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

[Obryn]

That's the approach I'm saying is redundant. Give dragons multiple attacks, a breath weapon, and natural armor because they're dragons. They serve the purpose fine. No tag needed.

...or you tag them such because they have multiple attacks, a breath weapon, and natural armor. I'd add in more HPs, too. Like I said, it's senseless to tie HPs so closely to everything else.

The Elite and Solo tags are just other pieces in the DM's toolbox.

-O

 

[GMforPowergamers]

That's the approach I'm saying is redundant. Give dragons multiple attacks, a breath weapon, and natural armor because they're dragons. They serve the purpose fine. No tag needed.

So you don't see an issue with orcs. Being lv5, and you can put 1d6+1 of them in an encounter, for level 1-10 PCs, but the Dragon is lv 10 and 1 is a challenge. Etween levels 5-15?!?!?

If the DM puts 1 orc against 5 pcs of equal level it is too easy, if you put 3 Dragons against 5 PCs it is a TPK... So what do the levels mean at that point? Why hide info ?

 

[Minigiant]

Personally, humanoids as solos should be rare as examples. There are few ways to make a normal humanoid take a whole group without it making sense that it hits the rocket tag or nerf foam combat marks.

But that doesn't mean that can't happen. A humanoid could still be a solo. Just like a dragon or lick could be a mook. And a dragon or lich mook have to be toned down to match the 5 heroes vs 5 dragons fight.

 

[nightwalker450]

I kind of agree with Ahnehnois here. The goblin chief is strange in wanting it to be a "solo". Why are the hero's so over matched by the goblin that he needs solo status?

Dragon, Beholder, Ettin.. These are easily visible. The story should drive the creatures abilities.

I could agree to some possibly "elite" style templates to toss on a creature. Giving them a reactionary attack or something to give them a little boost in action economy. Or even a boost to all their defenses to help negate a few more player attacks.

Wizards could be more threatening based on individual spells than on being able to take multiple turns. -- Summonings, protections, area spells, reactionary escape spells, etc...
Note when I say spells I don't mean PC spells, because Monsters should be built for different reasons than PCs.

Basically the creature should be solo on its own merits because it fits, not because he was slapped with a fat template and the characters wouldn't have the least bit of understanding of.

-- I'm a big fan of 4e, and the minion/standard/elite/solo, flat math is handling the minions well enough. Solos though I think real thought should be put in before putting the label on a creature.

-- An elite template, solo creatures.. Beyond that GM's could probably customize to get the proper feel they want using those as examples.

 

[Ahnehnois]

Personally, humanoids as solos should be rare as examples. There are few ways to make a normal humanoid take a whole group without it making sense that it hits the rocket tag or nerf foam combat marks.

But that doesn't mean that can't happen. A humanoid could still be a solo. Just like a dragon or lick could be a mook. And a dragon or lich mook have to be toned down to match the 5 heroes vs 5 dragons fight.

A lick could be a mook? What is this, D&D or Dr. Suess?

***

...or you tag them such because they have multiple attacks, a breath weapon, and natural armor.

Sure, if the tag is simply a label and not a mechanic.

 

[slobo777]

-- I'm a big fan of 4e, and the minion/standard/elite/solo, flat math is handling the minions well enough. Solos though I think real thought should be put in before putting the label on a creature.

Yes, in the same way that a huge dragon feels wrong as a minion, even if the game design would point you that way.

The mechanics give you a maths game that works (in various ways, depending on version). For it to feel like a D&D story, you still need to have workable descriptions. 4E would have you do the mechanics early on and justify them later with a good description. 3.5 gives you little bundles of mechanics+justification to build with, but you are on your own to get the end build right. Neither is perfect, but both are ultimately reaching for the same thing - a challenging and fun opponent within the game. Just the planning sequence is in a different order.

 

[Steely_Dan]

A lick could be a mook? What is this, D&D or Dr. Suess?

***

Sure, if the tag is simply a label and not a mechanic.

Whenever I have been licked (in either way), I have never used the word "mook".

Back in the day (1st Ed), when I wanted to make an Orc extra badass, I would just slap on Fighter levels.

 

[Ahnehnois]

Back in the day (1st Ed), when I wanted to make an Orc extra badass, I would just slap on Fighter levels.

Heresy! I assume you quit 1e because of DM overload?

 

[Obryn]

Heresy! I assume you quit 1e because of DM overload?

That worked better in 1e.

-O

 

[Steely_Dan]

Heresy! I assume you quit 1e because of DM overload?

It was too much, I mean, how do you cope, but I have managed to enjoy 1st Ed since 1986!