Yet another Solos fix: "Solo actions"

[Rolenet]

I know there's no shortage of ideas, like these or [MENTION=79594]Morgan_Scott82[/MENTION] ideas. Here's mine...

In the Epic part of my Dark Sun campaign, I HAD to fix the numerous Sorcerer-King solos to make them remotely threatening (they really aren't). The one issue I aimed for was preventing control-locking of all their actions.

The way I did it is adding "Solo Actions" to all of them.

* Each Solo has two extra actions (Solo Action 1 & 2)
* They take place right after the next two PCs in the init order
* Each is a predefined, basic single-target attack. E.g. Claw for SA1 and Bite for SA2; or maybe a fly-by for a Skirmisher; a beholder's ray.
* Solo Actions are not affected by conditions (including marks)
Also:
* Remove or restrict the solo's power which are multiattacks and at-will zones
* Reduce to 1AP and +2 saves

This is the only nifty way I found to let controllers have their fun (they can still lock up the solo's "main turn") without granting the Solo frustrating immunities, and save bonusses. Players were fine with it.

It's a bit like the MV's Dragon's Instinctive actions, except it doesn't brutally remove conditions, rather temporarily ignores them.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I like it.

What I did was similar, in some ways.

1. Solo's can always use their minor action, unless they are dead. No exceptions.

2. Solo's gain an extra "turn", halfway through the initiative order, in which they can take one Standard Action. Their extra turn ignores conditions. On this turn, they can also either take a Minor Action, or make an extra attempt to save against a condition.

3. Many Solo's get extra benefits against stun-locking, like dragons' tails thrash while stunned, and they have a chance of buffeting you with their wings. Mage-style solo's get aura-blasts. These things happen as an Immediate Action that trigger on being stunned or incapacitated.

Some of these also trigger when the Solo is first bloodied in a fight.

I also always review solo monsters to make sure they have ways to give themselves space, ways to put conditions on PCs, ways to heal using minor actions, etc.

IMO, if the enemy can't reasonably be given multiple turns in initiative, or multiple Standard Action equivelents on it's turn (minor action attacks powers that matter, etc) then it shouldn't be a Solo. Give it allies, and ways to use the terrain, hazards, etc, against the PCs.

It makes them pretty scary, actually, and much more capable of challenging a full party.

 

[darkbard]

This takes the conversation in a slightly different direction, but I wonder what folks' thoughts are about using solos in smaller parties when the design is "balanced" for five at-level PCs. Namely, do you think a party of 3 can handle an at-level solo, especially if the scenario involves terrain features and perhaps a handful of minions to keep the combat from devolving into Pure Boringsville? I had a discussion on another board regarding a 1st level party of 3 versus an Id Fiend in a Dark Sun campaign, and I walked away with the feeling that, even other encounter factors aside, such a combat really could push the envelope of TPK. Thoughts?

 

[Tony Vargas]

Namely, do you think a party of 3 can handle an at-level solo

Yes. In fact, in one game I ran, a wizard & warlock were separated from the rest of the party and ambushed by a Solo that was specifically deadlier to arcanists, and still took it down. They blew dailies every round and were both brutalized at the end of it, but they pulled their own fat right out of that fire. Some amazing 'A game' there.

And that goes for any pre-Essentials class, really, if they're reasonably fresh, they can 'bring it' to meet an overlevel or over-size encounter. An at-level solo vs a party of 3 is doable.

especially if the scenario involves terrain features and perhaps a handful of minions to keep the combat from devolving into Pure Boringsville?

Party composition and tactics start to matter, then. If they're experienced and have coped with challenges like that, sure, if they've been stymied by them in the past, caution may be indicated.

A same-level Elite, for instance, would be a softball for a party of 3. Elite plus a ration of minions would be dead-on, exp-budget wise.

I had a discussion on another board regarding a 1st level party of 3 versus an Id Fiend in a Dark Sun campaign, and I walked away with the feeling that, even other encounter factors aside, such a combat really could push the envelope of TPK. Thoughts?

1st level leaves you less leeway. Players may be too reluctant to part with their only daily, for instance, and hold off too long, leaving them without the juice to carry through on what could have turned the fight around, for instance.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

1st level leaves you less leeway. Players may be too reluctant to part with their only daily, for instance, and hold off too long, leaving them without the juice to carry through on what could have turned the fight around, for instance.

Yeah, once the players have 2 daily powers to play with, at level 5, plus a utility power and another encounter power, then they're cooking with gas. You can basically do a full Alpha Strike at that point, blow out a daily, AP, 2nd daily, and then an encounter power each of the next 2 turns, and/or possibly a daily item power, plus any minor actions, you're loaded with a lot of 'front' at that point, moreso if you have a utility power like RoS that provides a stance or something along those lines you can also pull out. Things like Action Surge, or Dwarf's ability to SW on a minor, any of the reroll racials, etc adds yet more fun.

Even 1st level PCs can have a few options though. Particularly if you build with that in mind.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

One thing I do to deal with small parties, which is the norm in my group, is to keep a low number of encounters per day, rather than making fights easier.

Also, I'll have very short, 1-2 round max, "trash mob" fights that string together with exploration skill challenge parts into an encounter. I find hat 4e handles that sort of play very well, especially considering it's completely different than the design assumptions.

 

[Rolenet]

This takes the conversation in a slightly different direction, but I wonder what folks' thoughts are about using solos in smaller parties

I think it fair to say that it much depends on the Solo's actual design.

