I admit I’m a bit lost again. You want PCs to be built more like monsters, so you can use PCs as monsters. That’s the argument I thought we were working with. I’m still on the side of using monsters as monsters, they fit in well enough to be used as evil counterparty in my book so there’s no need to use PCs as monsters.
I think that PCs and monsters should have roughly the same ratio of offense to defense. This probably means making PCs slightly lower damage output and slightly higher durability, while making monsters slightly higher damage output and slightly lower durability. It doesn't particularly change general game play, just means that monsters build like PCs aren't weird glass cannon anomalies.
I admit I’m a bit lost again. You want PCs to be built more like monsters, so you can use PCs as monsters. That’s the argument I thought we were working with. I’m still on the side of using monsters as monsters, they fit in well enough to be used as evil counterparty in my book so there’s no need to use PCs as monsters.
I think that PCs and monsters should have roughly the same ratio of offense to defense. This probably means making PCs slightly lower damage output and slightly higher durability, while making monsters slightly higher damage output and slightly lower durability. It doesn't particularly change general game play, just means that monsters build like PCs aren't weird glass cannon anomalies.
That just takes me back to "why build monsters like PCs if that's a problem?" again. I'm just going to let it go though. Do your thing, that's what we all should do.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
If anything (some) monsters should have more hp relative to damage. My problem is that it's hard to have a battle against single monster that lasts more than one or two rounds, unless you pick such a high-level monster that it one-shots players. I know they designed the game for fights against multiple monsters, but sometimes for narrative reasons I prefer to fight single enemies.
But actually it has the same effect if you raise player hp relative to damage. An across the board increase in player hp is equivalent to a decrease in monster damage.
So I guess I'm saying the thing you asked about is kind of irrelevant. It's the ratio of all four numbers: player and monster hp and damage. Except, as you say, when battling players against NPCs created according to PC creation rules. Which I agree can be frustrating. Those kind of opponents do tend to go down too easily unless you can give them some kind of strategic cover.
So, looking at this in theoretical terms: let's assume an open field (or arena, or something) battle should last 2 rounds for a medium encounter, 3 rounds for a deadly encounter, 4 rounds for a coinflip (50% chance that the fight goes either way). Thus, in a coinflip fight, each combatant should average 25% damage (or, say, 42% damage with a 60% hit chance). For the medium fight, multiply monster hp and damage by 0.5 (so it probably does 25% of hp to the winning side), for the hard multiply by 0.75 (averaging 56% of hp to the winning side).
Published monsters come fairly close to those numbers, though usually on the low side. PCs are on the high side, often by quite a bit, meaning a coinflip fight might only last three rounds, or even two. I was most saying that it would be handy if PCs and monsters were normalized against the same numbers.
Boss monsters are a separate topic, but I would note that for our expected deadly fight (56% of hp) that's 56% of the party hp -- which amounts to 2-3 PCs reduced to zero HP. If that fight lasts three rounds, that's one PC to zero hp every round. Thus, it's really expected that a dangerous solo will be one-shotting PCs.
I feel like you're ignoring healing magic. That makes the PCs' effective HP pool much larger. And you can trade 50-hp hits vs. 5-hp heals indefinitely, as long as you can match their action economy. A "coin-flip" fight might knock the PCs down to nearly 0 hp in only two rounds, but go on several more rounds.
I feel like you're ignoring healing magic. That makes the PCs' effective HP pool much larger. And you can trade 50-hp hits vs. 5-hp heals indefinitely, as long as you can match their action economy.
Honestly, Healing Word whack-a-mole should be removed from the game.
I feel like you're ignoring healing magic. That makes the PCs' effective HP pool much larger. And you can trade 50-hp hits vs. 5-hp heals indefinitely, as long as you can match their action economy.
Honestly, Healing Word whack-a-mole should be removed from the game.
I agree. I had an idea that any damage taken beyond 0 hp reduces your max hp. But I'm not sure how that would affect the balance of the game. Healers especially would be nerfed.
That sort of system creates a positive feedback loop, which is really a bad idea when it comes to RPG stats. Permanent HP drain from hitting 0 HP means that you're forever that much more likely to reach 0 HP.
The designers dropped all the permanent HP/level/ability score draining effects from 5E for a reason.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
That sort of system creates a positive feedback loop, which is really a bad idea when it comes to RPG stats. Permanent HP drain from hitting 0 HP means that you're forever that much more likely to reach 0 HP.
I assume the idea was 'until you finish a long rest', like other reductions to max hp.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I think that PCs and monsters should have roughly the same ratio of offense to defense. This probably means making PCs slightly lower damage output and slightly higher durability, while making monsters slightly higher damage output and slightly lower durability. It doesn't particularly change general game play, just means that monsters build like PCs aren't weird glass cannon anomalies.
That just takes me back to "why build monsters like PCs if that's a problem?" again. I'm just going to let it go though. Do your thing, that's what we all should do.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
If anything (some) monsters should have more hp relative to damage. My problem is that it's hard to have a battle against single monster that lasts more than one or two rounds, unless you pick such a high-level monster that it one-shots players. I know they designed the game for fights against multiple monsters, but sometimes for narrative reasons I prefer to fight single enemies.
But actually it has the same effect if you raise player hp relative to damage. An across the board increase in player hp is equivalent to a decrease in monster damage.
So I guess I'm saying the thing you asked about is kind of irrelevant. It's the ratio of all four numbers: player and monster hp and damage. Except, as you say, when battling players against NPCs created according to PC creation rules. Which I agree can be frustrating. Those kind of opponents do tend to go down too easily unless you can give them some kind of strategic cover.
Solo monsters are something this edition doesn't really cater to, but there are some resources:
Find my D&D Beyond articles here
So, looking at this in theoretical terms: let's assume an open field (or arena, or something) battle should last 2 rounds for a medium encounter, 3 rounds for a deadly encounter, 4 rounds for a coinflip (50% chance that the fight goes either way). Thus, in a coinflip fight, each combatant should average 25% damage (or, say, 42% damage with a 60% hit chance). For the medium fight, multiply monster hp and damage by 0.5 (so it probably does 25% of hp to the winning side), for the hard multiply by 0.75 (averaging 56% of hp to the winning side).
Published monsters come fairly close to those numbers, though usually on the low side. PCs are on the high side, often by quite a bit, meaning a coinflip fight might only last three rounds, or even two. I was most saying that it would be handy if PCs and monsters were normalized against the same numbers.
Boss monsters are a separate topic, but I would note that for our expected deadly fight (56% of hp) that's 56% of the party hp -- which amounts to 2-3 PCs reduced to zero HP. If that fight lasts three rounds, that's one PC to zero hp every round. Thus, it's really expected that a dangerous solo will be one-shotting PCs.
I feel like you're ignoring healing magic. That makes the PCs' effective HP pool much larger. And you can trade 50-hp hits vs. 5-hp heals indefinitely, as long as you can match their action economy. A "coin-flip" fight might knock the PCs down to nearly 0 hp in only two rounds, but go on several more rounds.
Honestly, Healing Word whack-a-mole should be removed from the game.
I agree. I had an idea that any damage taken beyond 0 hp reduces your max hp. But I'm not sure how that would affect the balance of the game. Healers especially would be nerfed.
That sort of system creates a positive feedback loop, which is really a bad idea when it comes to RPG stats. Permanent HP drain from hitting 0 HP means that you're forever that much more likely to reach 0 HP.
The designers dropped all the permanent HP/level/ability score draining effects from 5E for a reason.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
I assume the idea was 'until you finish a long rest', like other reductions to max hp.