Solos, Status Effects, and a House Rule

[Pale Jackal]

My houserule for this problem is going to be a bit simpler.

Any condition that prevents a creature from taking any actions on a solo will get an immediate save. It does not matter if the condition normally gets a save or not. If it is a "lasts until the end of the next turn" type of condition, it still gets an immediate save.

I like this. It seems to accomplish much of what Elric's house rule does, but IMO, it's simpler. Less to remember. Though I would apply it to any condition. I'm perfectly okay with a solo being harder to knock prone, for example.

 

[Elric]

I like this. It seems to accomplish much of what Elric's house rule does, but IMO, it's simpler. Less to remember. Though I would apply it to any condition. I'm perfectly okay with a solo being harder to knock prone, for example.

Extending Karinsdad's rule to any condition is the "deity rule" with a reduced chance of making the save. It avoids the problem of making solos too hard to affect, since it's less generous to the solo than the deity rules.

Once you make it a "save that isn't modified by anything", you could easily pick the target on a d20 roll, since "save that isn't modified by anything" is no different "a roll with a 55% chance of success." You could adjust it to 11+ to shake an effect off for a true 50/50, and so forth.

"Condition" would include marks, but wouldn't include, say, a -2 to hit from Enfeebling Strike, or other "until end of next turn" debuffs (e.g., Ranger's Armor Splinter).

This could interact a little strangely with the different marking abilities. For example, a Paladin who marks a solo successfully can keep it marked every round without needing to mark it again, and can use the mark as a minor action, so he could potentially attempt a mark twice in a round at the beginning of combat. By comparison, a Fighter marks the target of his attack, so he won't generally be able to mark twice in a round, and has to re-mark every round.

 

[Elric]

However, what people's gaming experience is also showing is that solo's are often more vulnerable to the numerous effects a party puts out.

In a group of 5 monsters, a wizard might stun 2 of them, but 3 go on. With a solo, you can rack up save penalties, conditions, and the like to debilitate them for a number of rounds.

This is true, but I'm not sure why it's relevant to this thread. From a purely descriptive perspective, MM solos clearly do not do as much damage as 5 normal monsters.

The point of this thread is how to modify solos so status effects aren't as strong against them. The question is: "How can solos be modified so that status effects aren't too strong against them?" Given that status effects used on solos compared to normal monsters have a comparatively larger impact on solo offense than solo defense, you want to balance status effects by knowing how many normal monster-rounds a round of offense from a solo is worth. That answer isn't 5 in the MM, and the reason it isn't 5 is that, status conditions aside, a solo with the durability of 5 normal monsters and the offense of 5 normal monsters would be stronger than 5 normal monsters (and it doesn't seem the designers thought about the status conditions problem).

Indeed, if solo monsters had 5x the offense of normal monsters to compensate for the fact that status conditions affect them more, this would be a reason to combine a weakening of status conditions used against solos with a weakening of solo offense. You wouldn't want to say "solos have stronger offenses than we might otherwise want them to have in order to balance the great effectiveness of status conditions used against them" and then say "solos are too vulnerable to status effects; let's change that!" in isolation.

From the previews and the suggestion on modifying Orcus in the article I linked above, it doesn't seem like solos are being designed with the offense of 5 normal monsters in MM2 either. The new standard seems roughly 4x the offense and 4x the durability of a normal monster.

 

[Pale Jackal]

Extending Karinsdad's rule to any condition is the "deity rule" with a reduced chance of making the save. It avoids the problem of making solos too hard to affect, since it's less generous to the solo than the deity rules.

It is less generous, that's true, since past the first initial round.

Once you make it a "save that isn't modified by anything", you could easily pick the target on a d20 roll, since "save that isn't modified by anything" is no different "a roll with a 55% chance of success." You could adjust it to 11+ to shake an effect off for a true 50/50, and so forth.

True, and I was considering changing solo saves to say, +4 and having them apply to every roll... which I would do if I thought it wasn't excessive. I could do say, +2 to the "immediate" save and then +5 to all other normal saves, but I prefer the simplicity of "10+" saves though, like any other [non-solo, non-elite] save.

"Condition" would include marks, but wouldn't include, say, a -2 to hit from Enfeebling Strike, or other "until end of next turn" debuffs (e.g., Ranger's Armor Splinter).

Specifically, I meant any of the PHB p. 277 conditions. Daze, sleep, stun, prone, restrained... and whatever else is there.

 

[Stalker0]

Well since the MM2 just came out, it might be helpful to look at the new mechanics for solos that have helped with this.

1) Saves at the beginning of the turn and end. The Copper Dragon for example can make saves against immobilized, restrained, and the like at the beginning and end of his turn. The PH2 errated saving throws so that if you make multiple ones in the same round it doesn't accelerate harmful effects (aka the weirdness of hobgoblins being potential more vulnerable to sleep).

2) Multiple turns in one round. This is a new mechanic that basically allows a creature multiple chances to shake off effects simply by having more than one turn per round. However, you can accelerate conditions (like sleep) with all the saving throws.

Both of this effects do not help with "until the end of your turn" effects many PCs have, which I was surprised about. To me those are quite common effects, and it seems strange that at higher levels they can become stronger than save ends effects.

