# Lots of statistics from the Monster Manual



## kerbarian

I just finished compiling and analyzing all of the statistics I could think of from the Monster Manual.  It started with wondering how the defense scores (AC, Fortitude, Reflex, Will) compared to each other -- how much of an advantage is it to attack Reflex instead of AC, anyway?  Then I wondered how prevalent the different types of resistances are.  Eventually I just decided to get every easily-comparable piece of monster data I could and throw some perl together to get interesting statistics.

A few high-level observations:

Attacking Reflex or Will instead of AC is effectively about a +3 to hit, with Will being somewhat better.  Attacking Fortitude only gets you +1-2, declining at higher levels, and Brutes actually have higher Fortitude than AC.


Of the damage types, poison has the most common resistance (23%) because so many creatures are immune.  Next is fire (17%), and necrotic is also high (13%) because of undead.  Most of the rest are at about 5%, with radiant (2%), psychic (<1%), and force (<1%) performing the best.  The only significant vulnerability is Radiant (9%), again due to undead.


Not a big surprise, but creatures tend to get both bigger and faster as you move up the tiers.  About 17% of creatures fly in the heroic and paragon tiers; that jumps to 60% in epic.


The ratio of heroic : paragon : epic entries is about 6 : 5 : 2.  About 11% of heroic entries are elite or solo monsters.  That increases to 33% for paragon and 53% for epic.

I've broken the statistics down into several sections:

*Defenses:*
[sblock]
This first table compares average fortitude/reflex/will to average AC at each tier, to see how much of an advantage there is in attacking each defense.  At every tier, will is the easiest defense to hit, followed closely by reflex.  Fortitude is a distant third, and unsurprisingly AC is (on average) the highest defense.


		Code:
	

                    1-10   11-20   21-30+  Overall
Fortitude - AC     -1.76   -1.14   -0.88     -1.39   
Reflex - AC        -2.51   -3.07   -2.64     -2.75   
Will - AC          -3.28   -3.20   -3.68     -3.31


This table looks at how the defenses scale with level.  AC holds pretty steady at level + 14.  The rest of the defenses are lower than AC by the amounts shown in the previous table.


		Code:
	

                    1-10   11-20   21-30+  Overall
AC - Level         14.01   14.45   14.69     14.29   
Fortitude - Level  12.25   13.31   13.81     12.90   
Reflex - Level     11.50   11.38   12.05     11.54   
Will - Level       10.74   11.25   11.01     10.98


The defenses also vary by monster role.  The fact that fortitude stays closer than the other defenses to AC seems to mostly be due to soldiers and brutes.  Brutes actually have a higher average fortitude than AC.  Since soldiers tend to have both high AC and high fortitude, that means their reflex and will defenses are far lower by comparison.


		Code:
	

                   Artillery   Brute   Controller   Lurker   Minion   Skirmisher   Soldier
Fortitude - AC         -1.89    0.86        -1.84    -2.86    -1.90        -2.04     -1.55   
Reflex - AC            -1.69   -2.55        -2.95    -1.50    -3.15        -2.06     -4.29   
Will - AC              -2.67   -2.71        -2.19    -3.52    -4.00        -3.79     -4.39


This table shows defenses by level and role.  Again, we see AC at level + 14 for most roles, but soldiers are significantly higher, artillery and minions a little lower, and brutes significantly lower.


		Code:
	

                   Artillery   Brute   Controller   Lurker   Minion   Skirmisher   Soldier
AC - Level             13.78   12.77        14.49    14.18    13.54        14.40     16.11   
Fortitude - Level      11.89   13.63        12.65    11.32    11.64        12.36     14.57   
Reflex - Level         12.09   10.22        11.54    12.68    10.38        12.34     11.82   
Will - Level           11.11   10.06        12.30    10.66     9.54        10.61     11.72

[/sblock]
*Attacks:*
[sblock]
The first table shows what percentage of creatures at each tier have at least one attack that targets each defense.  For example, only 13.8% of level 1-10 creatures have an attack that targets Will.  "AC only" is the percentage of creatures that have an attack against AC and not against any other defenses.

Attacks against AC are the most common (no surprise), and attacks against Will are the least common, with only about 21% of creatures having an attack vs. Will.  At higher tiers, we see more creatures able to attack defenses other than AC.


		Code:
	

               1-10   11-20   21-30+  Overall
AC             95.6    96.3    86.5      94.5
Fortitude      24.9    35.3    43.2      31.7
Reflex         25.8    37.4    55.4      34.8
Will           13.8    26.3    28.4      20.9
AC only        51.1    34.2    27.0      40.9

The next table shows the average attack bonus vs. each defense, compared to the creature's level.  For example, level 1-10 creatures have an average attack vs. AC of their level + 4.47.  These say pretty steady; attacks against AC are at level + 4-5, and attacks against other defenses are at level + 3.


		Code:
	

                                1-10   11-20   21-30+  Overall
Attack vs. AC - Level           4.47    4.41    4.55      4.46
Attack vs. Fortitude - Level    3.15    3.15    3.07      3.13
Attack vs. Reflex - Level       3.14    3.01    2.95      3.03
Attack vs. Will - Level         2.97    3.39    2.75      3.13

[/sblock]
*Resistances:*
[sblock]
Because there's a lot of information to cover, this section is broken into one table per tier, and then an overall table at the end.  The values shown are percentages of creatures that have the given level of resistance or higher.  For example, in the first table we can see that 17.3% of heroic-tier creatures have at least resist poison 5.  13.8% have at least resist poison 20, and 13.8% are immune, so we can see that all of those high resistances actually come from immunity.

Note that I counted "variable" resistance as resistance to acid, cold, fire, lightning, and thunder, since it can be any of those.  Also, swarm resistance (half damage from melee and ranged) is listed under immunities.

Heroic tier (monster levels 1-10):


		Code:
	

              5+    10+    15+    20+    25+    30+    35+    40+  Immune
acid         3.1    2.7    0.9    0.4    0.0    0.0    0.0    0.0     0.0     
cold         2.2    2.2    0.9    0.4    0.0    0.0    0.0    0.0     0.0     
fire         8.9    8.4    2.7    1.8    0.0    0.0    0.0    0.0     0.0     
force        0.0    0.0    0.0    0.0    0.0    0.0    0.0    0.0     0.0     
lightning    2.2    2.2    0.9    0.4    0.4    0.4    0.4    0.4     0.4     
necrotic     9.8    8.4    0.0    0.0    0.0    0.0    0.0    0.0     0.0     
poison      17.3   16.9   14.2   13.8   13.8   13.8   13.8   13.8    13.8     
psychic      0.0    0.0    0.0    0.0    0.0    0.0    0.0    0.0     0.0     
radiant      0.4    0.4    0.0    0.0    0.0    0.0    0.0    0.0     0.0     
thunder      1.8    1.8    0.0    0.0    0.0    0.0    0.0    0.0     0.0


Paragon tier (monster levels 11-20):


		Code:
	

              5+    10+    15+    20+    25+    30+    35+    40+  Immune
acid         4.7    4.7    3.2    1.6    0.5    0.0    0.0    0.0     0.0     
cold         6.3    6.3    4.7    3.7    2.1    1.6    0.5    0.5     0.5     
fire        21.1   21.1   16.8   14.2    5.8    4.7    1.1    1.1     0.5     
force        0.0    0.0    0.0    0.0    0.0    0.0    0.0    0.0     0.0     
lightning    4.2    4.2    3.2    2.6    1.1    0.5    0.5    0.5     0.5     
necrotic    11.1   11.1    5.8    4.2    0.5    0.5    0.0    0.0     0.0     
poison      24.7   24.7   21.1   21.1   19.5   18.9   18.9   18.9    18.9     
psychic      0.0    0.0    0.0    0.0    0.0    0.0    0.0    0.0     0.0     
radiant      3.2    3.2    1.1    0.5    0.0    0.0    0.0    0.0     0.0     
thunder      2.1    2.1    1.1    0.5    0.0    0.0    0.0    0.0     0.0


Epic tier (monster levels 21-30+):


		Code:
	

              5+    10+    15+    20+    25+    30+    35+    40+  Immune
acid        14.9   14.9   10.8   10.8    2.7    2.7    0.0    0.0     0.0     
cold        14.9   14.9   10.8   10.8    5.4    4.1    1.4    1.4     0.0     
fire        32.4   32.4   27.0   25.7   17.6   16.2    9.5    9.5     6.8     
force        2.7    2.7    1.4    1.4    1.4    1.4    0.0    0.0     0.0     
lightning   18.9   18.9   14.9   13.5    6.8    6.8    0.0    0.0     0.0     
necrotic    28.4   28.4   16.2   13.5    9.5    9.5    5.4    4.1     2.7     
poison      33.8   33.8   32.4   31.1   29.7   29.7   27.0   27.0    27.0     
psychic      2.7    2.7    1.4    1.4    1.4    1.4    0.0    0.0     0.0     
radiant      4.1    4.1    1.4    1.4    1.4    0.0    0.0    0.0     0.0     
thunder     18.9   18.9   12.2   10.8    4.1    4.1    0.0    0.0     0.0


Overall (all monsters):


		Code:
	

              5+    10+    15+    20+    25+    30+    35+    40+  Immune
acid         5.5    5.3    3.3    2.5    0.6    0.4    0.0    0.0     0.0     
cold         5.7    5.7    3.9    3.3    1.6    1.2    0.4    0.4     0.2     
fire        17.2   17.0   11.9   10.2    4.9    4.3    1.8    1.8     1.2     
force        0.4    0.4    0.2    0.2    0.2    0.2    0.0    0.0     0.0     
lightning    5.5    5.5    3.9    3.3    1.6    1.4    0.4    0.4     0.4     
necrotic    13.1   12.5    4.7    3.7    1.6    1.6    0.8    0.6     0.4     
poison      22.7   22.5   19.6   19.2   18.4   18.2   17.8   17.8    17.8     
psychic      0.4    0.4    0.2    0.2    0.2    0.2    0.0    0.0     0.0     
radiant      2.0    2.0    0.6    0.4    0.2    0.0    0.0    0.0     0.0     
thunder      4.5    4.5    2.2    1.8    0.6    0.6    0.0    0.0     0.0

[/sblock]
*Vulnerabilities:*
[sblock]
These tables are laid out basically the same as the resistances tables above.  The "Special" column indicates what percentage of monsters have a vulnerability that causes some effect other than extra damage.

