a treat!
> 
> "You just stepped into a nasty necrotic bog in the Abyss, you take 4d8+29 damage"



You have a different definition of the word "treat" than I do.


----------



## SlyFlourish (Jul 12, 2010)

I just spent a good piece of this morning taking a Sharpie to my Monster Manual 1 with those new damage expressions. It was awesome watching Balors and Dracolichs turn into the powerful beasts they were always intended to be. Even encounters I didn't plan to run from adventures became useful when I jacked up the damage of the nasties.

Jhaelen, do you have a twitter account? I want to give credit where it is due.

Thanks again, this is really awesome.

Mike


----------



## keterys (Jul 12, 2010)

Wow, sharpie to the monster manual. 

I will say... I'm not so sure that dracoliches needed the boost


----------



## Asmor (Jul 12, 2010)

```
Lvl	Low At Will	Medium At Will	High At Will	Low Limited	Medium Limited	High Limited
1	1d6+4		1d8+5		2d4+7		1d8+4		2d4+7		3d4+8
2	1d8+4		1d10+5		2d6+6		1d8+5		2d6+6		3d4+10
3	1d8+4		1d10+6		2d6+8		1d10+5		2d6+8		3d4+11
4	1d8+5		1d12+6		2d6+9		1d10+6		2d6+9		3d6+10
5	1d10+5		1d12+7		2d8+8		1d12+6		2d8+8		3d6+11
6	1d10+5		1d12+8		2d8+10		1d12+7		2d8+10		3d6+13
7	1d10+6		1d12+9		2d8+11		1d12+8		2d8+11		3d6+14
8	1d12+6		1d12+10		2d10+10		1d12+9		2d10+10		3d8+13
9	1d12+7		1d12+11		2d10+11		1d12+10		2d10+11		3d8+15
10	1d12+8		1d12+12		2d10+12		1d12+11		2d10+12		3d8+16
11	1d12+8		2d8+11		3d8+12		2d8+10		3d8+12		4d6+18
12	1d12+9		2d10+10		3d8+13		2d8+11		3d8+13		4d6+19
13	1d12+10		2d10+11		3d8+14		2d10+10		3d8+14		4d8+17
14	1d12+10		2d10+12		3d8+16		2d10+11		3d8+16		4d8+18
15	1d12+11		2d10+13		3d8+17		2d10+12		3d8+17		4d8+20
16	1d12+12		2d12+12		3d10+15		2d10+12		3d10+15		4d8+22
17	1d12+13		2d12+13		3d10+16		2d10+13		3d10+16		4d8+23
18	1d12+14		2d12+14		3d10+17		2d12+12		3d10+17		4d10+21
19	1d12+14		2d12+15		3d10+19		2d12+13		3d10+19		4d10+22
20	1d12+15		2d12+16		3d10+20		2d12+14		3d10+20		4d10+24
21	2d10+12		3d8+17		4d8+20		3d8+15		4d8+20		5d8+25
22	2d10+12		3d10+15		4d8+22		3d8+16		4d8+22		5d8+27
23	2d10+13		3d10+16		4d8+23		3d8+17		4d8+23		5d8+28
24	2d12+12		3d10+17		4d10+20		3d10+15		4d10+20		5d10+25
25	2d12+13		3d10+18		4d10+21		3d10+16		4d10+21		5d10+27
26	2d12+14		3d10+19		4d10+22		3d10+17		4d10+22		5d10+28
27	2d12+14		3d10+20		4d10+24		3d10+18		4d10+24		5d10+30
28	2d12+15		3d12+18		4d10+25		3d10+19		4d10+25		5d10+31
29	2d12+16		3d12+19		4d10+26		3d10+20		4d10+26		5d10+33
30	2d12+16		3d12+20		4d12+24		3d12+18		4d12+24		5d10+34
```

This is the table I'm going to be using. The algorithm behind the selections of dice is as follows:

The base for a heroic-tier, medium, at-will attack is 1 die.
-1 die for low-damage attacks (but always a minimum of one die)
+1 die for high-damage attacks
+1 die limited attacks
+1 die for level 11+
+1 die for level 21+

The idea being more powerful attacks get more dice, which leads to larger swings in numbers and larger crits.

Average damage of attack is Level + 8. -25% for low, +25% for high, +25% for limited.

The average damage split about evenly between random (dice) and static (modifier). I use the number of dice and how much damage should be random to decide which type of dice to use. This is a bit looser since I've constrained myself to use only d6 through d12, and towards the upper end of the scale where the d12s start to top out the static damage takes a larger portion of the pie.


