Solo Monsters and the Risk of Boredom

[el-remmen]

You know, I've been saying for 8 friggin' years that environment/terrain is crucial to making any combat/challenge encounter more interesting/dramatic/memorable.

It is not just solo monsters, it is not just 4E. I said as much in Mearls' blog

When I would read about people's 3E games, I often joked that their combats were "American civil war style" - i.e. line up and try to kill each other.

If teh internets had been around at the height of my 2E playing days, I would have said the same thing then. . .

Remember, el-remmen's DM Equation?
Motivation + Tactical Goal + Adversity + Pathos + Butt-kicking Fun = Ideal Combat Encounter

 

[Jack99]

May I urge my fellow 4e'ers to not rise to the bait. It will only get this quite interesting thread closed.

 

[amysrevenge]

So we've already reached the point where good advice from the designers is being used as evidence they're bad at their job? Hilarious.

Sums it up quite nicely, I reckon.

Big Mike
Calgary AB

 

[FadedC]

How long a solo fight lasts will often depend a lot on the types of daily powers the players choose. Some powers are really good at doing large non repeatable chunks of damage. These powers are great for fighting groups, but are not good against solos. Other powers give you constant sustained damage for the entire fight. There are great for solos (and some are still great for groups).

A fighter with villain's menace and rain of steel will end a boss fight dramaticaly faster then a fighter with brute strike and dizzying blow.

 

[Jhaelen]

Heroic Tier Feat (Generic) - Bag of Tricks
Prerequisites - Int 13
"The crafty adventurer had more tricks up his sleeves than a rogue has daggers."

Benefit - At the beginning of each round roll a die 12. If you roll a 12 you can regain a used encounter power of your choice. This feat can be taken up to three times, each time improving the chance by 1. For example, taking this feat twice would allow you to regain an encounter power on a roll of 11 or 12.


*edit* I just made that up btw...as an example of something you could put in your campaign. When I reread what I wrote it looked like I was stating it was already in game. I used d12 because it is offset from the monster d6 and balances out percentage wise for longer solo encounters. Allow more or less times it can be taken as a feat at your discretion to accomodate for any playtesting balance issues.

This looks like a good starting point. It really is just a matter of getting the balance right. Nice!

 

[FadedC]

This looks like a good starting point. It really is just a matter of getting the balance right. Nice!

Actually that feat would be strong that everyone would take it. It would also give clerics infinite healing in long fights, which would completely break game balance.

 

[AllisterH]

If he's always designed his fights like that, why didn't he in this case? My takeaway is that the Kobold Hall dungeon in the DMG was not given a sufficient amount of design, development, and editing time.

Frankly, I'm surprised that he even referred to the dragon fight as something that "[he] designed" as there's not much design there other than a slab of ice on the floor and some walls.
.

Um, I thought Mearls didn't have anything to do with the DMG? Was I mistaken?

 

[functionciccio]

I don't think it's a matter of being "right" or "wrong".
I actually think Mr. Mearls has done a good job at the helm of 4E, a system that I like and that I will use in my next campaign.
And even if he has done something wrong, well, no one is perfect, and this is just a game.

I also think that his suggestions are really great, and I'm surely going to use them.

What baffles me is the fact that he is basically saying: "yes, solo monsters can be boring unless you do some work to make them less boring".

I agree wholeheartedly that a DM's job is to make every fight compelling, but I find quite strange that a couple of weeks after the release of a system that was sold as "fast and fun", one of the designers is saying that some work seems indeed necessary to avoid boredom\slugfests against monsters who should represent the epitome of said system.

Obviously this is just my opinion and I can be utterly wrong.
I hope this discussion can continue without degenerating into a flame-war.

Cheers.

PS:
sorry for the grammar but english is not my first language.

 

[Cadfan]

Here's the issue with solos.

Suppose we have a 10 round fight against a bunch of enemies, and a 10 round fight against a solo.

Against the group, the pcs will be rewarded with a sense of accomplishment each time a foe drops. Further, the combat will start out particularly dangerous, then reduce in threat as foes are eliminated. This will take place concurrent with the PCs losing hit points, becoming closer to death. This creates an "almost there, just gotta kill the last skeleton before Joe bites it!" feeling. Also, as each monster is killed, even the most immobile PCs will want to move to better attack the next monster, giving you more stuff to do. Finally, all your encounter and daily abilities will work well, because you can use both multi-target effects and single-target effects.

Against a solo monster, the threat doesn't typically change as the monster loses hit points. There are no periodic rewards, except for the point where the monster reaches "bloodied" status. Certain daily and encounter abilities won't work right, because they only work well against multiple foes. No movement is necessary between kills, so unless the monster moves (which isn't always a good idea for it), the PCs won't move much either.

This is basically intrinsic to the system. Even if a solo can match a group of enemies in terms of multiple attacks, it can't match a group in terms of small rewards over time, or maneuverability. The only ways to fix it are to 1) reduce solo hp so killing them doesn't take as long, or 2) add other aspects to the encounter to make it interesting, or 3) don't use higher level solos, or 4) some combination thereof.

Mearls likes option 2. I'd combine it with option 3, myself. If the other aspects added to the encounter make it more challenging, you'll want a lower level monster anyways.

I don't like option 1, for aesthetic reasons. Dragons should be tough foes. Reduced hit points makes them go down too fast versus a party who fights well.

 

[keterys]

against monsters who should represent the epytome of said system.

I don't believe solo fights are intended to be the epitome at all - I believe that they've firmly stated you're better off fighting several opponents at once, in high preference.