Power Options, Status Effects, and Mutual Assured Destruction – Second World Edition, Part 1

While the majority of D&D players, statistically speaking, live in nations that are known as the First World (a term invented during the cold war to mean “the major industrialized non-Communist nations”), there’s another set of critters with power options and status effects running around. They are, of course, the players’ major opposition, and to keep our cold war analogy running, they would clearly be analagous to the Second World (a term you don’t hear much these days, meaning, obviously, the major industrialized Communist nations). They’re more numerous, scary, and they’re going to slippery slope all of southeast Asia into the Communist regime! Well, alright, maybe the monsters are a bit more innocent than that.

If anyone is confused about this extended metaphor, I’d suggest taking the time to read The Id DM’s latest article: Power Options, Status Effects & Mutual Assured Destruction, not only because it’s an amazing piece of statistical game analysis, but also because if you don’t read it first you’ll probably find this article somewhat confusing. Not least of all because that introduction was a play off of his use of Mutual Assured Destruction. Go ahead, I’ll wait.

Done already? Man, you read pretty fast! Careful you don’t light your screen on fire from your laser scanner eyes!

Alright, alright. Jokes aside, let’s get into it.

We’ll begin with our core assumptions, or hypotheses if we want to get scientific about it. They are:

Hypothesis 1

  • Combat includes too many moving parts, and this is the monsters’ fault.
  • Premise 1: As level increases monsters get more Power Options.
  • Premise 2: As level increase monsters get more powerful Power Options.
  • Premise 3: The above increase in Power Options is at least equal to that players experience.

I expect this hypothesis will be proven false on account of premise 3, but true on premises 1 and 2. We shall see if the expected result matches the statistical one, and if so (or not) by how much.

Hypothesis 2

  • Very few Power Options are intrinsically tied to the different monster classes.
  • Premise 1: Assuming “intrinsically tied” is equivalent to appearing 50% more often than the average both per power and per monster, and that the Power Option appears at least 10% of the time overall both per power and per monster.
  • Premise 2: Assuming that the monster classes are Controller, Soldier, Brute, Lurker, Artillery, and Skirmisher irrespective of their Minion, Standard, Elite, or Solo status.

I expect this hypothesis will prove true for monsters as we see a similar result from the analysis of player characters. The reasoning behind premise 1 is pretty simple (albeit potentially arbitrary) – a signature power should reasonably appear 50% more often in a class of monster that has it as a signature than it would in a class of monster that does not. Why 50%? Well, if only half the defender classes had ways to punish some sort of mark you’d be a bit suspect about the mark being core to a Defender, no? I hold this principle true for monsters as well. Similarly, a feature that is a trend should be appearing more than 10% of the time overall. If less than 1 in 10 controllers blinds you, blinding may be a thing controllers do more often, but it is probably not a controller’s “thing” that controllers just do. Why the 10%? It seemed like a reasonable cut-off as I was gathering the data.

General Questions

While this is obviously not a formally given hypothesis, I would like to know a couple of things personally. Most importantly of those: how the common conception of “anti-grind” monster usage (that is, not to use soldiers or controllers and to instead focus on artillery and brutes) fits into the sorts of Power Options monsters have. 

 

 

 

Method

My method here is pretty much as identical to The Id DM’s as possible primarily because I want my results to be compatible with his for purpose of cross-analysis between both the players and the monsters (whom all too often in 4th edition are treated under different sets of rules and assumptions). For this week’s analysis I decided to start at the very beginning, a very good place to start, and use monsters only from the original Monster Manual 1. Next week I will use Monster Vault and see how the two compare given approximately 2.5 years of design innovation (which should be especially apt considering they have many of the same monsters).

The status data is collected on the following premises (basically the same as the way The Id DM did it for reasons of compatibility) -

If a power inflicts two different conditions (example: prone and dazed) I record both. If a power inflicts one condition or another condition (example: prone or dazed) I record both. If a power inflicts two different kinds of ongoing damage I record both. I have attached at the end of the article a link to the notes for what the “other effect” row recorded. I have not counted powers that read along the lines of “this creature makes two Claw attacks”, unless it adds a new qualifier, such as “this creature makes two Claw attacks, and if both hit the target is grabbed”, in which case I recorded the new effect, in that example grabbed. Similar to the original table, this means that not only is it possible that the number of Power Options (things a power does that isn’t just damage) exceeds the number of powers, but also it is likely that this is the case.

During the collecting of the data I tried my best to use the same categories that were used to form the charts for the players’ options, however over the course of collection I found that there were some Power Options that did not fit in the categories selected. Not only that, but I found that some effects were not used at all. Furthermore, I found that there were some things that fell outside the criteria I had selected for recordable powers that needed their own category, although I refrained from adding it partway through. I will discuss these more at the end of the article and make the necessary changes when collecting the data from the Monster Vault.

Finally, it should be noted that for powers, much as The Id DM only selected At-Will, Encounter, and Daily powers (with no Utility, Item, Paragon, or Epic powers), I have decided to only select Standard action powers. I made this decision figuring that a monster is as likely to have a “schtick” in its standard powers as a player is likely to find their “schtick” in their At-Will, Encounter, and Daily powers. While I did find some notable examples of powers (notably minor actions) that had interesting and powerful effects on them, I figured that certain Utility powers would mirror this fairly well and, again, I wanted the charts to be as compatible as possible.

