Monster "point values"

[Thrawn]

I've been applying some math-hammer to this, and think the point values need a lot of adjusting.

Scenario 1: Defense vs Body Points

A 4 defense enemy is worth +6 points under the system.
A 3 body point enemy is also worth +6 points.

However, these two statistics are not even close to being equal in value. When I attack a creature, each defense die is worth 1/6 of a body point each time I attack, so +3 defense gives a 50% chance of defending a skull. Meanwhile, the body point is a 100% chance of needing an additional skull required to kill the creature.

Scenario 2: Defense vs Offense.
A 4 defense enemy is worth +6 points under the system.
A 3 attack enemy is also worth +6 points.

Each attack die is basically a 50% chance of a hit. Meanwhile defense dice are only a 1/6 chance of negating a single hit. That means they are 1/3 as likely to be successful.

My overall Suggestion:
Defense is highly overrated (reduce to 1 point to equalize att/def)
Body points are underrated (increase to 4 points, possibly 5.)

My other area I'm trying to figure out the right comparisons is whether having a 0 level baseline skews the numbers. Is 1 orc really more difficult than 2 goblins? I'm not convinced that this is the case (although an argument could be made.)

[lorddax]

Nice analysis. I've also been wondering that myself in my own system and thinking my own formula may be too soft. What if the points system is based on the probabilities needed to reduce BP?

Using a combat monster of 1A 1D 1B fighting its copy. Its a three in six chance for -1BP, 1 in six chance for successful +1BP, and a 6/6 chance to have 1 BP. So what if the numbers used are 3A 1D 6B as the coefficents?

An orc then becomes worth 17pts (9/2/6) and a goblin is worth 13pts (6/1/6). Which means that 1 orc is approximately equal to 1.3 goblins. 2 goblins gets a score of 24 (12/2/12) which is equal to 1.4 Orcs, which also happens to be the score of a Orc compared to a Fimir.

If we extrapolate this out 3 orcs scores 51 points where 4 goblins score 52 points.
And
5 Fimirs(24pts) score 120 pts equal to about 9 goblins (117pts).

So one orc is not more dangerous than 2 goblins but more dangerous than a goblin caught alone. And 2 orcs still are a third more dangerous than 2 goblins.

[Thrawn]

I almost suggested a 3/1/6 ratio as well. However, I don't think it simplifies quite that much for BP, since a BP can only be "used" once, and there is potential for A or D to be rolled multiple times. This is why I went with a suggestion of 4 (and possibly 5) to slightly discount body points. I'd also argue that attack dice are what heroes fear the most. Something that stands there but can't hit back, isn't going to be as big a challenge as something that hits hard but is fragile (especially in numbers.) I almost think a 4/1/4 might be the right ratio, since defense is by far the least effective stat for monsters. (Defense does become a little more valuable in high body enemenies though since over time, that 1/6 can add up.)

[lorddax]

Took note of your suggestions and ran some more math. I'm now inclined to agree with you that 4/1/5 may be the best valuation. It also make translating onto a points pool based encounter design system much easier. Here is the math on 4/1/4 and 4/1/5.

HQP-New Points Calc.pdf

You can see in the far right that the 4/1/5 set up the ranking a bit better, and that the increases between the greenskins is more consistent thru the ranks. The system seems almost usable now!

If we score a default average starter hero (2/2/6 with no skills) they score an even 40, which means they are slightly stronger than two orcs. Which seems like a solid assessment from gameplay sessions and factoring the hero ability to regain BP post battle. And as their BP drops the monsters become more dangerous. Not harder, but more dangerous which seems apt.

This does not factor in MP of course, so MP would need to be used as a non stat effector, perhaps working on skills and the like.

Thoughts? Do the design values make sense?

[lorddax]

Also need to remember that these are vacuum stats, meaning these stats ignore tactics from either side ie blocking escape, flanking, etc/

[Daedalus]

@Thrawn-
Sorry bout the late reply, I just discovered you've been posting about my Quest calculator. Thanks for showing interest, it's great to get some feedback about how it works or fails. I realize it can use some adjusting, so your opinions are definitely valued.

Most traps can just be avoided. I think the +2 for "unavoidable" is a good addition. I just think of all the 7 point falling rock traps that can add tons of difficulty on paper, but then one search and they are all avoided easily.

I think Quest 13, Quest for the Spirit Blade, is a good example of this complaint. Certainly all but one of the falling block traps can be avoided after detection, but many will be risked anyway by many players in favor of exploring for the Quest objective. Yet it is possible for very cautious players to ignore any routes with detected falling block traps and find the Spirit Blade. Superior play will also thwart Zargon's attempts to use monster placement and movement in the double corridor to prevent detection of two of the falling block traps before they are sprung. I think it was Stephen Baker's intent to allow this. Make it dangerous with some heavy traps, but don't make it mandatory that they deal damage against flawless play.

