Okay, as many of you know. I have grown increasingly apathetic towards 3rd Edition D&D. In a nutshell, I hate it. But thats a discussion for another time and place. So why the heck did you buy this book I hear you ask? Well, several reasons. I had a chance to peruse the first Pathfinder Bestiary back in August (while on holiday in London) and the art was gorgeous. I read some snippets that this book was even more lovely in the looks department, so that really piqued my interest. Also its always nice to keep an eye on the competition (not that I seriously consider myself in competition with Paizo, but you know what I mean). Plus I have always been a sucker for a good ol’ monster bestiary, so why not.
First Impressions: Gorgeous. Probably the best looking RPG book I have ever seen. Brilliant cover by Wayne Reynolds (one of my favourite artists) and the interior art is just absolutely stunning. I don’t know how they did it, but they have 36 different artists, yet you could be fooled into thinking the same artist did every interior piece…and they are all good, very good in fact. I have looked through the book several times and I don’t think I have spotted an illustration I didn’t think was great or better. Massive kudos to Sarah E. Robinson the Senior Art Director….amazing job.
The Good
- The Art: Although I waxed lyrical about it in first impressions, its worth repeating, no other book (I have read) looks this good. Its almost impossible to single out a few ‘stand-out’ illustrations because they are all fantastic.
- The Monsters: Brilliant, brilliant, brilliant. Near-perfect mix of old and new monsters. I want to start somewhere and everywhere you look is another great entry, some with multiple monsters attached some as single entries. Its early days but some my favourites so far are: the Aeons (multiple entries); the Lhaksharut Inevitable; the Jabberwock; the Nightwalker Nightshade (yes they even made this look scary); Proteans (multiple entries); Qlippoth (also multiple entries); the Thrasfyr and Witchwyrd. They even have some old Epic Level Handbook favourites like the Mu-Spore, Winterwight and Worm That Walks (who looks even cooler than before).
- Inspirational: I couldn’t help but notice that in the Daemon section of the book, they overtly mention that the Daemons are ruled by the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse (no they aren’t detailed unfortunately) and subsequently that each of the Horsemen have their own personal type of lesser Daemon servant. Just to point out that I actually came up with this idea back in 2005 in my Epic Bestiary: Volume One. I then went on (a year or so later) to make a relatively lengthy post on Andy Collin’s personal forums about how the Horsemen would each have their own subservient daemons with descriptions and names (Astraloth, Dracoloth, Necroloth, Putriloth etc.)…Anyway, it gave me a chuckle reading over this entry in Paizo’s book. Someone at Paizo must be a fan. 🙂 Sadly, Andy Collin’s forums are now defunct, or rather, converted into his twitter feed. But the miracle that is the internet has a funny way of saving things…have a read here and draw your own conclusions – personally I’m flattered.
The Bad
- The Art: Hold on a minute Krusty, you have been going on and on about this book’s art, now you say thats a negative, please explain yourself? Okay, I will and let me preface this criticism as nitpicking. Several things have griped me about the admittedly amazing art. Firstly, VERY few of the pieces have any backgrounds (about 1%). Secondly all the pieces are the same size (quarter page). Lastly, VERY few of the pieces have any sense of scale (about 3%). Call me crazy but even brilliance can do with variety.
- Low (Level) Ambitions: Another personal nitpick, the book tapers off into Challenge Rating 23 (The Jabberwock). This is an even smaller, and even more personal nitpick than the first negative point I raised. While on the face of it that might seem hypocritical as my own Vampire Bestiary only goes up to Level 15, its well documented that its the first of three volumes which top out at Level 45. With the Pathfinder Bestiary 2 its meant to cover all levels of the game, and in many ways it basically does. Paizo were never able to solve the problem with Epic Level 3rd Edition and given that such lofty levels are only 5% (or thereabouts) of (D&D) gamers why should they bother catering to such a small fraction of the audience…of course, I am writing this review and I happen to be a part of that small percentage so hence my raising the point. But I fully understand Paizo drawing the line where they did, makes sense for them.
- Treatment of Monsters: No, not a diatribe about monster’s rights. Simply that in a number of cases they really seem to have undervalued a number of monsters drawn from mythology: Charybdis (CR 13); Draugr (CR 2); Scylla (CR 16). Then again maybe I am biased. Either way its simply another nitpick I am struggling to come up with.
Conclusions: Possibly the best monster book ever in terms of overall execution. Makes Wizards of the Coast’s 4th Edition Monster Manuals look pedestrian by comparison. Though I still maintain mechanically 4E is infinitely superior to 3E/Pathfinder; there is no doubting that the choice of monsters here and the attention Paizo have lavished upon this book are worthy of the highest praise. If you are still DMing or playing 3rd Edition/Pathfinder then this book is a must purchase. If you, like me, just love monster books and great artwork, then give it a look.
Overall: 9 (out of 10) bordering on a 10 out of 10 if I was still interested in 3rd Edition/Pathfinder.
Eternity Publishing 
Alzrius
February 13, 2011
When you say you’ve grown increasingly apathetic towards 3.X D&D (which necessarily includes Pathfinder), do you mean in general since you started designing things for it, or do you mean since 4E came out and you like it even less now than you did when you initially left it behind?
Either way, that would make an interesting article, albeit one that would likely be much too edition-bellicose. I also find that a lot of talk about edition preference quickly tends to devolve into demagoguery, so hopefully that wouldn’t become a factor.
Upper_Krust
February 14, 2011
Hi Alzrius mate!
It was apparent from the release of 3E Deities & Demigods that 3E epic and immortal gaming was going to be mathmatically and logistically intensive, certainly beyond what most would consider a fair return on the hard work to fun ratio. Nevertheless my unbridled (at the time) enthusiasm, plus an innate love of maths and problem solving led me to plough ahead. Also I honestly believed back then that an infinite scaling system was the way forward.
The Epic Bestiary was a mammoth task and started opening my eyes to the absolute grind that feats; items; skills; spells and spell-like abilities really represent at epic levels. Designing, which to me is fun, really became a chore with epic 3E.