Results (and Discussion)

I will present the majority of the data I acquired (although not all of it, as that would be far too many charts) in this section. If you want access to the excel spreadsheet and rough notes I took while making the excel spreadsheet then you can find links to those at the bottom.

Also, you’ll have to forgive my tables for not being nearly as pretty as the players’ companion tables were.

For your convenience, this first table is highlighted with a dark purple in categories where no monsters had any of that particular Power Option, and in blue where a certain role has none of that Power Option across all tiers.

 (click the image for a larger version)

Whew, that’s a lot of data huh? Let’s try to make something intellegible out of this.

So, to do my best to mirror the analysis of the players’ options, I’m going to start with the same thing my colleague did – I’m going to see how many powers (as a percent of all powers) have no effect besides damage. These numbers will be rounded to the nearest whole percent in terms of significant digits, because it’s entirely possible I made a couple minor math boo-boos on the way here.

  • Controller: 25%
  • Soldier: 32%
  • Artillery: 53%
  • Lurker: 27%
  • Brute: 46%
  • Skirmisher: 41%

As compared to the 2% of the Druid, the Controller monster type has 25%. Similarly, instead of the 6% of the Fighter the Soldier has 32%. The Rogue has 7%, at the peak of the PC roles, while the monster equivalent is Artillery with 53%. Finally, the Leader has 3%, and none of the remaining monster types come even remotely close to that low. It’s a fact: monsters have a lot of powers that just deal damage compared to PCs.

Next up, we’ll follow the course of the model article once again and take a look at Power Options and Effects, not only per power, but per monster
(another useful statistic in my opinion). This chart (cleverly using the exact same page layout that the last article used) shows the power options per power
in what is frankly too many significant digits. Still, I’m no statistician, and if Excel’s formula functions want to give me way too many significant digits I’m not about to say no. (Yes I know you can fix that in the options menu somewhere). The point here is, as expected, the power options that each power has goes up per tier, as should’ve been expected (with a few outliers, notably the Skirmisher’s options decreasing in paragon tier and the Artillery monsters’ options decreasing epic tier). The more interesting notion, however, is the comparison between the weighted averages of monster powers and those of the players. While the monster powers have only .75 options per power in heroic tier, the player powers have 1.375. While the monster powers have approximately 1 power option per power in paragon tier the players have approximately 1.6. In epic tier this trend continues, with the monsters peaking at around 1.17 power options per power and the players peaking at 1.635. The interesting thing here is that the ratio of monster options to player options decreases as we rise in tier. In other words, while the players become more complicated, the monsters become more complicated at a faster rate than the players! Perhaps this is a symptom of not including item, utility, and paragon path and epic destiny powers in the player study, but this holds interesting implications for one of our hypotheses. Still, let’s take a look at one more table before we call this one case closed.

The first thing you may notice is that I have revised my chart’s color scheme. I think this one looks a bit snazzier than the last one. At any rate, my professionalism of presentation aside, this chart shows interesting results as well – they are notably similar, in fact, and that’s a good thing. What this tells is that while the powers are becoming more complicated (notably they go from .75 power options to 1.17 per power, as per the last chart, which is a ~56% increase) the monsters are getting more powers, too. If they were not getting more powers, the increase in complexity here, too, would be ~56% (going from 1.58 to 2.46). However, this is distinctly not the case, and in fact we have an approximately 120% increase! While at an average options per power of .75, and average options per monster of 1.58, the monsters of heroic tier have an average of only two powers (roughly), in epic tier with an average options per power of 1.17 and an average options per monster of 3.48 the monsters have, in essence, an average of approximately 3 powers (that have power options). Remember, these are only standard action powers. We can probably assume that move, minor, immediate, etc. powers increase in complexity similarly.

How can we apply this to our hypothesis?

  • Combat includes too many moving parts, and this is the monsters’ fault.
  • Premise 1: As level increases monsters get more Power Options.
  • Premise 2: As level increase monsters get more powerful Power Options.
  • Premise 3: The above increase in Power Options is at least equal to that players experience.

Regarding premise 1, it is definitely true. Monsters get more power options as they level up, this much is clear. However, not only do they get more power options, but they also get more powers! Monsters get more complex by an increase of approximately 120% all told, so this is definitely clear support for the premise that as monsters increase in level they become more complex – a revised premise from the original to take advantage of new information we have uncovered since the prediction.

As for premise 3, this is false so far (in terms of the volume of increase, if not the quality), but not as false as I had predicted. While players do have more options, and that their increase is larger, it becomes less large with each tier. The monsters basically play catch-up, which is not something I expected to see. Still, the increase in power options, in terms of sheer volume, favors the players, so premise 3 is on shakey footing at best so far.

