Monster Manual 2 and Elite/Solo design

[CapnZapp]

Good post, Elric! Make it hard on the WotC apologetists!

(Just because we will have to live by WotC's decisions doesn't mean we have to like them. In fact, I dislike their underhanded way of fixing the game only for repeat customers; shucking the PHB1/DMG1/MM1-only customers by the wayside; so much I want the forums to erupt in complaints, as this is probably the only way they'll ever change. No wonder the customers pirate books. In one sense, that's voting with your wallets, taking for yourself what WotC should have given out for free)

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Good post, Elric! Make it hard on the WotC apologetists!

(Just because we will have to live by WotC's decisions doesn't mean we have to like them. In fact, I dislike their underhanded way of fixing the game only for repeat customers; shucking the PHB1/DMG1/MM1-only customers by the wayside; so much I want the forums to erupt in complaints, as this is probably the only way they'll ever change. No wonder the customers pirate books. In one sense, that's voting with your wallets, taking for yourself what WotC should have given out for free)

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."

 

[CapnZapp]

No, I think the only thing that makes sense is to put the improved stuff out in rule books, in print.

I agree, to a point.

I mean, I might not like such a stance (we'll errata broken monsters, but only in a book you'll have to pay for), but I could at least respect it.

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hey Elric!

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.

Totally agree with this. There is little benefit for a solo monster to ever be a brute. Slightly better damage contrasted against markedly worse AC and Attacks as well as no Initiative bonus (minor point).

The question becomes whether the damage difference is enough. By my reckoning they are a net 40% down on the soldier (20% more likely to get hit and 20% less likely to hit) which is the closest class.

At Level 15 the difference 2d8+6 vs. 3d6+6, thats 15 vs. 16.5, the difference should be 6 (40%), not 1.5.

At Level 30 the difference is 3d8+10 vs. 4d8+10, thats 23.5 vs. 28, the difference should be 9.4 (40%), not 4.5.

The main problem is that the damage doesn't factor ability score bonuses. So personally I would return Brute solos to using the 10 hp base.

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?

I don't think the Bebilith deals enough damage.

A Level 18 brute should deal 3d8+7, instead it deals 2d10+6, while its venomous bite deals 2d8+6 (and its a recharge 6 only usable while bloodied).

I would have made the venomous bite deal 4d12+7.

I still don't think WotC is utilizing the limited damage expressions to their fullest extent.

Looking over MM2 there seems to be very few solo monsters. The Dragons (20 - but essentially 5 monsters); Behir (and Bolter whelp); Hydras (3); Bebilith; Ultimate Beholder Tyrant; Dagon; Demogorgon. Then again, thats not many less than MM1 (same number of dragons and hydras and only 5 more total solo monsters). Maybe 10% or thereabouts is about right in fairness.

 

[tmatk]

No, I think the only thing that makes sense is to put the improved stuff out in rule books, in print.

...

Honestly, I would be OK with that! If they think the MM1 solos do not work, they should all have had their stat blocks reprinted in MM2. Or, they could have printed a template with some guidelines so we can update them ourselves. Or some other option I'm not thinking of. They shouldn't just leave them as is.

This is different then publishing a few pages of errata in PHB2. They are publishing new monsters with a design template that works better then the old one. That's great, but I would love some help fixing the ones I already payed for and play-tested!

 

[James McMurray]

My guess is that stuff will be in DMG2. Just like the creation of monsters was in the DMG, while actual monsters were in the MM.

 

[mach1.9pants]

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.

I appreciate his candor, but that's unacceptable IMO. The MM2 should be more/new monsters, not a replacement for a bunch of broken ones. I truly hope they offer some official guidelines for reworking MM1 creatures. They could have printed it in the MM2!!

I agree, I was really shocked by his 'we stuffed up, but we ain't gonna fix it' attitude. 'Hey I designed this jet and said it was capable of 9G but actually at 7G the wings fall off, oh well next jet we will fix'. It needs to be fixed, with a massive errata PDF if needs be, I certainly don't want different info in the Compendium to what is in the errata'd books. Just awful attitude.

My guess is that stuff will be in DMG2. Just like the creation of monsters was in the DMG, while actual monsters were in the MM.

Hopefully it will, but it still means those that only get the DMG1 (probably the majority?) are going to be going through crap (hydra) or grindy solos... well done WotC, that'll make them stay as customers...

 

[Derren]

I agree, I was really shocked by his 'we stuffed up, but we ain't gonna fix it' attitude. 'Hey I designed this jet and said it was capable of 9G but actually at 7G the wings fall off, oh well next jet we will fix'. It needs to be fixed, with a massive errata PDF if needs be, I certainly don't want different info in the Compendium to what is in the errata'd books. Just awful attitude.Hopefully it will, but it still means those that only get the DMG1 (probably the majority?) are going to be going through crap (hydra) or grindy solos... well done WotC, that'll make them stay as customers...

That seems to be the new way of WotC doing things.
Expertise, NAD feats, masterwork heavy armour. WotC sold errata rather often in 4E.

 

[tmatk]

My guess is that stuff will be in DMG2. Just like the creation of monsters was in the DMG, while actual monsters were in the MM.

I was thinking the same thing. If they want to avoid a nasty uproar, they should publish that section as a free pdf (at least the crunch anyway)

 

[James McMurray]

What nasty uproar? The online community will have a few threads about it, but it's a small percentage of sales. Most DMs will likely not even notice the change, and of those that do, many will have DDI subscriptions and get new stuff automatically.

Yes, they'll lose some sales because of this, but I'd be shocked to find out it's anywhere near as bad as those of us reading these threads often think.