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

[underfoot007ct]

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.

Marine Rifleman maybe, anyways, I think we have a good start on 5E Modern RPG.

 

[Dannager]

At the table.

The same way your PC becomes a protagonist/sideskick (or a defender or a leader) when a you build that character and play it in an actual game session. The rules aren't the outcome, they're the tools you use to get there. Roles like "boss monster" are one possible outcome of using the rules.

You understand that when we say "boss monster" we don't actually mean "monster who is the boss of other monsters", right? It's just a phrase that we use to indicate a monster that is a challenge in and of itself, absent any other monsters to aid it.

The fact that a monster is actually the boss of other monsters doesn't necessarily have any bearing on its mechanical abilities.

D&D needs monsters that are designed to tackle a party by themselves. Dragons are the perfect example. Dragons have to be a challenge by themselves, because that's the only way you can create that oh-so-stereotypical dragon's lair encounter. And that needs to be in the monster manual, because you won't find it anywhere else.

 

[bbjore]

As a DM, I think the minion, elite, standard, and solo designators for monsters was one of the greatest parts of 4E. It told me how to make a monster specifically designed to be a challenged for a group vs. monsters designed to work together as a group to challenge another group. I never had a need to use a Solo again later on, because there was a standard monster to take it place, or I made it up on the fly. Truth be told, the monster design aspect of the game was so beautifully simple, I never had to use a monster manual except as inspiration for new tricks to give the monsters I designed on the fly when the PCs decided to fight. I used whichever stats made for the best encounter at that time. I wasn't hindered by some need to have all ogres have the same hp or anything like that nor did I require that for an ogre to be better, it had to have class levels or templates. The game just went and said monster math works differently than PCs, because that's faster and easier for the DM. Minions had only 1 hp, because it was easy to track, not because a cat could kill them with one hit. That's what it's all about.

The game looked at the DM, said the DM didn't have to play by the same rules or try and simulate a real world. The DM was supposed to make a good adventure. Here are the tools that make that easier. There isn't a version of D&D out that that makes it easier, and I haven't seen a similar game with an encounter design system that makes it so easy to design an appropriate challenge as a DM, especially on the fly.

In 4E solos are tougher than the PCs and have powers that will put the hurt on the PCs as well as make for interesting encounters even by themselves. This is probably why they are in charge of all the other mooks around them. It's not the tag that did this, it is the nature of the creature, just like a monster four levels higher than the PCs is also tougher. I don't really see the difference other than in naming, and that a Solo is easier to design and makes for a better fight because it is specifically designed to fight multiple PCs at once.

 

[slobster]

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.

Even with 5E's bounded accuracy this will likely be true. A 4th level enemy will only have defenses that are slightly higher than his 1st level counterparts, so that's ok. But his attack damage will have scaled up as well, which means he's going to hit very, very hard. On the other hand he's going to be very sensitive to action economy exploits, so it's a good idea to give him extra attacks at lower damage each, rather than the one big attack his level might dictate.

Then you have his hp, which is designed to match up against a single, normal 4th level character and go down in a hit or two. A first level party working together is almost certain to be able to put out more damage than a single 4th level character, which means your climactic BBEG is going down like a chump. Gotta stack on the hp, then.

So yeah, even with the vaunted flattened accuracy system (which I like!), I'd still like to see 1st level elites and solos look different from monsters that are simply higher level. But you can do this within the fiction of the gameworld, such that a flailing, untrained ogre is a 1st level solo because he is wild and tough but undisciplined, while an ogre mercenary is a 4th level monster because he's older and more restrained and more skilled.

 

[slobster]

Marine Rifleman maybe, anyways, I think we have a good start on 5E Modern RPG.

Nah, the problem with the whole modern thing is linear infantry and quadratic pilots. Sure you start off in the airforce cleaning intakes on helicopters and loading hellfire missiles into drones, but once you level up to Major and earn enough loot to buy the F-22, your Army and Marine team mates might as well be spectators.

 

[ComradeGnull]

There seems to be a very fundamental error being committed here. It involves the two possible meanings of the term 'boss'.

