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

[Tony Vargas]

'Solo' monsters were a thing in 4e, calibrated to their level, using that edition's rapid, calibrated 'treadmill' scaling. They worked reasonably well - though better on the third try (MM3/MV) than originally.

They're not a thing in 5e. Legendary monsters are close, in some ways (and Legendary Actions would have been a fantastic addition to 4e Solos, BTW), but, like all 5e (and before them 3.0) monsters of a given CR, they're not specifically designed to go solo or fight in groups, they're just a given CR, and, particularly in the case of 5e BA, that number just doesn't mean all that much.

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

Under BA, being outnumbered tells heavily, so the bigger the party, the greater a lone monster's CR is going to have to exceed their level to be a challenge.

That's reflected in the exp budget, but maybe larger parties need a divisor the way larger encounters get a multiplier?

 

[Flexor the Mighty!]

'Solo' monsters were a thing in 4e, calibrated to their level, using that edition's rapid, calibrated 'treadmill' scaling. They worked reasonably well - though better on the third try (MM3/MV) than originally.

They're not a thing in 5e. Legendary monsters are close, in some ways (and Legendary Actions would have been a fantastic addition to 4e Solos, BTW), but, like all 5e (and before them 3.0) monsters of a given CR, they're not specifically designed to go solo or fight in groups, they're just a given CR, and, particularly in the case of 5e BA, that number just doesn't mean all that much.

Under BA, being outnumbered tells heavily, so the bigger the party, the greater a lone monster's CR is going to have to exceed their level to be a challenge.

That's reflected in the exp budget, but maybe larger parties need a divisor the way larger encounters get a multiplier?

I thought they did when doing the XP difficulty calculation? More than 5 PC gives it a multiplier I believe.

Edit: its 6 or more knocks the multiplier down one.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I thought they did when doing the XP difficulty calculation? More than 5 PC gives it a multiplier I believe.
Edit: its 6 or more knocks the multiplier down one.

That's right. Maybe it could do with a little more detail. :shrug: Or maybe, like the multiplier was originally, it's just being overlooked?

 

[dave2008]

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).

Yes, personally I think taking on something 5+ CR more than your party average should be deadly. So I try to increase damage so that creatures below that threshold are challenge, but not deadly. I would like to broaden that line between meh and uber deadly.

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.

Agree, that is why my hardcore monsters add HP at higher CRs

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.

I agree with this too. I typically give my legendary style monsters proficiency in 4-5 stats, but perhaps I should look at 1/2 proficiency. I agree about legendary resistance (maybe for true gods it is OK), that is why I've replaced it completely in my latest legendary designs.

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

I don't necessarily disagree with offense being 3rd, but I have already come up with workable solutions (IMO) for the first two. That is why I keep harping on the damage

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...

I don't completely agree with that statement, despite having a personal project to provide tougher monsters and generally agreeing with you assessment.

I still think the MM monsters are absolutely fine for a certain group of players. Like I said before, for the group I was DMing (we are on indefinite hold now) it worked just fine. I could challenge them with them as is. What kinda of group does this fit? I think to broad categories generally fall into this category:

1) Basic D&D: no feats, no multiclassing, few to no +weapons and armor
2) Non-optimizers / power gamers (like my group): they do not build there characters for best damage and do not generally strategize or use tactics of any short.

I know from experience that group 2 (even with feats and multiclassing, but low magic items) can be challenged with MM as is. The fights you challenge your group with would be TPKs for my group.

 

[Savage Wombat]

I seem to remember in 4e that a given solo was intended to be equivalent to a certain number of normal monsters of the same CR - I think it was 5?

Anyway - does a 4e solo monster have more HP, as a rule, than the group of monsters he replaces added together? I'm curious what the building strategy is like.

 

[Jester David]

The design team simply cannot have understood how deadly well-optimized high-level characters can be.

Why the eff would they design the game assuming a well-optimised character?

 

[Jester David]

I seem to remember in 4e that a given solo was intended to be equivalent to a certain number of normal monsters of the same CR - I think it was 5?

Anyway - does a 4e solo monster have more HP, as a rule, than the group of monsters he replaces added together? I'm curious what the building strategy is like.

Originally, solos had the hp of five regular monsters, but later - around the MM3 - it became four.

Because 4e assumed fights of monsters equal to the party. So you'd have five orcs, or 3 orcs and an elite orc, or a single orc solo.
It was meant to be a monster that challenged the party like a group of 5 monsters. But they were vulnerable to being stunlocked initially, and didn't have extra actions (beyond action points), so they couldn't really do the same damage as five separate monsters.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I seem to remember in 4e that a given solo was intended to be equivalent to a certain number of normal monsters of the same CR - I think it was 5?

It was just 'level' not CR, but yeah, an Elite was a double-monster, a solo, quintuple, the assumption being a party of 5.

Anyway - does a 4e solo monster have more HP, as a rule, than the group of monsters he replaces added together? I'm curious what the building strategy is like.

About 5x a standard of the same role, yes. Solos also got action points and, typically, more powers. MM1 solos got boosted defenses, which didn't work so well in some cases, while in MM3 they instead got 'action preservation' features, which generally worked out better.

 

[CapnZapp]

MM1 solos got boosted defenses, which didn't work so well in some cases, while in MM3 they instead got 'action preservation' features, which generally worked out better.

Casually browsing the MM3, I can't find any discussion around this. Care to give an example, highlighting the difference between "boosted defenses" and "action preservation"?

 

[cmad1977]

I don't think there are any solo creatures in 5e


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk