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

[Chris_Nightwing]

But you can. In 4e, via power selection. In D&Dnext, via combat superiority dice (I assume - that is the obvious vehicle to deliver it).

EDIT: In 4e, also, when you get high enough those goblins or bandits become minions, and you don't need multiple attacks: your ability to strike with fierce accuracy multiple times in 6 seconds is reflected by the fact that they have only 1 hp, and so drop to a single hit.

No, I'm sorry, that's just not true. The single most frustrating thing about 4E for me was that monster abilities and attacks were arbitrary and completely unrelated to what players could do. Goblin shamans had spells that Wizards could never cast, various melee types could perform moves that Fighters couldn't.

I also detest minions, but that's another story.

 

[Neonchameleon]

The level system should handle badass monsters.

The solution is not to have solo boss fights to begin with. It's a bad trope drawn primarily from bad sources (comic books, videogames, cartoons/anime).

Congratulations. You have just said that the party vs dragon fight should not exist in a game of Dungeons and Dragons. Can I just check this is what you meant?

I am merely asserting my belief that a basically naturalistic philosophy (or simulation, if you prefer, though D&D is not strongly simulationist) is the right direction for the industry as a whole.

And this is me asserting my belief that I and most other DMs I know would literally rather gnaw off our own right arms than work under the system you prefer with having to custom-craft almost all monsters based on a half-finished monster-manual. We have jobs, we have lives, and we have other hobbies - and some of the burned-out 3.X DMs I know spent at least a dozen hours preparing per session at mid level and have described it as a full time job.

If you have your way there is no way in hell I am running 5e - and I appear to have just started at least one and possibly two 5e campaigns given how successful my recent playtests were.

3.X was the outlier here - and even the Pathfinder players mitigate it by running a lot of pre-made adventure paths that actually have fully formed monsters. If you want the naturalistic philosophy, GURPS does it much better than D&D.

You play 3.x, yes? High level caster PCs seem pretty "boss" to me.

And get torn apart by the action economy. Especially e.g. Liches.

If this still doesn't make sense to you, that's cool with me. Personally I'd be happy to see a 5e with no boss labels, and no monster levels or CR; it'd save me the temptation to buy a game that I'll almost certainly find disappointing.

This.

 

[Neonchameleon]

No, I'm sorry, that's just not true. The single most frustrating thing about 4E for me was that monster abilities and attacks were arbitrary and completely unrelated to what players could do. Goblin shamans had spells that Wizards could never cast, various melee types could perform moves that Fighters couldn't.

I also detest minions, but that's another story.

And the idea that a wizard should be able to not just cast any spell ever, but be able to cast it in six seconds is one reason I find the magic of 3.X non-magical. That all fighters should all move in the same way as their normal combat options is equally something I find ... strange.

 

[Chris_Nightwing]

And the idea that a wizard should be able to not just cast any spell ever, but be able to cast it in six seconds is one reason I find the magic of 3.X non-magical. That all fighters should all move in the same way as their normal combat options is equally something I find ... strange.

That's nice, but I didn't state anything supporting those concepts either. You seem to think that not liking parts of 4E makes me automatically dislike all of it and adore 3E. This is a poor position to be in for the purposes of the discussion.

Now I don't have a 4E MM in front of me, but grabbing stuff from the pre-release that's already on the internet.. A level 1 Human Bandit has an at-will power that deals damage, dazes the target for a round and lets them shift. I could be wrong, but I don't recall any of the PHB1 classes being able to do something like that. Why not? Should they have taken the Bandit class? This irks me.

I'm just not the sort of player or DM who enjoys all monsters having cute little tricks.

Anyway, I think there is a place for elite and solo creatures in 5E, but according to my preference, only certain monsters should qualify for this, and yes, they should have additional actions to make them viable.

 

[bbjore]

There are massive verisimilitude implications in giving a goblin chief extra attacks. If you do the same for the human leader of a group of bandits, the first thing that would drive me mad as a player is that *I* can't get multiple attacks in the same way. I know a lot of people like the distinction between player mechanics and NPC mechanics, but I do not.

