I just got a hold of the monster manual 3 and I'm really pleased with this product. I wish the first monster manual had been as well done. You can tell that over the past couple of years they've learned quite a bit about monster design, and the monsters in this manual feel significantly better designed than MM I and better than MM II (which were better than MM I). In generally the badies tend to dish out more damage and have an extra trick or two up their sleaves. The increase in damage output especially at higher level was certainly needed, as I've often been having to upgrade this on my own to make the monsters competitive.
It also feels like the monster entries contain more fluff, which I had been missing in the earlier monster manuals.
They've also tried some interesting things with their solo villain design (Lloth, Imix and Ogremoch all look pretty awesome).
All and all, a definite must have addition to any dms 4E collection.
Saw this at a comic book store today. I have a 33% off coupon for Borders so I drove up there, and they didn't have it. The clerk told me it wasn't out yet. Sure enough the release date is the 15th.
Now I'm torn between paying full price or waiting (Borders gives out one of these coupons every week). I did pick up the Athas Dungeon Tiles, which weren't supposed to be out yet either.
I just got a hold of the monster manual 3 and I'm really pleased with this product. I wish the first monster manual had been as well done. You can tell that over the past couple of years they've learned quite a bit about monster design, and the monsters in this manual feel significantly better designed than MM I and better than MM II (which were better than MM I). In generally the badies tend to dish out more damage and have an extra trick or two up their sleaves. The increase in damage output especially at higher level was certainly needed, as I've often been having to upgrade this on my own to make the monsters competitive.
It also feels like the monster entries contain more fluff, which I had been missing in the earlier monster manuals.
They've also tried some interesting things with their solo villain design (Lloth, Imix and Ogremoch all look pretty awesome).
All and all, a definite must have addition to any dms 4E collection.
This, along with Dark Sun, are my most anticipated 4E D&D books this year. Glad to hear somethings they promised (bigger fluff entries, bigger damage for epic tier monsters etc) actually appear to have been implemented. I might have to swing by my FLGS - as a D&D Encounters location they get to sell stuff early! And they still give a good discount!
Critical Hits and Sly Flourish have a new interview up with Greg Bilsland on the Monster Manual 3. They go over some of the math changes, what sort of game will benefit most from the book, and why they felt the stat block change was worthwhile. You can find the interview over at Critical Hits.
|
Critical Hits and Sly Flourish have a new interview up with Greg Bilsland on the Monster Manual 3. They go over some of the math changes, what sort of game will benefit most from the book, and why they felt the stat block change was worthwhile. You can find the interview over at Critical Hits.
" We concluded that PCs were, in many cases, killing monsters so fast that the monsters were not challenging the characters. To that effect, we increased monster damage output by about 30-40%."
You think that means they will re-do all the critters from MM1 and MM2? He's soert of saying those don't really work in game.
S.
Got it; love it! It's got a lot to help with my conversion of Expedition to Castle Ravenloft. My only complaint is I wish it had vargouilles.
It don't see them redoing monsters in MM I in the near future, but it would be awesome if they did a revised MM I sometime not too far away. I don't find it too difficult to make a few upgrades to monsters on my own. Most of the standard monsters aren't too bad, you just might want to up the damage on some of the higher level ones. It's solo monsters that fall apart the most (for example, I think dragons could stand a pretty major overhall).
Here's an example of a revised red dragon that I ran in my last session. It's quite a bit more complicated than a regular red, but I didn't find it difficult to run, as it was the only creature I was worried about running at the time.
A couple of the things I wanted to achieve, was give it some means of shrugging off conditions, enabling it to do more damage, and giving it ways of pushing enemies away from it so that it can get up in the air if it gets pinned down. The grab and toss and tail slap are nice for knocking back the defenders. The breath weapon is also much more scary. I think that the standard 4E dragon breath weapons are pathetically weak. PCs should be terrified of dragon unleashing a breath weapon. The build is still vulnerable to being stunned, but I didn't have any PCs that really had much in the way of stunning powers (there was no controller), so I wasn't too worried about it. If you use any of these ideas in your game, you might want to consider giving it a means of shrugging off a stun condition.
