# Monster Manual 2 and Elite/Solo design



## Elric (May 24, 2009)

WotC has changed their solo monster design with MM2.  See D&D Alumni: Demogorgon. 



> In your own version of this challenge, you might play these two as originally presented, or you might reconfigure Orcus closer to the newer solo monster design tenets: give him 20% fewer hit points, -2 defenses, but also increase his damage output by 50% when bloodied.




From the previews, it looks like solos are becoming roughly 4x the offense and 4x the HP of normal monsters.  It also looks like elites (as well as solos) do not have a bonus to defenses over normal monsters.  The DMG's guidelines (page 184) give +2 to three defenses to elites/solos, and this seems to be widely followed in the MM.  Can someone with MM2 confirm that solos/elites generally don't have higher defenses than normal monsters (of their level/role) in MM2?

If so, this is a major change: elites and solos no longer have a bonus to defenses, and solos have reduced HP at Paragon/Epic (and do more damage).


----------



## Cheesepie (May 25, 2009)

It could also speak to iterative design, to put it in a slightly more positive outlook.


----------



## Nifft (May 25, 2009)

Cheesepie said:


> It could also speak to iterative design, to put it in a slightly more positive outlook.



 Yeah, this.

Improvement is good, and it ought not garner disapproval.

Cheers, -- N


----------



## Regicide (May 25, 2009)

Cheesepie said:


> It could also speak to iterative design, to put it in a slightly more positive outlook.




  We're a little passed the design stage.  We're in beta testing!

  This makes me think that 4.5E is much more likely to happen now however.


----------



## Klaus (May 25, 2009)

Regicide said:


> We're a little passed the design stage.  We're in beta testing!
> 
> This makes me think that 4.5E is much more likely to happen now however.



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).


----------



## Elric (May 25, 2009)

So, to clarify, does anyone have MM2 and want to weigh in on whether elites have been changed to not have defense-bonuses over normal monsters?


----------



## SlyFlourish (May 25, 2009)

It does indeed look like they're boosting damage and decreasing hps about 20% for solo monsters from my statistical sample of 1.


----------



## pollochicken (May 25, 2009)

I read that the day after running a session and just thinking "Thank God!".  The session from the night before ended with the party running into an appropriate leveled solo but the fight lasted much longer than it needed to because they never hit him!*  The lower defense but higher damage output is something that I think will make my games run a little faster and be more fun.


*The problem was also probably in part due to me picking a solo creature shortly before the session without giving a lot of though to whether it was appropriate to the party.  Well, that may have been the main problem, but its nice to blame something else.


----------



## the Jester (May 25, 2009)

From glancing at a couple dragons, it looks like it.

Edit: Which I approve of.


----------



## Stalker0 (May 25, 2009)

I actually took a thorough look at the solos in MM2 because I was thinking of writing a post about this

Bottom line, its absolutely true.

Compare the hydras for example. The razor hydra has about 100 less hitpoints for its level than in standard 4e MM1 math. It also spots more damage that increases as the fight continues.

Also many solos now gets multiple turns per round which helps. There defenses are roughly -2 compared to MM1 math.

I haven't looked at elites much, but minions also got an upgrade at higher level.

You now have minions throwing out 12 and 15 damage on their attacks! Further, almost all high level minions have some kind of "aid their buddies" effect. Whether its an aura that gives -2 to defenses, giving temp hp to their buddies when they die, or making the party more vulnerable to something" the new goal of high level minions is "even when I'm not attacking, I'm doing something nasty".

Which I completely agree with.

I have not yet tested out any of the new MM2 creatures to see how effective the changes are, but I applaud the effort.

Bottom line guys, let's not beat up WOTC too much for actually listening to our complaints and altering how they design monsters to cater more to our desires. They have gathered the evidence, and have altered their designs based on it....and that is a beautiful thing for any game company to do.

While I do wish we could get some more errata to back track the changes into previous books, I don't mind that newer books push through better and better game design and that sometimes that requires me to convert some of the old stuff into the new model.

Last thing I'll say about this....in 3e if I was making a dragon I would spend 30 min to an hour picking feats and spells and magic items and special effects...so if it takes me 5 min to knock 20% of the HP off a red dragon, take off -2 to defenses, and then give them some extra damage...I can deal with that


----------



## cdrcjsn (May 25, 2009)

Regicide said:


> We're a little passed the design stage.  We're in beta testing!
> 
> This makes me think that 4.5E is much more likely to happen now however.




If DDI succeeds...then I don't think we'll ever see another edition, just print runs of updated rules with errata changes.


----------



## Primitive Screwhead (May 25, 2009)

Stalker0 said:


> Last thing I'll say about this....in 3e if I was making a dragon I would spend 30 min to an hour picking feats and spells and magic items and special effects...so if it takes me 5 min to knock 20% of the HP off a red dragon, take off -2 to defenses, and then give them some extra damage...I can deal with that




But it would be nice if this was announced in a manner other than buried in a preview {articles which I rarely read}....

This also makes it harder to have computer generated monsters. Sure, the basics are simple, but tacking on a variety of extra damage/powers/turns... 
Speaking of, I wonder if the WoTC online monster generator has been updated?
...and it looks like I have an excell spreadsheet critter generator to update now 

PS. Thanks Elric for catching this and letting me/us know!


----------



## Greatwyrm (May 25, 2009)

Regicide said:


> This makes me think that 4.5E is much more likely to happen now however.




I wouldn't say that.  Stuff like that will probably just show up in a section of the next MM or DMG, just like changes to Stealth were put in PHB2.


----------



## the Jester (May 25, 2009)

Primitive Screwhead said:


> But it would be nice if this was announced in a manner other than buried in a preview {articles which I rarely read}....




I'd bet you a dollar that we will see a discussion of alternate creature design in DMG2.


----------



## helium3 (May 25, 2009)

I'll have to take a look at my copy of the MM2 when I get home.

It's interesting though. When we first started playing, solo's were scary and often quite grindy. Now, they play out as rather whimpy if they aren't a few levels above the party or teamed up with a couple of other monsters.

Could be the selection of monster, that the party is just getting really good at what they do or both. More damage and hit points are fine in my book when coupled with lower defenses.


----------



## SlyFlourish (May 25, 2009)

"Last thing I'll say about this....in 3e if I was making a dragon I would spend 30 min to an hour picking feats and spells and magic items and special effects...so if it takes me 5 min to knock 20% of the HP off a red dragon, take off -2 to defenses, and then give them some extra damage...I can deal with that"

I agree. I would really love to have a basic rule that let me do it all in my head. I will soon get really good at cutting 20% in my head. (I actually cut 25%).


----------



## Dreadite (May 25, 2009)

I really like the new solo design, I ran a Young Adamantine Dragon against my group (who had recently faced down a Young Black Dragon a level ago) and the experience was very positive.  Admittedly Black Dragons are grindy, but the group enjoyed the faster paced fight a lot more.

It's prompted me to go back through the MM1 and try to adjust the solos to be a bit more like that.


----------



## FadedC (May 25, 2009)

Minions and swarms seem to have gone through a redesign too. Swarms got nerfed and now just have a small passive damage aura, and minion damage seems to scale much more quickly as it gains levels, and they are more likely to have other abilities besides damage, such as auras, nasty status effects on a hit, and nasty on death effects. There are several monsters that spawn minions as well, with the minions being considered part of the xp for that monster.


----------



## Runestar (May 26, 2009)

How would a 50% increase in damage affect abilities that don't really rely on hp? 

For example, Orcus's touch of death ability simply reduces the player to 0 hp. How might this be affected? An increase in recharge rate? Or no benefit at all? This is a key signature ability which the DM will likely want to use as often as possible since it is the most effective attack in his arsenal.


----------



## Klaus (May 26, 2009)

I'd say no change.


----------



## Obryn (May 26, 2009)

Primitive Screwhead said:


> But it would be nice if this was announced in a manner other than buried in a preview {articles which I rarely read}....
> 
> This also makes it harder to have computer generated monsters. Sure, the basics are simple, but tacking on a variety of extra damage/powers/turns...
> Speaking of, I wonder if the WoTC online monster generator has been updated?
> ...



Well, in fairness, the MM1 solo design still works.  They've just changed things up for future books.  It's not like those monsters can't be used anymore. 

-O


----------



## fba827 (May 26, 2009)

Obryn said:


> Well, in fairness, the MM1 solo design still works.  They've just changed things up for future books.  It's not like those monsters can't be used anymore.
> 
> -O




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.


----------



## Regicide (May 26, 2009)

fba827 said:


> 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.




  The "final" adventure isn't out yet?  It'll be interesting to see if they adjust Orcus for that.


----------



## CapnZapp (May 26, 2009)

Runestar said:


> How would a 50% increase in damage affect abilities that don't really rely on hp?
> 
> For example, Orcus's touch of death ability simply reduces the player to 0 hp. How might this be affected? An increase in recharge rate? Or no benefit at all? This is a key signature ability which the DM will likely want to use as often as possible since it is the most effective attack in his arsenal.



