Boss Monsters

[Savage Wombat]

I'm considering an idea that needs discussion, without just dismissing it out of hand. I think it could work with enough modification.

4E introduced monsters classed as Solo encounters, and gave them different abilities based on the idea that they were supposed to fight multiple PCs with more attacks than they had.

This suggests that, if you want to have an ogre or giant as the big boss fight for your low-level party, you need to rebuild the ogre as a Solo encounter.

Some people don't care for the idea that a monster has different stats depending on its role in the encounter. WotC plans to address that for minions, at least.

Could we set up a system wherein a given monster has, instead of a separate write-up, an entry that says what happens if they are above a certain level threshhold compared to the party? Say:

Dominance: The ogre may attack up to three adjacent targets as a single attack, as long as those foes are level 2 or below.

You could also use this to replace "+1 weapon to hit" in a no-magic environment:

Dominance: Dragons take no weapon damage from opponents of level 5 or below.

My first alternative idea was to design attacks for the monster in question that are of low utility against comparably-levelled opponents, but better against low-level foes, such as attacks that do low damage to multiple foes.

What does this idea need to work, and not become over-complicated?

 

[JamesonCourage]

Personally, I'm not a big fan of level-dependent or hit di(c)e-dependent effects. I'd like to see it avoided that as much as possible in 5e. Just my taste, of course. As always, play what you like

 

[GreyICE]

I think that has a huge chance of being overcomplicated. Solos, by their nature, need to function differently to be a challenge. They need to be much harder to effect with action denial or status effects, and need to be able to effect multiple players at the same time.

Hell, if you go over to The Angry DM's site, he has an entire guide for creating true boss encounters, multi-stage fights that involve transformations and mechanics that change over the course of the battle.

This isn't really condusive to becoming a standard monster at higher levels.

I think the Solo/Elite/Standard distinction should be maintained (and I'd like it if they maintained minions too, or at least had rules for just standardizing damage expressions for monsters that cut down on dice rolling).

 

[Minigiant]

I think instead of level based powers and Standard/Elite/Solo distinctions, many monster entries should have multiple entries. Each entry would be a different builds for the different number/levels of enemies.

An ogre thug is meant for one on one vs a level 7 hero. It simply has a high damage club attack.

An ogre savage is better suited for two level 4 opponents or a level 7 hero. Its cub isn't as damaging but it has better AC and an AOE swinging attack.

An ogre hulk is better suited for two level 4 opponents or a party of four level 2 heroes. Its AC is too low to deal with an equal level hero but its bloodrage renders it immune to stun and paralysis

 

[Endur]

D&D 3.x didn't use solo terminology, but there were certain monsters that were better boss monsters than others.

A good example would be a dragon. Compare a dragon to almost any other monster of its CR, and you'll see what I mean.

 

[Ahnehnois]

Personally, I'm not a big fan of level-dependent or hit di(c)e-dependent effects. I'd like to see it avoided that as much as possible in 5e. Just my taste, of course. As always, play what you like

Me neither.

Why not just make it easier to give monsters more class levels/hit dice and have a few nice templates with the intention of making a "boss"?

 

[GreyICE]

D&D 3.x didn't use solo terminology, but there were certain monsters that were better boss monsters than others.

A good example would be a dragon. Compare a dragon to almost any other monster of its CR, and you'll see what I mean.

Sure, but the lack of coherent terminology truly hindered that development. I'll ignore the flaws with the CR system as a whole, since that horse has been beaten to death, but I'll just note that the dragon had no particular ability to, say, unblind himself that another creature did not. As a result, the second level druid spell Blinding Spittle could blind any Dragon without save, rendering the formidable monster fairly useless.

The effect was that the proper approach to all 3E Solos (Beholders were another good example) was to spam Save or Suck effects until the monster started sucking, then wallop the hell out of it (Favorite choices were blind and ability score damage, but negative levels were always sexy if you had access).

Solos need to have special classes of abilities that allow them to shrug off effects and operate outside classic turn order, otherwise they are as uninspiring as the original MM1 Solos.

 

[TwinBahamut]

Me neither.

Why not just make it easier to give monsters more class levels/hit dice and have a few nice templates with the intention of making a "boss"?

Adding hit dice and class levels isn't my idea of good monster upgrade mechanics, but the Templates in 4E that let you turn a normal monster into an Elite or an Elite into a Solo work just fine for this kind of thing. That system seems to work well, and I've never seen many complaints about it, so I don't see the need to reinvent the wheel.

 

[Sunseeker]

I don't see much difference between the two.

Either you're redesigning a single enemy, or you're tacking on a dozen special features to a monster that are likely to get ignored in 99% of situations.

Personally I think solos, bosses, and elites were good ways to make a few minor adjustments to an enemy in order to make it a suitable fight for a whole party.

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

Personally I think solos, bosses, and elites were good ways to make a few minor adjustments to an enemy in order to make it a suitable fight for a whole party.

Can't XP you, so I'll just say I agree. I like the addition of mechanics to a monster to make it able to stand as a solo while having multiple interesting powers (4E dragons are particularly good in this regard).

The solos should not be level dependent, though. You should be able to tailor a monster for any level of play, or there should be achance of success even against impossible odds for a low-level party against a high-level opponent with clever play and good rolls.