The monsters of the Fourth versus 3.5

[evangaline]

Greetings,

I have been playing with a new DM, she has most likely been throwing monsters from 4th at us. As a player you usually do not know the stats of the things you are fighting, but we can make decent guesses.

So I have been wondering how dangarous the monsters of the fourth edition are in comparison to the monsters of 3.5. We will most likely end up facing monsters of the fourth edition with PC from the 3.5th edition.

[Brookshw]

I think the question is how powerful are the pcs rather than the other way around, and I'd say 3.5 has the edge.

[thethird]

By monsters from the 4th what do you mean? Monsters from fourth edition ported without any change or adaptation into 3.5?

[evangaline]

By monsters from the 4th what do you mean? Monsters from fourth edition ported without any change or adaptation into 3.5?
I ment Monsters from fourth edition ported without any change or adaptation into 3.5.

There are 3 PC's (me included). There is a 4th level cleric, a 4th level sorcer and a mildly nerfed 4th level warblade. For some reason the monsters we fought were pretty strong, 28-32 hp 18 ac, +6-+8 to hit and d6 dmng (and an additonal +4 to dmng once per fight).We could have been TPK'd if we did not bottleneck and kill them one by one.

Feel free to make up your own party's or situation, i just want to know how different the monster power levels are.

[Tvtyrant]

I have done this as a DM. The monsters from 4E do dramatically less damage at higher levels but have better defences. Also the health tends to be higher at the mid and upper levels. I usually assume a 3.5 level is 1/3 of the 4E level, so an encounter for a level 3 4E party is for a 1st level 3.5 party.

[Bronk]

I ran into this problem recently, but I quickly discovered that 4th edition 'minions' only have one HP! I think if your DM is really doing this, you'd be able to tell for sure when you suddenly face a bunch of tissue paper foes...

[Eldan]

I'm not sure how this even works. The rules are quite different in many parts.

That said: higher numbers, way weaker utility abilities across the board. At least at mid-to-high levels. Higher defensive numbers, fewer absolute immunities. Higher damage, no ability damage, negative levels or save-or-die as such. And so on. Then we throw in optimization and 3E wins on numbers too.

Overall: they probably lose hard after a few levels if you approach the fights intelligently and with characters that have spells.


I mean, just looking at 4E orcus, he's really quite pitiful for anything in high-level 3E. Yes, he has 1500 hit points. Which is silly in 3E, but doable. 48 AC is probably solid. But stay out of his range and you can just ping at him forever. He doesn't seem to have anything that works at a distance of more than a few hundred feet, which is easily achieved.

[Firechanter]

Note how, in a Party of a Cleric, a Sorcerer and a Warblade, it's the Warblade that had to eat a nerf. I'd be having words with the DM about this.

[RedMage125]

To "port over" monsters, one would need to reduce Fort, Ref and Will defenses by 10 and use them as saving throw values. Also, the unmodified Reflex defense should be touch AC.

I disagree with the idea that a 3rd level 4e party is equivalent to a 1st level 3.5 party. Especially because a 1st level 4e wizard has twice the hp of a 1st level 3.5e Fighter.

As far as minions, one must understand something about hit points. It was true in 3.5e, but really emphasized in 4e: HIT POINTS ARE NOT "MEAT". Hit points are a metagame concept that reflects a creature's ability to continue fighting. It is endurance, ability to dodge, adrenaline, grit and stubborn will as well as physical well-being. The loss of hit points may not even reflect a scratch being delivered, perhaps a narrow dodge that inhibited the defender from being able to do that again. or a blow to the armor that hurt and may bruise, but did not penetrate the armor. Minions are the ultimate expression of this concept. They are the chaff. The multitude of foes who can be felled with a single blow as one fights towards the more elite and hardened opponents.

And one thing 4e did right was Solo monsters. Dragon fights are much more exciting and cinematic in 4e than in 3.5e. A Solo monster has multiple means of acting out of initiative (check out the 4e Beholder for a great example). It makes a single monster vs party of PCs a worthy fight instead of a face-stomping.

[Bronk]

As far as minions, one must understand something about hit points. It was true in 3.5e, but really emphasized in 4e: HIT POINTS ARE NOT "MEAT". Hit points are a metagame concept that reflects a creature's ability to continue fighting. It is endurance, ability to dodge, adrenaline, grit and stubborn will as well as physical well-being. The loss of hit points may not even reflect a scratch being delivered, perhaps a narrow dodge that inhibited the defender from being able to do that again. or a blow to the armor that hurt and may bruise, but did not penetrate the armor. Minions are the ultimate expression of this concept. They are the chaff. The multitude of foes who can be felled with a single blow as one fights towards the more elite and hardened opponents.