I wouldn't change anything for such powers. 

Just because there are exceptions doesn't mean it is a bad idea to have sweeping changes if those are generally useful for the game.

However, if the only indication we'll get that the dev team views the MM1 Solos as off is this snippet, it is a sad day indeed. 

It irritates me to no end that WotC simply aren't doing the decent thing, which is to 'fess up to their mistakes, and adding the changed Solo stats to the MM1 errata!


----------



## Pale Jackal (May 26, 2009)

A brief glance does show some differences.  Adamantine Dragon Adult (Soldier) vrs. Red Dragon Adult (Soldier), with the former having -2 to all defenses.  However, their HP, and rough damage output seems about the same.  Furthermore, I haven't really seen any fixes to prevent solos from being "stun-locked" in general.  There are some exceptions, like Demogorgon, but other than that...

Iron Dragon has a significantly lower AC than the Black Dragon, a good thing, but that's partially mitigated by his -5 Resist All immediate reaction.

So, there seems to be some differences, but nothing too major.  I suppose -2 to all defenses is a 10% change in staying power, and pretty easy to implement.


----------



## Stalker0 (May 26, 2009)

Pale Jackal said:


> So, there seems to be some differences, but nothing too major.  I suppose -2 to all defenses is a 10% change in staying power, and pretty easy to implement.




One thing I have learned in my many years of houseruling, is a little goes a long way. It doesn't usually take sweeping changes, even a few alterations can be enough.


----------



## Nebulous (May 26, 2009)

helium3 said:


> It's interesting though. When we first started playing, solo's were scary and often quite grindy. Now, they play out as rather whimpy if they aren't a few levels above the party or teamed up with a couple of other monsters.
> 
> Could be the selection of monster, that the party is just getting really good at what they do or both. More damage and hit points are fine in my book when coupled with lower defenses.




Well, i just ran our first solo fight yesterday with five 5th level heroes and one goblin NPC against an 8th level solo.  I designed the monster with MM2 tenets in mind, and tried to give it some cool control powers.  It was a nasty lurker that more or less ambushed the party.  Here's how it ended about 10 rounds later:







The wizard botched, and i mean REALLY botched his rolls and was more or less ineffective. The dwarf fighter used Pinning Strike fairly early on and for the rest of the encounter the spider could NOT move. That just slaughtered it.  It had a web attack it used to good effect in round 1, but then the PCs closed in and the damage dealers started whacking at it. The only character who was ever in danger was the single warlord who was grabbed, squeezed and bitten by poison several times. 

While we were playing this out i told the players how much damage they'd done, what the monsters attacks were, how it had 2 action points, and when they had it close to death.  I wouldn't normally do that but i wanted them to see behind the scenes way solos worked. 

It scared them plenty bad at first (as any huge demonic spider-thing of Torog would do) but ultimately the fight was a little lackluster for me, as i could tell after a certain point that this thing was just screwed and there was nothing i could do.

It had less hit points than a MM1 solo would have, and it had some interesting attacks that could potentially dish out lots of damage. It also had ranged web and a sedative spray (that it never used) and a cool adhesive lure that drags prey closer.  There was also terrain features that added some tactical nuances to the encounter, like the dwarf almost getting pulled into a river with webbing. 

My opinion is that the monster needed HELP.  It needed allies.  It needed flanking opportunities and it needed for someone to drag that goddamn dwarf away and ruin her Pinning Strike. Plus, the barbarain was knocking the monster prone every other round, but it couldn't run away anyhow. 

It was still very fun though, and i look forward to running a solo again, but it takes some careful tweaking to make a solo fight as fun as an encounter with many enemies.  And avoiding a grindfest where the PCs will inevitably just win by war of attrition.


----------



## tmatk (May 27, 2009)

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!!


----------



## Regicide (May 27, 2009)

tmatk said:


> 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 broken, but editing the "update" PDF on the website is too difficult.  Ya, wonderful.  Remind me why I pay these _people_ for their books again?  Must be the pretty pictures.


----------



## Pale Jackal (May 27, 2009)

tmatk said:


> 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!!




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.


----------



## tmatk (May 27, 2009)

Pale Jackal said:


> 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 (May 27, 2009)

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 (May 27, 2009)

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 (May 27, 2009)

tmatk said:


> 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 (May 27, 2009)

> 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 (May 27, 2009)

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 (May 27, 2009)

Hospitaler's Blessing needs to be nerfed.

Change it to "once per round".


----------



## Lauberfen (May 27, 2009)

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 (May 27, 2009)

Klaus said:


> 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?



fba827 said:


> 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 (May 27, 2009)

Derren said:


> 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.


----------



## CapnZapp (May 28, 2009)

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 (May 28, 2009)

CapnZapp said:


> 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 (May 28, 2009)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> 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 (May 28, 2009)

Hey Elric! 



			
				Elric said:
			
		

> 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 (May 28, 2009)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> 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 (May 28, 2009)

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 (May 28, 2009)

tmatk said:


> 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.







James McMurray said:


> 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 (May 28, 2009)

mach1.9pants said:


> 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 (May 28, 2009)

James McMurray said:


> 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 (May 28, 2009)

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.


----------



## the8bitdeity (May 28, 2009)

tmatk said:


> 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!




I completely agree. We were told frequent errata would be more frequent with 4e. I have the feeling some bean counting project manager thinks the time involved for errating the MM1 would be too long.


----------



## tmatk (May 28, 2009)

James McMurray said:


> 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.




You are probably right. I should have said "hopefully they'll do the right thing and release it as a free pdf." 

Yes, I know, not going to happen.


----------



## James McMurray (May 28, 2009)

There may be an article or two about it in Dragon, which will leak out slowly in discussion threads. Even barring that, the little we already have been told (80% hp, 150% damage) is enough to quickly and easily get a rough conversion for any MM1 monster. The guideline could stand to be more prominently stated, but why waste the effort updating a book that is unlikely to see many more sales when you can type a sentence and people that care can do it themselves?


----------



## the Jester (May 29, 2009)

Seriously, people, the math's not that hard.

-2 to all defenses... 4/5 hit points... increase damage a fair amount, perhaps by doubling the damage dice the monster deals and leaving the damage bonus the same (e.g. 1d10+7 becomes 2d10+7).

What's all the hubub about? You guys have calculators built in to your computers. If you have trouble with the math, just punch it in!


----------



## SlyFlourish (May 29, 2009)

They could errata it by this point but I don't know that it matters to me. Even with the changes, I generally don't run monsters by the book anymore. I'm addicted to my 75% hp and +1/2 level mod. As a DM I have a lot more fun with monsters and the battles go a lot faster for our group. I'll probably stick to this house rule even with MM2 guys.

The nice thing is I can do this mod with just sticky notes pasted in the book.


----------



## Greatwyrm (May 29, 2009)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> 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."




I have a lot of respect for Steve Jackson Games, but if you want to see a good example of this, take a look at the GURPS 3e Errata page.  Books that saw a lot of printings, like the Basic Set, Space, and Supers have their own, unique errata for each printing.  That'd be a bear to keep track of.


----------



## Pale Jackal (May 29, 2009)

James McMurray said:


> There may be an article or two about it in Dragon, which will leak out slowly in discussion threads. Even barring that, the little we already have been told (80% hp, 150% damage) is enough to quickly and easily get a rough conversion for any MM1 monster. The guideline could stand to be more prominently stated, but why waste the effort updating a book that is unlikely to see many more sales when you can type a sentence and people that care can do it themselves?






> -2 to all defenses... 4/5 hit points... increase damage a fair amount, perhaps by doubling the damage dice the monster deals and leaving the damage bonus the same (e.g. 1d10+7 becomes 2d10+7).




Mind pointing out where they said it?  Because if that is their suggestion, then that's fine.  It'd still be nice if they made it official, though, by including it in the MM1 errata.  Personally, I was going to go with 3/4 solo HP and +1/2 lvl + 1 damage bonus, which seems to be roughly a 50% increase in damage, at least for the level 12 green dragon.  It's also easier to add 7 damage per attack than multiplying the damage by 150%.

Doubling the damage dice is a nice easy fix too, but seems less precise.  The monsters involved also might end up doing less damage during a fight... though it looks okay for most of the monsters, like the Primordial Naga, except maybe the Primordial Hydra, assuming I calculated out its damage per fight under the +1/2 lvl. +1 damage rule.


----------



## Elric (May 29, 2009)

the Jester said:


> Seriously, people, the math's not that hard.
> 
> -2 to all defenses... 4/5 hit points... increase damage a fair amount, perhaps by doubling the damage dice the monster deals and leaving the damage bonus the same (e.g. 1d10+7 becomes 2d10+7).




I don't think WotC should necessarily errata all of the MM1 solos to correspond to the new solo guidelines, though including a (free) detailed discussion of how their basic guidelines changed (so you can change the MM1 numbers yourself) would be nice.  The Fen Hydra would still be a very bad solo if it had -20% HP, -2 to all defenses, and, say, +40% damage.  That's a sign it should definitely receive errata.



