D&D 5E I think I am going to stop using solo monsters.

[GameOgre]

For the sake of all players at all tables, I recommend that you not target their families.

When the DM starts targeting the family members of the PCs, the message that it says is that players should only play characters who are orphans. If their social bonds are used against them, then it teaches players to avoid forming social bonds.

Not at my table MISTER!

Belly up to my table with no one to care about no enemies,no chains connecting you to the world and your life expectancy ain't worth the paper its written on! Don't have those things? Well it must be because your enemies have already killed them all and have saved you for last. Last time it was a Lich.

No. Better come with tons of loved ones and chains that bind you to the world around you and adventure, You don't want to see what comes hunting.


BTW- My players are not there characters. The players know full well they are playing characters in a fantasy role playing game and they need to have bounds and attachments to organizations and npc's. Those are adventure opportunities! why would you not want those?

 

[Reynard]

For the sake of all players at all tables, I recommend that you not target their families.

When the DM starts targeting the family members of the PCs, the message that it says is that players should only play characters who are orphans. If their social bonds are used against them, then it teaches players to avoid forming social bonds.

More importantly why would I want to punish the PCs for being proactive. Don't get me wrong -- I think the idea of a conflict between the party and the powers of Hell is an interesting unintended direction based on in game events, but to assault them with full force just tells them to not engage the game in that way. I want my players taking chances and being ambitious. It makes the game much more fun for everyone.

 

[Ratskinner]

Hydra's are nice, acting almost like an individual creature per head.

This reminds me of some things I saw/heard of people doing in 4e. I wonder if it wouldn't make sense for a lot of solo creatures (particularly the big'uns) to be split into multiple units for combat purposes. A Dragon might be: Claws, Bite, Tail, and Breath Weapon, or (optional sneeze guard) wing buffet. Stat each one up as a critter with its own hp total. Do enough damage to the relevant body part and the dragon loses the ability to attack with it or use it. For movement, consider the dragon's "space" like a wagon that they all "ride" on. Perhaps they can each move it a few squares on their turn.

Just a thought.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

This reminds me of some things I saw/heard of people doing in 4e. I wonder if it wouldn't make sense for a lot of solo creatures (particularly the big'uns) to be split into multiple units for combat purposes. A Dragon might be: Claws, Bite, Tail, and Breath Weapon, or (optional sneeze guard) wing buffet. Stat each one up as a critter with its own hp total. Do enough damage to the relevant body part and the dragon loses the ability to attack with it or use it. For movement, consider the dragon's "space" like a wagon that they all "ride" on. Perhaps they can each move it a few squares on their turn.

The major problem with this method is that you need to make each target worth attacking, which means it needs enough HP to divert a few attacks away from the main creature, but few enough that people would still want to bother attacking them. If you just stat up that each limb has 50 hit points, and don't bother to change the HP on its main body, then everyone will attack its body and it will die just as easily as always.

When this sort of topic comes up in the forums, it always comes with two caveats: 1) You're sticking to the challenge guidelines in the book; and, 2) Any new monster being created will still follow the general guidelines of the system. If you don't care about following those two limitations, then you can easily run solo monsters, by giving them way more HP than the book suggests or using monsters that are significantly higher level.

 

[Dausuul]

For the record, I threw a marilith at my party of four 8th-level PCs tonight, and she thrashed them within an inch of their lives before they took her down.

 

[RCanine]

For the sake of all players at all tables, I recommend that you not target their families.

When the DM starts targeting the family members of the PCs, the message that it says is that players should only play characters who are orphans. If their social bonds are used against them, then it teaches players to avoid forming social bonds.

Whut? That's only true if every familial interaction is both uninteresting and bad. Allow a noble player to tap their family for wealth and/or access and you counterbalance that sort of thing. At its core, D&D is a resource management game, and family is another resource.

