Monster Manual 2 and Elite/Solo design

[tmatk]

Yeah. You know, I was going to say that most of the MM1 is solid but then I remembered the fact that I went through the MM1 and gave almost every minion +1/2 level to damage. The exceptions being those with effects like Immobilize. Something that WotC seems to have done in the MM2.

I'm not entirely sure what is broken about the hydra (not enough damage or interesting abilities?) but it couldn't be that hard to offer some sort of rough fix. It doesn't need to be perfect. After all, they thankfully errata'd the damage of some of the other monsters.

Yeah, the deal was the damage was too low, thus the hydra wasn't threatening.

I don't mean to bash the designers, I know this stuff is hard and it's unrealistic to get it perfect the first. I just think if they know something is wrong, fix it! I don't care if there's a page of errata for every actual page of the book, the most important thing is to try and get it right!

 

[SlyFlourish]

I think we're all stuck in a quandary, us and the designers.

If the designers went back and errata'd all of the monsters that need it in the original MM1, we'd have a 200 page PDF that few of us could really use at the table anyway. The best they could do is update the Compendium online but that makes the books obsolete (it sort of is now, many of the dragon entries in the Compendium have beefed up damage over the MM1 with no record of an errata change).

If they fix it by republishing the original monster manual (which I wish they would do), a loud group would scream about D&D 4.5 and raise holy hell. It would be a marketing disaster.

Instead they choose a different path - fix it from here on out. They might offer up some house rules in the DMG2 to help us re-engineer the monsters in the new image. Of course, many of us will be doing this already.

So I think we're stuck. They're not going to errata the whole MM1 and they're not going to republish it. They'll likely give us some alternate rules in the DMG2 that might help and, until then, we're on our own.

I'm sticking to my house rules anyway. I like my faster, more swingy, and more dangerous combat.

My quick house rules are as follows:

3/4 hps and +1/2 level damage with +1d10 on crits.

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.

 

[Pale Jackal]

I think I will try implementing 3/4th HP, 1+1/2 Level damage for solos. The damage per fight (assuming 100% HP means 10 rounds, and 75% HP means roughly 7.5 rounds) is the same, using the above. I'm not sure if normal monsters need that tweak, but that might be because I currently have a party with 3 strikers and 1 leader. There's also Elric's / Karin'sDad? type house rules for solos that I'll use.

I see your point, but if they do issue alternate rules in the DMG2, it should really just be errata to the core DMG solo template rules. For example, the minion tweak doesn't need to be an update to every minion, it can just be a new rule.

Oh well. Fortunately, some broad, generally applied house rules won't kill me.

 

[Elric]

I'm sitting here listening to the new D&D podcast, one of the designers admits the MM1 hydra is broken as a solo, but won't be updated with errata.

It's not just hydras. Brutes were generally too weak in MM1, and many have had errata to increase their damage-e.g., Hill Giants, Ogres, Death Giants, etc.. Brutes didn't get enough to compensate for lower attack/defense values.

However, Brute solos are especially weak in MM1, because solo HP is independent of a monster's role. Strange, but true. Essentially all MM1 solos have [(level +1)*8+Con]*5 HP (at Paragon/Epic, x4 at heroic), regardless of role. This is the formula given in the DMG guidelines for creating solos on page 184, so it’s not an accidental mistake. Normally, Brute monsters make up for lower AC with higher HP. It doesn't appear like Brute solos were given anything to compensate for their comparatively lower AC.

Ironically, the Kobold Hall adventure in the back of the DMG must have been created before the "solos all use the same HP pattern" was finalized, because the White Dragon there has 232 HP, indicating it was built on [(level +1)*10+Con]*4 HP, while the entry in the MM has 200 HP corresponding to the above formula.

The MM2 solo previews do not adjust solo HP by role; the Bebilith (Solo Brute 18), the Adamantine Dragon (Solo Soldier 21), and the Beholder Ultimate Tyrant (Solo Artillery 29) all have the [(level +1)*8+Con]*4 HP that is apparently now standard. It’s unclear to me if WotC has truly compensated Solo Brutes for their lower AC, perhaps in the form of higher damage (above and beyond what they should get for their attack bonus), as the Bebilith only presents a sample size of one.

Anyone with MM2 want to weigh in?

 

[Pale Jackal]

The MM2 solo previews do not adjust solo HP by role; the Bebilith (Solo Brute 18), the Adamantine Dragon (Solo Soldier 21), and the Beholder Ultimate Tyrant (Solo Artillery 29) all have the [(level +1)*8+Con]*4 HP that is apparently now standard. It’s unclear to me if WotC has truly compensated Solo Brutes for their lower AC, perhaps in the form of higher damage (above and beyond what they should get for their attack bonus), as the Bebilith only presents a sample size of one.