Also I was playing a bit more 3E and talking to other gamers and watching newbies try out the game and at every step it just seemed needlessly complicated (even at low levels). DMing just seemed so labour intensive that you would give up designing new elements of the game (NPCs and so forth) and just use pre-published material. It was also becoming apparent that the different classes in 3E were massively unbalanced.
I guess at the time I was at my lowest ebb with 3E, thats when 4th Edition came along. From a designer’s perspective you could tell immediately this was superior in every conceivable way.
– The classes were balanced
– The monsters didn’t use the same rules as the PCs anymore
– Epic as standard
– The different roles and ranks idea was brilliant
– At-will, Encounter and Daily powers was another innovation
– Less focus on magic items
– Rechargeable monster powers based on luck rather than time
– Emphasis on movement within combat dramatically changed things tactically
– Action Points a great addition (fondly remembering the Force Points of WEG Star Wars RPG)
– Monster stat-blocks boiled down to their unique powers making design fun again
– The math and mechanics were rock solid
– Encounter design was an absolute doddle now
– Integrating traps and hazards was likewise very simple to do
– Multi-classing was quick and simple
– Your race actually made a tangible difference
– Deities with actual functional stat-blocks
– Removal of save or die mechanic
– Healing now made universal with Second Wind
– Rituals took care of ‘out of combat’ stuff
– Team work now more vital and rewarding
– Low level character fragility a thing of the past
– Decent Death mechanics
– Different Class Roles gave new players a quick insight into how to play
That said, a few problems with 4E were uncovered over the first year or two:
– Core classes too similar (now rectified with PHB 2 and 3)
– Slight math imbalance between (unoptimised) PC attack bonus and monster AC at epic levels (now rectified with the Expertise feats)
– Combat grind because of low monster damage (now rectified since MM3 and Essentials)
– Solo monsters too easy to lockdown (soon to be rectified in the Vampire Bestiary)
– Getting stunned really annoying for PCs (something to be used very sparingly)
Soon after, Pathfinder was released, but I just couldn’t see how it was going to better 4E – and it didn’t. I couldn’t see how it was going to improve epic gaming – and it didn’t. Did it improve 3E? Not by enough, but then Paizo’s goal was simply to keep ‘3E’ on the shelf, so it was never going to deviate massively from it.
For me, there is no edition war because the question of which system is better is totally black and white. That said, I can understand certain reasons why people would want to stick with 3E/Pathfinder
– Familiarity; some people are reluctant to try new ideas
– Expenditure; although somewhat nullified if you buy Pathfinder books I guess
– Masochism; from my experience some people just love the complexity of 3E, maybe thats more immersive to them or something?
– Empowerment; another sub-branch of players (often epic players) really like min/maxing; power gaming and squeezing that last +1 into a character. They’ll take one level of this class and another level of that prestige class not because it suits the character they want to roleplay, simply that it benefits their character mechanically.
– Friends; if one or more of the gaming group falls into the above categories then playing 4E may not be an option when others still want to play 3E.
alzrius
February 15, 2011
I really have only myself to blame for this, as I’ve heard your thoughts on 3.X before and had a pretty good idea what your answer would be. That said, I really can’t let the above go without responding, as I dislike Fourth Edition and much prefer Pathfinder.
It takes a certain degree of self-assurance (bordering on arrogance) to look at a system and say “I can do it better.” That you have that mindset, U_K, is one of your greatest strengths; however, like all classical strengths, it’s also your greatest weakness. That is, when you think you’re correct about something, it’s not only impossible to change your mind regardless of the merit of the idea, but you can’t fathom how anybody else could come to a different conclusion, since you’ve clearly arrived at the right answer.
To be clear, it’s impossible not to recognize that the official epic-level and divine rules were fundamentally flawed from the get-go. Spreading anything out over an infinite number of levels the way the ELH did guarantees that innovative new abilities will be spread too thin, and that eventually your system will be stretched to the breaking point. Similarly, the deity stats were put together poorly, almost ignoring epic levels and holistic integration into the game while giving us little besides stat blocks (and then telling us that deities shouldn’t be used as monsters).
However, saying that the nature of 3.X/Pathfinder is itself fundamentally flawed is disingenuous, as much so as making opinionated statements like “3E classes were massively unbalanced” – this in spite of the fact that people can’t seem to agree on what “balance” actually is in the first place.
Of course, far worse than that are the reasons you give for why people would choose to stay with 3.X/Pathfinder instead of converting to 4E, which are outrightly insulting. To hear you say it, people who don’t switch over are xenophobic, cheap, masochistic, munchkins, or peer-pressured. In other words, if you stay with 3.X/Pathfinder, there’s something wrong with you; for someone who says that there isn’t an edition war for you, you’re an adept edition warrior.
Even aside from that, a significant number of the virtues you posted for 4E are opinions stated as facts. Calling something “decent” (the death mechanics), “rock solid” (the balance), “more vital and rewarding” (teamwork) and many others aren’t laying out points of logic – they’re demagoguery. You do mention some legitimate good points about Fourth Edition (and some bad points too) but much of what you say about it is feeling, not fact.
alzrius
February 15, 2011
(continuation)
I don’t blame you for your disillusionment with 3.X – you were primarily interested in epic/immortal gaming, and that’s where the system incontrovertibly failed; 4E’s integrated system for epic levels and immortal opponents – alongside its rules for monster design, which I don’t think it’s unfair to say are objectively simpler – would naturally be a relief to you. But that doesn’t make 3.X as a whole bad, nor does it make 4E as a whole good.
I’d remind you of a number of places where 4E failed much worse than you admit, as well as where 3.X succeeded more than you’re giving it credit for, but most of those points have already been raised better than I could enumerate them over at The Alexandrian. Instead, I’ll simply point out some of the best articles on this issue: , , , , and (along with , , , and ).
I’ll note in advance that none of these articles take into account any of the “fixes” in the later Core Rulebooks (e.g. PHB 2 and 3, DMG 2, and MM 2 and 3). Having said that, if you need several expansion books just to fix problems in the first several books, that’s a weakness of the game, not a strength of later add-ons.
