# D&D Podcast: MM2



## Rechan (May 27, 2009)

D&D Podcast: Monster Manual 2 (May 2009)


----------



## Leatherhead (May 27, 2009)

So, they added a subrole to minions.

It suddenly occurs to me I haven't actually looked at the book yet.


----------



## Henrix (May 27, 2009)

Nice podcast.
Good to hear a little about the new minion and solo construction rules - I hope we'll see them in DMG2.

And more myconoids! I never liked them before, but the new incarnation is nice, and the picture in the MM2 (and on the podcast page) is inspiring.


----------



## tmatk (May 27, 2009)

I really hope they publish some *free* guidelines for updating MM1 minions and solos to the MM2 standard. I was rather surprised to hear one of the designers admit the MM1 hydra was no good, but wouldn't be fixed. 

(I mentioned this in another thread - http://www.enworld.org/forum/d-d-4t...manual-2-elite-solo-design-2.html#post4803395)


----------



## ki11erDM (May 27, 2009)

Henrix said:


> Nice podcast.
> Good to hear a little about the new minion and solo construction rules - I hope we'll see them in DMG2.
> 
> And more myconoids! I never liked them before, but the new incarnation is nice, and the picture in the MM2 (and on the podcast page) is inspiring.





You are correct.  Infact I will be using myconoids for the first time just because of the pics.  And was not even going to buy the book (was just going to use DDI) but now going to just because of how cool those are.


----------



## Baumi (May 28, 2009)

*The new Podcast*

On the WOTC Site there is a new Podcast, which I will not be able to listen until the weekend 

So is there anything new and interesting in it?

P.S.: The last podcast about the Skill Challenges was quite good but there seems to be no discussion about it


----------



## Henrix (May 28, 2009)

Here's the thread with almost no discussion in it regarding the MM2 podcast.


----------



## Plane Sailing (May 28, 2009)

Henrix said:


> Nice podcast.
> Good to hear a little about the new minion and solo construction rules - I hope we'll see them in DMG2.
> 
> And more myconoids! I never liked them before, but the new incarnation is nice, and the picture in the MM2 (and on the podcast page) is inspiring.




Did they give female myconids boobies?

< /joke >


----------



## Nymrohd (May 28, 2009)

Zuggtmoy has huge assets why should myconid chicks fall short? Boobs for everyone I say! (provided they are female)


----------



## vagabundo (May 28, 2009)

Plane Sailing said:


> Did they give female myconids boobies?
> 
> < /joke >




hmmm mushroomy milk...


----------



## Ethalias (May 28, 2009)

Baumi said:


> On the WOTC Site there is a new Podcast, which I will not be able to listen until the weekend
> 
> So is there anything new and interesting in it?




There'll be another double page spread of Myconids in the Underdark book.. They've further improved (their words, obviously) minions in MM3. Solo's now have less HP and more dynamic powers.. Lots of very frank self-appraisal of where they feel they dropped the ball and are working to improve it.

I second the call for some form of article on house-ruling MM1 monsters, tho I can't see one coming through official channels. Perhaps Mearls might blog about it..


----------



## Baumi (May 28, 2009)

Thanks for the merge and for the Info so far!


----------



## avin (May 28, 2009)

I just can't stand the Cartoon Network new myconid visual.


----------



## CapnZapp (May 28, 2009)

Ethalias said:


> Lots of very frank self-appraisal of where they feel they dropped the ball and are working to improve it.



Except that they won't correct past mistakes, even though people paid good money for PHB1/DMG1/MM1. Money they shouldn't have to pay again.


----------



## Nymrohd (May 28, 2009)

But if they correct past mistakes in the DDI and the next print run of MM1 includes them will people not raise hell that this is stealth 4.5?


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (May 28, 2009)

CapnZapp said:


> Except that they won't correct past mistakes, even though people paid good money for PHB1/DMG1/MM1. Money they shouldn't have to pay again.



And they don't. They instead buy a different product (MM2, PHB2, whatever), that has great game material for them, and they might like it more than the old. Which is basically the point of buying a new product.