Rathnir, Young Adult, Red dragon, level 13 solo soldier, xp 4000
Initiative +10 Senses Perception +13; darkvision
HP 550; Bloodied 285
AC 30; Fortitude 30, Reflex 26, Will 27
Resist 15 fire Saving Throws +5
Speed 8, fly 8 (hover), overland flight 6 Action Points 2
Traits:
Draconic Rage: when the dragon is bloodied it does an additional 5 damage with all attacks.
Draconic Surge: when the dragon spends and action point it ends all conditions affecting it and gains +2 to all defences until the end of its next turn.
Standard Actions:
Bite (standard, at-will) Fire Reach 2; +18 vs AC; 3d6+7 damage (3d6+12 when bloodied), plus 2d8 fire damage.
Claw (standard, at-will) Reach 2; +18 vs AC; 2d6+6 damage (2d6+11 when bloodied).
Triple Attack (standard, at-will) The dragon makes two claw attacks and a bite attack (or grab and toss attack), against another target.
Tail Sweep (standard, at-will) Close Blast 2; +16 vs Reflex 2d8+6 damage (2d8+11 when bloodied) and the target is pushed 2 squares and knocked prone.
Grab and Toss (standard, recharge 4,5,6) Reach 2; +18 vs AC; 3d6+9 damage (3d6+12 when bloodied), plus 2d8 fire damage and the target slides 2 squares and is knocked prone.
Breath Weapon (standard, recharge 5,6) Fire Close blast 5; +16 vs Reflex; 4d10+10 fire damage (4d10+15 damage when bloodied). Miss: Half damage.
Minor Actions:
Draconic Power (minor, at-will): The dragon ends one condition that is affecting it.
Frightful Presence (minor, encounter) Fear Close burst 5; targets enemies; +16 vs Will; the target takes 2d6+3 psychic damage (2d6+8 when bloodied) is pushed 3 squares, dazed and takes –2 to attack rolls (save ends). Aftereffect: the target takes –2 to attack rolls.
Triggered Actions:
Tail Strike (immediate reaction, when an enemy moves to a position where it flanks the red dragon, at-will) The dragon attacks the enemy with its tail: reach 2; +16 vs Reflex; 2d8+7 damage (2d8+11 when bloodied), and the target is pushed 2 square and knocked prone.
Bloodied Breath (free, when first bloodied, encounter) Fire The dragon’s breath weapon recharges, and the dragon uses it immediately.
Alignment Evil Languages Common, Draconic
Skills Bluff +11, Insight +12, Intimidate +16
Str 24 (+13), Dex 15 (+8), Con 22 (+12),
Int 14 (+8), Wis 16 (+9), Cha 16 (+9)
The main changes to solos in MM II were that they reduced the hp and tried to give each solo some sort of ability that would make them more dangerous when bloodied. They also tried to give the solos more actions per turn, as a result in MM II you see several solos that act on more than one initiative count in a fight. The design goal behind this was to reduce grind, so that fights didn't feel like they dragged on and on with nothing interesting happening. In essence they wanted fights against solos to be quicker but more intense. IMO this was an improvement, but didn't fully solve the main problem with solos, which is that they still are generally not tough enough to warrant the xp they are worth. For me this means they need to do more damage on their turns. If the monster can badly wound a PC or two early in a fight it puts the players on the defensive, forcing them to make tactical decisions like helping an ally versus making an attack. If one of the characters is busy helping an ally and not attacking that is good for your monster and you can push that advantage. If all the characters are just pounding on the monster and locking it down with effect after effect it doesn't stand a chance. The solos also need ways of shrugging off conditions, so they don't get pinned down and can remain mobile throughout a fight- this has been another major flaw in solo monster design that I feel they have been working to alleviate in MM III.
As for minions the main change was that minions were given roles (like a brute minion or skirmisher minion). Usually they had some minor ability to help them fit the role. The brute minion did a bit more damage, the skirmisher minion had some minor movement type ability etc.. However, overall I haven't noticed much of a difference.
