Monster Manual 2 and Elite/Solo design

[Upper_Krust]

Hello again Elric!

Soldiers may be the closest role concept-wise, but they're probably the strongest role, on average, because of their great AC/attack bonus. So I don't think Brutes need to make it all the way to a Soldier's level of power.

The thing is, soldiers may be the strongest role, but are they meant to be or are all the roles meant to be roughly equal? Clearly the solo brute isn't equal to the solo soldier, and arguably maybe not the other (solo) roles.

The suggestion from WotC is that solo monsters don't conform as strictly to the roles as standard monsters. But in the end the math still matters.

Skirmisher seems to be the default build. With Lurker having less hit points but (supposedly) doing more damage. Controllers have no +2 init. bonus, but +1 better attack vs. defenses. They also supposedly use the low damage column (more often than not), but their attacks will affect multiple targets and are usually ranged and will inflict conditions.

For MM1 Paragon/Epic solos, returning Brutes to the 10 HP base but multiplying Paragon/Epic solo HP by x4 instead of x5 would leave them with -Con score HP compared to their current HP. That’s an easy change, numerically.

Indeed.

However, if you did this, would you also want to change Solo Artillery/Lurker HP so it mirrors their 6 HP base? That’s not clear to me.

Yes, I definately would.

I think Skirmisher, Brute, Lurker, Controller and Artillery are all balanced against each other when the hit points are retained.

There’s a general problem with applying "one-size fits all" solutions to published monsters as WotC changes monster design. If WotC takes steps over time to compensate Brutes/Artillery/Lurkers solos for their adjusted HP, whether you'd want to still apply your original fix to the new solos that were designed with this in mind. Maybe when MM3 comes out they’ll have a podcast where they mention “we found out this was an issue and fixed it in this book” and then you’ll know to modify MM1/MM2 solos accordingly, but I doubt it.

Well for me its pertinent because I am putting together a third party 4E bestiary called Vampires & Demons, so I want to have things as balanced as possible.

Looking at the Bebilith and Heroslayer Hydra preview (L20 solo brute) (I had forgotten that one), both have effectively greater attack bonuses than the Brute’s standard level +3 vs. AC. The Bebilith reduces enemy AC over the course of the encounter, and the Hydra attacks are at level+5 (the two eldest White Dragons in the MM1 have attacks at level+5 vs. AC as well). So maybe WotC is learning to compensate Solo Brutes better in general.

Thats interesting, hadn't spotted that. But given the other Hydra's don't follow that and neither does the Silver Dragon we can probably chalk that up to a mistake.

The Bebilith gets 4 uses of its claws a round, though, and the AC penalty is nasty, so it can deal less than the high damage expression per hit. By the way, I don’t like using the DMG damage expressions straight up, because they lump 3 levels together each time and have some very odd choices (why is it that the “high damage expression” is the same for level 16-18 and 19-21 while the medium and low-damage expressions both increase?) Fitting a line to the high damage expression suggests that level 18 should be 19.8 damage. Not a big difference, but it’s something to consider when designing and evaluating monsters.

I would always at least use the maximum dice allowable...naturally ability score bonuses may vary a bit.

I agree that Venemous Bite should deal more damage. A recharge on a 6 “only when bloodied” power should be better than its regular attack, but the Bebilith generally won’t want to use Venemous Bite if it has the opportunity to hit two foes with its claws.

The Bebilith's Flaming Web is a minor action, which is strange because the Bebilith doesn't receive any minor actions, but giving it one minor action between its two turns a round would significantly power up its offense.

The last issue with the Bebilith is that having it go at initiative counts 10 and 20 is too late in the round; 25 and 15 would be more appropriate. You don't want the PCs to all beat initiative 20 (which could easily happen with a Warlord with the Combat Commander feat) and have the Bebilith going twice in a row every round.

Its fairly obvious the Bebilith has a number of design flaws, what is surprising is how many.

 

[Elric]

The thing is, soldiers may be the strongest role, but are they meant to be or are all the roles meant to be roughly equal? Clearly the solo brute isn't equal to the solo soldier, and arguably maybe not the other (solo) roles.

The monster roles are clearly meant to be roughly equal. However, that doesn't mean the solution to "soldiers are the best role" is "make all other monsters as powerful as soldiers." One should probably try to adjust roles using the current median strength role as a baseline.

Yes, I definately would.

I think Skirmisher, Brute, Lurker, Controller and Artillery are all balanced against each other when the hit points are retained.

Looking at the MM Solo Artillery, the Blue Dragons, Beholder Eye Tyrant (Disintegrate ray!), and Primordial Naga deal more damage than most solos of a different role at a similar level. So as written, it might make sense to go back and adjust their HP. It's hard to evaluate MM Lurker Solos, because the only one is the Black Dragon (which has the powerful and annoying Cloud of Darkness).

 

[Pickles JG]

The monster roles are clearly meant to be roughly equal. However, that doesn't mean the solution to "soldiers are the best role" is "make all other monsters as powerful as soldiers." One should probably try to adjust roles using the current median strength role as a baseline.

