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

[Pickles III]

Yes. Heroes should be heroes. If every fight is death or glory you will have a dead party very soon. If you have only trivial fights it is your problem not the system's fault.
A big difference between 4e and 5e is combat as sport or combat as war. Your aim in 5e is usually winning with as few resources spent as possible. In 4e it was usually winning by expending your ressources at the right time.

The issue I have with this is that it can turn the game into more of an accounting exercise than anything else. There is little real tension in the one guaranteed trivial encounter you are just tracking resources & trying not to spend too many. I obviously prefer the model that has exciting, dangerous fights as standard.

Where 5e "combat as war" has worked for me is when the enemies have been clearly too powerful to deal with all at once & so reconnaissance & tactics to break them up & to engage then disengage have all been useful (Where in 4e we'd have just piled in).
The fights themselves can still be a bit dull but the plotting around them is interesting

[MENTION=12731]CapnZapp[/MENTION] - I think it was you in another thread talking about Out of the Abyss and specifically how after a few levels the random encounters in the escape from the Underdark become pretty much a non-issue. I think this was you, but, if I'm wrong, sorry.

...

Why not switch things up a bit though. Keep the 1 in X chance of encounter, and keep the idea of 4/day, but, all checks are made within 1 hour. Pick a random hour of the day/night, and then roll 4 random encounter checks. First check is on the hour, and each subsequent check is 15 minutes later (or something close to that). Make all 4 rolls first, before proceeding to the first encounter. Take a minute to string some sort of narrative between the encounters. If the first encounter is an insane monster and the next one is a drow patrol, then the drow patrol is hunting that monster. Party deals with the monster, fairly easily probably, but, before they can regain any resources, they get bumped by the Drow patrol. Even though the Drow patrol is no more difficult than the single monster in terms of XP budget, because the party has already burned a few resources - they're down an action surge and maybe a couple of superiority dice, the warlock has spent a spell, leaving him with only one spell slot, the monk has burned a few Ki points. That sort of thing.

5e works a LOT better when you don't treat encounters as completely discrete and allow the party to regain resources between each encounter.

Spoilery - I have just started playing OOTA.

I have done this for random encounters since 3e. There is little point in a very one sided fight but if encounters always turn up in ~3s then they become somewhat challenging -> fun.

I also use them to pace players in high risk environments & also sometimes just to change the pace if there has been a lot of RP, investigation or scheming. I don't mind these being less fraught as the purpose is not to challenge the player just to break things up or let them feel bad ass. Encounters in RP games can serve lots of different purposes.

 

[Hussar]

The reason 3E adopted the trope if a single powerful monster taking on a party is because people didn't like 5th level parties defeating ancient black dragons. 3E boosted the power of creatures because players asked for it. Many players don't like easy encounters, especially ancient dragons that die in a short, easy fight. It makes for very anticlimactic encounters.

Oh, totally agree. Sorry if I implied any negative judgement on the decision. It does work rather well. The weak point of that model though is that it isn't very granular. It's great at 1-3 monsters, starts to fall down at 4-7 and at 8 plus enemies, really doesn't work at all.

But, even then, the basic form of escalating difficulty still follows. A fully rested party with full resources has a LOT more resources to play with than a tired party. In 3e and earlier editions, there isn't a 1/2 rest recharge mechanic, so, most of the classes that are short rest in 4e and 5e were at will. So long as the fighter has HP, in 3e, it doesn't really matter which encounter it was during the day - he's still doing the same thing in round 1 of encounter 1 as he is in round 4 or encounter 4. OTOH, the casters really do change drastically over the course of a day. A wizard without spells is basically just a commoner. A cleric that's down to 1st level spells is a poor man's fighter.

5e changes this a bit with the idea of short rests. The daily characters work more or less the same as they did in earlier editions. You cast spells and run out of gas over the course of the day. But, the short rest characters change drastically up and down over the same period. A battle master whose used his second wind, action surge and superiority dice is significantly weaker than one who hasn't. And that's where the 6-8 encounters per day paradigm comes in.

