D&D 5E Are solo monsters weaker in 5e?

[Ilbranteloth]

So, this is to move an off-topic discussion to its own thread.

I have seen a number of threads, and a number of possible solutions created to fix this 'problem' elsewhere. Usually it's related to 'boss' monsters, but the situation applies with any solo monster. I have also seen it suggested that the problem is worse at higher levels.

So here's what is stated as the problem:

Solo monsters in 5e are too easy to kill in 5e and don't present a challenge equal to their CR.

I'd like to test and see if that's true, and also if it's a new thing.

The idea is to create a standard party (fighter, cleric, rogue/thief, wizard/magic-user) and test them against various solo monsters in each edition.

For example, is a single ogre against said party of 1st level characters a different encounter in 1st/2nd, 3rd, 4th and 5th editions? If somebody wants to test OD&D that's fine too.

What about 2nd or 3rd level characters?

What about 9th level characters against a vampire?

I get that it's going to be difficult to get a definitive answer. Something like a vampire has options available to them to ensure that they escape, and even the terrain is going to come into play. Tactics vary, etc.

But I think it would be interesting in any event. So what I'm looking for is a build for the standard party at 1st, 3rd, 5th, 7th, and 9th levels in each edition. We can go higher if we want.

Then we need to pick the solo monsters, and run some mock combats.

Anybody willing to help? No sense in duplicating efforts if we don't have to. Do we think it's even possible or are their too many variables?

Ilbranteloth

 

[Warmaster Horus]

I've found the CR system to be a pretty broad method of determining encounter difficulty. Knowledge of your players' characters and experience with running various monsters in different combinations is a better method (though far more of an art than science), in my experience. I ran a group through some of PotA over the Christmas break and was able to thumbnail encounters that were involved and challenging. I wouldn't say it's a failing of 5e, just that a standard 1-size-fits-all challenge rating is not the best determinant in making good encounters.

 

[Sacrosanct]

I've never in 35 years of playing, run a "boss' monster without the environment and likely tactics the monster would use be a huge factor. While you might run into a normal room with a couple orcs in it and the battle is pretty vanilla, "boss" monsters always have something else around them to impact that battle. In 5e, many of these have lair actions, but regardless if it's an ability or not, very rarely will a boss be in an environment where they don't know the area extremely well and use that to their advantage.

What this means is that I will have a hard time doing the experiment, because the outcome of these battles is less dependent on edition, and more dependent on how you're DMing them and what sort of environment is there.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Solo monsters in 5e are too easy to kill in 5e and don't present a challenge equal to their CR. I have also seen it suggested that the problem is worse at higher levels.

Part of the issue is that it's really only Legendary monsters that are designed to be lone-monster or 'boss' challenges. A high-enough CR monster may fit an encounter design guideline, but, it's also meant to be one of multiple opponents at higher levels. The same Bounded Accuracy & scaling damage/hps that enables that multiple-level use makes an outnumbered monster a lesser challenge.

I'd like to test and see if that's true, and also if it's a new thing.

I don't believe it's an entirely new thing. 3e used the same kind of CR, the base-line assumption, though, /was/ a single monster vs a same-level-as-CR party. Such battles tended to be quick and brutal. Before 3e, there was no CR nor any encounter-building guidelines.

For example, is a single ogre against said party of 1st level characters a different encounter in 1st/2nd, 3rd, 4th and 5th editions? If somebody wants to test OD&D that's fine too.

'An Ogre' constituted different challenges over editions. In some it might have been a 1st level challenge, in others, not so much. What level means for a character also varies with edition. In 1e/2e, from one class to another, as well.

No sense in duplicating efforts if we don't have to. Do we think it's even possible or are their too many variables?

Collectively, we've been playing all the editions you're wondering about for a long time. They may not have been controlled experiments, but a lot of field-testing has been done, indeed.

 

[NotActuallyTim]

The number of variables in the system, not only in 5th but also in 3rd, 2nd and 1st, make calculating the 'average' difficulty a truly ludicrously difficult task. The CR for creating an effective CR system is 30+. Keep in mind, 5th is way simplified from 3rd, and also from 2nd and 1st.

The biggest problem is this: since different PCs do things in different ways, each monster is easier or harder based entirely on party comp. A critter that's weak to radiant damage is pure stomp zone for party full of paladins, while a monster with a portable 40 ft dead magic zone and WINGS! could theoretically eat an infinite number of wizards.

 

[spectacle]

Give solo monsters max instead of average hit points and they work a lot better. Solos with average hit points die pretty fast when the PCs unleash all the powers they have been keeping in reserve during the entire adventure, with more HP the solos last long enough to bring their own powers to bear, leading to fun and challenging combats.

 

[BoldItalic]

Solo monsters in 5e are too easy to kill in 5e and don't present a challenge equal to their CR.

I'm not sure I understand what you are driving at.

Are you comparing solo monsters in 5e with groups of monsters in 5e and suggesting that the CR factors for group size are wrong? If so, you don't need to bring in other editions, it's purely a 5e question.

Or are you saying that combat is easier in 5e than it was in earlier editions? If so, what do you mean by easier? Fewer rounds to kill? If so, then there's no need to do any tests. The answer is "yes, by design".

