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

[Iosue]

You know, I don't really get the whole "Monsters can do things PCs can't" argument. To me, it appears that monster abilities fall into three groups.

1) Basic attacks. With natural or man-made weapons, they attack. Pretty much just like PCs. At the most they mimic player at-wills, with damage plus a simple effect.

2) Powers. These powers are essentially just like PC powers. Maybe a little weaker in some cases, maybe a little stronger in others. The form of the power might be a bit different, but the effect is basically the same. So here you have the Bandit's Dazing Strike (Rogue's Dazing Strike), the Town Guard's Powerful Strike (Fighter's Sweeping Strike), the Goblin Hex Hurler's Stinging Hex (Warlock's Dire Radiance), Elf's Two-Weapon Rend (Ranger's Twin Strike), Hobgoblin's Attack Command (Warlord's Commander's Strike), and so on. These are basically things PCs can do, but flavored a little different to represent the monster doing them. The way a Kobold learns to fight is a little different than how a Human learns to fight. The Goblin Hex Hurler learns magic a little different than Warlocks. Basically the same, but flavorfully different.

3) Special Powers. These are powers truly unique to those monsters, that the PCs can't mimic (and aren't mimicking PC powers), and it makes sense that those monsters have those unique powers. The Medusa's Mind-Venom Gaze. The Dragon's Breath Weapon. The Lich's Enervating Tendrils. The Succubus's Charming Kiss. And the thing is, because these powers are tied in with 4e's consistent keywords and conditions, these powers are not wholly unreproductible by PCs. They interact with the world in a consistent way.

I like 4e monsters.

 

[pemerton]

Minions do not obviate the need for multiple attacks, you still have to hit them, so you want more attacks to increase your chance to do so.

Sure, except that they die in one hit, so you don't need as many hits to drop them. Minions take the probablity engine that is D&D combat and rearrange the bits of it in slightly different ways. That's why I think they are an abstraction device, and (presumably) unappealing for those who like less abstraction.

Minions are, to me, frustrating. There's nothing wrong with a monster that dies in 1 hit, but if we are already using HP as an abstraction for your ability to carry on fighting, why not just give them very low HP?

I don't quite follow this - minions do have very low hit points, namely, 1. Or are you querying the "no damage on a miss" rule?

They're arbitrary in that creatures are given abilities to meet their level and type, with the flavour (if there is any) constructed around the monster afterwards.

I don't think this is the case, though. Certainly not universally. I think there are plenty of 4e monsters which have been conceived of first in terms of flavour, and then a level, type and powers built around them. Demons, devils, dragons, drow, mind flayers, beholders, gnolls, hobgoblins, kobolds, wights and wraiths would be some of the examples of this that I would nominate.

 

[Chris_Nightwing]

You know, I don't really get the whole "Monsters can do things PCs can't" argument. To me, it appears that monster abilities fall into three groups.

1) Basic attacks. With natural or man-made weapons, they attack. Pretty much just like PCs. At the most they mimic player at-wills, with damage plus a simple effect.

2) Powers. These powers are essentially just like PC powers. Maybe a little weaker in some cases, maybe a little stronger in others. The form of the power might be a bit different, but the effect is basically the same. So here you have the Bandit's Dazing Strike (Rogue's Dazing Strike), the Town Guard's Powerful Strike (Fighter's Sweeping Strike), the Goblin Hex Hurler's Stinging Hex (Warlock's Dire Radiance), Elf's Two-Weapon Rend (Ranger's Twin Strike), Hobgoblin's Attack Command (Warlord's Commander's Strike), and so on. These are basically things PCs can do, but flavored a little different to represent the monster doing them. The way a Kobold learns to fight is a little different than how a Human learns to fight. The Goblin Hex Hurler learns magic a little different than Warlocks. Basically the same, but flavorfully different.

3) Special Powers. These are powers truly unique to those monsters, that the PCs can't mimic (and aren't mimicking PC powers), and it makes sense that those monsters have those unique powers. The Medusa's Mind-Venom Gaze. The Dragon's Breath Weapon. The Lich's Enervating Tendrils. The Succubus's Charming Kiss. And the thing is, because these powers are tied in with 4e's consistent keywords and conditions, these powers are not wholly unreproductible by PCs. They interact with the world in a consistent way.

I like 4e monsters.

Completely agree with 1) and 3).

You've made a great list for 2) and I would love to look through those powers and do a comparison. If the powers for the guards and elf are exactly the same as the PC equivalents then I'll relent a little on that complaint.

I also don't know, but were there any big changes when monster races became PC races? I remember instantly disliking the kobold and goblin combatant abilities (one was shifting on a miss I remember) because they were dissociated from anything physical about the race.

 

[D'karr]

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.

There are monsters I'll never use because they simply do not fit the style for the campaign. So a monster manual will always have monsters that DMs will never use. In the MMs that have them, the Solo and Elite designation was more of an addendum to some "thematically" appropriate creatures. In addition, the monster manual and/or DMG (don't remember which) had advice on how the DM could add those mechanics to the monsters they wanted.

At this point this seems to be a concern for something that has never really happened. I would not expect to see a solo, or elite designation for every monster in the MM. So I would not expect half the monsters to be "useless".
However, I'd like the designation to exist and the mechanics to back them up. I'd also like the mechanics to support the DM to add the mechanics to any monster he feels appropriate; it is his campaign after all. And if the DM wants to level up monsters just like PCs, he should be able to do that too. I know I did with 4e for one particular monster. Then I got wiser, and just took the stuff I wanted/needed. I didn't bother will all the additional "cruft" that was not necessary for me. Best of both worlds.



