AbdulAlhazred
Legend
Yeah, I agree that solos are something to use sparingly. Honestly in the last game I've been running, which is now a ways into paragon IIRC I think there were definitely 4 solos used in heroic tier. One was underlevel and came with allies, one was a true solo beat-m-up, and the other two the party actually avoided direct confrontation with or didn't fight it out to the death with at any rate. So I'm pretty much up on the idea of only using them for 'dragons' so to speak. I don't think it is impossible to use solos for say humanoids but I agree I wouldn't generally pit the party against some average looking goblin that turned out to be solo.
OTOH Mokrug Goblincrusher can certainly be given the fluff to make him consistent with solo mechanics. He's big and tough and wields a legendary weapon. His armor, made out of the recycled plate armor of his defeated enemies, easily resists attacks of all types, making him quite tough. His sheer ferociousness lets him shake off action denial effects that would addle the brains of lesser goblins. I just don't see where any of this is a disconnect between fluff and mechanics at all.
Nor do I see some sort of issue when players use different tactics against a solo. Wouldn't the heroes really do that? Of course they would! You don't catch sharks with the same gear you hunt bass with and you don't slay dragons with the same tactics you use on an orc horde. It just stands to reason and I don't understand why it seems to be an issue.
Honestly I think the newer solos actually MUCH BETTER reflect big tough 'dragon' type monsters than the MM1 era ones did. Early solos largely WERE a joke at higher levels. It wasn't some issue of they had different mechanics, it was an issue of they were simply dead meat on the table, a far worse problem. Current solos come across as TOUGH monsters that shed effects rapidly, take a lot of punishment, and dish it right back out.
Like I tried to say earlier though, I think 4e DOES stereotype monsters a lot by insisting on fixed offense and defense. Brutes and soldiers do vary that a bit, but sometimes it is nice to break from the pattern by a larger amount. I could easily see making a monster with a good bit more than usual offensive powers and to-hit and only maybe pretty ordinary or elite level hit points to represent say an enemy wizard. The thing is you really do need to be very careful doing that, it is VERY easy to have things go horribly wrong.
Another approach is to assume that players really won't be able to defeat your big bad by ordinary (for them) means at all. Here you can draw on common mythical themes. The gorgon Medusa can ONLY be defeated by reflecting her gaze in Aegis. Again you have to really be careful to make sure that if you're going to work things like this that the players are well aware of it and don't just make the natural assumption that they can handle these kinds of threats with their normal tactics and powers.
OTOH Mokrug Goblincrusher can certainly be given the fluff to make him consistent with solo mechanics. He's big and tough and wields a legendary weapon. His armor, made out of the recycled plate armor of his defeated enemies, easily resists attacks of all types, making him quite tough. His sheer ferociousness lets him shake off action denial effects that would addle the brains of lesser goblins. I just don't see where any of this is a disconnect between fluff and mechanics at all.
Nor do I see some sort of issue when players use different tactics against a solo. Wouldn't the heroes really do that? Of course they would! You don't catch sharks with the same gear you hunt bass with and you don't slay dragons with the same tactics you use on an orc horde. It just stands to reason and I don't understand why it seems to be an issue.
Honestly I think the newer solos actually MUCH BETTER reflect big tough 'dragon' type monsters than the MM1 era ones did. Early solos largely WERE a joke at higher levels. It wasn't some issue of they had different mechanics, it was an issue of they were simply dead meat on the table, a far worse problem. Current solos come across as TOUGH monsters that shed effects rapidly, take a lot of punishment, and dish it right back out.
Like I tried to say earlier though, I think 4e DOES stereotype monsters a lot by insisting on fixed offense and defense. Brutes and soldiers do vary that a bit, but sometimes it is nice to break from the pattern by a larger amount. I could easily see making a monster with a good bit more than usual offensive powers and to-hit and only maybe pretty ordinary or elite level hit points to represent say an enemy wizard. The thing is you really do need to be very careful doing that, it is VERY easy to have things go horribly wrong.
Another approach is to assume that players really won't be able to defeat your big bad by ordinary (for them) means at all. Here you can draw on common mythical themes. The gorgon Medusa can ONLY be defeated by reflecting her gaze in Aegis. Again you have to really be careful to make sure that if you're going to work things like this that the players are well aware of it and don't just make the natural assumption that they can handle these kinds of threats with their normal tactics and powers.