What about premise 2? Well, let’s look at the quality of conditions, starting with the “Big Three” – the hard action deniers. Hard because when subjected to these conditions you cannot somehow ignore them and continue to use your action (for instance, Dazed reduces you to one action no matter what, while with Prone you can ignore the temptation to stand up and retain your move action for something else), and action deniers because they, well, deny actions by literally not allowing the player to use some or all of the actions their turn normally entitles them to. In other words, we are going to look at charts with Dazed, Stunned, and Dominated.

Firstly, I’d like to note that this chart is in percent, not a straight X over Y decimal. This is because the numbers start to get too tiny to really mean anything without having to think about it, and I’m all about aproachability (I say in the article with a squillion pieces of data that had to use excel formulae to achieve anything resembling success). The first thing to note is how there is an apparent outlier in the amount of Daze as tiers go on. First it increases, substantially in fact, and then it sort of decreases back between the first two numbers. This is in clear contrast to the way things work for our four player classes, which have an increasing quantity of daze as the tiers go on. The other thing to note is how few powers actually daze, especially as compared to the player classes. Referencing the charts from our player companion article, we can find that the player powers of those four classes have powers that daze 5.2% of the time in heroic tier, monsters have powers that daze only 4.1% of the time. This difference exaggerates as the tiers increase, with players having 10.9% chance of a daze in one of their powers selected at random, while the monsters only have 7.9% in paragon tier, and in epic tier it gets even wider, with a 12.3% chance of a daze in any given power for the players and only a measly 6% chance for daze to be in any given monster power.  Since I don’t think we’d get a lot out of a “Dazes per Monster” chart in this instance, let’s move on to the next of the Big Three, Stun.

The stunned % per power chart basically tells the story you’d expect. Not only do stuns increase with each tier, but they increase faster with each tier, too. In other words, the rate of stunning is accelerating. One possible reason for this is that the number of dragons (notably still with their stunning dragon fear power in Monster Manual 1) increases in density as tiers increase, but that alone probably doesn’t explain it. At any rate, the story of increase here is different from that of the story of increasing daze when you compare the results to the players. While for daze the players started with more, then accelerated away to create an enormous daze gap by epic tier, in this case it begins with a gap of 0% players to 2.5% in favor of the monsters in heroic tier, slightly closing (player acceleration) 3.4% to 5.7%, and then 6.6% to 10.6%, with the monsters pulling away into a clear lead by a wide margin. Why so many stunning powers in epic tier? Besides the dragon density theory I don’t know, but there they are. The final of the big three, we’ll next look at Dominated.

 

Now then, Dominated is interesting because it seems to exhibit characteristics shared by the dazed chart. The amount of the dominated condition per power basically doubles between heroic and paragon, then in epic dips down to a figure between the first two – just like in the dazed chart. Meanwhile, the fluctuations in the amount of domination that PCs get per power goes from .65% to .75% to 1.2% – higher than the monsters overall, and specifically in both heroic and epic tier. That being said, dominated is an extremely rare condition, not only for the monsters, but also for the players.

Now I’ll share some charts detailing similar progressions for other powerful conditions (blinded, removed, restrained, unconscious, and weakened), as well as how they compare to the players’ options of the same.

Here’s the chart for blinded, and it, too, exhibits that sort of strange dazed progression, where it peaks in paragon tier. The comparative percentages per power per tier between the players and monsters are 1.7% to 1.1%, 2.3% to 1.3%, and 5.8% to 1% respectively. In other words, the players’ blinded options per power increases tier (and accelerates), while the monsters’ just sort of hangs out around 1.1%-ish.

 

 

 

Meanwhile, removed as a condition exhibits a growth similar to that of the stunned condition, increasing in prevalence per tier. When compared to the progression that the PCs get, it is, PCs first, .22% to .23%, 0% to .44%, and 1.2% to 1.0% per tier respectively. There seems to be a bit of an outlier in paragon tier, but otherwise the PCs and monsters get a similar amount of restrained and also a similar amount of increase (again with the exception of paragon tier).

 

 

 

 

Next up there’s restrained, which displays another one of those quirky paragon tier maximums, with epic tier falling between paragon and heroic. Compared to the PCs, again with the PCs first and respectively by tier, are .87% to 1.4%, 1.1% to 2.9%, and 2.9% to 1.5%. The monsters begin ahead, then stay ahead, until finally the PCs take first place in epic tier.

 

 

 

Penultimately there’s the unconscious per power chart, with the monsters displaying, again, their epic tier not progressing reasonably onward, but instead peaking at paragon tier. However, this time at least, it also displays another curious behavior – namely that for the first time epic tier is not only less than paragon tier, but also less than heroic tier. Hmm, curious. We’ll discuss that momentarily, however, and for now I’ll just note that the player vs. monster comparison is .22% to .23%, .38% to .88%, and 0% to 0%.

 

 

 The final chart of serious effect per power in percent (always avoid alliteration) is, as mentioned, weakened. This one seems to increase as one would expect, unlike several notable exceptions, and additionally the PC vs monster per tier comparisons are .87% to 1.6%, 1.9% to 4.1%, and 5.3% to 5.0%. While the monsters had the PCs on the ropes for a while, it seems that team PC pulls ahead in the end once again.