-

 

[Chris_Nightwing]

Sure, except that they die in one hit, so you don't need as many hits to drop them. Minions take the probablity engine that is D&D combat and rearrange the bits of it in slightly different ways. That's why I think they are an abstraction device, and (presumably) unappealing for those who like less abstraction.

I don't quite follow this - minions do have very low hit points, namely, 1. Or are you querying the "no damage on a miss" rule?

I don't think this is the case, though. Certainly not universally. I think there are plenty of 4e monsters which have been conceived of first in terms of flavour, and then a level, type and powers built around them. Demons, devils, dragons, drow, mind flayers, beholders, gnolls, hobgoblins, kobolds, wights and wraiths would be some of the examples of this that I would nominate.

What I liked in one discussion from the designers on 5E was that minions would genuinely just be lower level monsters that you once faced on equal footing, but now can kill with one blow. I didn't like the no damage on a miss rule.

Back (a little) to the topic. I saw that they improved the design of solos as the game developed, to account for the action economy. I think they were stymied by their own rules at this point though since multiple actions led to shrugging off PC effects easily, and in a game with a mixture of early and late solo creatures you could really see the difference in your effectiveness (though frankly by then there were so many overpowered features it barely mattered).

One thing that I like about higher-level bosses, rather than explicit elite or solo bosses, is that you can stat out a final encounter in which he has allies, and have the PCs remove allies or defences as part of the dungeon crawl. I actually think a weak boss can be a genuine reward for clever play earlier in an adventure.

 

[Neonchameleon]

That said, having the tools laid out in front of you makes it so much easier to skip out on prep work and improvise. It's easy to take monsters and hack them on the fly when they have predictable rules for advancement.

Advantage: 4e.

Personally, I looked at the 4e monster manual, and the thought of having to break everything apart and rewrite the entire thing just to make it marginally usable was not appealing. That would have been a full-time job. Thankfully, no one made me DM it.

Whereas I run 4e monsters straight out of the monster manual while at the table - which makes it incredibly useful to me. You don't actually have to break apart and re-write the whole thing. But even you admit you have done so for 3.X IIRC.

One thing that I like about higher-level bosses, rather than explicit elite or solo bosses, is that you can stat out a final encounter in which he has allies, and have the PCs remove allies or defences as part of the dungeon crawl. I actually think a weak boss can be a genuine reward for clever play earlier in an adventure.

And I have one very obvious question for you: What exactly is preventing you doing that in 4e?

And an answer: Absolutely nothing. I have done this. All a "solo" means is that it is worth five standard monsters of that level and should probably be a threat for the party. There is absolutely nothing in either rules or fluff saying that a solo can't have allies - and certainly the named Nentir Vale solos I recall do.

 

[Obryn]

Back (a little) to the topic. I saw that they improved the design of solos as the game developed, to account for the action economy. I think they were stymied by their own rules at this point though since multiple actions led to shrugging off PC effects easily, and in a game with a mixture of early and late solo creatures you could really see the difference in your effectiveness (though frankly by then there were so many overpowered features it barely mattered).

When 4e was released, the designers frankly had no idea how the game worked. It was still fun, overall, but 4e right now, post-errata, post-MM3, post-Essentials is a much better game. They needed another year or two of realistic, real-player playtests to iron out obvious flaws like V-shaped classes, the "expertise gap", grindy soldiers, useless brutes, worthless feats, and, yes, awful Solos (and monster design in general).

PCs haven't gotten remarkably more powerful since the pre-errata 4e PHB. In some ways, they've gotten less so. It was the monster design that was way, way off.

One thing that I like about higher-level bosses, rather than explicit elite or solo bosses, is that you can stat out a final encounter in which he has allies, and have the PCs remove allies or defences as part of the dungeon crawl. I actually think a weak boss can be a genuine reward for clever play earlier in an adventure.

There's nothing in the "solo" designation preventing this. Most "solo" monsters will have a retinue. And if you encounter them with a bunch of allies ... well, prepare for a big fight.

Also, in this case, Elite would probably be better. In my own games, I tend to restrict Solos to incredibly powerful beings (tough monsters, sorcerer-kings, corrupted Spirits of the Land, etc.) but use Elites for your basic better-than-average humanoids.

-O

 

[Ahnehnois]

Whereas I run 4e monsters straight out of the monster manual while at the table - which makes it incredibly useful to me.

To you. To me, they aren't even close to a minimal standard of usable (nor, to be fair, do I consider any premade stat blocks acceptable). If someone somehow forced me to run 4e, I'd make up the monster stats myself on the fly without even looking at the monster manual.

Advantage: 4e.

If you call that advancement. Yikes.

You don't actually have to break apart and re-write the whole thing. But even you admit you have done so for 3.X IIRC.

I "admit" that I have used the monster advancement rules? I haven't had to break anything apart or change the system itself, just add stuff to individual creatures. That's what a monster manual is for: to help a DM create monsters. I admit to being a DM.

 

[D'karr]

And I have one very obvious question for you: What exactly is preventing you doing that in 4e?

I've read some of these "discussions" with some measure of amusement.

It seems like an answer looking for a problem, one that really doesn't exist.

 

[Obryn]

That said, you've chosen strange examples. Dragons, by virtue of their nature, typically have area attacks and a wide variety of options, and beholders, by their nature, have a wide variety of eyes. They serve the function of "boss monster" well because of those things, not the other way around.

And yet, there's still only one of them. So you need other, different gamist constructs to make them reasonable challenges. Such as Spell Resistance, Natural Armor, "Anti-Magic Cone" eyes, dragon fear, etc. All you're doing is picking and choosing which gamist construct you want.

(Speaking of gamist constructs - c'mon, the beholder? I guarantee you, much like the rust monster and gelatinous cube, the design of that creature did not start from ecology or versimilitude, nor was it built mechanistically like a PC!)

-O