As you can see, there aren't a whole lot of vulnerabilities out there aside from radiant.

Note that the swarm vulnerability to close and area attacks is listed under immunities.

Heroic tier (monster levels 1-10):


		Code:
	

              5+    10+    15+     20  Special
acid         0.0    0.0    0.0    0.0      0.0
cold         0.0    0.0    0.0    0.0      1.3
fire         0.9    0.0    0.0    0.0      0.0
force        0.0    0.0    0.0    0.0      0.0
lightning    0.0    0.0    0.0    0.0      0.0
necrotic     0.0    0.0    0.0    0.0      0.0
poison       0.0    0.0    0.0    0.0      0.0
psychic      0.0    0.0    0.0    0.0      0.0
radiant      8.9    0.4    0.0    0.0      0.0
thunder      0.0    0.0    0.0    0.0      0.0


Paragon tier (monster levels 11-20):


		Code:
	

              5+    10+    15+     20  Special
acid         0.0    0.0    0.0    0.0      0.0
cold         0.0    0.0    0.0    0.0      0.5
fire         0.5    0.0    0.0    0.0      1.1
force        0.0    0.0    0.0    0.0      0.0
lightning    0.0    0.0    0.0    0.0      0.0
necrotic     0.0    0.0    0.0    0.0      0.5
poison       0.0    0.0    0.0    0.0      0.0
psychic      0.0    0.0    0.0    0.0      0.0
radiant      7.9    4.2    0.5    0.5      0.0
thunder      0.0    0.0    0.0    0.0      0.0


Epic tier (monster levels 21-30+):


		Code:
	

              5+    10+    15+     20  Special
acid         0.0    0.0    0.0    0.0      0.0
cold         0.0    0.0    0.0    0.0      0.0
fire         1.4    1.4    0.0    0.0      0.0
force        0.0    0.0    0.0    0.0      0.0
lightning    0.0    0.0    0.0    0.0      0.0
necrotic     0.0    0.0    0.0    0.0      1.4
poison       0.0    0.0    0.0    0.0      0.0
psychic      0.0    0.0    0.0    0.0      0.0
radiant     12.2    9.5    1.4    0.0      0.0
thunder      0.0    0.0    0.0    0.0      0.0


Overall (all monsters):


		Code:
	

              5+    10+    15+     20  Special
acid         0.0    0.0    0.0    0.0      0.0
cold         0.0    0.0    0.0    0.0      0.8
fire         0.8    0.2    0.0    0.0      0.4
force        0.0    0.0    0.0    0.0      0.0
lightning    0.0    0.0    0.0    0.0      0.0
necrotic     0.0    0.0    0.0    0.0      0.4
poison       0.0    0.0    0.0    0.0      0.0
psychic      0.0    0.0    0.0    0.0      0.0
radiant      9.0    3.3    0.4    0.2      0.0
thunder      0.0    0.0    0.0    0.0      0.0

[/sblock]
*Immunities:*
[sblock]
All of the damage-type immunities are included in the resistances tables; this table covers all the rest of the immunities (as percentages of monsters who have the given immunity).


		Code:
	

                  1-10  11-20  21-30+  Overall
charm              0.0    2.1    1.4       1.0  
disease           13.3   20.0   27.0      18.0  
fear               1.3    7.4   10.8       5.1  
gaze               1.8    3.7    2.7       2.7  
illusion           0.0    1.1    1.4       0.6  
knocked prone      0.0    0.5    1.4       0.4  
petrification      2.7    5.3    1.4       3.5  
push/pull/slide    0.0    0.5    1.4       0.4  
sleep              0.0    3.2    4.1       1.8


These don't really fit anywhere, but I'm throwing them in here because they appear in the immunities/resistances/vulnerabilities section of the stat block.  Swarm isn't actually a resistance or vulnerability defined in the MM, but there are a bunch of swarm creatures that all have the same special resistance and vulnerability:  half damage from melee and ranged attacks, extra damage from close or area attacks.


		Code:
	

                  1-10  11-20  21-30+  Overall
insubstantial      2.2    1.6    5.4       2.5  
swarm              1.8    1.1    2.7       1.6

[/sblock]
*Senses:*
[sblock]
This lists the percentages of monsters at each tier that have each type of special sense.  I also created a category to show how many monsters have no special senses listed ("normal only").


		Code:
	

                    1-10  11-20  21-30+  Overall
normal only         27.1   34.2   24.3      29.4  
all-around vision    0.4    3.2    2.7       1.8  
blindsight           2.2    4.2    5.4       3.5  
darkvision          31.1   41.6   51.4      38.2  
low-light vision    36.9   12.6   10.8      23.5  
tremorsense          5.3    3.7    4.1       4.5  
truesight            0.0    6.3    8.1       3.7

[/sblock]
*Movement:*
[sblock]
The first table shows the average speed of creatures at each tier, taking the maximum speed of any of their movement modes.  The second table shows what percentage of monsters have each type of special movement.


		Code:
	

                    1-10  11-20  21-30+  Overall
Max speed           6.55   7.44   9.16      7.29

                    1-10  11-20  21-30+  Overall
burrow               2.7    2.6    4.1       2.9  
climb               12.4    9.5    5.4      10.2  
fly                 16.4   17.9   60.8      23.7  
overland flight      4.4    6.8    9.5       6.1  
phasing              2.2    1.6    5.4       2.5  
swim                 6.2    6.8    6.8       6.5  
teleport             1.3    5.3    6.8       3.7

[/sblock]
*Perception and Inititative:*
[sblock]
These are just a couple random monster statistics, but they're right up there at the top of the stat block, so I figured I should do something with them .  According to the monster design guidelines in the MM, perception and initiative should scale with about 3/4 level -- 1/2 for the level bonus and 1/4 for the stat bonus.  They definitely scale more slowly than level, as we can see that they drop off compared to level as we move up the tiers.  It turns out they don't even quite scale with 3/4 level, but it's closer.


		Code:
	

                         1-10   11-20   21-30+  Overall
Perception - Level       0.35   -2.48   -5.24     -1.60   
Initiative - Level       0.72   -3.27   -5.46     -1.76   

                         1-10   11-20   21-30+  Overall
Perception - 3/4 Level   1.78    1.25    0.85      1.44   
Initiative - 3/4 Level   2.15    0.46    0.64      1.27

[/sblock]
*Size:*
[sblock]
This one is pretty straightforward; it shows what percentage of monsters are in each size category, at each tier and overall.


		Code:
	

              1-10  11-20  21-30+  Overall
Tiny           1.3    0.0    0.0       0.6  
Small         15.1    0.5    1.4       7.4  
Medium        60.9   45.3   32.4      50.5  
Large         22.2   41.6   32.4      31.3  
Huge           0.4   12.6   18.9       8.0  
Gargantuan     0.0    0.0   14.9       2.2

[/sblock]
*Monster Distribution:*
[sblock]
These tables show some information about how the entries within the Monster Manual are distributed.  They list how many entries (stat blocks) there are at each tier, what percentage of entries are elite or solo, and what percentage of entries are filled by each role.  Note that the "(Leader)" role is in addition to one of the basic roles, so the values will add up to more than 100% if you include it.


		Code:
	

             1-10  11-20  21-30+  Overall
Stat blocks   225    190     74       489

             1-10  11-20  21-30+  Overall
Elite         8.0   25.3   33.8      18.6  
Solo          3.1    7.4   18.9       7.2  

             1-10  11-20  21-30+  Overall
Artillery    10.7   12.1   10.8      11.2  
Brute        21.8   15.3   23.0      19.4  
Controller   11.1   21.6   18.9      16.4  
Lurker       11.6    6.8    6.8       9.0  
Minion        8.0    8.4    6.8       8.0  
Skirmisher   18.7   13.7   12.2      15.7  
Soldier      18.2   22.1   21.6      20.2  
(Leader)      8.9   10.0    8.1       9.2

[/sblock]


----------



## DeusExMachina

So especially that Defense part is pretty awesome, but eh... do you get bored much???  

Anyway, interesting stuff you've got here. It's nice to know exactly how much it matters that you attack a different defense...


----------



## Jack99

Very useful information, thanks for doing this.


----------



## WhatGravitas

Very interesting - and helpful to monster builders and optimizers alike!

Good stuff!

Cheers, LT.


----------



## Khaim

Awesome. I was wondering about the stats (defenses, mostly) but I'm far too lazy to figure it out myself.

What about attacks/avg damage?


----------



## KidSnide

Edit: Nevermind


----------



## Mort_Q

It is my intent to design/choose monsters based on what powers and feats the players pick.  That is to say, if someone focuses on fire, they'll get fire vulnerable, and fire neutral, and fire resistant opponents.  

Let 'em shine, then make 'em sweat.  

Particularly recurring villain nemesis types.... if you keep burning them, they're going to get smart about it.


----------



## Makaze

Thank you very much for this.


----------



## Pinotage

Great work! Very interesting indeed!

Pinotage


----------



## Argyuile

Mort_Q said:
			
		

> It is my intent to design/choose monsters based on what powers and feats the players pick.  That is to say, if someone focuses on fire, they'll get fire vulnerable, and fire neutral, and fire resistant opponents.
> 
> Let 'em shine, then make 'em sweat.
> 
> Particularly recurring villain nemesis types.... if you keep burning them, they're going to get smart about it.




