Monster Manual II Design changes

[shadowoflameth]

I am a bit puzzled having just picked up the 4E mmII. I had heard about the changes to hit points from (5x) to (4x) even though the DMG says a new solo should have (5x) the usual number if it is 11th level or higher.

I understand that this was a suggestion, as is the damage table for monster powers in the DMG, but here's the pickle. The MM monsters are all or nearly all following the 'suggestions' in the DMG by roll instead of figures for defences, to hit and damage based on ability score and level. These however, do not follow either one. Demogorgon or Dagon can't do better than a 3d8+8 with a basic attack? Their strength scores alone would lead to a higher damage bonus than that. Why if the DMG is going to suggest such design hand waving based on level or roll do these creatures disigns not follow the publishers own suggestions? For a high level creature like Demogorgon who a party is going to encounter once at the end of a high level campaign the difference between 3d8+8 which is actiually less than the suggested damage for a creature of lower level per the DMG, not only have hundreds fewer hit points than another controller of a lower level but arbitrary damage less than the norm? Was this poor proof reading, or was there errata that I missed (and that should have been included with the book)? perhaps damage tables and the like have been extended beyond 30th level, and I missed it. If that is the reason though, why give a monster a 32 str. If even Demogorgon or Dagon can have it and still not do more than +8 damage with a basic attack, why bother.

Other creatures in the book have similar design differences, but I chose a high level example or two as an extreme case.

 

[keterys]

According to the DMG p185 the basic attack for a creature in that range should do between 2d8+11 and 4d8+12 depending on how you want to extend the scale, with 3d8+11 probably being about the right median point.

It's only 3 off from that. They could have instead of 3d8+8 (avg 21.5) done it as 3d6+11 and that would have matched Str 32, but it really has no need to do so.

 

[Mr. Teapot]

Demogorgon or Dagon can't do better than a 3d8+8 with a basic attack? Their strength scores alone would lead to a higher damage bonus than that.

Their Strength score has nothing to do with their basic attack. Monster damage is simply determined by role and level. Strength score doesn't figure in there at all. (To answer: Why give him a 32 Strength, the answer is "to know how much he can lift/move/etc for non-combat stuff, how good he is at Athletics, and his effectiveness at Bullrushing and grabbing. Every non-attack power use of Strength, really.)

Focusing just on the monster's basic attack is misleading, though, especially for a solo who will be using recharge or encounter attacks most turns (and have reactions and interrupts and auras to do additional damage). Orcus might never use his basic attack except for when taking OAs.


There was a slight change in Solo design in the MMII, that involved them having a lower HP total than MMI solos, but doing more damage when bloodied. And possibly lower defenses overall... I don't recall the details, exactly.

 

[Elric]

I am a bit puzzled having just picked up the 4E mmII. I had heard about the changes to hit points from (5x) to (4x) even though the DMG says a new solo should have (5x) the usual number if it is 11th level or higher.

Solo monsters in MM2 have x4 HP in the DMG's formula regardless of their level, and have the normal defenses for their role/level (unlike in MM1, where there defenses are generally 2 higher than a normal monster of their role/level). To compensate, MM2 solos do much more damage than MM1 solos.

Note that solo HP is independent of role- i.e., Brute Solos, Artillery Solos and Skirmisher Solos all use the same formula. There's a lot more discussion in http://www.enworld.org/forum/d-d-4th-edition-rules/256505-monster-manual-2-elite-solo-design.html.

 

[shadowoflameth]

Their Strength score has nothing to do with their basic attack. Monster damage is simply determined by role and level. Strength score doesn't figure in there at all. (To answer: Why give him a 32 Strength, the answer is "to know how much he can lift/move/etc for non-combat stuff, how good he is at Athletics, and his effectiveness at Bullrushing and grabbing. Every non-attack power use of Strength, really.)

Focusing just on the monster's basic attack is misleading, though, especially for a solo who will be using recharge or encounter attacks most turns (and have reactions and interrupts and auras to do additional damage). Orcus might never use his basic attack except for when taking OAs.