In short, while there may be some issues that are black and white, questions of which game is “better” than the other is not one of them.
And by the way, when you say “I couldn’t see how it [Pathfinder] was going to improve epic gaming – and it didn’t.” The word that should come at the end of that sentence is “yet.” Paizo has openly stated multiple times that they aren’t going to create epic-level rules until they can sit down and remake them, since they recognize that 3.X’s epic rules were so bad. Epic-level gaming in Pathfinder is currently a question mark, not a thumbs-down.
alzrius
February 15, 2011
Nuts, that last comment screwed up the hyperlinking, I’m trying to go to these sites:
http://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/1545/roleplaying-games/dissociated-mechanics
http://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/2008/roleplaying-games/playtesting-4th-edition
http://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/2055/roleplaying-games/fetishizing-balance
http://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/1668/roleplaying-games/the-death-of-the-wandering-monster
http://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/1607/roleplaying-games/keep-on-the-shadowfell-analyzing-design
href=”http://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/1617/roleplaying-games/keep-on-the-shadowfell-analyzing-design-part-2-traps
http://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/1628/roleplaying-games/keep-on-the-shadowfell-analyzing-design-part-3-remixing-the-chamber-of-secrets
http://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/1637/roleplaying-games/keep-on-the-shadowfell-analyzing-design-part-4-rotten-cherubs
http://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/1647/roleplaying-games/keep-on-the-shadowfell-a-much-belated-addendum
omeganian
February 15, 2011
Charybdis below Scylla? This is madness.
Upper_Krust
February 15, 2011
Hi Alzrius mate! 🙂
I agree I am headstrong and self-assured to the point of arrogance (thats how I came by the nickname Upper_Krust). 😉
I also agree I can be a bit of a curmudgeon when it comes to changing my mind on things like this…and looking at your counter-argument, I still disagree with you. But I’m happy to examine things a point at a time.
Paragraph 3: We agree that official epic rules were flawed from the get-go. Infinite scaling ultimately doesn’t work and the official deity rules were pretty bad.
Paragraph 4: I think if anyone can mathmatically state as fact that the core 3E classes are unbalanced then you have to say its me. I spent years analyzing these things when developing the Challenge Rating and Encounter Level documents. However, even if we dismiss my testimony on this, there are copious numbers of reports from players and DMs (some I have read, others witnessed first hand) outlining how spellcasters dominate the game at high levels and beyond. Thirdly, even dismissing all that as hearsay, you need only look to WotC’s Book of Nine Swords to see that even they saw there was a massive disparity in power between the classes. So when I say the 3E classes are unbalanced, yes it is an opinion, but its one backed up by every piece of evidence we have.
Paragraph 5: I listed (off the top of my head) the reasons I could understand, I didn’t say they were the only reasons, plus there may be reasons I simply don’t understand or don’t agree with. I’m happy to listen to the reasons you or others might have on why you prefer it. From my (admittedly) limited experience of reading edition war debates, rarely does the 3E/Pathfinder faction seem to ‘big up’ the attributes of their game, typically they spend their time and effort detracting 4E. So I am very interested to read some pro-3E/Pathfinder comments. Why is 3E/Pathfinder superior to 4E?
Paragraph 6: The problem with calling certain points I raised “demagoguery” is that virtually all the points I made were about mechanical changes to the game. Thus they are probably more objective than subjective.
– The new Death rules ARE superior to what has went before, acting as a sort of virtual cushion for players unfortunate enough to see their characters killed, as well as being a bit more cinematic.
– The balance of 4E IS vastly superior because the math is simply better. There are less exploitative variables going on, the numbers involved are smaller (attack bonus increasing by half a point per level for instance). No classes dominate the others.
– Teamwork IS much more vital in 4E as reflected by the mechanics (Marking being one obvious example), tied in with the greater importance of movement and positioning (pushing, pulling, shifting and flanking) as well as the near universal addition of conditions to Powers (attacks rarely simply do damage, they more often than not have some sort of secondary condition: daze, blind, grant combat advantage etc.)
Some of what I initially said is perhaps my subjective impressions of the game, but I think most of my points raised were objective and mechanics based.
Upper_Krust
February 15, 2011
Hello again Alzrius mate,
For some reason your other two posts didn’t show up here, but I did get to read them on my dashboard. So I’ll try some quick responses (since you have quite a few links to long articles).
– Death of the Wandering Monster: It’s funny that the 4E games I have played in (other than the Keep on the Shadowfell playthrough) all had Wandering Monster encounters, plus I have Wandering Monster tables in the Vampire Bestiary. As regards the article itself, the author spends most of their time outlining flaws in 3E.
– Keep on the Shadowfell-Analyzing Design: Its worth noting that Keep on the Shadowfell is universally derided as a bad adventure (and thus something of an easy target). However, the author seems to have issues with two of the poorly designed traps. Thats hardly an indictment of all traps in 4E or indeed the trap mechanics of 4E.
– Disassociated Mechanics: Martial Daily Powers probably don’t make a heck of a lot of sense (though they are fun). Disagree with the author’s point on Marking though: when marking has a detrimental effect on the target I see it as the Fighter saying “Ignore me at your peril!”. When marking has a positive effect upon your allies, its more a case of “Concentrate your firepower on this foe now!” Skill Challenges were errated pretty early on.
– Fetishizing Balance: I agree with the author that you can be too fascistic about game balance; heck I probably contributed a little towards that approach with my CR/EL rules. However, there are several things not addressed here. Firstly, the power disparity between different PCs as well as different Classes can make the game less fun for all concerned. When one or two players totally dominate play its to the detriment of the others. Secondly, if you ignore balance altogether then you flaunt the risk of a TPK, especially at high and even more so at epic levels.
– Playtesting 4th Edition: Author makes a number of points. 1. The Padded Sumo Wrestler argument has been addressed long since. 2. Monsters boiled down to basic abilities, ignores Rituals but does mention different stat-blocks for the same basic monster (so he sort of solves part of his own problem). 3. The 15 Minute Day, personally I have never seen this materialise in 4E (maybe because the DMs I have played under utilised Wandering Monsters and Reinforcements which immediately nullifies the whole idea). 4. Non-Combat Skills, the author probably has a point and maybe I am not playing enough to have seen this as a problem (as yet).