In all editions, that first fight of the day is pretty easy, particularly if it's the only fight of the day. If you can blow everything in a single encounter, you can punch way, way above your weight class. And, I think that's where people are having issues with the XP Budget advice. They are trying to make every fight equally difficult. But, it doesn't work like that. It really can't. The point is to gradually ramp up tension over the course of an adventure, to make the climax of the adventure coincide with that third encounter before a short rest. It does, IMO, require a bit of pro-active DMing and keeping an eye on the pace of the adventure to a degree that wasn't necessarily apparent in earlier editions.

 

[Hussar]

The issue I have with this is that it can turn the game into more of an accounting exercise than anything else. There is little real tension in the one guaranteed trivial encounter you are just tracking resources & trying not to spend too many. I obviously prefer the model that has exciting, dangerous fights as standard.

Where 5e "combat as war" has worked for me is when the enemies have been clearly too powerful to deal with all at once & so reconnaissance & tactics to break them up & to engage then disengage have all been useful (Where in 4e we'd have just piled in).
The fights themselves can still be a bit dull but the plotting around them is interesting




Spoilery - I have just started playing OOTA.

I have done this for random encounters since 3e. There is little point in a very one sided fight but if encounters always turn up in ~3s then they become somewhat challenging -> fun.

I also use them to pace players in high risk environments & also sometimes just to change the pace if there has been a lot of RP, investigation or scheming. I don't mind these being less fraught as the purpose is not to challenge the player just to break things up or let them feel bad ass. Encounters in RP games can serve lots of different purposes.

Heh, sorry. I haven't actually read the module and I'm pulling things entirely out of the air. No spoilers intended.

 

[Wiseblood]

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 there too many variables?

Ilbranteloth

Solo monsters are not tough. They are almost tough. They suffer from the undivided attention of PC's. Legendary resistance or great saves push PC's towards direct damage spells. HP are too low to be dealing with that. My party is 3 characters strong and would annihilate a Vampire at 8th level. Fighter, Assassin, Cleric.I would give him 1.5 rounds barring bad rolls in which case 3 rounds absolute max. PC's would take maybe 40 points of damage total. not even enough to make them worry. If he used Children of the Night in Round 1 He would die before reinforcements came and inflict maybe 17 points of damage. It's not a battle it's an exercise minus sweat.

It could be a better battle but the Vampire would need allies. (and probably early warning and guaranteed initiative) Solo monster needing allies seems oxymoronic to me.

Imagine a group of 6 Goblin Bosses. Total HP 126. Fireball could take them all out. But you would need 6 attacks to kill them all if you couldn't AOE them. They can grant advantage by ganging up properly to inflict damage. But if you hit one for say 10,000 damage you still have to inflict 105 points of damage. So the maximum damage inflicted is 21 stretching out the number of attacks needed. 10,000 points of damage on the Vampire and the fight ends follow the cloud to the coffin Stake and Bake.

For Solo monsters to work IMO They need;
To model a group but not a swarm all by themselves. Like extra actions that are almost too good not a shadow of their regular actions.
A bunch of HP.
A damage cap for hits? or retribution like acidic blood sprays on anyone doing more than 15 points of damage in a round.
A Multi-stage combat (beginning middle and end) where players can see progress Like bloodied condition triggering a drawing down of enemy abilities or backlashes like second wind or retaliation
Special ways to deal with magic moreso than decide to save instead of fail ( I imagine multiple saves for a condition each failure worsens the condition) So it's not either/or but something in between.

But I digress, I just use groups.

 

[CapnZapp]

Solo monsters are not tough. They are almost tough. They suffer from the undivided attention of PC's. Legendary resistance or great saves push PC's towards direct damage spells. HP are too low to be dealing with that. My party is 3 characters strong and would annihilate a Vampire at 8th level. Fighter, Assassin, Cleric.I would give him 1.5 rounds barring bad rolls in which case 3 rounds absolute max. PC's would take maybe 40 points of damage total. not even enough to make them worry. If he used Children of the Night in Round 1 He would die before reinforcements came and inflict maybe 17 points of damage. It's not a battle it's an exercise minus sweat.

