• 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!

The D&D Boss Fight

eamon

Explorer
I do want to add one more thing though, lest it get lost in the noise - my worries concerning solo usage shouldn't distract from the fact that when I decide to build one, I'll definitely be looking back at Bloodknuckles for ideas. TheAngryDM's Boss monster approach looks like an absolutely brilliant way of making a solo!
 

log in or register to remove this ad

I understood your concerns as:

When I face a solo goblin, it has mechanics that resembles dragon mechanics.

My objection was:

there are no solo goblins in the MM, and i would not suggest using solo goblins. Elites, maybe, solos, no.
I just said, that even though you could theoretically use the mechanics for all monsters, neither is it suggested to make solo variations out of every monster type, nor will you find solo mechanics on monsters where it jsut don´t fit.

So I think, you are having concerns about a problem that just does not exist, if you don´t create it on your own.
Solo mechanics are for solo monsters. Goblins are no solo monsters. problem solved. ;)

There could be a solo goblin theoretically. But there is no one.
 

Oh, and again, specifically adressing your concern:

IF you fight a solo goblin, remember, that HP and AC are abstract. You can describe a hit on a goblin like a close miss. You don´t draw blood. If you happen to hit it (bloody it) The goblin will start taking the fight serious and go all out.

He survives all those sabs, because you actually don´t hit him except twice. Once to bloody him, and once to kill him.

The dragon however i hit constantly. His scales protect him from the worst, but you bring in some cuts here and there... when you bloody it, wounds are so spread all over his body and so deep, that you are drenched all over with it.

Really, it is the same narrative reason, why PCs are not the same. Ok, imagine you are the goblin (not a minion, a standard one). You run around, see groups of people. You barely touch them with your dagger and they die. And then suddenly there is a lone adventurer. Easy pray. But when you stab him, he not only survives, but when he yells at himself, he even closes his wounds.
 

AllisterH

First Post
I think what previous editions did for Solos was simply use a HIGHER level monster.

The example of the lich used earlier would be encountered usually by 9-12th level parties. And a lich was casting 9th level spells.

Same thing with a Dragon....you didn't face a dragon with the same HD as the party...The high en party (9-12th level) was facing down an Ancient dragon that busting out 10d6 fireballs (20d6 in 1e) when the party had stopped getting HD at 9th level and were using low static numbers such as +2 hp (clerics).

The thing is...this could work for ANY monster since what the higher HD provided was enough of a hp buffer, and thanks to the saving throw system made them pretty resistant to SoD spells used by players.

That said, even in 1e/2e, we did have the lockdown situation sometimes when a spell actually worked and then the party would simply wail on the monster (or even when the freaky situation when all 8 players rolled better initative than the monster and killed it before it got one action off...)
 

Yes, I remember the good old dragon fights:

AC -8, Spell resistance 95%, have fun. ;)

You hit it with a 18+, Your spells nearly never hit. In this way, the monster had also effectively 5 times as many attacks, as your Wizards and thiefs didn´t do a great lot. Your cleric was busy healing. Your fighters hit once in a while.

That was ok, when a combat turn went:

Players declare actions.
Roll for ini
Attacks
deal damage or not.

1 min later:
next round!

repeat. Fun back then, but not within 4e assumptions.
 

There was another type of monster back in the AD&D days that was in many ways like an elite or solo, something like a Hill Giant used against a lower level party. It had ordinary defenses, like AC4 or something and loads of hit dice and its attacks did heavy damage. The party would probably win against these monsters but someone would likely get mashed flat since 2 hits would be generally lethal.

The difference really is that in AD&D in particular defensive and offensive capability were highly decoupled from each other. A monster could have a terrible AC that even a 1st level PC stood a decent chance of hitting and still be a 10+ HD monster. Of course it was also hard to properly gage the challenge of encounters in AD&D and became practically impossible to do it well at high levels.

One thing that you CAN do in 4e is somewhat relax the lockstep of to-hit, defenses, and hit points. It can make encounters more swingy but it can also allow some of them to be more thematic and interesting, particularly at low levels. There's also no reason why you can't create monsters that are graded between solo and elite. There's a pretty big difference between the two and making a monster halfway in between can sometimes work. Remember, monster design guidelines are GUIDELINES, not rules.

So, if I were to want a nasty boss goblin I might well break out of the standard and say make it something close to an elite but with a bit more offense than a standard elite and maybe a few more hit points but basically make it equal to 3 monsters instead of 2 or 5. Any discussion of solo/boss monster action economy however is going to equally apply here for the most part.