Why force people to print out pages of errata to use in their game, creating a confusing mess? Ever considered the usability of your suggestion? 



> But if they correct past mistakes in the DDI and the next print run of MM1 includes them will people not raise hell that this is stealth 4.5?



And that, too.


----------



## CapnZapp (May 28, 2009)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> Why force people to print out pages of errata to use in their game, creating a confusing mess? Ever considered the usability of your suggestion?



Who said making errata available for those who care forces those who don't to print it out?

If they at least reprinted the buggy MM1 monsters in MM2, that would make it clear as day that yes, the MM1 hydra is buggy, and yes, we're not giving out errata for free - *we make you pay to get corrections to our mistakes*. 

Other solutions could include having a warning icon in the monster builder, alerting the user to the fact the monster's been identified to have issues, even if no fix has been implemented. And when a fix does happen, they only honest way is to have a clear version history, so any DM can see that his notes might be outdated.

The core of the issue is transparency: the main beef about WotC's current practices is that they're underhanded. They fix the game, yes, but only if you continue to give them money, and not by making it clear the original design is flawed in any way.

Same with Expertise feats. They're presented as "more options" when in reality they're a fix.

It's a really shoddy way of doing business. Feels way too dishonest and indirect for my taste.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (May 28, 2009)

CapnZapp said:


> Who said making errata available for those who care forces those who don't to print it out?
> 
> If they at least reprinted the buggy MM1 monsters in MM2, that would make it clear as day that yes, the MM1 hydra is buggy, and yes, we're not giving out errata for free - *we make you pay to get corrections to our mistakes*.
> 
> ...




Dishonest? They telling us in podcasts and articles that they think they detected some issues and found approches to fix them. What you are complaining about is that they still want to make money in the process.

But sorry, that's the way it is. Products are constantly improved. You don't get them for free. The first batch of a new game console are often louder, have less hard disk space and what else. The next batch, a year later, has technological improvement that make them more silent or allow more space. You don't get the new one for free or as "errata". 

The point is a "suboptimal" monster is not the same as a faulty product. It works in game, but it could work better. It doesn't make the game unplayable. It doesn't pose a(n additional) health risk to you.


----------



## CapnZapp (May 28, 2009)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> But sorry, that's the way it is.



Don't feel sorry, consumers who doesn't like it can always complain until changes are made.

And thanks for the console comparison. Not because it's relevant (it isn't) but because it shows the lengths to which you'll apparently go to defend WotC. That ends this discussion for my part.


----------



## Jack99 (May 28, 2009)

CapnZapp said:


> Don't feel sorry, consumers who doesn't like it can always complain until changes are made.
> 
> And thanks for the console comparison. Not because it's relevant (it isn't) but because it shows the lengths to which you'll apparently go to defend WotC. That ends this discussion for my part.




It should, since you have no reasonable arguments. The german guy is right. This is how the world works. Nothing to do with WotC.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (May 28, 2009)

CapnZapp said:


> That ends this discussion for my part.



Yes, I think that makes the most sense. 

No need to have a WotC apologist and a WotC complainer to discussing anything. It certainly only annoys me.


----------



## Drkfathr1 (May 28, 2009)

CapnZapp said:


> Who said making errata available for those who care forces those who don't to print it out?
> 
> If they at least reprinted the buggy MM1 monsters in MM2, that would make it clear as day that yes, the MM1 hydra is buggy, and yes, we're not giving out errata for free - *we make you pay to get corrections to our mistakes*.
> 
> ...





Yeah, it's a real shame they couldn't have playtested that material before they published. 

Oh wait.


----------



## Doug McCrae (May 28, 2009)

It sounds like the 4e Keep on the Borderlands will be inspired by The House on the Borderland.


----------



## Henrix (May 28, 2009)

Nymrohd said:


> Boobs for everyone I say! (provided they are female)




How can you tell with a myconoid? Oh, I get it, they've got boobs! 

But, what would a being that isn't even an animal (nor a plant) have boobs for? To lure PCs*? 