Greatwyrm said:


> I have a lot of respect for Steve Jackson Games, but if you want to see a good example of this, take a look at the GURPS 3e Errata page.  Books that saw a lot of printings, like the Basic Set, Space, and Supers have their own, unique errata for each printing.  That'd be a bear to keep track of.




Mutants and Masterminds updates their rulebooks to correspond to known errata on new printings and issues new versions of errata accordingly.  At the moment, there’s the original book, the 2nd/3rd printings, and the most recent printings, which include all known errata for earlier printings.  So that’s only 3 errata files to worry about.  It certainly seems superior to the potential alternative of not updating new printings with known errata.

As long as the errata are (reverse) cumulative (which it will be if you don’t make new mistakes when updating the book for new printings); when you add something to the 2nd printing errata, you add it to the 1st printing errata as well.  So it just means updating more errata documents.



Pale Jackal said:


> Mind pointing out where they said it?  Because if that is their suggestion, then that's fine.  It'd still be nice if they made it official, though, by including it in the MM1 errata.  Personally, I was going to go with 3/4 solo HP and +1/2 lvl + 1 damage bonus, which seems to be roughly a 50% increase in damage, at least for the level 12 green dragon.  It's also easier to add 7 damage per attack than multiplying the damage by 150%.




My original post quotes and links to a column saying that redesigning Orcus in accord with MM2’s solo guidelines would reduce his HP by 20%, give him -2 defenses, and increase his damage while bloodied by 50%.  I think this set of changes would generally make solos too weak, as if you assume that the solo is bloodied half the time, this is only +25% damage, which would balance -20% HP fine, but not -2 to defenses on top of that.  +40% damage seems more appropriate.


----------



## Pale Jackal (May 29, 2009)

Elric said:
			
		

> My original post quotes and links to a column saying that redesigning Orcus in accord with MM2’s solo guidelines would reduce his HP by 20%, give him -2 defenses, and increase his damage while bloodied by 50%. I think this set of changes would generally make solos too weak, as if you assume that the solo is bloodied half the time, this is only +25% damage, which would balance -20% HP fine, but not -2 to defenses on top of that. +40% damage seems more appropriate.




Thanks.  I agree that those changes as written (+50% bloodied) seem insufficient.



			
				Pale Jackal said:
			
		

> Doubling the damage dice is a nice easy fix too, but seems less precise. The monsters involved also might end up doing less damage during a fight... though it looks okay for most of the monsters, like the Primordial Naga, except maybe the Primordial Hydra, assuming I calculated out its damage per fight under the +1/2 lvl. +1 damage rule.




Actually, according to my fix, the Primordial Hydra would do about an extra 200 damage per fight (~750 vrs. ~540), assuming 50% chance to hit, no OAs, and a 7.5 round fight since there's -25% HP involved.  Primordial Naga, Adult Red Dragon, and I think Young Solo Blue seemed to work out well... so maybe the Primordial Hydra's an exception, and the Ancient Black Dragon seems to do an extra, say, 120 damage per fight, but its acid damage is kind of a pain to estimate, so I'm not sure how much the base value is.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (May 29, 2009)

mshea said:


> They could errata it by this point but I don't know that it matters to me. Even with the changes, I generally don't run monsters by the book anymore. I'm addicted to my 75% hp and +1/2 level mod. As a DM I have a lot more fun with monsters and the battles go a lot faster for our group. I'll probably stick to this house rule even with MM2 guys.
> 
> The nice thing is I can do this mod with just sticky notes pasted in the book.




I think if it was just this to fix, they could relatively easily do it. Still most people would probably miss it.

But the "new, improved Hydra" does a lot more than just change some damage values and defenses. It gets a different set of abilities so that it becomes more interesting as a Solo. 

That is more than the typical errata of "oh, we forget 3 skill points and forget to maximize the first hit die of the NPC".
It is: "Oh, this guy isn't actually a Wizard, instead he gets these 9 new spell-like abilities". (To phrase it in 3.x terms.) It is, essentially, a new monster.

It is not "Oh, the door hinges of this product line do corrode unusually fast, we'' fix that soon" it is "Well, we discovered that a Diesel middle motor will give us a better performance."


----------



## Coffee Dragon (May 30, 2009)

Lauberfen said:


> 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?




From looking at the Adamantine Dragons (and comparing them to the red ones), it seems they use the x4 multiplier all the way up to level 30 now, instead of switching to x5 when you hit the paragon tier.

From the MM2 samples it seems the new paradigm is to give solos multiple turns per round, with metallic dragons as the exception. I didn't see any solos listed with +50% damage when bloodied, though. Maybe that's just Orcus v2.0. 

The suggestion of using 10 as the HP factor for brutes instead of 8 makes sense to me given their low defenses. I was considering lowering the HP of lurker and artillery solos to a factor of 6 as well (for flavor reasons), but that might be overkill.


----------



## Elric (May 30, 2009)

Upper_Krust said:


> 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.




Soldiers may be the closest role concept-wise, but they're probably the strongest role, on average, because of their great AC/attack bonus.  So I don't think Brutes need to make it all the way to a Soldier's level of power.



> 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.




For MM1 Paragon/Epic solos, returning Brutes to the 10 HP base but multiplying Paragon/Epic solo HP by x4 instead of x5 would leave them with -Con score HP compared to their current HP.  That’s an easy change, numerically.  However, if you did this, would you also want to change Solo Artillery/Lurker HP so it mirrors their 6 HP base?  That’s not clear to me.  

There’s a general problem with applying "one-size fits all" solutions to published monsters as WotC changes monster design. If WotC takes steps over time to compensate Brutes/Artillery/Lurkers solos for their adjusted HP, whether you'd want to still apply your original fix to the new solos that were designed with this in mind. Maybe when MM3 comes out they’ll have a podcast where they mention “we found out this was an issue and fixed it in this book” and then you’ll know to modify MM1/MM2 solos accordingly, but I doubt it.

Looking at the Bebilith and Heroslayer Hydra preview (L20 solo brute)  (I had forgotten that one), both have effectively greater attack bonuses than the Brute’s standard level +3 vs. AC.   The Bebilith reduces enemy AC over the course of the encounter, and the Hydra attacks are at level+5 (the two eldest White Dragons in the MM1 have attacks at level+5 vs. AC as well).  So maybe WotC is learning to compensate Solo Brutes better in general.



> 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).




The Bebilith gets 4 uses of its claws a round, though, and the AC penalty is nasty, so it can deal less than the high damage expression per hit.  By the way, I don’t like using the DMG damage expressions straight up, because they lump 3 levels together each time and have some very odd choices (why is it that the “high damage expression” is the same for level 16-18 and 19-21 while the medium and low-damage expressions both increase?)  Fitting a line to the high damage expression suggests that level 18 should be 19.8 damage.  Not a big difference, but it’s something to consider when designing and evaluating monsters.



> 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.




I agree that Venemous Bite should deal more damage.  A recharge on a 6 “only when bloodied” power should be better than its regular attack, but the Bebilith generally won’t want to use Venemous Bite if it has the opportunity to hit two foes with its claws.  

The Bebilith's Flaming Web is a minor action, which is strange because the Bebilith doesn't receive any minor actions, but giving it one minor action between its two turns a round would significantly power up its offense.

The last issue with the Bebilith is that having it go at initiative counts 10 and 20 is too late in the round; 25 and 15 would be more appropriate.  You don't want the PCs to all beat initiative 20 (which could easily happen with a Warlord with the Combat Commander feat) and have the Bebilith going twice in a row every round.


----------



## AllisterH (May 31, 2009)

Derren said:


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




No here plays Magic:TG?

Unless the card doesn't do exactly what it was intnded to do, WOTC will not issue errata on a card. 

E.g. For many years, WOTC was trying to improve the green colour and printed many a card that was intended to *FIX* the colour but they never went back and errata'd the older cards...


----------



## keterys (May 31, 2009)

I find it a lot trickier to 'errata' cards than it is to errata a game system.

So, for example, WotC did change the basic rules during that time very slightly (ie, the phases, what each keyword like First Strike, Trample, etc does), banned some cards from most play, but they hardly ever actually change cards such that you'd have to, dunno, sharpie them.

In this case, they could easily have written a rules update in such a way that everyone gets a +1 bonus to attack and all defenses at 11th and 21st. They changed Stealth, Conjurations, and how "Failed Save" effects work in the PH2 for instance.


----------



## GMforPowergamers (May 31, 2009)

keterys said:


> In this case, they could easily have written a rules update in such a way that everyone gets a +1 bonus to attack and all defenses at 11th and 21st.




as i said in the Expertise thread...



GMforPowergamers said:


> We have seen and herd form groups who played through all three teirs of play H,P,E and never found themselves in this slump of "I can't hit" lets call them group A
> We have seen and herd from groups who played to paragon and felt the defences went up to much and the game watered down...lets call them group B
> We have seen and herd form groups who in epci felt the monsters got to tough. we will call them group C.
> We have seen people complain (I may be bias but I give this group the least amount of slack) that right from day one 1st level the game is too hard. we will call them group D.
> ...


