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

[Ahnehnois]

I have a serious question.

How is designating monsters designed to handle 2 PCs of their level or enhance related monsters "Elite" and monsters designed to handle 4 PCs of their level "Solo" arbitrary?

I'd say that pretty much is the definition of arbitrary. Why 2 and not 3? Or 10? Why is this monster a challenge for a 5th level party instead of a 6th level party? Why assume a certain party makeup? Why design monsters to a baseline when the D&D-playing populace is so diverse that in practice there is no such baseline? The idea that a particular monster should be challenging for X party, regardless of what X is, is very arbitrary.

Again, this isn't really an edition-specific issue. The whole CR system is also a nightmare in this regard, as were the earlier XP systems and the like. We just don't need to take another step in the wrong direction.

 

[FireLance]

Responding out of order, since the first point is important.

No, I'm saying that all the hill giants have different stats as designated by the DM (either during prep or at the table), and based on those stats and his judgment, one of them becomes the boss.

I think we're veering into confusing the term "boss" in the real-life, workplace sense with the way it is used in the mechanical, gameplay sense. Let's try not to get sidetracked by extraneous issues.

To the OP's point, if you can use any monster to be the boss monster, why put that label on some but not others? What does it add to the game? What does calling a dragon a "boss" tell even the greenest DM that isn't intuitively obvious? And why would there need to be any mechanical backing to this other than making it an appropriately powerful dragon?

Because a monster that can hit one character for 40 points of damage is different from a monster that can hit four characters for 10 points of damage each. The former (IMO) makes a better challenge for a single higher-level PC, while the latter (again, IMO) makes a better challenge for a group of lower-level PCs. Sure, I can go through all the special abilities and damage numbers of every monster and arrive at that conclusion, but why not make my job easier by telling me (say) that the first monster is a level 20 standard, and the second is a level 5 boss?

 

[Hussar]

Feel free to mock and deride any fantasy rpg without explicit monster roles in the rules (i.e. essentially all of them). "Boss monsters" are a perfectly fine consequence of play, but designating a particular monster as such in its description is unnecessary.

Well, now I'm convinced./snip

Umm, you do realize that EVERY SINGLE HUMANOID in AD&D had boss monsters baked right into the basic description. For every X humanoids there will be 1 with Y stats. For every X number of Y stat humanoids, there will be 1 chief with Z stats.

It's right there, in EVERY SINGLE MONSTER MANUAL until 3e, where suddenly things changed and you had to add class levels (thus massively increasing the work for the DM).

Go ahead and look. I'll wait.

 

[Hussar]

So basically you're advocating that instead of having a Monster Manual that gives you clear and defined stat blocks that you can use at the table easily or modify to suit your needs, it should have generic and boring stat blocks that represent "a very basic" version of the monster that is not suitable for use at the table, and then it should give intricate and complex rules for to allow a DM to - with enough source books, system knowledge, and time - build a monster that is suitable for use at the table?

Well that's... one way of doing things I suppose. I don't think it'll catch on.

Well, it did catch on actually. This is precisely what a 3e Monster Manual is. Basic stat blocks (it says so right in the books - these are the lowest form of any monster) that you then have intricate and complex rules for upping the creature from there.

 

[Hussar]

I'd say that pretty much is the definition of arbitrary. Why 2 and not 3? Or 10? Why is this monster a challenge for a 5th level party instead of a 6th level party? Why assume a certain party makeup? Why design monsters to a baseline when the D&D-playing populace is so diverse that in practice there is no such baseline? The idea that a particular monster should be challenging for X party, regardless of what X is, is very arbitrary.

Again, this isn't really an edition-specific issue. The whole CR system is also a nightmare in this regard, as were the earlier XP systems and the like. We just don't need to take another step in the wrong direction.

As a guideline, the CR system worked reasonably well. You have to have some sort of baseline, or you cannot give any advice to DM's on how to design encounters. I'd also question your assertion that there is no such baseline. After all, 4 PC's (or 5) is fairly easy to verify. Once you've made your game that transparent, it's generally not a huge deal to adjust up or down.

Having taken a detour into systems where there is no advice given on how to design encounters for a while, I can honestly say that I really appreciate having baselines.

 

[Ahnehnois]

Umm, you do realize that EVERY SINGLE HUMANOID in AD&D had boss monsters baked right into the basic description. For every X humanoids there will be 1 with Y stats. For every X number of Y stat humanoids, there will be 1 chief with Z stats.

It's right there, in EVERY SINGLE MONSTER MANUAL until 3e, where suddenly things changed and you had to add class levels (thus massively increasing the work for the DM).

Go ahead and look. I'll wait.

I don't know why people assume I have these books. Or that I care that much what's in them.