* Seems unlikely that it'd work, even for PCs lost for months in the underdark.


----------



## Drkfathr1 (May 28, 2009)

Henrix said:


> How can you tell with a myconoid? Oh, I get it, they've got boobs!
> 
> But, what would a being that isn't even an animal (nor a plant) have boobs for? To lure PCs*?
> 
> ...




Never underestimate the power of BOOBS!


----------



## Nymrohd (May 28, 2009)

I am pretty sure that someone can draw a hot X-rated fungus chick. Someone probably already has. The internet after all was made for porn, right?


----------



## Doug McCrae (May 28, 2009)

Zuggtmoy, Demon Queen of Fungi, is one of the less sexy female arch-demons, but at least she has naughty tentacles.


----------



## Kwalish Kid (May 28, 2009)

That's far sexier than the Temple of Elemental Evil era illustrations!


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (May 31, 2009)

I finally heard the podcast on the way home today. 
There were few interesting things... 
- Regarding the errata "controversy" - it seems more as if the WotC designers seem to think as errata as a "cheap way" to fix stuff. "Oh, yeah, we made a mistake, but here's the errata, everything is fine now, nothing wrong ever happened." 

- They modified the Minions in that they added roles to give them more distinguishing features and make them easier to use. They don't go much into the damage increases they did.

- They described the changes to the Solos - No more 5x hit points at Paragon Tier and upwards, instead focusing more on adding extra damage and making the monster more dynamic during fight. 

- There is some talk about how the monsters background and use in a story influences its abilities, and how its abilities can be used to influence the narrative and how to use the monster in an adventure. One example they use is the Bullywugs "wrongness" and how one of the designer used them in his campaign in a "defiled swamp" scenario, where hitting and taking down Bullywugs slowly undid the curse the area was suffering from it. 
Sometimes monsters are apparently still driven by mechanical concerns, but once they have made up more background fluff for a monster, they get a feeling for it and the results are usually better (in their opinion, of course.) Upcoming products will feature monsters that will work even better than the MM2 monsters as they learned more during the process.


----------



## tomBitonti (May 31, 2009)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> I finally heard the podcast on the way home today.
> There were few interesting things...
> - Regarding the errata "controversy" - it seems more as if the WotC designers seem to think as errata as a "cheap way" to fix stuff. "Oh, yeah, we made a mistake, but here's the errata, everything is fine now, nothing wrong ever happened."




Some quotes that I found interesting:



> We decided not to errata that, and just, well just because we made a mistake doesn't mean we get to fix our mistake by doing errata.






> I wish I had him running it before the game came out.






> What mechanics make it interesting.


----------



## I'm A Banana (May 31, 2009)

This "incremental improvement of the game" is weirding me out a little bit.

It's great the problems are being fixed and all, but why push out a game with a release that hasn't been tested enough to find its biggest flaws?

I dunno. Why buy MM2 if MM3 is just going to invalidate 25% of the monsters in MM2 as things that were poorly designed?

In other news: Myconids who aren't playing air guitar are only slightly less awesome than those that are.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (May 31, 2009)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> This "incremental improvement of the game" is weirding me out a little bit.
> 
> It's great the problems are being fixed and all, but why push out a game with a release that hasn't been tested enough to find its biggest flaws?
> 
> ...



Why push out a release or why buy a release? 

There is always a point in any type of creative process is where you have define "this is as ready as we get. We can take 10 more days, months or years, and will find stuff to improve. But we have to release something now, or we end up as Duke Nukem Forever."

There is also the point of "I need new monsters now. The next monsters might be 3x times better, but I don't want to wait 12 months not playing the game."

It's a problem I have with purchasing computers all the time, actually. I know, no matter how long I wait, a few months later, there will be a better machine and it might even be _cheaper_ then the one I can get now. 

It's just something you have to live with. At some point, you decide you have to release something. At some point, you have to decide to buy something. 

You can't escape this problem. We can strive for perfection, but we can't achieve it.


