D&D 4th Edition RulesAsk questions about 4th-Edition rules and the like in here. General discussion about 4E or any other game belongs in General RPG Discussion, above.
Good post, Elric! Make it hard on the WotC apologetists!
(Just because we will have to live by WotC's decisions doesn't mean we have to like them. In fact, I dislike their underhanded way of fixing the game only for repeat customers; shucking the PHB1/DMG1/MM1-only customers by the wayside; so much I want the forums to erupt in complaints, as this is probably the only way they'll ever change. No wonder the customers pirate books. In one sense, that's voting with your wallets, taking for yourself what WotC should have given out for free)
Good post, Elric! Make it hard on the WotC apologetists!
(Just because we will have to live by WotC's decisions doesn't mean we have to like them. In fact, I dislike their underhanded way of fixing the game only for repeat customers; shucking the PHB1/DMG1/MM1-only customers by the wayside; so much I want the forums to erupt in complaints, as this is probably the only way they'll ever change. No wonder the customers pirate books. In one sense, that's voting with your wallets, taking for yourself what WotC should have given out for free)
No, I think the only thing that makes sense is to put the improved stuff out in rule books, in print.
If you hide it in errata, people might or might not catch it. They definitely will have trouble using it effectively. There is no point in having dozens or more stat blocks completely revamped in an errata document. of course they could put out the errata in the next printing of the book, but then they are telling you: Rebuy the product you already have. That's stupid, too.
Besides, changing a stat block might sound trivial, but it also effects the editing and layout of the book and might trigger lots of reworkings, for a minor gain. And I don't want them wasting resources on old products.
It is inevitable that over the course of the design of your game, you will find ways to improve old stuff. Trying to "fix" things in the previous books is a waste of effort and makes the entire system a mess.
"We're playing D&D 4, but only by the rules of the 3rd printing of the PHB I and the fourth printing of the MM 1."
Thoughts of the Arch Chancellor - My weblog on EN World - containing game related material, like: house rules, design theories, reviews, play reports, adventure ideas
Secret Member of <Think we would just hide our secret with a spoiler tag, eh?>
It's not just hydras. Brutes were generally too weak in MM1, and many have had errata to increase their damage-e.g., Hill Giants, Ogres, Death Giants, etc.. Brutes didn't get enough to compensate for lower attack/defense values.
However, Brute solos are especially weak in MM1, because solo HP is independent of a monster's role. Strange, but true. Essentially all MM1 solos have [(level +1)*8+Con]*5 HP (at Paragon/Epic, x4 at heroic), regardless of role. This is the formula given in the DMG guidelines for creating solos on page 184, so it’s not an accidental mistake. Normally, Brute monsters make up for lower AC with higher HP. It doesn't appear like Brute solos were given anything to compensate for their comparatively lower AC.
Ironically, the Kobold Hall adventure in the back of the DMG must have been created before the "solos all use the same HP pattern" was finalized, because the White Dragon there has 232 HP, indicating it was built on [(level +1)*10+Con]*4 HP, while the entry in the MM has 200 HP corresponding to the above formula.
Totally agree with this. There is little benefit for a solo monster to ever be a brute. Slightly better damage contrasted against markedly worse AC and Attacks as well as no Initiative bonus (minor point).
The question becomes whether the damage difference is enough. By my reckoning they are a net 40% down on the soldier (20% more likely to get hit and 20% less likely to hit) which is the closest class.
At Level 15 the difference 2d8+6 vs. 3d6+6, thats 15 vs. 16.5, the difference should be 6 (40%), not 1.5.
At Level 30 the difference is 3d8+10 vs. 4d8+10, thats 23.5 vs. 28, the difference should be 9.4 (40%), not 4.5.
The main problem is that the damage doesn't factor ability score bonuses. So personally I would return Brute solos to using the 10 hp base.
Quote:
The MM2 solo previews do not adjust solo HP by role; the Bebilith (Solo Brute 18), the Adamantine Dragon (Solo Soldier 21), and the Beholder Ultimate Tyrant (Solo Artillery 29) all have the [(level +1)*8+Con]*4 HP that is apparently now standard. It’s unclear to me if WotC has truly compensated Solo Brutes for their lower AC, perhaps in the form of higher damage (above and beyond what they should get for their attack bonus), as the Bebilith only presents a sample size of one.