----------



## keterys (May 31, 2009)

Wrong thread.


----------



## Elric (May 31, 2009)

I'd rather that this thread not end up as a discussion of WotC errata policy in general, particularly errata policy as it relates to things like the Expertise feats (which is very far afield from the topic of monster design), as there are plenty of other threads where Expertise is being discussed now or has been discussed recently.


----------



## keterys (May 31, 2009)

Good call that, sorry


----------



## AllisterH (May 31, 2009)

1. Aren't SKIRMISHERS the baseline monster? What I mean is that the skirmisher is the "default" role and that designers then justify how a monster should be different from this default?

2. The heroslayer hydra is a weird case though...At first glance, the heroslayer hydra looks like it does more damage than the MMI but when it was previewed, many people pointed out that the heroslayer has absolutely no ranged attacks. In fact, a mordant hydra vs a heroslayer is tilted towards the mordant IMO due to the ranged ability.

3. There isn't THAT much change between MMi and MM2 other than paragon-level solos and above plus minions...The biggest difference is that the WOTC designers seem willing to "stretch" the mechanics...


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (May 31, 2009)

AllisterH said:


> 1. Aren't SKIRMISHERS the baseline monster? What I mean is that the skirmisher is the "default" role and that designers then justify how a monster should be different from this default?.



Hmm. I don't think so. At least I have never heard of this before, did I miss it?


----------



## Upper_Krust (May 31, 2009)

Hello again Elric! 



			
				Elric said:
			
		

> Soldiers may be the closest role concept-wise, but they're probably the strongest role, on average, because of their great AC/attack bonus.  So I don't think Brutes need to make it all the way to a Soldier's level of power.




The thing is, soldiers may be the strongest role, but are they meant to be or are all the roles meant to be roughly equal? Clearly the solo brute isn't equal to the solo soldier, and arguably maybe not the other (solo) roles.

The suggestion from WotC is that solo monsters don't conform as strictly to the roles as standard monsters. But in the end the math still matters.

Skirmisher seems to be the default build. With Lurker having less hit points but (supposedly) doing more damage. Controllers have no +2 init. bonus, but +1 better attack vs. defenses. They also supposedly use the low damage column (more often than not), but their attacks will affect multiple targets and are usually ranged and will inflict conditions.



> For MM1 Paragon/Epic solos, returning Brutes to the 10 HP base but multiplying Paragon/Epic solo HP by x4 instead of x5 would leave them with -Con score HP compared to their current HP.  That’s an easy change, numerically.




Indeed.



> However, if you did this, would you also want to change Solo Artillery/Lurker HP so it mirrors their 6 HP base?  That’s not clear to me.




Yes, I definately would.

I think Skirmisher, Brute, Lurker, Controller and Artillery are all balanced against each other when the hit points are retained.



> There’s a general problem with applying "one-size fits all" solutions to published monsters as WotC changes monster design. If WotC takes steps over time to compensate Brutes/Artillery/Lurkers solos for their adjusted HP, whether you'd want to still apply your original fix to the new solos that were designed with this in mind. Maybe when MM3 comes out they’ll have a podcast where they mention “we found out this was an issue and fixed it in this book” and then you’ll know to modify MM1/MM2 solos accordingly, but I doubt it.




Well for me its pertinent because I am putting together a third party 4E bestiary called Vampires & Demons, so I want to have things as balanced as possible.



> Looking at the Bebilith and Heroslayer Hydra preview (L20 solo brute)  (I had forgotten that one), both have effectively greater attack bonuses than the Brute’s standard level +3 vs. AC.   The Bebilith reduces enemy AC over the course of the encounter, and the Hydra attacks are at level+5 (the two eldest White Dragons in the MM1 have attacks at level+5 vs. AC as well).  So maybe WotC is learning to compensate Solo Brutes better in general.




Thats interesting, hadn't spotted that. But given the other Hydra's don't follow that and neither does the Silver Dragon we can probably chalk that up to a mistake.



> The Bebilith gets 4 uses of its claws a round, though, and the AC penalty is nasty, so it can deal less than the high damage expression per hit.  By the way, I don’t like using the DMG damage expressions straight up, because they lump 3 levels together each time and have some very odd choices (why is it that the “high damage expression” is the same for level 16-18 and 19-21 while the medium and low-damage expressions both increase?)  Fitting a line to the high damage expression suggests that level 18 should be 19.8 damage.  Not a big difference, but it’s something to consider when designing and evaluating monsters.




I would always at least use the maximum dice allowable...naturally ability score bonuses may vary a bit.



> I agree that Venemous Bite should deal more damage.  A recharge on a 6 “only when bloodied” power should be better than its regular attack, but the Bebilith generally won’t want to use Venemous Bite if it has the opportunity to hit two foes with its claws.
> 
> The Bebilith's Flaming Web is a minor action, which is strange because the Bebilith doesn't receive any minor actions, but giving it one minor action between its two turns a round would significantly power up its offense.
> 
> The last issue with the Bebilith is that having it go at initiative counts 10 and 20 is too late in the round; 25 and 15 would be more appropriate.  You don't want the PCs to all beat initiative 20 (which could easily happen with a Warlord with the Combat Commander feat) and have the Bebilith going twice in a row every round.




Its fairly obvious the Bebilith has a number of design flaws, what is surprising is how many.


----------



## Elric (May 31, 2009)

Upper_Krust said:


> The thing is, soldiers may be the strongest role, but are they meant to be or are all the roles meant to be roughly equal? Clearly the solo brute isn't equal to the solo soldier, and arguably maybe not the other (solo) roles.




The monster roles are clearly meant to be roughly equal.  However, that doesn't mean the solution to "soldiers are the best role" is "make all other monsters as powerful as soldiers."  One should probably try to adjust roles using the current median strength role as a baseline.



> Yes, I definately would.
> 
> I think Skirmisher, Brute, Lurker, Controller and Artillery are all balanced against each other when the hit points are retained.




Looking at the MM Solo Artillery, the Blue Dragons, Beholder Eye Tyrant (Disintegrate ray!), and Primordial Naga deal more damage than most solos of a different role at a similar level.  So as written, it might make sense to go back and adjust their HP.  It's hard to evaluate MM Lurker Solos, because the only one is the Black Dragon (which has the powerful and annoying Cloud of Darkness).


----------



## Pickles JG (May 31, 2009)

Elric said:


> The monster roles are clearly meant to be roughly equal. However, that doesn't mean the solution to "soldiers are the best role" is "make all other monsters as powerful as soldiers." One should probably try to adjust roles using the current median strength role as a baseline.




Soldiers do seem too good often. IMO its because they often get good damage & effects that they should not in combination with their higher accuracy. Also high AC is so much better than higher HP at heroic (& I expect later though I have no experience...)

As regards errata I think we are stuck with the CCG model of not errata but shiny new stuff to make us forget. In practice I do not mind much about the weaker things being dropped. I am a bit concerned about OP stuff sticking about - but that does not apply to monsters really but to one of those other threads.


----------



## AllisterH (May 31, 2009)

Again, I'll point out that the mordant hydra would give the heroslayer hydra absolute fits either in a swamp or at range (6 attacks at range 10, Swim 12?) assuming you levelled the mordant to level 20.

So I'm not sure how the heroslayer is a more powerful hydra...More INTERESTING for sure, but more powerful? I don't think so...

re: SOLDIERS
Soldiers seem to be the favourite of DMs to use because they hit hard and are hard to put down, but are also the ones most players complain about...


----------



## castro3nw (May 31, 2009)

AllisterH said:


> No here plays Magic:TG?
> 
> Unless the card doesn't do exactly what it was intnded to do, WOTC will not issue errata on a card.
> 
> E.g. For many years, WOTC was trying to improve the green colour and printed many a card that was intended to *FIX* the colour but they never went back and errata'd the older cards...





I play a decent amount of MtG.  WotC does in fact issue errata on older cards.  (They've changed the creature type on a ridiculous number of old cards for no good reason) And much like they're doing now with the DDI, the erratas are often as not fairly random and only posted in their version of DDI, 'Gatherer'


----------



## Stalker0 (Jun 1, 2009)

AllisterH said:


> Soldiers seem to be the favourite of DMs to use because they hit hard and are hard to put down, but are also the ones most players complain about...




Soldiers get the best hitpoints and overall defenses, and combined with a solid attack bonus and decent damage...they are definitely the best overall monster role. Unfortunately they are also one of the most boring.


----------



## ryryguy (Jun 2, 2009)

mshea said:


> 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.




Big caveat - my experience with solos is very limited.  But I've gathered that the big issues that people have had with them are

1) Too many hp (or too high defenses) -> grind.
2) Too vulnerable to conditioned-based lockdowns.  (thus, mshea's house rule)
3) Not doing enough damage.