----------



## Xfer83 (May 31, 2009)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> It's just something you have to live with. At some point, you decide you have to release something. At some point, you have to decide to buy something.
> 
> You can't escape this problem. We can strive for perfection, but we can't achieve it.





I agree with this statement, however I feel that that with the rise of the 'digital channels' which we now enjoy, WOTC has a perfect channel through which they could apply all the improvements they have come up with retroactively to older source material.

For example, why should they not update the MM1 and MM2 monsters(via DDI) to be just as dynamic and exciting as the MM3 monsters?

This would add value to the DDI, IMO, and they could even keep separate records of the 'original' versions and the 'updated' versions.

To me, it seems lazy for them to admit that mistakes were made, and then decide not to fix them, when DDI provides an ideal venue through which such changes could be made available.

They might not be able to achieve perfection, but they could give DDI subscribers 3 MMs worth of 'MM3 Quality' monsters, instead of 1.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (May 31, 2009)

But "fixing" the monsters in the MM1 doesn't come for free. 

It costs time. 
Just because they know that the MM1 Hydra is not as good as the MM2 Hydra in play doesn't mean the process to improve it is straightforward and done automatically.
They might be able to do that, but that would only help those that use DDI or otherwise incorporate all errata in their game. 

And this means that the people that want an MM3 will have to wait longer. Or pay more money. Or both. Oh, and of course, the DDI users will also have to wait longer for the MM3. 

The opportunity cost are still the same.


----------



## AllisterH (May 31, 2009)

I would also like to point out that assuming you levelled a mordant to level 20, it actually has a better than average chance of putting the smack down on the heroslayer (range 10? Swim 12? Plus Hydra Fury? The Heroslayer shouldn't even touch a mordant...)

My impression is that the heroslayer isn't more powerful per se...but more fun but it should be noted that when previewed, there were valid complaints that the heroslayer is not as interesting since it is a melee only threat...

(Now I'm thinking a mated pair--one's a heroslayer and the other is a mordant--hmm, what level of encounter is a level 18 solo and a level 20 solo together?)


----------



## Piratecat (May 31, 2009)

It's utterly painless for me to knock off 20% of the hydra's hit points and increase the damage by roughly a third; it'll take me literally 15 seconds at the table. Then again, I screw around with almost all the monsters I use, so I'm probably more used to it than many people. *shrug*


----------



## malraux (May 31, 2009)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> This "incremental improvement of the game" is weirding me out a little bit.
> 
> It's great the problems are being fixed and all, but why push out a game with a release that hasn't been tested enough to find its biggest flaws?




You do realize that when you find and fix a games biggest flaws, the second biggest flaw is now the biggest?


----------



## Rechan (Jun 1, 2009)

Piratecat said:


> It's utterly painless for me to knock off 20% of the hydra's hit points and increase the damage by roughly a third; it'll take me literally 15 seconds at the table. Then again, I screw around with almost all the monsters I use, so I'm probably more used to it than many people. *shrug*



Aye. 

Hell, I routinely turn elites into normal monsters, de-level higher level monsters, or steal a power form here or there to make something to suit my needs. So "fine tune whatcha got" is pretty habitual for me.

What I think needs ironing out and improving is the *PHB1* classes. For instance, the Warlord is fairly lacking, mechanically, imho. Compared to the Shaman or Bard, it's just _not robust_ as a class.


----------



## tomBitonti (Jun 1, 2009)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> Why push out a release or why buy a release?
> 
> There is always a point in any type of creative process is where you have define "this is as ready as we get. We can take 10 more days, months or years, and will find stuff to improve. But we have to release something now, or we end up as Duke Nukem Forever."
> 
> ...




Hi,

This is, of course, true.

I think the issue is that the creative process becomes more of a collaboration.  The overall game results from the combination of both the author's and the player's inputs.  The company is in the role of shepherding the process.

There is a cooperative mode that could have been taken in evolving the game in this fashion, but instead we have more of a cycle of internal deliberations (by "game designers") followed by product releases, followed by some data gathering, and rinse and repeat.