Anyone with MM2 want to weigh in?
I don't think the Bebilith deals enough damage.
A Level 18 brute should deal 3d8+7, instead it deals 2d10+6, while its venomous bite deals 2d8+6 (and its a recharge 6 only usable while bloodied).
I would have made the venomous bite deal 4d12+7.
I still don't think WotC is utilizing the limited damage expressions to their fullest extent.
Looking over MM2 there seems to be very few solo monsters. The Dragons (20 - but essentially 5 monsters); Behir (and Bolter whelp); Hydras (3); Bebilith; Ultimate Beholder Tyrant; Dagon; Demogorgon. Then again, thats not many less than MM1 (same number of dragons and hydras and only 5 more total solo monsters). Maybe 10% or thereabouts is about right in fairness.
No, I think the only thing that makes sense is to put the improved stuff out in rule books, in print.
...
Honestly, I would be OK with that! If they think the MM1 solos do not work, they should all have had their stat blocks reprinted in MM2. Or, they could have printed a template with some guidelines so we can update them ourselves. Or some other option I'm not thinking of. They shouldn't just leave them as is.
This is different then publishing a few pages of errata in PHB2. They are publishing new monsters with a design template that works better then the old one. That's great, but I would love some help fixing the ones I already payed for and play-tested!
I'm sitting here listening to the new D&D podcast, one of the designers admits the MM1 hydra is broken as a solo, but won't be updated with errata.
I appreciate his candor, but that's unacceptable IMO. The MM2 should be more/new monsters, not a replacement for a bunch of broken ones. I truly hope they offer some official guidelines for reworking MM1 creatures. They could have printed it in the MM2!!
I agree, I was really shocked by his 'we stuffed up, but we ain't gonna fix it' attitude. 'Hey I designed this jet and said it was capable of 9G but actually at 7G the wings fall off, oh well next jet we will fix'. It needs to be fixed, with a massive errata PDF if needs be, I certainly don't want different info in the Compendium to what is in the errata'd books. Just awful attitude.
Quote:
Originally Posted by James McMurray
My guess is that stuff will be in DMG2. Just like the creation of monsters was in the DMG, while actual monsters were in the MM.
Hopefully it will, but it still means those that only get the DMG1 (probably the majority?) are going to be going through crap (hydra) or grindy solos... well done WotC, that'll make them stay as customers...
I agree, I was really shocked by his 'we stuffed up, but we ain't gonna fix it' attitude. 'Hey I designed this jet and said it was capable of 9G but actually at 7G the wings fall off, oh well next jet we will fix'. It needs to be fixed, with a massive errata PDF if needs be, I certainly don't want different info in the Compendium to what is in the errata'd books. Just awful attitude.Hopefully it will, but it still means those that only get the DMG1 (probably the majority?) are going to be going through crap (hydra) or grindy solos... well done WotC, that'll make them stay as customers...
That seems to be the new way of WotC doing things.
Expertise, NAD feats, masterwork heavy armour. WotC sold errata rather often in 4E.
__________________ Everything about RPGs is subjective, so everything I say about them is I my opinion and not hard facts
Having a backstory is good. Using this backstory in game is better. And for that you need background skills.
4E, the game where you play HSMFOS
Heroic
Only good, or at least unaligned adventurers are supported and no monster you can fight is good aligned.
Super-
The PCs become masters in any skill automatically and it is impossible for them to be bad at a mundane task
Mutants
Compared to NPCs of the same strength, PCs poses a ungodly amount of HP and can withstand huge mountains of punishment. That or they can spontaneously regenerate wounds.
From Outer Space
Yet despite no matter how powerful the PCs become, they can never do anything special what the "natives" (=NPCs) can do like animating a skeleton.
What nasty uproar? The online community will have a few threads about it, but it's a small percentage of sales. Most DMs will likely not even notice the change, and of those that do, many will have DDI subscriptions and get new stuff automatically.
Yes, they'll lose some sales because of this, but I'd be shocked to find out it's anywhere near as bad as those of us reading these threads often think.
Yeah, the deal was the damage was too low, thus the hydra wasn't threatening.
I don't mean to bash the designers, I know this stuff is hard and it's unrealistic to get it perfect the first. I just think if they know something is wrong, fix it! I don't care if there's a page of errata for every actual page of the book, the most important thing is to try and get it right!