Like monsters waiting for a battle, those traps represent threat to the Heroes. Both trap and monster threat can be minimized through experienced, tactical play. Both have XP numbers assigned for overall threat, whether that threat is successfully handled or not. Those traps pump up the Quest XP number because they are there and need to be dealt with, even if they are just avoided. To a certain extent, the same goes for the monsters. Many can also be avoided by bottlenecking them at a door, killing them with minimal return attacks, and then choosing another route rather than facing more in a room beyond. How do the Heroes know whether to press on, or choose another route? They don't. But if they are lucky and cautious enough they can quickly achieve the Quest objective while avoiding both a lot of traps and monsters in the process.

You once mentioned to me in a thread that one of your groups searched for treasure 4X in every room of a Quest. Such groups also tend to choose to face as much monster threat as they can handle in order to milk the maximum treasure potential of each room. If played to its fullest extent, this strategy also means they would have to deal with two falling block traps to get into two more rooms. One of those blocks can't be detected, to boot. They would also have to search every corridor in search of more rooms. A third falling block trap would now have to be faced. I think Stephen Baker placed those three optional traps for such groups, making them pay for their looting ways with trap threat. Fishermen do the same thing with worms and hooks.

For the record, I also have posted a rule about using Mind Point values and a combat die when searching for traps and secret doors. I think auto-find is oversimplified and too generous. It also encourages a lot of vanilla gameplay as Heroes slow gameplay to search at every conceivable option, usually without penalty.

[Daedalus]

Im reading thru the thread and it seems like your DM has managed to cram D&D into an HQ shoe

I'd love to explore his brain and system as I try to build mine.

My design goals are:
No Chart Lookups in game (GM or Player)
No Character sheets (as a past D&D dm these are the first things to break, go missing, be forgotten, or slow the game down)
Easy Insertion of new players
Easy scalability: for both original components under new system and for adding new modules
Be as simple as possible to allow people to customize for their own needs.

No Character sheets--do you mean to work just off of a Character Card, equipment cards, and the like? Do you mean to account for Body Points and Mind Points with tokens or counters, as Descent does? Anything solid on how to represent gold coins? Call me Mr. Curious.

An orc then becomes worth 17pts (9/2/6) and a goblin is worth 13pts (6/1/6). Which means that 1 orc is approximately equal to 1.3 goblins. 2 goblins gets a score of 24 (12/2/12) which is equal to 1.4 Orcs, which also happens to be the score of a Orc compared to a Fimir.

Just a heads up, 2 Goblins get a score of 26, not 24. That changes things to 2 Goblins equaling 1.5 Orcs.

Took note of your suggestions and ran some more math. I'm now inclined to agree with you that 4/1/5 may be the best valuation. It also make translating onto a points pool based encounter design system much easier. Here is the math on 4/1/4 and 4/1/5.

HQP-New Points Calc.pdf

You can see in the far right that the 4/1/5 set up the ranking a bit better, and that the increases between the greenskins is more consistent thru the ranks. The system seems almost usable now!

If we score a default average starter hero (2/2/6 with no skills) they score an even 40, which means they are slightly stronger than two orcs. Which seems like a solid assessment from gameplay sessions and factoring the hero ability to regain BP post battle. And as their BP drops the monsters become more dangerous. Not harder, but more dangerous which seems apt.

Heroes should be using a 4/2/5, as they defend with White Shields. I believe that would adjust their score to a 42.

This does not factor in MP of course, so MP would need to be used as a non stat effector, perhaps working on skills and the like.

Thoughts? Do the design values make sense?

Mind Points can certainly affect combat. They are a defense against spells, which are usually reserved for tough monsters with good Defend and Body Point values. Doesn't that justify including it in monster XP values?

[Daedalus]

I've been applying some math-hammer to this, and think the point values need a lot of adjusting.

Scenario 1: Defense vs Body Points

A 4 defense enemy is worth +6 points under the system.
A 3 body point enemy is also worth +6 points.

However, these two statistics are not even close to being equal in value. When I attack a creature, each defense die is worth 1/6 of a body point each time I attack, so +3 defense gives a 50% chance of defending a skull. Meanwhile, the body point is a 100% chance of needing an additional skull required to kill the creature.

Scenario 2: Defense vs Offense.
A 4 defense enemy is worth +6 points under the system.
A 3 attack enemy is also worth +6 points.

Each attack die is basically a 50% chance of a hit. Meanwhile defense dice are only a 1/6 chance of negating a single hit. That means they are 1/3 as likely to be successful.