What were the changes made to solos and minions in MMII referenced early on in the interview?
I would assume we'll see several monster stats revised in the Monsters Vault, including dragons. The Essentials line appears like it's going to be the default D&D line now they know many of the corrections that need to be made. It almost sounds like a 4.5 without the same kind of major overhaul.
|
|
I would assume we'll see several monster stats revised in the Monsters Vault, including dragons. The Essentials line appears like it's going to be the default D&D line now they know many of the corrections that need to be made. It almost sounds like a 4.5 without the same kind of major overhaul.
May the Lords of Kobol strike the entity that is WotC dead if they invalidate the 4e books I have already purchased. I was under the understanding the Essentials line was a cut down easy to get into version of the full 4e (full marks I say), not some sneaky half-arsed attempt to slot in 4.5e while I wasn't watching. Seriously, I took a while to warm to 4e, but now really enjoy it, but if WotC basically releasing a "new" game I'll be having book burning!!!
I hope Chris is wrong about the "default D&D line"...
S.
That was my understanding as well, but I'm still kind of interested to see what some of the new monster builds might look like in this book. It is also my understanding that even though this intended to be more like "4E lite" the various powers and monster stat blocks are cross compatible and could be used in regular 4E games.
I would assume we'll see several monster stats revised in the Monsters Vault, including dragons. The Essentials line appears like it's going to be the default D&D line now they know many of the corrections that need to be made. It almost sounds like a 4.5 without the same kind of major overhaul.May the Lords of Kobol strike the entity that is WotC dead if they invalidate the 4e books I have already purchased. I was under the understanding the Essentials line was a cut down easy to get into version of the full 4e (full marks I say), not some sneaky half-arsed attempt to slot in 4.5e while I wasn't watching. Seriously, I took a while to warm to 4e, but now really enjoy it, but if WotC basically releasing a "new" game I'll be having book burning!!!
I hope Chris is wrong about the "default D&D line"...
S.
I was under the understanding the Essentials line was a cut down easy to get into version of the full 4e (full marks I say), not some sneaky half-arsed attempt to slot in 4.5e while I wasn't watching.
Perhaps I overstated when I said "4.5." What I meant was that WotC would be able to use the lessons that they learned from the past and make minor tweaking of this and that, but not an overhaul of the game. For example, now that they've learned to more effectively design solo creatures, I wouldn't be surprised if we see some variant stats for dragons in the Monster Vault.
Call it a 4.01. Everything will remain compatible with everything else. One won't need to purchase the Essentials line. However, they have said that the Essential line will always be in print, thus I called it default. Didn't mean to suggest that they would be printing a new game in the sense that 3.5 was a new game.
Back on topic, for those who have MMIII, can you let us know about the catastrophic dragons; that's what I'm most looking forward to seeing.
What kind are there? Have you noticed any "treads" with them that differentiate them from other dragons?
|
|
Call it a 4.01. Everything will remain compatible with everything else. One won't need to purchase the Essentials line. However, they have said that the Essential line will always be in print, thus I called it default. Didn't mean to suggest that they would be printing a new game in the sense that 3.5 was a new game.
My repsonse was a little "the sky is falling". But I would hate to think that we will get to a stage were I make up a PC using my 4e rules take it along to an "Essentials" group and they tell me "sorry your character doesn't work like that anymore". Tweaking is fine if it's tweaking what's to come, I just take issue with them tweaking what's been (more so than the odd errata here and there).
S.
I have both the Monster Manual I and II and I feel kind of meh on getting the third. I do believe that the III book has better designed monsters than the predecessors, but right now it feels like that if I just wait a bit more for Monster Manual IV that book will be described as being better than than III. Right now it seems to me that 4e Monsters are in a ongoing and significant evolution at this. I'm think I want to wait a bit until the number of improvements made slow enough that I don't feel as if my MMs are being outdated. Yes I know that I can still use the MM, but if I had to pick one of my MMs to come with me, it would be the MM2 just because I feel it handles the subject better.