I completely agree. We were told frequent errata would be more frequent with 4e. I have the feeling some bean counting project manager thinks the time involved for errating the MM1 would be too long.
What nasty uproar? The online community will have a few threads about it, but it's a small percentage of sales. Most DMs will likely not even notice the change, and of those that do, many will have DDI subscriptions and get new stuff automatically.
Yes, they'll lose some sales because of this, but I'd be shocked to find out it's anywhere near as bad as those of us reading these threads often think.
You are probably right. I should have said "hopefully they'll do the right thing and release it as a free pdf."
There may be an article or two about it in Dragon, which will leak out slowly in discussion threads. Even barring that, the little we already have been told (80% hp, 150% damage) is enough to quickly and easily get a rough conversion for any MM1 monster. The guideline could stand to be more prominently stated, but why waste the effort updating a book that is unlikely to see many more sales when you can type a sentence and people that care can do it themselves?
-2 to all defenses... 4/5 hit points... increase damage a fair amount, perhaps by doubling the damage dice the monster deals and leaving the damage bonus the same (e.g. 1d10+7 becomes 2d10+7).
What's all the hubub about? You guys have calculators built in to your computers. If you have trouble with the math, just punch it in!
They could errata it by this point but I don't know that it matters to me. Even with the changes, I generally don't run monsters by the book anymore. I'm addicted to my 75% hp and +1/2 level mod. As a DM I have a lot more fun with monsters and the battles go a lot faster for our group. I'll probably stick to this house rule even with MM2 guys.
The nice thing is I can do this mod with just sticky notes pasted in the book.
It is inevitable that over the course of the design of your game, you will find ways to improve old stuff. Trying to "fix" things in the previous books is a waste of effort and makes the entire system a mess.
"We're playing D&D 4, but only by the rules of the 3rd printing of the PHB I and the fourth printing of the MM 1."
I have a lot of respect for Steve Jackson Games, but if you want to see a good example of this, take a look at the GURPS 3e Errata page. Books that saw a lot of printings, like the Basic Set, Space, and Supers have their own, unique errata for each printing. That'd be a bear to keep track of.
__________________ Stranded in Michigan's upper peninsula and trying to use the magic of the internet to roll dice and pretend to kill things.
There may be an article or two about it in Dragon, which will leak out slowly in discussion threads. Even barring that, the little we already have been told (80% hp, 150% damage) is enough to quickly and easily get a rough conversion for any MM1 monster. The guideline could stand to be more prominently stated, but why waste the effort updating a book that is unlikely to see many more sales when you can type a sentence and people that care can do it themselves?
Quote:
-2 to all defenses... 4/5 hit points... increase damage a fair amount, perhaps by doubling the damage dice the monster deals and leaving the damage bonus the same (e.g. 1d10+7 becomes 2d10+7).
Mind pointing out where they said it? Because if that is their suggestion, then that's fine. It'd still be nice if they made it official, though, by including it in the MM1 errata. Personally, I was going to go with 3/4 solo HP and +1/2 lvl + 1 damage bonus, which seems to be roughly a 50% increase in damage, at least for the level 12 green dragon. It's also easier to add 7 damage per attack than multiplying the damage by 150%.
Doubling the damage dice is a nice easy fix too, but seems less precise. The monsters involved also might end up doing less damage during a fight... though it looks okay for most of the monsters, like the Primordial Naga, except maybe the Primordial Hydra, assuming I calculated out its damage per fight under the +1/2 lvl. +1 damage rule.
-2 to all defenses... 4/5 hit points... increase damage a fair amount, perhaps by doubling the damage dice the monster deals and leaving the damage bonus the same (e.g. 1d10+7 becomes 2d10+7).
I don't think WotC should necessarily errata all of the MM1 solos to correspond to the new solo guidelines, though including a (free) detailed discussion of how their basic guidelines changed (so you can change the MM1 numbers yourself) would be nice. The Fen Hydra would still be a very bad solo if it had -20% HP, -2 to all defenses, and, say, +40% damage. That's a sign it should definitely receive errata.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Greatwyrm
I have a lot of respect for Steve Jackson Games, but if you want to see a good example of this, take a look at the GURPS 3e Errata page. Books that saw a lot of printings, like the Basic Set, Space, and Supers have their own, unique errata for each printing. That'd be a bear to keep track of.