I understand how this can bug people, and this is not a refutation of how it would bother you, because I get that some people want monsters and PCs to follow the same rules. But it does reminds me of the first time I sent a Solo against my players in 4E, and my players asked pretty much the same thing. I told them the monster could do that because I **** said so. It's a fond memory, because it highlights one of the many ways 4E brought me closer to my old school gaming roots, especially on the DM side of things.

I'm actually surprised how many people oppose the boss tags as gamist, but that's often a criticism used by people who like older editions of the game where DMs held much greater power. I love the solo and minion tags because they unshackle the DM, allowing them to just design an adventure as they see fit and not worry about matching monster rules to PCs rules. I would expect more support from the people who like older versions for game design that does this for the dm.

I get that some people want monsters to follow the same rules as PCs and this helps the world seem more realistic to them. Me, I like that boss or minion tags let me gloss over the mechanics of a monster since I know they'll work and focus on designing the monster's place and purpose in the world. Fortunately this is one of those debates where both sides can have what they want. People who don't like the extra tags don't have to use them, and people that do can. It's perfectly modular design. Heck, even 4E allowed you to design an entire dungeon full of humanoids with classes or play an entire campaign without using a single solo.

 

[Chris_Nightwing]

I understand how this can bug people, and this is not a refutation of how it would bother you, because I get that some people want monsters and PCs to follow the same rules. But it does reminds me of the first time I sent a Solo against my players in 4E, and my players asked pretty much the same thing. I told them the monster could do that because I **** said so. It's a fond memory, because it highlights one of the many ways 4E brought me closer to my old school gaming roots, especially on the DM side of things.

I'm actually surprised how many people oppose the boss tags as gamist, but that's often a criticism used by people who like older editions of the game where DMs held much greater power. I love the solo and minion tags because they unshackle the DM, allowing them to just design an adventure as they see fit and not worry about matching monster rules to PCs rules. I would expect more support from the people who like older versions for game design that does this for the dm.

I get that some people want monsters to follow the same rules as PCs and this helps the world seem more realistic to them. Me, I like that boss or minion tags let me gloss over the mechanics of a monster since I know they'll work and focus on designing the monster's place and purpose in the world. Fortunately this is one of those debates where both sides can have what they want. People who don't like the extra tags don't have to use them, and people that do can. It's perfectly modular design. Heck, even 4E allowed you to design an entire dungeon full of humanoids with classes or play an entire campaign without using a single solo.

To me, DM empowerment is not being able to tell the players 'because I say so' but being able to say 'I think what you're trying to do would work like this' without detailed, heavy-handed mechanics getting in the way. If you're playing a game with rules lawyers (poor you), then it's much easier to invent something where little exists than to remove or change something that fully exists.

Whilst you're correct in your last paragraph, it isn't great value to buy a Monster Manual that's half full of creatures you're deliberately not using. We'll see though - like I said, I think the designation of elite or solo has a place for certain monsters, I just wouldn't like to see a special version of every monster.

 

[Obryn]

A level 1 Human Bandit has an at-will power that deals damage, dazes the target for a round and lets them shift. I could be wrong, but I don't recall any of the PHB1 classes being able to do something like that. Why not? Should they have taken the Bandit class? This irks me.

I don't think that was at-will! At least not in any recent publications! This is akin to a PC's encounter or daily power. NPCs tend to have a lot less of those, because that would otherwise be a lot for the DM to track in combat.

I freely admit that 4e uses different rules for monsters and PCs. Unlike you, though, that's exactly how I want it. I don't see any actual in-game value in building up monsters like PCs; been there, done that for 8 years. To me, it's just extra, unfruitful labor to get me to a place where I wanted to be - a functioning part of the game world that operates how I want it to both in and out of combat.

I'm just not the sort of player or DM who enjoys all monsters having cute little tricks.

