D&D 4E 4e Monster List - Dwarven Nosepicker & Elven Butt Scratcher

[AllisterH]

It seems a little silly to me to have to put a Solo template on an ill-tempered boar. I'll wing it.

And I don't think a creature should undergo changes in behavior based on how many PCs it is facing.

I have a little Simulationist muscle that I can't help flexing every now and then.

Wouldn't you end up with the current situation though?

If a monster can survive 4-5 shots from a party, it invariably also is capable of one-shotting a PC into the ground. If the monster can't survive a round of attacks from the party, it also can't kill a PC in one round.

My impression is that Solo monsters in 4E are designed to be able to survive multiple rounds of attacks from PCs (say 4-6) yet it itself would take the same amount of time to kill the party. Thus allowing both PCs and Monsters to flex their "muscles" and allow for tactics more than "Everyone gangpile on the monster".

re: Higher level monsters
Many of the higher level monsters were made interesting by simply slapping spells on them which in a lot of ways kind of defeated the purpose of having the monster in the first place (why didn't the DM just use a spellcaster?)

Aberrants from the Far Realms

The above monsters are examples of higher level monsters in 4E.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

My impression is that Solo monsters in 4E are designed to be able to survive multiple rounds of attacks from PCs (say 4-6) yet it itself would take the same amount of time to kill the party. Thus allowing both PCs and Monsters to flex their "muscles" and allow for tactics more than "Everyone gangpile on the monster".

The imbalance with Solo monsters isn't their attacks, or their damage, it's quite simply that they can't keep up with 4 actions (party) to their 1 action.

Solo monsters (and Elites...) have more actions per turn. That's key.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

The imbalance with Solo monsters isn't their attacks, or their damage, it's quite simply that they can't keep up with 4 actions (party) to their 1 action.

Solo monsters (and Elites...) have more actions per turn. That's key.

At least half of the key. The other is more hit points, I guess.

On the "Solo Templating" of monsters: To keep your simulationist muscles from atrophying, you could probably designate the boar that engages the fighter as the "biggest and meanest boar around". What was advancing by HD in 3.5 is "advancing to Elite/Solo" in 4E. (Or at least one variation of it.)
(replace boar with whatever monster you plan to use). Off course, you shouldn't change NPC Ogre Barbaricus Howdrowf from "normal" to "elite" to "solo" depending on how many allies he has at the moment.

 

[Deadstop]

Using those Kobold Slingers as an example, how would their unique "attack" ability work if a PC picks some of their ammunition? That is definitely a case of one "category" of beings trying to use a mechanical ability that operates a bit differently from how their abilities work.

I don't quite see what you mean.

Looking at the kobold slinger statblock, it has a sling. It has special ammo for that sling in defined numbers (3 total, minus however many have been used in the combat). Each type of special ammo has a defined effect in addition to the normal sling damage.

So ... a sling-using PC wants to take the special ammo? He's got it and can use it until it runs out. It has the effects specified in the kobold entry. He attacks with it the same way he normally attacks with a sling.

Somebody wants to take the sling and the special ammo? A sling no doubt has a PHB equipment writeup, so that's no different than looting a weapon off a foe in earlier editions. Ammo, again, works as specified for as long as it lasts.

Somebody wants to pick up the ammo and just throw it? Basic ranged attack, Dex vs. AC, probably lower range than a sling (game should have rules for improvised thrown objects), ammo has the prescribed effects.

How is that difficult just because the kobold is designed differently from a PC?


Deadstop

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

The imbalance with Solo monsters isn't their attacks, or their damage, it's quite simply that they can't keep up with 4 actions (party) to their 1 action.

Solo monsters (and Elites...) have more actions per turn. That's key.

I wouldn't be so sure that they ALL do.

Seriously, the main problem with using individual creatures as solo encounters is their hitpoints, AC, attacks, damage, and other defenses.

In 3e if you used a CR 12 creature as a solo encounter, it died in a round against a APL 12 party. It might not even have gotten an attack off.

If you use a CR 16 encounter as a solo encounter, often its AC was so high it was hard to hit, or it did so much damage that it could rip apart a PC in one round.

Really, what you want is a CR 12 creature who has enough hitpoints to survive a couple of rounds of the entire party hitting it. Maybe you want it to have a couple of points higher AC since it's more likely that it'll be flanked or that the PCs attacking it will be the ones with bonuses to their attack rolls from spells and such. It might be nice for it to be able to act at least once out of turn so that it doesn't feel rather boring to fight. Something like:

"Boar Rage: When the creature is bloodied or when it is reduced to 0 hp, it can make an attack as an immediate interrupt."