I've been kicking around an idea that might address 1 and 2 simultaneously.  (2 & 3 are probably partially related; conditions leading to loss of actions and/or penalties on attacks obviously reduce the solo's ability to deal damage.  So addressing 2 should help 3 a bit...  but you could also just up the damage output a bit as MM2 does easily enough.)

What if a solo can use its hit points to reduce or remove conditions?  The general thought is that it isn't wasted effort for players to tag the solo with a condition, because it does indirect damage, but doesn't spoil the fight.

Say there's some amount of hitpoints "X".  I'm not sure what "X" should be, maybe 5% of the solo's total hit points?  But any way, some constant value.

Give the solo two or three immediate-action powers that are triggered by conditions.  Each has a cost in "X".  Powers like these:


mshea's Stun & Daze resist: costs 1X.  (maybe 2x for stun?)
instinctive retreat: costs 1X; when immobilized or slowed, the solo can shift its speed.
Unconscious defense: costs 2x; while unconscious, gain resist 5/10/15 to all damage, and a damaging aura.
Can't touch me!: costs 3x; end any condition immediately
Snuff zone: costs 2x; immediately dispel a zone.  (this could be a regular standard action power instead of an immediate action I suppose)
Infinite reactions: costs 1X; the solo can take an additional immediate action this round.

At the risk of getting too complicated to track, I'd also say that each time the solo uses a particular one of these powers, the cost increases by 1X.  But when the solo becomes bloodied for the first time in the encounter, reset the costs to their original levels.

Finally I might say that the solo can't use one of these powers if the hit point cost would cause it to become bloodied.  (Basically, no cheating to get bloodied on purpose to recharge dragon's breath, etc.)

This is an admittedly half-baked idea... but has anyone tried anything similar?  What do you think?


----------



## Elric (Jun 2, 2009)

Here’s my take on modifying Orcus (MM, pg 206), taking into account MM2’s changes to solo design guidelines.  With a little work, Orcus can become a more interesting and dangerous opponent, while staying true to the basics and the theme of his MM version. Thoughts appreciated.

*1)* Reduce HP from 1,525 to 1,320; Change Bloodied from 762 to 660.
Reduce AC by 2, Fort/Ref/Will by 3.  This gives AC 46; Fortitude 48; Reflex 43, Will 46

Start by changing Orcus to give him -20% HP and -2 to defenses according to MM2’s design guidelines.  I’ve subtracted a little more from F/R/W because even with -2, they’d be well above the 12+level average recommended in the DMG (pg 184). In accord with the change in solo design, HP for a solo=[(level+1)*8+Con]*4 (in MM1, solos at Paragon/Epic have *5 here instead of *4).  This would equal 1,220 HP.  I’ve added 100 to this because the solo HP formula is independent of role, but as a Brute Orcus has 1 lower AC than baseline AC of 14+level (after my above change to his defenses; note that this is 1 higher than typical Brute AC); otherwise, he wouldn’t gain anything for this AC loss.  

*2)* Increase the Wand of Orcus’s damage by 2d12 to 4d12+12 damage (plus 1d12 necrotic damage, as before).  

Increase Tail Lash’s damage by 2d8 to 4d8+12 damage.  Add “*Special:* While Orcus is bloodied, Tail Lash becomes a minor action, usable once a round (it’s no longer an immediate reaction).”

I increased the number of damage dice on Orcus’s at-will attacks by 2 each.  Tail Lash changing to a minor action when Orcus is bloodied means that Orcus doesn’t have to move around to ensure he can use it every round, and it increases the amount of damage he can deal to a single foe.  

The article D&D Alumni: Demogorgon says that to modify Orcus in accord with MM2’s solo guidelines, reduce his HP by 20%, give him -2 defenses, and increase his damage while bloodied by 50%.  This 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.  So I’ve done more than just increase Orcus’s damage by 25% (higher level MM1 monsters seem low on damage in the first place).  

*3)* Add to Aura of Death: “While Orcus is bloodied, enemies in the aura regain only half the normal amount of hit points when they would regain hit points.”

Bloodying Orcus should be a big deal.  The change to Orcus’s Aura of Death lets you know that it is.  A DM should allow a monster Knowledge check, DC 35 Arcana, to give the party at least a clue that they should use healing abilities before he’s bloodied.  Something like: “It is said that when Orcus is injured, his anger can rip out the souls of his enemies.”

*4)* Touch of Death: Change from recharge 6 to: “recharges when first blooded.”
Change the miss effect to: “Miss: The target takes necrotic damage equal to its bloodied value.  This cannot reduce the target below 0 HP.” 

Making Touch of Death an encounter power with an automatic recharge prevents Orcus from getting lucky and recharging it several times, or getting unlucky and never recharging it.  Normally, recharge powers are fine, but this is such a strong attack that the number of times it recharges will have significant impact on the fight.  As written, Orcus would sometimes prefer missing with Touch of Death to hitting, so I changed it so this is no longer the case.

*5)* Change Necrotic Burst: Close Burst 10; *targets enemies;* +38 vs. Fortitude; 2d12+12 necrotic damage, and all undead in the burst regain 20 hit points.  

As written, Orcus could accidentally kill most of his undead minions when he uses this power, because if they don’t have necrotic resistance this power’s average damage exceeds the HP that undead regain.  Oops!  This isn’t just a theoretical concern; the undead level 26 Couatl Mockery minion in Open Grave (pg 185) has no necrotic resistance.  

*6)* Add: *Implacable Foe:* Whenever an attack or effect imposes a condition (defined on page 277 of the PH), besides marked, Orcus can make a saving throw (without his usual +5 saving throw bonus) to be unaffected by that condition, even against an effect that doesn’t normally allow a save.

Implacable Foe is an important change.  Orcus gains Implacable Foe because of issues about the effectiveness of status effects when used on solos.  See the discussion here the basic issue is that since a solo has the offense of multiple normal monsters, a power that takes away a round of a solo’s offense can be too strong.


----------



## Dire Bare (Jun 2, 2009)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> 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.
> 
> ...




I don't personally get all the brewhaha raised over this "controversy", I don't mind that WotC didn't "catch" the less optimal design of some MM1 monsters until now, I don't mind that they aren't going to go backwards and "fix" the older monsters.

However, I think the best way to deal with the issue is to print the new guidelines in the DMG2 and also print an article in Dragon discussing the new monster design guidelines (which they very well may already be planning on doing for all we know).

I would also print a series of Dragon articles with reworked versions of the less optimal MM1 monsters (and perhaps monsters from other older sources).  I wouldn't need to see them all right away, maybe an article every other month or so.

Once all the less optimal monsters had been reworked, I would include all that work in future printings of the MM1.  Generally, I wouldn't want WotC to waste their time with all that effort, but MM1 is and will remain one of the core evergreen books that will be reprinted until the day 5th Edition debuts.

If WotC doesn't go this far, which is likely, it won't hurt my feelings overmuch.  I haven't had any real problems using the monsters from MM1, and I don't anticipate future problems, although I appreciate the efforts at improving the design process.


----------



## Dire Bare (Jun 2, 2009)

castro3nw said:


> I play a decent amount of MtG.  WotC does in fact issue errata on older cards.  (They've changed the creature type on a ridiculous number of old cards for no good reason) And much like they're doing now with the DDI, the erratas are often as not fairly random and only posted in their version of DDI, 'Gatherer'




Hmmm, I love MtG errata (er, or the way it is organized).  If I have a question on a particular card, I just look it up on the Gatherer database!  Easy peasy!  I don't really get the "random" comment.


----------



## Runestar (Jun 3, 2009)

> Increase Tail Lash’s damage by 2d8 to 4d8+12 damage.  Add “*Special:* While Orcus is bloodied, Tail Lash becomes a minor action, usable once a round (it’s no longer an immediate reaction).”




I like this change, but it also reminds me of another factor which has been irritating me for quite some time now - namely that Orcus makes very poor use of the action economy, since he has no swift action abilities available to him!

This means that every round, he attacks once, then moves, even if it may not necessarily be in his best interests to move. At least with an at-will swift power, he can use it 1/round, and maybe convert his move to another swift if he does not need to move.

I think it may be better to convert his tail lash to a swift action ability usable at all times. He still retains the ability to lash out with it as an immediate action, and designate another ability while bloodied (or the ability to lash out could be his bloodied ability).

Though personally, I would prefer for him to have 1 move, 1 standard, 1 swift and 1 interrupt ability, so he can maximize his action quota for the each round. 

Compare this with demogorgon, who gets to move into a choice square, attack with 2 standard-action powers, follow up with 2 swift-action powers, potentially 1 more with action point, then move away. He clearly makes much more efficient use of the actions allotted to him.


----------



## CapnZapp (Jun 3, 2009)

Runestar said:


> swift action



???


----------



## Rhuarc (Jun 3, 2009)

Great changes Elric, pretty much optimal in my opinion!
Though I consider to give him one or two more encounter/recharge powers, to keep the combat more interesting as he has more options available to him. Not the greatest cilmatic battle if your BBEG has to rely only on at-will attacks in the third round already, in my opinion.