One hit point minions certainly make a fight more cinematic, but often don't make much sense. Why would you keep these guys around if a paper cut could take them out? Do they represent some kind of underclass of the monster race, or is it more a function of their job? If it is, why would they ever take that job? The example I usually see is a clan of giants... in 3.5, they might be average giants led by a particularly tough giant. In 4.0, it's one regular giant surrounded by giant shaped paper targets.

Anyway, when it comes to the opening post, I'm just saying that if their DM is using these rules, and you come to a boss fight, have someone toss a damaging area spell in there. It may very well be that all but one of your opponents will keel over dead.

[awa]

One hit point minions certainly make a fight more cinematic, but often don't make much sense. Why would you keep these guys around if a paper cut could take them out? Do they represent some kind of underclass of the monster race, or is it more a function of their job? If it is, why would they ever take that job? The example I usually see is a clan of giants... in 3.5, they might be average giants led by a particularly tough giant. In 4.0, it's one regular giant surrounded by giant shaped paper targets.

Anyway, when it comes to the opening post, I'm just saying that if their DM is using these rules, and you come to a boss fight, have someone toss a damaging area spell in there. It may very well be that all but one of your opponents will keel over dead.

The logic isn't that some monsters are super fragile but that as minor characters you just don't worry about there exact hp you just round down. Against lower level pcs that same creature would use different stats (represented by some other monster). its not the same logic has 3.5s pcs and monsters being almost interchangeable but its not inherently flawed.

[dcviana]

I ran into this problem recently, but I quickly discovered that 4th edition 'minions' only have one HP! I think if your DM is really doing this, you'd be able to tell for sure when you suddenly face a bunch of tissue paper foes...

I've found out there are some neat concepts on 4th edition monsters that could be adapted to a 3.5 campaign.

Minions are one of them. The idea is that on 3.5 if you want to throw an army of orcs against 15 level players this won't be a challenge at all because vanilla (not leveled) orcs can't even hit the PCs without natural 20's.

With minions you have an orc with the same attack and defense of a 15 level enemy but with only 1 HP, so they are a treat as their attacks do decent damage and have good chance to hit but they go down easily so you can put a bunch of them in a fight and have an encounter of moderate level.

[Doug Lampert]

One hit point minions certainly make a fight more cinematic, but often don't make much sense. Why would you keep these guys around if a paper cut could take them out?

About a third of all human adults in 3.x have 1 HP. (Commoners, level 1, no auto max at level 1, roll low or have age.) Do you think humans are that fragile in third edition?

HP are not meat. This was said above and is true in 3.x in any number of ways. Since HP aren't meat we have no actual idea how much damage you do when you do 1 HP of damage. It could be nearly enough to take someone out, it could flatten a cat, or to a high level fighter it's a minor bruise he almost completely avoided.

Against a fourth edition minion it's enough that he stops fighting on an actual hit.

The alternative, that HP are meat and wounds always mean the same amount of damage, is that your high level fighter third edition fighter can take 30 or so MORTAL wounds, or be cut to ribbons with half a dozen instantly fatal wounds, and keep fighting fine.

[Bronk]

About a third of all human adults in 3.x have 1 HP. (Commoners, level 1, no auto max at level 1, roll low or have age.) Do you think humans are that fragile in third edition?

HP are not meat. This was said above and is true in 3.x in any number of ways. Since HP aren't meat we have no actual idea how much damage you do when you do 1 HP of damage. It could be nearly enough to take someone out, it could flatten a cat, or to a high level fighter it's a minor bruise he almost completely avoided.

Against a fourth edition minion it's enough that he stops fighting on an actual hit.

The alternative, that HP are meat and wounds always mean the same amount of damage, is that your high level fighter third edition fighter can take 30 or so MORTAL wounds, or be cut to ribbons with half a dozen instantly fatal wounds, and keep fighting fine.

I guess so! Hit points are meat, and more hit points gives you tougher meat, all stringy from more adventuring. The way I look at it, a hit that would stab right through a human with no class levels might just stab partway into someone with enough hit points to survive it. Thinking of hit points as not being damage that you take makes a lot of damage dealing effects make less sense, especially spells.

