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

[Sunseeker]

CR, by its nature, is broken, it always has been. 4E had it right with using XP values and designing for an encounter, not a challenge rating. You cannot sum up the myriad of variables in any given encounter in a single number. The more complex the encounter the less accurate the CR becomes, assumptions get made about what should happen instead of what could happen. The higher the CR, the less accurate it could be, depending on the variables.

I don't like the CR system and their XP budgets were way off at release (as shown by their errata).

 

[hejtmane]

The weird I had a party do while against a set of trolls (with the worse streak of bad rolling on my side as the monster) a group of 6 7th level toons ended up doing fairly while against 4 trolls when the encounter was finished so the dice rolls made it kind of swing and we almost lost a player. Trolls are challenge level 5


I had two of the guys we did a side adventure with the backup characters they played 2 each as just a fun side since we could not get the entire group together they had varying party mixture 4 level 8 characters and I through a single Gorgon at them challenge level 5 it went badly from the very beginning oh Petrifying Breath oh the guy failed both saving throws on 1 toon boom it got really touchy on the fight. You tell me some time dice make wonky things happen and make for wild swings in a fight

 

[pming]

Hiya!

Well, upon thinking about stories, myths, etc, [MENTION=5834]Celtavian[/MENTION] and [MENTION=996]Tony Vargas[/MENTION] are correct. There are 'lots' of stories about single 'boss monster' fights in the end, as they mentioned. I guess what I was thinking about was D&D and AD&D 1e/2e adventure modules. Of the official published modules, I can't really come up with any where the PC's faced off against a single boss-monster type. Hmmm....

**SPOILERS BELOW**


**


**


**


**


The module B4, The Lost City ...the original one had a very bottom level where the PC's could face off against "Zargon" (iirc), who was a unique monster. A case might be made for Oonga from the Isle of the Ape module...but I can't remember if there are any of those other "little oonga-apes" around him. Oh, maybe the red dragon in the dungeon/cave in another Basic D&D module, Horror on the Hill. Hmmm....Lost Caverns of Tsojacanth has potential for a face off against the vampire chick...Derlena? Drelna? Something like that.

But that's all I can think of at the moment. Maybe there's more. I'm not including ones where the 'boss monster' is very likely to summon or otherwise 'have minions available'. I guess I'll have to concede there there are more adventures with "boss monsters" in them than I had originally though.

Er...however... ...I'd also like to point out that most of the boss-monsters I listed and can think of are all unique individuals or creatures. So there is still no real "solo" monster category in 5e, from what I can see. There are monsters that can fit that bill and hold there own, as I said, but I'd wager that to make them a "true, boss-monster", the DM is going to modify them to suit the story. So doing up an analysis of X PC's vs. Y Solo Monsters isn't going to work just from that standpoint.

^_^

Paul L. Ming

 

[Mistwell]

I raised the topic in the other thread, and it had nothing to do with a boss monster. That term is different from "solo" in my mind, but I think a lot of people equate them together. So let me just explain what I meant:

I meant a room with a single monster in it. It's not a boss. It's not some end challenge to a section of an adventure. It's just a single monster (IE a solo monster) in a room instead of multiple monsters in a room. You enter a room and it has an Umberhulk, or a Roper, or an Ogre, or whatever. It just meant quantity of one. It had nothing to do with video game references or bosses or anything like that.

This was found A LOT in OD&D, AD&D 1e, B/Ex, and BECIM. If you look at the adventure modules sold back in, some rooms had many monsters, some just had one monster, and there was no real major difference between them. You could run into a lone Ogre in a room and have it be a challenge to the party and not simply a minor speed bump.

I've found in 5e, due to the action economy, solo monsters like this (which, again, are NOT bosses) don't work as well as they did in some prior editions. I think this is because each player has a move, an attack and a bonus action, and a reaction. And they have all four of those from first level. So a party of 5 PCs has potentially 20 actions per round at 1st level (though they are not all attacks of course and a lot is dependent on the monster's actions). While that many actions in (for example) 1e wasn't unheard of, it would have been pretty rare at low levels, and even mid levels for some classes.

So when I've run a solo encounter (NOT a boss), I find they get run over quick. Quicker than they did in some prior editions.

 

[Hussar]

[MENTION=2525]Mistwell[/MENTION] - I'd disagree with your example of the line ogre. Even a 1st level Basic DND party kills that in one round. And it doesn't even take a lot of luck.

