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

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

To you. To me, they aren't even close to a minimal standard of usable (nor, to be fair, do I consider any premade stat blocks acceptable).

You are so far beyond the horizon of "average DM" that WotC would be mad, MAD, I TELL YOU! to consider essentially any of your input for 5E. (On this issue.)

 

[Ahnehnois]

Those who live in glass houses shouldn't throw around accusations of being 'needlessly insulting.' See, this is the kind of commentary that undermines your whole agenda.

I reflect the tone of a post to prove a point (i.e. that it was rude and unpersuasive), and the original poster cries foul?

You say "I think players like this..." and admit that you have nothing beyond anecdotal experience to back up your opinions, but your response to us assuring you that your experience is not universal is to dismiss contrary opinions with snide remarks and repeat your own opinions as if they're facts.

No, I just repeat them as if they're opinions. And my anecdotes are currently tied for the best evidence presented in this thread (along with everyone else's anecdotes).

I'm sure you're a nice guy, but your posts reek of one-true-wayism.

The only thing going here is "there-is-no-one-true-way-ism" and "play-your-way-not-WotC's-way-ism". And the "nice guy" thing is debatable (and, since nice guys finish last, I rather dislike that label).

Word to the wise: it just may happen, because more gamers might like boss labels than you believe. In fact, they're already in the play test so chances are good that 5e will have 'em.

Unless, of course, they're in the playtest and people don't like them and they get removed. That is kind of the point of a playtest: to find out what people like. And the point of this thread, to answer the OP's question (which I believe has attracted plenty of viewpoints that agree that these labels are problematic, but viewpoints that are completely distinct and different from mine).

 

[Ahnehnois]

You are so far beyond the horizon of "average DM"

Thank you!

Not sure where you got that though. What is an "average DM" like?

that WotC would be mad, MAD, I TELL YOU! to consider essentially any of your input for 5E. (On this issue.)

Really? I don't buy music from average musicians, read books by average writers, or play rpgs with average friends. I sure don't want my entertainment created by "average people".

 

[slobster]

Not sure where you got that though. What is an "average DM" like?

Well.

The average DM is 31 years old and spends 219$ per year on RPG-related products (he can only afford to spend 50$). It is more likely to buy core rulebooks than splatbooks, even if those "core rulebooks" are labeled monster manual XVIII". It is even more likely, however, to buy core rulebooks that are actually core rulebooks, hence the need to come out with new or "updated" editions every few years.

The average DM is unfortunately 85% male, 15% female. We're working on that, but for some reason the more art we produce of "empowered" women wearing chainmail neglige, the less excited the female part of the average DM seems to be.

The average DM has a party of 4.7 adventurers, who together buy .4 core rulebooks and instead ask to "take a quick look" at the DM's books for about 7 hours per average 3.5 hour session. On a possibly related note, the average DM is 78% likely to get so fed up by his players' shenanigans that he logs on to the internet to have impassioned arguments with total strangers over arcane points in order to let off some steam.

Interestingly, the average DM agrees with all of your positions and arguments 100%. Unfortunately, online there is a vocal minority who disagree with the obvious truth, so it's up to you to defend the views of the silent majority.****

****All statistics compiled from a 2004-present survey entitled "I spend way too much time on the internet".

 

[FireLance]

The 4e approach is just a bizarre step away from that goal. If the point of that monster's stats is to provide a certain challenge, why give it any stats at all? Why not just say that for all fighters, whenever they attack a "boss" they have to roll a 15 to hit, and have to hit it twenty times to kill it? Why give the monster all these details like ability scores and hit points if its purpose is truly that narrow?

So that there are differences even between monsters of the same level. So that we can reward players for making "smart" choices like attacking a fast creature's Fortitude and a slow creature's Reflex. No doubt, it is a small reward - nothing like making a touch attack against a dragon with a touch AC of 10 - but the difference is one of degree, not intent.

Because there are also differences in player characters. The rogue with a rapier might have a different attack bonus and damage rolls from the barbarian with a greataxe. You could say that the rapier counts as one hit and the greataxe counts as two, but over the years, I think that D&D players have gotten used to more granular hit points.

 

[FireLance]

What is an "average DM" like?

Sadly, the "average DM" is probably a computer. For various reasons, only some of which are evident from this thread.

 

[Hussar]

/snip

The mechanics themselves are designed to facilitate a very narrow playstyle (the "gamist" style advocated by Rouse, Mearls, etc.) and probably do indeed make it easier for people who do indeed fit within its assumptions (but much harder for everyone else). If you want to run a roughly six round combat against a group of four PCs of a particular level that causes them to use a predictable percentage of their resources before predictably winning, the encounter-based monster design approach probably makes your life easier. I just don't believe that this scenario is the "baseline" D&D experience, or that people who fall outside of it are irrelevant.

Swimming upthread.

I'm confused. Are you talking about 3e or 4e here? Because what you just described is EXACTLY how 3e is meant to play out. So, you'll have to excuse my confusion as to why you would point to Mearls and Rouse instead of Cook and Tweet. Perhaps you could clarify this a bit.

 

[Hussar]

These monsters have always been able to do this.

Dragons: Spells, Breath Weapon, Flight, Blindsight, Claws, Wings, Tail, Spell-like Abilities, Immunities, DR, Spell Resistance, etc...

Beholders: Anti-magic beam, several eye stalks, flight, etc...

These monsters have always been designed to handle multiple PC's so these types of monsters aren't in question.

Umm, I suggest you go brush up on your earlier versions of D&D, because dragons have certainly NOT always had those abilities.

 

[Hussar]

Thank you!

Not sure where you got that though. What is an "average DM" like?

Really? I don't buy music from average musicians, read books by average writers, or play rpgs with average friends. I sure don't want my entertainment created by "average people".

Do you really not see the one-true-wayism and gamer elitism here? Honestly?

You're basically saying that any DM, like me, who is not willing to turn D&D into a part time job, spending hours outside of the game building ships in bottles with math is an "average" person and should be ignored.

Sorry, I'll stick with average thanks. There's a reason I stopped creating stuff for 3e. You xp'd Steel Dan a while back for adding levels of fighter to an orc in 1e, yet strongly disagreed with me for doing exactly the same thing by simply using a higher level monter's statblock - a bugbear's for example.

Never mind that this is EXACTLY what the mechanics tell you to do in 1e, and ignoring the fact that adding 5 levels of fighter in AD&D takes about 30 seconds because all you did was add 5d10 HP and lower something's THAC0 by 5. That's it. That is the sum total of changes to a monster in 1e for adding 5 levels of fighter.

IOW, pretty much exactly how 4e does it. Bit simpler, but, not a whole lot. You don't add skills, you don't have feats, you don't change anything else. Heck, even size changes have no mechanical effect.

But, feel free to think that he was actually supporting your concept. It would help a whole lot in these conversations if you and Forever Slayer would at least get a basic grasp on any other edition than 3rd before you start talking about the changes 4e has made.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

Thank you!

Not sure where you got that though. What is an "average DM" like?

Allow me to rephrase.

Replace "average DM" with "representative DM." I speak not to your competence, but to your extremely idiosyncratic approach.

Essentially, you are arguing for a MM (etc.) which is useful only to you, and there is so little in common with what you use a MM (or an adventure path, or a pre-statted encounter, etc.) for vs. each and every other DM I have ever encountered or ever talked to or ever heard of, that it would therefore be useless to nigh everyone else.

Really? I don't buy music from average musicians, read books by average writers, or play rpgs with average friends. I sure don't want my entertainment created by "average people".

That wooshing sound was the point passing you by.