I will definitely have to check it out, but one thing that might help in my decision is the way the layout of the book. Do a significant number of the pages have chunks of whitespace at the bottom of the columns?
I have both the Monster Manual I and II and I feel kind of meh on getting the third. I do believe that the III book has better designed monsters than the predecessors, but right now it feels like that if I just wait a bit more for Monster Manual IV that book will be described as being better than than III. Right now it seems to me that 4e Monsters are in a ongoing and significant evolution at this. I'm think I want to wait a bit until the number of improvements made slow enough that I don't feel as if my MMs are being outdated. Yes I know that I can still use the MM, but if I had to pick one of my MMs to come with me, it would be the MM2 just because I feel it handles the subject better.
I will definitely have to check it out, but one thing that might help in my decision is the way the layout of the book. Do a significant number of the pages have chunks of whitespace at the bottom of the columns?
I agree with you that there is a certain element of frustration that it seems as if our Monster Manuals are getting outdated (and the earlier ones tend to have more iconic monsters as well). Still I see this in the same region as Errata, I don't really love it but I'd rather have things that get fixed and improved upon then not have that at all.
I'd actually like to see some of the monsters from MMI and MMII be updated. Many are basically fine if a tad underwhelming in the old design perimeters - but Dragons in particular should just be improved whenever its decided that there is a better way to design monsters. Dragons should always be riding the bleeding edge IMO. If that means they are constantly being eratta'd well so be it.
|
I would love for them to update them in the July update, but i fear it won't be happening.
You can do it roughly on the fly now. I proposed the following on rpg.net
for every +3 static damage, add +1
for every d6, add +1
for every d8, add +2
for every d10, add +3
for every d12, add +4
it is very rough, but it works to raise the percentage they are talking about
a 2d6 +3 attack, which averages 10 dmg, becomes 2d6+6, which averages 13 dmg. About 30% increase. The math breaks down a little on the huge monsters, but those monsters hitting really hard is rarely a bad thing, since they are underpowered now.
I would love for them to update them in the July update, but i fear it won't be happening.
You can do it roughly on the fly now. I proposed the following on rpg.net
for every +3 static damage, add +1
for every d6, add +1
for every d8, add +2
for every d10, add +3
for every d12, add +4it is very rough, but it works to raise the percentage they are talking about
a 2d6 +3 attack, which averages 10 dmg, becomes 2d6+6, which averages 13 dmg. About 30% increase. The math breaks down a little on the huge monsters, but those monsters hitting really hard is rarely a bad thing, since they are underpowered now.
Thanks for this. It might be rough, but it's something to go on. If you or anybody else have anything, it would be most welcome.
Here's an example of a revised red dragon that I ran in my last session. It's quite a bit more complicated than a regular red, but I didn't find it difficult to run, as it was the only creature I was worried about running at the time.
I adore your dragon write up.
My players will be fighting a Black Dragon (Ilthane from Age of Worms A Gathering of Winds) in the not to distant future and I'm going to use your build as something of a template. That said I need to add some kind of a recharge power that allows me to say my favourite words in all D&D...
"claw, claw, bite, wing buffet, wing buffet, tail slap".
I have both the Monster Manual I and II and I feel kind of meh on getting the third. I do believe that the III book has better designed monsters than the predecessors, but right now it feels like that if I just wait a bit more for Monster Manual IV that book will be described as being better than than III. Right now it seems to me that 4e Monsters are in a ongoing and significant evolution at this. I'm think I want to wait a bit until the number of improvements made slow enough that I don't feel as if my MMs are being outdated. Yes I know that I can still use the MM, but if I had to pick one of my MMs to come with me, it would be the MM2 just because I feel it handles the subject better.
I will definitely have to check it out, but one thing that might help in my decision is the way the layout of the book. Do a significant number of the pages have chunks of whitespace at the bottom of the columns?
Oh the white space!! Evil, evil white space! I was perfectly happy with my monster manuals and had never noticed all the wasted space. Now, I see it. It's there and will never go away. Maybe I can fill it in with notes, or use it to track conditions.
|
|
Greg Bilsland writes more about the new numbers here.