The sum total of 4E criticism from the above articles seems to be:
1. There are no Wandering Monster tables (which I don’t recall in 3E either).
2. Disassociated Mechanics (like Martial Daily powers) are nonsensical – which I agree with.
3. You can get too bogged down worrying about balance – I also agree but with the caveat that its better to be balanced than unbalanced.
4. 4E needs more Non-Combat Skills – which I agree with (although I am guessing thats been solved somewhere by now).
Thats a paltry list when weighed against criticisms of 3E wouldn’t you say?
Simon Newman
March 2, 2011
Re Pathfinder – I haven’t played it, but it looks to me like a good game in the 1-10 level range, like 3.5e but better balanced between the classes – Fighters still a bit weak, but no longer hopeless compared to CoDzilla. Maybe the Pathfinder designers recognise that this 1-10 range is the sweet spot, and that is why Scylla & Charyibdis are CR’d just above that?
I tend to think that Krusty’s efforts at 3e level 21+ play design were a brave effort, but stymied by the fundamental flaws in the system, which he now recognises. I think now that the best approach to 3e or Pathfinder deity level play is probably to bring deity PCs down into the 11-20 range, with powers that augment warrior type PCs more than spellcasters, thus improving rather than detracting from class balance.
Simon Newman
March 2, 2011
Re 4e – Essentials seems to do a good job of making PCs much easier to run in combat, and the switch to monster damage = 8+Level, while giving all monsters attack bonus of Level+5, and getting rid of elite & solo defence bonuses, makes them much better designed. I still prefer to avoid elites & solos though; the best 4e fights seem to be with 2-3 standard monsters of 2-3 levels above party level backed up by a bunch of minions; 5-7 standard monsters at or just below party level + minions can also be good, as is the regular 5 monsters at level or level+1. I try to avoid Control/PC-nerfing type monster powers; PC Controllers can still be a source of grind but less so if you have plenty of minions for them to deal with.
Simon Newman
March 2, 2011
Re 4e Wandering monsters – first 4e game I ran with Krusty, wandering dire wolf encounter, their 1st attacks in the 1st combat round took his 1st level Ranger archer PC to 1 hp above ‘negative bloodied’, ie dead. He never took point again! >:)
Simon Newman
March 2, 2011
4e Essentials gets rid of Martial Dailies BTW (though they never bothered me personally). I’m loving playing my new Essentials Rogue-Thief striker PC, Larsenio Roguespierre – basically the way it works, with my Rogue Tricks I have Combat Advantage 99% of the time & can thus Sneak Attack reliably every round, for a hefty whack of damage – eg 3d6+7 with shortsword at 1st level. Then I have a Backstab minor encounter power which gives +3 to hit & another d6 damage, and my human racial Heroic Effort encounter ability lets me add +4 to a roll after seeing the result. That’s it.
Upper_Krust
March 2, 2011
Hi Simon,
Re: High Level 3E/Pathfinder. In my opinion, relatively low level deities sort of defeats the purpose. I tried my best to make immortal level 3E work and I think succeeded to an extent for those DMs (and players) willing to put in the extra effort.
Re: 4E Elites/Solos. From reading a multitude of posts on the subject I think Elites and Solos are grindy in the Heroic Tier; perfect at the Paragon Tier and somewhat underpowered in the Epic Tier. I have four pages of rules on Designing/Redesigning Solo Monsters in 4E within the Vampire Bestiary, and hopefully they will help encounters with such monsters.
Re: My Ranger Ardan. That was a fluke accident, I thought the wolves were off the map. Its worth noting that from that opening encounter the same character never got hit in the subsequent 20 or so encounters and became known as Ardan the Untouchable! 😉
Re: Essentials. I have been meaning to buy this. I’ll wait until the summer though, that way I can peruse your copy Simon. 😉 Incidentally, Email me with the convenient dates for me to come over. I seem to remember you wanted it a few weeks earlier this time. Maybe August 12-22nd?
Re: Larsenio Roguespierre (kewl name btw): Nice to see you are enjoying some playtime for a change…and channeling your inner munchkin it seems. 😀
Simon Newman
March 2, 2011
Channeling my inner munchkin – why, my PCs are always Fair & Balanced! 😉
Essentials – I like Heroes of the Fallen Lands a lot; I was able to make a PC using the book alone, WITHOUT COMPUTER SUPPORT!!!! :-O
Now that I’m getting back into 4e after a 5-month hiatus I reckon I’ll get the Rules Compendium shortly too, and see what else from Essentials to get later; Heroes of the Forgotten Kingdoms and the Monster Vault are both possibilities but neither seems necessary. I’m planning to kick off a new 4e Wilderlands campaign July or August, so you should get to play a couple sessions of that. Mid August should be great for your visit, though I can accommodate end of August too. My mate Mark will probably still be running his Monday nights Punjar campaign, in which I play Larsenio, so to play in that with me you might want to come over Saturday through Tuesday rather than Friday through Monday. You could still play in Zander’s game the 2nd Saturday. Or you could extend your trip a day and do Friday-Tuesday. Spend plenty of time entertaining Bill & you’ll keep Ingrid happy. 🙂
Elites/Solos – I’ve only GM’d up to 6th level in 4e, interesting that they seem to work better in Paragon.
3e – I agree, but that’s more effort than I was keen on!
Upper_Krust
March 2, 2011
I’ll have a think about it, the problem with returning on the Tuesday is that I would actually be working on the Tuesday night. That said I could always take an extra day off though, so it won’t be a big deal. We can pencil in Friday 12th to Tuesday the 23rd for now. 😉
As regards Elites/Solos, I think its less to do with their game mechanics changing and more to do with likely increased PC firepower at Paragon levels. Been thinking x3 hp (Heroic); x4 (Paragon) and x6 (Epic) would work best for Solo monsters…although I should stress thats just an idea I have and not something I have implemented in the book…even though I do add in other ideas for solo monsters.
