A subtle reminder from wizards.(or not so subtle)

[Aegeri]

I'd like to make a funny point on the "playtesting" that Defcon bought up to defend MM solos. Within a week of 4E being released, in fact someone may have figured it out before release - there was a build that used cascade of blades to wipe the floor with Orcus. So the supposedly "top" solo of the original MM was trivially killed with one power that people figured out in one week. It's worth noting that I think - but I might be wrong - that cascade of blades was the first power in 4E to see errata.

The other thing I should mention is that MM3 and actually even MM2 have both kept up with power creep. From what I've currently done in my paragon and epic games, if you adjust MM2 solos to the new maths they work pretty well. From what I've currently done in my paragon and epic games, MM solos aren't able to compete even when the damage is upgraded. I think this is largely because most of the fundamental changes to solos are in MM2. Now that we've moved even further beyond that, the degree MM solo monsters are behind just renders them undesirable without major modifications. By that point, you might as well use a MM2 or MM3 creature (or just make your own).

Edit: For the record, if they made a revised MM with better fluff (MM3 like was perfect IMO) and updated mechanics I would buy it.

A lot of MM1 baddies work great, yes even the HP sacks. In a group I run the players all tried to build damage monkeys. Those HP sacks meant the artillery could make their lives miserable and they couldn't just chew through encounters in no time flat.

I am picking on solos and elites specifically - especially above heroic tier. I will also note that numerous paragon/epic monsters in the original MM and minions are also not very good at what they do. For many who never run games out of heroic tier, I actually agree many of those monsters are still perfectly functional and work well. When you get into paragon and epic, as has already been noted in other discussions that's when those creatures suddenly encounter a big brick wall.

 

[Jhaelen]

Actually no I'm not. Have you seen how many builds utterly destroy Orcus easily?

No, I haven't. And neither has any of my players. Thus you're proving the point, DEFCON 1 was making.

It's only a small fraction of D&D players that ever bother to visit internet forums about D&D. And only a fraction of them ever visit or care about the CO boards.

So, for many groups it's not an interesting or important issue.

I'm happy to continue using MM1 monsters, although I'm definitely updating the damage expressions.

I'd like to note, though, that I've never been fond of the concept of solo monsters, regardless how well they're designed. I've been preaching from the beginning that a solo should never actually be encountered solo.

There's a reason solos are few and far between in MM3. A lot of monsters that would have been designed as solos in the beginning of 4e are now Elite instead.

One simple approach that worked very well for me:
Decrease a solo's level by two and have the party encounter two of them.

 

[catsclaw227]

Next thing you'll try and tell us is that people lie on the internet. I simply won't believe it and I, for one, welcome our new Essential overlords!

Wait a sec....

Are you saying that people on the internet lie sometimes? I just don't believe it. You must be lying.

 

[Aegeri]

No, I haven't. And neither has any of my players. Thus you're proving the point, DEFCON 1 was making.

A non-optimized bloodmage with Archmage as an ED beats Orcus trivially, let alone a party of 5 epic PCs. My point is that one PC can trivially kill Orcus, what do you think five of them does (even when non-optimized)?

Edit: Of course, this largely depends on how many people have even run an encounter with Orcus. For those curious;

Spoiler

I ran E3 and the empowered Orcus is quite a bit better than his original MM counterpart. Still not great, but he wasn't a total pushover. For curiosities sake, I also ran the same encounter using the MM Orcus and he really struggled to put up a coherent challenge against the same group of PCs. Power design and action economy are just huge factors in a solos challenge - something Wizards didn't get to grips with fully until MM2

I'd like to note, though, that I've never been fond of the concept of solo monsters, regardless how well they're designed. I've been preaching from the beginning that a solo should never actually be encountered solo.

I actually do agree with this, terrain and other factors are also absolutely essential in making a competitive solo. But it is possible now to run a solo as a solo, plus have it as a fun and relevant encounter that isn't a walkover. I have achieved this with a minor houserule about daze/stun and similar action denial conditions being savable - but I am pleased that's all I needed to do.

But having actually played extensively at high paragon/epic, I can say for certain that MM solos aren't competitive even with adjusted maths. MM2 and MM3 ones are.

There's a reason solos are few and far between in MM3. A lot of monsters that would have been designed as solos in the beginning of 4e are now Elite instead.

Catastrophic Dragons being elites was a surprise, but there are a good dose of solos in MM3. The good majority of them are really good as well! Lolth is fantastic fun and works very well. The Astral Kraken is just brutal and the Sea Kraken is one of the most fun solos for its level in all of 4E IMO. Imix I don't get and need to figure out how to use, but he has potential. Allabah is fantastic etc.

Also IMO MM3 felt like compensation that there wasn't really a good set of non-elite and non-solo high paragon and epic monsters. That's really what was desperately needed and the book was full of them, something I vastly appreciate. This is something I kind of hope monster vault does as well, I hope it balances out less solos and more "normal" monsters at high paragon and epic especially. There are billions of viable heroic monsters - even I don't think MM heroic monsters are not worth using, everyone loves zombies after all - but we really need more paragon and epic regular monsters.

One simple approach that worked very well for me:
Decrease a solo's level by two and have the party encounter two of them.

I've been doing that for a long time myself, but unfortunately before the MM3 the sheer "cat-scratch" factor often meant it was just as grindy as a regular encounter. Now I can just use one solo and get the same effect. I think I'm a bit better off now

You know, my players are going to hate you eternally when they find out you were the source of this: I haven't tried two solos at once since the MM3 came out. I am interested to see how that goes.