If you want to go the non meat route, think of the average human as just some poor serf with bad reflexes... the poor guy just got stabbed and didn't know what to do... he just stood there and took it, then fell over dead, shocked that this could possibly happen to him in his wee, out of the way hamlet. A more experienced human might have, say, taken an active stance, and the same attack would just graze him.

And yes, regular humans in 3.5 are that weak, and with the minimum damage on a successful hit being 1hp, they can be killed by pretty much anything that deals lethal damage. In fact, humans are often weaker than cats... after all, cats start with two hit points, are harder to hit, and have three natural attacks! Adventuring worlds are dangerous places.

There are tougher races out there... they start with more racial hit dice, and even the weakest are harder to kill, and it may take a team of seasoned adventurers to defeat them.

It seems strange that in the fourth edition rules, when several identical monsters get together, all but one develop a fatal glass jaw, as weak, once hit, as the weakest human. They don't just stop fighting, if I recall correctly, they die. I'm sure that when playing 4th edition you'd get used to it and it would all work out in the rules somehow, but porting those minion rules back into 3.5 would be something that would be easily dealt with by the players.

Edit: Of course, then the DM might port back the 4th edition saving throw rules too! These are really hard to overcome as a 3.5 character, because they're some kind of bonus added to a reactive roll, and it is very easy for that to add up to way more than the average save DC of a PCs spells. I played a whole game without any of my spells working because of this! If that starts happening, be sure to bring it up with the DM!

[awa]

there are non minion nonboss monsters so its not that all but one have 1 hp just the weakest mooks.
It's also not that 4 identical monsters walk into a room and three are minions, its one super tougher monster followed around by his less important henchmen.

In 3.5 it often comes out similar an orc might have 4 hp instead of 1 hp but the level 5 fighter is basically always going to do at least 4 dam so they might as well. All the 1 hp does is allow you to rnd down and saving time by both skipping the damage rolls and not making the dm track individual hp totals.

Personally i feel it works best with monster like orcs and goblins, in general i feel if the boss is an ogre chief then the minions shouldn't be ogres they should be orcs or something, the other ogres should just be weaker ogres not minions. Ogres should only be minions if the final boss is like a dragon or a fire giant.

[Bronk]

Personally i feel it works best with monster like orcs and goblins, in general i feel if the boss is an ogre chief then the minions shouldn't be ogres they should be orcs or something, the other ogres should just be weaker ogres not minions. Ogres should only be minions if the final boss is like a dragon or a fire giant.

It's interesting that it isn't a hard and fast rule.

[Urpriest]

4e monsters don't have hit dice, so when ported to 3.5 they immediately become Wights.

[RedMage125]

Hit Points NOT equalling meat is the default for 3.5e as well.

I refer you to your 3.5e PHB, page 145.

[Bronk]

It says both, plus a few suggestions for fluff.

Listed first is "the ability to take physical punishment and keep going".

Listed second is "the ability to turn a serious blow into a less serious one".

It makes more sense to me to use the first one most of the time.

My main point bringing any of this up is that fourth edition seriously nerfs its minions for the sake of being really cool plowing through them to get to the boss, and this is something that evangaline might notice the DM doing (and take advantage of). In that case, you could hit everything with a damaging area spell, and all the minions would just fall over at once.

Then you might notice that your spells don't work because of saving throws working differently in the two editions. In a game I was playing, we were throwing around numerous spells with respectable save DCs of 15 or 16 (at level 1), and none of them ever worked. Turns out the DM was mixing up the 3.5 and 4th rules by rolling a d20 and adding the bonuses, then adding ten (I guess 4th edition, you add up the bonuses, roll, then greater than ten wins the save?) resulting in the bad guys always coming up high twenties and thirties for the save. I'd watch out for that, and make sure everyone is on the same page when it comes to saves.

Something else I've picked up on (because I just finished reading the Stick book 'Snips and Snails') is that 4th edition things are very interrupty, but often have a limited range on their abilities. Maybe if you run into something that is giving you trouble, you can back up a ways and hit it with range attacks.

[Eldan]

4e monsters don't have hit dice, so when ported to 3.5 they immediately become Wights.

Yeah, that's just one of the things were the crossover breaks down. What happens if you hit a 4E monster with a level drain? Who knows! Is radiant damage the same as positive energy? Probably! Can you drain their dexterity to 0 and paralyze them? What dexterity!

[Zombimode]

Yeah, that's just one of the things were the crossover breaks down. What happens if you hit a 4E monster with a level drain? Who knows! Is radiant damage the same as positive energy? Probably! Can you drain their dexterity to 0 and paralyze them? What dexterity!

