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

[GreyICE]

My purposes are to create a story with setting, characters, and plot. Since we're talking about the characters (monstrous though they may be), I'll expand on that.

A monster is not purpose built. The point of an ogre is not to provide a group of level 2 PCs with standard ability arrays a challenging combat encounter. That is one reasonably common outcome, but I might also use that ogre as an aid to more powerful monsters, as an obstacle the PCs can negotiate with, as a source of information about other monsters, or (if a player plays one) as the protagonist of the story. It could also acquire templates or class levels and become something completely different. An ogre warlock fills a rather different role than the garden variety bruiser. The ogre entry in the monster manual needs to give me information to do all of those things equally well. Designing it around a one-minute combat with a party of a certain level is not conducive to designing it for this array of other diverse purposes.

Look at it another way. What if in addition to the PC classes, we added a set of descriptions about what their mandated roles are in the story? One class is a "protagonist" (let's say fighter), another is a "plucky sidekick" (rogue), another is "NPC quest giver" (wizard). Does that accurately describe one iconic use of the class? Sure. Does that make the game easier to play? No. It can only serve to limit creativity (and to insult people who'd rather play a wizard or rogue protagonist). As a DM, I am no less insulted when I read a monster entry that tells me what I am supposed to use that monster for. I can figure that out myself, thank you.

I can only point to my stat block on the US Army soldier. It doesn't represent what he (or she) does with his life. It doesn't represent how he spends his time. It doesn't represent how he interacts with the world around him, how he fits into a larger society, his dreams, his hopes, his asperations.


And should it? Should we attempt to create a stat block that represents each and every soldier in the US army? Does my array of physical and mental stats even come close to representing every soldier in the army? Could any stat block?

If you want an ogre to be a source of information and a friend, he's a source of information and a friend. If you want him to be a bloodthirsty fiend, he's a bloodthirsty fiend. The bloodthirsty fiend might have the same stat block as the "nice guy" even!

What you're complaining about is a lack of FLUFF. And Fluff isn't tied to a stat block. And it certainly has nothing to do with a Minion/Standard/Elite/Solo label.

 

[Ahnehnois]

I can only point to my stat block on the US Army soldier. It doesn't represent what he (or she) does with his life. It doesn't represent how he spends his time. It doesn't represent how he interacts with the world around him, how he fits into a larger society, his dreams, his hopes, his asperations.

And should it? Should we attempt to create a stat block that represents each and every soldier in the US army? Does my array of physical and mental stats even come close to representing every soldier in the army? Could any stat block?

No, but it at least could use a few noncombat skills/feats or the equivalent. No one's expecting miracles.

What you're complaining about is a lack of FLUFF. And Fluff isn't tied to a stat block. And it certainly has nothing to do with a Minion/Standard/Elite/Solo label.

No, I'm, not. I don't like fluff that much. And, in any case, fluff is exactly where you put things like "goblins typically staged sneak attacks from aboveground hiding places".

 

[B.T.]

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."

Dude, what are you talking about? That a Marine has access to military-grade equipment and can radio in an airstrike tells me all sorts of things about how he interacts with the real world.

 

[GreyICE]

No, but it at least could use a few noncombat skills/feats or the equivalent. No one's expecting miracles.

But what skill/feat would every marine in the entire army have? One might be an excellent piano player, another might have connections with all sorts of people, a third might be an excellent swimmer and a fourth might just be great at math.

At the point where you need to care they're becoming named NPCs anyway, which is very different from just a stat block. Discussing the transition from "stat block" to named NPC could be done a LOT better in 4E, but again that's not something that affects how the Solo/Standard dynamic works, and isn't actually very edition specific (most relied on "You're the DM! Wing it!").

I just think this is a very generic complaint being thrown at a very specific problem. I've been playing a lot of FATE recently, and I'll happily agree the stat blocks paint a good picture of who each character is - at the cost that every single stat block is specific to each individual character. This fits the setting (there's really no '4 orcs in the room' type of encounters, and it's focused much more on narrative gameplay over oppositional gameplay (players create narrative elements, and it's straight up said that player death should be consensual between the GM and the player, and fit in with the narrative), but it doesn't work for D&D. No edition of D&D has wanted the 'four orks in the room' to all be named monsters with different dreams, hopes and aspirations - that you kill in half an hour of dice rolling.
[MENTION=84465]B.T.[/MENTION] - I hope I don't really need to tell you that even soldiers deployed in combat zones spend at most a few hours each month shooting at people who are shooting back. In fact it is an active goal of our military to avoid having our soldiers in situations where they are being shot at. Those few hours can be quite deadly, but a marine doesn't spend 40 hours a week in combat.