----------



## Runestar (Jun 3, 2009)

CapnZapp said:


> ???




Sorry, I meant to say minor action.


----------



## Elric (Jun 3, 2009)

Runestar said:


> I think it may be better to convert his tail lash to a swift action ability usable at all times. He still retains the ability to lash out with it as an immediate action, and designate another ability while bloodied (or the ability to lash out could be his bloodied ability).




Two uses a round of an attack that stuns doesn't seem like much fun.  I was also trying to make a bloodied Orcus feel like less of a skirmisher; Orcus wants to use Hit and Teleport tactics to take advantage of his Tail Lash power before he's bloodied, and changing it to a minor action turns him into more of a brawler.  If you make Tail Lash a minor action all the time, then you never get the transition from "skirmisher Orcus" to "brute Orcus."



Rhuarc said:


> Great changes Elric, pretty much optimal in my opinion!
> Though I consider to give him one or two more encounter/recharge powers, to keep the combat more interesting as he has more options available to him. Not the greatest climatic battle if your BBEG has to rely only on at-will attacks in the third round already, in my opinion.




Thanks!  Since Orcus is a brute, maybe a recharge power that's like his Wand of Orcus, but also pushes and knocks prone?

Something like:
*
Overpowering Strike* (standard action, recharge 5/6)
Orcus makes a Wand of Orcus attack.  On a hit, the target is pushed 3 squares and knocked prone.


----------



## Rhuarc (Jun 4, 2009)

Elric said:


> Something like:
> *
> Overpowering Strike* (standard action, recharge 5/6)
> Orcus makes a Wand of Orcus attack.  On a hit, the target is pushed 3 squares and knocked prone.




Looks like a good one!

Maybe another area attack power as well:

*Sweeping Death* (standard action, encounter, only usable while bloodied)
Close Burst 4, 3d12+12 damage


These should be enough to keep Orcus' options above at-wills for most of the time and supports his Brute role.


----------



## Upper_Krust (Jun 4, 2009)

Hello Elric! 



			
				Elric said:
			
		

> The monster roles are clearly meant to be roughly equal.  However, that doesn't mean the solution to "soldiers are the best role" is "make all other monsters as powerful as soldiers."  One should probably try to adjust roles using the current median strength role as a baseline.




Exactly. The Soldier seems to be the fly in the ointment. I think maybe removing the Initiative Bonus and lowering its defenses by 2 and lowering its attack vs. defenses by 2 would help.



> Looking at the MM Solo Artillery, the Blue Dragons, Beholder Eye Tyrant (Disintegrate ray!), and Primordial Naga deal more damage than most solos of a different role at a similar level.  So as written, it might make sense to go back and adjust their HP.  It's hard to evaluate MM Lurker Solos, because the only one is the Black Dragon (which has the powerful and annoying Cloud of Darkness).




Good spot. All the evidence suggests the base hit point totals for roles should be kept for solo monsters.


----------



## Elric (Jun 4, 2009)

Upper_Krust said:


> Exactly. The Soldier seems to be the fly in the ointment. I think maybe removing the Initiative Bonus and lowering its defenses by 2 and lowering its attack vs. defenses by 2 would help.




Soldiers don't need all defenses lowered by 2.  According to the DMG's guidelines (pg 184), their AC is supposed to be the only defense higher than average.  However, for MM1 monsters, soldiers have noticeably higher Fort defenses than 12+level, even though Reflex and Will average almost 12+level (see http://www.enworld.org/forum/d-d-4th-edition-rules/229092-lots-statistics-monster-manual.html).  Soldiers should be designed with the same average FRW defenses as other roles in the first place.

If you were to lower soldier AC and to-hit by 2 vs other defenses, soldiers would have the same stats as skirmishers, without any major advantages to make up for skirmisher mobility.  

A soldier's better to-hit bonus ends up making attacks that impose conditions significantly stronger (I think someone else mentioned this earlier in the thread).  Soldiers that impose serious conditions with their attacks should have a lower attack bonus.  For example, the Ghoul's claw attack is at level+7 vs. AC and it immobilizes and sets the target up for the very powerful Ghoulish Bite.  

There's also the problem of soldiers with excessive AC; 16+level is probably fine, but 17+level with an ability that adds 2 more (Hobgoblin Soldiers) can get out of hand.  



> Good spot. All the evidence suggests the base hit point totals for roles should be kept for solo monsters.




I wonder to what extent the game design assumes that artillery monsters can ensure they're targeted less in combat (to compensate for low HP) by virtue of having ranged attacks and melee monsters/good position to prevent attackers from getting to them.  A (lone) solo artillery might have this ability at a very powerful level (if it flies and its attacks are all ranged; e.g., the Beholder), or it might not have it at all (if it doesn't fly and its best attacks are melee, e.g., the Naga).  Another design point to keep in mind.


----------



## Elric (Jun 4, 2009)

Rhuarc said:


> Looks like a good one!
> 
> Maybe another area attack power as well:
> 
> ...




Thanks.  The reason I didn't add a Close Burst/Blast attack for Orcus above is that his two at-wills that the Burst/Blast could be based on are his Tail Lash and Wand of Orcus.  Wand of Orcus is the more thematic ability for him to carve through a bunch of enemies with.  

However, letting Orcus make a Wand of Orcus attack on multiple opponents in a round without spending an action point is going to lead to a bunch of weakened conditions, which doesn't seem like much fun.  The above power seems a little bland (and it needs an attack bonus ), but it's more or less what you get if you try to avoid making a Close attack an explicit Wand of Orcus attack (with the associated Weakened effect).  Plus, Orcus is getting pretty strong at this point; he's only a level 33 Solo, after all


----------



## lukelightning (Jun 4, 2009)

I'm wary of overusing the "more powerful when bloodied" characteristic. It seems so, dare-I-say, videogamey, like fighting Gannon and all of a sudden you think he's beaten...then he's more powerful! Then you beat him again and go to the next stage....


----------



## Rhuarc (Jun 4, 2009)

Elric said:


> However, letting Orcus make a Wand of Orcus attack on multiple opponents in a round without spending an action point is going to lead to a bunch of weakened conditions, which doesn't seem like much fun.




True, and I wouldn't suggest this as well. Though you could say that the Wand of Orcus has a limited amount of channeled power available each round. This power will be enough to weaken a lone enemy, but wouldn't be sufficient to do the same to several creatures at once. 
Just an example to explain the lack of a condition within the game 



Elric said:


> The above power seems a little bland (and it needs an attack bonus ), but it's more or less what you get if you try to avoid making a Close attack an explicit Wand of Orcus attack (with the associated Weakened effect).




Of course, I didn't try to come up with a really flavorful ability, but the thing is that most of the more interesting powers have some conditions associated with them and, at least I, don't want to throw them around in every round.
Furthermore is it completely fine for a brute to just dish out some major damage for once, in my opinion 



Elric said:


> Plus, Orcus is getting pretty strong at this point; he's only a level 33 Solo, after all




Uhm, that's something I'm not _that_ concerned about. After all should he be the very last boss of a whole campaign, the final foe of your level 30 characters. I admit that I don't have any experience with fights at this level yet, but almost all of the epic destinies look darn powerful to me. I guess they would be able to handle this, though I could be wrong.


----------



## Victim (Jun 4, 2009)

Rhuarc said:


> Uhm, that's something I'm not _that_ concerned about. After all should he be the very last boss of a whole campaign, the final foe of your level 30 characters. I admit that I don't have any experience with fights at this level yet, but almost all of the epic destinies look darn powerful to me. I guess they would be able to handle this, though I could be wrong.




Sort of.

Something threatening to a party of Demigods all dropping their Divine Regeneration would probably be overwhelming to most other groups, or if those dailies are unavailable.


----------



## AllisterH (Jun 5, 2009)

One interesting thing we haven't examined is DM-created elites and solos by applying the DMG templates.....Should this be changed in the DMG2 section dealing with modifying monsters...

There are some very sick Elites/Solos that one can create by simply applying one template to many of the MM2 entries.

Savage Berserker Template + Humanoid with a basic attacks that does stuff such as either the Erinyes Devil  or the Shocktroop Devil...


----------



## Elric (Jun 5, 2009)

Victim said:


> Sort of.
> 
> Something threatening to a party of Demigods all dropping their Divine Regeneration would probably be overwhelming to most other groups, or if those dailies are unavailable.




In fact, Divine Regeneration inspired one of my proposed changes to Orcus, since this ability hits Divine Regeneration particularly hard. 



			
				Elric said:
			
		

> *3)* Add to Aura of Death: “While Orcus is bloodied, enemies in the aura regain only half the normal amount of hit points when they would regain hit points.”




As you mention, it's tricky to threaten a party where each character has Divine Regeneration available without creating an encounter too tough for non-Demigod parties.   Epic level parties often have extremely potent daily powers, and the party's ability to take on tough challenges is going to vary greatly with how many of these are still available.  Divine Regeneration is one of the most powerful of the bunch.    