 

 

 

Now, what does all of this mean? Well, it could mean a lot of things, but the first thing I noticed is that neither side really has a decisive advantage in terms of the big status effects – ones that cause large penalties or the like. The monsters’ effects where they have a slight advantage seem to be the slightly more dangerous ones (removed, stunned, and weakened), but the PCs aren’t exactly far behind, and to boot have an advantage in dazed and blinded. In other words -

  • Premise 3: The above increase in Power Options is at least equal to that players experience.

Premise 3 is looking fairly supported in terms of rate of increase regarding powerful effects. The monsters and players both get increases to their effects at roughly the same rate, with perhaps a very slight edge going to the players in terms of rate of increase, but the edge going to the monsters in terms of the power of the condition inflicted. Of course, just a little while ago I was saying how premise 3 was unsupported since the players get more options at a more rapid rate overall, so what gives? Obviously the players must be getting options that are not the effects I just listed in much higher quantities than the monsters are, and, on the whole, this is true. You can see it most clearly in the case that monsters get many powers that deal only damage, while players get very few of those powers – the powers that, were they monsters, would deal only damage must, therefore, be acquiring lesser power options (like bonuses or movement) that are not major status conditions, while the monsters have many powers that deal only damage. In other words, while the sheer power of the options, and the amount of the powerful options, aren’t in either party’s favor, the less powerful options are distinctly giving the edge to the party, and therefore overall premise 3 seems to be unsupported in regards to quantity.

As for -

  • Premise 2: As level increase monsters get more powerful Power Options.

Well, frankly that one looks kind of supported and kind of busted. Of the eight status effects listed, the monsters had a peak in their relative quantity in paragon for five of them (dazed, dominated, blinded, restrained, unconscious), while they had a peak for three (stunned, removed, and weakened) in epic tier. The trend is definitely there as the monsters roll into paragon tier, but premise 2 seems to be weak as the monsters reach epic. In fact, the difference in percentage points between heroic tier in these eight status effects is, all together, 14.59. On the other hand, the difference between paragon tier and epic tier is, net, only 1.28. The premise is still supported so far, but only barely. Meanwhile, the players have a difference in percentage points between heroic and paragon tier for these eight effects of 11, and paragon and epic tier of 14.57. In other words, while the players get more acceleratively powerful (that is, their power increases, and increases at a more rapid rate than heroic) in paragon tier, and continue this acceleration through epic tier, where they gain power at a faster rate than paragon tier, the monsters… well, they don’t. The monsters start to slow down again as they reach epic tier. This brings us back to -

  • Premise 3: The above increase in Power Options is at least equal to that players experience.

which is now definitely busted. The players gain power at a much faster rate as the game goes on than the monsters, with rough parity in paragon tier, then the players pulling away like the first place horse at the kentucky derby once they reach epic tier, not only overall, but also for the eight most powerful (debateable I know) status effects.

Therefore, hypothesis 1 is, primarily, false. While the monsters do have a lot of complexity to them, and this complexity is comparable up until paragon tier, at the end of the day the players pull ahead far and away. Epic tier combat is most definitely more complex on the player end by a wide margin in terms of status effects and other power options within the limited At-Will, Encounter, Daily / Standard Action scope of this study.

 

Now to begin on hypothesis 2 – that certain kinds of power options are intrinsically tied to certain kinds of monsters. This is useful to see if the roles are really different, and if so, how they are different in terms of the power options they possess. The player study showed that this was less the case than one could imagine, so it’ll be interesting to see how monsters work out. To this end, I have created two charts. They are both color coded for convenience, with associative power options labelled in red (>50% increase in prevalence compared to average), dissociative power options labelled in blue (>50% decrease in prevalence compared to average), and null options (those that do not appear at all) labelled in purple. All other boxes (results that fall within +-50% of the average) are gray. The first chart is the percent of monsters that have a certain power option, and the second chart is the percent of powers that have a certain power option, both charts broken down by role.

Basically, we’ve got a lot of results here and we need a way to cull from the herd. A good place to start, or so I think, are where the associative results line up. In other words, where both a lot of the monsters have powers with that result, and a lot of the powers the monsters possess have that result. For instance, the Controller role has several that line up: Blinded, Dazed, Dominated, Immobilized, Removed, Slowed, Stunned, Combat Advantage, Healing, and Penalty. A rough theme here are heavy action denying effects and numerical penalties (dazed, dominated, removed, and stunned denying actions hard, immobilized, combat advantage, slowed, and other penalties denying softly). The controllers exert control, who would’ve thought? They are also defined by being above average in the most effects and power options overall (both individually and together). However, what truly defines a trend? Is it a power option appearing 5% of the time? 10% of the time? 20% of the time? I decided to arbitrarily make a cut off at 10%, because in my mind if every other encounter made entirely of that role doesn’t necessitate showing a power option, then the power option is probably too rare to truly define the class of monster with. Do you think that another percentage should be used? Feel free to comment below and justify your response! However, using my arbitrary cutoff for now, we can see that a controller is “truly” defined by only a few power options: Slowed and Penalty on a per-power basis (with Dazed and Immobilized coming close), and Bonus, Penalty, Healing, Movement, Weakened, Stunned, Slowed, Immobilized and Dazed on a per-monster basis. Therefore, a rough “most defined by” to “least defined by” for controllers might look something like this (using only associative results):