I'm the sort of DM who wants a fight vs. orcs and a fight vs. hobgoblins to be completely different, and for the mechanics to work with me on this and make it immediately clear to my players.

It's like you can't win - give players similar power structures, and they are "samey." Give monsters uniqueness and variation, and suddenly they are not "samey" enough.

-O

 

[triqui]

The boss label is gamist because it suggests that the PCs are "supposed" to fight that monster by itself, and defeat it after a relatively difficult battle. It ignores all other outcomes that could happen (i.e. retreat, negotiation, anything other than a straight up battle), emphasizing the main competitive segment of the game (combat). Some call that "gamist"; I think "reductionist" describes it better.

I don't think "solo" has any more restriction than "level 20 wizard" or "dragon". You can bluff, or negotiate, or retreat from a level 20 wizard or a dragon, just as much as you can do it from a solo monster. "Solo" just mean it is a tough enemy, one that can face a group of adventurers on his own, without help. Some games do that through level. Others do it through other game stats (Cthulhu doesn't have the word "solo" tagged on him, but it is certainly not the kind of monsters you should be fighting a platoon of them. Or LotR Balrogs, Runequest giants, L5R greater Oni, or Vampire the Masquerade 4th generation elders...)

Some games give those meant-to-fight-solo monsters a higher level. Or special abilities. Or higher than normal resiliance, the ability to threat a group, etc. Some of those games do not follow a Challenge Rating system, so they require the DM experience to gauge and measure the threat (is Helen of Troy too hard for my 13th generation anarchs? Would my group of Runelords be able to defeat a giant?). DnD made a decision to help inexperienced DM. They did a ranking of monsters dangerness, the CR. CR 7 means it is an appropiated challenge for a 7th level character. CR 7 solo, means he is an appropiated challenge for a whole group. Experienced DM can ignore this, and build gimicky encounters where you face much bigger and dangerous creatures, which can be defeated through puzzles, special features, or other gimmicks. Newbie DM, though, have a harder time without CR.

 

[Neonchameleon]

That's nice, but I didn't state anything supporting those concepts either. You seem to think that not liking parts of 4E makes me automatically dislike all of it and adore 3E. This is a poor position to be in for the purposes of the discussion.

You were stating that the wizard should be able to cast all spells a goblin shaman could. As far as I know ony 3.X had this level of magical cross-cover.

Now I don't have a 4E MM in front of me, but grabbing stuff from the pre-release that's already on the internet.. A level 1 Human Bandit has an at-will power that deals damage, dazes the target for a round and lets them shift. I could be wrong, but I don't recall any of the PHB1 classes being able to do something like that. Why not? Should they have taken the Bandit class? This irks me.

As a pretty experienced 4e DM, my reaction to that statement is "WTF?" That is incredibly shoddy monster design independent of everything else. You shouldn't be throwing around that sort of action denial at level 1 even on a solo, and I can't off the top of my head think of any monsters in the bottom half of heroic tier that have an at will daze, and for a very good reason. And the combination of daze and shift is simply unpleasant as you can get to the one square gap distance very easily and have almost complete action denial for a melee fighter. Bad, bad design at all levels.

Anyway, I think there is a place for elite and solo creatures in 5E, but according to my preference, only certain monsters should qualify for this, and yes, they should have additional actions to make them viable.

And if you go by the 4e monster manuals and not the distinctly poor early 4e adventures, this pattern is followed - and it's not one I think should be broken.

 

[wedgeski]

As a pretty experienced 4e DM, my reaction to that statement is "WTF?" That is incredibly shoddy monster design independent of everything else. You shouldn't be throwing around that sort of action denial at level 1 even on a solo, and I can't off the top of my head think of any monsters in the bottom half of heroic tier that have an at will daze, and for a very good reason. And the combination of daze and shift is simply unpleasant as you can get to the one square gap distance very easily and have almost complete action denial for a melee fighter. Bad, bad design at all levels.

Lucky for all of us then that this is in fact "Dazing Strike", an *Encounter* Power for a *2nd* level Human Bandit.