Looks like his on the fly reccomendation is to simply double the static bonus of any mob paragon or better, and triple the bonus for brutes.
I look at a sampling of the current mm1 and mm2 mobs in paragon and found out that the method i proposed ended up within 1 or 2 points of this doubling each time. So that might be a simpler method.
Still wish they would update Compendium and Monster Builder
Oh the white space!! Evil, evil white space! I was perfectly happy with my monster manuals and had never noticed all the wasted space. Now, I see it. It's there and will never go away. Maybe I can fill it in with notes, or use it to track conditions.I have both the Monster Manual I and II and I feel kind of meh on getting the third. I do believe that the III book has better designed monsters than the predecessors, but right now it feels like that if I just wait a bit more for Monster Manual IV that book will be described as being better than than III. Right now it seems to me that 4e Monsters are in a ongoing and significant evolution at this. I'm think I want to wait a bit until the number of improvements made slow enough that I don't feel as if my MMs are being outdated. Yes I know that I can still use the MM, but if I had to pick one of my MMs to come with me, it would be the MM2 just because I feel it handles the subject better.
I will definitely have to check it out, but one thing that might help in my decision is the way the layout of the book. Do a significant number of the pages have chunks of whitespace at the bottom of the columns?
I assume you are talking about MM 1& 2 as MM3 has very little white space. Most entries take up the whole page with only a few I've seen with some white space. A vast improvement though over previous MMs.
It's there in 3 as well. The cloaker has two quarter page pictures, one of which is recycled art, and then another quarter page of white space. In fact, list of monsters with at least a quarter page of white space in their entries:
Ape
Apocalypse spell
Chitine
Cloaker
Demon, Nalfeshnee
Devil, Corruption
Dragon, catastrophic
Drow
Foulspawn
Mind Flayer
Nagpa (hey look Skexis)
Nerra
Norker
Slaad
Tulgar
Weaver
It's there in 3 as well. The cloaker has two quarter page pictures, one of which is recycled art, and then another quarter page of white space. In fact, list of monsters with at least a quarter page of white space in their entries:
Ape
Apocalypse spell
Chitine
Cloaker
Demon, Nalfeshnee
Devil, Corruption
Dragon, catastrophic
Drow
Foulspawn
Mind Flayer
Nagpa (hey look Skexis)
Nerra
Norker
Slaad
Tulgar
Weaver
Nope - not a quarter page by any stretch for those. Some white space is always going to be present with how stat blocks are done now (never splitting them over 2 pages for example). Getting in a bind about 1/6th of a page of white space is pretty anal.
Some white space is always going to be present with how stat blocks are done now (never splitting them over 2 pages for example).
While it may always be present, they could just write more description information and edit to fit. If they did it that way they could have no creatures splitting over the page while having minimal white space.
Still I'm glad hearing that their is less in the Monster Manual 3.
Ape - Accross 2 pages not including the 1/2" used for the margin there a 3 columns: 2", 2-1/2", and 2" = 6-1/2 inches over 1/4 page
Apocalypse spell - Across 4 pages - 3/4", 2", 2", 1-1/2" = 6-1/4" over 1/4 page
Chitine - 4 pages - 1-1/4", 1-1/4", 2-1/4", 3", 2-3/4", 1" = 11-1/2" over 1/2 page of wasted space!
Cloaker - 4" over two pages = less than 1/4 page, sorry about that one.