Soldiers do seem too good often. IMO its because they often get good damage & effects that they should not in combination with their higher accuracy. Also high AC is so much better than higher HP at heroic (& I expect later though I have no experience...)

As regards errata I think we are stuck with the CCG model of not errata but shiny new stuff to make us forget. In practice I do not mind much about the weaker things being dropped. I am a bit concerned about OP stuff sticking about - but that does not apply to monsters really but to one of those other threads.

 

[AllisterH]

Again, I'll point out that the mordant hydra would give the heroslayer hydra absolute fits either in a swamp or at range (6 attacks at range 10, Swim 12?) assuming you levelled the mordant to level 20.

So I'm not sure how the heroslayer is a more powerful hydra...More INTERESTING for sure, but more powerful? I don't think so...

re: SOLDIERS
Soldiers seem to be the favourite of DMs to use because they hit hard and are hard to put down, but are also the ones most players complain about...

 

[castro3nw]

No here plays Magic:TG?

Unless the card doesn't do exactly what it was intnded to do, WOTC will not issue errata on a card.

E.g. For many years, WOTC was trying to improve the green colour and printed many a card that was intended to *FIX* the colour but they never went back and errata'd the older cards...

I play a decent amount of MtG. WotC does in fact issue errata on older cards. (They've changed the creature type on a ridiculous number of old cards for no good reason) And much like they're doing now with the DDI, the erratas are often as not fairly random and only posted in their version of DDI, 'Gatherer'

 

[Stalker0]

Soldiers seem to be the favourite of DMs to use because they hit hard and are hard to put down, but are also the ones most players complain about...

Soldiers get the best hitpoints and overall defenses, and combined with a solid attack bonus and decent damage...they are definitely the best overall monster role. Unfortunately they are also one of the most boring.

 

[ryryguy]

On certain solos and elites I add the following:

Stun & Daze Resist: When stunned, this creature instead loses its next standard action; when dazed, this creature instead loses its next minor action.

Big caveat - my experience with solos is very limited. But I've gathered that the big issues that people have had with them are

1) Too many hp (or too high defenses) -> grind.
2) Too vulnerable to conditioned-based lockdowns. (thus, mshea's house rule)
3) Not doing enough damage.

I've been kicking around an idea that might address 1 and 2 simultaneously. (2 & 3 are probably partially related; conditions leading to loss of actions and/or penalties on attacks obviously reduce the solo's ability to deal damage. So addressing 2 should help 3 a bit... but you could also just up the damage output a bit as MM2 does easily enough.)

What if a solo can use its hit points to reduce or remove conditions? The general thought is that it isn't wasted effort for players to tag the solo with a condition, because it does indirect damage, but doesn't spoil the fight.

Say there's some amount of hitpoints "X". I'm not sure what "X" should be, maybe 5% of the solo's total hit points? But any way, some constant value.

Give the solo two or three immediate-action powers that are triggered by conditions. Each has a cost in "X". Powers like these:

• mshea's Stun & Daze resist: costs 1X. (maybe 2x for stun?)
• instinctive retreat: costs 1X; when immobilized or slowed, the solo can shift its speed.
• Unconscious defense: costs 2x; while unconscious, gain resist 5/10/15 to all damage, and a damaging aura.
• Can't touch me!: costs 3x; end any condition immediately
• Snuff zone: costs 2x; immediately dispel a zone. (this could be a regular standard action power instead of an immediate action I suppose)
• Infinite reactions: costs 1X; the solo can take an additional immediate action this round.

At the risk of getting too complicated to track, I'd also say that each time the solo uses a particular one of these powers, the cost increases by 1X. But when the solo becomes bloodied for the first time in the encounter, reset the costs to their original levels.

Finally I might say that the solo can't use one of these powers if the hit point cost would cause it to become bloodied. (Basically, no cheating to get bloodied on purpose to recharge dragon's breath, etc.)

This is an admittedly half-baked idea... but has anyone tried anything similar? What do you think?

 

[Elric]

Here’s my take on modifying Orcus (MM, pg 206), taking into account MM2’s changes to solo design guidelines. With a little work, Orcus can become a more interesting and dangerous opponent, while staying true to the basics and the theme of his MM version. Thoughts appreciated.

1) Reduce HP from 1,525 to 1,320; Change Bloodied from 762 to 660.
Reduce AC by 2, Fort/Ref/Will by 3. This gives AC 46; Fortitude 48; Reflex 43, Will 46

Start by changing Orcus to give him -20% HP and -2 to defenses according to MM2’s design guidelines. I’ve subtracted a little more from F/R/W because even with -2, they’d be well above the 12+level average recommended in the DMG (pg 184). In accord with the change in solo design, HP for a solo=[(level+1)*8+Con]*4 (in MM1, solos at Paragon/Epic have *5 here instead of *4). This would equal 1,220 HP. I’ve added 100 to this because the solo HP formula is independent of role, but as a Brute Orcus has 1 lower AC than baseline AC of 14+level (after my above change to his defenses; note that this is 1 higher than typical Brute AC); otherwise, he wouldn’t gain anything for this AC loss.

