Monster Manual 2 and Elite/Solo design - Page 6

evilbob · 1st July 2009, 04:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Regicide

WotC makes them faster than they fix them. A general fix to monsters is probably the better idea. They really are little more than punching bags as it is.

I have to say I agree.

keterys · 1st July 2009, 05:02 PM

Depends on your group's chances of actually encountering any of the problem powers. A group can _easily_ not have storm of blades, rain of blows, or a wizard in it, and now it's doomed to grindy combat? Better if you have an established baseline and run with it.

evilbob · 1st July 2009, 09:14 PM

I completely agree with that thought; however, part of the point is that SoB and wizard spells and whatever else are just the problem today. Next month, it will likely be something else. And something else the month after that, and so on. Your choice becomes "do I find and fix each problem" or "do I take a more broad-handed approach" to the issue. If you're alright with the former, then the latter is not needed. My opinion is that I am no longer alright with the former.

Granted, the "best" approach is to tailor your specific changes to the specific needs and makeup of your group - but that's a really messy response and doesn't give any real general help.

keterys · 1st July 2009, 09:19 PM

Sure, but I've actually seen _more_ complaints about fights taking too long and monsters having too many hp.

I actually haven't seen a single game with SoB in it, and don't expect to see it more than rarely for a year or more (once it starts coming up in LFR). For the 'Against the Giants' campaign we're kicking off this Fall, I'd not be surprised if it comes up - we might do a party of all Goliaths, with at least one barbarian, and one fighter-barbarian, and eventually we'd be high enough level.

Not that a single person in that game had actually looked at the power.

So, maybe we'd nerf it or just excise it from the game, until it's errata-ed.

You've got a text book example of a wrong power. Everyone in the party MCs to get it. It cripples your fights to the point where you feel you need 2 solos, etc? Yeah, this isn't really difficult. Edit or remove. Done.

shadowoflameth · 2nd July 2009, 06:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mshea

It does indeed look like they're boosting damage and decreasing hps about 20% for solo monsters from my statistical sample of 1.

I went on a bit about this on another thread. They do not seem to be incresing damage, at least not consistently as I can see. They also seem not to be following the suggested damage tables for monsters in the DMG.

Demogorgon and Dagon, the highest level solos in the book have basic attacks with 3d8+8 which does not appear for any level (up to 30th therefore lower) in the DMG new monster design tables. On the other hand, the ancient Gold dragon, which is the same role, but lower level than Demogorgon has higher damage for a BA. The same holds true for damage of other creatures in the same book with little resemblance to the suggestions in DMG which were mostly followed in MM for damage, defences etc.

Hit points for solos are all 4x the formulae even though DMG says to make monsters of 11th or higher 5x the standard hit points. This results in some MM monsters of 5 or more levels less than the demon lords in MMII having more hit points doing more damage and having higher defences.

I thought people were complaining that solos were too easy/

Flipguarder · 2nd July 2009, 07:06 AM

solos are only too easy at high levels (where stuns and dazes abound). They are also too easy if you use them without any other monsters in encounters

shadowoflameth · 2nd July 2009, 07:12 AM

I went on a bit about this on another thread. They do not seem to be incresing damage, at least not consistently as I can see. They also seem not to be following the suggested damage tables for monsters in the DMG.

Demogorgon and Dagon, the highest level solos in the book have basic attacks with 3d8+8 which does not appear for any level (up to 30th therefore lower) in the DMG new monster design tables. On the other hand, the ancient Gold dragon, which is the same role, but lower level than Demogorgon has higher damage for a BA. The same holds true for damage of other creatures in the same book with little resemblance to the suggestions in DMG which were mostly followed in MM for damage, defences etc.

Hit points for solos are all 4x the formulae even though DMG says to make monsters of 11th or higher 5x the standard hit points. This results in some MM monsters of 5 or more levels less than the demon lords in MMII having more hit points doing more damage and having higher defences.

I thought people were complaining that solos were too easy?

shadowoflameth · 2nd July 2009, 07:17 AM

They don't seem in MMII to be using the tables in DMG at all:

I went on a bit about this on another thread.

Demogorgon and Dagon, the highest level solos in the book have basic attacks with 3d8+8 which does not appear for any level (up to 30th therefore lower) in the DMG new monster design tables. On the other hand, the ancient Gold dragon, which is the same role, but lower level than Demogorgon has higher damage for a BA even if you forget the bonus elemental damage. The same holds true for damage of other creatures in the same book with little resemblance to the suggestions in DMG which were mostly followed in MM for damage, defences etc. It isn't just BAs either encounter and recharge power damage seems arbitrary.

Hit points for solos are all 4x the formulae even though DMG says to make monsters of 11th or higher 5x the standard hit points. This results in some MM monsters of 5 or more levels less than the demon lords in MMII having more hit points doing more damage and having higher defenses.

I thought people were complaining that solos were too easy?