I agree I like to build some encounters where the players choices really shine and others where they are severely hampered.


----------



## jaldaen

Awesome work! Would you mind making a word doc or pdf with this information in it? I'd love to have this as a reference. 

If you already have one worked up, then please feel free to email me at: joseph.dm.miller@gmail.com

Thanks!


----------



## infax

Just chiming in to thank you.

The stats look very useful.

One of the things I'm missing from the MM is the break down of monsters by origin and type (undead, giant, aberration; acquatic, fire, air) like we used to have in 3e. I wonder if WotC will provide those readily on DDI after the official launch date.


----------



## blargney the second

That's just awesome!

A propos of nothing, which class has radiant attacks against Will?


----------



## Ander00

blargney the second said:
			
		

> That's just awesome!
> 
> A propos of nothing, which class has radiant attacks against Will?



Cleric, Paladin and Wizard have those.


cheers


----------



## Scribble

Nice post... Very useful. I second the request for this to be a PDF!


----------



## blargney the second

Thanks, Ander00!


----------



## Rechan

What had resistance to poison beside Undead and the green dragon? I find that a shame, because I like poison damage. 

Also, cool work.


----------



## keterys

Wow, thanks. Seriously.


----------



## Aria Silverhands

Yeah, just what a *role*playing game needs to encourage: number crunching.  It's my opinion that number crunching like this only undermines what a roleplaying game is supposed to be and I blame it on crpg's, mmo's, and the internet.


----------



## Rechan

Aria Silverhands said:
			
		

> Yeah, just what a *role*playing game needs to encourage: number crunching.  It's my opinion that number crunching like this only undermines what a roleplaying game is supposed to be and I blame it on crpg's, mmo's, and the internet.



Why not blame candy and staying up late while you're at it?

Clearly, kerbarian saw this as _fun_, otherwise he wouldn't have spent the hours necessary to do it. This level of number crunching is indicative of someone who uses stats on a daily basis. He probably is a math major or some other researcher (or has access to SPSS).


----------



## phil500

Bookmarked.

If I knew enough about excel i would make a spreadsheet with all the powers in the PHB so you could search, for example, which powers are vs. will or whatnot.


----------



## Hussar

Aria Silverhands said:
			
		

> Yeah, just what a *role*playing game needs to encourage: number crunching.  It's my opinion that number crunching like this only undermines what a roleplaying game is supposed to be and I blame it on crpg's, mmo's, and the internet.




Sorry, but, I disagree 100%.

This is what ALL games need.  If you want a game where no one did any number crunching in order to have game balance, then play Paladium.  OTOH, if you want a game where all levels are viable options, then you HAVE to crunch the numbers.

I will guarantee that someone at WOTC has already done this.  They may not make the numbers available, but, they have done it.  The fact that they include a "make a monster" section shows that they have already crunched the numbers.

Look at it another way.  Do baseball statistics add or take away from the enjoyment of the game of baseball?  Or, are they somewhat set apart from the game and simply add another method of design when building a team?


----------



## Aria Silverhands

Hussar said:
			
		

> This is what ALL games need.  If you want a game where no one did any number crunching in order to have game balance, then play Paladium.  OTOH, if you want a game where all levels are viable options, then you HAVE to crunch the numbers.



The game designer does.  We don't.



> Look at it another way.  Do baseball statistics add or take away from the enjoyment of the game of baseball?  Or, are they somewhat set apart from the game and simply add another method of design when building a team?



Yes, it does. I'd rather watch little league games than the majors, where stats and inflated salaries rule the game.


----------



## hong

Aria Silverhands said:
			
		

> Yes, it does. I'd rather watch little league games than the majors, where stats and inflated salaries rule the game.




I agree with you. Millions wouldn't.


----------



## blargney the second

Aria Silverhands said:
			
		

> Yeah, just what a *role*playing game needs to encourage: number crunching.



This thread definitely needs a timely injection of the Stormwind Fallacy.
-blarg


----------



## keterys

Aria Silverhands said:
			
		

> The game designer does.  We don't.




I've got an index of 263 monsters at the moment and you're saying this data might not be useful to me!?

I'm not a game designer, but I'd rather what I did make was of good quality, thanks.

P.S. Thanks for the Stormwind link, had no idea what that meant.


----------



## Aria Silverhands

blargney the second said:
			
		

> This thread definitely needs a timely injection of the Stormwind Fallacy.
> -blarg



Propaganda by power gamers. Nothing more and not relevant at all.



			
				keterys said:
			
		

> I've got an index of 263 monsters at the moment and you're saying this data might not be useful to me!?



The only value this has is for power gaming number crunchers who have no interest in play cooperatively, rather than competitively.  Thus ruining the game for others that just want to have fun as is and not agonize over every single number.



> I'm not a game designer, but I'd rather what I did make was of good quality, thanks.



The DMG already has guidelines and plenty of tables to insure what you create using the system is balanced.


----------



## keterys

> The only value this has is for power gaming number crunchers who have no interest in play cooperatively, rather than competitively. Thus ruining the game for others that just want to have fun as is and not agonize over every single number.




I'm a DM... who makes monsters for other DMs... and wants them to be balanced and wants to compare against the published monsters. And I find this information useful. Full stop.

The more you post, the more I seriously question your sanity. It's a real shame, because I liked some of your posts, but power game propaganda? Seriously? Nice.


----------



## Infiniti2000

Wait, does this game have numbers in it?  What is this thing called "numbers" that everyone is speaking of?   

And, hey, you people, stop with all this Number Propaganda!  You can't trust anyone with numbers in their name.


----------



## keterys

Anyhow, back on topic for a bit... a lot of this data is skew due to things like devils and undead being in the MM, so over 5 MMs it's a lot less clear...

But it is interesting how little vulnerability or resistance to certain other energies there are. Also, my gut instinct for balancing powers (for creating new ones) was that being radiant at all was worth something, because of undead, and this does suggest that's correct.

Untyped damage certainly seems more valuable than fire damage at the moment, that's for sure. I'm still confused about the lack of 'DR' for weapons on creatures - just stuff like the grick and tarrasque.


----------



## Aria Silverhands

keterys said:
			
		

> I'm a DM... who makes monsters for other DMs... and wants them to be balanced and wants to compare against the published monsters. And I find this information useful.



The DMG already has everything you need to make balanced monsters.



> The more you post, the more I seriously question your sanity. It's a real shame, because I liked some of your posts, but power game propaganda? Seriously? Nice.



One of the WizO's agrees with me.  They agreed the stormwind crap was basically propaganda propagated by power gamers in an attempt to legitimize their game breaking character choices.  Optimizing is just another attempt by power gamers to try and hide from the negative stigma attached to power gaming and being a munchkin.

First they were munchkins, so they tried to hide behind the word power gamer.  Now they're trying to hide behind optomizer and it's just ridiculous.  RPG's are role playing games, not roll playing adventure games.  The numbers are merely there to aid with conflict resolution and to provide a semblance of balance between characters.  Or at least a common starting ground.


----------



## WhatGravitas

What I find interesting is the consistent difference between AC and Reflex, which coincides with the +2/+3 bonus you get through proficiency. I think the number crunch shows the underlying maths.

Which is good, if you know the maths, you learn how to wing it better and can design for it better!

Cheers, LT.


----------



## Pants

Aria Silverhands said:
			
		

> The only value this has is for power gaming number crunchers who have no interest in play cooperatively, rather than competitively.  Thus ruining the game for others that just want to have fun as is and not agonize over every single number.



OH NOEZ!! SUMONE ON TEH INTERNETS IS DOING SUMTHING CONTRARY TO MY TASTES! TEH GAME IS ROOINED!!!1111!!


----------



## Blackeagle

Aria Silverhands said:
			
		

> The only value this has is for power gaming number crunchers who have no interest in play cooperatively, rather than competitively.  Thus ruining the game for others that just want to have fun as is and not agonize over every single number.
> 
> The DMG already has guidelines and plenty of tables to insure what you create using the system is balanced.




I'm with keterys, as a DM who's going to be making a lot of monsters stuff like this is great.  It's an excellent addition to the tables from the DMG.


----------



## Aria Silverhands

Pants said:
			
		

> OH NOEZ!! SUMONE ON TEH INTERNETS IS DOING SUMTHING CONTRARY TO MY TASTES! TEH GAME IS ROOINED!!!1111!!



Yeah, because I'm talking about 4th edition as a whole, rather than just the game (aka the campaign) the power gamer is in and ruining.


----------



## Kzach

Aria Silverhands said:
			
		

> Propaganda by power gamers. Nothing more and not relevant at all.



Yeah, we're going to have a manifesto any day now.


----------



## WhatGravitas

Aria Silverhands said:
			
		

> Yeah, because I'm talking about 4th edition as a whole, rather than just the game (aka the campaign) the power gamer is in and ruining.



Actually, that kind of things is helpful to your cause.

If people number crunch and understand the system better, they can produce a game where powergamers have less points of attack. Furthermore, a well-made maths base, helps people who are _not_ into powergaming, as they can play an enjoyable game without having to put up with accidental powergamers (like, when somebody picks up something broken and is suddenly a powergamer, just because he liked the _fluff_ of the overpowered option).

Cheers, LT.


----------



## jdrakeh

Aria Silverhands said:
			
		

> Yeah, just what a *role*playing game needs to encourage: number crunching.  It's my opinion that number crunching like this only undermines what a roleplaying game is supposed to be and I blame it on crpg's, mmo's, and the internet.




Ironically, CRPGS, MMOs, and IRC (or PBP) RPGs typically require that players perform far _less_ math than they do when they sit down to play a paper and pencil RPG.


----------



## doctorhook

Let's just do what's done on the Gleemax boards*: ignore Aria, and hope he either gets on topic or goes away.

