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

[slobster]

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.

This is a more balanced criticism. I don't necessarily agree, but we can discuss it.

The tools themselves unquestionably make my job as a GM easier. I'll give a (hopefully) quick example to illustrate by comparing monster creation from 3.5 and 4th.

I'm going to make a dolgrue, an aberration monstrosity to terrorize my PCs. Picking randomly, let's make it around 6th level.

4th: To start with, I need level, role, and tag. My party is level 6 so the level is easy. I see dolgrues as shambling and terrifying, but not particularly sneaky or disciplined. I'm making it a brute. Finally, I'm making him an elite because he should be able to physically dominate more than one PC at a time.

3.5: Well we know he's going to be an aberration, so I choose that as his creature type. I know that I want him to be challenging for my level 6 characters, so I decide he'll be CR 7.

That was easy so far, now let's start assigning stats!

4th: Flipping to the stat guidelines that [MENTION=87792]Neonchameleon[/MENTION] helpfully provided, I generate the dolgrue's basic combat abilities quickly. His AC is 18 (12+6<level>-2<brute>), his defenses are 18 (12+6<level>), his to hit bonus is +11 (5+6<level>), and his hp is 172 (26+60<level>*2<elite>). That's a pretty good start.

3.5: I go to the back of the MM, where the monster creation guidelines are. First I need to choose a size. Large seems to be about right. Then it gives me a range of appropriate ability scores for that size. I'll go Str 22, Dex 10, Con 22, since I think those stats are about right. The suggested damage values for attack types I'll come back to later. I need to choose HD now. The MM helpfully suggests that the HD should be at least equal to the target CR, but no more than 3 times the target CR. That means my dolgrue will have between 7 and 21 HD! Choosing a value in the middle, my dolgrue will apparently have 14 HD. Flipping back to the aberration type, these HD are d8s, so my dolgrue will have 147 hp (14d8+84).

Now he needs an AC, which according to the MM should be equal to its CR +13. My dolgrue's AC is 20 (13+7<CR>) or (10-1<size>+11<natural armor>). Aberrations get good will saves and bad everything else, so his fort save is +10 (4<base>+6<con>), his reflex save is +4 (base), and his will save is +9 (base). At this point I've chosen to have his wisdom be 10.

Aberrations have the cleric attack bonus progression, so his str based attacks will be at +15 (10<BAB>+6<str>-1<large>). As a sidenote, the monster building guidelines tell me I should be aiming for an attack bonus of about the monster's CR times 1.5. In this case, that means a +11 attack bonus. As they say:

Manipulating your monster's attack bonus to fit the CR you have in mind is not quite as easy as manipulating Armor Class. You can change the creature's Hit Dice, but doing this will change several other characteristics. The best way to fine-tune your monster at this step is to change its Strength score, but watch out for creating ability scores that seem unusually low or high for a creature of the given size or type.

Indeed. Since getting to a +11 attack bonus would mean assigning the dolgrue a strength of 14, which doesn't match my goal of an unstoppable, tank-like monstrosity, I guess I'll just deal with him having an unusually high attack bonus.

These are the basic stats needed as the foundation for the monster, but he still doesn't have any attacks!

4th: Our dolgrue should have a basic attack. The average damage should be 17.5 (8+6<level>*1.25<brute>). Let's give him a claw attack +11 (1d10+12). Ouch.

He is an elite of course, so we want him to be scary to multiple PCs. We also want him to be unique and interesting. Let's add a minor action that lets him toss a foe through the air like a projectile. Minor action: +11 vs. AC; 1d6+6 damage and push 4 squares. If the target would move through a square containing another creature, end the forced movement and knock both creatures prone, and the second creature takes 1d6+6 damage as well.

Not every enemy needs an encounter ability, but in this case I think we can justify one. Dolgrue's live in constant agony, so stabbing it repeatedly doesn't scare it, it more just pisses it off. Once per encounter, as a reaction after being damaged by an attack: close burst 1, +11 vs. AC. On a hit it deals 1d10+12 damage and knocks the target prone, and interrupts any marking effects a target had active on the dolgrue.