----------



## keterys (Jul 12, 2010)

Whatcha doing for 'rounding', Asmor? It looks a bit odd for medium at-will to be 1d8+5 and low limited to be 1d8+4, when they should be the same however you turn 9 into 8.5 or 9.5.

Also, I'd suggest dropping the d4 entirely. 2d6+5 is much shinier than 2d4+7, ditto 3d6+5,7, and 8 instead of 3d4+8,10,and 11

Now I'm curious if it's possible to redo the chart to remove all the half bumps - 2d6+2 for 1st level instead of 1d8+4 or +5 kinda thing.


----------



## Asmor (Jul 12, 2010)

keterys said:


> Whatcha doing for 'rounding', Asmor? It looks a bit odd for medium at-will to be 1d8+5 and low limited to be 1d8+4, when they should be the same however you turn 9 into 8.5 or 9.5.




Not a rounding error so much as an issue of terminology and imprecision thereof. Specifically, when I say "-25%" and "+25%", what I mean is multiply by .75 or 1.25, respectively. Thus a low-limited attack is actually 15/16 (~93%) of a medium at-will, and a high limited attack is 25/16 (~156%).



> Also, I'd suggest dropping the d4 entirely. 2d6+5 is much shinier than 2d4+7, ditto 3d6+5,7, and 8 instead of 3d4+8,10,and 11




There are no d4s in the chart... o_0



> Now I'm curious if it's possible to redo the chart to remove all the half bumps - 2d6+2 for 1st level instead of 1d8+4 or +5 kinda thing.




Anythings possible... Personally I think it's not worth the effort. YMMV.


----------



## Jhaelen (Jul 12, 2010)

mshea said:


> Jhaelen, do you have a twitter account? I want to give credit where it is due.
> 
> Thanks again, this is really awesome.



I'm glad you find it useful 

I don't have a twitter account, sorry. After skimming over weem's thread about twitter I decided that maybe it is something I should look into but didn't get around to do it yet.


----------



## keterys (Jul 12, 2010)

Asmor said:


> Not a rounding error so much as an issue of terminology and imprecision thereof. Specifically, when I say "-25%" and "+25%", what I mean is multiply by .75 or 1.25, respectively. Thus a low-limited attack is actually 15/16 (~93%) of a medium at-will, and a high limited attack is 25/16 (~156%).




Ah. I saw it more like a sliding scale - ergo, less columns - but that's reasonable.



> There are no d4s in the chart... o_0



Psst. Scroll right. First row of Medium Limited and first three rows of high Limited.


----------



## KarinsDad (Jul 12, 2010)

I think this is a little too math intensive for many DMs. One would have to look this up on the chart and write damage down for each monster before each encounter, or at least each non-MM3 monster.

How about a system of:

Heroic = 2D6 + monster level
Paragon = 3D6 + monster level
Epic = 4D6 + monster level

for standard monster attacks? Brute and other strong attacks are D10s instead of D6s.

Area attacks are:

Heroic = 1D8 + half monster level
Paragon = 2D8 + half monster level
Epic = 3D8 + half monster level

This has the advantage that it is easy to remember. The DM can then increase or decrease damage for a given monster by upping or lowering the die size. For especially powerful monsters, he could add an entire extra die of damage. For weak monsters, drop a die.

Also, using two dice at the lowest levels for standard attacks minimizes swinginess as well.


----------



## Asmor (Jul 12, 2010)

keterys said:


> Psst. Scroll right. First row of Medium Limited and first three rows of high Limited.




Well that's embarassing. >_> I actually wrote this thing up a couple weeks ago and just updated it with the new math. At the time I thought I'd not allowed d4s as usable, and I swear I did a search on "d4" and didn't find anything before replying... My bad.


----------



## darkjedi26 (Jul 12, 2010)

How do you know which attacks get low, avg or high? Looking at updating my MM with your chart, but how do I know which attack gets which value?


----------



## SabreCat (Jul 12, 2010)

darkjedi26 said:


> How do you know which attacks get low, avg or high? Looking at updating my MM with your chart, but how do I know which attack gets which value?



I'm not sure which table you're referring to (WotC's, Jhaelen's, or Asmor's), but keterys's post (http://www.enworld.org/forum/4e-dis...-masters-guide-errata-needed.html#post5237269) has the guideline I use.


----------



## darkjedi26 (Jul 12, 2010)

SabreCat said:


> I'm not sure which table you're referring to (WotC's, Jhaelen's, or Asmor's), but keterys's post (http://www.enworld.org/forum/4e-dis...-masters-guide-errata-needed.html#post5237269) has the guideline I use.




That clears it up, thanks!


----------



## Upper_Krust (Jul 12, 2010)

Hey all! 

