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

[Ultimatecalibur]

I have a serious question.

How is designating monsters designed to handle 2 PCs of their level or enhance related monsters "Elite" and monsters designed to handle 4 PCs of their level "Solo" arbitrary?

ar·bi·trar·y /ˈärbiˌtrerē/
Adjective:
Based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system.

 

[GreyICE]

Games? Maybe. Monster manuals? No.

So where does the game of D&D get them, if not in monster manuals?

 

[Minigiant]

Overall it is a storytelling aide. Really there shouldn't be boss monsters in the rules. There should be easy "enhanced monster" guidelines and formula to alter the base monster. Then have some easily snaggable examples.

For the DM should just wants a tough goblin, they can give it fighter levels and be done. Whatever happens, happens. TPK, Cakewalk, or Engaging battle.

For a DM who wants a goblin who can deal with multiple foes while enforcing a dramatic battle, they can use the solo rules. 4X the HD, add a few more attacks, and give him an ability to reduce the penalty of being ganged up on.

 

[Ahnehnois]

So where does the game of D&D get them, if not in monster manuals?

At the table.

The same way your PC becomes a protagonist/sideskick (or a defender or a leader) when a you build that character and play it in an actual game session. The rules aren't the outcome, they're the tools you use to get there. Roles like "boss monster" are one possible outcome of using the rules.

 

[renau1g]

Overall it is a storytelling aide. Really there shouldn't be boss monsters in the rules. There should be easy "enhanced monster" guidelines and formula to alter the base monster. Then have some easily snaggable examples.

For the DM should just wants a tough goblin, they can give it fighter levels and be done. Whatever happens, happens. TPK, Cakewalk, or Engaging battle.

For a DM who wants a goblin who can deal with multiple foes while enforcing a dramatic battle, they can use the solo rules. 4X the HD, add a few more attacks, and give him an ability to reduce the penalty of being ganged up on.

Or, I can save tons of time adding NPC levels to the goblin and have one statted out for me. One reason I gave up on 3.5e DM'ing was spending hours carefully crafting the NPC BBEG and getting one round killed.

In 4e, I can search for an appropriate leveled Elite foe and tweak for all of 5 seconds and have what I need.

At the table.

The same way your PC becomes a protagonist/sideskick (or a defender or a leader) when a you build that character and play it in an actual game session. The rules aren't the outcome, they're the tools you use to get there. Roles like "boss monster" are one possible outcome of using the rules.

So what you're saying is that all hill giants in the steading have the same stats and somehow, one of them (during the course of the PC assault) becomes the "boss"?

 

[FireLance]

At the table.

The same way your PC becomes a protagonist/sideskick (or a defender or a leader) when a you build that character and play it in an actual game session. The rules aren't the outcome, they're the tools you use to get there. Roles like "boss monster" are one possible outcome of using the rules.

I think the key inconsistency here is that the arguments applied to monster roles and class roles don't apply to the character classes themselves. If they did, we'd have laughable arguments like: the Fighter class pigenholes characters because all they can do is fight, or: any character can fight, so why do we need a Fighter class?

Of course, in play, the cleric can protect the wizard (but a paladin would do it better). A rogue could give tactical advice to another character (but a warlord could give tactical advice and back it up with a mechanical bonus to attack or damage rolls). An artillery monster can make a melee attack (but it would be less accurate and damaging than if it were to make a ranged attack). A lurker monster can simply charge into combat and trade blows with the PCs (and be much, much easier to beat).

By the same token, you can use any monster you want to be the "boss monster". Whether or not it has been designed to increase the chances of an interesting combat encounter is a separate matter entirely, and one that you don't need to worry about if you don't want to.

 

[Obryn]

I think that D&D has, historically, too-closely tied together hit points and ... well, everything else.

I like having Minions, Elites, and Solos because it lets me decouple these things. Hit points are now at least semi-independent of other forms of effectiveness.

It's wonderfully effects-based and pragmatic. It's how I like my D&D.

-O

 

[GreyICE]

At the table.

The same way your PC becomes a protagonist/sideskick (or a defender or a leader) when a you build that character and play it in an actual game session. The rules aren't the outcome, they're the tools you use to get there. Roles like "boss monster" are one possible outcome of using the rules.

So basically you're advocating that instead of having a Monster Manual that gives you clear and defined stat blocks that you can use at the table easily or modify to suit your needs, it should have generic and boring stat blocks that represent "a very basic" version of the monster that is not suitable for use at the table, and then it should give intricate and complex rules for to allow a DM to - with enough source books, system knowledge, and time - build a monster that is suitable for use at the table?

Well that's... one way of doing things I suppose. I don't think it'll catch on.

 

[Victim]

At the table.

The same way your PC becomes a protagonist/sideskick (or a defender or a leader) when a you build that character and play it in an actual game session. The rules aren't the outcome, they're the tools you use to get there. Roles like "boss monster" are one possible outcome of using the rules.

Yeah, and giving monsters harder to kill without making them more resistant to being hurt, and other well designed solo abilities are useful tools.

I mean, I don't think it's an accident that Magneto - the guy with wide ranging magnetic powers including a powerful forcefield and a thought proof helmet - is a boss against the X-men, versus switching him out for an even shootier Cyclops.

 

[Ahnehnois]

So basically you're advocating that instead of having a Monster Manual that gives you clear and defined stat blocks that you can use at the table easily or modify to suit your needs, it should have generic and boring stat blocks that represent "a very basic" version of the monster that is not suitable for use at the table, and then it should give intricate and complex rules for to allow a DM to - with enough source books, system knowledge, and time - build a monster that is suitable for use at the table?

Well that's... one way of doing things I suppose. I don't think it'll catch on.

Are you advocating that instead of buying a monster manual that gives a DM tools to run a game, it should have generic monster stack blocks created by someone who doesn't know your players or your style or your houserules and probably made at least three math errors per stat block? It should represent a completely made but thoroughly mediocre monster with no references to other pages or other books (perish the thought!) and give no tools for the DM to make something he can actually use?

Well that's... one way of doing things I suppose. I don't think it did catch on.

By the same token, you can use any monster you want to be the "boss monster". Whether or not it has been designed to increase the chances of an interesting combat encounter is a separate matter entirely, and one that you don't need to worry about if you don't want to.

To the OP's point, if you can use any monster to be the boss monster, why put that label on some but not others? What does it add to the game? What does calling a dragon a "boss" tell even the greenest DM that isn't intuitively obvious? And why would there need to be any mechanical backing to this other than making it an appropriately powerful dragon?

So what you're saying is that all hill giants in the steading have the same stats and somehow, one of them (during the course of the PC assault) becomes the "boss"?

No, I'm saying that all the hill giants have different stats as designated by the DM (either during prep or at the table), and based on those stats and his judgment, one of them becomes the boss.