OP: Nice work! Bookmarked for reference. (...You'll be adding future monster supplements to your data, right?  )

*Granted, not very effectively.


----------



## NewfieDave

Aria Silverhands said:
			
		

> One of the WizO's agrees with me.  They agreed the stormwind crap was basically propaganda propagated by power gamers in an attempt to legitimize their game breaking character choices.  Optimizing is just another attempt by power gamers to try and hide from the negative stigma attached to power gaming and being a munchkin.
> 
> First they were munchkins, so they tried to hide behind the word power gamer.  Now they're trying to hide behind optomizer and it's just ridiculous.  RPG's are role playing games, not roll playing adventure games.  The numbers are merely there to aid with conflict resolution and to provide a semblance of balance between characters.  Or at least a common starting ground.




You are wrong to group destructive players who seek to break the game with players who want their characters to be effective at their roleplaying choices.

One of my last 3.5 characters was a high-level remake of my favorite 2nd edition character. The character wasn't just my favorite, it's also a DM and group favorite because of roleplaying and good times from campaigns past. When I made the 3.5 version I tried to stay as true to the tactics and personality of the original, then min/maxed so I would be effective within my concept. It is a game with random factors after all, and I know my DM is going to be challenging me. It makes sense to me that if I'm going to devote myself to a character I should do my best to rise to those challenges.

The Stormwind Fallacy is totally, 100% correct. It's only "propaganda" when game-breaking, non-roleplaying munchkins link it and think they win at D&D. That type of misuse is like saying gravity exists so it's a good idea to jump off a cliff. It's not a good idea, but that doesn't prove Newton wrong.


----------



## the Jester

Aria Silverhands said:
			
		

> One of the WizO's agrees with me.  They agreed the stormwind crap was basically propaganda propagated by power gamers in an attempt to legitimize their game breaking character choices.  Optimizing is just another attempt by power gamers to try and hide from the negative stigma attached to power gaming and being a munchkin.




Not only is this an appeal to authority phallacy, it's a terrible one. "OOOOH! A WizO agrees with you!" doesn't really bear much weight when it comes to an argument. 



			
				Aria Silverhands said:
			
		

> First they were munchkins, so they tried to hide behind the word power gamer.  Now they're trying to hide behind optomizer and it's just ridiculous.  RPG's are role playing games, not roll playing adventure games.




I'm glad that you know the One True Way to Play D&D. Thumbs up.


----------



## WayneLigon

Aria Silverhands said:
			
		

> It's my opinion that number crunching like this only undermines what a roleplaying game is supposed to be and I blame it on crpg's, mmo's, and the internet.




Only if you want to remain ignorant about the hows and whys of encounter building, or about possible pitfalls in the game system. Arming yourself with a working knowledge of the math behind the game has all kinds of advantages that have nothing to do with suppossed power gaming. 

The more you learn about the inner workings of your game, the better prepared you are when someone tries to pull some rules-lawyering BS or thinks he's come up with the next 'bag-o-rats' exploits - people who don't learn this lesson tend to get bulldozed the first time they have to deal with someone even moderately exploitive.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully

I love power-gaming. Power-gaming is great. A role-playing game that doesn't allow me to power-game is not to my taste.

There is, off course, a limit. I don't like power-gaming if there is only one good power-gaming build is. That gets boring.

I want to take a concept like "Swashbuckler, great at seducing women", or a concept like "Wizard specializing in illusions and enchantments to avoid having to kill people." and have rules that i can use to achieve this concept with the best effect, and be as combat effective as if I had just played a Weapon Specialist Fighter focusing on the biggest and baddest weapon out there. 

Now, after a short excursion to the realms of my wet power-gaming fantasies, head back to the real topic: 

Awesome list. I think it shows that there is a consistent math behind all the rules.


----------



## Infiniti2000

doctorhook said:
			
		

> Let's just do what's done on the Gleemax boards*: ignore Aria, and hope he either gets on topic or goes away.



 Not "he".  Aria is a girl's name.


----------



## Rel

Aria, given how universally negative the reaction has been to some of your posts, I'd suggest reevaluating your posting style if you want your message to be heard.


----------



## med stud

Aria Silverhands said:
			
		

> Yeah, just what a *role*playing game needs to encourage: number crunching.  It's my opinion that number crunching like this only undermines what a roleplaying game is supposed to be and I blame it on crpg's, mmo's, and the internet.



...?

How does a statistical analysis of traits in the MM undermine roleplaying? Can you please give a bullet point list how it does that?

Also: CRPGs and MMOs are perfectly playable without crunching any numbers what so ever. The computer does that for you. TT RPGs are more math intensive. Also, the internet? What does that have to do with how good you roleplay an elf?

Seriously, this may be a strong emotional issue for you, but try to make some logical arguments of those emotions.


----------



## Jack99

Infiniti2000 said:
			
		

> Not "he".  Aria is a girl's name.




You mean like in WoW, where every female toon is played by a hot, horny model, just waiting for you to hit on her?


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully

Jack99 said:
			
		

> You mean like in WoW, where every female toon is played by a hot, horny model, just waiting for you to hit on her?



Damn. Maybe I gave up to early on WoW... Well, at least I got your avatar...


----------



## Aria Silverhands

med stud said:
			
		

> How does a statistical analysis of traits in the MM undermine roleplaying? Can you please give a bullet point list how it does that?



Such information, when presented to players, undermines their confidence in their characters capabilities, making them rethink their choices that were based on enjoyment, feel, and perception, rather than calculated statistics. They stop evaluating new abilities, feats, etc by the numbers, rather than simple appeal.



> Also: CRPGs and MMOs are perfectly playable without crunching any numbers what so ever. The computer does that for you. TT RPGs are more math intensive. Also, the internet? What does that have to do with how good you roleplay an elf?



I'll start with the internet first.  Before widespread use of the internet, I never knew of anyone who would create detailed statistical analysis' of all the stats in the monster manual.  No one in my experience has done so.  People just played the game for what it was and accepted what it wasn't.  With the ease of communication over the internet, we've gone from simply playing the game to dissecting the game.  Any game really.  Just look at all the sites devoted to analyzing every single statistic and formula for crpg's and mmo's.  Especially mmo's.

That statistic driven competitive mindset has infected gamers everywhere.  Yeah, it's all personal experience and anecdotal evidence, but when D&D games turn into discussions of numbers and stats... I get disgusted.  D&D is about roleplaying, not number crunching.  People have lost sight of what the game should be.

Instead of creating games where the numbers are less important, computer games have turned the focus towards the numbers, in an ever increasing drive to be the best.  I alway read things where people say they want a challenge, but then they go through and try to find the easiest way to beat something.



> Seriously, this may be a strong emotional issue for you, but try to make some logical arguments of those emotions.



Playing games is about emotions.  Numbers are inherently without emotion.  Same with statistics.  The only reason to worry about numbers, is for personal and selfish enjoyment through being "better" at the game.  There's no thought given to how your character might affect the group as a whole.  I've seen one group dissolve because players stopped showing up.  Their reason was that the game just wasn't fun anymore with a certain player in the group and the dm was too timid to kick them out.  That player was a min/maxxing power gamer to the core. That's one group too many, imo.



			
				WayneLigon said:
			
		

> Only if you want to remain ignorant about the hows and whys of encounter building, or about possible pitfalls in the game system. Arming yourself with a working knowledge of the math behind the game has all kinds of advantages that have nothing to do with suppossed power gaming.
> 
> The more you learn about the inner workings of your game, the better prepared you are when someone tries to pull some rules-lawyering BS or thinks he's come up with the next 'bag-o-rats' exploits - people who don't learn this lesson tend to get bulldozed the first time they have to deal with someone even moderately exploitive.



I only need one thing to deal with any exploits: *common sense*.  The math is irrelevant.


----------



## WhatGravitas

Aria Silverhands said:
			
		

> Numbers are inherently without emotion.



Why do you think so?

Cheers, LT.


----------



## Piratecat

This is a cool thread. Don't derail it with personal arguments, folks.


----------



## Aria Silverhands

Lord Tirian said:
			
		

> Why do you think so?



I'd rather read a novel than read a book of statistics.


----------



## Blackeagle

Aria Silverhands said:
			
		

> I'll start with the internet first.  Before widespread use of the internet, I never knew of anyone who would create detailed statistical analysis' of all the stats in the monster manual.  No one in my experience has done so.  People just played the game for what it was and accepted what it wasn't.  With the ease of communication over the internet, we've gone from simply playing the game to dissecting the game.




People have been dissecting RPGs and other games mathematically long before there was an internet.  If you never knew anyone who did so before the internet, you simply didn't know the right people.  The internet hasn't changed the way people play RPGs, it's simply exposed you to a wider spectrum of gamers.



			
				Aria Silverhands said:
			
		

> That statistic driven competitive mindset has infected gamers everywhere.  Yeah, it's all personal experience and anecdotal evidence, but when D&D games turn into discussions of numbers and stats... I get disgusted.  D&D is about roleplaying, not number crunching.  People have lost sight of what the game should be.




Who are you to tell other people "what the game should be"?  Powergaming isn't badwrongfun, any more than any other style of gaming.  If you don't like powergaming, don't play with people who do, but don't tell people what they can and can't do at their own gaming table.



			
				Aria Silverhands said:
			
		

> Instead of creating games where the numbers are less important, computer games have turned the focus towards the numbers, in an ever increasing drive to be the best.  I alway read things where people say they want a challenge, but then they go through and try to find the easiest way to beat something.




To some people that is the challenge.  It may not be your cup of tea but that's no reason to accuse them of having badwrongfun.