My overall Suggestion:
Defense is highly overrated (reduce to 1 point to equalize att/def)
Body points are underrated (increase to 4 points, possibly 5.)

You could be right on both counts. I made Defense worth 2 because I felt it was more valuable than Mind Points, which were set at a mimimum of 1. Perhaps I should halve the Mind Point values instead. The other reason was because Defend dice have the potential to be used again. Usually this only works with multiple Body Point monsters, however. Counting Defend as 1 makes more sense.

After working through several different scenarios with different monsters against 2 sets of Heroes, it began to become clear that the Body Point value probably wasn't right. One idea that was suggested by another contributer to the thread was that possibly Body Point values and Defend dice values should be multiplied. I think this is the way to go. It definitely will better represent the Heroes' progression better, allowing for a greater range to compare with tougher monster Quests.

My other area I'm trying to figure out the right comparisons is whether having a 0 level baseline skews the numbers. Is 1 orc really more difficult than 2 goblins? I'm not convinced that this is the case (although an argument could be made.)

I made just such a case in a reply about 2/3 of the way down in the parent thread of my system. Basically, I worked through different scenarios with different sets of Heroes and monsters, and judged monster value on how much Body Points of damage they could inflict before they were eliminated. Bottom line--2 Orcs are equal to 4 Goblins if they attack 4 Heroes first, but the Goblins are a little stronger half of the time if the Heroes attack first. Against just 2 Heroes, 4 Goblins are a little stronger than 2 Orcs half of the time if they attack first, but if the Heroes attack first, 4 Goblins are always a little stronger than 2 Orcs.

If your Defend reduction is applied, and I halve Mind Point value (round up), then an Orc is now worth 9 XP, while a Goblin remains at 5 XP. That description better fits my findings, as an Orc isn't quite equal to 2 Goblins.

[CeoDruidechta]

Monster XP   The general principle in this rating system is to assign a factor of experience points, or XP, to a monster for each characteristic point above a minimum.  Collectively, the monsters and master monsters have the following minimums for characteristics: Move 1, Attack 1 (derived from the Wizard), Defend 1, Body Points 1, and Mind Points 0.  Any characteristic above a minimum awards a certain number of XP per attack die, defend die, Body Point or Mind Point. Mindless undead gain a 1 XP bump due to their immunity to the Sleep spell.
  Move works differently, as it is compared to a Hero's average Move of 7.  If a monster's Move is less than half of a Hero's average Move, a -1/2 XP penalty is accrued.  If a monster's Move is equal to or greater than a Hero's average Move, a +1/2 XP bonus is gained.
    Multiply Defend XP by Body XP (unless one factor is 0), as those factors combine effectiveness. Then total that sum with all other XP and then round down, if necessary.

This is very impressive. Thanks for all your work.

I may be misunderstanding what you are going for, but I don't think multiplying Defend XP by Body XP is what you want to do here. Since each defend die has a 1 in 6 chance of protecting each body point (or 1 in 3, for heroes), I think the XP value for defense should be based on body points.

So, for monsters, Defend XP = (BP/2)*Defend dice. Note that BP/2 is the same as (Body XP)/6. For heroes, Defend XP = BP*Defend dice. Then you just add the defend XP to the Body XP, rather than multiplying.

[CeoDruidechta]

Monster Spells   One more possible XP issue is certain monster's spells.  They require XP values to add to the master monster's XP,  so use the following:

Monster Spell XP Values

Fear ...................... 1 XP       Tempest ............ 1 XP        Ball of Flame ...... 2 XP
Sleep ..................... 2 XP       Rust ................. 2 XP        Escape ............. 3 XP
Cloud of Chaos .......... 4 XP       Command ........... 4 XP        Summon Orcs ..... 4 XP
Summon Undead ........ 4 XP       Lightning Bolt ...... 5 XP        Firestorm .......... 5 XP

Hero Spells: Spells add to XP using the following values:

Hero Spell XP Values

                        

Swift Wind ................. 1         Fire of Wrath ......... 1

Tempest .................... 1         Ball of Flame .......... 2

                                            Genie ....................... 3         Courage ............. 1/4^

Pass Through Rock ........ 1         Veil of Mist ............ 1

Rock Skin ................... 1         Sleep ................... 2

Heal Body .................. 5          Water of Healing ..... 5

  ^ Use 1 if ruled useful for the next attack only, or use 4 if ruled useful for multiple attacks.

This is useful, like the rest of the post. Have you posted XP values for other spells, by any chance? (Elf, Detection, etc.) I can probably estimate the XP values on my own, but I figure I should make sure the work hasn't already been done.