 

[Tony Vargas]

This reminds me of some things I saw/heard of people doing in 4e. I wonder if it wouldn't make sense for a lot of solo creatures (particularly the big'uns) to be split into multiple units for combat purposes. A Dragon might be: Claws, Bite, Tail, and Breath Weapon, or (optional sneeze guard) wing buffet. Stat each one up as a critter with its own hp total. Do enough damage to the relevant body part and the dragon loses the ability to attack with it or use it. For movement, consider the dragon's "space" like a wagon that they all "ride" on. Perhaps they can each move it a few squares on their turn.

It's an idea with very old roots. Back in the 1e MM, there were a number of monsters that had different AC, even different hp totals, for different parts of their bodies - and 'attack routines' were very often 1 attack per limb capable of doing so - 8 tentacles? 8 attacks.

 

[Pickles III]

It's an idea with very old roots. Back in the 1e MM, there were a number of monsters that had different AC, even different hp totals, for different parts of their bodies - and 'attack routines' were very often 1 attack per limb capable of doing so - 8 tentacles? 8 attacks.

This is carried on with 5e Ankheg, -3 AC when prone . The fact that a solo monster can have as many attacks as you want it to does undermine the Action Economy complaints. It probably needs some restraint on focus firing to prevent egregious murdering. This means AOEs or directional attacks but that should be enough to give it enough actions or pseudo actions to keep up. It is still very vulnerable to control effects so it probably needs some defences against those too.

The issue I always have with solos is that they lend themselves to the boring every one stands around & hits it (shoots it/casts at it) fights which have been very dull for at least the last 3 editions.

The biggest thing I think solos need to avoid this is mobility - that or something to move enemies & also to stop them just re-engaging. Having minions or summons can also work OK to give the PCs something else to do but then it's not really a solo encounter, not that that is a problem most of the time.

Tentacles as minions in 4e was fantastic, especially for critters with indefinitely large numbers of tentacles but it's probably not so good for dragon parts.

 

[Sacrosanct]

5th edition meets that expectation the way I run it, and I have not yet seen any break down because of higher levels - which is a thing I am watching for like a hawk, because it's a significant part of why I ended up not wanting to run 3.5 ever again.

It meets that expectation the way I run it as well. I have no idea how he runs his games other than by how he has described it in the past, like that thread from a couple months ago about how those really high NPCs got their butts handed to them by the PCs. And, well....that thread illustrated a playstyle that is much different from my own, and one where I wouldn't be surprised for that person to say that 5e doesn't support the Big Bad Solo enemy against the party.

 

[Tony Vargas]

The fact that a solo monster can have as many attacks as you want it to does undermine the Action Economy complaints. It probably needs some restraint on focus firing to prevent egregious murdering.

And it's just a better visual. A giant octopus with several adventurers wrapped in it's tentacles: cool image. A giant octopus with all eight tentacles wrapped around one adventurer while it bites his head off with it's beak and the other adventurers beat on it unopposed - not so cool.

Legendary actions could work there, too. A tentacle tries to grab each enemy at the end of their respective turns.

The issue I always have with solos is that they lend themselves to the boring every one stands around & hits it (shoots it/casts at it)

What are they supposed to do?
Watch?
I know: wait patiently and attack it one at a time, like ninjas in a bad martial arts movie!
No? Sneak off with the treasure while the monster eats the rest of the party...

...what? I'm going for help...

The biggest thing I think solos need to avoid this is mobility

So instead of the party stands around the dragon and beats it to death, the party stands around and readies to attack as the dragon comes into range to strafe them?

- that or something to move enemies & also to stop them just re-engaging

Potential there. The separate limbs thing could help, while you're grabbed by the limb, you can only attack it. Ranged attacks/spells are only effective on the main body. That'd split things up a bit.

Having minions or summons can also work OK to give the PCs something else to do but then it's not really a solo encounter, not that that is a problem most of the time.

Not literally 'solo' anymore, but sure.

Tentacles as minions in 4e was fantastic, especially for critters with indefinitely large numbers of tentacles but it's probably not so good for dragon parts.

I'd forgotten that, there was even a Lair Assualt that had tokens for them. I think I still have those.