I think a truly transformative approach to building the game would have exposed more of the game evolution process to the fans, in an open source sort of fashion, with the company more as guiders, editors, polishers, and as points of contact for producing final products.  Wouldn't it be cool if there was a website where you could put in a monster idea, and get input on how to turn that idea into a playable monster?  Or, if the set design for miniatures allowed players to input which monsters and PC figures they wanted, and they could choose which went into the next set?


----------



## Dedekind (Jun 1, 2009)

Rechan said:


> What I think needs ironing out and improving is the *PHB1* classes. For instance, the Warlord is fairly lacking, mechanically, imho. Compared to the Shaman or Bard, it's just _not robust_ as a class.




Have you tried the PHB1 classes with the powers books? My warlord got way more interesting after I had access to more powers. Generally speaking, I think the powers books are meant to do what you suggest and I feel like they accomplish it.


----------



## Cadfan (Jun 1, 2009)

My thoughts on the podcast:

1. Its nice that they're willing to admit that this or that didn't work out quite as well as intended, and that they intend to change it in future releases.  I don't personally expect errata to update monsters that aren't actually broken, just less fun than they could be, so I don't get all snippy about that sort of thing and instead I just enjoy knowing the details of the design process.

2. I am a little annoyed at how they seem to have been surprised by minions, particularly high level minions, dying too fast.  Minions work GREAT when the area effect attacks available to the party are things like cleave and one character's scorching burst.  But they start to suck when the party has access to large amounts of auto damge area of effect attacks, or when several party members possess per encounter or at will area effect attacks.  This is not an unobvious thing.  It was literally the first worry I had about 4e in literally the first ten minutes after I opened the book for the very first time.  I like minion rules, I just think that its a bad idea to have minion rules AND a lot of automatic damage abilities.  I don't know what solution they've used, so I'll have to look into it, but this one did bug me.  I understand some solos not being quite as cool in practice as you anticipated after thousands of people playtest them, but the fact that auto damage and multiple large area of effects will demolish minions should not be a surprise.

3. I really appreciate that they've put some effort into making sure that classic monsters that are coming back are actually interesting and worthwhile for someone without a nostalgic connection to them.  I really, really appreciate this.


----------



## mach1.9pants (Jun 1, 2009)

Dedekind said:


> Have you tried the PHB1 classes with the powers books? My warlord got way more interesting after I had access to more powers. Generally speaking, I think the powers books are meant to do what you suggest and I feel like they accomplish it.



Unless you are a wizard with not very many controllery at wills!







Cadfan said:


> 1. Its nice that they're willing to admit that this or that didn't work out quite as well as intended, and that they intend to change it in future releases.  I don't personally expect errata to update monsters that aren't actually broken, just less fun than they could be, so I don't get all snippy about that sort of thing and instead I just enjoy knowing the details of the design process.



Whereas I am annoyed they are not putting out errata for it, or at least an 'optional' fix sheet for those DMs that want it or just a written down formula of how to fix. I think it is slack what they are doing.


----------



## OchreJelly (Jun 1, 2009)

mach1.9pants said:


> Whereas I am annoyed they are not putting out errata for it, or at least an 'optional' fix sheet for those DMs that want it or just a written down formula of how to fix. I think it is slack what they are doing.




This is just a guess on my part, but I bet we'll see something like this in DMG2.  Like ways to template monsters with formulas like you suggest.  I could easily see a -20% hp, + attack damage style formula being written up in template format.  They could even invert that by make a +20% hp / - attack damage template to create a "HP bag" style.  Heck they could call these "playstyle templates".  I certainly would appreciate something like this in a DM toolbox section.


----------



## Cadfan (Jun 1, 2009)

mach1.9pants said:


> Whereas I am annoyed they are not putting out errata for it, or at least an 'optional' fix sheet for those DMs that want it or just a written down formula of how to fix. I think it is slack what they are doing.



From the podcast I'm pretty sure it isn't just a simple formula to repair the monster.  Its more about making sure that solos have interesting changes in the way they function so as to keep you interested and engaged over a long period of time dealing with only one monster.

