NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="matskralc" data-source="post: 6860389" data-attributes="member: 6802405">I agree with you that the guidelines are just guidelines. I don't want to put words in Hemlock's mouth, though, but to me the problem with the discussion on encounter design in the DMG is the lack of emphasis on the action economy. This is why solo bosses are (usually) a dumb idea. It's also why monsters for whom "solo boss" is meant to be a possibility have legendary actions and lair actions. When it's 4 actions and 4 bonus actions going up against 1 action, you're generally going to get a slaughter in favor of the PCs (unless you're doing something like throwing a marilith at a 6th-level party). The DMG could have done a better job of discussing this.Looking at the marilith's stat block, it is beyond obvious to me that she's not really intended to be fought solo. If she was, she'd have legendary actions or her teleport would be a bonus action. So a marilith might pose something of a challenge to a party the first time they ever see one (and don't know its capabilities) or to a party that is new to high-level play or even to a party lacking a particular skill set. But to anybody with any experience at high-level, a solo marilith is basically a bag of XP sitting there waiting to be picked up. The action economy dictates this. But it's not so obvious from the DMG's "discussion" on encounter design. I can see how a DM who relies on that section to build their encounters would be disappointed at the inconsistent challenge that those encounters present to the party. EDIT: The solution isn't "so every CR 16 should pose the same type of challenge all the time", though. It's "learn which CR 16s are challenges for the party you're DMing".</blockquote>

Verification