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

[FireLance]

I would dislike the arbitrary "boss monster" tag if the elements that make a good boss monster were indeed arbitrary.

Now, I might be on board if the concern was over applying the label arbitrarily, or using the label to make arbitrary tweaks to a monster that shouldn't be a "boss monster", e.g. this goblin needs to be a challenge for an entire party of characters, so we give him four times the hit points, an area attack, and broad immunity to a variety of conditions.

However, if a monster already has characteristics that make it a good challenge for a party of PCs, I don't see why this shouldn't be pointed out.

 

[FireLance]

Thinking about it a bit more, I wonder whether this is the monster equivalent of the Stormwind Fallacy regarding role-playing and character optimization. The fact that a monster is designed to perform a specific mechanical function in combat (whether "minion", or "elite", or "solo", or "artillery", or "lurker", or "brute", or "skirmisher", or "soldier", or "controller", etc.) does not necessarily mean that its abilities must seem arbitrary or inorganic, and vice-versa.

 

[slobster]

Here's a US Army Soldier, rough:

US Marine

Stuff

Wait a minute, is he an army soldier, or a marine? You can't be both. The armed forces are really restrictive on multiclassing . . .

 

[slobster]

Thinking about it a bit more, I wonder whether this is the monster equivalent of the Stormwind Fallacy regarding role-playing and character optimization. The fact that a monster is designed to perform a specific mechanical function in combat (whether "minion", or "elite", or "solo", or "artillery", or "lurker", or "brute", or "skirmisher", or "soldier", or "controller", etc.) does not necessarily mean that its abilities must seem arbitrary or inorganic, and vice-versa.

Can't xp you, but this needs to be a thing. Just calling something a "brute" does not mean that it can't be a flavorful, fully developed monster with a place in the campaign world and so on. But damn does it make things easier on the GM!

 

[Ahnehnois]

But what skill/feat would every marine in the entire army have? One might be an excellent piano player, another might have connections with all sorts of people, a third might be an excellent swimmer and a fourth might just be great at math.

They don't all have the same ability scores or combat skills either.

Neither do orcs, mind flayers, or tarrasques. (Okay, so there's only suuposed to be one tarrasque).

A monster stat block is one of two things:
*A set of modifiers that you can deconstruct and use to make a monstrous NPC.
*A handy example that you can modify to suit your needs if you don't have the time or inclination to deal with it.

For example, if I read an ogre stat block and see this...
Str 21, Dex 8, Con 15, Int 6, Wis 10, Cha 7
...it doesn't mean that every ogre has those ability scores, or even that the average one does. Given a 3d6 distribution and the possibility of improvement over levels or changes due to aging or magic, I'd guess that less than 10% of ogres actually have 21 Str. There might only be one ogre in the entire world that actually has this exact ability array. Similarly, only a small percentage of monsters will have no class levels or advanced hit dice or whatever other parameter you use to build them.

So, again, the stat block is just a handy example. If I were to stat a marine, I'd give him some simple straightforward things that represented a typical marine, and note where he got them from (i.e. class levels) so a DM could customize skills/feats/etc. as needed.

I just think this is a very generic complaint being thrown at a very specific problem.

It is. Putting the boss monster tag on a stat block is not a big deal in and of itself. But the philosophy that it represents is a very general problem: it's about designers trying to "make the game easier" by playing it for us. Given the people who are (still) working on D&D, any red flag, anything that goes in this direction, should be called out aggressively.

 

[renau1g]

One of the things about 4th edition I didn't like was the whole minion, middle man, boss mechanic.

The moment you dropped one enemy in combat you knew immediately that it was a minion and you knew when you were up against the middle men and then the boss. The mechanics of the game made these become too obvious and I don't want Next to mimic that. I don't mind if certain creatures have 1hp, small spider for example, but not "minions".

I don't want boss designed creatures. I want to be able to make any creature a "boss" if and when I feel that it's necessary.