By 2e, the fighter in the party is whacking that ogre by himself.

It isn't until 3e with its huge hp inflation that that ogre has any degree of survivability.

Outside of 3e, lone monsters were almost always a speed bump unless they had some sort of area save or die effect. Not enough hp to make a challenge.

 

[CapnZapp]

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.

The thing isn't so much "solo creatures are weak" as there are no solo creatures in 5E.

There are strong creatures which get legendary features to help them.

But this is far from what a creature needs to be a true solo.

A true solo creature breaks the in-game restrictions on creatures for purposes of a better game. Most importantly, it gets to act several times to balance the action economy, since its purpose is to fight an entire party alone. (Also it might get better defenses such as much more HP or other resistances, but these differences between a merely legendary creature and a true solo aren't as sharp)

In a game with true solos, you can have a human BBEG with four or five actions. How can that be, you might ask. But that's exactly the wrong question to ask, if you truly want solos in your game. The only really honest answer is "because it's supposed to face the heroes on its own; it's a solo". Any attempt to justify this in-game will eventually fall flat, because the truth is that the heroes will never get access to the solo's power-ups.

The solo doesn't play by the same rules as the regular monster. Much like player characters get many more benefits than regular monsters, and minions get way less benefits.

5E is not a game with solos.

5E is a game trying to have the cake and eat it too, by having legendary monsters. The purpose is to make them enough soloish without completely alienating those who can't stand the idea of monsters blatantly breaking the fundamental rules on creature creation.

So my answer is "of course you perceive them as weak; you think they are something which they aren't"

 

[Mephista]

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

CR has never been a perfect measurement, and we've run into this issue in pretty much any game with some party. Sometimes you slaughter, sometimes you fail.

A big part of the equation as well is "How much does your GM let you buff up?" Lots of potions and magic items make a huge difference at fighting way above your level. As well, are your players min-maxed? Yes, combat twinking can break the game.

Another large part is how well the GM plays the mosnter. Most situations I see where "too easy!" ends up where the monster stood there like a lump of bricks instead of using tactics.

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

Its happened in every edition at one point or another.

Do we think it's even possible or are their too many variables?

No and yes. In a white room where a player controls all the variables, you can beat a Tarrasque easily. In a real game, no one is that good. 3e and 4e assume magic items. Other games do not. How much buffing do players get before a fight? Should there be any? What's the situation? Lair? Does the dragon (and other things) have room to fly in their area?

 

[Mephista]

The thing isn't so much "solo creatures are weak" as there are no solo creatures in 5E.

There are strong creatures which get legendary features to help them.

But this is far from what a creature needs to be a true solo.

A true solo creature breaks the in-game restrictions on creatures for purposes of a better game. Most importantly, it gets to act several times to balance the action economy, since its purpose is to fight an entire party alone. (Also it might get better defenses such as much more HP or other resistances, but these differences between a merely legendary creature and a true solo aren't as sharp)

In a game with true solos, you can have a human BBEG with four or five actions. How can that be, you might ask. But that's exactly the wrong question to ask, if you truly want solos in your game. The only really honest answer is "because it's supposed to face the heroes on its own; it's a solo". Any attempt to justify this in-game will eventually fall flat, because the truth is that the heroes will never get access to the solo's power-ups.

The solo doesn't play by the same rules as the regular monster. Much like player characters get many more benefits than regular monsters, and minions get way less benefits.

5E is not a game with solos.

5E is a game trying to have the cake and eat it too, by having legendary monsters. The purpose is to make them enough soloish without completely alienating those who can't stand the idea of monsters blatantly breaking the fundamental rules on creature creation.

So my answer is "of course you perceive them as weak; you think they are something which they aren't"

I was going to break this down, but, eh. Lets just say that I pretty much disagree with you on every line you wrote here and move on.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[jodyjohnson]

I don't like the CR system and their XP budgets were way off at release (as shown by their errata).

The errata does not show this. The XP-related errata is a short list of creatures above CR20 that had the wrong XP assigned for their CR as an editing error.

The CR works as an indicator of general attack and defense ranges.

As characters get more opportunities to synergize abilities, specialize, and develop teamwork they have more ability to punch above their weightclass. And the dice can still wreck their plans.

Gaming style makes a big difference as well, a group playing dedicated 'whack-a-mole' can defeat almost anything.

It seems to me that when a group is dedicated to eliminating challenge that it is pretty pointless to negate that by continuing to try to provide challenge.