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

[ForeverSlayer]

Snip

All I have to say is that it worked out of the box with our group.

 

[Derren]

D&D is a GAME not a simulation, games have rules. If you want to call a rule gamist , well fine. You realize hit points & saving throws don't exist it the real world, right?

I have only nrarely played MMOs, but I amazed that so many people HATE everything about them. Most say they have 'NEVER played a MMO', yet to have an absolute all knowing knowledge of all thing about MMO. How do you know there is ONLY combat in a MMO, please list all the MMOs you have played.

If something, works well, is FUN, fair, then who cares where it is from LOTR or a MMO. I don't.

Wtf?
What has how many MMOs I have played to do with anything? I do have played many MMOs and I know quite well how limited they are because of the railroaded story and because everything leads to (lots and lots) of combat. D&D, like any PnP rpg has the ability to be so much more than that, but this potential is unused with D&D as, like with MMOs, everything is about combat.

Oh sure you can now start the usual stuff about "I can roleplay just fine in D&D etc. etc." but you can't deny that 90%+ of the rules is combat, all PCs are automatically geared towards combat and all monsters are just combat stats. The boss tag is just another arbitrary tag you add to monsters with no simulationist roots you slap on a statblock to modify its combat power.
Its funny that you throw around accusations of "telling people how to play" when the vast majority of D&D is geared towards one and only one specific way of playing. The boss tag is just another rule which pushes D&D into the direction of "tactical skirmish combat", Neither does the boss tag modify anything of a monster except its combat "value" nor can it be explained in game. It is just an arbitrary tag thrown around to modify combat values and imo D&D does not need any more of such rules for tactical skirmish combat, it already has enough of that, but instead rules which support all the other ways of playing a rpg.

While D&D always was that way 4E was/is by far the "worst" while 3E, even though it was still combat heavy" was for D&D quite liberal with its skill system and non combat spells (which were sadly tied to combat level). Sadly WotC did not take the hint with 4E that it might have been a bad idea to ignore everything but tactical combat as 4E did as 5E doesn't seem to have any intent to change this, boss tag for monsters included.

 

[Mishihari Lord]

I quite like the "boss monster" tag, and I am in no way a fan of 4E. Such monsters fill an often-needed role in an adventure, and it makes a lot of sense to tell DMs that that's what they were intended for. I don't see why would you would want to hide this information from a DM.

 

[Lwaxy]

Haven't read through it all yet, but I don't like "boss monsters." Not in video games, not in RPGs. They can come up sometimes, sure, but not every group of enemies needs one. "Boss monster" to me has a railroad tag to it - something the PCs need to find and remove. The same is true for "minions" which speaks of mindless followers to me. Unless I'm running modules, this is rarely happening in our games.

I don't need anyone to tell me how to design a "boss monster." I love doing it in the few cases I need one.

And no, monsters aren't just combat stats. If you just play to fight and kill, then tags probably matter little. But we don't do bloodthirsty and there is always the chance of making friends among enemies even. Killing has to be the last resort, kind of. Yeah, that's a playstyle thing, but to me those labels on creatures would feel terribly wrong.

That said, I can probably just ignore them, even if they are annoying. But I worry that it pushes the game even more towards tactical skirmishes. I'm one of those hoping for a bit of the opposite, and so while this is not any sort of deal breaker for me, it sure fills the scales with stones and not gold.

 

[pemerton]

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?

Excellent question!

One isn't necessarily preferable over the other. The point is that they serve the same purpose and are redundant.

They don't serve the same purpose, though. Level is not a measure of "capability within the action economy", except for fighters in AD&D, and for weapon-users in 3E.

That is why 4e introduces an alternative dimension to measure "capability in the action economy" (namely, standard/elite/solo - minion is best analysed as operating in a different dimension).

But that model didn't solve the problem either - a 1st level solo had 4x HP, did more damage but still only had one action. This didn't actually do anything that a level system couldn't do by itself

Solos and elites actually have multiple actions - various sorts of triggered actions, plus (typically) standard actions that let them perform multiple basic attacks. Plus they often have AoEs and/or auras that are the functional equivalent of multiple attack actions.

It's saying, "I may just be one monster, but you'd better outnumber me to have any hope of taking me down."

Aren't its level, ability scores, and other perks also saying that clearly enough?

Not unelss those perks include additional advantages in the action economy - which is precisely what an "elite" or "solo" label indicates!

Sounds like what you're saying is that it's a patch for some systemic issues regarding number scaling. Given that, why not fix the underlying problem you're getting at?