			
				Aria Silverhands said:
			
		

> Playing games is about emotions.  Numbers are inherently without emotion.  Same with statistics.  The only reason to worry about numbers, is for personal and selfish enjoyment through being "better" at the game.  There's no thought given to how your character might affect the group as a whole.  I've seen one group dissolve because players stopped showing up.  Their reason was that the game just wasn't fun anymore with a certain player in the group and the dm was too timid to kick them out.  That player was a min/maxxing power gamer to the core. That's one group too many, imo.




It seems to me that the problem there lay with the player who's playing style was incompatible with the group and the DM who wasn't willing to step up and deal with the situation.  Why are you blaming powergaming for what was fundamentally an interpersonal conflict within your gaming group?


----------



## OchreJelly

Aria Silverhands said:
			
		

> I'll start with the internet first.  Snip!




I agree with this assessment… to a point.  That point being: “so what?”  I would argue that what you are witnessing is merely an evolution in gaming _and its audience_.  Yes we as gamers evolve too and so do our expectations!  If WotC gave us anything less than a mechanically sound system and its transparency, there would be a very vocal outcry.  Yes, I too have fond memories of simpler fun RPGs from days gone by, but I also fudged die rolls a lot back then too.  

The internet has gotten gaming communities to collaborate on the numbers, but don’t discount the other creative collaborations.  I would have killed to have the things like home-grown Iron Heroes rules in High School (and Iron Heroes for that matter, but I digress).  You don’t want to throw the baby out with the bathwater afterall.  Personally I feel the internet has been nothing but good for gaming, otherwise we wouldn’t be having this discussion in the first place.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully

Aria Silverhands said:
			
		

> I'd rather read a novel than read a book of statistics.



Reading and Creating are two different things, though.

Creating a statistic, or anything mathematical, can be a very emotional thing. 
There is the thrill of doing something new, the frustration of initial failures to create the right formulas, and eventually the satisfaction and joy of having all fall together to a single, cohesive system that makes sense and works. It is the joy of problem-solving, and ultimately probably the reason why people spend their free time and doing this kind of work. 

For some, a good mathematical formula, or a statistic, can be interesting because they give you knowledge you had, and as such, they satisfy your sense of curiosity. That's why this kind of threads are actually read by others. 

Number-Crunching isn't for everyone, but those that do it on their own will enjoy it - for them, it is an emotional matter.


----------



## Rel

Aria Silverhands said:
			
		

> That statistic driven competitive mindset has infected gamers everywhere.  Yeah, it's all personal experience and anecdotal evidence, but when D&D games turn into discussions of numbers and stats... I get disgusted.  D&D is about roleplaying, not number crunching.  People have lost sight of what the game should be.




Ok, let me just be real clear about this:

Your feelings on the matter are fine and valid.  What is not fine is going into a thread where people are enjoying the discussion of statistics and whatnot and telling _them_ that _their_ feelings on the matter are *not* fine and are invalid.  We call that "threadcrapping" and you've done more than enough of it in this thread.  If you have nothing to contribute to the topic and it "disgusts" you then my advice is to find other threads you find less disgusting.


----------



## Scipio202

I think this is really fascinating because it helps us understand why the game designers made the choices they made, and I think it fits with the philosophy of 4E about revealing the inner workings and the math of the game.  It makes it easier for us to be co-designers and house-rulers by giving us more information about what the likely consequences of making a change are.

Say you are a DM and your player wants to have a unique power that fits his characters theme, or say you want to make an artifact or magical item that's going to be central to your story.  You'll be more easily able to craft something that serves the roleplaying side of your game without screwing up the crunch portion of your game by being over- or under-powered when you know the math.

A little math saves a lot of trial-and-error and a lot of frustration.


----------



## Tewligan

Aria Silverhands said:
			
		

> RPG's are role playing games, not *roll* playing adventure games.



Ah, thank god! For a couple of pages there, I was afraid you were going to just half-ass this thread crap. Thank you for pulling out the big guns and really douching it up!


----------



## NewfieDave

Aria Silverhands said:
			
		

> Playing games is about emotions.  Numbers are inherently without emotion.  Same with statistics.  The only reason to worry about numbers, is for personal and selfish enjoyment through being "better" at the game.




20 is a number, happiness is an emotion, and I get happy when I roll a crit.



			
				Aria Silverhands said:
			
		

> There's no thought given to how your character might affect the group as a whole.  I've seen one group dissolve because players stopped showing up.  Their reason was that the game just wasn't fun anymore with a certain player in the group and the dm was too timid to kick them out.  That player was a min/maxxing power gamer to the core. That's one group too many, imo.




You've created a stereotype based on one experience. I agree with you that there are power gamers who detract from the experience of the game, just like there are rules lawyers who slow play down to a standstill, and drama queen roleplayers who hog all the spotlight with their boring soliloquies. Those are extremes, and the vast majority of players fall somewhere between the extremes.



			
				Aria Silverhands said:
			
		

> I only need one thing to deal with any exploits: *common sense*.  The math is irrelevant.




Well seeing as common sense is based on *logic*, and math *IS* logic, I wouldn't discount your reliance on mathematics.


----------



## Joshua Randall

Half-joking, half-serious suggestions for further statistical research:

* Is there any correlation between defenses and movement speed or modes? For example, hypothesize that fast flying creatures have higher Ref, lower AC/Fort.

* Do certain monster types -- uh, wait, we don't have those anymore -- "backgrounds"? (stuff like natural, abberant, etc.) Anyway. How do those things match up with the various other stats?

* Second the call for average attacks and damage.


----------



## Rel

Tewligan said:
			
		

> Ah, thank god! For a couple of pages there, I was afraid you were going to just half-ass this thread crap. Thank you for pulling out the big guns and really douching it up!




Tewligan, you know that's not acceptable here.  But then I'm sure you expected the ban when you posted it.  See you in three days.


----------



## hong

Aria Silverhands said:
			
		

> I'd rather read a novel than read a book of statistics.



 This makes me sad.

<----


----------



## Nifft

hong said:
			
		

> This makes me sad.
> 
> <----



 You are not the one who is truly sad.

Anyway, I'd rather read statistics than a flame war. Thanks for cleaning up the thread, mods.

Cheers, -- N


----------



## Nifft

Just in case the topic isn't quite dead: any statistics on Defenses vs. Attacks by role?

Like, if you see Brutes, go for the Will attacks; if you see a Controller, then hit Fortitude?

Thanks, -- N


----------



## kerbarian

Nifft said:
			
		

> Just in case the topic isn't quite dead: any statistics on Defenses vs. Attacks by role?
> 
> Like, if you see Brutes, go for the Will attacks; if you see a Controller, then hit Fortitude?



Yeah, that's already in there, under Defenses -- the third and fourth tables.  If you see Brutes, go for Reflex or Will; if you see a Controller, go for Reflex.


----------



## Nifft

kerbarian said:
			
		

> Yeah, that's already in there, under Defenses -- the third and fourth tables.  If you see Brutes, go for Reflex or Will; if you see a Controller, go for Reflex.



 D'oh, thanks! 

Cheers, -- N


----------



## ebenmckay

What we could *really* use now is a table of PC attacks by defense targetted and level. Anyone seen one yet?


----------



## Omen of Peace

That's a great resource. Is there a chance you are willing to make the xls (or whatever format you are using) available ? I was going to compile some data myself but the prospect of saving hours of work is appealing.  

I will agree to any non-concurrence / must-mention-original-author 'licensing' terms you impose.


----------



## the_redbeard

Aria Silverhands said:
			
		

> Such information, when presented to players, undermines their confidence in their characters capabilities, making them rethink their choices that were based on enjoyment, feel, and perception, rather than calculated statistics. They stop evaluating new abilities, feats, etc by the numbers, rather than simple appeal.




And where is the fun when the neat-sounding ability (say, Tieflings burninating things with fire) runs up against the reality in the game where so many things will be resistant or immune?  My neat sounding ability, my hoped for contribution to the group, my tool in my quest, is useless against so many of the hurdles that I face?

When Aeriel Verloren (my current wizard in a 3.5 game I'm playing in) is investigating a challenge, she consults books, sages, and bards.  She learns about what she might face, and plans her spell choices accordingly.  She's gone on an adventure to find a masterwork knowledge of Arcana book.  When she sees a monster, she checks her memory as to what kind of attack this creature is most vulnerable to - and casts a spell against that vulnerability.
In 3.5, the knowledge check allows her skill, her intelligence, into the game.
To do otherwise would be playing an intelligence 18 character stupidly.




> I'll start with the internet first.  Before widespread use of the internet, I never knew of anyone who would create detailed statistical analysis' of all the stats in the monster manual.  No one in my experience has done so.  People just played the game for what it was and accepted what it wasn't.  With the ease of communication over the internet, we've gone from simply playing the game to dissecting the game.  Any game really.  Just look at all the sites devoted to analyzing every single statistic and formula for crpg's and mmo's.  Especially mmo's.




The internet (and computers in general) has made compilation and distribution of these statistics easier.  But they happened anyway.  They were distributed instead in fanzines and such.  There were many different role-playing magazines besides the Dragon (still are) with fan created content.  There were BBS bulletin boards before the internet made such connections world wide and universal.



> That statistic driven competitive mindset has infected gamers everywhere.  Yeah, it's all personal experience and anecdotal evidence, but when D&D games turn into discussions of numbers and stats... I get disgusted.  D&D is about roleplaying, not number crunching.  People have lost sight of what the game should be.




The Dungeons and Dragons experience is different at nearly every group that sits down and plays.

You and your group are entirely free to ignore this thread.  You are free to not sit down and game with me and others on this thread.



> Instead of creating games where the numbers are less important, computer games have turned the focus towards the numbers, in an ever increasing drive to be the best.  I alway read things where people say they want a challenge, but then they go through and try to find the easiest way to beat something.




Some work *hard* at finding the easiest way. 



