• The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is LIVE! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!

Am I the only one who doesn't like the arbitrary "boss monster" tag?

slobster

Hero
To each his own. I could be a fan of guns; just not their approach.

Agreed on the gunslinger. It looked so awesome in the leadup, but the class (and guns in general) was so disappointing when it finally came out.

For every pathfinder class that I love for its fun in play and new ideas (summoner, witch, bard) there is one that I loathe equally for its weak archetype or its terrible, botched mechanics (inquisitor, gunslinger, monk). Pathfinder stuff is so hit or miss, though all you have to do is take the hits and ignore the misses and you've got yourself a wonderful system.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

tomBitonti

Adventurer
I don't agree with this. Ogres aren´t elite, they fight 2-3 PC at a time when those PC are level 3, but a level 6 fighter can take 2-3 ogres at the same time, and a lvl 15 fighter kill them in droves. Bounded accuracy can model them perfectly fine without needing to be Elite.

Dragons, like Beholders, Hydras, and other monsters, ARE solo monster, though. Even if a high level player can kill several of them at the same time, those monsters still have "solo" abilities, in my opinion. They still should be able to threat several human-sized targets at the same time, should be resistant to action-denial, have decent mobility, can disable PC, have some sort of magic resistance, damage reduction or regeneration, etc. That's a Solo monster. Even if a 20th level group can kill 10 young Black dragons at the same time, those Dragons still have the features that a Solo creature should have: Aura of Fear, wing-buffets and Tail-slaps to make multi-threats, dragon breath, fly, magic resitance, stun-inmunity, or whatever "solo abilities" 5e will have.

Agreed on both points.

I am struck by the troll fight in the first Lotr movie. The troll seemed to be a boss. (Funny about that, since just a short time later Gandalf goes up against the balrog by himself.) The troll didn't seem to get extra actions. He did more than the fellowship because his attacks did disproportionate damage relative to the fellowship's: A huge DR blunted the fellowship's attacks, while the troll had knockback and a ground shatter type ability.

Looking at the listed bosses, the curious matter is that extra actions are built into each: A hydra has (in effect) extra actions because of the special mechanics of the extra heads. A beholder has extra actions because it can fire its eye rays independently. A dragon has extra actions due to how natural attacks: A full attack from a dragon does bite, claw, claw, wing sweep, wing sweep, tail sweep, and possibly overrun.

I have to ask: Is the problem with "boss" a problem of mechanics or of concept? Boss monsters, in 4E, have a special mechanic (extra actions) which is a rather unique mechanic. In particular, that mechanic does not follow from the regular rules. I can see having a problem with boss monsters using the unique mechanic as a game design problem, while not having a problem with the idea that some opponents can be called bosses simply because they are exceptionally hard to fight.

TomB
 

Victim

First Post
Agreed on both points.

I am struck by the troll fight in the first Lotr movie. The troll seemed to be a boss. (Funny about that, since just a short time later Gandalf goes up against the balrog by himself.) The troll didn't seem to get extra actions. He did more than the fellowship because his attacks did disproportionate damage relative to the fellowship's: A huge DR blunted the fellowship's attacks, while the troll had knockback and a ground shatter type ability.

Looking at the listed bosses, the curious matter is that extra actions are built into each: A hydra has (in effect) extra actions because of the special mechanics of the extra heads. A beholder has extra actions because it can fire its eye rays independently. A dragon has extra actions due to how natural attacks: A full attack from a dragon does bite, claw, claw, wing sweep, wing sweep, tail sweep, and possibly overrun.

I have to ask: Is the problem with "boss" a problem of mechanics or of concept? Boss monsters, in 4E, have a special mechanic (extra actions) which is a rather unique mechanic. In particular, that mechanic does not follow from the regular rules. I can see having a problem with boss monsters using the unique mechanic as a game design problem, while not having a problem with the idea that some opponents can be called bosses simply because they are exceptionally hard to fight.

TomB

Really? Based on my recollection, most shots of a fellowship character doing something are followed up by a shot of the cave troll doing something. I can't think of a better justification for extra actions.