3.5: Again, we'll give him a claw attack. According to the size chart, large creatures' claw attacks deal 1d6 damage. I don't think it's too much of a stretch to increase the damage on that by one step. Dolgrue's have some pretty big claws. That gives us 1d8, plus 6 for strength. Claw +15 (1d8+6).

I'm giving him the multiattack feat so that he's more of a threat, so when he's full attacking he'll get 2 of these claw attacks, as well as a bite. The size chart tells me that the bite attack will do 1d8 damage. Since it's a secondary attack, I only apply one half strength bonus to damage, and even with multiattack it's at a -2 penalty. So our dolgrue's full attack is: 2 claws +15 (1d8+6) and bite +13 (1d8+3).

I still want to make him seem a little different from other big, physical baddies. I think the rend mechanic is overused (in all editions), so I'll leave that alone. Improved grab and grappling is just a pain to use at the table. I'll try to match the flavor of the 4th edition version of the monster I just made with the following ability: When the dolgrue is struck by a critical hit, it may immediately take an attack action as a free action, even if it is not his turn. I don't know how powerful that ability will be in practice, but it at least rounds out the monster and makes it more than just a reskinned ogre-type.

Finally, to reflect that the dolgrue is insane and utterly alien in mindset, I'm giving him a unique special quality. Whenever a humanoid attempts to use a mind-influencing effect on the dolgrue and fails, it becomes enraged. It immediately heals 25 hp and gets a +2 bonus to all damage rolls for 1 hour (these bonuses stack). Any humanoid which attempts to read the dolgrue's thoughts must make a will save DC 18 (10+7<half HD>+1<cha>) or go temporarily insane, as the spell confusion, for 1d4 rounds.

________________________________________________

So now I'm pretty much done. If this monster were seeing actual play, I'd modify the 4E version slightly, adding a few points to its will defense to represent its alien mindset, deducting a few points from its reflex defense and hp to represent its reckless nature. The 3.5 version sill needs feats, skills, and a couple of other details. But the two are essentially usable in a fight.

The 4th edition version was much easier to do. I admit that I'm out of practice in both. Some of my judgement calls may be questionable, and that comes down to personal skill. But the 3.5 version had me hunting through appendices in the book looking for HD and save progression and multiattack rules, while the 4E version boils down to a table a dozen lines long and some common sense.

The 3.x rules actually apologized in the actual text for how difficult it made some of the arithmetic contortions to get a reasonable challenge out of their monster creation guidelines, so at least they were aware of the problem. But I'd still take the 4E guidelines any day. In fact, when I GM 3.x/Pathfinder these days, I ignore their creature guidelines and basically used the 4E ones, hacked for the altered math of a different system.

The monster is attacking at +15 when it should be +11? Fine, it's +11 now. No need to change the str score or modify the HD, with the cascading series of serial changes that implies. Just change the number. Voila, problem solved, and my players will never know the difference. It's certainly never led to verisimilitude problems at the table. It's freeing and empowering, whereas I consider the morass at the back of the 3.5 MM to be restricting and creativity-killing. As well as a whole lot of work.

I apologize for the long, boring post. Hopefully it gets my point across, though.

 

[Ahnehnois]

[MENTION=6693711]slobster[/MENTION]
For all the text you've put forth here, it seems like you'r describing the design/development process of a monster rather than the process of an individual DM creating a specific example of said monster for his game. I full well expect that 3e's mentality is much harder for the designers because they have to cover a much wider range of possibilities for what a monster can be or do. That's why they get the big bucks. (Well, maybe not, but you get my point). Not that you can't homebrew your own monsters if you like, but that's not really the topic of discussion. That being said...

The 3.x rules actually apologized in the actual text for how difficult it made some of the arithmetic contortions to get a reasonable challenge out of their monster creation guidelines, so at least they were aware of the problem.

That's really an issue with the whole system and how math scales (i.e. the issue that flat math is supposed to fix). Basically, you have to do these arithmetic contortions because a character with 10 levels (or monster hit dice) is too different from one with 9, and because you're apparently very concerned about balancing things on a knife's edge.