Honestly Eamon, the problem with your "issues" with 4e solos is that you haven't really done anything constructive. I think you're making mountains out of molehills and then we're not seeing where anything NEW is being added. At the very most generous it is a complaint without a remedy, but honestly if you're players are so focused on the mechanics of the monster that they're having problems believing in it then I would suggest that the issue is largely with the presentation of the challenge. There's very little else for the players to pay attention to if they are hung up with a save bonus and whatever.

Try giving them other things to think about and create more variety. Don't make your goblin badass a straight up goblin. Make him Mokrug Goblincrusher, chosen champion of Maglubiyet who grew strong on troll meat. He wields the mighty club Elf Slayer and you meet him on the Bridge of Trials in the Laughing Cave (lots of climbing, swinging from vines, etc involved, plus a few interesting features). The battle involves getting past Mokrug so you can stop the goblin shaman from sacrificing the Blessed Child to open the Feywild Gate. Nobody is going to be noticing much about mechanics here...
 

mountains out of molehills, this is the acronym i searched for the whole day...

Here we say (translated): "Make an elephant out of a fly" but thats sounded stupid in english. ;) I would give you some xp, but you already got all i have... ^^

To your point: Attack and defense coupled was my concern too, but new soldier and brute design actually helps here:

Soldiers wer +2 attack and defense before, now they are only +2 defense. Brutes are now only -2 defense. And suddenly we have monsters which resemble those ADnD brutes a bit. Giants, who are brutes have more hp and are easier to hit. Soldiers are now more difficult to hit.
If you want a monster that does both: just level up a skirmisher or lurker.

Maybe we now need a new role, when i think about it:

balanced attack and defense, but whatever better this way than the older design.
 

eamon

Explorer
[...ideas on releasing the lockstep of defenses/attack bonus/hitpoints/damage...]
Honestly Eamon, the problem with your "issues" with 4e solos is that you haven't really done anything constructive. I think you're making mountains out of molehills and then we're not seeing where anything NEW is being added. At the very most generous it is a complaint without a remedy, but honestly if you're players are so focused on the mechanics of the monster that they're having problems believing in it then I would suggest that the issue is largely with the presentation of the challenge. There's very little else for the players to pay attention to if they are hung up with a save bonus and whatever.
I'm seeing this in games I play in as a player. The solo mechanics are so overwhelmingly obvious tactically - and obviously relevant - that it's not a mistake to recognize them, it's a necessary conclusion that follows from their design. Having 5 times as many hitpoints, odd extra action attacks, weird otherwise almost never occuring resilience to all effects and stuns/dazes in particular - these commonalities bind solos more strongly to each other than to their fluff.

Let's compare this to 3e spellcasters for instance. Spellcasters in 3e were often a first target and exceptionally threatening not because this was some fluff agreement - the mechanics meant they were less predictable, often less hardy, and frequently quite dangeous in surprising ways. Now, you could fluff that, and still tell the same tale - but it's no longer necessary in 4e. Spellcasters are no longer overpowering nor their effects much less predictable than primal or martial classes. Nor are they necessarily less hardy. Fluff works best when it tells a meaningful story. Now, people think in terms of soldiers/defenders, controllers, leaders, etc. You believe in these names because in the game they're no mere myth, they really matter.

No amount of brilliant fluff will hide the fact that solos mechanics are very similar to each other. People will respond to the solo - because it matters. When fluff and mechanics match, the harmony of the two works much better that when they don't.

Try giving them other things to think about and create more variety. Don't make your goblin badass a straight up goblin. Make him Mokrug Goblincrusher, chosen champion of Maglubiyet who grew strong on troll meat. He wields the mighty club Elf Slayer and you meet him on the Bridge of Trials in the Laughing Cave (lots of climbing, swinging from vines, etc involved, plus a few interesting features). The battle involves getting past Mokrug so you can stop the goblin shaman from sacrificing the Blessed Child to open the Feywild Gate. Nobody is going to be noticing much about mechanics here...
That's a great tale, and I'd enjoy it. But 4e is a very tactically oriented game. Players will realize it's a solo almost instantly based on the description alone. They'll adapt their strategies - which are pretty complex nowadays - to the tactical realities of the game. The good players will interject a bit of flavor into their actions. But at the end of the day, they'll be fighting a solo; it's just instinct to ignore the irrelevant.