Huh? The underlying problem arises out of the importance, in D&D, of the action economy. (Note: this is not a general feature of RPGs. It is a distinctive feature of D&D, and comes up in some other systems. For example, the Burning Wheel design team canvass it as an issue in the Adventure Burner.) The solution is to tackle the dimension of action economy in monster design. I don't know why you would call that a "patch for a systemic issue". It is an elegant solution that works within the parameters of D&D.

Changing the "underlying problem" would mean changing the basic engine of D&D action resolution.

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.

<snip>

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.

It's interesting to note that this is purely a function of D&D's mechanics: rolling to attack within a fixed action economy and initiative sequence; and magical attacks based in discrete, unique spell descriptions.

In systems in which high attack bonuses can be turned into multiple attacks with lower bonuses, for example, you don't need standard actions that let you make multiple attacks: your higher-bonus "boss" just takes the penalty and makes the attacks. Or in magic systems which allow scaling spells to attack extra targets, you don't need special rules to allow high level casters to be viable against multiple targets: they can scale their spells to be quicker to cast, or to attack multiple targets, etc.

The issue doesn't come up in Tunnels and Trolls, either, in which attacks are resolved by pooling the PCs dice and rolling them, and comparing that to the monsters' dice. A "boss" in T&T is just a monster with many dice.

But given that D&D has the mechanics that it does, it needs a way to handle the action economy issue to which "boss" fights give rise.

The level system should handle badass monsters.

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.

<snip>

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.

What work is "level" or HD doing here?

All it is an index of bigger damage and more hit dice. But the issues with "boss monsters" are (i) action economy, and (ii) one-shotting PCs.

So here are two ways to scale a goblin chief:

(1) Multiply level by 2, and therefore hit points by 2 and damage per hit by 2;

(2) Multiply hit points by 2, and give 2 attacks per round with unadjusted damage.

How is (2) less verisimilitudinous than (1)? Attacks per round, in D&D, is already an abstraction: the attack roll reflects the chance the combatant has to get in a good shot against his/her enemy. So if you go with (2) your goblin chief is a skilled fighter who can turn many more hits into grazes than an ordinary goblin (hence the hit point boost) and can place many more dangerous strikes than an ordinary goblin (hence the action boost). Whereas if you go with (1) your goblin chief is as tough as (say) a bugbear - hits hard, and needs to be hit hard to be taken down.

Either strikes me as a viable occupant of the fiction. But I know which one would work better in which sort of scenario, and so can include one or the other as appropriate.

A nine-headed cryohydra gets more actions, it makes for a great solo because it can effectively fight by itself. There are plenty of monsters that behave this way, beholders and dragons and the like.

Goblin chiefs though, do not.

Multiple attacks just means "more chances to get more solid hits in per arbitrary unit of time". You don't need to have more arms or heads to do this, you just need to be a better fighter (AD&D used this approach to model better fighters, for instances). It's not absurd to me that a goblin chief might be a better fighter, or a hobgoblin chief even moreso. Or give an ogre chieftain an AoE "club sweep". There are a variety of ways it can be done which don't have verisimilitude implications.

The boss label is gamist because it suggests that the PCs are "supposed" to fight that monster by itself, and defeat it after a relatively difficult battle. It ignores all other outcomes that could happen (i.e. retreat, negotiation, anything other than a straight up battle), emphasizing the main competitive segment of the game (combat).

Is this claim based on an empirical survey, some theoretical foundation, or merely your own intuition?

The elite and solo labels in 4e signify nothing more nor less than the way the creature in question intersects with the action economy, and the numerical scales for hit points, attacks and defences.

It no more entails combat than does giving the monster an armour class, or a damage number.

And given that I have run encounters with solos which were resolved via negotiation, I believe I have empirical refutation of your claim.

The idea is that badass monsters are what they are because of what the monster substantively is (i.e. a dragon vs a kobold), choices the DM makes, and what plays out at the table. Putting a keyword "badass" on a monster does not make it so, or help a designer or a DM make it so. At best, it's wasted space. At worst, it's a metagame distraction.

Alternatively, it might be a useful shorthand. It could even bring with it some suggestions about how you might design a monster to provide an interesting challenge for a particular context.