Meaning 1: 'Boss' (or 'Solo', or whatever) is a technical, mechanical term that means: this block of stats has rules-centric properties that makes it well suited to being the focus of an extended combat. It will last for multiple rounds in the face of PC abilities, and has the capacity to be a significant combat threat to a level-appropriate party.

Meaning 2: 'Boss' (or 'Leader' or whatever) is a generic term meaning 'someone who is in charge or wields authority. In an adventure, it typically means the most important antagonist that you are facing in that scenario.

There is no reason why the two meanings need to overlap for any particular NPC.

That 'goblin leader' in the playtest rules? Maybe he is just the goblin warren's champion fighter- the leader (in the sense of the guy who runs everything) might be an aged, scrawny old goblin who presents very little combat threat, but exerts influence through his superior tactics and knowledge. He may have the combat stats of a level 1 kobold, but a high Int, Wis, and Cha. Your whole adventure might be centered on defeating that old, clever goblin who fights primarily through bodyguards, misdirection, and clever tricks and traps, but the most significant combat threat that your party faces might be that vigorous young champion (whose stat block happens to have the 'leader' or 'solo' tag).

Now, for some antagonists it makes sense that the guy in charge is also the guy who has the most raw power. Great. Use a 'boss' template to create the mechanics for the 'story boss' that gives him enough combat options to present a sustained challenge to the party for an extended fight. Or just bump him up in levels. Each will present a different type of challenge. A lot of people think (as [MENTION=6693711]slobster[/MENTION] described quite well above) that just bumping levels probably doesn't provide enough challenge to make a solo opponent capable of holding the attention of an entire party for several rounds. Thus the other additions.

Calling a stat block 'boss' does not dictate what role it plays in the story. It just indicates what combat against that opponent is likely to be like. Calling a NPC the 'boss' of a tribe or the conclusion of an adventure does not indicate that he needs to be mechanically threatening in combat in a specific way. It's just that uniting the two ideas- the central antagonist and the biggest combat threat faces- is common enough to be worth treating the two together in many cases. It's not at all equivalent saying that whoever selects Warlord as their class gets to be party leader, and whoever selects Bard has to be the plucky-but-useless sidekick.

 

[underfoot007ct]

Nah, the problem with the whole modern thing is linear infantry and quadratic pilots. Sure you start off in the airforce cleaning intakes on helicopters and loading hellfire missiles into drones, but once you level up to Major and earn enough loot to buy the F-22, your Army and Marine team mates might as well be spectators.

A truly excellent point, maybe if we allow the infantry extra shots with their weapon, & carry a couple of extra ammo clips for free. Then maybe the F-22 could only fire the 20 mm cannon, and use their missiles, mach speeds, & stealth; each once per day.

Missile bloat is a huge problem, we need to keep the number of missiles low. Also the tag 'air superiority fighter', 'fighter' sound to gamey, and 'superiority' sound to arbitrary. A much better name would be 'military craft that can fly '. Why do we need missiles & jet engines, we have won wars without them in the past. Jet engines are fiddly & wonky.

Maybe we can have only a single air frame, then we can specialize them. F-22 transport, F-22 light bomber F-22 Medium bomber, F-22 Heavy Bomber, tanker, F-22 cargo, F-22 flying boat etc ...

Oh, all new aircraft will have potted plants to be thrown to entangles other planes & & dinner plates to be thrown in the path of incoming cannon rounds. This will surely reward 'creative' pilots.

 

[pemerton]

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.

This seems to be confusing ingame and metagame. Ingame, the monster is tougher than the PCs. The mechanical technique whereby this is achieved is by piling 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].

Huh? What is levelling up a goblin, other than piling on hit points and damage, presumably to represent the toughness of that goblin compared to the ordinary goblin and the level 1 PCs?

But in a game based on an action economy in combat, like D&D, there are also issues about giving the "boss monster" a suitable suite of actions. So one way to "pile on damage" is to give multiple attacks at lower damage (a bit like the mechanical strategy that AD&D used for fighters, paladins and rangers). In an abstract combat system like D&D there need be no ingame difference between one attack roll for big damage and two attack rolls for moderate damage. We can choose between mechanical interpretations in the interests of gameplay convenience and pleasure.

