Monster Manual II Design changes

[lukelightning]

I've seen a few comments about the fort defense of MM2 creatures being scaled back; is this true?

 

[shadowoflameth]

Their Strength score has nothing to do with their basic attack. Monster damage is simply determined by role and level. Strength score doesn't figure in there at all. (To answer: Why give him a 32 Strength, the answer is "to know how much he can lift/move/etc for non-combat stuff, how good he is at Athletics, and his effectiveness at Bullrushing and grabbing. Every non-attack power use of Strength, really.)

Focusing just on the monster's basic attack is misleading, though, especially for a solo who will be using recharge or encounter attacks most turns (and have reactions and interrupts and auras to do additional damage). Orcus might never use his basic attack except for when taking OAs.


There was a slight change in Solo design in the MMII, that involved them having a lower HP total than MMI solos, but doing more damage when bloodied. And possibly lower defenses overall... I don't recall the details, exactly.

By the way, not to (continue to) be nit picky, but they aren't doing a standard by role/level either. The ancient gold dragon is the same rope as Demogorgon, and a lower (but still high) level, and even without the bonus dice does more damage with a basic attack.

Look at a few similar role/level creatures in MM II and you quickly see there is little correlation with level/role compared to each other. Perhaps they adjusted down for Demogorgon having reach 5, but the same comparisons hold true on encounter and recharge powers.

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hey all!

By continuing the tables from the dmg...

Immortality

...Demogorgon's attacks should probably deal:

Tentacle Strike: 3d10 + 13 (8 more than the book on average)
Forked Tail: 2d10 + 13 (3 more than the book)
Tentacle Blast: 2d10 + 13 (7 more than the book)
Aemeul's Gaze: 2d10 + 11 (1 more than the book)
Hethradiah's Gaze: 2d10 + 11 (6.5 more than the book)
Dual Aspects of Demogorgon: 6d10 + 11 (12 more than the book)

By contrast, the Ancient Gold Dragon

Bite: 3d10 + 9 (2 more than the DMG on average)
Claw: 3d10 + 9 (2 more than the DMG)
Ancient Radiance: 3d10 + 9 (the DMG suggests 5d12)
Breath Weapon: 4d8 + 9 (DMG suggests 4d10)
Burning Tomb: 4d8 + 13 (DMG suggests 2d8)

Its not totally apparent from the DMG how to assign Limited Damage Expressions. As a rule of thumb I would suggest basing them on recharges 4 = Low, 5 = Medium, 6 = High.

 

[Stalker0]

One thing I am so thankful for in 4e is that they made the concession to say that monsters don't have to follow exact math formulas all the time. While a high level dragon does more damage than a small low level one, that doesn't mean the damage bump has to be +X for the hitdie and +Y for the strength and +Z for the size etc.

3e's system was too rigid in this response, and it made certain monster designs impossible or very clunky.

 

[Derulbaskul]

This is just an extension of the 3.xE problem. The designers couldn't get stat blocks right then and they cannot get stat blocks right now. It doesn't take much effort in 4E to use the DMG guidelines.

For my own solos, I use 4x the hit points based on their roles. I like the role to still play a part even if it is only a small difference.

 

[keterys]

You're making a mistake that they need to follow the DMG guidelines or that they can get a statblock wrong.

 

[Jhaelen]

You're making a mistake that they need to follow the DMG guidelines or that they can get a statblock wrong.

This.

The guidelines in the DMG are for DMs not for the game designers/developers.

My assumption has always been that the DMG guidelines are a streamlined, simplified version of the guidelines WotC uses internally. Additionally, I'm quite sure, some of the deviations from the guidelines can be explained by feedback from playtesting and some from the designers/developers simply eyeballing the monster's capabilities as a whole.

 

[Regicide]

You're making a mistake that they need to follow the DMG guidelines or that they can get a statblock wrong.

Looking at the errata, er, sorry, "update" for the MM, they can't get stat blocks wrong, they can just "update" them to be better than they were.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

The DMG guidelines are guidelines, not hard rules. They give you a starting point with your monster when you as the DM create some.
If you don't do anything fancy, they will suffice. If you do something fancy - and that's what the designers typically try do - they might not and you will play around, based on "eye-balling", maybe behind-the-scenes math-crunching or playtest results.

 

[Oren]

Personally, I find it a bit troubling they are not following their own guidelines (and rules) and conjuring numbers out of thin air. I had enough of that when I played 2E (how many XP does a rust monster award? there were 3 different values according to the source/formula you checked), and was happy when in 3E everything seemed to be done correctly. Now with 4E it seems they have gone back to the practices from the 80s. If the rules of a game system do not accommodate what the designers want to do with it, then the system isn't robust enough.