There is a solution - don't use solos, or use them only very sparingly. The quintessential solo is the game's namesake; the dragon: use the solo template only on creatures whose tactical characteristics strongly resemble a dragon in-game. If you need a special monster with special abilities - don't base if off a template that is instantly recognizable and who's features will dominate whatever you add yourself, and don't undermine the fluff by granting illogical abilities for purely mechanical reasons. If the story doesn't make sense, fix it, don't plow ahead and pretend it does. Doing this isn't that hard; give the critter backup; consumable minions, a resurrecting crystal, or something else - and make sure the fluff for that exceptional ability is woven into your tale well before the actual encounter - preferably several sessions earlier or more.

People will listen to your story much, much more closely when they figure out all that fluff actually matters and will actually remains relevant in weeks and months to come. They'll enjoy but otherwise ignore fluff that has no purpose in your story.
 

There is a solution - don't use solos, or use them only very sparingly. The quintessential solo is the game's namesake; the dragon: use the solo template only on creatures whose tactical characteristics strongly resemble a dragon in-game. If you need a special monster with special abilities - don't base if off a template that is instantly recognizable and who's features will dominate whatever you add yourself, and don't undermine the fluff by granting illogical abilities for purely mechanical reasons. If the story doesn't make sense, fix it, don't plow ahead and pretend it does. Doing this isn't that hard; give the critter backup; consumable minions, a resurrecting crystal, or something else - and make sure the fluff for that exceptional ability is woven into your tale well before the actual encounter - preferably several sessions earlier or more.

This!

Solos are only there for well monsters that are so powerful that they are solos. Most enemies, even BBEG are elites or even standard monsters of a bit higher level (often controllers).

Solos are:
dragons, beholders, Gods, very powerful priests of gods, very powerful mages, very powerful named characters (A forgotten realms thing mainly - since when did elminster play by the same rules)

elites are:
giants, avatars, very powerful underbosses...

normal monster:
goblins, orcs, hobgoblins...

If you encounter a solo goblin, this should be a memorable event.

Edit: i guess we are not really that far from each other. The only difference I see is that you may have encountered stupid solos ingame where I am a DM and know how to use them... usually not at all^^
 

Aegeri

First Post
I am going to say this again, but your argument still fails to make any sense to me on numerous levels. Attacking mages in 3E had nothing to do with fluff, because of the fact numerous monsters at an almost completely (and entirely) random hodgepodge could have billions of spell like abilities as well (Demons, Devils and many epic level creatures for example) and it had everything to do with monsters (or NPCs) with spell like abilities being more out-right lethal.

Eamon said:
Not necessarily all solo's suffer from this schism, but most currently printed solos do - and newer style solo's such as MM3 or this boss monster can make that schism even wider.

This is where your argument is really laughable. What about the following creatures supports your argument at all?

Lolth: You think LOLTH is a poor solo? REALLY? I mean really? You don't think fluff supports the fact Lolth should be highly resilient and easily take a party of five heroes by herself?

Allabar: He's a giant planet and you don't think he should be a solo?

Imix: Is one of the most powerful remaining primordials and a major antagonist.

Ogremoch: Again, is a giant living mountain of stone and a very powerful primordial.

Two Krakens (Sea and Astral): Massive beasts that have been described in all kinds of literature as being capable of downing an entire ship and its crew easily.

I would point out that every single one of these monsters accomplishes being a solo entirely differently to every other one. I've run the Kraken, Lolth, Allabar and Imix to see how they play. Not ONE Of them plays identically to the others. Also these are the only solos that were actually published in MM3, everything else is largely a standard monster or an elite. I just fail to see how anything about the MM3 supports your argument. Either these monsters are NOT worthy of being solos, where you're going to have a gigantic uphill battle here explaining why they shouldn't be or being reserved for creatures that should be solos is exactly what they have done here. Yes they have more HP and resistance to effects. Do you honestly think ANY of the above shouldn't be more resilient than a normal monster? To be honest, I think having +5 saves and more HP is better than 3rd, where everything had to have a specific list or access to a list of magical abilities and specific immunities or be an irrelevant encounter. Solos in 4E need a comparably smaller list of things that they need to deal with (daze, dominate and stun) and generally less specific preparation. It's the MECHANICS that make a solo what it is. More power is not just saves and resistance to conditions, but also their abilities and capabilities.

I disagree entirely with every argument you've made because the +5 saves and resistance to conditions is never the important part about solos. It has come down every single time to how they fight. A solo that can't deal with the spellcaster hiding all the way in the back is not the same as the one that is highly mobile, teleports everywhere and is simply a more challenging, interesting and tenser fight.
 
Last edited:

Voidrunner's Codex

Remove ads

Top