Let's take a look at the scene. Legolas shoots the troll, then it attacks a hobbit. Then Aragorn forces it with a spear and it takes another swing (sending someone flying; the quality on youtube is not that great). Then Gimli throws an axe, and the troll smashes the tomb swinging at him. Next, there's a quick shot of the hobbits grouping up, and a cut back to gimli fighting and the cave troll hitting some of his foes while swinging at him. Legolas shoots it again, and the cave troll whips its chain at him. The chain gets caught, Legolas runs across to shoot him in the head. Then the troll attacks the hobbits. Aragorn fights some goblins, then we cut back to the troll chasing Frodo around the pillar. And back and forth between them for a bit.

And that's basically the first two minutes of the fight. Just as I remembered, for every shot (or action) taken by the Fellowship characters, the troll is also getting a shot of its counterattack or other threat. How is that not extra actions again?
 

Hussar

Legend
Total, but people stating that certain editions of D&D are adversarial does not sit right, as they weren't, inherently, we make of this (absurd) game what we will...

Really? You see nothing adversarial in this:

1e DMG p60 said:
In addition to the simple exercise of observation, many times characters will desire to listen, ear pressed to a portal, prior to opening and entering. This requires a special check, in secret, by you to determine if any sound is heard. Because of this, continual listening becomes a great bother to the DM. While ear seekers will tend to discourage some, most players will insist on having their characters listen at doors at every pretense. First, make certain that you explain to players that all headgear must be removed in order to listen. Those wearing helmets will probably have to remove a mail coif and padded cap as well, don’t forget.

This is about as adversarial as you can get isn't it? If something bothers you as the DM, start throwing more and more crap at the players until they stop bothering you. No advice on maybe, I dunno, adjusting the rules, or how to just go with the flow and say yes to the players. No advice on how to actually DEAL with players listening at every door.

No, instead we should punish players for doing something that, really, makes 100% sense in the context of the situation. I mean, why wouldn't you listen at doors? You have the poor thief sitting right there who's got an actual SKILL (in a system without much in the way of skills) for doing exactly this.

AD&D is rife with this sort of thing. Tomb of Horrors anyone? Isle of the Ape? How is this not adversarial?

Isn't Gygax's name pretty much synonymous with this style of play? Testing player skill? How can you test the player's skill if you aren't adversarial?
 

Hussar

Legend
Oh, and on the cave troll fight scene, it certainly does look like our Cave troll gets a LOT of extra actions.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zpssk85XTQQ]Cave Troll scene - YouTube[/ame]
 

tomBitonti

Adventurer
Really? Based on my recollection, most shots of a fellowship character doing something are followed up by a shot of the cave troll doing something. I can't think of a better justification for extra actions.

Let's take a look at the scene. Legolas shoots the troll, then it attacks a hobbit. Then Aragorn forces it with a spear and it takes another swing (sending someone flying; the quality on youtube is not that great). Then Gimli throws an axe, and the troll smashes the tomb swinging at him. Next, there's a quick shot of the hobbits grouping up, and a cut back to gimli fighting and the cave troll hitting some of his foes while swinging at him. Legolas shoots it again, and the cave troll whips its chain at him. The chain gets caught, Legolas runs across to shoot him in the head. Then the troll attacks the hobbits. Aragorn fights some goblins, then we cut back to the troll chasing Frodo around the pillar. And back and forth between them for a bit.

And that's basically the first two minutes of the fight. Just as I remembered, for every shot (or action) taken by the Fellowship characters, the troll is also getting a shot of its counterattack or other threat. How is that not extra actions again?

Lots of character changes, so its hard to say, but the players used a lot of actions to prepare their attacks, while the troll seemed to just swing away, mostly ignoring anyone other than his current focus. Lots of the fellowship took an action, and then were battered aside, spending their next actions recovering. Legolas took a shot, then did a maneuver and took another shot, then was able to kill the troll when it roared from someone else's attack (Gimli?)

That is, I didn't see the troll having extra actions. He just seemed to not lose actions recovering.

Edit: He does seem to get in extra attacks. Not sure if that would fit under any existing rules for multiple attacks or for AOOs. Some of it could fit under mechanics like deflect arrows. Normally, knockback is a standard action; are there any rules for allowing each attack be a bull rush for large/strong monsters?