Mutants and Masterminds updates their rulebooks to correspond to known errata on new printings and issues new versions of errata accordingly. At the moment, there’s the original book, the 2nd/3rd printings, and the most recent printings, which include all known errata for earlier printings. So that’s only 3 errata files to worry about. It certainly seems superior to the potential alternative of not updating new printings with known errata.
As long as the errata are (reverse) cumulative (which it will be if you don’t make new mistakes when updating the book for new printings); when you add something to the 2nd printing errata, you add it to the 1st printing errata as well. So it just means updating more errata documents.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pale Jackal
Mind pointing out where they said it? Because if that is their suggestion, then that's fine. It'd still be nice if they made it official, though, by including it in the MM1 errata. Personally, I was going to go with 3/4 solo HP and +1/2 lvl + 1 damage bonus, which seems to be roughly a 50% increase in damage, at least for the level 12 green dragon. It's also easier to add 7 damage per attack than multiplying the damage by 150%.
My original post quotes and links to a column saying that redesigning Orcus in accord with MM2’s solo guidelines would reduce his HP by 20%, give him -2 defenses, and increase his damage while bloodied by 50%. I think this set of changes would generally make solos too weak, as if you assume that the solo is bloodied half the time, this is only +25% damage, which would balance -20% HP fine, but not -2 to defenses on top of that. +40% damage seems more appropriate.
My original post quotes and links to a column saying that redesigning Orcus in accord with MM2’s solo guidelines would reduce his HP by 20%, give him -2 defenses, and increase his damage while bloodied by 50%. I think this set of changes would generally make solos too weak, as if you assume that the solo is bloodied half the time, this is only +25% damage, which would balance -20% HP fine, but not -2 to defenses on top of that. +40% damage seems more appropriate.
Thanks. I agree that those changes as written (+50% bloodied) seem insufficient.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pale Jackal
Doubling the damage dice is a nice easy fix too, but seems less precise. The monsters involved also might end up doing less damage during a fight... though it looks okay for most of the monsters, like the Primordial Naga, except maybe the Primordial Hydra, assuming I calculated out its damage per fight under the +1/2 lvl. +1 damage rule.
Actually, according to my fix, the Primordial Hydra would do about an extra 200 damage per fight (~750 vrs. ~540), assuming 50% chance to hit, no OAs, and a 7.5 round fight since there's -25% HP involved. Primordial Naga, Adult Red Dragon, and I think Young Solo Blue seemed to work out well... so maybe the Primordial Hydra's an exception, and the Ancient Black Dragon seems to do an extra, say, 120 damage per fight, but its acid damage is kind of a pain to estimate, so I'm not sure how much the base value is.
They could errata it by this point but I don't know that it matters to me. Even with the changes, I generally don't run monsters by the book anymore. I'm addicted to my 75% hp and +1/2 level mod. As a DM I have a lot more fun with monsters and the battles go a lot faster for our group. I'll probably stick to this house rule even with MM2 guys.
The nice thing is I can do this mod with just sticky notes pasted in the book.
I think if it was just this to fix, they could relatively easily do it. Still most people would probably miss it.
But the "new, improved Hydra" does a lot more than just change some damage values and defenses. It gets a different set of abilities so that it becomes more interesting as a Solo.
That is more than the typical errata of "oh, we forget 3 skill points and forget to maximize the first hit die of the NPC".
It is: "Oh, this guy isn't actually a Wizard, instead he gets these 9 new spell-like abilities". (To phrase it in 3.x terms.) It is, essentially, a new monster.
It is not "Oh, the door hinges of this product line do corrode unusually fast, we'' fix that soon" it is "Well, we discovered that a Diesel middle motor will give us a better performance."
Thoughts of the Arch Chancellor - My weblog on EN World - containing game related material, like: house rules, design theories, reviews, play reports, adventure ideas
Secret Member of <Think we would just hide our secret with a spoiler tag, eh?>
It needs to be fixed, with a massive errata PDF if needs be, I certainly don't want different info in the Compendium to what is in the errata'd books. Just awful attitude.
Linear Mode
And yet another word from our sponsors