  • Controller – Defined by: Slowed and Penalty, Dazed and Immobilized, Movement, Stunned and Healing, Weakened and Bonus

The other roles are defined a lot more tightly by their power options than are the Controllers, with the possible exception of Lurkers who come close. Therefore, let’s just work from top to bottom. Lurkers have as associative on the first chart: Blinded, Grabbed, Removed, Unconscious, Weakened, Penalty, Bonus, and Other Effect. Other Effect? Well, that’s not good. Let’s find out what that effect tends to be. According to the notes I took while creating the charts of data, Other Effect for Lurkers fell into approximately 3 major categories: caster becomes Insubstantial, caster becomes Invisible, and far behind those two, caster creates Line of Sight blocking Zone. Since Other Effect covers a wide range of effects in this case we’ll ignore it, but make a note that Lurkers are prominently able to become Insubstantial and Invisible. From the second chart the associative results are Blinded, Grabbed, Removed, Unconscious, and Weakened, as well as Penalty, Bonus, and Other Effect. The options that meet the 10% cutoff are Penalty and Other Effect on chart 2, as well as Blinded, Grabbed, Weakened, Penalty, Bonus, and Other Effect on chart 1. As a result of this, a Lurker defined by power options might look something like this (as above):

  • Lurker – Defined by: The ability to become Insubstantial or Intangible, Penalty, Bonus, Weakened and Grabbed and Blinded, and (barely) Removed and Unconscious

To continue on to the next most defined by its power options in terms of quantity is the Artillery role but with a distinctive dip in the amount. Artillery is defined on chart 1 by being associated with Dazed, Dominated, Petrified, and Unconscious as well as No Effect, and on chart 2 with Dazed and Dominated. In terms of the 10% cutoff, on chart 1 the most prominent associative options are Dazed and No Effect, and on chart 2 there are no options that meet the cutoff, although Dazed is close. When defining artillery, normally I would put Dazed first, as it meets the cutoff on one chart and is also associative on both charts, but the No Effect power option on chart 1 is so far and away above 10% occurance (in fact, rather than occuring once in every 10 monsters as 10% indicates, it occurs approximately 1.5 times per monster) that it only seems prudent to use it as Artillery’s defining aspect. Therefore, Artillery is most clearly defined like so -

  • Artillery – Defined by: No Effect, Dazed, Dominated, Petrified, and Unconscious

Next is Soldier, again with many fewer defining options than Controller or Lurker. In the Soldier’s case, it is associative on chart 1 with Grabbed, Marked, and Petrified, and on chart 2 also with Grabbed, Marked, and Petrified. In terms of the 10% cutoff it has Marked on both charts and Grabbed on the first. Therefore -

  • Soldier – Defined by: Marked and Grabbed

 I’ll skip boring you to tears by listing out the remainder and simply present them in their abridged, bolded, bullet-pointed format (together with the ones that are already done). They were done in the same manner.

  • Controller – Defined by: Slowed and Penalty, Dazed and Immobilized, Movement, Stunned and Healing, Weakened and Bonus
  • Lurker – Defined by: The ability to become Insubstantial or Intangible, Penalty, Bonus, Weakened and Grabbed and Blinded, and (barely) Removed and Unconscious
  • Artillery – Defined by: No Effect, Dazed, Dominated, Petrified, and Unconscious
  • Soldier – Defined by: Marked and Grabbed
  • Skirmisher – Defined by: Movement, Combat Advantage
  • Brute – Defined by: Prone

So, in essence, what are we looking at here? Well, contrary to the players, it seems that the monster classes are usually all pretty clearly defined. The controller slows and imposes penalties, as well as restricting movemement and action in other ways, while the lurker can become insubstantial or intangible and inflict wicked penalties. Artillery is primarily about the damage, soldier about marking, skirmishers about movement, and Brutes about prone. However, associative power options only tell one half of the story. What about the dissociative power options? Well, here are those, listed again for your convenience (and determined in much the same way, this time ordered from most anti-definitive to least) -

  • Controller - Anti-Defined by: Marked
  • Lurker – Anti-Defined by: Marked and Petrified and Combat Advantage, Immobilized,  Movement
  • Artillery - Anti-Defined by: Grabbed and Marked and Removed and Combat Advantage,  Bonus, Healing, Prone
  • Soldier – Anti-Defined by: Dominated and Unconscious and Combat Advantage, Blinded, Penalty
  • Skirmisher – Anti-Defined by: Blinded and Dominated and Immobilized and Marked and Removed, Grabbed, Dazed, Penalty, Stunned
  • Brute – Anti-Defined by: Blinded and Dominated and Marked and Petrified and Removed and Unconscious and Combat Advantage, Immobilized, Bonus, and Slowed

