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

[Philosopher]

The maths wasn't really wrong, because solo monsters are supposed to be five monsters. The maths of the original monsters, for example their "excessive" HP are caused because after paragon tier they gained x5 HP to their base total. That's basically like adding five monsters to one in terms of HP. It's not getting it wrong, it's doing things a bit too literally. Now solo monsters get a x4 multiplier regardless of their level.

This again goes to explain why I don't see much of a problem with many of the original MM heroic solos, they aren't terribly crippled by later changes. Paragon and Epic MM solos might as well be free experience - with the possible exception of some Dragons. The adult and ancient white dragons for example are brutes that have +5 vs. AC and +3 vs. NADs standard (EG MM3 maths). They also do enough damage that other than HP, defenses and poor action economy they do a pretty decent job. On the other hand some creatures aren't as lucky, like the Adult Black dragon, whom is basically designed to be missed a huge proportion of the time. Compounding this it is unable to deal real damage either - a long grindy combat is the result.

Really there was nothing inherently wrong with the maths - though that is outdated now - where solos absolutely failed was powers. They simply could not do enough to warrant them being five monsters. The worst solos in 4E are still from the original MM because of this flaw. The Purple Worm is the biggest joke in all of 4E easily and the Dracolich isn't far behind. I can't think of two worse solos in all of 4E than them.

In many ways that's exactly what happened. MM creatures are flawed in maths, but only because later changes decided that having extra HP, defenses and similar wasn't required. The "maths" that builds the original solos is fine, because it builds all the other normal monsters and is just multiplied by 5. Later changes to accuracy and damage were really things that occur at paragon and epic. If you read my responses, I've been careful to constantly stress where MM creatures fail is in paragon and epic - the two tiers IMO Wizards didn't have the best grips on until recently.

Thanks, Aegeri. Rather than simply get upset at the fact that I offered a criticism, you actually took the time to explain the issue at hand. I understand your point now.

 

[DEFCON 1]

The overall point is that if you use a solo, don't go looking in the MM first over the better designed solos that follow.

Yes, this has been one of the points you've been trying to get across. However, in trying to do that, you said the following:

Why would you want to use the absolutely terrible, fundamentally and mechanically flawed solos of the original MM? This isn't a choice between an essentials done Red Dragon and one from the original MM. This is a choice between something with 2 years of updates to monsters and one that is fundamentally broken.

You were strong enough in your language that it caused Philosopher to genuinely question what was going on that this game was released with this supposedly broken math mechanic in it. And all I did was to assure him that you were exagerating the problem. Not that the problem doesn't exist, but that the problem isn't as all-encompassing (or as you put it 'broken') as you made it out to be.

'Broken' means it is virtually impossible to use something as-is because it changes the game so dramatically that the game comes to a complete stop because of it. 'Broken' does not mean (despite what many folks on these boards who are also prone to hyperbole tend to use it as) something is overpowered or underpowered compared to other options. They are not equivalent. And if someone tries to use it that way, I will point out the exaggeration.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

'Broken' means it is virtually impossible to use something as-is because it changes the game so dramatically that the game comes to a complete stop because of it. 'Broken' does not mean (despite what many folks on these boards who are also prone to hyperbole tend to use it as) something is overpowered or underpowered compared to other options. They are not equivalent. And if someone tries to use it that way, I will point out the exaggeration.

Eh, it's semantics almost at the point where you get to a solo like Orcus which is supposed to be a capstone villain and can BARELY stand toe-to-toe with a lot of individual level 30 PCs. In terms of the function of the monster in the game it really is 'broken'. It's terribly anti-climactic to get to that point in the campaign and find your final opponent to be a paper tiger. No, the game doesn't come to a screeching halt, it just fails to meet anything like the gamer's expectations. Arguing about exactly where the line is between 'bent' and 'broken' gets largely academic at that point. Either way it really had to be fixed if the game was going to work in the way it was envisaged.

In any case, I think the point that Aegeri was originally making stands, that a good number of MM1 monsters, and many of the iconic ones at that, really need a refresh. It will be interesting to see how MV approaches these iconic monsters. It will be one thing to make a few new (and maybe slightly improved) kobolds. It will be another thing with say dragons where you don't really want to give them alternate names but you really DO want to give them different stats. We may see a mix of approaches with some monsters getting new variations and others getting effectively updates.

I'd say though there is another class of monsters that MM1 had some issues with. Its a little more nebulous group than paragon and epic solos. A lot of monsters with a particular shtick in MM1 didn't quite mechanically succeed. The infamous Purple Worm clearly falls into this category (amongst its other problems). The swallow mechanic it uses just doesn't work well. There are some other lurkers and skirmishers that didn't quite gel either.

 

[Aegeri]

'Broken' means it is virtually impossible to use something as-is because it changes the game so dramatically that the game comes to a complete stop because of it. 'Broken' does not mean (despite what many folks on these boards who are also prone to hyperbole tend to use it as) something is overpowered or underpowered compared to other options. They are not equivalent. And if someone tries to use it that way, I will point out the exaggeration.

The purple worm is the definition of absolutely broken in DnD. In fact not just the definition, but the poster child. It completely fails in its function as a solo monster in every conceivable manner. Now they aren't all that bad by a long shot, but the way the game has evolved has meant that some things that were passable are now purple worm level compared to everything else.

I agree that something is not "broken" for being overpowered or underpowered. It's broken when it no longer works correctly and many MM monsters do adequately fit that definition.

 

[DEFCON 1]

I agree that something is not "broken" for being overpowered or underpowered. It's broken when it no longer works correctly and many MM monsters do adequately fit that definition.

For you. And that's my point.

If you make blanket statements trying to speak for everyone, don't be surprised if someone calls you on it or says 'not so fast'.

 

[Aegeri]

For you. And that's my point.

Okay, go ahead and show me how the purple worm can make a decent solo encounter. Not with other monsters, but as intended as a creature by itself designed to take on five players of the same level (or around that, EL + 2 or so). Until then I think it more than satisfactorily meets the definition of broken and many other MM creatures do also.

 

[Dungeoneer]

So is it safe to say that we can expect to see the Magenta Worm make its debut in the Monsters Vault? ;-)

 

[Aegeri]

So is it safe to say that we can expect to see the Magenta Worm make its debut in the Monsters Vault? ;-)

We could have the red, orange, green, black, maroon and navy worms as well.

The navy worm being aquatic.

 

[AngryMojo]

Okay, go ahead and show me how the purple worm can make a decent solo encounter. Not with other monsters, but as intended as a creature by itself designed to take on five players of the same level (or around that, EL + 2 or so). Until then I think it more than satisfactorily meets the definition of broken and many other MM creatures do also.

Name your party composition.

 

[Aegeri]

Name your party composition.

Anything you feel like. So long as it matches a reasonable party.