Behir Bolter Whelp Lvl. 8 Solo Soldier vs. Young Silver Dragon Lvl. 8 Solo Brute

~24 HP difference, in favor of the Brute.
Soldier has 4 higher AC
Brute does +1 damage (on average) per "claw" attack.
Brute has 4 lower to hit.
Both have AoE type attacks (dragon has blast, behir has burst.) Behir has better AoE damage, but the dragon blast gives vulnerable 5 all (saves end).
I'd say the Behir has a better immediate reaction.

There's some other stuff. I'd say they were reasonably close if the AC and to hit difference was 2, but at 4, it seems large.

 

[Stalker0]

Ran a fight with a Razor Hydra (knocked it down to 14th level), a deva guardian, and a flame shard vs my 12th level party. I disobeyed my own rule about higher level solos to see if they real fixed some of grind issues.

The hydra was instantly put to sleep (-10 to saves from the phrenic crown, earthroot staff, and the orb will do that to you). The deva took the effect ( I love that monster!) and feel asleep, instantly coup de graced by my party.

Then the party released healing hell, everytime the hydra attacked (whether it hit or missed) the player that was attacked recovered 6 damage. The paladin and cleric got into melee and I spent more time healing the party than damaging them.

However, I got a few good licks in at the end, and managed to do 110 damage in a round + 45 ongoing damage! (the player lived, damn that healing!)

The fight dragged just a bit towards the end, and I certainly was upset by my hydra becoming a healing battery for the front line, but all in all I consider it a victory. The fight never seemed too grindy.

 

[SlyFlourish]

Hospitaler's Blessing needs to be nerfed.

Change it to "once per round".

 

[Lauberfen]

I was reading the DMG on Solos, and it says they are 4x the HP until 10th level.

Having a look through the MM, it looks like this the case.

So how does this relate to the new system? Is it only high level monsters that should be adjusted down?

 

[Derren]

4.5? I don't think so.

More likely 4.1, 4.2, 4.3, with little tweaks and changes added as the PHs and DMGs are released (like the re-done Stealth in PH2).

And with the #2 Core books we already have 4.1
Expertise feats, NAD enhancers, changed solo design, changed heavy armour (adventurer guide).
Add that to rather bad vanilla skill challenges and stealth rules.
Didn't WOtC promise to be more careful with playtesting?

Yeah, agreed. They aren't saying that the old stuff all needs errata/update (whether you agree with that or not is another matter). But rather they are saying that this is the new design basis that they are using for MM2 (and possibly onwards).

They only mentioned adjusting orcus if you did want the same design template applied to both monsters for the sake of having them battle one another like they talk about in that article.

That, however, does not stop anyone from making some or all of those changes to MM1 monsters if they feel it would work better for their group.

Of course they are saying that.
They can hardly say things like "We messed up badly when designing solo monsters which makes them unbalanced and boring. But we won't errata them. Instead you should buy our new book which has better solo monsters in it"

 

[Elric]

Of course they are saying that.
They can hardly say "We messed up badly when designing solo monsters which makes them unbalanced and boring. But we won't errata them. Instead you should buy our new book which has better solo monsters in it"

Actually, in the MM2 podcast, they say exactly that. Roughly, "We included hydras in MM2 in part because the MM1 hydras don't work, and we've decided not to errata the MM1 hydras."

One of the guys in the podcast mentions (around 9:00 in) finding out the hard way about the poor design of the hydra because Jonathan Tweet, who used a lot of solos and minions, was his GM, and the hydra didn't work ("It's really, really lame"). Then they laugh about wishing he'd run it before the game came out.

For what it's worth, the worst hydra of the bunch in MM1 is clearly the level 12 Fen Hydra, which both has a lower attack bonus for its level, only has 4 heads, and has no ranged attack. This gives it truly pitiful offense. It needs at least +2 to hit and +2 damage per head with its listed HP total, and with 100 fewer HP (to correspond to the MM2 design guidelines), it would need more damage still.

Now, even if the MM1 hydras had enough offense to be threatening, they'd still be boring due to the total lack of special abilities (they also have no incentive to ever spread out their attacks, making it a "beat on same character every round" kind of fight). Still, it would be better than a nonthreatening fight that would be boring even it is were threatening; that makes for a really boring fight.