Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Morgan_Scott82" data-source="post: 4748871" data-attributes="member: 79594">I think you're trying to paint with too broad a brush here by adding or applying a universal change to the rules.  This adds another layer of complexity onto what is generally a very streamlined system, why should saving throws universally work different for solo's than other creatures?  It's needlessly complex. I do agree that solo's are more vulnerable to status effects than other monsters, but I don't think a houserule is the solution.  Contrarily I think this issue should be addressed in the design process for writing solos.  My earlier discussion of the Solo design process in the thread Elric mentioned at the top of this thread focused mainly on the Action Ratio and how to equalize that ratio of Solo's actions to PC's actions, through action equalizers that let the solo do more with is actions than typical of other monsters or PCs, and action mitigators that limit what the PCs can do with their actions.  However I feel this thread highlights another element of solo design that I neglected in my previous discussion: outs.  Solos need outs. An out is any monster power that allows the monster to avoid or mitigate an effect placed on it.  Immunity is one kind of out, extra saving throws are another, status effect mitigators are a third.  For example lets say I were working on a solo to run in one of my games: Klang, a construct manufactured by a Dwarven artificer to be the ultimate combatant.  Klang might have powers like this: Impact Tested, Battle ReadyWhenever Klang would be effected by the stunned condition, he is dazed instead. Redundant construction (Recharge 5,6)Klang rerolls a failed saving throw. Those are outs.  The first spares Kang a more debilitating status effect, but instills a less debilitating one.  This is in my opinion vastly superior to a simple entry in the immunity line of the monster's stat block that says "Immune Stun" for several reasons, first and most importantly the players still get mileage out of their powers albeit less than expected.  Its very frustrating as a player to throw out some great daily power only to find out the monster is immune and you just wasted a scarce resource.  If that feeling can be prevented while still helping the solo to be a viable threat, all to the good.  Additionally this out gives the monster a degree of character and flavor that a generic immunity, or a universally applied house rule wouldn't.  That mechanical reinforcement of a monster's flavor is one thing that can really help them come alive at the table and make for a memorable fight. Which is more exciting, making all solos more resistant to all status effects, or giving each solo a custom set of strengths and weaknesses through the judicious use of outs? One of my favorite priniciples of fourth edition is exception based design, a single simple set of general rules applied all of the time, unless something specific says not to.  A house rule making saving throws work differently for solos moves away from this priniciple.  I believe having saving throws that work one way most of the time, but a different way of solos is two sets of general rules.  All solo's is too general to me, which is one reason I favor specific outs written into monster write ups as specific exceptions.</blockquote>

Verification