> Playing games is about emotions.  Numbers are inherently without emotion.  Same with statistics.  The only reason to worry about numbers, is for personal and selfish enjoyment through being "better" at the game.  There's no thought given to how your character might affect the group as a whole.  I've seen one group dissolve because players stopped showing up.  Their reason was that the game just wasn't fun anymore with a certain player in the group and the dm was too timid to kick them out.  That player was a min/maxxing power gamer to the core. That's one group too many, imo.




Then that player didn't belong in that group.

You can play the game as you like.  I'm not telling you different.  

You, however, are intruding in on how others play the game.


----------



## the_redbeard

ebenmckay said:
			
		

> What we could *really* use now is a table of PC attacks by defense targetted and level. Anyone seen one yet?





I've been checking out the warlock.  I read about the Raven Queen and something just CLICKED.  Never having wanted to play a paladin before, and now I've got a warlock multi-classed to paladin, Enforcer of Fate, servant of the Raven Queen.  

Anyway.  
I've got an excel sheet of warlock heroic powers, by pact, level, use (at will/daily/encounter), key ability, damage type and defense.  I needed to know if this cool concept actually WORKED.
It does, but I need both charisma and constitution.


----------



## Merlin the Tuna

Infiniti2000 said:
			
		

> Not "he".  Aria is a girl's name.



Could've sworn Aria was a song's name if anything.  Or a Castlevania's name.  But eh, whatever.

Anyone else disappointed by the prevalence of extraordinary senses?  It's an improvement, but not as much of one as I'd have hoped.  Houseruled easily enough though.


----------



## eamon

Merlin the Tuna said:
			
		

> Anyone else disappointed by the prevalence of extraordinary senses?  It's an improvement, but not as much of one as I'd have hoped.  Houseruled easily enough though.



That's funny, my reaction was quite the opposite...

Only a little more than 10% have blindsight, tremorsense, or truesight.  Even in the epic tier it's not much more than 15%.  And 4.0 truesight doesn't imply darkvision, can't see into the ethereal plane, and can't see through polymorph effects, and is usually a far shorter range (3.5 was 120 feet or 24 squares, whereas in 4.0 a bit of skimming suggests that 6 squares is most common.) That's not bad; in the vast majority of cases invisibility (or blur) will work as advertised.  Sure, low-light vision and darkvision are still very common... but I don't see that as quite as large a problem.

I actually miss a special sense... scent; which was fun ;-).


----------



## ObsidianCrane

Thanks to the OP. 

As to Aria; now people that grok math can crunch the numbers for me, and I can focus more on my story and campaign. Their number crunching helps me understand the underlying math of the system, its logic, its common sense as it were. That way when I need to make that "common sense" rule on the fly I grok the game well enough to make good rulings. If math isn't your thing, that's ok, plenty of us like math though.

To those who are interested, how does this analysis stack up with the table on page 184?

Any serious discrepancies?

(It looked like a good match to me, but...)


----------



## Zurai

I'm sad to see that (EDIT: some) people don't understand the place of numbers in game design. I'm a game designer by trade, and almost all of my work revolves around numbers. Sure, there's plenty of creative writing to it, and that's one of the most fun and engaging parts - but it's not the most _important_ by any stretch. A game that has a poor underlying math framework will, no matter how engaging its story, only be remembered for how bad a game it was. At best, it will be remembered as a great story that played horribly. Similarly, a game with _no_ underlying math is no game at all. It might be an interactive story, but it's not a game.


----------



## aprilia4life

Is that "Level +14" for Defenses, or is it 1/2 Level +14?


----------



## On Puget Sound

I'm particularly intrigued by the distribution of resistance, immunity and vulnerability.  I'm hoping future monster manuals will restore some balance in this area, to make fire-breathing or poison-spitting reasonable choices for dragonborn.  Meanwhile, I may assign some lightning, acid or cold resistances to monsters that didn't have them before.  (The only Dragonborn at my table is also the only child player, and of course he chose fire; it's the most impressive looking.  I'll need to choose just enough resistant and vulnerable foes for it to matter).


It also confirms my gut reaction that changing evil clerics and paladins from radiant to necrotic damage would be a bad idea.


----------



## RigaMortus2

Aria Silverhands said:


> I've seen one group dissolve because players stopped showing up.  Their reason was that the game just wasn't fun anymore with a certain player in the group and the dm was too timid to kick them out.  That player was a min/maxxing power gamer to the core. That's one group too many, imo.




Ahhh, now we are getting somewhere.

Tell me about your relationship with your parents...


----------



## KarinsDad

Aria Silverhands said:


> RPG's are role playing games, not roll playing adventure games.




Oh, I have to jump all over this.


RPGs are first and foremost games. They are meant to have fun with.

The important thing about RPGs is NOT the R and never has been. Who taught you that? It's the PG. Playing Games.


Sure, DND is an RPG game where people roleplay their characters. But, the degree to which they roleplay and how they do that is totally totally totally irrelevant as long as the players are having fun.

The degree to to which players follow the rules is also totally totally totally irrelevant. 

Strictly following the rules in a mega-dungeon with no verbal interaction with the NPCs at all is ok in an RPG as long as the players are having fun.

LARP DND with heavy roleplaying and following virtually no rules at all is ok in an RPG as long as the players are having fun.

The degree to to which players min max their PCs is also totally totally totally irrelevant in an RPG as long as the players are having fun.

When it comes to RPGs, it's all good.


Roleplaying vs. Power Gamer arguments, however, are total white noise nonsense.


If people are having fun, the RPG is doing it's job.

If the people are merely roleplaying for the sake of roleplaying, the RPG is probably not doing it's job.


But, fun is the primary goal for most people (many hard core roleplayers included) when playing an RPG. Roleplaying is not the primary goal for most people when playing an RPG. Roleplaying is often a means to an end, it is typically not the end itself. And, there are many many other means to an end in RPGs, including min maxing PCs for some people.


----------



## Innuit

Back on topic.  OP, is there anyway to see what type of damage these monsters are doing?  Ex.  30% of mobs do fire damage or something like that.  That way PC can make sure they go after those kinds of resistances.  It would at least be interesting to see.  Let me know if it is viable.


----------



## WildWalker

Brillant work! Much thanks!

WildWalker


----------



## Aria Silverhands

Cailte said:


> Thanks to the OP.
> 
> As to Aria; now people that grok math can crunch the numbers for me, and I can focus more on my story and campaign. Their number crunching helps me understand the underlying math of the system, its logic, its common sense as it were. That way when I need to make that "common sense" rule on the fly I grok the game well enough to make good rulings. If math isn't your thing, that's ok, plenty of us like math though.
> 
> To those who are interested, how does this analysis stack up with the table on page 184?
> 
> Any serious discrepancies?
> 
> (It looked like a good match to me, but...)



You don't need to grok the math to make an interesting story.  The math is balanced behind the scenes already and you just have to follow the xp budgets and guidelines.  The only math required is simple addition.  Everything else is worthless and takes away from the game.


----------



## thedarkdownunder

ausomeness... now if only I had all of their stats....... <


----------



## wingedcoyote

I love it when one person disagrees with _everybody_ else and they just won't... stop... posting... 


To the OP: Great work, man! Really appreciated.


----------



## Donatello

From all of us that like writing encounters using more than what's in the DMG/MM, and from all of us trying to write for 4e and contribute meaningful additions to the game, and from all of us that really enjoy seeing arrays of statistics so we know if our own homebrew creatures are really balanced or not when we come up with something a little exotic and therefore not covered by the DMG, I offer a hearty THANK YOU.

To all of the hatemongering for stats and math; please stop.


----------



## Karui_Kage

Great statistics! Kind of nifty to see how things parse out behind the scenes.

I'm kind of curious now though. No monster is vulnerable to cold damage. What, then, is the point of the Wintertouched feat? I'm sure they'll eventually have creatures vulnerable to cold, but right now it seems nothing short of useless.


----------



## wingedcoyote

Karui_Kage said:


> Great statistics! Kind of nifty to see how things parse out behind the scenes.
> 
> I'm kind of curious now though. No monster is vulnerable to cold damage. What, then, is the point of the Wintertouched feat? I'm sure they'll eventually have creatures vulnerable to cold, but right now it seems nothing short of useless.




It's mostly useful in combination with the Paragon feat Lasting Frost. With those two and a Frost weapon or a wand of an Ice spell you're in business.


----------



## loisel

Yum! Crunchy data!


----------



## Najo

Aria Silverhands said:


> Propaganda by power gamers. Nothing more and not relevant at all.
> 
> 
> The only value this has is for power gaming number crunchers who have no interest in play cooperatively, rather than competitively.  Thus ruining the game for others that just want to have fun as is and not agonize over every single number.
> 
> 
> The DMG already has guidelines and plenty of tables to insure what you create using the system is balanced.





These tables are valuable for understanding the design behind the game, helping Dms build interesting monsters or monsters that are intentionally not balanced or are balanced and understand the game mechanic effects they have on the players. 

DMs can more accurately plan encounters for their players with these tables if they choose too.

For some people, doing this math or seeing the inner workings, is fun and there is nothign wrong with that. You do not have to be a power gamer to take want to take something apart and see how it ticks inside. 

Honestly, your being rude to the OP and those interested in what he is doing. Please take a step back and relax and do your best to understand other people's perspectives instead of putting your own on them.


----------



## darkdragoon

1. Stormwind actually has designed.


2. You'd have to explain how inflated salaries are, especially in light of the increased revenue,  to decline phases, and on the availability of a cheaper player with similar talent.


----------



## Cortani

Thanks a lot for putting this together! 

The fact that reflex is the most used defence is quite interesting. If it is an intentional design choice it needs to be taken into consideration when considering and designing new races (using eladrin as a starting point and merely swapping the bonus over to reflex will make a stronger race, which might not be immediately obvious, for example), classes' defense bonuses and special abilities (hi2u shape the dream, radiant censure). Arguably it should have been made explicit in the books as well ("making the system assumptions transparent" is a design goal, after all). 

