Solo Monsters and the Risk of Boredom

[The Little Raven]

Yep. It does. A couple of higher level fights we've run using MM monsters turned into grind-fests. Didn't matter when the party blew their daily powers or encounter powers or whatever. And since they were one-off encounters, each time we ran them, the party came "fully loaded".

Do they take place in a featureless square room, or do they use varied terrain elements in order to create a more dynamic encounter?

 

[Jack99]

Yep. It does. A couple of higher level fights we've run using MM monsters turned into grind-fests. Didn't matter when the party blew their daily powers or encounter powers or whatever. And since they were one-off encounters, each time we ran them, the party came "fully loaded".

Hey Scott.

Could you please explain what you mean, when you say grind-fests? Do you mean that the fight takes a very long time in rounds, or in RL (or both for that matter). In either case, could you approximate some numbers (as in X number of rounds, or Y minutes/hours).

Just trying to get a feel about us having different expectations about how long a combat should run.

 

[Psychic Robot]

How so? If you use tactics and buffs to increase the chance of high-damage powers hitting, you'll do more damage overall than if you just toss out such powers with thier native hit probabilities early on, then grind away with at-wills. More damage equals fewer rounds of combat.

Let's say you use tactics and buffs immediately, then throw out your daily/encounter powers. You are then reduced to grinding with at-will abilities, buffed or unbuffed.

That is just the reverse of what you suggested. Players working together certainly will reduce the overall time of combat--have you ever played a 3e game where everyone's focusing on a different opponent?--but the solo monsters are very much "padded sumos."

 

[jensun]

That Mearls wholeheartedly supports the DMG when it talks about using terrain features to make encounters more interesting by providing advantages (some of which can be turned into disadvantages), controlling movement, and opening up options that are not specific to any class or role.

This

Mearls post was "how I could have made this particular encounter more interesting" and not "solo fights are dull slugfests".

Having said that I do think there is some truth to the padded sumo argument for solos but it is hard to be really sure until I have seen them in play.

I suspect that I will retcon most solos back into elites and give them some friends to bulk out the encounter.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Let's say you use tactics and buffs immediately, then throw out your daily/encounter powers. You are then reduced to grinding with at-will abilities, buffed or unbuffed.

Unless you're metagaming, made a killer knowledge check, or have simply fought an identical foe before, the most effective tactics aren't likely to be the first ones you try, and setting up the heavy hitters will take some time even once you do have things figured out. Also, if you whittle the monster down to bloody before unleashing the last of your big guns, you'll be able to do so with some idea of what it'll take to finish it.

It's not even strictly a 4e thing. Even in 3e, there were other aproaches than going nova and killing an opponent ASAP, and some of them were even more effective in the long run. 4e, though, really encourages a more tactical - and tactically varied - aproach to combat. 3e did lend itself to the nova tactic, and aplying that in 4e will give you just the results being discussed here: you'll throw out your biggest baddest attacks, your next biggest baddest attacks, and whatever you've got left after that and still not kill the solo, so end up slowly grinding it down with at-wills. Use those resources more efficiently, and, though you won't bloody it as quickly, you'll probably kill it faster, and have something left over for the next encounter.

 

[Switchback]

I see nothing wrong with the suggestions, only that they are a bit late and might have been more useful as ideas in the DM guide along with perhaps a list of such things you might do to spice up a combat scene.

I don't know why people would be bashing creativity in a fight in preference of simply a back and forth tree cutting exercise.

If you think of vivid fight scenes in movies or books, they are commonly highlighted by interesting environments or dangers. From Star Wars light saber duels in smoky chambers with gases shooting out, or the Fellowship of the Ring running over crumbling bridges that span vast chasms while getting chased by a Balrog.

If the choice is between making a interesting, and interactive fight area vs simply reducing solo HP to make a slug-fest end quicker, I'll take the creative and more memorable choice.

 

[Jack99]

This

Mearls post was "how I could have made this particular encounter more interesting" and not "solo fights are dull slugfests".

Having said that I do think there is some truth to the padded sumo argument for solos but it is hard to be really sure until I have seen them in play.

I suspect that I will retcon most solos back into elites and give them some friends to bulk out the encounter.

If you wish to retain the flavor of the solo fight, it should be quite easy to fix in another way. Simply remove X% hps. The rest seems balanced. With some experience, it shouldn't be too hard to figure out X. It's a matter of running a good deal of combats and collect some data, perhaps via a community?

Anyway, this is of course assuming that there is indeed a problem. I saw a bit of it with the pre-gens, but they were fairly weak compared to what my players make normally, so I am not sure yet that it is indeed a problem.

 

[The Little Raven]

I see nothing wrong with the suggestions, only that they are a bit late and might have been more useful as ideas in the DM guide along with perhaps a list of such things you might do to spice up a combat scene.

Kinda like pages 60-67 of the DMG?

 

[Switchback]

Kinda like pages 60-67 of the DMG?

Kinda but not exactly. I would hope the DMG would cover rules for terrain in the game, but its a bit different from expressly suggesting that solo encounters, more so than other encounters perhaps, should always be created with other interactive elements included, which is more toward what his article was getting at.

 

[Mort_Q]

What are the underlying implications as you see them?

That Mearls can do wrong.

That's not scary.

What are the underlying implications as you see them?

That Mearls wholeheartedly supports the DMG when it talks about using terrain features to make encounters more interesting by providing advantages (some of which can be turned into disadvantages), controlling movement, and opening up options that are not specific to any class or role.

That's also not scary.