The monster is attacking at +15 when it should be +11? Fine, it's +11 now. No need to change the str score or modify the HD, with the cascading series of serial changes that implies. Just change the number. Voila, problem solved, and my players will never know the difference.

See, mine will. They know how things work, they own a lot of monster books. If I simply took a monster and gave it the numbers it was "supposed to have" absent the underpinnings of level and ability scores, they'd know, and I don't think they'd be too happy about it. I wouldn't, in their shoes.

Now, if we were playing an extremely rules-lite, non-D&D rpg with a different philosophy (Wushu, perhaps), that stuff might fly.

After all, if you're going to take this approach, why have stats at all? Why not just have one table that says "this is your percentage chance of success: easy/medium/hard" and roll that for every challenge that comes up regardless of what choices the PCs or the DM make? The whole point of having these rules rather than playing a freeform rpg is that the players know the difference. A large part of the fun of using those rules is when the numbers are not what they "should" be.

 

[Obryn]

Now, if we were playing an extremely rules-lite, non-D&D rpg with a different philosophy (Wushu, perhaps), that stuff might fly.

It is funny that you're saying this when RC D&D exists.

Even 1e had very simple, idiosyncratic monsters. (1e still tied together HPs and general combat efficiency too much, mind you.)

-O

 

[Neonchameleon]

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.

They aren't arbitary. This is one of the places where 3.X players don't IME understand 4e or even prior editions of D&D.

In 3.X the rules are intended to be a simulation of the world. In other editions of D&D (and especially 4e) the rules are intended to be a reflection of the world.

So in 3.X to create a dragon, you work out how big it is and what colour, and look up on a chart that a dragon of this size and this colour is about this old and has this many hit dice, casts as an Nth level magic user, etc.

In 4e the process is more like this.

"I have a dragon. It is a big, scary monster that should be able to threaten a few dozen people on its own and the adventurers will need to team up against. Therefore it's a solo." And then you base its level on how threatening you see it as being.

"Now. How does it like to fight?"

• If it comes in on the wing, tearing through the enemy using size and speed to rush past and around them, it's a skirmisher.
• If it comes in swaggering, big, tough, and ignoring whatever the enemy does to it, and rending them into kibble it's a brute.
• If it comes in not so much intimidating as promising, the enemies weapons turning off its hide, it's a soldier
• If it prefers to crisp the enemy with its breath weapon from afar it's artillery
• If it ensorcels and/or chokes them with the breath weapon so they can't fight back it's a controller
• If it hides, then reappears out of the heart of the swamp, chomping and dragging its prey away, it's a lurker

After establishing its general approach and how it thinks, your next question is "What does it do in detail?" And those details are what make up its traits and powers.

​

And if those powers are arbitrary it's because rather than visualising your dragon and giving it powers based on that visualisation you've just given it arbitrary powers.

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?

Speed.

This is what all of this comes down to, to me: I want humanoid monsters and animals to follow player logic - I want them to gain power and HD as they gain levels.

And this is where the simulationist/reflective divide comes in. To me classes are not something visible in the game world. The person is who they are, and their stats and classes are an approximation of that person. "Gaining levels" is therefore about as meaningful a concept as it is in the real world; a black belt can beat up a blue belt but you wouldn't say the whole person has gained levels. But as they grow stronger, their level increases because it needs to to be able to model them.

but doubling his hitpoints just to make him an elite, who survives longer and hits harder, does not square with me.

You don't double his hit points just to make him an elite who survives longer and hits harder. You make him an elite because he is someone able to survive longer and hit harder.

Er, the fact that solos take for-freaking-ever to kill?

Out of curiosity are you talking about MM1 solos. They've cut solo hit points by 25% and lowered solo defences while raising the damage significantly since then. And there were some real wastes of space in the MM1 solos, like the Purple Worm.

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.

If you're going in with flat math, I don't see much problem with this approach.

