Conditions and the Solo Monster

[Stormonu]

Most stories I've read (or games I've played) only have a Solo opponent when the hero is solo as well.

Often, they are accompanied by minions - which could be considered extensions of the solo creature (Orcus raising dead bodies to lurch after the players every other round, for example).

If you want a true solo, compartmentalizing the solo's attacks seems like a good idea. Hit it with a condition that slows or stuns, and perhaps you take out one of it's attacks (for example, Hold Person on a solo may just instead paralyze the creature's arm, putting it down one claw attack).

 

[SlyDoubt]

It really depends what shape 5E takes to determine how they would do that. I mean in 3.X a 'solo' monster is just a monster that's tough for the PCs.

Usually stronger monsters have a variety of abilities to deal with the PCs abilities.

As for multiple turns. Maybe stuff like the silt horror in 4E?

 

[Number48]

How about instead of assigning hit points to different areas, you have to "kill" the creature more than once. "You are too strong. To defeat you, I must show you my TRUE form!"

 

[Minigiant]

Some creatures are made to get jumped and some aren't. Monsters made to be soloed, should have something to even the odds or they just should not be used as such unless the battle is not meant to be difficult.

Compartmenting the monster is one option when fluff matches. Ridiculous defenses and immunities is another. Then there are 2 in 1 creatures like ettins and hydras. Contingencies and summoning are also ways to work them in for spellcaster monster.

But one thing I learned over the years, solo monsters who are not made to fight parties don't have the encounters you'll expect.

 

[Chris_Nightwing]

I was in a party that faced a number of different solo monsters at various levels. Towards the upper end, the number of immunities or special actions started to get silly. A monster that has multiple forms, every now and then, was quite entertaining. A single solo, with no support, was rather frustrating though (they could escape marks, action-loss powers, penalties, make saves before their turn and so on).

Yes, if you want the party to face a single big boss, then you need to do something about effects that would knock them away completely. Immunities are the wrong way to do it though. Someone above mentioned the idea that depending on what you effect with a spell/power, the duration or severity would change. This harkens back to Color Spray and Sleep of yore, where your hit dice determined what was going to happen to you. If monsters remain in the normal/elite/solo categories, then why not have powers with different entries for the different categories?

For instance, mark a normal monster, that's a -2 penalty when they attack your friends. An elite? Only a -1. A solo? They care not for your marks (until you up your penalty to -3 and even they are bothered) - you still get a free attack though! Stun ability? Stuns normal guys until they save, stuns elites for a turn, and solos are only dazed. The difference between this and what 4th edition epic monsters did is that it's clear to you right away that the effect will be weaker, rather than finding out part way through the turn that the damn beast gets to save five times for each effect.

(My real preference is not to class monsters as normal/elite/solo, but have a similar system based on power level vs. monster level aka old-fashioned hit dice reasoning).

 

[UngeheuerLich]

I am still voicing my opinions, that most monsters should auto solify. Beeing higer HP should usually occurr because of higher level. Posters above had good ideas.

The compartment monste solo design has 1 advantage in my opinion: it is clear, that solo monsters are big monsters. 1square for each compartment at least. And you can combine different numbers of compartments to create different sized and worth different numbers of normal creatures.

When you think about 3rd edition, you will notice a -x penalty to attacks and defense depending on size.
So big monsters do higher damage and are more easy to hit, but deal much more damage than smaller monsters of the same size... Get an extra attack, when you close to them (they usually have reach 2). So in a certain way, large and huge monsters are elite monsters of 4th edition in all but name...
Gargantuan monsters take an even greater penalty to hit and armor, can usually grab one enemy and figthing the other people with no problem. So they will more or less fit the solo category.
IMHO size and solo/elie should be combined in a way. So when large monsters are usually elite, your batllefield will not get more crowded.
Maybe elite does not need to be worth exactly 2 monsters of the same level, the can easily be expressed as 1.5 levels and 3 monsters (i guess this would help for playing with smaller groups.)

 

[Frostmarrow]

The only way to defeat a monster should be to reduce it's hit points to zero. The notion that you can take a shortcut to victory is what creates these kinds of problems. It really shouldn't work.

I think the method of attack should be compared to a suitable method of defense. Such as Str vs. AC or Cha vs. Will.

An attack can also have a descriptor that hints at what happends if an attack with that descriptor reduces the victim to zero hit points.

Also it's important to understand that zero hit points doesn't necessarily mean bleeding and dying. Zero hit points simply mean that the victim is unable to continue fighting.

Lets look at a fictive example: Black Bolt of Blindness. Int vs. Dex 2d4 [blinding]. This attack can be used at a target again and again by comparing the attacker's Int with the target's Dex. Each hit reduces the target's hit points by 2d4. Once the target is reduced to zero hit points it is unable to continue fighting because it's blinded. Some monster might be immune to blindness but in that case the monster is still unable to fight on due to a lack of hit points.

What's the point of daze and slow, you might ask. It might come in handy when you wish to keep the opponent alive after it's been defeated. Moreover some conditions can be dropped from the game entirely as they no longer serve a purpose. It's not like we need the slow condition to anything but make the target easier to kill. Some conditions came about more as rules exploits than a need to simulate a slow motion effect be applied to enemies.

Also, it would be kind of cool if every defeating attack spelled out what happens to the victim. Longsword Str vs. AC 1d8 [slashing]. Yeah. Take that Black Knight.

 

[Nebulous]

In my ideal game, the effectiveness of a condition-inducing-effect would scale with the skill of the person doing it and the beastiness of the person being affected.

• A level 1 Wizard casting Sleep on a kobold puts him to sleep for a short time.
• A level 20 Wizard casting Sleep on a kobold puts him in a coma for weeks.
• A level 1 Wizard casting Sleep on a Dragon makes him a bit drowsy (something like -1 to everything).
• A level 20 Wizard casting Sleep on a Dragon puts him to sleep for a short time.

It's time to get away from the all-or-nothing mentality! That said, I can only imagine the pain of trying to codify a system like this.

I think it would be easier to just make Sleep relatively weak, and the high level caster would cast Power Word: Sleep instead

 

[Lordhawkins9]

Well, I guess the answer is right here:

Editions prior to 4e tried to reduce some of the problem by requiring higher level spells or only allowing certain spells to work on certain types of opponents. There were also only a few types of classes that usually carried the ability to apply noticeable conditions on the monster. This kept the effects a limited resource where in 4e most characters had ways to slide, daze, knock prone, blind, and other effects at even first level.

So...require higher level spells or only certain ones to work and don't give every character class options for every condition?