So, regarding what makes a monster class unique, what can we learn from all of that? Basically, that Controllers are defined by their ability to detain enemies from doing as they please (movement penalties and action penalties, as well as just regular old penalties) as well as able to do a lot of different things overall – the only condition they cannot inflict at least some of the time, besides those that no monster in this study can inflict, is Marked. The Lurker, too, is defined by its penalty infliction, but in a different way – it inflicts primarily numerical penalties (and bonuses to itself), as well as having the ability to become invisible and/or insubstantial very frequently. The Artillery monster is defined by its ability to … have very few abilities. It primarily just deals damage, but it has a touch of control in there as well (most notably Dazed). Meanwhile, it has quite a few things it can’t do without any real solid theme it seems. The Soldier, on the other hand, has very few things it can do that define it: basically just Marked and Grabbed. In contrast, it also doesn’t have many things it can’t do, with the majority of its options being gray rather than red or blue. Skirmishers are clearly defined by movement, as one would expect, as well as combat advantage (although much less clearly defined in terms of inflicting it as a condition), also as one would expect. Meanwhile they have very little ability to impede the movement or action of others. Finally, Brutes knock things prone a lot, but otherwise are fairly limited in what they can accomplish. Their rate of No Effect powers, while not as prominent as Artillery, is basically tied for second with the Skirmisher. How does this all affect Hypothesis 2? -

  • Very few Power Options are intrinsically tied to the different monster classes.
  • Premise 1: Assuming “intrinsically tied” is equivalent to appearing 50% more often than the average both per power and per monster, and that the Power Option appears at least 10% of the time overall both per power and per monster.
  • Premise 2: Assuming that the monster classes are Controller, Soldier, Brute, Lurker, Artillery, and Skirmisher irrespective of their Minion, Standard, Elite, or Solo status.

Well, using premise 1 we created those charts and analyzed what they were all about, and also using premise 2 we ignored the monsters’ relative worth to their same-levelled comrades. In terms of the hypothesis itself, I would say that, contrary to my expectations, monsters are fairly well defined by, and tied to, their power options on a role basis. Controllers clearly use action and movement denying effects much more often than any other role, Lurkers are the only role that really has any consistency in its ability to become insubstantial or intangible from a power, Artillery has tons of powers that are just damage and sometimes daze, Soldiers are defined by their mark and grabbing (and also by their relative ability to do anything), and Brutes and Skirmishers both have a schtick to (prone and movement/taking advantage of CA respectively), as well as being very clearly planted in the second place spot of No Effect. The answers aren’t as definitive as I might’ve liked to see, but on the whole the trend of these monsters seems to point towards certain power options being tied heavily to certain classes. In fact, at no point do any of the red (>50% more prevalent) power options go to more than two of the monster classes at a time. I’d say that’s a pretty big success on the part of the design team for the monsters in terms of making them distinct from one another based on role.

That leaves only one point of discussion, namely how the concept of anti-grind monsters fits into this general scheme alongside the relative strengths and weaknesses of various power options to that end, and how that relates to the existing data.

The most common advice for using monsters that “don’t cause combat to be a grind” basically runs along the following lines: Whatever you do, don’t use soldiers or controllers, and instead use artillery, skirmishers, and brutes. Lurkers are kind of a wild card that are situationally useful, primarily because they will often be the first to run away thereby not lengthening combats needlessly.

So, do I see any statistical trend that might support this qualitative analysis? In fact, I do. Artillery, skirmishers, and brutes are all very high on the No Effect category. To pull some numbers from earlier in the article, the artillery role has a full 53% of its powers not inflicting any kind of status effect or power option of any kind. Similarly, brutes take second place at 46%, and skirmishers a close third at 41%. In contrast, soldiers only have 32%, and controllers only 25%. Ouch! Lurkers, the “wild card” are sitting at only 27%! But that’s just in terms of powers, let’s take a look at it in terms of monsters, which may paint an even more damning picture. Across all three tiers an artillery monster will average 1.64 powers each that do not inflict any power options, with skirmisher taking second this time at .96 (only 4 monsters in a hundred do not have a power with No Effect), and brutes at .88 (12 monsters in 100 don’t have a No Effect power). In sharp contrast stands the controller at .78 (22 monsters in 100 don’t have a No Effect power), the soldier at .69 (31 monsters in 100 don’t have a No Effect power), and the “wild card” lurker at .67! If you want to select a controller, soldier, or lurker monster they are sabotaging your efforts to avoid effects in comparison!

Furthermore, when analyzing the stunned effect in the same manner, it can be clearly seen that so many controller monsters have one or more powers that stun it pulls the average up such that the average amount of stuns is higher than the amount of stuns on any other class of monster. Removed? Controller and Lurker. Unconscious? Lurker. Marked? Soldier. Immobilized? Controller and Soldier. Each of these conditions that denies or heavily suppresses actions has one of the “no-no” classes linked directly to it such that it pulls the average up so far it is greater than the individual statistics of any other class. The link between the “grindy” classes and power options is clear and irrevocable, not only in the direction of certain classes of monsters having fewer power options in general, and more powers that have no effect, but also in the direction of certain other classes having many different power options feature prominently, many of those being the most powerful at denying actions. Similarly, the Lurker only has its wild card status precisely because of the fact that it is commonly the monster that runs away. If it stayed it would prolong combat immensely with its insubstantial conditions, ability to hide due to invisible, and a plethora of action denying effects that commonly appear.