 

[Tequila Sunrise]

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].

Wow, hadn't noticed that. I'm a big fan of 4e's monster caste structure (minion, solo, etc), but I was afraid that 5e's lack of need for castes might tempt me to buy it.

Guess I don't have to worry about that temptation anymore.

 

[Victim]

Of course, the issue is that a "boss" monster typically functions differently in a fight than a regular monster that's just higher level than the PCs. The boss typically has more things to make it the centerpiece of the fight, as opposed to just hitting harder and taking more damage than normal. A solo type boss will have more area type things, or reaction powers to keep the action economy more even against a group of PCs - just attacking one guy and taking 4 or 5 back is a losing proposition unless the boss is overwhelmingly stronger and tougher.

 

[Fanaelialae]

I'm a big fan of boss monsters.

That said, if 5e is designed the right way, the boss tag should be mostly obviated.

Bounded accuracy should mean that low level characters fighting a higher level challenge will still be able to affect it. As such, a higher level creature will be (from a simplistic outlook) just a bigger pool of hp with more damage output (a simplified solo).

If done correctly, the hp threshold mechanic should prevent such bosses from being stun-locked to death.

Which just leaves the creature's powers. I have two concerns:
1) Powers which might be inappropriate to use against lower-level characters.
2) Lack of variety in the creature's other powers.

Let me be clear about the first case. I'm not talking about the random 'level 1 party stumbles across the Tarasque' type of creature that some DMs like to use to add versimilitude to their campaigns (retreat or die). I'm talking specifically about a creature that the DM intends to challenge the PCs (tough but fair). Admittedly, the bounded numbers for saving throws should help with this, but some powers may not be appropriate against parties below a certain level, and those powers should be called out as such.

Lack of variety is another case entirely. There's no point in giving a werewolf a half-dozen attacks if the system assumes it'll only last an average of three rounds when level appropriate. On the other hand, if you use it as a boss against low level PCs, you should give it enough abilities to keep the fight interesting. Maybe some groups are fine with it, but I know my players would find a boss-type creature who just makes the same attacks every round until it dies boring as heck. (Of course, you can always improvise, but you can do that even if the boss has a nice variety of powers; it simply means more options).

I think what I'd be satisfied to see is a fair assortment of iconic D&D villains in the MM who have been designed as bosses. The Dragon of Tyr, Lord Soth, and their like. That would give those of us who do like bosses plenty of options, as well as a good assortment of examples for designing our own solos.

 

[Ultimatecalibur]

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].

There are a few problems with this mentality, and they are heavily tied to the diminishing returns of a single level as you advance in levels.

At first level a level 4 monster might work well as a "boss" monster because it lasts 4 times as long as a level 1 monster, but that starts breaking down as early as level 2 when a "boss" monster has to be level 7 or 8 in order to last 4 times longer than a level 2 monster. By level 5 you need level 20 monsters in order to have decent bosses.

This also doesn't factor in the increase in damage and accuracy monsters have as they increase in levels.

 

[Minigiant]

The reason why you need special rules is because the standard method of increasing a monster's strength (increasing its level) does not provide interesting fights.

You can simply give an enemy wizard more wizard levels because more wizard levels means more powerful abilies with no action economy growth. Making the boss goblin a 5th level sorcerer or rogue instead of level 1 means the goblin wizard now has auto-winning 3rd level spells while at the same time dying in 2 hits from the party. Standard ly made boss monster fights are rocket tag fights. Always rocket tag fights unless the party or monster are under underpowered or played poorly.

This is why you need special rules and tags for any non save or die boss fights.

 

[airwalkrr]

I kind of like the idea of "boss monsters." But I do play a lot of MMOs, so caveat there. And boss monsters can always have easily whackable minions who give the PCs a stepping-stone sense of accomplishment as they wade their way to the boss without terribly draining the boss' hit points. The truly memorable boss monsters for me though are those who can't be beaten through sheer brute force, but require some cunning. One good example springs to mind. There is an erinyes in the early levels of the Shackled City campaign path who has everything in her advantage. She is a powerful ranged attacker and has a huge open room to fight in. The PCs might have the fly spell, but even that is not enough as she can teleport away, wait for the fly spell to end, then return. And the PCs can very well find themselves locked in this room. But there are a variety of ways to weaken her. And if they PCs are clever enough, they can figure out she can only be summoned for a particular period of time. So if they manage to evade her for that amount of time through tactical maneuvering, she will vanish and the battle is over without any blows exchanged. I like encounters like this where the deck seems stacked in the enemy's favor, but some clever thinking weakens the boss' control of the battlefield.