To be fair, they DO have Dex scores (or at least an ability modifier?). But yeah, a lot of stuff just flat out doesn't work or is complete guesswork.

Also, I really question the motive for this. Its not that 3.5 lacks monsters...

[Eldan]

From what I've seen, Brute type monsters do look a bit more interesting in 4E. They did endeavour to give every monster at least some special abilities. Look at an ogre or a giant in 3.5, they have nothing unique other than a lot of HP, size and damage. So, that's a pretty good point. On the other hand, there's a lot more "special" monsters in 3.5 which have very, very out-there abilities or just tons of stuff they can do, like caster monsters, which 4E seems to lack, a bit.

[Bronk]

Yeah, that's just one of the things were the crossover breaks down. What happens if you hit a 4E monster with a level drain? Who knows! Is radiant damage the same as positive energy? Probably! Can you drain their dexterity to 0 and paralyze them? What dexterity!

Can you just hit them all with a sleep spell? Hmm, looks like everything together has fewer than 4HD... good to go!

[Eldan]

As a general guideline, I'd probably stick them with HD=CR.

[Larkas]

Note how, in a Party of a Cleric, a Sorcerer and a Warblade, it's the Warblade that had to eat a nerf. I'd be having words with the DM about this.

My thoughts exactly. But then again, I don't believe the players have any idea about what balance is: the monsters they're fighting are pretty much standard fare in my experience. Then again, my group usually does use our surroundings to our advantage, so...

[Urpriest]

As a general guideline, I'd probably stick them with HD=CR.

4e monsters don't have CRs, so that won't work.

Monsters actually do have a level, but that has odd effects. If you assume HD=level, and you've got a minion, and it suffers Con drain, then what happens?

For that matter, stats in general follow a different system. Ability scores don't go --, immunities mostly don't exist. In general, monster stats are a lot lower than in 3.5, so while the giant may have interesting combat options, he won't be able to lift as much.

[Tvtyrant]

4e monsters don't have CRs, so that won't work.

Monsters actually do have a level, but that has odd effects. If you assume HD=level, and you've got a minion, and it suffers Con drain, then what happens?

For that matter, stats in general follow a different system. Ability scores don't go --, immunities mostly don't exist. In general, monster stats are a lot lower than in 3.5, so while the giant may have interesting combat options, he won't be able to lift as much.

I just make minions have 1 HD and a DR equal to their level when converting them, con damage is considered damage and they die. I used to use 4E monsters in 3.5 for minions and brutes, now I use Solos and Elites.

[Telok]

For that matter, stats in general follow a different system. Ability scores don't go --, immunities mostly don't exist. In general, monster stats are a lot lower than in 3.5, so while the giant may have interesting combat options, he won't be able to lift as much.

It will also depend on which books the DM is taking monsters from. If it's the earlier books then most non-artillery monsters will lack any ranged attacks. I don't know about the later books, my group quit 4e before Monster Vault and the fixed math came out.

From what I recall:

Probably no ranged attacks on most monsters.
Few or no special senses (blindsight, see invisible, etc).
Lower than usual grapple checks (lower Str and no racial bonuses)
Never immune to simple melee damage.
No non-combat abilities beyond skills (ESP, teleport, etc).
No energy drain or stat damage, poison will do HP damage.
More unfixable conditions (ongoing poison magic is save-ends but can't be dispelled or cured)
Fewer movement modes (less climbing/burrowing/swimming)


When 4e damage is typed it's all typed. Unlike 3.5 where you can do [2d6 slashing + 1d6 fire + 3d6 electric] the 4e monsters will do pure fire damage, or pure melee damage, or pure poison damage. Do your best to aquire damage immunities and resistances, they'll go further against 4e monsters than usual.

Of course this all depends on how much adjustment the DM is doing to fit them into 3.5. If the monsters use 4e combat rules (opportunity attacks, 10+ saves on everything) then you're going to need different tactics than if the DM is using 4e monsters with 3.5 combat rules.

[Urpriest]

I just make minions have 1 HD and a DR equal to their level when converting them, con damage is considered damage and they die. I used to use 4E monsters in 3.5 for minions and brutes, now I use Solos and Elites.

I take it negative levels also count as damage?

What about when a player gains control of a minion, and uses Psychic Reformation or the like? Actually, what happens with these monsters in general when 3.5 players gain control of them and start screwing around with their feats and skill points?

[Tvtyrant]

I take it negative levels also count as damage?

What about when a player gains control of a minion, and uses Psychic Reformation or the like? Actually, what happens with these monsters in general when 3.5 players gain control of them and start screwing around with their feats and skill points?