More to the point, the gradual unification of monsters and PC rules over the editions hasn't made more work; it's simply made whatever work you choose to do more meaningful. Modern D&D monster design allows you to build whatever monster you want; but having those rules available also makes it easy for a DM to learn how to improvise monster stats if need be, and creates a secondary market for people who want premade stat blocks, which seems to be good for business. Giving you more tools hardly forces you to spend hours slogging over twenty books to pick your gibbering mouther's feats. It simply lets you do that easily if you want to. (Whereas in 2e if you wanted to truly customize your monsters you had to hack the system to do so. At least, if what you say is true).

Well, it did catch on actually. This is precisely what a 3e Monster Manual is. Basic stat blocks (it says so right in the books - these are the lowest form of any monster) that you then have intricate and complex rules for upping the creature from there.

Um, thanks?

Incidentally, PF retains this basic structure, while adding on some quick build templates for people who don't like doing a lot of customization on their monsters but still appreciate diversity.

Having taken a detour into systems where there is no advice given on how to design encounters for a while, I can honestly say that I really appreciate having baselines.

Having similarly taken a detour into systems without these kinds of guidelines, I can say that it was a breath of fresh air, made my job easier, and influenced what I look for in a monster book for any system: ideas.

 

[Kunimatyu]

I loved the "flat math" idea. With only HP and damage consistently going up by level, a monster's level relative to your own automatically determines whether it's a Minion, normal, Elite, or Solo monster.

With this second playtest, we're seeing attack bonuses go up, and monsters with arbitrarily doubled HP thanks to the Elite tag. I really prefer the system in the initial playtest.

 

[slobster]

Kind of, Army, Navy, & Marine are you class, then you get a specialty (Theme) so you can be Navy Pilot, Marine Pilot, Army Soldier, Marine Soldier, Navy medic, and so on.

Technically, Marine infantry are referred to as "Marines". You call a Marine a soldier, he'll give you a funny look.

That means when Marines take the "soldier" specialty, it's renamed to "marine". You could be an Army soldier, but you're a Marine marine.

 

[Hussar]

I don't know why people assume I have these books. Or that I care that much what's in them.

Well, when you make blanket statements about how the game has changed like this:

Feel free to mock and deride any fantasy rpg without explicit monster roles in the rules (i.e. essentially all of them).

without knowing the history of the game, it makes your claim rather specious doesn't it? If you only meant 3e, then you should have said 3e. Since, other than a fairly small slice of D&D's history, we've actually had explicit monster roles built right into the rules.

More to the point, the gradual unification of monsters and PC rules over the editions hasn't made more work; it's simply made whatever work you choose to do more meaningful. Modern D&D monster design allows you to build whatever monster you want; but having those rules available also makes it easy for a DM to learn how to improvise monster stats if need be, and creates a secondary market for people who want premade stat blocks, which seems to be good for business. Giving you more tools hardly forces you to spend hours slogging over twenty books to pick your gibbering mouther's feats. It simply lets you do that easily if you want to. (Whereas in 2e if you wanted to truly customize your monsters you had to hack the system to do so. At least, if what you say is true).

In 2e, you generally didn't bother, because the upgraded monster was right there. You want a Goblin Chief, he's a goblin with a bugbear's stats. Done. No math, no calculations, nothing.

Sure, you can build whatever monster you want. But, in doing so, you force DM's to spend HOURS designing a creature that will probably only last four rounds on the table. No thanks. There's a reason I won't create anything for 3e anymore and only DM 3e from modules.

Um, thanks?

Incidentally, PF retains this basic structure, while adding on some quick build templates for people who don't like doing a lot of customization on their monsters but still appreciate diversity.

Yeah, there's a reason I won't do PF as a DM. They didn't fix my main problem with 3e which was DM workload. Sorry, if I can't get about a 1:4 ration of prep to play time, I'm not interested in running the game anymore.

Having similarly taken a detour into systems without these kinds of guidelines, I can say that it was a breath of fresh air, made my job easier, and influenced what I look for in a monster book for any system: ideas.

Blarg. No thanks. The "Randomly Pick Opponents and Pray" method of adventure design is not something I have any interest anymore. If the game designer is that oblivious to what should make a baseline encounter, again, I'm not interested in the game. I refuse to have entire sessions get flushed down the toilet because the game designer can't properly signpost how stuff should work in play.

I'm just not that smart. Nor do I have the time or the patience to screw around trying to decipher what constitutes an interesting encounter based on an unfamiliar system.

 

[Dannager]

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].

A Goblin Manslayer [Elite] is a boss monster because he's so much tougher than the PCs individually are.

The keyword doesn't pile on hit points or damage. The monster is a badass, so he can take more punishment and dish out more damage. The keyword reflects that.

There are significant downsides to simply throwing higher-level monsters at PCs in an effort to drive home the point that the PCs are fighting a head honcho while still expecting them to emerge victorious. For instance, a higher level monster might have defenses so high as to make them extremely difficult to hit, bogging the fight down in miss after disappointing miss. Elite and solo monsters are a way of correcting for this, by providing monsters that are essentially two or five individual monsters stacked on top of each other.