Simon Newman
March 3, 2011
Hi Krusty – re Solos and Elites, I struggle to think of any really good experience I’ve had with either of them in my Heroic Tier game. They tend to be Padded Sumo to the max. I used the first used the MM young green dragon; the PCs had a DR5 power protecting everyone and it could barely scratch them, pathetic. Then I used a 7th level modified young red dragon on ca 4th-5th level PCs at the end of a delve and after a long slogging match it killed 2, the rest fled. Later I used the new 4th level young black dragon on 5th-6th level PCs, who unsurprisingly killed it quite easily. I guess the red dragon fight was best, but might have been better with the dragon as an elite, though the PCs would have killed it fairly easy – they were ‘supposed’ to just rescue the damsel and flee the dragon though.
For my next campaign I’m looking at converting Solos to Elites, Elites to Standards.
Upper_Krust
March 3, 2011
I think the main problem is not the actual rules, but more a case of the monsters being badly designed and the rules not being fully implemented.
For instance I had a look at the Young Green Dragon there and the first thing you notice is that its base damage 1d8+5 (bite) and 1d6+5 (claw). These attacks should be 2d6+6. The second thing is the breath weapon dealing 1d10+3, when it should be 2d6+6.
– Factor in an extra 1d6 on a crit.
– Then add some situational modifiers (for instance, since its a skirmisher, maybe it deals an extra +2d6 to targets when it has combat advantage, or also let poison damage stack twice so that if you are taking ongoing 5 and you get hit again you are now taking ongoing 10 poison damage…and weakened).
– Then increase base damage by 50% when its bloodied.
Thats just the most basic surgery on a monster. It would be interesting to see the Monster Vault and see exactly what changes they make.
From my study of the matter I have noticed that Solo monsters work best in the following range:
Heroic Tier: Solo Monster +0-1 levels of the PCs
Paragon Tier: Solo Monster +2-3 levels of the PCs
Epic Tier: Solo Monster +4-5 levels of the PCs
(Hypothetical) Immortal Tier: Solo Monster +6-7 levels of the PCs
That said, I think some of the ideas I suggest in the Vampire Bestiary may reduce those spreads a tad.
So thinking about it, the Red Dragon was too powerful for them (which you intended), whereas the Black Dragon was too weak. You never mentioned what level they were against the Green.
Simon Newman
March 3, 2011
They were around 4th level against Lerentiss the green dragon. She was backed up by a 7th level shadow demon, but the PCs were backed up by 20(!) elf archer minions, an eladrin mage NPC, and a tough elf skirmisher-6 NPC, so it was a very one-sided fight.
Dave
March 3, 2011
The monster vault definitely improved things and I highly recommend it. When I get home I will try to give you a run down on the dragon improvements (solos) and the improved Balor (elite). I don’t know if the fixed everything for every type of group (how could they), but in general it is a big improvement.
Upper_Krust
March 3, 2011
Simon – yes that does seem a bit one sided, no wonder it wasn’t a great encounter.
Dave – thanks, that would be interesting. I was originally planning on buying the Monster Vault but the reports of WotC massively dialling back of Epic tier content annoyed me enough to dissuade me from the purchase. I read some comments online that the Balor was a massive improvement.
Dave
March 3, 2011
Yes, Epic is a bit lacking, but here is one for you:
Monster Vault Balor (just the basics):
HP – 622
AC – 40, Fortitude – 40, Reflex – 40, Will – 39
Resist – 20 Fire
Traits:
Flaming Body – Aura 2, 3 while bloodied
10 fire damage, 20 while bloodied
Standard Actions:
Lightning Sword, At-Will
Attack – M3; +32 vs. AC
Hit – 6d10+11 lightning, or 3d10+71 on a critical
Flaming Whip, At-Will
Attack – M5, +30 vs. Reflex
Hit – 2d10+10 fire, & ongoing 15 fire (save ends). The balor pulls the target up to 5 squares
Fire & Lightning, At-Will
The balor uses lightning sword and flaming whip
Beheading Blade, recharge when bloodied
Attack – Close blast 3; +32 vs. AC & the attack scores a critical on 15-20
Hit – 5d12+14 lightning or 3d12+74 on a crit
Triggered Actions
Death Burst
Attack – close burst 10; +30 vs. Reflex
Hit – 6d10 fire, balor destroyed
Variable Resistance 3/encounter
resist 20 to triggering type
Dave
March 3, 2011
And here is another for you:
Monster Elder Red Dragon (just the basics): lvl 22
HP – 832
AC – 38, Fortitude – 36, Reflex – 33, Will – 32
Resist – 20 Fire
Traits:
Action Recovery – Whenever the dragon ends its turn any dazing, stunning or dominating effect on it ends
Instinctive Assualt – On initiative 10+ its initiative check, the dragon can use a free action to use a bite or claw. If the use a free action because it is dominated or stunned, the effect ends instead.
Standard Actions:
Bite, At-Will
Attack – M3; +27 vs. AC
Hit – 2d10+6. The target is grabbed, ongoing 15 fire (25 while bloodied) until grab ends (DC 30 escape)
Claw, At-Will
Attack – M3(1 or 2 creatures), +27 vs. AC, the dragon can attack the same creature twice or 2 creatures
Hit – 3d10+14, & the target is grabbed (DC 27 escape)
Imolate Foe, Recharge 5,6
Attack – Ranged 20; +25 vs. Reflex
Hit – 4d10+7 fire, ongoing 20 fire
Miss – half damage & ongoing 10 fire
Breathweapon, Recharge 5,6
Attack – close blast 5; +25 vs.Reflex
Hit – 4d12+17 fire damage
Miss – half damage
Triggered Actions:
Tail Strike, At-Will, enemy leaves a square w/ 3 squares of the dragon
Attack – M4; +25 vs. Reflex
Hit – 2d8+4 and the target falls pron
Bloodied Breath
Upper_Krust
March 4, 2011
Thanks very much Dave. Interesting reading.
Re: The Balor.