There was a slight change in Solo design in the MMII, that involved them having a lower HP total than MMI solos, but doing more damage when bloodied. And possibly lower defenses overall... I don't recall the details, exactly.

But the level (34th, which I would image as being more than the 27th - 30th bracket) and role of Demogorgon and Dagon are not reflected by 3d8+8. That damage does not appear anywhere in the DMG design suggestions. If it was 3d8+11 or even more, I wouldn't take issue, but neither the level/role specifications used in MM nor the level/ability type equations that a character or NPC might use are represented.

What I am asking is how these figures are arrived at. If the answer is arbitrary hand waving, so be it, but if so, it defeats the purpose of having suggested design parameters. The value of these was the reason for using them in MM. Any changes could certainly have been included in the book. (for difficult people like me).

I ued the basic attacks as a simple example, but the different kinds of powers accross the book do not follow the values listed in the DMG.

 

[shadowoflameth]

Solo monsters in MM2 have x4 HP in the DMG's formula regardless of their level, and have the normal defenses for their role/level (unlike in MM1, where there defenses are generally 2 higher than a normal monster of their role/level). To compensate, MM2 solos do much more damage than MM1 solos.

Note that solo HP is independent of role- i.e., Brute Solos, Artillery Solos and Skirmisher Solos all use the same formula. There's a lot more discussion in http://www.enworld.org/forum/d-d-4th-edition-rules/256505-monster-manual-2-elite-solo-design.html.

But then if part of the design change was less hit points, and defense, more damage, why does damage for these high level opponents quote less than what level/role in the DMG, (assuming a level 34 has at least as much as a 27th-30th)? 3d8+8 does not appear anywhere in the DMG tables and there are higher damage recommendations that do appear for lower level creatures than these. For demogorgon as an example, I would not have batted an eye at 3d8+11, or more.

The same is true for others in the book with rechage, encounter, and other powers.

 

[Flipguarder]

If the answer is arbitrary hand waving, so be it, but if so, it defeats the purpose of having suggested design parameters.

That's not necessarily true. If their original system only worked within the parameters of levels 1-30 than arbitrary hand waving could be completely viable for monsters designed above the levels allowed in the parameters for balance issues.

 

[shadowoflameth]

fair enough, but the damage figure in my example is actually lower than some that do appear in the DMG for lower level creatures, and the MMII has other creatures also sub par for their level on damage (going by the DMG suggestions). If it's a balance issue, why not then give Demogorgon or Dagon a 26 strength instead of 32.

I know, you can't please everyone. Maybe in playtesting, they did go higher and got TPKs

 

[Regicide]

I know, you can't please everyone. Maybe in playtesting, they did go higher and got TPKs

Dartboard says what the dartboard says.

 

[keterys]

fair enough, but the damage figure in my example is actually lower than some that do appear in the DMG for lower level creatures, and the MMII has other creatures also sub par for their level on damage (going by the DMG suggestions). If it's a balance issue, why not then give Demogorgon or Dagon a 26 strength instead of 32.

I know, you can't please everyone. Maybe in playtesting, they did go higher and got TPKs

You are under some mistaken assumption that there needs to be any correlation between its Strength score and its melee damage. The DMG guidelines are 1) just guidelines 2) specifically say they're not the same as official monster manual design 3) have no rules requiring that basic attack damage have anything to do with Strength or any other ability.

It's not expected that Solos are even all that likely to use their basic attacks, and even then may use their basic attacks many times - such as a hydra - so it is the expectation that a solo's results would vary from that damage chart, not that they would follow it.

Now, personally, I think a lot of the original monster manual - with some glaring exceptions, like needlefang drake swarms - deals far too little damage, and I've no doubt that there are cases of inadequate damage in the monster manual 2, but you're definitely quibbling over minor details here. If you'd really like it to deal at least +11 damage and retain the same average damage (roughly) do 3d6+11 instead of 3d8+8.