But the main difference is the hitpoints. It's actually surprisingly easy to do the same thing to 3.5e monsters simply by multiplying their hitpoints by 5 and adding 2 points of AC.

 

[Keenath]

I understand that 4e is putting powers into creatures that give them more racial flavor. That's a good thing. Having said that, if you consider most of those powers as, for example, feats, you can build exactly the same mechanical and flavorful creature of the same race in 3e using only classes and feats. Take a look at my earlier example on the kobold dragon shield. It's mechanically identical, and hence has that same racial flavor.

If it's available to anybody via feats, it isn't racial flavor, now is it? You can sorta-kinda simulate race flavor text by saying, "All kobolds like to take dodge and mobility" or something, but that's not the same as having a creature that is really and honestly unique, that has a power that nobody else can emulate.

But okay, let's look at your previous analysis.

1) Short Sword Attack - pretty standard fare.

You ignored the bit about 'marking' the target if it hits, of course. I'm not entirely clear on what a mark does, but that's not 'standard fare'.

2) Dragon Shield Tactics - sounds like a feat to me.

It's a bit like one of the 3e feats, I grant you. I think what's interesting is that you get to shift when you're approached as well as when you're disengaged -- Which can be used to reflect the kobolds' jumpy, flinchy sort of personality.

3) Mob Attack - again, a feat akin to Swarm Attack and the like.

You must mean "Swarm Fighting", from Complete Warrior. And this is only vaguely like that one -- Swarm Fighting lets you share your space with other swarm fighters, and you get a bonus based on how many you share with (I think), but only others who also have the feat. It's sort of similar, but not really -- if you have kobold minions around the enemy, this Dragonshield gets a big bonus, but that wouldn't work with swarmfighting without making all the minions scarier too.

4) Shifty - ye old 5 ft. step.
5) Trap Sense - nothing unique there. Kobolds were always good with traps. So are rogues.

There's no 5' step in 4e, so Shifty is more like being able to move two squares when they use a 5' step, or something.

Is that unique?

It's a decent translation. Of course, you did pick the most 'standard' of the kobolds we've seen. I'd like to see your feat or class ability version of the Archer's Fragile Confidence, or the Wyrmpriest's Incite Faith.

I agree that SOME of the abilities translate, like the skirmisher's sneak attack ability. I just don't think that means it's "just as good" to use feats and classes as to build unique monsters.

(I'd also note that kobolds aren't necessarily the best example -- we've only seen a tiny fraction of the MM to try to make judgements on.)

...at the same time what would a Level 16 kobold look like in 4e? Can you even create such a creature? Or is 4e aimed at targetting specific creatures at specific levels?

I think most creature types are probably aimed at a given level so that they can be used together. Having the low-level kobolds over here and then a level 14 kobold over there kind of sucks -- you can't use them together in any meaningful way.

In general, though, higher level creatures will look much the same as lower-level ones, but with more powerful effects. A level 16 monster will have two or three special powers -- just like a level 1 monster -- not a dozen.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

I wouldn't be so sure that they ALL do.

I'm pretty sure I didn't say that's ALL they do.

Seriously, the main problem with using individual creatures as solo encounters is their hitpoints, AC, attacks, damage, and other defenses.

Seriously, no it's not.

The mind flayer is CR8 and has 47 hit points. The tyrannosaurus is CR8 and has 180 hit points. There is much more at play than the "fighter-based" attributes of the monster. The mind flayer compensates because it has an effectively save-or-die, area of effect attack that lets it "act" (decisively so) against the whole party at once. It has "economy of action."

If you use a CR 16 encounter as a solo encounter, often its AC was so high it was hard to hit, or it did so much damage that it could rip apart a PC in one round.

Average AC of CR12 creature: AC25
Average AC of CR16 creature: AC27

Average damage of CR12 creature: 18
Average damage of CR16 creature: 21

This is just the actual 3.5 data. Your anecdotal experience may vary.

But the main difference is the hitpoints. It's actually surprisingly easy to do the same thing to 3.5e monsters simply by multiplying their hitpoints by 5 and adding 2 points of AC.

Not exactly, no. In 4e this is largely true, because save or die effects are gone-- and what similar effects remain require more than simply winning initiative in the first round. 4e has moved to a much more "ablative" model of combat, which helps, but there are still exception-based abilities that make it hard for solo monsters to compete without giving them extra (re)actions.