It could be a better battle but the Vampire would need allies. (and probably early warning and guaranteed initiative) Solo monster needing allies seems oxymoronic to me.

Imagine a group of 6 Goblin Bosses. Total HP 126. Fireball could take them all out. But you would need 6 attacks to kill them all if you couldn't AOE them. They can grant advantage by ganging up properly to inflict damage. But if you hit one for say 10,000 damage you still have to inflict 105 points of damage. So the maximum damage inflicted is 21 stretching out the number of attacks needed. 10,000 points of damage on the Vampire and the fight ends follow the cloud to the coffin Stake and Bake.

For Solo monsters to work IMO They need;
To model a group but not a swarm all by themselves. Like extra actions that are almost too good not a shadow of their regular actions.
A bunch of HP.
A damage cap for hits? or retribution like acidic blood sprays on anyone doing more than 15 points of damage in a round.
A Multi-stage combat (beginning middle and end) where players can see progress Like bloodied condition triggering a drawing down of enemy abilities or backlashes like second wind or retaliation
Special ways to deal with magic moreso than decide to save instead of fail ( I imagine multiple saves for a condition each failure worsens the condition) So it's not either/or but something in between.

But I digress, I just use groups.

Yes.

Solos now are almost a sham. Like in many areas, WotC wants us to believe there is support, and then do their work for them.

Solos need massively more HP, especially in games with feats.

They need more actions, so they should all have legendary actions.

There needs to be a whole new submechanic for "partial results" of failed saves. Legendary resistance is simplistic and, frankly, lame. Each save or suck spell should describe three levels of consequences where Solo creatures only suffer one level per failed save.

The Solo does not need better offense. Its problem is that it doesn't get the time, the combat rounds, it needs to put fear and respect into the hearts of the adventurers.

With many times more hp, and triple save resistance, its meant to roughly survive three times as long for a truly memorable solo encounter.

Hopefully that means more than increasing one round into three, but already that would be a vast improvement if you think about it!

Myself, I'm thinking three rounds get expanded into nine, but results will obviously vary.

Sent from my C6603 using EN World mobile app

 

[dave2008]

Solos need massively more HP, especially in games with feats.


They need more actions, so they should all have legendary actions.


There needs to be a whole new submechanic for "partial results" of failed saves. Legendary resistance is simplistic and, frankly, lame. Each save or suck spell should describe three levels of consequences where Solo creatures only suffer one level per failed save.

Well, I agree with most of this - except this part

The Solo does not need better offense.

 

[Ancalagon]

Concentrated pc firepower has been an issue that preceded 5e. I remember this being a problem in 2e as well...

Sent from my SM-G930W8 using EN World mobile app

 

[CapnZapp]

Well, I agree with most of this - except this part

That is abundantly clear, at least when you look at your epic monster thread...

But seriously, monster design walks a fine line between meh offense and offense that makes "tanking" meaningless.

What I mean is that I have found that when you try to use the MM critters as is, and thus throw a monster several CRs higher than the party level at them, they tend to be able to one-shot a character, any character. (One-shot meaning "if it hits with all its principal attacks")

And that's not good. You want the monster to perhaps be able to one-shot a wizard, but not the fighter. And I'm not talking about only the minmaxxed Panzer Tanks here (barbarians with their "double hp" or defensive fighters with sky-high AC).

So generally I found that when it comes to deficiencies in 5E monster design, there is a clear hierachy of weaknesses:

1st: hit points. Monsters have hopelessly few hit points. The design team simply cannot have understood how deadly well-optimized high-level characters can be. Since a single PC in her early teens can dish out over a hundred damage all by herself, a monster with no special protection would probably need 500 hp extra on top to be able to function as a solo.

(Note: the second you add more monsters to the fight, this number drops drastically, since the party often loses its ability to focus-fire. Still, my level 15 party did away with Graazt in three rounds, if it wasn't two, in a fight where he wasn't alone. I let the players assume he was a weakened avatar or something, since there is clearly something wrong with a Demon Prince with only 378 hit points.