That flexibility gives you the most playstyle-neutral mechanics D&D has, and thus the toolbox edition.

3.X is the most rigid, inflexible edition of D&D in history. Mostly because it's simulationist and in every other edition of D&D you work out the world then match the rules to it. The rules follow the world. In 3.X the world follows the rules. It's therefore the only one where inflexibility is a problem.

None of those have anything to do with CR, or the assumption of a four-character 25 point buy party where every character is the same level and they face balanced encounters for their level. The best thing about that assumption is indeed that it's easily ignored.

And here are some double standards. You can ignore the CR in 3.X and do. I can and do ignore the expected encounter levels in 4e when I want to. In both cases they are simply DM guidelines - but you are saying one can be ignored and the other must be followed. Why?

And I've yet to see the "flexible monster creation destroyed my game" example or even the "encounter based design is totally fun" example.

That's because flexible monster creation is not a property of 3.X. As for "encounter based design is totally fun", you miss the purpose of balance. It's "Encounter based design helps new DMs learn to DM easily and means that you always have something to fall back on."

You also miss the second point about encounter based design. It belongs to 3.X.

However, given that the DM does control all characters and events that are outside of the PCs' direct control, there is always going to be a "very strong degree of GM force", isn't there? In any case, I'll take "GM force" over "game designer force" any day.

There's far more game designer force in 3.X than there is in any other set of editions. This is because 3.X is simulationist and is meant to model the world. If you break from the rules you change the world. In any other edition, the rules are meant to reflect the world - and where they don't reflect the world you override them.

You spend as much or as little time building the monster as you want.

This is both double standards and untrue. In any edition you can spend as much time as you want building monsters therefore it's double standards.

As for as little time as I want, there are times when I want to use a dragon straight out of the Monster Manual. i.e. zero time on the mechanics. And in 3.X I can't do this. The dragons cast like spellcasters and I need to know what spells they have up. In 4e I can flip straight to the page in the monster manual with a dragon and I'm good to go. I believe I can do this in AD&D and oD&D as well. But not in 3.X

You can plan with maximum depth or you can improvise with unprecedented ease.

This is again both double standards and untrue. You can plan with maximum depth in any edition or just about any game - it's turtles all the way down.

On the other hand it's harder to improvise in 3.X than in any other edition - and easier to improvise in 4e than any other edition.

3.X was the edition that brought us the Use Rope skill, and the difficulty to swim up a waterfall. You need to thoroughly know the rules of a rules heavy game to avoid tripping over. In any other edition you can ask for a stat or skill roll and simply interpret without having all those difficulties presented to compare to. 3.X is therefore the single hardest version to improvise with.

4e on the other hand brought us a scene framing tool (the Skill Challenge) that can help pace scenes, and deal with most plans PCs are going to come up with. Now the Skill Challenge mechanic isn't perfect and the guidance is worse. But unlike any other edition, 4e has actual tools to help you improvise.

You can build monsters as flexibly as PCs, meaning you can make them do whatever you want. What playstyle is not supported by that?

You can build monsters more flexibly than PCs in any other edition. To take one canon example, the best baker in Sharn is a level 20 Commoner. He needs to be a level 20 commoner in order to be such a good baker. Which means to be a really good baker, he needs a BAB of +10/+5, and 50 hit points. The best baker in Sharn therefore needs to be able to kick a third level fighter's arse just so he can be the best baker in Sharn. This is hardly making monsters do whatever you want. And should explain the difference and just how inflexible forcing NPCs to use the same skill rules as PCs is.

In D&D (as opposed to in some rpgs), characters are so powerful that they usually come up with something, but the possibility of different outcomes, including failure, is still present. Not knowing what is going on or what will happen is actually essential.

No plan survives first contact with the enemy - or the dice. And I don't let the PCs know what's going on most of the time anyway.

D&D isn't a puzzle to be solved.

And now you're trying to claim that Tomb of Horrors isn't D&D. Right.