Tom
 
Last edited:

slobster

Hero
Edit: He does seem to get in extra attacks. Not sure if that would fit under any existing rules for multiple attacks or for AOOs. Some of it could fit under mechanics like deflect arrows. Normally, knockback is a standard action; are there any rules for allowing each attack be a bull rush for large/strong monsters?

Tom

Sounds like an ability I would give a big enemy monster that I wanted to challenge the whole party. ;)
 

pemerton

Legend
So are any two PCs.

<snip>

There isn't anything inherently different between a PC and an NPC.
Is there an inherent difference in the fiction? Typically not.

Is there an inherent difference from the metagame point of view? Absolutely yes, in the way I play the game. The PCs are protagonists. The NPCs are not.

In fact, it's not uncommon for characters to transition between different players or player and DM, particularly when one is "retired". The character's statistics aren't redefined when this happens, because they are a property of the character, not the player.
The non-change of statistics, when this sort of change in metagame role takes place, is a function of system. In 4e the default assumption is that there is a change of statistics (see DMG2 for the discussion of companion characters).

The rationale is that a character handled by a player can tolerate a more complex action resolution process than one handled by a GM. And also should be putting different demands on pacing. Hence, in 4e, a PC has fewer hit points but more mechanically complex options for hit point recovery - which also feed into the pacing of combat - whereas an NPC or monster of the same level typically has more hit points but few or no methods for recovering those hit points: simpler action resolution, more steady pacing.

This is just one way in which 4e trades on the abstract nature of D&D's mechanics: "luck and divine favour" can be built and resolved either as more hit points (NPCs) or as more healing surges with access to mechanics to take advantage of them (PCs).

It is certainly a valid choice for a DM to say that because a nonplayer character's role in the story is different, a different mechanical structure may be used to define the character (perhaps simplifying or altering the mechanics to produce the blacksmith of his dreams), but that's not a choice the designers should really be forcing on everyone and all their characters.
The system has to take a stand here. And the stand will affect play - the notion of playstyle-neutral mechanics is, in my view, an illusion.

It may be possible for the system to present multiple options (though this may not be trivial), or to have a single option that supports multiple playstyles (4e certainly supports multiple playstyles, judging from the different approaches of various 4e players who post on this forum), but it strike me as impossible for it to support any playstyle. And in my view the history and theory of game design give strong reason to think that it is particularly hard to accomodate strong simulationist preferences while also catering to other playstyles. Well-known examples are complaints about minutiae getting in the way of scene-framing and resolution (narrativist complaints about process simulationinst mechanics) or complaints about the game breaking down when high level fighters are still mortal, while high level wizards are godlike (gamist complaints about high concept simulationist mechanics).

D&Dnext seems to be hoping to square this circle by punting a lot of responsibility onto an expctation that the GM use force to control the game. This is very much the 2nd ed AD&D approach, as well as - I think - one reasonably common approach to 3E play. It is not, in itself, playstyle neutral, given that some playstyles (eg narrativism, just to push my own barrow) depend heavily upon limiting, regulating and channelling GM force in certain well-defined ways.

I'm guessing that caused some problems.
Not really. What sort of problems would you have in mind?

Really? You don't think in terms of every D&D character having six ability scores?
This is pretty central to building a PC. It's not a big part of the fiction, though, nor of all action resolution. I GM plenty of NPCs who lack those scores. I GMed a lot of AD&D without worrying about what the STR of a giraffe or the CON of a troll was.

certain people expect that everyone will share in that system together (I think most players do and probably most DMs as well; in any case, several people in this thread do and that underlying assumption wasn't getting across).
What's with this readiness to generalise without evidence. The only RPG I'm aware of that tries to put NPCs, monsters and PCs all on the same build mechanics is 3E D&D (maybe points-buy systems, looked at in a certain way, also fit this description - but almost certainly the points totals and other constraints on points expenditure will be different). I therefore simply don't think it's true that most players and GMs expect this in an RPG.

Listening to Paizo talk about their upcoming mythic supplement, I was struck by how they mentioned mythic creatures and characters getting advantages in hit points and the action economy without changing their base number too much.
Hmm, I can think of another system that does that. Oh yes, 4e.

On some level, it was rather like parts of this discussion, but the mythic thing is very different in that it's a complete integrated system
I'm not sure what that means, or how it sets up a contrast with 4e.

works within D&D's advancement by level model
Can you elaborate - if the base numbers don't change, but the hit points do, how is the creature advancing in level?

means something in the game world
Being a dragon, or a hydra, or a beholder, or a golem, etc, all mean something in the gameworld in 4e. I don't understand the basis for asserting otherwise.

Boss monsters, in 4E, have a special mechanic (extra actions) which is a rather unique mechanic. In particular, that mechanic does not follow from the regular rules.
I'm not sure what you're talking about here. There is no general "extra action" or "boss monster" mechanic in 4e.
 

pemerton

Legend
oD&D/1e were not cooperative excercises in story building, and the rules were not designed towards that end in the slightest. They were unashamedly gamist games about the exploration of absurd and hostile environments with an almost adversarial relationship between DM and players. It was almost pure step on up play. 2e and 3e both attempted to use this gamist game and drift it hard into cooperative excercises in story building but didn't change the underlying assumptions that made D&D a very gamist RPG.
I basically agree with this, though the word "adversarial" has to be given the right meaning.

Wow, that is so vulgar, offensive, edition warring, and most of all, wrong.
I missed all that. "Unashamedly gamist games about the exploration of absurd and hostile environments with an almost adversarial relationship between DM and players" seems to me to capture White Plume Mountain and Tomb of Horrors pretty well.

The Hidden Shrine of Tamoachan, and the Giant and Descent/Drow modules reduce the surface absurdity, but the hardcore gamism is hardly concealed. Just look at (i) the teleport-between-giant-strongholds feature of the G modules, (ii) the teleport ban in the D-modules, and (iii) the plethora of safe-passage tokens able to be looted in the lead up the encounter with the Black Tower.

Then there is the passage that [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] quoted, the DMG advice on ethereal mummies and bolts of lightning from the heavens, etc.
 

Ahnehnois

First Post
Is there an inherent difference in the fiction? Typically not.

Is there an inherent difference from the metagame point of view? Absolutely yes, in the way I play the game. The PCs are protagonists. The NPCs are not.
That pretty much sums it up; I don't disagree with much of that. The difference, I assume, is that you want the rules to reflect the metagame assumptions that you play with, whereas as I don't want the rules to address those assumptions at all.

The system has to take a stand here. And the stand will affect play - the notion of playstyle-neutral mechanics is, in my view, an illusion.
True, I think (which doesn't bode well for 5e's goal of unification). But some are less neutral than others.

What's with this readiness to generalise without evidence. The only RPG I'm aware of that tries to put NPCs, monsters and PCs all on the same build mechanics is 3E D&D (maybe points-buy systems, looked at in a certain way, also fit this description - but almost certainly the points totals and other constraints on points expenditure will be different). I therefore simply don't think it's true that most players and GMs expect this in an RPG.
3e D&D covers a lot, given its popularity, its OGL, and all its offshoots. Its the closest thing this hobby has to a common language. But even so, I think your assumption on this topic applies mostly to fantasy rpgs; other systems might not assume 'heroes' in the first place.

Can you elaborate - if the base numbers don't change, but the hit points do, how is the creature advancing in level?
The character is advancing in "mythic levels", which are independent of character level as it exists thusfar. Mythic levels don't add hit dice, but add various other benefits that increase a character's power without increasing their base attack/saves/etc. The system is just being announced and even the playtest hasn't been released yet, so I'm just commenting on what was laid out in the link.

I'm not sure what that means, or how it sets up a contrast with 4e.
It means that a mythic level is meaningful in the existing context that we understand character building. I know what adding a level does. I have no idea what adding a boss descriptor does. The point is not that 4e doesn't have monster roles, the point is that the mythic concept accomplishes the same goal (make extra powerful monsters without simply giving them more hit dice) in a better way.

Being a dragon, or a hydra, or a beholder, or a golem, etc, all mean something in the gameworld in 4e. I don't understand the basis for asserting otherwise.
Neither do I. Who asserted that? The OP asserted (and I agree with) the notion that the boss label in and of itself does not mean anything in the game world.

I'm not sure what you're talking about here. There is no general "extra action" or "boss monster" mechanic in 4e.
Sure doesn't sound that way based on the rest of this thread; I don't have a 4e MM handy.
 

Voidrunner's Codex

Remove ads

Top