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

[slobster]

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.

I don't actually object to your terminology here. Lots of my favorite encounters I've put in front of my PCs could, with reasonable accuracy, be termed puzzles. That the solutions to these puzzles involved a large degree of flipping out and killing people is just icing on ice cream cake.

This is another axis of play, with GMs who just put puzzle after puzzle in front of their players on one end, and GMs who build up a world and get some conflicts rolling before stepping back and adjudicating the entire thing on the other end.

I can tell you are somewhere in the middle there (as, realistically speaking, is everyone else). Your naga-summoning encounter, for instance, had some puzzle-play characteristics. Assaulting the summoned creature head-on was inadvisable, so a group of players confronting that situation would be strongly rewarded for figuring out how to assault the macguffin instead.

No argument here, just an observation. If anyone finds anything to quibble with, of course, I'm happy to clarify my points!

 

[ForeverSlayer]

Advantage: 4e.



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.



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.

I hope to god you aren't using Ahnehnois' experience to justify your answers because I can tell you that his/her experience doesn't represent the rest of us.

I for one can and do use the monsters straight from the 3rd edition MM without needing to modify them.

 

[Cybit]

Ahne...that description of your players seems like it is complete metagaming, as opposed to anything else. Only someone fully metagaming would complain if the attack bonus didn't match the HP. (or similar issues).

Am I missing something?

 

[Ahnehnois]

I don't actually object to your terminology here. Lots of my favorite encounters I've put in front of my PCs could, with reasonable accuracy, be termed puzzles. That the solutions to these puzzles involved a large degree of flipping out and killing people is just icing on ice cream cake.

This is another axis of play, with GMs who just put puzzle after puzzle in front of their players on one end, and GMs who build up a world and get some conflicts rolling before stepping back and adjudicating the entire thing on the other end.

I can tell you are somewhere in the middle there (as, realistically speaking, is everyone else). Your naga-summoning encounter, for instance, had some puzzle-play characteristics. Assaulting the summoned creature head-on was inadvisable, so a group of players confronting that situation would be strongly rewarded for figuring out how to assault the macguffin instead.

No argument here, just an observation. If anyone finds anything to quibble with, of course, I'm happy to clarify my points!

I wish I'd described an encounter that was more typical, but this is basically all true. There are some puzzle solving elements to D&D, and some other elements, which are in balance, both in my game and as a whole. D&D is a tenuous compromise in many ways, and that tension, that balance, is part of what makes its appeal so wide. When something upsets that balance, D&D loses. When people see something they think might upset that balance, they get critical.

 

[Ahnehnois]

I hope to god you aren't using Ahnehnois' experience to justify your answers because I can tell you that his/her experience doesn't represent the rest of us.

I for one can and do use the monsters straight from the 3rd edition MM without needing to modify them.

I could do that, I just choose not to.

 

[Neonchameleon]

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.

Oh, I don't consider you an edition warrior. I consider you to simply have a One True Way philosophy. And to be making factually incorrect statements about 3.X and other editions in terms of what can be done with either.

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.

And what do you think the roots of D&D are? It's the Dungeon. The challenge for the players to pit their skill against. You might not get Gygaxian D&D, but it is fundamental to what separates D&D from other RPGs.

 

[Ahnehnois]

Ahne...that description of your players seems like it is complete metagaming, as opposed to anything else. Only someone fully metagaming would complain if the attack bonus didn't match the HP. (or similar issues).

Am I missing something?

It is a metagame issue, but not something that would come up at the table. A player might ask after the session "how did you get that NPC an AC so high I needed a 19 to hit it without wearing armor", perhaps because they're pissed about missing it so much or perhaps because they want to know if there's some feat/item/etc. that can make them, too, unhittable. There need to be answers to those questions. If a player is at the table bitching about how his attack roll missed, that's pretty clearly poor game etiquette and a problem.

At the table, however, I think players would be very suspicious if every monster they faced had an AC within their "hittable" range. For the game to feel organic and real, some monsters need to be things they can hit on a 2, others need to be things they can miss on a 19 (and every number in between). That is a metagame consideration for the DM to worry about, but in truth his job is to minimize the sense that the monsters in the world are "balanced" in power relative to the PCs, just as his job is to minimize any form of dramatic conceit.

 

[slobster]

I could do that, I just choose not to.

I get that. I rarely use monsters straight from the books (well, probably about 20% of my monsters are, but that's pretty low). I love putting my personal stamp on enemies, and as an added bonus my players don't automatically know the stats of every enemy they face!

It's also hard to get enemies straight out of the books when you have a lot of NPCs as adversaries. I know I've played games like that. I had a spy and intrigue game (that makes it sound fancy; honestly it was just ninjas doing awesome ninja stuff) that barely had any monsters in it for its entire run. It was all just NPCs, and you pretty much have to make those from scratch for them to make any sense.

 

[slobster]

be very suspicious if every monster they faced had an AC within their "hittable" range. For the game to feel organic and real, some monsters need to be things they can hit on a 2, others need to be things they can miss on a 19 (and every number in between). That is a metagame consideration for the DM to worry about, but in truth his job is to minimize the sense that the monsters in the world are "balanced" in power relative to the PCs, just as his job is to minimize any form of dramatic conceit.

I 100% agree. My point wasn't that every enemy stat has to be within a narrow range. In fact, I use plenty of monsters that are above and below the PCs' level for precisely this reason. Sometimes you want an enemy that darts among the PCs like smoke, almost impossible for someone to land a solid blow on. Sometimes you want waves of empty-eyed zombies shambling straight into the blades of their enemies, dangerous only by their inexhaustible numbers.

My point is that I don't want to have to spend 5 minutes juggling figures to get to the exact number I want. If my wraithy enemy only has an AC of 13 according to the system's math, I want to be able to up it to 29 for no reason other than I think it works with the monster and makes a better encounter. Likewise if my math says my zombies should have 200 hp each, I want to be able to drop it to 50 because it suits the enemy.

 

[Stalker0]

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.

Its a bit more complicated then this, which is why the idea of the "solo" monster in 4e was created.

Its not just about multiple attacks, but multiple actions. Its not just about an area effect once in a while, but area effects as routine. Its not just about natural armor, but defensive against the crazy mash of player debuffs that can be thrown down.