If I knew that a certain battle was expected to be defeated by my party in six rounds, I would roll no dice, tell the party they beat the enemies in a short battle, and move on to the good stuff. Such a battle would certainly not empower the PCs, nor the DM; it reflects designer fiat. Whoever wrote the monster has apparently already decided what will happen at your table. Not coool.

And now you're throwing most adventure paths from Dragonlance to the various Pathfinder paths out of D&D. If you don't work on the assumption that PCs win then adventure paths don't work. But as with any idea or story, how is more important than what.

And you know which edition has the most adventure paths written for it? 3.X/Pathfinder. The edition you are praising.

Those kinds of measures are either an illusion (in that they don't take into account the complexity of the scenario and don't truly reflect its level of challenge) or a limitation (in that they impose a style of play on a freeform game with diverse players-bad idea).

Or a prop in that they allow a new or tired DM to run a decent session without worrying about having to pull his punches or TPK the party. At least when you have a system that actually works (as 4e does and 3.X doesn't).

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.

Right. So you don't use any monster manuals as written and instead tear all the monsters apart. That's fine.

Now a question for you. Why do you want to deny us the monster manuals we can use straight just because you are never going to use them? Why do you want to make sure we don't get good toys?

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.

I believe it's somewhere in the order of 90% who've tried both, and I think I'm underestimating. Also I've seldom heard of a 3.X D&D table with two regular DMs at it. I've never been at a 4e D&D table with fewer than 3 regular DMs.

What I don't believe is that the mechanical constructs at issue caused the initial overwork,

This goes against what I've heard from almost all long term 3.X DMs who switched to 4e.

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.

But the rules can offer choices. Like the choice to use monsters straight out of the monster manual. As is easy for most people in 4e and close to impossible for any spellcaster in 3.X. Or the choice to run in an improv style, which is helped by 4e's guidance and scene framing mechanics.

And then there's the nervousness about accidently killing PCs. 4e has balanced encounter guidelines that work - so DMs who would agonise over killing PCs don't have to, but can push PCs to the wire anyway. Then there's the lack of a stark power disparity - in 3.X groups you get games where you can either challenge the casters or the non-casters, and those are a hideous amount of work for some DMs - but 4e you don't have this problem. Then there's the effective level cap - AD&D didn't really go above 10th level, 4e stops at somewhere around that power level - and 3.X goes to 20th.

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.

Or possibly an actual effect that is there for a whole lot of reasons as listed above.

The mechanics themselves are designed to facilitate a very narrow playstyle (the "gamist" style advocated by Rouse, Mearls, etc.)

And facilitate many others - such as the narrativist style advocated by [MENTION=386]LostSoul[/MENTION] and @pmerton and others and that's close to mine. 3.X on the other hand runs on a narrow simulationist style and one that apparently suits you perfectly.

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.

And if I want to run the PCs as con-artists, distracting the monsters while the rogue sneaks out with the loot, and no combat unless they screw things up, this is actively aided and assisted by the 4e rules (it's a skill challenge). If I want to run it in any other edition of D&D I am not assisted in the slightest.

Any sort of skill based non combat scenario where the PCs come up with a plan can be assisted by 4e rules in a way it isn't in previous editions.

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.

That's more or less what the "solo" tag says. Why do you actively object to monsters being tagged?

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.

On the other hand I see giving the goblin a few levels of rogue as almost meaningless metagaming and having to do things that way as actively constraining my options. I'd rather just reflect the goblin I see in my imagination - and he almost certainly is not a solo.

 

[slobster]

See, mine will. They know how things work, they own a lot of monster books. If I simply took a monster and gave it the numbers it was "supposed to have" absent the underpinnings of level and ability scores, they'd know, and I don't think they'd be too happy about it. I wouldn't, in their shoes.

Now, if we were playing an extremely rules-lite, non-D&D rpg with a different philosophy (Wushu, perhaps), that stuff might fly.

I think there is a definite difference between fudging some numbers to achieve the experience my table wants and "playing an extremely rules-lite, non-D&D rpg". We have a different playstyle than you, but that doesn't mean what we are playing somehow isn't D&D.