Interesting stuff Jhaelen, though (as regards the damage of Level 31+) I wonder if the best idea is to (try and) keep the dice average and the bonus roughly equal?

I posted the revised table from Levels 31-45 on my website.

Immortality

For example at Level 33, Orcus would deal a base 5d10+24, with limited powers of 6d10+29 ( = Player Encounter) and 7d10+33 ( = Player Daily)

One other question of note is whether the damage tables should peak at 175% rather than 150%. Specifically for Brute limited powers.

75% = Low
100% = Standard
125% = Brute

+25% = Limited (akin to Player Encounter)
+50% = Limited (akin to Player Daily)


----------



## Asmor (Jul 13, 2010)

darkjedi26 said:


> How do you know which attacks get low, avg or high? Looking at updating my MM with your chart, but how do I know which attack gets which value?




Here's my logic: The default for an attack is normal damage. A brute's attack is shifted up one category to high damage. An AoE attack is shifted down one category to low damage. A brute's AoE does normal damage.

If it's an at-will attack, do at-will damage. Otherwise, do limited damage.



Upper_Krust said:


> One other question of note is whether the damage tables should peak at 175% rather than 150%. Specifically for Brute limited powers.
> 
> 75% = Low
> 100% = Standard
> ...




Personally, I'd keep a brute's limited single-target attacks at 150%. YMMV.


----------



## Jhaelen (Jul 13, 2010)

Upper_Krust said:


> Hey all!
> 
> Interesting stuff Jhaelen, though (as regards the damage of Level 31+) I wonder if the best idea is to (try and) keep the dice average and the bonus roughly equal?



Howdy Upper_Krust!

Well, when I started looking into this (here), I had a similar idea: I tried to keep the minimum damage close to half the average damage. I also tried to make sure that the minimum damage steadily increased from level to level. However, it's at odds with my preference for limiting the number of dice rolled (see below).
Looking over the MM3 monsters, I notice that the really high damage expressions are rarely used as is. Instead part of the damage is substituted with ongoing damage or status effects.

Also, when the July Update was released, I didn't have the impression that the official damage expressions were picked to ensure anything of the kind. The preference seemed to be to have a 'clean' progression of dice expressions. I rather liked that damage expressions change every five levels (at least starting in the paragon tier), so I kept that part.

As previously mentioned I'm not a big fan of using 'buckets of dice'. That's the main reason I limited myself to dice expressions with up to four dice. It's one thing I was a bit disappointed about in 4e: I remember that the designers promised I wouldn't have to roll lots of dice. Yet, powers use up to 9 dice, and there are still weapons using two dice as base damage and don't get me started on the 'brutal' keyword... It may not be quite as bad as empowered disintegration spells in 3e, but it's worse than I prefer.

Anyway, I don't think there's a right or wrong about using different dice expressions. It's really a matter of personal preferences and the goals you have in mind. See KarinsDad's comments or Asmor's table.

If I had tried to create a table for levels 1 to 75 (or is that a typo?), I'd probably have wanted to use more dice expressions. I would still have tried to keep the number of dice as low as possible. 
One further reason is what happens when you list dice expressions ordered by average damage: The higher up you go the more odd changes from one type of die to another you get (e.g. like 4d8 ends up between 3d10 and 3d12). And if you set yourself an upper limit of the number of dice you want to roll, you'll eventually end up with only large dice and huge gaps between the average damage values.

Still, I like seeing different damage expression tables, so bring them on 


Upper_Krust said:


> One other question of note is whether the damage tables should peak at 175% rather than 150%. Specifically for Brute limited powers.



Yup, that's what Jack99 inquired about further up in this thread. I certainly cannot say if that was the intention or not. Without having playtested anything, I feel that 150% is sufficient and 'recharge 5,6' not that different from 'recharge if bloodied' to warrant another column.

I may well change my mind on this, though  
Especially, since my analysis prior to the July Update (based on the hp/level progression for pcs) indicated that average damage should be even higher all around.


----------



## Gort (Aug 26, 2010)

One thing I'd like to see - standardisation for when you use the "high", "medium" and "low" amounts (for example, for the melee attack of an artillery, use the "low" amount, for the ranged attacks of anything but artillery use "medium") and also some standardisation for the limited attacks. 

For example, a power that comes back on a 4-5-6 would get only a 25% boost to damage, one that comes back on a 5 gets a 37.5% boost, and one that comes back on a 6 gets the full 50%.

Anyone got any ideas that make sense with this?


----------



## keterys (Aug 26, 2010)

It's more complicated than that - take a creature with a recharge 6 power, but give them 4 of them. Suddenly it's not that special. Take a creature with an at-will power, that requires a prone target who can't see them, and a complex lurking mechanic that will set that up once every three rounds...