Lightning Sword at first glance looks overpowered, but I actually just checked it against my set of figures from the latest DMG and the average is only 0.25 above, so spot on since you would always round up. That said, I generally like the idea that the average base damage from the dice should be comparable to the bonus, which it really isn’t here. 4d10+22 makes more sense to me. I am wondering how they came up with that crit figure though, I would have made it 6d10+71.
Whip Reach…surely Melee 6 for a Huge size creature. Probably a typo given it can pull the target 5 squares.
Beheading Blade looks deadly – great stuff. Again the total average is pretty much dead on the money. I would have prefered maybe 4d10+23. On that note I wonder if perhaps they are taking the total average, subtracting the monster’s relevant ability modifier (which becomes the bonus) then converting the rest into base dice…that might make sense. Could you tell me the Balor’s ability scores, just to check that theory out. Thanks.
Death Burst should be 7d12 or 8d10.
Re: The Dragon
Instinctive Assault. Really like this Trait. I have been using something similar and I think their version is definately a notch less confusing than my own.
Claw. Much improved, I like that it has two attacks built in, but is singularly weaker than the Bite. Thus giving Instinctive Assault its tactical options.
Tail Strike seems underpowered…are they working by the idea that Triggered Actions should be 50% of standard damage I wonder…?
Dave
March 4, 2011
Sorry about the stats, I was trying to go quick, here they are:
Balor – lvl 27
Str-30, Dex-25, Wis-29
Con-31, Int-12, Cha-14
The crit damage, in both cases is the max damage (the + damage) with a little extra added on (3d10 lightning sword & 3d12 for Beheading Blade).
Yeah, I think the death burst could be a little more powerful, but it is covering a huge area and could hit the entire party.
Dave
March 4, 2011
Regarding the Red Dragon and solos in general:
Though the Monster Vault version is definitely an improvement, but I still believe it is underpowered. I believe a solo needs to be able to do damage about equal to 5 standard monsters every round. But the red can only approach this if it uses 4 claw attacks and a tail strike (which is underpowered as you noted).
So I think it either needs to do more damage per attack (or bump up the breathweapon damage) or have a minor action that can cause damage, or allow it to use 3 claw attacks or a claw and bite attack as an At-Will. I would also like to see a power that allows it to move and attack, so it doesn’t stay penned down. Maybe a recharge move power that causes damage?
What do you think?
Simon Newman
March 4, 2011
A Solo lasts longer than 5 standard monsters which can usually be hit by multiple-target attacks, and it can focus single-target damage better. IME Solos should do around x3 the damage of a standard monster to provide an overall x5 threat. Likewise Elites should do around x1.5 damage to provide an overall x2 threat.
Dave
March 4, 2011
Interesting. That has not been my experience in game play, but everyone will have a different experience and PC dynamics I am sure.
If I give my group a true solo (all by itself), they tend to finish it off pretty quickly since the can concentrate their fire while staying pretty spread out to avoid getting attacked (or at least some of them). If I don’t give them at least a 5x damage solo, they won’t break a sweat. I regularly adjust solos to provide more than 5x damage, but this is because I know my group – I wouldn’t do that as a basis of design.
Now to be honest, I tend to use same level or a level +1 encounters with a 5x solo design, thus the PCs hit more often than they would a +3 or more encounter. But that just seems to make everything more exciting.
I think solo play (and thus design) is more dependent on group dynamics. I have often thought it might be helpful if they provided different levels of “optimization” for the same solo. But, I guess that is why I’m a DM – I need to do some work!
Simon Newman
March 4, 2011
I’d be very concerned that in my Heroic Tier campaigns a x5 dmg Solo would shred a PC every round. As PCs go down, group damage output lessens, and the group then enters a death spiral – I saw that happen when they fought the level 7 red dragon solo. It didn’t help that a reckless PC plunged them into that battle w/out a short rest, after they’d already unloaded most of their Encounter powers in the previous fight.
Dave
March 4, 2011
That’s my problem though, I can’t seem to knock them down. There are always five PCs attacking one solo adn they chew up hit points like crazy!
But like I said, most of my solo encouters have been lvl or lvl +1.
Upper_Krust
March 4, 2011
Hi Dave, thanks for the stats (no apologies necessary amigo).
Re: The Stats. Okay, none of those other than the +10 bonus to the whip could possibly be derived from its ability scores.
Re: Crit Damage, I understand the mechanics, I was just wondering where the 3d10/3d12 was derived from. In the case of PCs its usually one extra die per weapon plus and thus for the Level 27 Balor you would envision 6 dice (Level divided by 5 with fractions rounded up to determine he effective Magic Item bonus). For the Epic Tier I’d use d10’s, thus 6d10 for the Balor. I think Graz’zt (Level 32 Solo) deals 7d10 on a crit. Of course thats for weapons. For natural attacks you probably want to add an amount comparable to the base damage of the attack.
Re: Red Dragon Damage. According to my research, monsters should deal:
– Elite Rank: Average x1.5 standard damage (potentially x1 before bloodied, x2 after)
– Solo Rank: Average x2.4 standard damage (potentially x2 before bloodied, x3 after)
What you have to remember about Elites and Solo are that they don’t suffer from the same diminishing returns of standard monsters. In that if you are fighting 5 standard monsters their total effectiveness diminishes for each standard monster killed, whereas a solo maintains the same output throughout the course of the battle.
Now the flipside to this, is the potential for elites and solos to get stun-locked (or similar). But personally I think that needs to be nerfed rather than the damage simply increased. A fight where a monster is stun-locked the whole battle is simply unsatisfying. Massively increasing the damage to compensate for that will only create a self-destructive spiral whereby the PCs put more emphasis on locking it down, forcing you to keep upping the damage for that ‘one time’ the stun-lock doesn’t work. This is just bad design. So what you want is the proper x2/x3 damage for solos but give them ways to reduce the likelihood of getting locked down.
To get back to the design of the dragon itself, I don’t think upping the number of claws or bite attacks is a good idea.
At the moment it can Bite AND Claw (via Instinctive Assault) AND (almost certainly) use a Tail Slap (which we don’t count towards its total because its a triggered action). The bite itself however, is way underpowered, and even though it has 15 ongoing, always treat ongoing as EXTRA damage, not base damage. So that should really be 3d10+14 PLUS 15 ongoing fire.