Resistances are another problem; Orcus's Aura of Death could vary from quite potent to mostly useless depending on whether the party has almost no necrotic resistance, or every character has Necrotic Resistance 10-15.  Necrotic damage is common (see http://www.enworld.org/forum/d-d-4t...-statistics-monster-manual-7.html#post4762371), and in a campaign that features Orcus as the ultimate villain it will probably be even more common, leading players to pick up items that grant necrotic resistance.  *Edit:* That post's data is based on Compendium searches, which might be somewhat biased upwards for necrotic damage compared to a typical campaign's monsters if it includes Open Grave.  Still, there are a ton of items that grant necrotic resistance in PH and AV, probably more than any other resistance type. 

The Atropal, part of the MM's suggested encounter with Orcus, has an attack power that temporarily negates necrotic resistance, which helps lessen this disparity.


----------



## Upper_Krust (Jun 6, 2009)

Howdy Elric! 



			
				Elric said:
			
		

> Here’s my take on modifying Orcus (MM, pg 206), taking into account MM2’s changes to solo design guidelines.  With a little work, Orcus can become a more interesting and dangerous opponent, while staying true to the basics and the theme of his MM version. Thoughts appreciated.




Only have a few minor points to make.



> *1)* Reduce HP from 1,525 to 1,320; Change Bloodied from 762 to 660.
> Reduce AC by 2, Fort/Ref/Will by 3.  This gives AC 46; Fortitude 48; Reflex 43, Will 46
> 
> Start by changing Orcus to give him -20% HP and -2 to defenses according to MM2’s design guidelines.  I’ve subtracted a little more from F/R/W because even with -2, they’d be well above the 12+level average recommended in the DMG (pg 184). In accord with the change in solo design, HP for a solo=[(level+1)*8+Con]*4 (in MM1, solos at Paragon/Epic have *5 here instead of *4).  This would equal 1,220 HP.  I’ve added 100 to this because the solo HP formula is independent of role, but as a Brute Orcus has 1 lower AC than baseline AC of 14+level (after my above change to his defenses; note that this is 1 higher than typical Brute AC); otherwise, he wouldn’t gain anything for this AC loss.




As you know I favour the idea of 10 hp base for solo brutes giving him 1492 hp.



> *2)* Increase the Wand of Orcus’s damage by 2d12 to 4d12+12 damage (plus 1d12 necrotic damage, as before).




Is the default for additional energy damage to:

a) Equal the base damage dice...in this case +4d12
b) Equal 1/2 the base damage dice...in this case +2d12
c) Equal one extra dice (of the same type) per tier...in this case +4d12

You coul also say that, being a weapon it should get a crit bonus.

Something like 4d12  + 12 (Crit: 9d12 + 60*) plus 4d12 necrotic...that should sort out the men from the boys. 

*The 9d12 is due to Orcus being the equivalent of a Level 42 standard monster (in terms of EXP), thus giving him a magic threshold of +9. You could always change that to 7d12 though I suppose. I'm not sure what the exact protocol is in this regard.



> Increase Tail Lash’s damage by 2d8 to 4d8+12 damage.  Add “*Special:* While Orcus is bloodied, Tail Lash becomes a minor action, usable once a round (it’s no longer an immediate reaction).”




Would it be an idea to give the tail slash some ongoing poison damage (say 20), so that he has some surprises for those stacking on necrotic defenses?



> I increased the number of damage dice on Orcus’s at-will attacks by 2 each.  Tail Lash changing to a minor action when Orcus is bloodied means that Orcus doesn’t have to move around to ensure he can use it every round, and it increases the amount of damage he can deal to a single foe.




Good idea.



> The article D&D Alumni: Demogorgon says that to modify Orcus in accord with MM2’s solo guidelines, reduce his HP by 20%, give him -2 defenses, and increase his damage while bloodied by 50%.  This 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.  So I’ve done more than just increase Orcus’s damage by 25% (higher level MM1 monsters seem low on damage in the first place).
> 
> *3)* Add to Aura of Death: “While Orcus is bloodied, enemies in the aura regain only half the normal amount of hit points when they would regain hit points.”
> 
> Bloodying Orcus should be a big deal.  The change to Orcus’s Aura of Death lets you know that it is.  A DM should allow a monster Knowledge check, DC 35 Arcana, to give the party at least a clue that they should use healing abilities before he’s bloodied.  Something like: “It is said that when Orcus is injured, his anger can rip out the souls of his enemies.”




Cool.



> *4)* Touch of Death: Change from recharge 6 to: “recharges when first blooded.”
> Change the miss effect to: “Miss: The target takes necrotic damage equal to its bloodied value.  This cannot reduce the target below 0 HP.”
> 
> Making Touch of Death an encounter power with an automatic recharge prevents Orcus from getting lucky and recharging it several times, or getting unlucky and never recharging it.  Normally, recharge powers are fine, but this is such a strong attack that the number of times it recharges will have significant impact on the fight.  As written, Orcus would sometimes prefer missing with Touch of Death to hitting, so I changed it so this is no longer the case.




Good stuff! 



> *5)* Change Necrotic Burst: Close Burst 10; *targets enemies;* +38 vs. Fortitude; 2d12+12 necrotic damage, and all undead in the burst regain 20 hit points.
> 
> As written, Orcus could accidentally kill most of his undead minions when he uses this power, because if they don’t have necrotic resistance this power’s average damage exceeds the HP that undead regain.  Oops!  This isn’t just a theoretical concern; the undead level 26 Couatl Mockery minion in Open Grave (pg 185) has no necrotic resistance.




Its a recharge 6 against multiple targets, by my estimation...

Immortality

...thats a 6d10+12 attack.

I'd also give it a miss for half damage attribute.



> *6)* Add: *Implacable Foe:* Whenever an attack or effect imposes a condition (defined on page 277 of the PH), besides marked, Orcus can make a saving throw (without his usual +5 saving throw bonus) to be unaffected by that condition, even against an effect that doesn’t normally allow a save.
> 
> Implacable Foe is an important change.  Orcus gains Implacable Foe because of issues about the effectiveness of status effects when used on solos.  See the discussion here the basic issue is that since a solo has the offense of multiple normal monsters, a power that takes away a round of a solo’s offense can be too strong.




Still examining the options on this, something I know you have thoroughly researched so I'll defer to your god self on the matter.


----------



## Dr_Ruminahui (Jun 6, 2009)

Anyone know when the FAQ will be out for MM2?  I just bought my copy and am reading through it... I noticed in addition to the Behir's minor action to not regurgitate when it only has standard actions, there is a problem with the Angel of Light.

In particular, the Angel of Light's Death Burst - its a close burst versus enemies only, +x vs. fort... but what does it do?  Sure, it has an effect that heals allies, but as an effect you don't have to hit for that to work...


----------



## Elric (Jun 7, 2009)

Upper_Krust said:


> As you know I favour the idea of 10 hp base for solo brutes giving him 1492 hp.




If you end up with Orcus having 1492 HP, you'd want to decease his defenses to exactly what the MM formulas give; -1 AC/Fort/Will on top of my previous changes, I'd say.



> Is the default for additional energy damage to:
> 
> a) Equal the base damage dice...in this case +4d12
> b) Equal 1/2 the base damage dice...in this case +2d12
> ...




I'm not sure there is a default for additional energy damage.  Whatever makes the overall damage dealt look reasonable.  Overall damage of 8d12+12 on an at-will (at +1 to hit over normal Brute attack bonus) that also weakens seems high, even for a level 33 Solo Brute, and dealing 145 average damage on a critical doesn't seem like much fun.  

As a solo with 4x the HP of a normal monster, it seems like Orcus should have offense that's a little under 4x as powerful as a typical monster of his level/role (see the discussion here).  If you want his offense to be significantly stronger than it is now, either Orcus needs to lose something on the defensive end or he should be higher level.  



> Would it be an idea to give the tail slash some ongoing poison damage (say 20), so that he has some surprises for those stacking on necrotic defenses?




Orcus doesn't have any other poison themed abilities as written, and he doesn’t need to deal 20 ongoing poison damage here.  His Tail Lash (with my changes) already does 30 average damage on a hit, stuns for a round, and knocks prone.  That’s a little less damage than one might expect for a Brute of his level, and he can’t necessarily use it every round before he’s bloodied (though with Teleport, it should be quite often), but stunned for a round + knocked prone is a nasty set of conditions.  Side note: I agree with you that the high damage expression table in the DMG seems too close to the medium damage expression at higher levels.



> Its a recharge 6 against multiple targets, by my estimation...
> 
> Immortality
> 
> ...




Unlike most multi-attacks, Orcus’s Necrotic Burst will likely hit all of his enemies each time it’s used because it’s Close Burst 10.  Also, at +38 vs. Fortitude, its attack bonus is much better than a typical Brute multiattack power vs. FRW for his level (+32 vs. FRW would be typical).  It will probably heal each of his allies for 20 HP due to the radius.  You could increase the damage a little, but this is already a strong attack.