Demon, Nalfeshnee - 2-1/4" + 1" = 3-1/4" less than 1/4
Devil, Corruption - 2", 2-1/2", +2-1/2" = 7" more than 1/4 page
Dragon, catastrophic - 3-1/2", 1-1/2", 1", 2-3/4", 2-3/4", 1-1/2", 2-1/2", + 1-3/4" = 16=1/4" almost 3/4 page of wasted space over 10 pages
Drow - 1-1/2" + 1-1/2" = only 3" pretty good
Foulspawn - 3-3/4" + 1-1/2" = 5-1/4" not quite 1/4 page
Mind Flayer - 3/4", 3/4", 4-3/4", 3-1/4" = 9-1/2"
Nagpa (hey look Skexis) - 1-1/4", 2-3/4" = 4" less than 1/4
Nerra - 2-1/2", 1-3/4", 1-1/4" + 1-1/4" = 6-3/4" more than 1/4 page
Norker - 1-1/4", 2", 1-1/4", 2" = 6-1/2"
Slaad - just 3-1/4"
Tulgar - 1", 1", 2-3/4", 1-1/4", +3" = 9" well over 1/4 page
Weaver - 2-1/2" +2-1/2" = 5" just under 1/4
That's a lot of wasted space, and it doesn't count the 1/2" left for margin. Combine that with recycled art like on the cloaker and the other bits of white space I didn't measure, and I'm feeling like they could have put a lot more fluff, or if they were willing to change the format, a few more monsters.
I like the book. I have DDI, but I prefer a hardcopy and the monster creation process is getting well refined, but that is a lot of white space.
Greg Bilsland writes more about the new numbers here.
Looks like his on the fly reccomendation is to simply double the static bonus of any mob paragon or better, and triple the bonus for brutes.
I look at a sampling of the current mm1 and mm2 mobs in paragon and found out that the method i proposed ended up within 1 or 2 points of this doubling each time. So that might be a simpler method.
Still wish they would update Compendium and Monster Builder
This weekend I tried the increased damage and I must say it made for a much more fun game. One of the player who also runs a game said he was going to try it with his game when the players hit Paragon level. At one point I had 3 players at bloody status on the map. I hadn't seen that in a very long time. I dropped the Defender to 0 hit point and then the cleric cast a heal that almost made him unbloodied, so I don't feel the combat was too hard.
I told the DM for my paragon tier campaign about it, and he used the bump this past weekend with success. I'm surprised by how so little a change make the combats a lot more exciting.
I find tougher fights make a huge difference to the level excitement of the game. My players are always very much engaged in any combats in our game when they fear for their lives. Making them sweat a little is one of the best things a dm can do. An easy fight every now and then is fine, but I like having them on the ropes and making them work for their xp. That's when the game is at its best. If you aren't getting to experience those types of intense fights a player, then you're is missing out on some of what can make the game the most fun.
|
|
Not a very astute comment. But after getting my copy of MM3 yesterday... I like it. Agreed it would be nice if they fluffed out the odd white-space, but all in all not getting upset about it. The new dragons are just screaming for an adventure written around them. I guess it's what I was hoping for, inspiration to get back into writing my own campaigns - so MM3 gets a tick from me.
S.
I'll be getting it Friday. Can't wait, given how many good comments there have been.
I got it early, like today. So far I'm very impressed
Hey, my memory might be bad, but don't alot of 4e DM's have house rules to reduce HP's to 75%? I see people talking about MM3 having increased damage output and reduced HP's for Elite/Solos. Does the MM3 seem to address HP's in general for all monster types?
The related question would be; 'With the increased damage output in MM3, are DM's using the MM3 HP's as printed or are they still reducing HP's?'
As I said at the beginning, my memory might be bad about this whole topic.
P.S. I currently use HP's as printed. I am considering using reduced HP's especially for Elite/Solo.
Hey, my memory might be bad, but don't alot of 4e DM's have house rules to reduce HP's to 75%? I see people talking about MM3 having increased damage output and reduced HP's for Elite/Solos. Does the MM3 seem to address HP's in general for all monster types?
The related question would be; 'With the increased damage output in MM3, are DM's using the MM3 HP's as printed or are they still reducing HP's?'
As I said at the beginning, my memory might be bad about this whole topic.
P.S. I currently use HP's as printed. I am considering using reduced HP's especially for Elite/Solo.
The hit points of high level solo creatures were reduced circa 4e MM2. The hit points for other types of creatures were not changed.