----------



## Xyrlove Woodsoul (Oct 13, 2010)

1. How are attacks with ongoing damage accounted for in the new monster damage equations, or aren't they? 
2. How are attacks that have nasty riders, for example, dazed, stunned, pushes, etc., (especially, multiple nasty effects) accounted for in the new monster damage equations? Or aren't they?
3. How are standard at-will attacks that can be used twice in a turn as a standard attack (for example, Double Attack) accounted for in the new monster damage equations? Or aren't they?


----------



## Lord Ernie (Oct 13, 2010)

1. They aren't.
2. They aren't.
3. They aren't.


----------



## Xyrlove Woodsoul (Oct 13, 2010)

Well, should they be? And, if yes, then how so?


----------



## Lord Ernie (Oct 13, 2010)

I'd say look at some existing MM3 or later monsters as examples. The formula helps to determine what damage a power should do on average, but any further additions still take a bit of tweaking.


----------



## Xyrlove Woodsoul (Oct 13, 2010)

Yes. I was looking at MM3 and the Creature Catalogue all night trying to figure it out, and I didn't notice any sort of methodology or unifiormity to what I'm wondering about, then I just sort of gave up and thought I'd ask you people, and try to get some sort of consensus, because I'm horrible at math.


----------



## Jhaelen (Oct 13, 2010)

Xyrlove Woodsoul said:


> 1. How are attacks with ongoing damage accounted for in the new monster damage equations, or aren't they?
> 2. How are attacks that have nasty riders, for example, dazed, stunned, pushes, etc., (especially, multiple nasty effects) accounted for in the new monster damage equations? Or aren't they?
> 3. How are standard at-will attacks that can be used twice in a turn as a standard attack (for example, Double Attack) accounted for in the new monster damage equations? Or aren't they?



1) AFAICT, you just subtract the ongoing damage from the total as if it was a static modifier, e.g. an attack that does 1d8+5 is equivalent to an an attack doing 1d8 + ongoing 5.
2) Just compare the damage expression against the old table: what column is it closest to? Then use the same column in the new damage progression chart.
3) See 2), though I'd be surprised if you ever find it uses a different column than the low damage one for standard monsters. For elite monsters it could also be the std damage column.

So far I've found changing the damage expressions is pretty straightforward. 

It only gets more complicated if you're looking at a monster that deviates from the average attack bonus. Hobgoblins are an example for this. Apparently, some monsters are supposed to trade-off damage potential for better accuracy or vice-versa.


----------



## Xyrlove Woodsoul (Oct 13, 2010)

Jhaelen said:


> 1) AFAICT, you just subtract the ongoing damage from the total as if it was a static modifier, e.g. an attack that does 1d8+5 is equivalent to an an attack doing 1d8 + ongoing 5.
> 2) Just compare the damage expression against the old table: what column is it closest to? Then use the same column in the new damage progression chart.
> 3) See 2), though I'd be surprised if you ever find it uses a different column than the low damage one for standard monsters. For elite monsters it could also be the std damage column.
> 
> ...




1. Awesome. That's what i've been doing for ongoing damage. I did something right! I'm so proud of myself haha. I was just a bit leary because ongoing damage is well, sometimes, ongoing more than once. But I guess I just wanted a science, in a game that's not science. But I'm content now.

2. Hmm. I think I get what you're saying. I'll have to take a look at the old chart. But isn't there like 2 other old damage charts (erratta)?

3. I think I get what you're saying. And that's what i was doing. I think. But i didn't refer to the old chart though. For example, for standard monsters, I just used the new standard average (non brute), if say, the monster only attacked once with the power, then shifted to standard low if it attacked twice with the same power (a la "Double Attack."). Thus, same power, but using different damage expressions, depending.

Am I close? I must say, I like these new damage expressions. It makes things more fun, and less time consuming. Thanks a lot. I very much appreciate your help. And I use your chart (including the lurker and controller modifications). I'll have to take a look at the old charts too, that never occurred to me.


----------



## Jhaelen (Oct 14, 2010)

Xyrlove Woodsoul said:


> Am I close? I must say, I like these new damage expressions. It makes things more fun, and less time consuming. Thanks a lot. I very much appreciate your help. And I use your chart (including the lurker and controller modifications). I'll have to take a look at the old charts too, that never occurred to me.



Yep, sounds good to me - and you're welcome!


----------



## SabreCat (Oct 14, 2010)

Xyrlove Woodsoul said:


> And I use your chart (including the lurker and controller modifications).



I skimmed back through the thread and didn't see mention of these. What modifications?


----------