 

[keterys]

Yeah, increasingly I am thinking that 'end of your next turn' should be replaced by 'end of its next turn' - which in turn just gets replaced by something like "Stunned" or "Dazed" without a listed duration, and have that go away whenever you get a save against it automatically. That way (save ends) is _never_ a disadvantage.

The downside of doing that is when you do a condition to get combat advantage for an ally, you'd potentially want to do initiative shennanigans to make it work. Bleah.

 

[Elric]

It is less generous, that's true, since past the first initial round.

Huh? The reason the deity rules are more generous to the monster is that the solo's +5 bonus to saves applied on its immediate save to end a condition, and also that it can make those immediate saves against ongoing damage (an immediate save against ongoing damage is excessive; ongoing damage is arguably weaker against solos than normal monsters in the first place because of their save bonus).

Specifically, I meant any of the PHB p. 277 conditions. Daze, sleep, stun, prone, restrained... and whatever else is there.

Right. Marked is a PH pg 277 condition, which is why I mentioned the strange effects a "deity-type rule" has on marks.

Well since the MM2 just came out, it might be helpful to look at the new mechanics for solos that have helped with this.

This reveals a general problem with applying "one-size fits all" solutions as WotC changes monster design. If WotC takes steps over time to give solos more "outs", then it's not clear whether you'd want to still apply your original fix to the new solos that were designed with “outs” in mind. You could apply the fix to, say, just pre-MM2 solos, but there are clearly MM2 solos that weren’t given significant outs. At that point, you’re getting into the judgment calls that you’d try to avoid with a “one size fits all” rule.

Yeah, increasingly I am thinking that 'end of your next turn' should be replaced by 'end of its next turn' - which in turn just gets replaced by something like "Stunned" or "Dazed" without a listed duration, and have that go away whenever you get a save against it automatically. That way (save ends) is _never_ a disadvantage.

The downside of doing that is when you do a condition to get combat advantage for an ally, you'd potentially want to do initiative shennanigans to make it work. Bleah.

There are some abilities that are “until the end of your next turn” where only you benefit from the ability. For example, Daggermaster PP’s Dagger Advantage feature. These abilities clearly need to stay until end of your next turn, so you’d have to make special exceptions here.

 

[Pale Jackal]

Huh? The reason the deity rules are more generous to the monster is that the solo's +5 bonus to saves applied on its immediate save to end a condition, and also that it can make those immediate saves against ongoing damage (an immediate save against ongoing damage is excessive; ongoing damage is arguably weaker against solos than normal monsters in the first place because of their save bonus).

Sorry, posted before my thoughts were complete. I'm not sure what you mean by diety rules (at first I thought you mean your own solution), but the immediate save rules would not have the +5 bonus. I agree it should not apply to ongoing damage. Similarly, I don't think it should apply to marks.

Right. Marked is a PH pg 277 condition, which is why I mentioned the strange effects a "deity-type rule" has on marks.

Ah. So is there any problem with wording it as, "A solo gets an immediate save [without its +5 bonus] versus any condition, except versus Marks."

 

[JoRM]

I didnt read EVERY post in this thread, but I want to give a personnal exemple of "too strong" powers against solos.

I'm playing a pally, stricker one (Dragonslaying fullblade +2) and I fought against one young red dragon when I was lvl 8 with one mage and one rogue of the same level. The mage did sleep, used the orb power and the dragon missed his saving throws... with only Martyr's Retribution power I did around 140 dmg one shot, 20 more and the dragon had to do his save against death. We searched for something that would say that the dragon is immune to sleep or something, but it wasnt.

A level 1 daily power which can totally own a solo isn't balanced at all. So I agree to do something agaisnt the effects that a save can end, but not against "until end of next turn" effects. Though I dont know what should be done, maybe immunity to any effects that render helpless and something else but again, I'm not a pro and we juste got into the 4th edition.

 

[Elric]

Sorry, posted before my thoughts were complete. I'm not sure what you mean by diety rules (at first I thought you mean your own solution), but the immediate save rules would not have the +5 bonus. I agree it should not apply to ongoing damage. Similarly, I don't think it should apply to marks.

The deity rules are special rules used for deities, high level solos like Tiamat or Vecna. Among other things, deities get an immediate save to end ongoing damage or any condition placed on them.

Ah. So is there any problem with wording it as, "A solo gets an immediate save [without its +5 bonus] versus any condition, except versus Marks."

That seems pretty good. It's clear what is or isn't covered; on PH page 277, covered; not on page 277, not covered. You might want Attack penalties to be covered as well, but you can't have everything. In return, this doesn't affect "grants combat advantage" type effects or ongoing damage.

You'd need to clarify what happens if a solo gets hit by, say, 5 ongoing damage and weakened (save ends both). Presumably you'd want the save to only end the weakened condition. You'd also want to clarify what happens if a solo suffers multiple conditions at once; I could see going with either "make a save against each" or "make one save against both."

Since it's an immediate save, you'd need to specify how this interacts with the Orb of Imposition- does it happen before a player can use the Orb, or after (of course, as mentioned in my initial post, the Orb deserves a house rule reducing its power and if you use the one I suggest there, this question doesn't arise). Lastly, because this is a actual save, regular save penalties apply to it, which is thematically reasonable. Like the Orb of Imposition, you have to watch out for the AV static save penalty items (Cunning Weapons, Phrenic Crown, Earthroot Staff etc.), which are too powerful, deserve a house rule whether you're using this fix or not, and reduce the efficacy of this fix.