Off course, you shouldn't change NPC Ogre Barbaricus Howdrowf from "normal" to "elite" to "solo" depending on how many allies he has at the moment.

Yep, that's the problem. An ogre is an ogre is an ogre. I'd like for him to make sense in a consistent way, whether he is the Solo boss for my 1st level party, or whether he is one of twenty faceless minions of Dirk Doomfist, 30th level blackguard. His abilities shouldn't change depending on the relative fighting strengths in any given scenario.

If Dirk Doomfist chooses Howdrowf the ogre from among his faceless minions, literally plucks him at random from his horde of goose-stepping ogre compatriots, and tells him to hunt down this low-level party he has a feeling might someday cause trouble, Howdrowf shouldn't suddenly get 5x as many hit points and a smattering of additional actions/reactions.

 

[Storm-Bringer]

How is that difficult just because the kobold is designed differently from a PC?

Well, if the ammo is a type that you can't buy in a regular shop, or the skill is not available to PCs in a reasonable manner, then all you have succeeded in doing is spreading out skills and equipment across at least two books. If you can't Bugbear Strangle unless you train with Bugbear Stranglers, or Picador like a Goblin unless you train with a Goblin Picador, you are just scattering options for the characters around several books, if it is allowed at your table. The same goes for equipment. If you allow the special Kobold sling ammunition, you will either have your players scouring Kobold villages to obtain it, or scouring every shop to find some. Either way, you have equipment in a separate book that you have to track down. That is the greatest strength of base creatures that are modifiable with the standard PC rules. Each creature having its own subsystem adds complexity and handle time. I don't think anyone expects they can train hard enough and breathe fire like a dragon, but being able to perform a physical action that another humanoid can perform isn't unreasonable. If that is allowed, of course. If the PC/NPC dichotomy is strictly observed, that is a separate issue.

Also, I will posit that if a DM denies access to them because they are 'monster only', there will be a hue and cry from the players. Especially over something as mundane as sling bullets. Killing that eladrin certainly won't have your players expecting to be able to teleport at-will, but making mundane equipment hard to obtain may cause some problems. The same goes for a harpoon. If it performs very differently in the hands of the PCs than it does in the hands of a Goblin, I predict a certain level of disconnect. Perhaps using the harpoon is difficult, in regards to scoring a hit. Once a hit is successful, however, it doesn't take much skill to hold a rope and pull it around a bit. Certainly not years and years of training, as has been suggested (mostly in regards to Bugbear Strangling, but the concept isn't drastically different).

 

[Dausuul]

Yep, that's the problem. An ogre is an ogre is an ogre. I'd like for him to make sense in a consistent way, whether he is the Solo boss for my 1st level party, or whether he is one of twenty faceless minions of Dirk Doomfist, 30th level blackguard. His abilities shouldn't change depending on the relative fighting strengths in any given scenario.

If Dirk Doomfist chooses Howdrowf the ogre from among his faceless minions, literally plucks him at random from his horde of goose-stepping ogre compatriots, and tells him to hunt down this low-level party he has a feeling might someday cause trouble, Howdrowf shouldn't suddenly get 5x as many hit points and a smattering of additional actions/reactions.

But realistically, the ogre minions are all different. Some are taller, some are shorter, some are smarter, some are dumber, some are stronger, some are weaker... and some, perhaps, have more actions than others. We just gloss over the differences because it's not worth making each ogre into a special snowflake when they're all going to have about thirty seconds of "screen time" before being ganked by a bunch of arsonists-for-hire*.

So, if Dirk Doomfist picks out Howdrowf to go hunt down the PCs, it may just turn out that Howdrowf chances to be a solo monster. Funny how these things happen.

*All PCs are arsonists. Comes with the territory. Seriously, have you ever had a party that adventured for more than 2-3 sessions and didn't set something on fire?

 

[Dragonblade]

So, if Dirk Doomfist picks out Howdrowf to go hunt down the PCs, it may just turn out that Howdrowf chances to be a solo monster. Funny how these things happen.

Exactly. Howdrowf the Ogre is just all around tougher and meaner than his fellow ogres. His achievements gained him notoriety and thus brought him to the attention of Dirk Doomfist.

Instead of viewing it like he was an ogre minion that magically became a solo to fit the narrative, view it more like he always was a solo and thats why he was handpicked by Dirk Doomfist to take on the PCs by himself.