Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="AbdulAlhazred" data-source="post: 5010085" data-attributes="member: 82106">Well, remember, as far as the Behir is concerned it was designed the way it was with the explicit goal in mind of making it tough to lock down. I think you're going to see these sorts of design concepts employed much more widely with Solos from now on. The real issue with solo lockdown is simply that it is disruptive to the PLOT. If all the DM is concerned with is tactically challenging encounters then MM1 solos are fine, just use them in encounters with a bunch of other monsters (perhaps by using somewhat lower level solos). This can certainly work fine with a plot to some extent, but if the solo is really intended to be a dramatic plot element and it spends the fight stunlocked then it failed, regardless of the format of the encounter. Overall I'd say even lockdown specialists aside MM2 has it right when they provide condition mitigation/escape mechanics in solos. A condition on a solo is worth 5x as much as on a normal monster, so it should last 20% as long on average. That means your average solo should actually shed conditions in roughly 1/2 of a round (40% to be exact). I think WotC pretty well figured that out since the +5 to saves does that, they just didn't factor in save penalties in that design. Save penalties ideally should be halved vs solos. My own solution has been to just set a hard limit of -7. Its not perfect but it does help. Even in the worst cases a solo will get SOME screen time to be effective and MM2 solos generally manage to do OK.</blockquote>

Verification