When 4E first came out some mentioned dropping hit points to a 50 percent threshold, but that probably varies on the type of creature. It is a balance that needs to be worked out depending on your players, as each group has a preference on gameplay. But overall, the consensus is to reduce hit points, and increase damage. You may also want to consider tweaking defenses. This is all in relation to how long combat lasts in conjunction with how many powers the characters spend. But more importantly make it challenging for the players, i.e. threat of death or failure. You should also remember to bring morale back into the game using intimidate, or similar skills, or pre-plan how monsters react, to keep everyone on their toes.
But my curiosity has been struck, so off to the store.
I'm starting to wonder if the hp issue really isn't about hp at all, but about power scaling.
Specifically, at wills.
At wills only scale once - at 21. And then only 1W, or 1 die I think that if they scaled each tier, some of the grind at paragon and epic might be reduced.
I do wonder, though, why everything else that runs though tiers scales at all three of them, and at wills only twice.
Also if you notice your guys down to the at wills a fair bit you might try dropping them some alchemical or magical ammunition type treasure. These simply add a slew of one use powers to the players arsenal and decrease the probability of things grinding down. Especially a good idea if you have allowed your players to pick a more grindy mix of characters. Alchemical material comes with its own to hit bonus which is quite good for its level making them excellent high accuracy, high damage attacks for that cleric that can' hit the broad side of a barn and would not scratch the paint even if he did.
That said this is a bridge to help a group thats a bit grindy or an insurance policy for the DM that does not want to worry about Grind in encounter design. Its not really a solution to the full on high grind party such as one made out of clerics.
I'm starting to wonder if the hp issue really isn't about hp at all, but about power scaling.
Specifically, at wills.
At wills only scale once - at 21. And then only 1W, or 1 die I think that if they scaled each tier, some of the grind at paragon and epic might be reduced.
I do wonder, though, why everything else that runs though tiers scales at all three of them, and at wills only twice.
I also wish At-wills scaled sooner. But I think it is more emotional than rational. I think the reason the At-Wills scale at 21st level is that the Encounter and Dailies are being traded in the Paragon levels (11-20). So your Encounter and Dailies are slowly getting better through these levels. Finally at 21st thay give a similar bonues to your At-Wills. Otherwise, At-wills might actually be 'better' than some Encounter powers since encounters generally do 2W damage.
I did not research this answer. It is just my instinct. It would be fun if the At-Wills scaled earlier though.
I'm starting to wonder if the hp issue really isn't about hp at all, but about power scaling.
Specifically, at wills.
At wills only scale once - at 21. And then only 1W, or 1 die I think that if they scaled each tier, some of the grind at paragon and epic might be reduced.
I do wonder, though, why everything else that runs though tiers scales at all three of them, and at wills only twice.
I also wish At-wills scaled sooner. But I think it is more emotional than rational. I think the reason the At-Wills scale at 21st level is that the Encounter and Dailies are being traded in the Paragon levels (11-20). So your Encounter and Dailies are slowly getting better through these levels. Finally at 21st thay give a similar bonues to your At-Wills. Otherwise, At-wills might actually be 'better' than some Encounter powers since encounters generally do 2W damage.
I did not research this answer. It is just my instinct. It would be fun if the At-Wills scaled earlier though.
I think the designers felt At-Wills should be a kind of standard part of the character - something that got used quite a bit really, but I think that idea - while defensible conceptually (i.e. it probably seemed to make sense when they where considering it during 4Es conception), is not really the best direction for the game, except at the lowest of levels. I think its to bad that two straight out new Encounter Powers where not added during Paragon.
I'd, also, like to have seen something like 'minor' utility type powers as a resource, maybe as a two for one deal or some such. I think a lot of the skill powers are kind of in a category where they simply are not broad enough to take the place of most actual utility powers and yet, conceptually, I think powers that will let you, once per encounter, slide further, or jump higher or fast talk better, are completely in line with cinematic thrust of the game.
Thinking about this a little more, feats might be the correct resource to trade in for 'minor' utility powers. They strike me as roughly of similar power...
...though I've actually found that instead of having 'weak' feats I just troll the huge list like a maniac looking for those exceptional few feats where Wizards got the power level wrong and the feats actually far better then power point they seem to have normally been aiming for.