Added to which you could have it deal extra damage on a Crit 18-20/ 3d10+44 PLUS 15 ongoing fire. Giving monsters bonus damage on a crit isn’t something to be used across the board (certainly not for minions). But definately for solo’s (and to a lesser extent Elites) they remove part of the grind problem.
Its Claw attacks are overpowered though and singularly they should be doing about 2d8+7. With those corrections, the Dragon is doing a base x2 standard damage. So ideally what you want is something kicking in when its bloodied, that ups that to x3 standard damage. The simple way is to increase all damage by 50% when bloodied, but that is a bit lazy to me.
A second feature of my solo’s is that they technically get 4 Action Points (Two before bloodied and two after). The reasons for this I’ll explain within the Vampire Bestiary.
Overall the Dragon is okay.
1. Increase the Bite Damage.
2. Reduce the Claw Damage.
3. Add bonus crit damage equal to base dice damage and have it crit on an 18-20 (Epic Tier).
4. Increase overall damage output by 50% when bloodied.
5. Give it two Action Points before bloodied and two after.
Dave
March 4, 2011
I really like your changes to the red dragon and I think I will explore using increased crit % and damage more in the future, and I agree with the bite being underpowered. I’m not sure about the action points though, as I can almost never remember to use them in the first place!
Also, I wanted to note that I don’t massively increase the damage. I increase the number of attacks, which has the effect of increasing damage, but it gives the solo more chances to miss as well (especially at lvl or lvl +1). For me it is more about getting the solo to move around and do more attacks to make it feel like it is part of whole round, not just its turn.
Simon
March 4, 2011
Krusty wrote:
“Solo Rank: Average x2.4 standard damage (potentially x2 before bloodied, x3 after)”
Is that x2.4 factoring in Action Points? Or would you say my suggestion of average x3 factoring in increased DPR from action points, encounter/recharge powers et al was about right?
x3 is the average of x1 and x5, just as for Elites x1.5 is the average of x1 and x2. In both cases the needed average DPR factors in what you said – “that they don’t suffer from the same diminishing returns of standard monsters. In that if you are fighting 5 standard monsters their total effectiveness diminishes for each standard monster killed, whereas a solo maintains the same output throughout the course of the battle”.
Upper_Krust
March 5, 2011
Hi Dave and Simon! 🙂
@Dave
Re: Action Points I have read conflicting reports. Some say save them for dramatic moments and others say use them as soon as possible before the boss gets itself killed. As a rule of thumb I’d probably suggest solo monsters use Action Points on even numbered rounds. That should give a nice ‘rollercoaster’ feel to the combat.
Re: Extra Attacks. I’m a big fan of using Move and Minor Actions, I think Move Actions make boss battles more dynamic. Dragons have a lot of Move Action potential with things like Flyby Breath Strafing; Snatch & Drop (see my Vampire Courtesan in the second Vampire Bestiary Preview) and just even a general ‘Charge’ attack. Minor Actions are just great for giving bosses more options.
@Simon
Re: Action Points. I was factoring the x2.4 (x2/x3 when bloodied) before Action Points.
I’m sure I had a good reason for the x2.4, that said, I can’t for the life of me remember what that is at the moment. 😮
Incidently, I am writing an article here for this website on solo monster design. It won’t have all the Advanced Tips from the Vampire Bestiary, but it will have all the Basic Advice. I’ll try and get that up within the next day or so.
Dave
March 5, 2011
UK:
My problem with action points is I always forgot to use them at all! We are playing a slightly homebrew campaign now where you spend action points to do anything. A minor action is 1 AP, a move or standard action is 2 AP, but an OA is only 1AP.
I think dragons should have a lot of dynamic actions as well. Which get’s us to another point of solo design that I think needs revised. I believe solos in general need to have more powers/ options. If 5 standard monsters have 2-3 powers each a solo sould have 10-15 powers IMHO.
I am a bit of a dragon fanboy. I have redesigned the chromatics at least twice and Tiamat a few times. I have made dragons with flyby breath attacks ( I think I used an “area wall” to create the effect) and trample moves (attack creatures in occupied spaces), snatch and grab, snatch and drop, and my favorite: the snatch and throw (that causes bite and falling damage).
I look forward to your thoughts on solo design.
Upper_Krust
March 5, 2011
Hi Dave.
Re: Your Homebrew Campaign. Sounds intriguing, I am curious why the changes to Action Points though?
Re: Number of Powers for Solo Monsters. I think you have to be careful not to add too many powers. Personally I use the 2/4/6/8 (minion/standard/elite/solo) approach, adding one extra power for each additional tier and one extra in total for leaders. So a Level 22 Solo creature would have 10 powers. Traits wouldn’t be counted as part of that total.
Dave
March 6, 2011
UK,
Homebrew:
We are experimenting with different house rules at this time. The AP change started because I didn’t like the fact that you could, essentially, peform unlimited OA. So we gave every action a cost in AP and you have a limited # of AP you can use per round (we are currently using 5, but I am not sure that is the correct number) and the refresh every round. If you spend more than 3 AP on your turn an adjacent enemy gets an OA. You can also spend an extra AP on a power to increase its accuracy (1AP extra = +2 to hit)
This also resulted in a change to surges. Basically we don’t have encounter and daily powers as normal. We have the powers, but an encounter power cost 1 surge and a daily 2 surges. And you can use any power as long as you have the surges to spend. You can also spend surges to increase your speed, gain an extra AP or increase the damage of an attack.
Solo Powers:
I like that rule of thumb, that sounds pretty reasonable.
Upper_Krust
March 6, 2011
Hi Dave,
Re: Homebrew. Would it not have just been simpler to slap a limit on OA?
Re: Surges. I like the idea of putting surges to other uses though.
