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

[Chris_Nightwing]

I approve of this. Though note that the idea was already there by creature type in 3E, without guidance on appropriate powers or damage (and I think they fluffed some levels).

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.

Er, the fact that solos take for-freaking-ever to kill? If the players manage to go out of their way to eliminate the boss' allies, he should be easier to kill, if they choose to. Obviously I could not choose a solo, but sometimes you need a dragon or beholder.

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

This is sensible, and I think that 'elites' can be higher level, where solos cannot. So yeah, if anything let's drop elite and keep solo as a designation for powerful beings.

 

[Ahnehnois]

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

I think you've just described the monster role take on monster design, and it "reduce the workload for the poor helpless DM" philosophy. As well as the power system relative to "15 minute adventuring days" and "linear vs quadratic characters". All of these things are answers looking for a problem that doesn't exist, and it is indeed amusing that we're still even talking about it.

 

[Ahnehnois]

All you're doing is picking and choosing which gamist construct you want.

Pretty much. That's what the entertainment business is. There are reasons why I want it.

 

[Iosue]

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.

The shift on a miss was a feature of Goblins, which represented getting the heck out of Dodge after a near-miss. It was entirely associated with something physical about the race: goblins are small and squirrelly. When someone takes a swing at them, they don't wait around for another. They break away. And it should be noted, such an ability was completely optional for the DM. I mean, it often made sense to use it, but it wasn't as if it was automatic.

Goblin PCs have that same ability. At-Will Racial Feature, when an enemy misses an attack, you can shift one square. The flavor text is "You avoid your enemy’s blow and cleverly dodge away."

 

[Obryn]

Er, the fact that solos take for-freaking-ever to kill? If the players manage to go out of their way to eliminate the boss' allies, he should be easier to kill, if they choose to. Obviously I could not choose a solo, but sometimes you need a dragon or beholder.

If you can take out a dragon's minions and turn that final confrontation into an L+2 encounter instead of an L+6 encounter, you've done well. The "solos take a while to kill" is a basic feature of the design, IMO. It's less rocket-taggy.

This is sensible, and I think that 'elites' can be higher level, where solos cannot. So yeah, if anything let's drop elite and keep solo as a designation for powerful beings.

I don't know that they can just be higher level, honestly. It's a different design axis.

ETA: Basically, I don't think there's anything magical about hit points which means they must always match up with a monster's other capabilities.

-O

 

[slobster]

I think you've just described the monster role take on monster design, and it "reduce the workload for the poor helpless DM" philosophy. As well as the power system relative to "15 minute adventuring days" and "linear vs quadratic characters". All of these things are answers looking for a problem that doesn't exist, and it is indeed amusing that we're still even talking about it.

I'm gonna call BS on this. I know that 4E monster design lightened the burden on myself as a GM substantially. Off the top of my head I have nine friends who I know very well, who GMed both 3rd and then 4th when it came out. Eight of them agree that 4th edition is substantially easier on the GM, though only seven of them actually enjoyed running 4th edition. That's not even getting into how many times I've seen that opinion voiced in the echo chamber that is the internet.

I'm not getting into the other two claims, as we're off-topic enough as it is.

If you had said "all of these things aren't a problem to me", I'd be fine with your post. Some people consider them problems, others don't. But saying they aren't problems at all, and never were, well, I happen to know that you are incorrect.

 

[Ahnehnois]

If you had said "all of these things aren't a problem to me", I'd be fine with your post. Some people consider them problems, others don't. But saying they aren't problems at all, and never were, well, I happen to know that you are incorrect.

I believe that some DMs are and have been overworked. I know I have been (but not for a while). I also believe that some (but not many) DMs find 4e meaningfully easier to DM than 3e. What I don't believe is that the mechanical constructs at issue caused the initial overwork, or that any changes to them necessarily effected the anecdotally positive experiences some have reported.

A DM's workload has been and will be a product of his choices and the group he plays with far more than the rules. As such, it is quite malleable. 4e previews sure told people that DMing would be easier, and that in and of itself probably encouraged DMs to make different choices about how they prepare, independent of mechanics. A placebo effect, essentially.

The mechanics themselves are designed to facilitate a very narrow playstyle (the "gamist" style advocated by Rouse, Mearls, etc.) and probably do indeed make it easier for people who do indeed fit within its assumptions (but much harder for everyone else). If you want to run a roughly six round combat against a group of four PCs of a particular level that causes them to use a predictable percentage of their resources before predictably winning, the encounter-based monster design approach probably makes your life easier. I just don't believe that this scenario is the "baseline" D&D experience, or that people who fall outside of it are irrelevant.

 

[Stalker0]

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 this is why I think there are actually two different arguments being thrown around.

The first is the idea that some monsters have naturally acted as "boss monsters" over the years. Dragons, beholders, mind flayers, etc.

The idea of the solo tag here is to promote mechanics that allow these monsters to truly serve as a final encounter to a party of PCs.


The second argument being the idea of taking any monster and turning them into a boss encounter, the "Goblin Chief" concept.

 

[Ahnehnois]

The idea of the solo tag here is to promote mechanics that allow these monsters to truly serve as a final encounter to a party of PCs.

That's the approach I'm saying is redundant. Give dragons multiple attacks, a breath weapon, and natural armor because they're dragons. They serve the purpose fine. No tag needed.

The second argument being the idea of taking any monster and turning them into a boss encounter, the "Goblin Chief" concept.

That's the approach I'm saying feels too metagame-y. Giving the goblin a few levels of rogue/druid/etc. or giving it a bunch of allies or a well-protected lair are what make it a boss, not tacking on a few extra actions per round to make it more powerful for its level.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

The first is the idea that some monsters have naturally acted as "boss monsters" over the years. Dragons, beholders, mind flayers, etc.

Is there anyone who has a problem with this?

The second argument being the idea of taking any monster and turning them into a boss encounter, the "Goblin Chief" concept.

I think this is the real problem...