I mean, it's not as if such monsters as Rust Monsters, Beholders, Umber Hulks, the many varied hit dice of humanoids, D&D-style dragons, etc, were designed just as interesting exercises in fantasy ecology! They were designed to provide a range of interesting challenges for a range of different PC types. 4e is no different in this respect - it just recognises that "scaling" - ie becoming more badass - can happen in multiple dimensions: hit points, defences, attack bonuses, damage, and the action economy - and it recommends that monsters be designed with certain scaling parameters in mind, in order to maximise the likelihood of them providing a fun encounter.

So, for example, why is there no monster in AD&D with defences, attacks and hit ponts comparable to a goblin, that causes Mummy Rot? Whether or not some ingame ecological story can or needs to be told, here is the design story: because the sort of PCs typically don't have access to cure disease yet (paladins being pretty rare).

And in 4e, why is there no monster with defence and attack numbers comparable to a goblin, but hit points comparable to an ogre, yet only a single action per round? Whether or not some ingame ecological story can or needs to be told, here is the design story: because such a monster would be very boring to play, as it would pose almost no threat to a party of 5 PCs, but require a large number of hits to defeat in combat.

AD&D summarises its design reasoning using the HD label, and the (somewhat related) monster level label. 4e summarises its design reasoning using the level label and also the solo label (multidimensional labelling representing multi-dimensional scaling).

I'm not really buying the appeal to tradition. Monster stat blocks may have been limited to this purpose at one point, but D&D evolved to the point where they mean more now

Not every one agrees that this is an issue of "limits", or that your preferred approach is "evolution". Some people think that it facilitates gameplay to think about the design of game elements from the point of view of their function as game elements.

That's why low level mages can't cast Passwall or Disintegrate, for example.

 

[Chris_Nightwing]

Multiple attacks just means "more chances to get more solid hits in per arbitrary unit of time". You don't need to have more arms or heads to do this, you just need to be a better fighter (AD&D used this approach to model better fighters, for instances). It's not absurd to me that a goblin chief might be a better fighter, or a hobgoblin chief even moreso. Or give an ogre chieftain an AoE "club sweep". There are a variety of ways it can be done which don't have verisimilitude implications.

There are massive verisimilitude implications in giving a goblin chief extra attacks. If you do the same for the human leader of a group of bandits, the first thing that would drive me mad as a player is that *I* can't get multiple attacks in the same way. I know a lot of people like the distinction between player mechanics and NPC mechanics, but I do not.

 

[pemerton]

"Gamist" does not mean "the extent to which something is a game". It refers to a tactical style of play with a competitive tone directed towards goal outcomes, characterized by system mastery and adversarial relationships between the people at the table.

<snip>

The gamist terminology describes (and people are objecting to) the attempt to make D&D into a competitive game (which D&D has some elements of, but which certain rules can push the game towards or away).

Gamist play need not be adversarial. Look at Balesir's description of his game, for example, or at Gygax's characterisation of classic D&D play in his DMG and PHB.

As for D&D as a "competitive" game, I think that trend peaked in the early 80s. I would say its been pretty much declining ever since, though 3E may have produced some sort of resurgence 10 or so years ago.

A lot of 3e's problem's trace to the CR and XP system. I suspect the people that actually use those kinds of assumptions are largely the ones that dislike the system, which is why some of them now like a system that is built even more around assuming how you play.

What is the difference between "building a system around assuming how you play" and "building a system to support the way you play". None, that I can see, except that the latter is a more useful description that helps illustrate the contribution the designers have made to human wellbeing.

It's not as if your preferred approach to monster buidling, as set out in this thread, is playstyle neutral. It seems oriented towards an approach to play in which I have very little interest.

I added in a macguffin element

<snip>

I chose to make it overwhelmingly powerful because I liked the flavor and wanted to scare the PCs. It was not remotely balanced

<snip>

They could never have beaten it in a fair fight. But it was effective for what I wanted it to do.

This sort of play is of little interest to me. I may be missing something, but it suggests a very strong degree of GM force over the plot: the PCs encounter something which can only be resolved by deploying the GM's placed "macguffin". Maybe there was some other feature of the encounter to support player protagonism that you didn't mention in your write up.

encounters balanced around a mechanical standard are neither adventurous nor a particularly interesting story.

I'm not sure what you mean by "balanced". If you mean that encounters posing a mechanically measurable level of challenge are neither adventurous nor interesting, I don't agree at all.

If they had gotten the sense that it was balanced to provide a particular challenge, it would not have been scary. If they could easily identify it and understand its capabilities after having read its monster manual entry, it would have been boring.