I’m toying with the idea of introducing a new Morale mechanic in the Vampire Bestiary. Its very simple, each NPC/Monster will have one of four listed morales. The idea being that some monsters are more prone to running away when outnumbered, while other may even gain a bonus if they are the last man standing on their side. But the real strength of the mechanic is that those enemies that run away…live to fight another day. So if you are fighting a bunch of goblins and two get away, you add those to the next relevant encounter. This makes the ecounters a bit more dynamic (especially useful for published adventures).
Theres also some roleplaying elements involved because if they can’t escape, NPCs will surrender. Their fate might become a morale dilemma, especially if the encounter unfolds in a public place. Letting a goblin go might come back to bite them on the butt, while freeing a wild dog
Just thinking this might be an interesting topic for an article after the Solo Monster Design article. Incidently, the Morale rules are totally non-edition specific, so they could be used for 3E, 4E or basically any other RPG.
Dave
March 6, 2011
UK,
Re – AP changes: Yes, just limiting OA would have been simpler. However, the OA issue was just what started us down that path. We also liked the idea that you could take more time (spend more AP) and increase you accuracy (my players really hate missing with encounter or daily powers and really liked this idea) and my players liked the idea that they could attack more than once per round by default. This sounds unbalanced (and I am not sure we have everything correct yet), but the monsters can do the same, there is the danger of enemy OA (for spending more the 3 Ap on your turn), and the danger that you will not have any AP left to dodge or parry (homebrew powers that anyone can take to increase defense scores to try to turn a hit into a miss).
RE – morale mechanic: I think this is an interesting idea; however, I am not sure it needs to be a mechanic. As a DM this is something I do inherently. Then again, I see the value of simply adding it as another “trait” that helps flesh out a monster and gives a little mechanics to the flavor.
Additionally, I would rather this be included in your next book, or simply a blog post. Unless you can add this without changing the release date of the VB at all. It seems you have a habit of delays and I would rather see what you have then wait to add this mechanic – but that is just me.
Dave
March 6, 2011
After your recomendation, I also forgot to add that I looked throught the Pathfinder Bestiary 2 yesterday. In general I liked the art work, but I didn’t think it was fantastic. For me, it wasn’t worth buying the book. Though my son wanted it.
I am also really put off, in general, by the layout and stat blocks of 3.5E and Pathfinder books and monsters. To me, the information just isn’t orgainzed well and my eyes literally don’t know where to go. But I never played 3E+ (1E to 4E for me) and it could just be a lack experience with the layout.
Dave
March 6, 2011
Hi UK,
Sorry to bother you again, but I just so this thread over at the WotC D&D forums and I thought it would interest you since it is on Monster Morale:
http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75882/27146257/Monster_Morale
Upper_Krust
March 6, 2011
Hi Dave! 🙂
Re: Morale in D&D. Yes it could be something easily handled by the DM, but the rules I am proposing are so quick and simple that I think DMs will love them.
Re: The Morale Article. The article is virtually finished, its only a couple of paragraphs, and didn’t take that long. It won’t be responsible for any Vampire Bestiary delay…at least not by more than 30 minutes or so. 😉
Re: Pathfinder Bestiary 2. I have had a chance to spend more time with the book and whats struck me by further reading is that the major flaw in the bestiary is that it uses the 3E/Pathfinder rules. That might seem a bit cheeky, but most of the monsters, when examined up close have very few special abilities. Added to which many of those special abilties have quite long descriptions (10+ line paragraph descriptors are very common). So I can understand your sentiments as regards the layout. The 4E stat-blocks really let you use monsters at a glance, Pathfinder definately doesn’t…and thats even before we talk about having to look up a monster’s feats and spells/spell-like abilities.
I was also staggered by how many special abilities boil down to ability score damage. Thinking back to the last times I played 3E (3-4 years ago) and trying to remember if ability score damage/drain was so prevailant, though my memory is a tad hazy on the matter.
Re: WotC D&D Forums. I’ll maybe post over there in a few days when I get the Morale article up here on the website. Thanks for the link. I wonder if my WotC forum account is still active…I think its been 4 years since my last post there. 😮
Simon Newman
March 6, 2011
“Thinking back to the last times I played 3E (3-4 years ago) and trying to remember if ability score damage/drain was so prevailant, though my memory is a tad hazy on the matter”
I removed ability drain effects from 3e monsters whenever possible, so in my games you may have been spared the full horror of 3e! Normally I substituted hit point damage instead, for eg poison effects. The reason was that it’s normally the guy in melee, the Fighter, who gets ability drained. Usually STR or CON. Thus destroying the effectiveness of the already-weakest 3e PC class.
Upper_Krust
March 7, 2011
Hi Simon,
I never liked the ability damage mechanic in 3E and it was a bugger to keep track of. It does seem to be the principle mechanic behind many of the special abilities of the Pathfinder monsters. The Weakened (Strength), Slowed (Dexterity) and other conditions of 4E are just so much easier to implement.
Deinos
July 12, 2011
I gotta disagree with the rationales provided for playing 3e. Though yeah, they sometimes apply.
What brings 3e to life for me is… the Immortals Handbook, actually. And not even the part about playing an awesome god of blowing stuff up. For me, its the mechanisms of divine ascension and the weird societies and ecologies that spring up around the gods. From aperture farming to aspects, and even all the weird abominations, like the Evil Oscar/Traverser-like Odiums to the blinged out Sadim, IH has been a source of fascination to me for years.
4e cuts out everything there is to like about D&D for me; it seems like a good idea, focusing only on the action, but in 4e, you will be nothing more than another MurderHobo from level 1 to 30. The game disintegrates if you gain allies, and you will always be doing the same things forever. Even Wish is gone, so there never seems to be anything to look forward to.
Upper_Krust
July 12, 2011
Hey there Deinos,
thats where I come in (again). I’ll make epic+ level 4E interesting (I hope). 😉
– I want ascension to be more accessible, but less easy to progress in.
– I want enemies to be more interesting and challenging.
– I want enemy areas to be more fluid in adapting to invasion…like real world enemy territory.
– I want artifacts to gain experience.
– I want to vary gameplay by giving PCs worshippers and realms to defend as well as interject cut scenes into your game.
– Expect even more bizarre monster ideas.
– Wishes could make a comeback (as a higher form of currency)