After all, if you're going to take this approach, why have stats at all? Why not just have one table that says "this is your percentage chance of success: easy/medium/hard" and roll that for every challenge that comes up regardless of what choices the PCs or the DM make?

Again, you seem to be taking my argument to illogical extremes. For clarity, I do think that creating enemy monsters with the explicit goal of making them fun to fight/interact with is a reasonable design strategy. It makes my job as GM easier, and when an rpg gives me those tools I'm more likely to buy into it.

I do not think that the system you just described is something I am interested in. In many ways I am stumping for the opposite: your players' decisions do matter, because the challenges they are facing are designed so that there are ways to overcome them. Their task, and where the fun comes from, is finding and executing the correct strategies to defeat the fiendish challenges I have designed.

 

[slobster]

[MENTION=6693711]slobster[/MENTION]
For all the text you've put forth here, it seems like you'r describing the design/development process of a monster rather than the process of an individual DM creating a specific example of said monster for his game. I full well expect that 3e's mentality is much harder for the designers because they have to cover a much wider range of possibilities for what a monster can be or do. That's why they get the big bucks. (Well, maybe not, but you get my point). Not that you can't homebrew your own monsters if you like, but that's not really the topic of discussion. That being said...

In that case we've been arguing past each other somewhat. The ease of creating and customizing monsters using different strategies with different underlying game philosophies is definitely what I've been discussing.

I didn't mean any of this as edition warring, but reading over my last post I can see that it's definitely where this is heading. For the record, while the 4E strategy was definitely easier, something like the dolgrue 3.5's insanity causing mind-influencing effect enraging special quality is much more difficult to achieve in 4E, so I admit (and have always maintained) that there are still a lot of things about 3.5 that I miss.

 

[ExploderWizard]

Oh yeah, and if I could have a second to just complain about something, you don't need the stat block to show how your monster interacts in a living, breathing world. You need it to show how he interacts in COMBAT. Here's a US Army Soldier, rough:

US Marine
STR - 14
DEX - 10
CON - 16
INT - 10
WIS - 8
CHA - 10

Assault Rifle - Fire a three round burst at the target, for massive damage
Frag Grenade - Area Blast 4
WE NEED AIR SUPPORT! - in 12 turns targeted area is hit with a hell of a lot of really nasty pieces of metal and exploding material. Duck.


Number of times these abilities are used in your average day-to-day life: ZERO. Seriously, "Frag Grenade" is not designed to be used in "Shopping Mall."

So which is it, a soldier or a marine?

 

[slobster]

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.

I agree, these two discussions should be distinct but are bleeding into one another.

For the record, I see where people who don't like the idea of solo-goblins and the like are coming from. If I played in a game that never used those sorts of enemies, and reserved solo status for dragons, beholders, and other big, obviously threatening baddies, I would be totally fine with that.

 

[Ahnehnois]

I didn't mean any of this as edition warring,

I don't take it that way; whereas certain others seem more interested in trying to insult anyone who doesn't fit within their style or trying to drown anyone who disgrees with them in nonsense, your points appear to be articulating a style and a philosophy. Just not one I particularly like or agree with.

In many ways I am stumping for the opposite: your players' decisions do matter, because the challenges they are facing are designed so that there are ways to overcome them. Their task, and where the fun comes from, is finding and executing the correct strategies to defeat the fiendish challenges I have designed.

Like this. On a really basic level, I don't get this mentality. It still sounds like a puzzle to me, rather than a story. I don't think in terms of giving players a challenge to solve, I think in terms of creating events and seeing what happens.

 

[ForeverSlayer]

Is is okay if Dragons have special mechanics to make them challenging to a party of players on their own? Is it okay for certain other special monsters like Beholders to get similar treatment?

These monsters have always been able to do this.

Dragons: Spells, Breath Weapon, Flight, Blindsight, Claws, Wings, Tail, Spell-like Abilities, Immunities, DR, Spell Resistance, etc...

Beholders: Anti-magic beam, several eye stalks, flight, etc...

These monsters have always been designed to handle multiple PC's so these types of monsters aren't in question.