So, why then do these status effects increase so heavily? Well, the monsters themselves are getting more complicated, it’s true, but, perhaps more importantly, something else is changing besides the powers’ complexity. Specifically, the kinds of monsters available is changing. Observe -

 

As this chart clearly illustrates, one potential reason that monsters become more complicated at higher tiers is simply because the kinds of monsters with the No Effect powers go away, and in their place we are given monsters with tons of power options. While of course epic tier has fewer monsters overall, the majority of those monsters are soldiers, brutes, and controllers. Notice how there are brutes there, though. This gap is particularly large in paragon tier, where brutes are at an all-time lowest percent of the monster make-up, and in fact is probably the most likely explanation for why some power options seem to peak in paragon tier and decrease in epic tier – the kinds of monsters that have them, controllers and soldiers, are most prevalent in paragon tier and therefore so are their conditions!

Summary

Hypothesis 1

  • Combat includes too many moving parts, and this is the monsters’ fault.
  • Premise 1: As level increases monsters get more Power Options.
  • Premise 2: As level increase monsters get more powerful Power Options.
  • Premise 3: The above increase in Power Options is at least equal to that players experience.

Neither proved nor disproved, although with fairly clear results to each premise.

Premise 1: Monsters become more complex by acquiring more power options as they level up on the whole. This is true. Additionally, they acquire more powers in general (although the rate of power options per power still goes up). The rate of power option increase (overall) is approximately linear as evidenced by this graph -

Premise 2: Monsters do get more powerful Power Options on the whole as they level up, but not by a lot in epic tier. Monsters mostly only get non-standard action non-power option bonuses as they enter epic tier, with their standard action power option related statistics remaining fairly close to their paragon tier assets.

Premise 3: This premise is false, as I predicted, thereby invalidating any total conclusion that could be made about the first hypothesis. Looking at a graph of player power versus monster power (by role), we can see some pretty clear trends here -

and also clearly see that monsters are all over the place while players are not. While this bodes well for monsters being definitive and iconic (and players having a crapload of power options at their disposal), it bodes poorly for any average comparison. Still, using the previous chart showing the linear increase of average monster power options, we can take a look at the player chart and see that -

Power Options Per Tier (1, 2, 3) (Player)

it is quite different looking, and definitely not linear. While at first it might appear exponential, were you to analyze only the rise from Heroic and Paragon tiers, taking all three tiers together the graph appears very much to be logarithmic. So, while it’s fun to yell about how “monster progression is linear and player progression is exponential!”, it turns out that, in fact, monster progression is linear and player progression is logarithmic. What does that mean for premise 3? Basically that player power options per power increase faster than they do for monsters, most noticeably in heroic and paragon tiers, while over the course of epic tier player and monster progression is roughly similar in terms of quantity, although by then the damage has already been done, and both gaining a between 2 and 2.7% increase just serves to further exacerbate things to the breaking point.

Hypothesis 2

  • Very few Power Options are intrinsically tied to the different monster classes.
  • Premise 1: Assuming “intrinsically tied” is equivalent to appearing 50% more often than the average both per power and per monster, and that the Power Option appears at least 10% of the time overall both per power and per monster.
  • Premise 2: Assuming that the monster classes are Controller, Soldier, Brute, Lurker, Artillery, and Skirmisher irrespective of their Minion, Standard, Elite, or Solo status.

This hypothesis, surprisingly, was proven false. While the four player classes in The Id DM’s study did not experience a significant divergence in the amount of power options they had available to them the monster classes most certainly did and, indeed, several of them are practically defined by their relative lack (or relative frequency) of power options, and still further many of the classes of monster are defined by the amplitude of certain key power options. (While the same can be said for the players in terms of amplitudes of specific power options, it is not quite so exaggerated).

General Questions

What, then, does this mean for us? Well, a lot of things. Firstly, that basically any player class can do complicated things but that monsters are much more often defined by a lack of power options. Similarly, the anecdotal evidence from experienced dungeon masters seems to tell us the same story that the statistics do – if you don’t want to slow down combat then stay away from the monsters with tons of power options and especially the power options that deny or suppress actions.

And now, to ask and answer the same discussion questions that The Id DM posed (they’re still applicable to this article, after all, and while good DMs borrow, great DMs steal!) -

  • Should status effects be tied to specific classes and roles to increase identity?

In the case of monsters, I think that definitely yes. My experience with monsters tells me that having each monster have a clearly defined role on the battlefield not only helps me plan ahead, but also gives the players clearer information. If that monster attacks at a range and is doing a lot of stunning, it’s probably a controller, and therefore it’s probably a priority target. If it’s attacking up close but isn’t marking? It’s probably a brute. For the player classes, however, I’m not quite so sure. While one would suspect some iconic powers to make clear appearances in certain classes, like the marked condition for defenders, a lot of the power options available aren’t particularly tied to the ideal of any one class or role. This is a very delicate in large part, I think, because it’s important to give players the option to play the game the way they want to. If they want to be the defender, do they want to mark? Or do they want to spam prone and immobilized? Both are effective ways to defend your fellow party members, but they both work very differently. I think, maybe, that following the Essentials idea moving forward is probably the best way to handle it, and by that I mean that an essentials class is, in essence, a focused build. The mage isn’t very focused, aside from its school encouraging you, that’s true, but a controller’s thing is having access to tons of different options, right? Meanwhile the Slayer’s schtick is No Effect, No Effect, No Effect, and the Cavalier has two very clear choices to make: either you’re Virtue of Sacrifice and get Healing and Bonus (to defense), or you’re Virtue of Valor, which gets primarily just Bonus to offense. In short, I’m in favor of tightening up the looseness of the power spread, and making controllers feel like they’ve got the run of the gamut while their friends probably don’t.

