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

[FireLance]

The issue is truly flat math will never work for D&D. It has characters going from lowly kobolds to mighty dragons. Maybe in a realistic war game where there are only humans maybe. But in D&D, Something has to scale.

I think he's expecting hit points to scale, but not damage. The likely outcome of such a system is left as an exercise to the reader.

 

[renau1g]

However, the same cannot be said for the "elite goblin". For some, it can be a flavor break that one goblin has X abilities, but the elite goblin has all sorts of weird different abilities other goblins don't.

So perhaps for the humanoid monsters, working the tougher monster angle is the way to go for boss encounters. But for other monsters, I think the solo and elite tags are extraordinarily useful and should be maintained.

For the monstrous ones, I'd say it's pretty easy actually. Just as dwarves, humans, even gnomes and halflings can train in a "class", why couldn't a hobgoblin learn the same thing as fighters, they're probably more likely than a gnome. For goblins or kobolds, why not pick up some dirty fighting tricks and "rogue" abilities, half-orcs - barbarian rages?

 

[Ahnehnois]

I think he's expecting hit points to scale, but not damage.

Nope.

The issue is truly flat math will never work for D&D. It has characters going from lowly kobolds to mighty dragons. Maybe in a realistic war game where there are only humans maybe. But in D&D, Something has to scale.

I don't think any of the basic numbers *need* to scale in the way you're suggesting.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

The level system should handle badass monsters.

The solution is not to have solo boss fights to begin with. It's a bad trope drawn primarily from bad sources (comic books, videogames, cartoons/anime).

I run many well loved games (including con games) based on comics and video games... What makes them Bad agin?

 

[B.T.]

They are terribly written.

 

[slobster]

They are terribly written.

Crap, nobody really wants to get into this.

Suffice it to say that opinions vary. I think a substantial portion of the D&D population would assert that there is enough value in enough comic books, anime, video games, and related media that WotC should at least be aware of the tropes that make those genre so popular.

In other words, you may not like them but their influence is undeniable, and I for one celebrate that.

 

[TwinBahamut]

The level system should handle badass monsters.

I don't understand this at all... Why is it a problem to use the abstract and arbitrary system of elite and solo designation for powerful creatures, but fine to use the equally abstract and arbitrary level system for the same purpose? Neither system is any less arbitrary, so why is only one preferable?

Honestly, I consider the elite/solo designation to be significantly less arbitrary or abstract than level mechanics. The idea of elite and solo enemies is extremely common and easily understandable, and has value in many game systems that don't use experience point or level mechanics.

The solution is not to have solo boss fights to begin with. It's a bad trope drawn primarily from bad sources (comic books, videogames, cartoons/anime).

Er, what? That's not a solution. That's a problem. You're basically saying that we shouldn't want a mighty dragon to be a reasonable challenge for a group of heroes on its own, despite the fact that it is one of the most iconic images of both fantasy and the game of Dungeons and Dragons. Such a "solution" is completely unacceptable.

Also, that "bad trope/bad sources" argument is just insulting. If D&D travels down that route it will lead only to an insular, bad game that can only appeal to aging, reactionary grognards. It is a path that leads directly to the game's demise, and I want no part of it. If the game wants to continue to survive, or better yet expand and find new fans, it needs to embrace all the inspiration it can and appeal to fans of all forms of entertainment and fantasy.

 

[Chris_Nightwing]

For those who say bounded accuracy handles it,

IT DOESN'T.

Damage and effects still increase with level even if accuracy really does not.

A level 1 goblin and a level 6 bugbear might both have +2 to attack but the bugbear deals twice the damage. Even if you refluff the bugbear as the goblin chief, he will still one hit knock out most PCs. And he still can be killed in a round.


Rocket tag.
Whoever wins initiative, wins the fight.
Very anticlimactic.

That just means the scaling isn't quite right yet.

To use arbitrary numbers, let's say the XP for a 4th level creature is 4x the XP for a 1st level creature. In order for it to be an appropriate challenge, then having 4x the hitpoints is about right. Having the same attack bonus, in bounded accuracy, is about right, as is having the same defence. Having 4x damage is.. wrong.. because in fact the correct scaling is 4x the attacks with the same damage. Obviously that isn't going to swing (an extra attack every level is madness) so this scaling is wrong.

What scaling do we use? I've agonised over this and not found an answer because encounters with different numbers of actions are so hard to compare. If PCs and creatures grow in power linearly (a hit dice, a damage dice per level) then combats remain the same at every level. If they gain hit die but do less damage then combats start to last longer. This might just about make up for the lack of actions for individual creatures. That's the only way I can see it working - damage output scales at, say, the square root of HP increase. Combats get longer as you go up in level.

 

[Ahnehnois]

I don't understand this at all... Why is it a problem to use the abstract and arbitrary system of elite and solo designation for powerful creatures, but fine to use the equally abstract and arbitrary level system for the same purpose? Neither system is any less arbitrary, so why is only one preferable?

One isn't necessarily preferable over the other. The point is that they serve the same purpose and are redundant. When you combine the two, you get nonsensical results (here is a 20th level 'minion' that can be instantly killed by anyone who can hit it, and there is a 20th level 'boss' that can destroy a hundred such minions; both the same level, yet wlidly different).

As D&D is a level-based system, level should determine how powerful things are. If it weren't a level-based system, maybe conceptualizing some monsters as being more powerful than others based on roles would actually be meaningful and worthwhile.

 

[Stalker0]

That just means the scaling isn't quite right yet.

What scaling do we use? I've agonised over this and not found an answer because encounters with different numbers of actions are so hard to compare.

This is likely because, as so many others have discovered in time, the model CANNOT be adjusted so simply.

Every model breaks down somewhere, no model accounts for everything.


The fact is a model that works very well modeling a 4 5th level character fighting 4 5th level goblins does not work so well modeling that same party against 1 "super goblin".

This is why 4e introduced the idea of rules exceptions for elite and solo monsters. If one model for all scenarios doesn't work, then lets use 2 models for 2 scenarios.