I'd like to help, but I think I'm missing something here.

 

[pming]

Hiya!

I don't think there is a "problem" with the rules. I think there is a "problem" with expectations from 3.x/PF/4e DM's and players. In those, you could have a "boss monster". Go back 25 to 35 years and look at 1e/2e. There was no such thing as a "boss monster". That's not to say there weren't monsters that could hold their own against a group of PC's, but those monsters were virtually never "all by themselves in a room". The idea of "boss monster fight" is, IMHO, a construct of younger, video-game-playing folks who are used to that sort of thing.

I'm not knocking video gamers...I'm one myself...but someone who gets into RPG's from "reading books", and someone who gets into RPG's from "playing video games" have, IMHO, vastly different baselines for what constitutes "heroic" and "epic". The CRPG video games are extremely limited; they virtually have to have single-end monsters because they have to account for all situations/things the player(s) might throw at them...something that is impossible to do in an TTRPG. As others have said...the sheer variability of such a "boss fight" (player skill, DM style, PC make up, location of battle, etc) in a TTRPG just can not be handled by a video game or the designers.

So...what you ask is virtually impossible to determine without it all boiling down to "individual experience". You can have the exact same PC's, the same monster, the same terrain location...but different players will make different choices and play differently, and the DM will do likewise.

Now, if you are perplexed by how easy it is for your group of PC's to kick a 'solo monsters' ass in 5e... *sigh* ...I can't believe I'm saying this again... ... stop thinking in 3.x/PF/4e terms. There should virtually never be a 'solo monster' with the possible exception of the Terrasque (it's unique, stupid, and solitaire)...demons, vampires, dragons, etc? They all have minions, followers, worshippers, or are at least smart enough to surround themselves with "alarm fodder". So, basically, they would never be "alone in a room" as a solo monster.

IMHO, of course.

^_^

Paul L. Ming

 

[Celtavian]

Hiya!

I don't think there is a "problem" with the rules. I think there is a "problem" with expectations from 3.x/PF/4e DM's and players. In those, you could have a "boss monster". Go back 25 to 35 years and look at 1e/2e. There was no such thing as a "boss monster". That's not to say there weren't monsters that could hold their own against a group of PC's, but those monsters were virtually never "all by themselves in a room". The idea of "boss monster fight" is, IMHO, a construct of younger, video-game-playing folks who are used to that sort of thing.

I'm not knocking video gamers...I'm one myself...but someone who gets into RPG's from "reading books", and someone who gets into RPG's from "playing video games" have, IMHO, vastly different baselines for what constitutes "heroic" and "epic". The CRPG video games are extremely limited; they virtually have to have single-end monsters because they have to account for all situations/things the player(s) might throw at them...something that is impossible to do in an TTRPG. As others have said...the sheer variability of such a "boss fight" (player skill, DM style, PC make up, location of battle, etc) in a TTRPG just can not be handled by a video game or the designers.

So...what you ask is virtually impossible to determine without it all boiling down to "individual experience". You can have the exact same PC's, the same monster, the same terrain location...but different players will make different choices and play differently, and the DM will do likewise.

Now, if you are perplexed by how easy it is for your group of PC's to kick a 'solo monsters' ass in 5e... *sigh* ...I can't believe I'm saying this again... ... stop thinking in 3.x/PF/4e terms. There should virtually never be a 'solo monster' with the possible exception of the Terrasque (it's unique, stupid, and solitaire)...demons, vampires, dragons, etc? They all have minions, followers, worshippers, or are at least smart enough to surround themselves with "alarm fodder". So, basically, they would never be "alone in a room" as a solo monster.

IMHO, of course.

^_^

Paul L. Ming

Books are more likely to have single powerful enemies like a dragon. Dragons are usually solo creatures in books and stories that you must fight alone. Giants are often the same. The idea of a powerful, solitary creature of Legend is very much a construct of fiction and myth. Beowulf versus Grendel. The hobbit and his dwarven allies versus Smaug. King Arthur against a giant troubling the lands. Perseus against Medusa or the Kraken.

It depends on the villain. As someone that comes to the game from books, I very much expect a single powerful creature like a dragon to hold its own alone. I would also like giants to provide a very potent challenge solo, though that hasn't been the case for ages. A powerful solo monster of legend providing a powerful enemy alone is very much a product of fiction that video games have incorporated.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I don't think there is a "problem" with the rules. I think there is a "problem" with expectations from 3.x/PF/4e DM's and players. In those, you could have a "boss monster". Go back 25 to 35 years and look at 1e/2e. There was no such thing as a "boss monster". That's not to say there weren't monsters that could hold their own against a group of PC's, but those monsters were virtually never "all by themselves in a room".

Dragons were pretty typically found alone in their lairs, or off raiding. There were plenty of solitary monsters, y'know: no appearing 1.

The idea of "boss monster fight" is, IMHO, a construct of younger, video-game-playing folks who are used to that sort of thing.

Sure, 'boss' may be a term taken from the video game side of nerd culture (and, in turn, inspired by action genres), but just a new slang for an old meme: heroes facing lone villains/monsters is a hoary trope, indeed. Beowulf didn't fight his way through 60 Kobolds for his final battle with that dragon.