 

[LuckyAdrastus]

Something really bothers me about this. Weren't they supposed to have broken down the math of the game and then reconstructed it so that none of this would have been an issue? Is it still guesswork after all?

Making a mistake (or mistakes) does not mean they are merely practicing guesswork. It means they made a mistake (or mistakes). 4e has a pretty robust and balanced series of mathematical assumptions as foundation. PHB1 era maths don't properly apply those maths all of the time. They've been fixing this for some time now, with expertise feats (not my favored method, but let's not mix two flamewars here), new Monster Manuals with more challenging or fun mechanics, errata, extra Masterwork armor options in AV, etc...

 

[Imaro]

i never said you should believe blindly, but you are paranoid and overreacting and you are one of those people who make bill despair... i would just wait and see, and for my part, i hope the PHB fighter build will still be supported, and i hope we get more kits, because they sound fun.

Dude no one is parannoid or overreacting. What I did was post an opinion that doesn't gel with what you feel my opinion shoud be, and for some reason you can't accept that I don't have to think what you want me to think.

Note... spin it any way you want to but compatible is compatible and revisions from players... are exactly what alot of the so-called eratta for 4e are IMO.

 

[Herschel]

Essentials might not be replacing the PHB but if they do not continue in printing at least the original printings of the PHB it will be phased out.

I think you forget how wholesaling is priced and done. It's all about volume.

Printing a book, screen printing a t-shirt, etc. isn't a set cost. There are set up costs regardless of the numbers printed. But one the set up is done, generally materials cost less based on volume because of the way set up costs are dispersed.

Say it costs $1,000 to set up a book printing. If you want 100 books printed you may be charged $10/book on top of that while it may only cost them $4 to print it. This is the printer's profit margin because they have to have the people, time and machines (including purchase AND upkeep) in order to do the job. So it would cost you $20/book to have them printed but would only cost you $2000 to get that print run done.

Depending on market research, you may only need 100 books printed, or you may be small or have a limited budget so that size run is all you can afford. When you turn a profit on your product you can afford another print run.

Meanwhile the printer had to allocate the time/resources to set up that print run when it's faster just to be printing. So if you order 100,000 books you may be charged only $5/book. That print run costs you $500,000 but only about $5/book.

The printer balances the "down time" of setting up jobs to print vs. printing time while taking in to account materials costs. He's likely also getting a discount on materials for ordering in bulk. Maybe his cost of printing is down to $3.75/book with volume supply discount.

If he stands to make more money overall by spending more time actually printing, then the price/unit will be substantially less. If you have the need for 1,000,000 units, having them done in the fewest number of print jobs your budget can afford is best for your bottom line, even if you know the time to sell the entire 1,000,000 will be prolonged.

So if WotC figured they needed 1,000,000 PHBs for a seven-year cycle and got the okay to do it all in one print run (by showing storage cost vs. volume discount, etc.) They can make another print run when they want/need to, but they have to plan the costs of doing so at different times/levels.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

@ Imaro

1. I am not you dude.

2. learn to read, noone wants to take your opinion... --> paranoid!

3. Just stated, that you belong to the people who don´t believe in WotC, what is ok.

4. I still believe (my opinion) that you are overreacting and comparing apples to oranges... (3.0 -> 3.5 vs 4e. -> essentials)

5. Accept it.

 

[Imaro]

@ Imaro

1. I am not you dude.

2. learn to read, noone wants to take your opinion... --> paranoid!

3. Just stated, that you belong to the people who don´t believe in WotC, what is ok.

4. I still believe (my opinion) that you are overreacting and comparing apples to oranges... (3.0 -> 3.5 vs 4e. -> essentials)

5. Accept it.

1. Ok, whatever...

2. I never said anyone was "taking" my opinion... how do you take someone's opinion in this context anyway??? --> unclear meaning!

3. How about...I belong to the people who think critically and ask questions instead of accepting whatever they are told. Now how about I say you belong to the people who just blindly accept whatever they are told by WotC, without questioning or wondering about anything (see how negative classification can work both ways?). Not sure "What is ok" means in this context either...

4. Yes overreacting is posting one's opinions on D&D essentials... in a forum dedicated to posting your opinions on D&D... in a thread about D&D essentials...

So I guess the only way I could not "overreact", according to you, is if I didn't post my opinions... but it's ok to post that you believe everything WotC has said... and that's not a positive overreaction... Kettle meet pot...

5. Accept what? Your opinion?

Which leads us back to what's really bugging you... I don't agree with your opinion and instead of addressing the points I've brought up or the unanswered questions I've posed... you've instead attacked me with words like "paranoid" and "overeacting" when my actions have been nothing but the same as everyone else participating in this thread... I mean with the exception of the negative categorization (until now) ascribing of motives, and general attacks you've launched at me for stating my opinion and providing evidence for why I think they are valid. Maybe you should ask yourself why what I think about essentials ruffles your feathers so much?

 

[Herschel]

1
3. How about...I belong to the people who think critically and ask questions instead of accepting whatever they are told.

You're not thinking critically, you are trying to read more in to it than there is. With the evidence we have, you're jumping to conclusions that simply aren't supported. You may think there's some sort of "plot" (for lack of a better term) but there's no evidence to support it, just speculation like the internet is famous for.


And speculation can be great fun.