2) Increase the Wand of Orcus’s damage by 2d12 to 4d12+12 damage (plus 1d12 necrotic damage, as before).

Increase Tail Lash’s damage by 2d8 to 4d8+12 damage. Add “Special: While Orcus is bloodied, Tail Lash becomes a minor action, usable once a round (it’s no longer an immediate reaction).”

I increased the number of damage dice on Orcus’s at-will attacks by 2 each. Tail Lash changing to a minor action when Orcus is bloodied means that Orcus doesn’t have to move around to ensure he can use it every round, and it increases the amount of damage he can deal to a single foe.

The article D&D Alumni: Demogorgon says that to modify Orcus in accord with MM2’s solo guidelines, reduce his HP by 20%, give him -2 defenses, and increase his damage while bloodied by 50%. This seems insufficient. On the approximation that Orcus spends half his time bloodied, this amounts to +25% damage, which could compensate for -20% HP (on the further approximation that monster damage dealt per encounter is proportional to fight length, and fight length is proportional to monster HP, this works out to the same average damage per encounter), but not -2 to defenses as well. So I’ve done more than just increase Orcus’s damage by 25% (higher level MM1 monsters seem low on damage in the first place).

3) Add to Aura of Death: “While Orcus is bloodied, enemies in the aura regain only half the normal amount of hit points when they would regain hit points.”

Bloodying Orcus should be a big deal. The change to Orcus’s Aura of Death lets you know that it is. A DM should allow a monster Knowledge check, DC 35 Arcana, to give the party at least a clue that they should use healing abilities before he’s bloodied. Something like: “It is said that when Orcus is injured, his anger can rip out the souls of his enemies.”

4) Touch of Death: Change from recharge 6 to: “recharges when first blooded.”
Change the miss effect to: “Miss: The target takes necrotic damage equal to its bloodied value. This cannot reduce the target below 0 HP.”

Making Touch of Death an encounter power with an automatic recharge prevents Orcus from getting lucky and recharging it several times, or getting unlucky and never recharging it. Normally, recharge powers are fine, but this is such a strong attack that the number of times it recharges will have significant impact on the fight. As written, Orcus would sometimes prefer missing with Touch of Death to hitting, so I changed it so this is no longer the case.

5) Change Necrotic Burst: Close Burst 10; targets enemies; +38 vs. Fortitude; 2d12+12 necrotic damage, and all undead in the burst regain 20 hit points.

As written, Orcus could accidentally kill most of his undead minions when he uses this power, because if they don’t have necrotic resistance this power’s average damage exceeds the HP that undead regain. Oops! This isn’t just a theoretical concern; the undead level 26 Couatl Mockery minion in Open Grave (pg 185) has no necrotic resistance.

6) Add: Implacable Foe: Whenever an attack or effect imposes a condition (defined on page 277 of the PH), besides marked, Orcus can make a saving throw (without his usual +5 saving throw bonus) to be unaffected by that condition, even against an effect that doesn’t normally allow a save.

Implacable Foe is an important change. Orcus gains Implacable Foe because of issues about the effectiveness of status effects when used on solos. See the discussion here the basic issue is that since a solo has the offense of multiple normal monsters, a power that takes away a round of a solo’s offense can be too strong.

 

[Dire Bare]

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."

I don't personally get all the brewhaha raised over this "controversy", I don't mind that WotC didn't "catch" the less optimal design of some MM1 monsters until now, I don't mind that they aren't going to go backwards and "fix" the older monsters.

However, I think the best way to deal with the issue is to print the new guidelines in the DMG2 and also print an article in Dragon discussing the new monster design guidelines (which they very well may already be planning on doing for all we know).

I would also print a series of Dragon articles with reworked versions of the less optimal MM1 monsters (and perhaps monsters from other older sources). I wouldn't need to see them all right away, maybe an article every other month or so.

Once all the less optimal monsters had been reworked, I would include all that work in future printings of the MM1. Generally, I wouldn't want WotC to waste their time with all that effort, but MM1 is and will remain one of the core evergreen books that will be reprinted until the day 5th Edition debuts.

If WotC doesn't go this far, which is likely, it won't hurt my feelings overmuch. I haven't had any real problems using the monsters from MM1, and I don't anticipate future problems, although I appreciate the efforts at improving the design process.

 

[Dire Bare]

I play a decent amount of MtG. WotC does in fact issue errata on older cards. (They've changed the creature type on a ridiculous number of old cards for no good reason) And much like they're doing now with the DDI, the erratas are often as not fairly random and only posted in their version of DDI, 'Gatherer'

Hmmm, I love MtG errata (er, or the way it is organized). If I have a question on a particular card, I just look it up on the Gatherer database! Easy peasy! I don't really get the "random" comment.