2nd: partial saves. Even with Legendary saves it's easy for a party to bombard a solo with enough save or suck spells that the fight ends in the first rounds. And there's something fundamentally off with the meta aspect of that mechanic. Namely that as soon as players understand how it works, they "throw away" medium-power spells and let the DM decide whether to spend my Legendaries on them, or save them for the Feebleminds or Banishments. I intensely dislike this "game within a game". I'd MUCH rather have a rule of Three Strikes, where a given caster needs to successfully cast three spells at a Solo before the first one "sticks".

See the difference? I can use up my legendaries at any time, since each time I save I stay away from that "third strike" no matter what the spell is.

And only at 3rd place do we get: better offense.

Yes, certain monsters are simply underpowered. The example I have in mind right now is the Nalfeshnee. A sad excuse for a medium-heavy demon, whose aura is both too small and too weak, and like pretty much everyone else lacks a toolbox.

The way player characters with class levels completely overshadow regular humanoids is of course much a matter of "better offense". The odd bandit captain or thief guild's leader do need a feat or an action surge to even manage a single offensive action against the powerful multitude of tricks a 5th edition party has at its disposal. So many times I've just doubled a monster's attack in order for the encounter to not just be a joke!

But still I would say that the toolbox is more important than actual stronger offense. If only the monster had the powers to semi-reliably deliver its (often melee) attack routine, that monster could appear to be sufficiently frightening to get a passing grade.

The designers have severely and critically underestimated the way delaying or kiting tactics combined with ranged attacks can completely shut down many many monsters. Not to mention the many MANY ways 5e Pcs can use luck and inspiration and what not to turn their misses into hits, and the monster's hits into misses...

In contrast, monsters and NPCs display an almost total lack of similar tools.

It gives off a very wonky feeling, where players start wondering why other people can't do what they can do.

Sure there are the odd exception - the way goblins get "cunning action":ish is just a single example. But generally they are very far and few between.

To end back on topic: yes 5th edition has very weak design support for solo monsters. In fact, monster design overall is one of the edition's main weaknesses. I almost get the impression the MM writer wasn't aware of all the tricks that the PHB writers ended up giving the player characters...

 

[CapnZapp]

Concentrated pc firepower has been an issue that preceded 5e. I remember this being a problem in 2e as well...

The problem isn't so much focus fire - I think its much more constructive to view that as a solution rather than a problem...

The problem is instead when a designer does not take it into account.

When you're facing a squad of six identical Mariliths (or whatever) there is no problem. Sure the wise party focuses on killing off one demon at a time (always targeting a damaged foe before targeting an undamaged foe), which not coincidentally is one major reason a ranged party is so superior to a melee party (since melee fighters tend to go off and fight "their own" foe)...

but the problem is when the designer fails to realize that a Solo encounter is over before it starts unless steps are taken to counteract precisely the party's ability to focus fire.


Sure, you could say that the actual ability to focus fire is the problem, but I don't see how there can be a solution to that. Sure the game severely underestimates the inherent power of being able to project your force at range (since this both allows every party member to target the same foe, and denies enemy melee bruisers the delivery of their offense), but I don't think people would like a game that severely curtails "range" in general.

I mean, add back one or eleven of the restrictions on ranged weaponry, and couple that with drastically shorter range of spells, and you have a much more balanced game (in the sense of PHB vs MM - PHB creatures aka player characters vs MM creatures aka monsters and NPCs).

I mean, if melee attacks delivered consistently much higher damage than bows, and archers could easily be messed up by adjacent enemies (so that you generally can't expect to complete a whole fight using ranged weaponry only)... and if most if not all power spells had something like 60 feet range or even 30 feet range (but coupled with much better ways for fighters to actually protect their squishy allies), then you'd got something.

Afraid that's a rather different game than 5E, though.

I honestly think a solution like "Advanced Monster Manual" is easier (not "easy", just "easier") to accomplish, and actually makes for a better more fun game as well.

 

[Ilbranteloth]

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.

So couldn't you test the same monster including environment and tactics? I would think thats part of the idea.