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

[GreyICE]

Actually, this example is why the CR system sucks. And perhaps even an argument against D&D's historically steep number scaling.

Nope, that's not the issue! A Salamander Noble is perfectly appropriate as part of a threat for a level 10 party. It's simply the nature of the design. Salamander nobles don't have the action economy to really be a threat to the party on their own.

One attack per round against one target will never threaten a party unless the attack has a high likelihood of inflicting instant death. Period. There are just too many ways to cycle players out, get out of combat, deny actions, and recover from even VERY hard hits on a single target that only happen once per round.

The only way to challenge an entire party is multi-attacks, multiple actions within the round structure, AOEs and zones, and other effects meant to acknowledge the multi-target nature of the encounter are necessary.

When you have five or six monsters doing that, well... heh. Good luck resolving combat in under 4 hours. "Each monster acts twice per round, and... hmmm... there's a trigger when they're bloodied, and they lay down a zone around them... the zones stack, so if you move there you will take 5+5+5+5 fire damage... unless you take a different path, then you move through that zone... and that zone... and... oh, you only take damage once per round per zone, so you don't take double damage there, but that is a different zone..."

The design is completely, totally different between 1 monster encounters and multiple. Even 3E knew that - every monster designed to be encountered on its own had breath weapons, iterative attacks, magic, and other multi-target features.

 

[triqui]

I think you dont need a tag to make a goblin the tribe's boss. You don't even need giving him extra levels. Just say "the one with the crown is the goblin king".

However, I *do* think that the needs of a monster meant to fight solo (like a dragon) are completelly different than the needs of monsters meant to fight in group (like gnolls). Use a tag, or dont, but they need to be built different. A group of five level 10 monsters do n damage, five times. They can take 5 actions (5 spells, for example). A single monster, meant to be fought solo (as per the monster normal ecology) cant do 5n damage (or it will one-shot the PC) and is bound to one single action per turn, and wont have 5x the HP, unless it is an epic creature. That doesn't really work.

 

[D'karr]

I make no pretense to the contrary. There are very few objective truths on rpg message boards, and I do not routinely add IMHO YMMV to every post because I take it as assumed.

I am merely asserting my belief that a basically naturalistic philosophy (or simulation, if you prefer, though D&D is not strongly simulationist) is the right direction for the industry as a whole.

And I disagree. YMMV, IMHO, IME, IYKWIMAITYD, etc.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Call me a reactionary grognard, but I'm not interested in playing a D&D that is part Harry Potter, part Twilight, and part My Little Pony.

First off not only could I run that game, but atleast 4 out of 5 players would walk out saying how bad ass It was.

The main setting is a school where wiz apprentices are trying to learn how to become full wiz (aka start at level 1) have every game have a stand alone theme base on morality but make it a game about pregadice... The vampire with a heart of gold (and skin of diamonds) is an ally, so is the dark bruising potions instructor.


Second, it is easy enough to pick and choose what makes a story kiddy or badass gummy bears where no laughing matter in my 3.5 world

 

[Stalker0]

It's not fine to approach design by saying "what combination of mechanics will provide a challenge to 4 5th level PCs?" and then slapping a description on the result. If a hydra has nine attacks, it's because it has nine heads, not because it balances out the action economy.

Its fine if you replace "slap a description on" with "provide a solid and flavorful description".

Monster Design is about combining mechanics and description to provide a monster that:

1) Provokes a certain response from the players (due to flavor and lore).
2) Actually sells its lore in combat (due to mechanics).

I agree that a monster shouldn't able to do ANYTHING it wants because the challenge demands it, but it can certainly do a lot if you flavor it correctly.

Here's an example. Lets take a "Solo" Monster: The Goblin Shaman.

If we said a goblin gets 1 attack and a shaman gets 3 "just because" then the mechanics fall flat. If the shaman gets 3 attacks because it has summoned 2 dead spirits to its side....then that makes sense.

 

[slobster]

I make no pretense to the contrary. There are very few objective truths on rpg message boards, and I do not routinely add IMHO YMMV to every post because I take it as assumed.

Ah, I see. I thought you were denying it before.

Well as long as we agree that we're talking about something that, at the end of the day is a matter of taste, I have a question for you. If I designed that same hydra and then realized it would be a good solo encounter, and so slapped the tag on it, would that be ok with you? I.e. do you object to the solo/elite tags in general, or just when used as a guide during monster creation?

 

[Tony Vargas]

Actually, it's quite different. Hitting 16 times in 4 round is much better than hitting 16 times over 16 rounds (assuming each hit deals the same damage).

As in chemistry, concentration matters.

Certainly. Or, at least, it should be. With healing as a daily resource, like HD and ultimately hps, total attrition becomes the main thing, though. So, assuming 4x the hps means lasting 4x as long, it also means doing 4x the damage and thus 4x the attrition effect. Iff you're just comparing one monster to one monster with 4x the hps.

Say exp are directly related to hps. A single monster with 4x the hps is the same challenge as 4 monsters. If they each do the same damage, though, and the party takes 4 rounds to chew through those hps...

Single monster gets 4 attacks over 4 rounds.

4 monsters get 4 attacks the first round, then 3, then 2, then 1, for a total of 10.


Simply giving the monster more damage might work for that simplified example, but if the party dishes more or less damage - or more of it as AEs - that, too, will be thrown off.


Bottom line: simply using an identical-stat monster as both a lone challenge for a lower-level party and a one among many mooks for a higher-level one doesn't work. Thus, mook and boss monsters with somewhat different stats at the 'same' level.

 

[Victim]

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).

Yeah, we wouldn't want any bad sources to dilute the purity of our game based on a mishmash of Dying Earth, Conan, LotR, kung fu movies, wargames, and Dracula.

 

[slobster]

Call me a reactionary grognard, but I'm not interested in playing a D&D that is part Harry Potter, part Twilight, and part My Little Pony.

That doesn't make you a reactionary grognard. Everyone has their tastes.

I would find it . . . distasteful, however, if you go out of your way to try and stop other people from running that game. Or insult others for enjoying that sort of game.

If it makes you feel better, I haven't noticed much My Little Pony in the playtest so far.

 

[Ahnehnois]

If we said a goblin gets 1 attack and a shaman gets 3 "just because" then the mechanics fall flat. If the shaman gets 3 attacks because it has summoned 2 dead spirits to its side....then that makes sense.

It's a fine line, but I agree with the sentiment.

Well as long as we agree that we're talking about something that, at the end of the day is a matter of taste, I have a question for you. If I designed that same hydra and then realized it would be a good solo encounter, and so slapped the tag on it, would that be ok with you? I.e. do you object to the solo/elite tags in general, or just when used as a guide during monster creation?

As long as the tag was a natural result of the mechanics and had no mechanical effect in and of itself, was placed on after the fact rather than driving the design, and could be easily ignored, I don't see the problem. However, I would prefer it to be placed in the description or tactics section; as having it in the monster stat block implies that it is a mechanic when (in this example) it isn't.

I feel pretty much the same way about things like CR and organization. I'd rather have the stat block describe what the monster is, and all the cultural details and recommendations for how to use the monster in context in the text below to make the distinction between mechanics that describe the monster's physical and psychological makeup and "fluff" that describes other things clear.