If it was just -20% hp +10% damage SHAZAM FUN!  Then sure, I'd be annoyed.  But I'm pretty sure that's not it.


----------



## Rechan (Jun 1, 2009)

Dedekind said:


> Have you tried the PHB1 classes with the powers books? My warlord got way more interesting after I had access to more powers. Generally speaking, I think the powers books are meant to do what you suggest and I feel like they accomplish it.



Yes, I own Martial Power. I don't think "Just more powers" do it, at all.


----------



## Dire Bare (Jun 1, 2009)

mach1.9pants said:


> Whereas I am annoyed they are not putting out errata for it, or at least an 'optional' fix sheet for those DMs that want it or just a written down formula of how to fix. I think it is slack what they are doing.




Because it's not errata.  They just found a better way of doing things, that's all.  

Besides, the monster makers amongst the fans need projects like "updating" the MM1 to keep them busy . . .


----------



## Pseudopsyche (Jun 2, 2009)

Cadfan said:


> From the podcast I'm pretty sure it isn't just a simple formula to repair the monster.  Its more about making sure that solos have interesting changes in the way they function so as to keep you interested and engaged over a long period of time dealing with only one monster.
> 
> If it was just -20% hp +10% damage SHAZAM FUN!  Then sure, I'd be annoyed.  But I'm pretty sure that's not it.



Well, I don't know if it would count as official, but the recent article D&D Alumni: Demogorgon suggests applying the following formula (in the context of reconfiguring Orcus for a deathmatch against Demogorgon): "give him 20% fewer hit points, -2 defenses, but also increase his damage output by 50% when bloodied."  This only brings Orcus "closer to the newer solo monster design tenets," so of course it's just a rough patch.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Jun 2, 2009)

Maybe minion suffered from a last minute rule change:

During DDE they read: minions are only killed by a hit.

Also Minions used to have hp for a while (Level = hp)
And monsters used to have higher damage and lower hp in general...

for some reasons they changed that...


----------



## Elric (Jun 2, 2009)

Pseudopsyche said:


> Well, I don't know if it would count as official, but the recent article D&D Alumni: Demogorgon suggests applying the following formula (in the context of reconfiguring Orcus for a deathmatch against Demogorgon): "give him 20% fewer hit points, -2 defenses, but also increase his damage output by 50% when bloodied."  This only brings Orcus "closer to the newer solo monster design tenets," so of course it's just a rough patch.




I've got my take on how to change Orcus, taking into account the MM2's new solo design guidelines, here.  

That article's suggestion seems insufficient. On the approximation that Orcus spends half his time bloodied, this amounts to +25% damage, which could compensate for -20% HP (on the further approximation that monster damage dealt per encounter is proportional to fight length, and fight length is proportional to monster HP, this works out to the same average damage per encounter), but not -2 to defenses as well.  Much more at the above link.


----------



## Plane Sailing (Jun 2, 2009)

I've started listening to the podcast, and I'm included in the 'wha?' camp.

I'm disappointed that they freely admit that they got stuff like the hydra wrong in the MM1 but aren't going to do anything to fix it. That's what errata is for, guys. Fix your mistakes.

I'm disappointed that they didn't realise that minions weren't worth the xps until after the release. What kind of playtesting did they do anyway? Nothing worth much from the looks of it when a couple of months of Jonathan Tweet found all kinds of problems (which many DMs on ENworld identified as a problem within the first couple of months of release too).

FWIW I would much rather they had treated 'minion' as a downgrade option that could be applied to standard monsters, much like elite can be applied as an upgrade. That could have been done in a way which solved the issue nicely without padding the MMs out with minion variants. Personally I like taking a standard creature, giving him 1hp and calling him a minion. He thus has an interesting range of options, gets some attacks, fits in different roles but still dies quickly. I never use standard minions.

I'm honestly surprised that they seem to have been taken by surprise by some of the problems with MM1. Adequate playtesting (as well as some thought given to the implications of auto-damaging powers) should have revealed a lot of these issues prior to release.

Colour me disappointed.

Regards,


----------