> Still examining the options on this, something I know you have thoroughly researched so I'll defer to your god self on the matter.




I haven’t come to any firm conclusions on the matter, but Implacable Foe is simple and easy to run, which is why I’m using it for Orcus here.


----------



## evilbob (Jul 1, 2009)

Elric said:


> Here’s my take on modifying Orcus (MM, pg 206)...
> 
> *1)* Reduce HP from 1,525 to 1,320; Change Bloodied from 762 to 660.
> Reduce AC by 2, Fort/Ref/Will by 3.  This gives AC 46; Fortitude 48; Reflex 43, Will 46



I have to admit, the following - while a bit bitter - is honestly what I believe based on my own experiences fighting solos of all tiers.

First, all solos from level 12 and down should absolutely follow the rules in the MM2:  20% fewer HP (at a minimum!  30% fewer would be better) and slightly more powerful attacks.  Maybe, 10% more powerful across the board upped to 50% more when bloodied.  However, solos that are level 13 and up probably need _more _HP, not fewer.  I'm very specifically picking level 13 because that's when the first (and not the last) game-altering power, Storm of Blades, is available to the party.  Once the party has access to this power, solos go from 10-20 round boring slugfests to whimpering 2 or 3 round pitifulness.  Yes, that's right:  I'm saying that based on my own experience, solos need redesigning based on the assumption that they will take a minimum of 2 or 3 SoB attacks within the first round (probably 2 per character, maybe 2 characters using this power).  Second, all solos over level 13 could stand to have a "triggered when bloodied" attack - like a dragon's breath - mostly because that's one of the few attacks they are guaranteed to use even when they are killed in 1 round.

Next, epic-level solos probably don't need their defenses lowered because that's the only thing even close to stopping the wizard or the ranger from killing them in one round.  Orcus in particular shouldn't have his will defense lowered by 2, or else the 1-hit wizard will kill him 10% easier.  AC probably shouldn't be lowered, either, just because that makes it slightly harder for the support character(s) who gives him a -8 to his AC to hit him in the first place.

Now, if you're dead-set on lowering defenses, you'll need to make him immune to stun/sleep/daze/etc. AND he'll need some kind of power that can avoid simple 10+ hit locks, like "once you've taken your healing surge's value in damage from one character you automatically teleport 10 squares" as an immediate interrupt or something like that.  No wait - immediate interrupt isn't a good mechanic because you can't use those when you're under certain conditions - well, it'll just have to happen as a non-action, then.

As I said, this may sound trite, but I couldn't be more serious.  Solos past level 13 are misunderstood:  they shouldn't be the big-bad final boss; they are best used to soak the 5-6 SoB-like attacks that will be coming (there are several), wizard dailies, and other game-breaking powers so that the REAL boss won't go down in less than 1 round of combat.  Well, that's what they end up being, anyway.


----------



## keterys (Jul 1, 2009)

A bare handful of broken attacks are not a good impetus to change the core design of Solos - it's a good reason to fix those attacks. Blade Cascade was already fixed, how Storm of Blades got through staggers the imagination.


----------



## Regicide (Jul 1, 2009)

keterys said:


> A bare handful of broken attacks are not a good impetus to change the core design of Solos - it's a good reason to fix those attacks. Blade Cascade was already fixed, how Storm of Blades got through staggers the imagination.




  WotC makes them faster than they fix them.  A general fix to monsters is probably the better idea.  They really are little more than punching bags as it is.


----------



## evilbob (Jul 1, 2009)

Regicide said:


> WotC makes them faster than they fix them.  A general fix to monsters is probably the better idea.  They really are little more than punching bags as it is.



I have to say I agree.


----------



## keterys (Jul 1, 2009)

Depends on your group's chances of actually encountering any of the problem powers. A group can _easily_ not have storm of blades, rain of blows, or a wizard in it, and now it's doomed to grindy combat? Better if you have an established baseline and run with it.


----------



## evilbob (Jul 1, 2009)

I completely agree with that thought; however, part of the point is that SoB and wizard spells and whatever else are just the problem _today_.  Next month, it will likely be something else.  And something else the month after that, and so on.  Your choice becomes "do I find and fix each problem" or "do I take a more broad-handed approach" to the issue.  If you're alright with the former, then the latter is not needed.  My opinion is that I am no longer alright with the former.

Granted, the "best" approach is to tailor your specific changes to the specific needs and makeup of your group - but that's a really messy response and doesn't give any real general help.


----------



## keterys (Jul 1, 2009)

Sure, but I've actually seen _more_ complaints about fights taking too long and monsters having too many hp.

I actually haven't seen a single game with SoB in it, and don't expect to see it more than rarely for a year or more (once it starts coming up in LFR). For the 'Against the Giants' campaign we're kicking off this Fall, I'd not be surprised if it comes up - we might do a party of all Goliaths, with at least one barbarian, and one fighter-barbarian, and eventually we'd be high enough level.

Not that a single person in that game had actually looked at the power.

So, maybe we'd nerf it or just excise it from the game, until it's errata-ed.

You've got a text book example of a wrong power. Everyone in the party MCs to get it. It cripples your fights to the point where you feel you need 2 solos, etc? Yeah, this isn't really difficult. Edit or remove. Done.


----------



## shadowoflameth (Jul 2, 2009)

mshea said:


> It does indeed look like they're boosting damage and decreasing hps about 20% for solo monsters from my statistical sample of 1.





I went on a bit about this on another thread. They do not seem to be incresing damage, at least not consistently as I can see. They also seem not to be following the suggested damage tables for monsters in the DMG. 

Demogorgon and Dagon, the highest level solos in the book have basic attacks with 3d8+8 which does not appear for any level (up to 30th therefore lower) in the DMG new monster design tables. On the other hand, the ancient Gold dragon, which is the same role, but lower level than Demogorgon has higher damage for a BA. The same holds true for damage of other creatures in the same book with little resemblance to the suggestions in DMG which were mostly followed in MM for damage, defences etc.

Hit points for solos are all 4x the formulae even though DMG says to make monsters of 11th or higher 5x the standard hit points. This results in some MM monsters of 5 or more levels less than the demon lords in MMII having more hit points doing more damage and having higher defences. 

I thought people were complaining that solos were too easy/


----------



## Flipguarder (Jul 2, 2009)

solos are only too easy at high levels (where stuns and dazes abound). They are also too easy if you use them without any other monsters in encounters


----------



## shadowoflameth (Jul 2, 2009)

I went on a bit about this on another thread. They do not seem to be incresing damage, at least not consistently as I can see. They also seem not to be following the suggested damage tables for monsters in the DMG. 

Demogorgon and Dagon, the highest level solos in the book have basic attacks with 3d8+8 which does not appear for any level (up to 30th therefore lower) in the DMG new monster design tables. On the other hand, the ancient Gold dragon, which is the same role, but lower level than Demogorgon has higher damage for a BA. The same holds true for damage of other creatures in the same book with little resemblance to the suggestions in DMG which were mostly followed in MM for damage, defences etc.

Hit points for solos are all 4x the formulae even though DMG says to make monsters of 11th or higher 5x the standard hit points. This results in some MM monsters of 5 or more levels less than the demon lords in MMII having more hit points doing more damage and having higher defences. 

I thought people were complaining that solos were too easy?


----------



## shadowoflameth (Jul 2, 2009)

They don't seem in MMII to be using the tables in DMG at all:

I went on a bit about this on another thread. 

Demogorgon and Dagon, the highest level solos in the book have basic attacks with 3d8+8 which does not appear for any level (up to 30th therefore lower) in the DMG new monster design tables. On the other hand, the ancient Gold dragon, which is the same role, but lower level than Demogorgon has higher damage for a BA even if you forget the bonus elemental damage. The same holds true for damage of other creatures in the same book with little resemblance to the suggestions in DMG which were mostly followed in MM for damage, defences etc. It isn't just BAs either encounter and recharge power damage seems arbitrary.

Hit points for solos are all 4x the formulae even though DMG says to make monsters of 11th or higher 5x the standard hit points. This results in some MM monsters of 5 or more levels less than the demon lords in MMII having more hit points doing more damage and having higher defenses. 

I thought people were complaining that solos were too easy?


----------



## PeelSeel2 (May 22, 2010)

I have house-ruled elites and solos.  All elites and solos get to save against any effect (even the 'last until the end of your next turns') at the end of their turn.  Also, elites get two complete actions per round (and corresponding saves at the end of each), and solos get three.  I give them two and three different initiatives.  I also up their damage so IT HURTS.  I have also implemented a 'Unique Damage Expression' category which is double the limited.  The goal, to make elite and solos battles hurt.  They are something characters think twice about getting into.  Stock, this rarely happens.  So far it has worked great.


----------



## Iron Sky (May 22, 2010)

How do people find almost year-old threads out of the blue to resurrect like this?  I'm genuinely curious.


----------



## PeelSeel2 (May 22, 2010)

The google is all mighty.


----------