My experience is the opposite: if the players (via a successful Monster Knowledge check for a PC) learn the abilities of a creature, and (from this) can infer to its level, and hence the mechancially measurable degree of challenge that it poses, this can certainly make them scared! Depending on what they learn, of course.

I don't "scare" my players by saying scary things to them, or telling them that what they see is scary. I scare them - and generate related emotions, like excitement - by putting their PCs in situations which will require clever and challenging play to resolve.

 

[pemerton]

Every facet of adventure design, from mapping out structure (whether it be a physical structure or simply a conceptual structure) to the type and number of challenges (either combat, non-combat or both) to every other aspect of adventure design is wholly a meta-game process.

The only way you could avoid that would be to somehow develop some sort of organic model and then advance the model in such a way that an adventure grew itself. Since that's impossible (or at least WAY too difficult to achieve with a pencil and paper), I'm going to stand by the fact that every single aspect of adventure design is purely meta-game.

Classic Traveller, with its sector exploration and planet design rules, its patron generation table, etc, tries to eliminate as much as the metagame as possible from scenario design.

Whether this makes for a good or bad play experience I'll leave for others to judge!

The difference is in the recognition of action economy, which is a 4e innovation.

<snip>

It took 4e's recognition of the action economy to finally make single monster encounters into something that didn't turn into balloon popping contests. Note, they didn't get it right at first, as evidenced by the first Monster Manual. When people talk about 4e solo's, they're talking about what came a few Monster Manuals later (MM3?) and the changes that came with that.

I obviously agree with the bit before the snippage. But I think the MM gets a bit of a hard time. The difference between the MV beholder eye tyrant and the MM one, for example, relates to damage (MV is on MM3 standard), not action economy. They are the same in the latter respect.

And I think most of the MM Elites are fine. (Though there are some exceptions, I'll agree, like the high level Helmed Horror.)

TL;DR: yes, 4e monster design got better over time, but in my view didn't start out as crappily as is sometimes suggested. And I think the MM is the best for tightness of flavour text, and useful Lore entries. (Bear Lore notwithstanding.)

 

[pemerton]

There are massive verisimilitude implications in giving a goblin chief extra attacks. If you do the same for the human leader of a group of bandits, the first thing that would drive me mad as a player is that *I* can't get multiple attacks in the same way.

But you can. In 4e, via power selection. In D&Dnext, via combat superiority dice (I assume - that is the obvious vehicle to deliver it).

EDIT: In 4e, also, when you get high enough those goblins or bandits become minions, and you don't need multiple attacks: your ability to strike with fierce accuracy multiple times in 6 seconds is reflected by the fact that they have only 1 hp, and so drop to a single hit.

 

[underfoot007ct]

Because it's easier for you to have a sample boss or actually build one than it is for me to take the creature apart and try to figure out how to rebuild it how I want it.

I hope you can do that but, I don't want to waste time creating something I can just open a MM then use. Yet I am not denying you from doing it your way. Maybe I will create a boss from scratch, only If i choose to.

Sometimes we don't always get what we want and someone has to come out in the end with what they want and to be blunt I hope it's me. Now if we get both then great but if not then I hope it's me.

So If I understand, You hope the D&D 5eNext has nothing from 4e, regardless if is optional, has most everything from 3e, omitting everything you dislike, because you are selfish. Thus violating its primary design goal of D&D5eNext of uniting ALL the editions. Being most like 3e, it will not appeal to most of the BD&D, AD&D1/2e, and the 4e people, thus totally failing, not selling well, causing 6e to be something completely different in a few years.

The difference is, I want as many people to be happy as possible, To support many plsy-styles, To allow the play-style that they prefer, not tell people their play-style is wrong or less important. I don't want to be selfish forcing people to the bad trope of 'my way of the highway'.

I know a lot of people who didn't like the 4th edition monster setup so hopefully they will relax that setup and give us something else.

I think the 4e advances the game with it's monster design, this is area that I think still needs work. 4e monster had had too many HPs, but I have no interest in going back to 2-3 HP Kobolds. We need something in the middle, or an option. Same for PCs I have zero interest in a 6 HP wizard , again we need to be a option or closer to 4e.

For 5eNext to be the BEST it can be, It needs to pull the best ideas from ALL editions. Having options to appeal to ALL editions, the most gamers possible. rather than Demanding that certain thing can only be done one way. Your vision of 5eNext would be mediocre at best, but you would love it but how many others?

This is our most desperate hour. Help me, Obi-Mike-Mearls, you're my only hope.