It makes a fair bit of sense to be intentional since the defenders, the ones in the core anyway, carry shields which give 10% better mitigation against those attacks. After all, what's the point of a defender if it's not actually beneficial for the party to have him/her targeted? 

Again, thanks for the data, good food for rambling thought.


----------



## Nifft

Cortani said:


> It makes a fair bit of sense to be intentional since the defenders, the ones in the core anyway, carry shields which give 10% better mitigation against those attacks.



 Yeah, our Fighter has been a lot happier since he dropped his Maul and picked up a Heavy Shield.

The "great weapon" path is more than a little deceptive.

Cheers, -- N


----------



## robertliguori

All right, allow me to settle this debate once and for all.

There is our shared consensus of how the world should be.  Fighters should stab things effectively, wizards should harness the powers of magic, evil rotty magic doesn't work well against undead and shiny divine magic does, and so forth.  We each have a set of these perceptions, and most of them are pretty well aligned.

Now, there are also the set of numbers used to describe the world.  And most of these numbers line up with the majority of our perceptions.


Now, let us take the view that the numbers are fundamentally important, and the only thing that matters is our perceptions.  In this view, the numbers exist so we can play with dice; if numbers come up that disagree with our perceptions, we throw them out and make up new ones.  In this view, looking at the numbers distracts us from the simple expression of shared consensus.

However, another view is that numbers and shared consensus are both important, and that when they are misaligned, one or the other should be shifted around.  If we perceive a hit from a longsword and a hit from a longbow as being pretty much equivalent in terms of human squishing potential, but one does 2d6 and the other does 1d4, we will see our expectation of the world violated in actual play.  We need to either adjust our perception, or adjust the numbers, and in order to know which to do, it helps to have a lot of data in one place.


----------



## NotAYakk

Wonderful bit of Math!  Thanks -- these numbers really make me happy!

Here is a bit of statistics I'd love to see:

(% of creatures on which this Defense is their lowest Defense) (Mean difference from (level+12), and Variance from (level+12), for which this defense is their lowest defense) (Mean differences from AC, and variance from AC, for which this defense is their lowest defense).

That will help tell us how useful having a good attack against a given defense is, rather than against AC.

...

Did you factor out Elite/Solos or not?  That is important, as Elites shouldn't be averaged in with normal monsters.

...

Another good bit of information?  The average damage output of monsters by level and role, say on a 5 round horizon.

(One of each encounter power, starting with refresh ones.  Refresh ones have a N/6 chance of activating each round after the first -- and then 5 - ((1+N*4/6) recharge powers + Standard action Encounter Powers) at-will power usage).

Having information about the enemy "damage budget" would be exceedingly useful!


----------



## Runestar

How exactly does one rationalize a creature having a higher reflex defense than his AC? For instance, how is it that he would be able to dodge an attack targeting his reflex, yet fail to block the attack targeting his AC even though they both share the same attack roll?


----------



## Nifft

Runestar said:


> How exactly does one rationalize a creature having a higher reflex defense than his AC?



 Human Wizard.

Cheers, -- N


----------



## darkdragoon

Runestar said:


> How exactly does one rationalize a creature having a higher reflex defense than his AC? For instance, how is it that he would be able to dodge an attack targeting his reflex, yet fail to block the attack targeting his AC even though they both share the same attack roll?





"Best block: no be there."-- Mr. Miyagi.   

Or "Does catching a football mean you can stop a crossover?"


----------



## Thomson

As a side note: Since there is that argument about how bad wizards are on the WotC forums, I have just made a short analysis comparing AC to the *weakest* defense of a monster.

I only did the first 152, but it seems that the average difference is about 4.4, which favors flexible casters over casters which mainly attack the same defense.

Also there are quite a few creatures who have a really amazing gap between AC and their weakest defense.


----------



## renau1g

Thanks a lot for the legwork... sorry that it got caught in a useless argument from *one* poster.


----------



## Plane Sailing

Aria Silverhands said:


> You don't need to grok the math to make an interesting story.  The math is balanced behind the scenes already and you just have to follow the xp budgets and guidelines.  The only math required is simple addition.  Everything else is worthless and takes away from the game.




OK, this was 6 days ago and only just been noticed.

Normally I'd let it pass after this length of time, but since Rel explicitly warned you about this kind of post in this thread, it is a seven day ban for you.


----------



## fba827

That probably took a lot of work -- nice job.


----------



## Jhaelen

I decided to determine a couple of statistics as well, since I'm more interested in the distribution of certain characteristics among monsters of a given role or origin.

For example here's the distribution of attacks per role:


		Code:
	

Attacks     vs. AC | vs. Fort | vs. Refl | vs. Will
----------------------------------------------------
Artillery:  43.0%      18.3%      28.5%      10.2%
Brute:      67.3%      10.6%      18.2%       4.5%
Controller: 34.8%      20.6%      17.6%      27.0%
Lurker:     57.0%      13.0%      18.0%      12.0%
Skirmisher: 72.1%       9.1%      13.6%       5.2%
Soldier:    60.5%      16.3%      16.3%       6.9%
Leader:     51.7%      18.3%      14.2%      15.8%

Some observations:
- So, the majority of monsters attacking Reflex Defense have the Artillery role.
- Similarly, the majority of monsters attacking Will Defense have the Controller role.
- Controllers have the most even distribution of attacks against the diffferent defense types.
- A majority of Skirmishers only have attacks against AC.

Anyone else determined something like this?


----------



## cooperflood

This thread is great, I have already referenced it several times for various reasons.  I hate to ask, but I was wondering if it would be possible to add some information on the type of attack not just what defense it targets.  For example what percentage of monsters have melee, ranged, area, close, burst, or blast attacks.  A variety of paragon tier feats, magic items, and various other effects give specific bonuses against only a certain attack.  The reason why this question came up origionally was in a discussion on the value of Combat Anticipation.  If it were further divided up by which defense those attack types attacked would be even better.  For example I think (with no real evidence) that 90% of all Melee attacks will target AC.

I have been debating cracking open the MM my self, but if someone else wants to do it...


----------



## Alaxk Knight of Galt

Thanks for putting this together Kerbarian.  All sorts of interesting information.


----------



## Magus Coeruleus

Since various people are taking these data and reporting different analyses from them, perhaps there could be a Wiki entry on this so that instead of sifting through the thread one could check out the entry.  Someone asked about a PDF/DOC before but if people continue to add interesting stuff to this then an evolving wiki entry might be better.


----------



## Mistwell

So it seems to me that radiant damage that attacks will is very useful.

Having a high will defense of your own, however, isn't as useful as having other high defenses.


----------



## Voadam

Aria Silverhands said:


> You don't need to grok the math to make an interesting story.  The math is balanced behind the scenes already and you just have to follow the xp budgets and guidelines.  The only math required is simple addition.  Everything else is worthless and takes away from the game.




Analyzing the math can show whether it is balanced behind the scenes and works how you want it to.

Do creatures in the MM fit within the DMG guidelines?

Do statistics/attacks/defenses vary by monster role as you'd expect them to?

If you try and match attacks to creature weaknesses described in flavor is that effective?

I see three ways to determine that the numbers are balanced.

1 Faith: You can take WotC's word for it that things are balanced.

2 Experience: You can take an MM creature and see how it works through actual play.

3 Analysis: You can analyze the numbers.

Option 3 seems a valid method for determining how well the numbers work and do their job.


----------



## TikkchikFenTikktikk

First, as a DM this _is very_ useful. Thanks for the hard work, kerbarian.

The guidelines in the DMG are generic to the system. But this kind of info will help me design adventures tuned to the characters my players are actually running. It also helps me advise players (especially new players) on how to develop their characters be effective in my game.

Anyone who replies with "a _good_ DM could do without" gets a big, premptive  you.

Second, this a great peer review of the 4E designers' work. This is the kind of analysis that keeps WotC honest (more honest, at least).


----------



## Zeroth

Hey, I was wondering if you could make the raw data available? The analysis, while useful, is still flawed. Means are susceptible to outliers, of which I know there are several in the MM. I'm interested in seeing the median, the quartiles, and the standard distribution of the data. 

This, I feel, is more useful for the DM, to learn what really is a challenge, what is exceptionally weak, etc. In addition, I have a gut feeling the data isn't centered around a single median, but has a few clumps.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully

Zeroth said:


> Hey, *I was wondering if you could make the raw data available*? The analysis, while useful, is still flawed. Means are susceptible to outliers, of which I know there are several in the MM. I'm interested in seeing the median, the quartiles, and the standard distribution of the data.
> 
> This, I feel, is more useful for the DM, to learn what really is a challenge, what is exceptionally weak, etc. In addition, I have a gut feeling the data isn't centered around a single median, but has a few clumps.




I suppose the raw material is called "Monster Manual".


----------



## Zeroth

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> I suppose the raw material is called "Monster Manual".



I'm inherently lazy. OP has already done the hardwork, and has achieved the kudos for it, so why not share the raw data if he has it? 

Besides, I want to use my Stats knowledge on actual data sets instead of ridiculous and silly data sets. :/


----------



## kerbarian

Zeroth said:


> Hey, I was wondering if you could make the raw data available? The analysis, while useful, is still flawed. Means are susceptible to outliers, of which I know there are several in the MM. I'm interested in seeing the median, the quartiles, and the standard distribution of the data.
> 
> This, I feel, is more useful for the DM, to learn what really is a challenge, what is exceptionally weak, etc. In addition, I have a gut feeling the data isn't centered around a single median, but has a few clumps.




The raw data I used is just the full text of the MM from the pdf (available here or here).  I selected the entire pdf, then copied and pasted it into a text file.