Personaly, I would simply never do this without downgrading the solo. What I did a couple times (namely, trying to make Dark Sun sorcerer-king fights more interesting) is transform solos to Elite (and add sidekicks). With my system above, Elite have one single bonus Elite Action (and no AP/save bonus).

So a 3-PC Solo fight I would restat as a strong Elite, or maybe a Solo with only one Solo Action.

Of course, in any event, starting with mid-Paragon, I slash their hp by as much as 40%. In fact, just yesterday this afforded us enough time to fit two level 30 solo/elite encounters in a session, which I considered a miracle!

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I think it fair to say that it much depends on the Solo's actual design.

Personaly, I would simply never do this without downgrading the solo. What I did a couple times (namely, trying to make Dark Sun sorcerer-king fights more interesting) is transform solos to Elite (and add sidekicks). With my system above, Elite have one single bonus Elite Action (and no AP/save bonus).

So a 3-PC Solo fight I would restat as a strong Elite, or maybe a Solo with only one Solo Action.

Of course, in any event, starting with mid-Paragon, I slash their hp by as much as 40%. In fact, just yesterday this afforded us enough time to fit two level 30 solo/elite encounters in a session, which I considered a miracle!

I've never been that fond of the idea that cutting hit points is the 'cure' for 4e combat. I think its just that 4e combats REALLY need to be extraordinarily dynamic, and heavily plotted. So you'd very rarely be 'just fighting' some monster and caring about cutting it down to zero hit points. That might be the most expedient path to achieving your goals, but its just as likely that tossing it into a pit, forcing your way past it, demoralizing it, or holding it off for 3 rounds could be equally likely options. In those cases the durability of monsters plays INTO the system and makes it work better. The relatively non-durable monsters of some other editions don't really work for those scenarios as well.

Anyway, I think there's a case to be made for solos being pretty sparingly used, as such. Elite monsters often do work better. In a lot of cases its just the nature of the action-denial problems that solos have.

However, some of the best encounters I've run were using MM3/MV solos in a variety of situations, even against a couple of characters. Their extra action mechanic is really nice. Once I turned a level 8 (I think its level 8, something like that) white dragon into a super monstrous werewolf. It was stupid awesome. Just a straight reflavoring, no mechanical changes. Crashing around in a sawmill, complete with the innocent girl tied to the saw table, etc. It was quite kitsch, and exceedingly entertaining. I think it only took maybe 90 minutes, which was fine for a capstone encounter.

 

[Rolenet]

That might be the most expedient path to achieving your goals, but its just as likely that tossing it into a pit, forcing your way past it, demoralizing it, or holding it off for 3 rounds could be equally likely options.

There's an important question here (for me): how do you set up such an "alternate goals" encounter you mention (e.g. "GOAL: toss him into the pit"):

A) Is it a predefined, predesigned goal? That would require planning:
- fully prepare the encounter to be resolved that way
- think about all relevant special resolution mechanics beforehand (maybe a custome improved bull rush rules, pit damage and climbing out)
- think about the balance (what are the odds of using Bull Rush, will it count as a full-fledged encounter, wouldn't the players be better off killing it)
- make it rather clear to the player at some point of the encounter (especially if the encounter is too hard to be solved the usual way)

B) Or is it a spur of the moment thing? I.e. a player says "Hey! Let's push the sucker into the fire pit! He would be a goner!", you think about it, allow it, even if it could nix the encounter.

(I do have a point to make, but it depends on your take on this!)

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

There's an important question here (for me): how do you set up such an "alternate goals" encounter you mention (e.g. "GOAL: toss him into the pit"):

A) Is it a predefined, predesigned goal? That would require planning:
- fully prepare the encounter to be resolved that way
- think about all relevant special resolution mechanics beforehand (maybe a custome improved bull rush rules, pit damage and climbing out)
- think about the balance (what are the odds of using Bull Rush, will it count as a full-fledged encounter, wouldn't the players be better off killing it)
- make it rather clear to the player at some point of the encounter (especially if the encounter is too hard to be solved the usual way)

B) Or is it a spur of the moment thing? I.e. a player says "Hey! Let's push the sucker into the fire pit! He would be a goner!", you think about it, allow it, even if it could nix the encounter.

(I do have a point to make, but it depends on your take on this!)

Well, I'm thinking of it in plot terms. This DOES mandate that every encounter needs to be an integral part of advancing the story of the characters. It should form part of their central conflict, or at least be a key part of some sub-plot or story arc of some kind in which the characters have a stake and interest in the outcome. I mean, its OK now and then for things to come down to just "we want to survive" or "we want to get the loot", but simple linear "steel cage death match" fights tacked end to end (KotS I'm looking at you) brings out the worst in 4e's system. At the VERY LEAST an encounter should have a strong internal plot. So maybe most of the bad guys are on a scaffold, and the rest are below. If you can sever the two guy wires, no need to hack-n-slash everyone. You may well still need to kill the brute that's right in your way and if you can degrade the fire of the artillery that's awesome, but at least its not all about hammering people to zero hit points.

MORE ideally an encounter presents alternatives, opportunities, integrates closely with the character's interests, etc. Maybe there's a choice, you can go after the hated henchman of the BBEG who burned the ranger's house down, or you can avoid a slugfest by cutting the rope bridge. Either answer is OK, and it may well be the characters are divided on the best course, but the focus isn't on just slugging it out with everything in sight.