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.

There is still the issue of the action economy. Everything else being equal, I think multiple (or perhaps AoE) attacks make for more interesting play than big-damage single-target attacks, when there is only one enemy on the field.

Boss monsters are great. They are proven idea that has worked time and time again. The mechanical distinction between normal grunt enemies that are fought in swarms and single foes capable of handling a group of heroes all on their own is absolutely essential to pretty much any game that features enemies to fight. If D&D lacked that it would be fundamentally flawed and impotent.

Agreed, although I think fantasy RPG design has come relatively late to this point. There is an interesting discussion of the issue in the Burning Wheel Adventure Burner, for example (that book is a bit like a DMG for BW): they discuss various strategies (mechanical, encounter design, etc) a GM can use to help "bosses" survive the one-vs-many action economy. (And I don't think it's a coincidence that the same BW book that discusses this issue lists 4e D&D in its bibliography, as one of the influences on it!)

A monster stat block is one of two things:
*A set of modifiers that you can deconstruct and use to make a monstrous NPC.
*A handy example that you can modify to suit your needs if you don't have the time or inclination to deal with it.

For most of D&D's history, a monster stat block has been neither of those things. It has been a representation of certain capacities of the monster in a suitable mechanical form for usign that monster in game play.

in 1970 I think D&D was more of a glorified miniatures game and less of a storytelling system.

I don't want to play D&D as a "storytelling" system with massive GM force. I want to play it in a reasonably lighthearted but Forge-y style with an emphasis on thematically and mechanically strong scene framing supporting player protagonism. And I want monster building rules that support that.

I think WotC are going to have to think about more than just your preferences, or my preferences, in desigining a "unification" edition of D&D.

 

[vagabundo]

In my view the monster templates (minion, solo, etc) added another axis to monsters. It gave them a depth that added realism. With level being the relative power of the creature the template gave the toughness/uniqueness of the creature.

When using them I can ask "why this creature is a solo?". How does that fit in the story? Witht he templates I can do this without having to level him to a higher power level, something that maybe inappropriate.

 

[Chris_Nightwing]

Time to wade into the discussion!

I think there is a place for boss monsters in the game, but I don't think designations such as elite or solo belong on goblins. Let me explain..

I think there should be tougher versions of ordinary monsters. There should be goblins with more hitpoints that take more than one hit to kill. These goblins have more hit dice, and thus gain whatever else a goblin gains when they increase hit dice, much like levelling up.

There should be monsters who can stand by themselves against an entire party. Dragons for instance. They should have their hitpoints multiplied up not because they gain more hit dice (more levels) but because they are much, much bigger than PCs. I liked the idea that anything large would automatically be an elite (relative to its level or hit dice) because it's large! So it's attack bonus is the same as a medium version of the same creature, it's powers are the same, but it's HP and damage are doubled. For a dragon this would obviously be multiplied four times (and give them multiple actions!).

I don't want a goblin chief to be able to stand on his own against a party unless he's significantly higher level than them. I want him to be tougher, to not die in one or two hits, but his HD should reflect this and hell, if the PCs gun for him then use his damned single hit die minions to get in the way. He should have leadership powers to have them leap in his way, or minions with guardian like powers* to make him harder to hit, but he shouldn't have his HD/HP doubled JUST so he takes longer to kill.

I do want an ogre to have double HP and damage, but other bonuses in the same range as monsters of his level. Ogres should take much longer to kill, they should hit harder, and you shouldn't have to give them more HD to achieve this. I suppose I see things in a very 'physical' manner and find it hard to accept super tough low level goblin chiefs, they are too far removed from the other goblins in my head.

I also suppose I always liked the 3E technique of hit dice controlling monster attacks and saves. It's much less work with 5E, since you should only have to change HP/damage at each level, and to-hit less frequently. A large pool of powers at the back of the MM would also make it easier to pick things out for your boss monster. I mean, why can't goblin chief have a speciality that gives him things as he gains HD? That way you know exactly what he'll get if you give him 2 more HD.

*Kobold Dragonshields should absolutely do this, always staying beside their chief to protect him as he flings sorcerous bolts at the party.