  • How special do you view Status Effects as a DM and as a player?

Well, this one really depends for me, at least, on the status effect (or other power option). It also depends on the way I’m playing the game, which these days is most often online over Map Tool. One thing I’ve noticed, for instance, is that while every other power option was definitively belonging to a monster role in my analysis, ongoing damage and restrained weren’t. That’s a problem in my book. If it’s too muddied to be iconic it needs sprucing up, especially if it’s a prevalent as ongoing damage is. What is the point of ongoing damage, anyway? It’s backloaded damage, so that takes a bit of planning, and I like that in terms of how it can increase depth and reliability, but it relies on a saving throw to go away, so it’s still totally random when you get to the point in the game where every other leader power is suddenly granting saving throws. Will the ongoing damage go away? Won’t it? How can we know for sure? There went reliability and predictability, and as a result there went depth. It’s still adding complexity to the gameplay, but it’s a bad kind of complexity, the kind that can’t be predicted or accounted for with any certainty. Similarly, while Stunned is a ridiculously overbearing effect (it removes your entire turn!) it never felt that menacing to me, just annoying. My players have never said “oh shit, he can stun!” What they have said is “it rolled HOW MUCH DAMAGE?” I think a lot of this stems from the fact that unlike in some other games, most notably Star Wars: Saga Edition or even Spirit of the Century, you cannot control somebody to death in 4th edition. It’s all about the damage. If you stun somebody six times in a row, they are still at full hit points, which means the instant they roll their 55% chance of success saving throw, they’re right back into the fight like nothing ever happened. In other words, being stunned has unintuitive consequences. In SWSE you can stun somebody two or three times, and suddenly their condition track hits bottom and they’re unconscious. That’s a fight winner. Similarly, in Spirit of the Century, if you hit somebody with knockout gas a couple times and their composure bar fills up past a major consequence? They’re taken out just the same as if you shot them with a gun. So why does control not have a cumulative effect in 4th edition? I’ve heard people say “oh, well, SWSE’s control track is a death spiral, and that’s not very heroic,” but what about Spirit of the Century? It’s a game about pulp action where solving problems with your fists is just as viable as with your wit and that has cumulative control effects out the wazoo. I think that’s a major problem with 4th edition right now, actually, the more I think about it. If being Stunned twice suddenly turns you unconscious, Stunned is a lot more scary and a lot less annoying. “Oh no I cannot act whatever will I do” is a lot less enthralling than “if he stuns me one more time I’m done for!”

  • Should the majority of powers have additional benefits or simply cause damage?

This one, for me at least, is the trickiest to answer. Simply causing damage seems to work just fine for the monsters and the slayers of the world, so why not? On the other hand, lots of players complain that things like the slayer feel too boring or simple (and since they have to/get to play the same character for weeks on end while as DMs we constantly change our oppositional cast to new things, I can see why this complaint comes up). I think that, probably, my ideal balance here would be somewhere between the essentials material and the core material (pre-essentials). Basically I think that maybe they went a little overboard with the new essentials material to make it more distinct than it necessarily needed to be, and the real sweet spot would be toned back just a little bit.

  • What did you find interesting or surprising in the results above?

At slightly over 8,000 words, I’m going to have to take the cop-out answer on this one. Chalk one up for “all of it” from The Id DM’s article, and in terms of my own? I’m most surprised by how, while the players continue to increase in power options at a rapid rate among the most powerful of the options (the so-called top eight I listed earlier) the monsters really slow down to an absolutely glacial pace. They get more power options in epic tier, and more powerful power options in epic tier, but the former is less than what the players get and the latter is less than what the players get by a LOT.

Also, whoever designed the Bodaks somehow managed to sneak the most crazy overpowered creatures to ever exist into a folio of fiends most would call underwhelming in the danger department at best.

How about you, dear reader? What do you think of those questions? Do you have any other thoughts to share? Do you want to contribute to the ongoing call to arms to acquire statistics started by The Id DM and maybe even help with figuring out how the game is designed, why it’s designed that way, and how it could be designed better? Please leave a comment below!

As promised, here is the original excel spreadsheet with the data I have collected, and here is the “glossary” for the excel spreadsheet with my notes I took as I was taking down the data. Both are very helter-skelter, I’m afraid.

Tune in sometime next week when I analyze the changes that slightly over two years of design innovation and revision have brought to our beloved monsters when I do a follow-up article on the D&D Essentials Monster Vault.

Cheers,

The Hydra DM

About these ads

Posted on December 1, 2011, in Monster Design and tagged , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink. 4 Comments.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

%d bloggers like this: