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

[TwinBahamut]

This thread really seems to be about the differing preference for top-down vs bottoms-up monster design.

I wouldn't say that. The two styles of design use different methods, but they don't necessarily provide different results. You can easily arrive at the desire to have mechanics for solo monsters with either approach.

Most design incorporates elements of both design methods anyways, and balancing the two methods seems to lead to the best design.

 

[slobster]

As long as the tag was a natural result of the mechanics and had no mechanical effect in and of itself, was placed on after the fact rather than driving the design, and could be easily ignored, I don't see the problem. However, I would prefer it to be placed in the description or tactics section; as having it in the monster stat block implies that it is a mechanic when (in this example) it isn't.

But it should probably affect xp, right? If it really is tough enough to take on an entire party of equal level adventurers, they shouldn't get the same xp from it that they'd get from killing an equal level redshirt mook.

 

[nightwyrm]

I wouldn't say that. The two styles of design use different methods, but they don't necessarily provide different results. You can easily arrive at the desire to have mechanics for solo monsters with either approach.

Most design incorporates elements of both design methods anyways, and balancing the two methods seems to lead to the best design.

Ah, I was using top-down/bottoms-up the same way MTG uses it, which is more of a flavour first vs. mechanics first approach to card design.

I agree that the best designs combines elements of both but it's hard to do at times.

 

[Ahnehnois]

But it should probably affect xp, right? If it really is tough enough to take on an entire party of equal level adventurers, they shouldn't get the same xp from it that they'd get from killing an equal level redshirt mook.

Given that XP is also in the realm of things that don't really belong in a monster stat block, I don't much care. XP is optional. If you're going to use XP, I'd suggest giving it out based on the totality of the circumstance (what the total strength was of the combatants involved, what conditions the battle was fought under, what was accomplished by fighting the battle, etc.). However, if we're talking about the XP value that is currently and dubiously assigned to monsters, I'd say that's a reflection of how difficult the designers think it is to defeat, and thus is a reflection of the monster's level, ability scores, and special abilities.

 

[D'karr]

Ah, I was using top-down/bottoms-up the same way MTG uses it, which is more of a flavour first vs. mechanics first approach to card design.

I agree that the best designs combines elements of both but it's hard to do at times.

I think that flavor should have a good way to be backed by mechanics. If it doesn't, it fails in my book. Sometimes flavor comes first, sometimes mechanics come first. At the end they should complement each other.

 

[Minigiant]

If it makes you feel better, I haven't noticed much My Little Pony in the playtest so far.

A shame really.
---

Overall it comes down to this.
If you do not mind that the tradional singular monster system breaks down and causes high level "boss" monsters to devolve into Rocket Tag or Padded Sumo Nerf Duels, then the base system is fine.

But if the DM or players hope for more dramatic or cinematic boss fights, then you need an additional minion/mook/elite/solo system inserted to do so.

 

[Ahnehnois]

Overall it comes down to this.
If you do not mind that the tradional singular monster system breaks down and causes high level "boss" monsters to devolve into Rocket Tag or Padded Sumo Nerf Duels, then the base system is fine.

I don't understand the derisiveness of these terms, and I don't see the problem with the underlying outcome. A lot of battles are about whoever gets in the first real hit wins, both in fantasy fiction and reality. A lot are also slow grindy battles of attrition. Neither of these things is inherently bad. Pretty much any battle in any rpg system with tactical rules could be described by one or the other.

 

[Stalker0]

A lot of battles are about whoever gets in the first real hit wins, both in fantasy fiction and reality. A lot are also slow grindy battles of attrition. Neither of these things is inherently bad.

In the context of the dnd game, they are.

A "rocket tag" style of combat is great for games where combat is about planning and preparation. A navy seal style where if you have done your planning right, the enemy will never get a chance to fire.

Dnd is about throwing yourself into the fire, sword to sword, and magic against monsters. Most people don't play for the big planning aspects, at least not most of the time. So rocket tag combat simply amounts to luck. Who goes first, who hits first.

Long Attrition Combats are boring because of the nature of pen and paper. A Final Fantasy boss fight is fine when the computer does all the work. Tracking 20 rounds of dnd combat is just too labor intensive to be worth it. The rounds drag on and players lose interest.

 

[Minigiant]

I don't understand the derisiveness of these terms, and I don't see the problem with the underlying outcome. A lot of battles are about whoever gets in the first real hit wins, both in fantasy fiction and reality. A lot are also slow grindy battles of attrition. Neither of these things is inherently bad. Pretty much any battle in any rpg system with tactical rules could be described by one or the other.

They aren't inherently bad.
But sometimes you want to fight the boss for more than 2 round or less than 20.

It becomes a "too much of one thing" situation. Even too many even tactical 6-10 round fights can get boring after a while.

The problem is than a D&D campaign can have 0-100 fights. And 100 games of rocket tag, nerf attrition, or tank/damage/heal combat gets boring to many people when it is predictable.

If every fight a dragon is "kill it before he breathes fire and wipes half the party"...

 

[Gryph]

Given that XP is also in the realm of things that don't really belong in a monster stat block, I don't much care. XP is optional. If you're going to use XP, I'd suggest giving it out based on the totality of the circumstance (what the total strength was of the combatants involved, what conditions the battle was fought under, what was accomplished by fighting the battle, etc.). However, if we're talking about the XP value that is currently and dubiously assigned to monsters, I'd say that's a reflection of how difficult the designers think it is to defeat, and thus is a reflection of the monster's level, ability scores, and special abilities.

There is going to be, and I would argue there has to be, a baseline mode of play. A foundation, if you will, upon which the modularity we are expecting in Next to rest. In this quote and a couple others you seem to be advocating for things that are certain to be in the baseline to be inherently optional. I would guess that it is as likely for XP for defeating monsters to be optional as making an attack roll determine if you hit to be optional. I.e. you can play that way, but it is on you to do the work to change your game.

So by dismissing a very valid question about the effect on xp rewards for tougher monsters cause you don't care is tangential, at best, to the thread topic.

In an unrelated aside, if your only experience with D&D encompasses versions released by WoTC then you are going to continue to go astray with a large portion of the ENWorld community when you make assertions of "historically" that were only true for 3.x.