The great thing is that with the fancy templates, you could make any monster a "boss" monster, it was super easy to make a regular orc into an elite orc and possibly into a solo creature (although I make it a point to never use a solo on its own, too boring).

The minion thing.... yeah, it became obvious whenever the DM put three or more of the same enemies on the table what they were, those could use an update (or deletion, although I like the idea of having tons of foes for the PC's to carve through).

Also, in every edition I knew when I was fighting the mooks, the middle-man and finally the boss. I mean, if I'm fighting some orcs with spears at the exterior of the cave structure, then I advance and find some wearing full armor and having well made weapons, then I enter the throne room and see an orc sitting on the throne there, it's pretty obvious what role they're occupying. 4e was no different than any other edition for that.

 

[TwinBahamut]

It is. Putting the boss monster tag on a stat block is not a big deal in and of itself. But the philosophy that it represents is a very general problem: it's about designers trying to "make the game easier" by playing it for us. Given the people who are (still) working on D&D, any red flag, anything that goes in this direction, should be called out aggressively.

'Playing it for us"? What? I can't even comprehend this.

Are you saying that effort made by WotC to make the game easier to run and more fun for many people literally detracts from your ability to have fun and is equivalent to "playing the game for you"? What, exactly, is the "game" that is being played? What the D&D creators are doing isn't playing, it's designing. Taking the position that it is wrong for the designers to actually do their job and design, because it somehow detracts from your need to houserule your game in order to make it playable, is simply incomprehensible. If you don't want designers to design, then what exactly do you want them to do?

You know, despite phrasing all of those statements in the form of questions, I really, really don't want to know the answers... I doubt I'd understand such answers any more than I understand the quoted statement, and I am absolutely certain I wouldn't agree anyways.

Boss monsters are great. They are proven idea that has worked time and time again. The mechanical distinction between normal grunt enemies that are fought in swarms and single foes capable of handling a group of heroes all on their own is absolutely essential to pretty much any game that features enemies to fight. If D&D lacked that it would be fundamentally flawed and impotent. Any game that lacked something so basic would deserve to be mocked and derided.

We shouldn't "call the designers out aggressively" for implementing rules like this. What they are doing is such a basic necessity of the game that, despite its immense positive impact on the game, it doesn't even amount to an effort worthy of praise. They are implementing boss enemies because of course they are implementing boss enemies! This isn't 1970! Games need boss enemies!

 

[billd91]

In general, I think a "boss monster" should exist because it's a lot tougher than the PCs, not because it has a keyword that piles on hit points and damage. A level four goblin should be a "boss monster" to level 1 PCs because he's so much tougher than they are, not because he's a Goblin Manslayer [Elite].

This strikes me as a po-tay-to, po-tah-to issue. I can designate a 4th level goblin as a boss monster or designate a goblin as a boss monster and make him 4th level. The end result is the same, a tougher goblin for 1st level PCs to fight.

 

[underfoot007ct]

Wait a minute, is he an army soldier, or a marine? You can't be both. The armed forces are really restrictive on multiclassing . . .

Kind of, Army, Navy, & Marine are you class, then you get a specialty (Theme) so you can be Navy Pilot, Marine Pilot, Army Soldier, Marine Soldier, Navy medic, and so on.

 

[Ahnehnois]

Any game that lacked something so basic would deserve to be mocked and derided.

Feel free to mock and deride any fantasy rpg without explicit monster roles in the rules (i.e. essentially all of them). "Boss monsters" are a perfectly fine consequence of play, but designating a particular monster as such in its description is unnecessary.

They are implementing boss enemies because of course they are implementing boss enemies!

Well, now I'm convinced.

This isn't 1970!

No, it isn't. My parents hadn't met in 1970.
Also, in 1970 I think D&D was more of a glorified miniatures game and less of a storytelling system.

Games need boss enemies!

Games? Maybe. Monster manuals? No.