Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Elric" data-source="post: 4803512" data-attributes="member: 1139">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?</blockquote>

Verification