What I _can_ provide is the perl script I used for parsing.  My first script, which I used for most of the statistics, operated on a text file that had a lot of somewhat manual pre-processing done to it, so that script wouldn't be very useful.  The latest analysis script, though (for monster attacks), is much cleaner and operates directly on the pdf text, so I've included that script.

I'm hoping to spend a little more time on this soon and do some of the extra analysis that has been requested, and in the process I'm planning to convert the rest of the analysis over to the new style and add comments.  If/when that happens, I'll have a much more thorough perl script I can post.  Until then, this script at least contains the basics for separating out monster entries and such.

*parse_MM_attacks.pl:*
[sblock]
	
	




		Code:
	

#!/usr/bin/perl

open MMFILE, $ARGV[0] or die("usage: $0 <filename>\n");
read MMFILE, $mm_text, 1e7 or die;

@entries = ($mm_text =~ /(^[^\n]*Level \d+ (?:Elite |Solo )?(?:Artillery|Brute|Controller|Lurker|Minion|Skirmisher|Soldier).*?Cha \d+ \(.?\d+\))/gsm);
for $entry (@entries)
{
	$entry =~ s/\s+/ /g;
	$entry =~ s/Refl ex/Reflex/g;
	
	$entry =~ /Level (\d+)/;
	$level = $1;
	if($level <= 10) {
		$tier = 0;
	} elsif($level <= 20) {
		$tier = 1;
	} else {
		$tier = 2;
	}
	
	$count[$tier]++;
	$count[3]++;
	
	@attacks = ($entry =~ /(\+\d+ vs\.? (?:AC|Fortitude|Reflex|Will))/g);
	@def_seen = ();
	for $attack (@attacks) {
		$attack =~ /\+(\d+) vs\.? (AC|Fortitude|Reflex|Will)/;
		if($2 eq "AC") {
			$def = 0;
		} elsif($2 eq "Fortitude") {
			$def = 1;
		} elsif($2 eq "Reflex") {
			$def = 2;
		} else {
			$def = 3;
		}
		
		if(!$def_seen[$def]) {
			$def_seen[$def] = 1;
			$def_count[$tier][$def]++;
			$def_count[3][$def]++;
		}
		
		$attack_minus_level[$tier][$def] += $1 - $level;
		$attack_minus_level[3][$def] += $1 - $level;
		$attack_count[$tier][$def]++;
		$attack_count[3][$def]++;
	}
	
	if($def_seen[0] == 1 && $def_seen[1] == 0 && $def_seen[2] == 0 && $def_seen[3] == 0) {
		$def_count[$tier][4]++;
		$def_count[3][4]++;
	}
}

for $def (0 .. 4) {
	for $tier (0 .. 3) {
		printf "%10.1f", 100 * $def_count[$tier][$def] / $count[$tier];
	}
	print "\n";
}

print "\n";

for $def (0 .. 3) {
	for $tier (0 .. 3) {
		printf "%10.2f", $attack_minus_level[$tier][$def] / $attack_count[$tier][$def];
	}
	print "\n";
}

[/sblock]


----------



## Zeroth

Okay, guess I will be compiling the raw dataset from the from the MM then.  Like I said, there are plenty of outliers, unusual cases, etc.


----------



## Helepolis

Well, I can't help with much of it, but if you're interested, I went through the MM and counted up the number of resistant/vulnerable/immune monsters of each energy type.

On another note, I also counted what energy keywords are used by every player power in the PHB, divided by class.

Yeah, I was bored. But never would have been able to pull out something like what the OP did here. This is amazing.


----------



## MatthewJHanson

Rechan said:


> What had resistance to poison beside Undead and the green dragon? I find that a shame, because I like poison damage.




Off the top of my head, constructs are also immune, and Yuan-ti resist.


----------



## Helepolis

Worth noting is that there's about 4, literally, powers in the PHB that deal poison damage.


----------



## Mal Malenkirk

Mistwell said:


> So it seems to me that radiant damage that attacks will is very useful.
> 
> Having a high will defense of your own, however, isn't as useful as having other high defenses.




It may seem so but attacks that target will may have worse secondary effect on average than those target reflex.  Getting dominated by a vampire is rather annoying, for example...

It's hard to really determine which defend is the most useful just from these numbers (though they are great stuff!).

Maybe we could do even more math and attach a value to the secondary effect and see, on average, which defenses protect the PCs against the worst secondary effects.  Weeee!


----------



## Vaeron

Wow... Nice work


----------



## Perenon

Hi.
Are there any statistics about which type of damage monsters are able to deal?
I.e. like 10% of all monsters (respectively all monsters of heroic tier etc.) can deal fire damage, 2% deal psychic damage...

I didn't find a table about this information here, so does anyone know another site to look for it? Or did i maybe just fail to see it here?

Thx!


----------



## Perenon

**bump**

No one has seen anything of that kind?


----------



## Rel

Perenon said:


> No one has seen anything of that kind?




Might be worth doing some Advanced Searches using the Compendium to see if you could compile that kind of info.


----------



## Eric Finley

(BUMP)

Oddly enough, while trying to fix the battlerager (my fix follows below, if you're interested) I ended up doing exactly that.  Using searches from the Compendium, here are the percentages of all monster entries which are capable of various kinds of attack:


		Code:
	

                      All %All |Hero  %H  |Para  %P  |Epic  %E 
Number of Entries    2133 100% |1203 100% | 683 100% | 247 100%
-------------------------------+----------+----------+---------
With ranged attacks   926  43% | 520  43% | 291  43% | 115  47%
With close attacks    898  42% | 366  30% | 368  54% | 164  66%
With area attacks     396  19% | 179  15% | 148  22% |  69  28%
With only melee       690  32% | 472  39% | 175  26% |  43  17%
With only mle/cls    1083  51% | 636  53% | 336  49% | 111  45%
-------------------------------+----------+----------+---------
Doing fire damage     258  12% |  94   8% | 112  16% |  52  21%
Doing cold damage     112   5% |  57   5% |  38   6% |  17   7%
Doing poison damage   209  10% | 105   9% |  79  12% |  25  10%
Doing necrotic dmg    417  20% | 156  13% | 175  26% |  86  35%
Doing lightning dmg   102   5% |  57   5% |  24   4% |  21   9%
Doing thunder dmg      85   4% |  34   3% |  27   4% |  24  10%
Doing psychic dmg     243  11% |  94   8% | 105  15% |  44  18%
Doing acid damage      89   4% |  42   3% |  32   5% |  15   6%
Doing radiant damage   80   4% |  39   3% |  27   4% |  14   6%
Doing force damage     70   3% |  49   4% |  14   2% |   7   3%
Doing only untyped    913  43% | 657  55% | 216  32% |  40  16%

Not a lot of surprises there, exactly, but some of the magnitudes are interesting.  For example, close attacks scale upward more rapidly from Heroic to Epic than area ones do; I'd have expected the reverse.  More interesting yet was the amount by which resist necrotic is more valuable than even resist fire - it totally runs away with the win there.  And how relatively unuseful resist cold is; I'd have expected it to be somewhat closer to fire than it is.  Psychic damage is also noticeably more common than I'd have expected.

Methodology:[sblock]You can't search for [all creatures].  You need a search term.  I used "vs" for this - so if there are any monsters which don't have an attack "vs" a defense (even a basic attack), well, I missed those.

The ranged/area/etc readings were based simply on searches for those exact keywords... so if it shows up in the "ranged" line, it had the word "ranged" somewhere in the monster text.  This is probably only 99% accurate for finding ranged attacks, as there was no easy way to distinguish between an attack reading "Ranged 10; +N vs. blah" and a power text saying something like "When the smurfkin is the target of a ranged attack, it uses _smurfity smurf_ as an immediate reaction."   But it's a pretty good estimate anyway, IMO. These numbers do not of course add up to 100% because "ranged" counts all monsters with _at least_ a ranged attack, it tells you nothing about whether it's also got an area attack or whatever.

With regards to damage types it was a little trickier; the individual totals are small enough that phrases like "if the pyrabbit takes cold damage, it turns into a normal bunny" distorted the results noticeably.  So I had to refine the search to eliminate the two most common forms of this phrasing I could find.  It's probably at that point more accurate than the previous set, but obviously there will still be false positives here and there.  Luckily, the word "damage" isn't included in things like keywords and resistances, so this search is actually finding monsters capable of dealing fire damage, for the most part.[/sblock]
And, if interested, my battlerager fix:[sblock]  *Battlerager's Vigor (Class Feature)*[FONT=&quot]
_You have resistance equal to your Con modifier to all melee and close attacks.  Furthermore, anytime this resistance kicks in and you are wearing chain armor or less, you gain a +1 damage bonus to your next attack on the source of that hit, or +2 with a mace, axe, or hammer.  This bonus goes away as soon as you lose real HP (not temp HP) for any reason – although if you lost them to a melee or close attack, then it comes back again as normal._

The above research was me trying to figure out whether "to untyped damage" would be a possible stand-in for "to a melee or close attack" since we're much more used to applying resistances to damage types than to attack forms.  The answer is that on paper, at Heroic, it's really close... 55% of monsters do only untyped damage, 53% have only melee or close attacks.  (No word, of course, on _how often_ they may use each type of attack, but this will do as a first-order approximation.)  However, I realized that there is a clumping issue here... we usually organize adventures around a theme, and the correlation between "inflicts typed damage" and "all of the same theme" is very high.  So you'd have entire adventures (the war on the kobolds or whatever) which never really saw typed damage, but you'd also have entire adventures which saw nothing but.  Too lumpy, and therefore discarded.

But the data's still useful... hence this post.[/FONT][/sblock][FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]​


----------



## jasonite

At the risk of "necroing" a thread....this thread is awesome! It's been extremely useful to me in creating characters, and I wanted to say thank you.

I'm also thinking of updating his stats to include some current references as well, unless someone else would like to?

J


----------

