In general, I think a "boss monster" should exist because it's a lot tougher than the PCs, not because it has a keyword that piles on hit points and damage. A level four goblin should be a "boss monster" to level 1 PCs because he's so much tougher than they are, not because he's a Goblin Manslayer [Elite].
-
The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Am I the only one who doesn't like the arbitrary "boss monster" tag?
- Thread starter B.T.
- Start date
The bounded accuracy should make it work close to how you see it.
The problem in 2e/3e and 4e of having a higher level to indicate "boss" is that the numbers stop working. Higher levels in those versions mean that the boss becomes difficult to fight - no-one hits, spells fail etc. In practice this can lead to player frustration, and not the epic battle that was perhaps the original plan.
The thinking behind 4E style "elite" and "boss" monsters is that they deliberately have attacks and defences with the right numbers to work in a combat at the chosen level.
In 5E, we can probably have this again without worrying so much about the design tags, because bounded accuracy and xp budget should sort out getting a good match and playable game.
Elite and Boss monsters were/are a wonderful addition to my games. A dragon with multiple turns in a round, effects that trigger when he goes under half hit points, minor action special attacks, and enough hit points to not drop in just a couple rounds all make for a real fun and enjoyable combat.
This is one aspect of video games that to me was wonderfully adapted into table top play.
This is one aspect of video games that to me was wonderfully adapted into table top play.
The problem is more fundamental than that, slobo.
The problem is that one monster isn't very interesting compared to 4 monsters. 4 monsters are:
- 4 bodies on the field, that can be attacking 4 people
- 4 things that can be effected by conditions and status effects
- Granular (doing 1/4 of the HP of the total group reduces the damage incoming)
- Present tactical options (opportunity attacks, varied attacks, etc.)
A single monster, to be interesting for the PCs, should actually DO something more than just be big and hit hard. They require fundamentally different design than lesser monsters. And that different design needs to be called out when it's in action, so DMs know what they're doing.
Players don't need to ever "see" the tag. DMs can and SHOULD be shown the undercarriage of the vehicle they're driving.
If your problem is that WotC makes it easier for your DM to make adventures for you to play in, I submit you're being a bit sadistic. DMs already do 10x the work of a player, don't complain that WotC is making it easier for them to make compelling adventures for you to play. That's just mean.
The problem is that one monster isn't very interesting compared to 4 monsters. 4 monsters are:
- 4 bodies on the field, that can be attacking 4 people
- 4 things that can be effected by conditions and status effects
- Granular (doing 1/4 of the HP of the total group reduces the damage incoming)
- Present tactical options (opportunity attacks, varied attacks, etc.)
A single monster, to be interesting for the PCs, should actually DO something more than just be big and hit hard. They require fundamentally different design than lesser monsters. And that different design needs to be called out when it's in action, so DMs know what they're doing.
Players don't need to ever "see" the tag. DMs can and SHOULD be shown the undercarriage of the vehicle they're driving.
If your problem is that WotC makes it easier for your DM to make adventures for you to play in, I submit you're being a bit sadistic. DMs already do 10x the work of a player, don't complain that WotC is making it easier for them to make compelling adventures for you to play. That's just mean.
Ahnehnois
First Post
This may be true for some, but this is also the kind of attitude that lost D&D the lead in the rpg business. Making weird arbitrary metagame designations about what a monster is "for" does not make my job any easier, it adds in unnecessary complexity and confusion and takes away from my flexibility as a storyteller. Having to strip out all that stuff to build monsters for my purposes makes my job much, much harder.
Monsters should be designed organically. Their abilities should make sense for how they function in a living breathing world, and their conception on paper should reflect a description of what they are in that world, biologically, psychologically, etc. Metagame considerations like how they will perform in combat with a "standard" group of PCs are secondary considerations at best.
The notion that "solos", "minions", and this monster role concept is somehow pro-DM or makes DMs have to do less work is insidious, divisive, most importantly inaccurate, and needs to die. Like the OP said:
One of the things about 4th edition I didn't like was the whole minion, middle man, boss mechanic.
The moment you dropped one enemy in combat you knew immediately that it was a minion and you knew when you were up against the middle men and then the boss. The mechanics of the game made these become too obvious and I don't want Next to mimic that. I don't mind if certain creatures have 1hp, small spider for example, but not "minions".
I don't want boss designed creatures. I want to be able to make any creature a "boss" if and when I feel that it's necessary.
The moment you dropped one enemy in combat you knew immediately that it was a minion and you knew when you were up against the middle men and then the boss. The mechanics of the game made these become too obvious and I don't want Next to mimic that. I don't mind if certain creatures have 1hp, small spider for example, but not "minions".
I don't want boss designed creatures. I want to be able to make any creature a "boss" if and when I feel that it's necessary.
It is a necessary evil.
If the DM just uses stronger normal monsters, one of two things happen.
1) The monster has high level abilities that the party cannot deal with. This is the dragon breathing 30 fire damage on level 1s.
2) The increase of action economy of the outnumbering PCs easily defeat the monster via cumulative damage attacks or having a time to lock down.
3dit: So you have to design a monster who can handle multiple threat WHILE not having overpowering high level abilities.
If the DM just uses stronger normal monsters, one of two things happen.
1) The monster has high level abilities that the party cannot deal with. This is the dragon breathing 30 fire damage on level 1s.
2) The increase of action economy of the outnumbering PCs easily defeat the monster via cumulative damage attacks or having a time to lock down.
3dit: So you have to design a monster who can handle multiple threat WHILE not having overpowering high level abilities.
Last edited:
First, D&D 4E is the best selling system on the market, over its history. Even at the end of its lifecycle it's still number 2, and that's WITH most of the people who want the core books owning them and D&D Insider (which is amazing for WotC). The only competitors might be 3E or 2E (probably 2E wins, but it's market run was like a decade+, so there's that). Lets kill that idea off the bat.
Second, I don't really understand "your purposes." If "your purposes" is to make monsters for PCs to engage in combat with, well, having a flexibility of roles, powers, numbers, and tactics makes for far more interesting combats than "8 generic kobolds armed with slings and spears." It usually takes far more work to make the generic kobolds interesting (inventing nasty traps for them, giving them PC levels, etc.).
If "your purposes" is to create a role-playing section... stat blocks aren't meant to be roleplayed with. "Harry the Hobgoblin" and "Kevin the King" might have exactly the same stat block, but role play very differently.
So, I guess I'm asking what purposes aren't served by making clear distinctions on how monsters function and giving them interesting and iconic abilities that reinforce their role in combat and allow them to perform it?
underfoot007ct
First Post
If you play a game session fighting Goblins, defeat their boss, then enjoy the spoilers battle, the PCs cheer, does it matter what the monsters were or quanity of HP? More or less fun If the boss was a Hexer or a Shamen? If the boss had a keyword would it change anything ?
Is it possible that Maybe this is just another thread rehashing & bashing more 4e ideas, concepts & terminology. Sigh, I so hope not.