See I cut most of those abilities and just allow my players to alter their builds when they want, so I never thought of that. I find restrictions on rebuilding somewhat ridiculous, because everyone who wants to do it can by paying money/a penalty anyways (like pounce.)

If a player wanted to do this I would probably just make it so that the monster can trade out its encounter powers for feats, and the skills are racial bonuses so they cannot be changed.

Edit: Also I feel like you are trying to find a RAW answer in there somewhere, using the many abuses that could arrive from this. I trust my players not to abuse house rules, and if they have a particular desire I talk to them about it.

[Urpriest]

See I cut most of those abilities and just allow my players to alter their builds when they want, so I never thought of that. I find restrictions on rebuilding somewhat ridiculous, because everyone who wants to do it can by paying money/a penalty anyways (like pounce.)

If a player wanted to do this I would probably just make it so that the monster can trade out its encounter powers for feats, and the skills are racial bonuses so they cannot be changed.

Edit: Also I feel like you are trying to find a RAW answer in there somewhere, using the many abuses that could arrive from this. I trust my players not to abuse house rules, and if they have a particular desire I talk to them about it.

I'm less thinking about abuse and more just shoring up edge-cases. For example, Feat Leech is usually brought up on this forum as a way to get feats out of your psicrystal, but its more naive use is offensive: stealing feats from your opponents. If a Psychic Warrior in your group decided to use Feat Leech on one of these monsters, what would happen?

[Tvtyrant]

I'm less thinking about abuse and more just shoring up edge-cases. For example, Feat Leech is usually brought up on this forum as a way to get feats out of your psicrystal, but its more naive use is offensive: stealing feats from your opponents. If a Psychic Warrior in your group decided to use Feat Leech on one of these monsters, what would happen?

I am going to use this (https://www.wizards.com/DND/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4ex/20080418a)to work with, since it is publicly posted and we will have a common frame of reference.

The Lich would register as having three "feats": Spellmaster, Necromantic Aura, and Necrotic Master. Now sadly only 2 of those are going to be useful, but that is the price you pay sometimes. The Psychic Warrior steals the Necromantic Aura from the Lich and keeps it until the Feat Leech power runs out, say. During this time they do 5 damage a turn to everything within 25 ft., making them a liability for the group but good at killing mooks.

The Vampire Lord would likewise have its powers treated as feats, which makes Mistform extremely strong as a movement ability but the others are just okay.

However a normal human guard (why I would use this? I have no idea) might have 1 ability, such as "shield and sword." This lets them hit the enemy with their sword and then push them a square with their shield as an at-will. This becomes a standard action ability that the Psychic Warrior would need a sword and shield to use.

[Urpriest]

I am going to use this (https://www.wizards.com/DND/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4ex/20080418a)to work with, since it is publicly posted and we will have a common frame of reference.

The Lich would register as having three "feats": Spellmaster, Necromantic Aura, and Necrotic Master. Now sadly only 2 of those are going to be useful, but that is the price you pay sometimes. The Psychic Warrior steals the Necromantic Aura from the Lich and keeps it until the Feat Leech power runs out, say. During this time they do 5 damage a turn to everything within 25 ft., making them a liability for the group but good at killing mooks.

The Vampire Lord would likewise have its powers treated as feats, which makes Mistform extremely strong as a movement ability but the others are just okay.

However a normal human guard (why I would use this? I have no idea) might have 1 ability, such as "shield and sword." This lets them hit the enemy with their sword and then push them a square with their shield as an at-will. This becomes a standard action ability that the Psychic Warrior would need a sword and shield to use.

Hmm...how are you implementing the "you cannot steal a feat for which you do not meet the prerequisites" part of Feat Leech? Or is the assumption that monster abilities have no prereqs?

[Tvtyrant]

Hmm...how are you implementing the "you cannot steal a feat for which you do not meet the prerequisites" part of Feat Leech? Or is the assumption that monster abilities have no prereqs?

I am going off of the latter assumption. If the attack requires an artifact or particular item they might not meet the pre-reqs (Orcus and his wand say) but otherwise I would just give it to them.

[awa]

I suspect that will increase the abilities power exponentially. feats just arnt that powerful particularly with the requirement that you meet the perquisites. I strongly suspect the monster abilities get a lot better a lot faster.

[Urpriest]

Another question: which monsters have 5 ranks in Balance, and which don't? This becomes relevant whenever anyone wants to sneak attack them while balancing.