The D&D Boss Fight

[Festivus]

I have taken solos and broken them up into several creatures, one for the body, one for the arms, one for the tail as an example. Each of those components has it's own initiative, hitpoints, attacks and moves... when they kill the tail, it can no longer attack (thus targetted attacking can be done too, and some parts have better will saves than others for example)

 

[TheAngryDM]

Thanks everyone for discussing my ideas and especially to Matrix for getting the word out.

Just want to make a few points:

Firstly, I know Bloodknuckles does not really push the envelope or show the versatility of the system. That was done on purpose because it was more of an attempt to test and prove the concept.

A couple of people have pointed out that my system is more complex than simply 'fixing' solos or accepting that solos can't really be solo. Yes, it is. But simply improving the action economy and adding some resistance to conditions doesn't address the total "solo problem" with front loaded action and a lack of 'beats' that indicate progress. These things contribute to the grind as much as anything else (I discussed all of these in the first part).

I've also heard more than a few proposals for 'just let them have two initiatives,' 'just give them more actions,' and/or 'just give them the XXXX trait from this solo.' The problem with any blanket solution like that is that it lacks versatility. Some bosses can and will have double initiatives, some will have more actions, threatening reach, interrupts, minor actions, and so on, but the creator of the monster gets to decide what is right and flavorful for that particular monster. One of the greatest strengths of 4E monster design is the versatility that comes of a universal stat block with exception-based powers. Why give that up?

That, ultimately, is why I backed away from the blanket traits I mentioned in Part 2 (e.g.: Boss Monster Resilience). How Bloodknuckles responds to being proned or grabbed is part of his flavor, part of the story of the creature instead of just an immunity or "shake it off" mechanic.

Is it more complicated? Yes. But it actually isn't much more complicated than building a single solo monster and most of the complicated is in the fun of designing tactics and powers to show them off.

And finally, to Exploder, I am not sure where exactly there seems to be any more script to the monster than any other. Instead of being bloodied once, he gets bloodied twice, and he has two powers that trigger when he becomes bloodied. Beyond that, certain tactics are emphasized by certain stages but nothing removes the DMs ability to make decisions and be unpredictable. Every monster in the MM has a script of sorts, a set of tactics that it is designed to use or a best tactic.

 

[ExploderWizard]

And finally, to Exploder, I am not sure where exactly there seems to be any more script to the monster than any other. Instead of being bloodied once, he gets bloodied twice, and he has two powers that trigger when he becomes bloodied. Beyond that, certain tactics are emphasized by certain stages but nothing removes the DMs ability to make decisions and be unpredictable. Every monster in the MM has a script of sorts, a set of tactics that it is designed to use or a best tactic.

What I was referring to was not so much the nuts and bolts of the mechanics but the reactions of the players to a staged boss fight.


We found out how triggered stages work early on with even a simple version such as Irontooth. He wasn't a a true 2 stage boss but his bloodied increased danger level wiped us out and set off our WOW radar all in one go.
Like the experienced players we were, the best of our resources were saved until the boss showed up and then we let him have it. This bloodied him triggering his increased damage output and we were left with at-wills to fight with while taking horrendous damage.

The next group of adventurers somehow knew to not only save the best stuff for the boss but to wait until he was bloodied before unleashing it. Metagaming at it's finest I freely admit.

The point is (much like a videogame) you don't learn how to avoid a disaster or a terrible grind without either having experienced it once and resetting or reading the walk-thru to understand a particular boss strategy.

What this boils down to is that once players realize they are up against staged bosses they will plink away until they see a "trigger" or change. The more stages a boss has, the more paranoid players will become about wasting their best shots on an early phase and being useless in the endgame. Nobody likes being on cooldown in the final phase!

 

[Festivus]

What I was referring to was not so much the nuts and bolts of the mechanics but the reactions of the players to a staged boss fight.


We found out how triggered stages work early on with even a simple version such as Irontooth. He wasn't a a true 2 stage boss but his bloodied increased danger level wiped us out and set off our WOW radar all in one go.
Like the experienced players we were, the best of our resources were saved until the boss showed up and then we let him have it. This bloodied him triggering his increased damage output and we were left with at-wills to fight with while taking horrendous damage.

The next group of adventurers somehow knew to not only save the best stuff for the boss but to wait until he was bloodied before unleashing it. Metagaming at it's finest I freely admit.

The point is (much like a videogame) you don't learn how to avoid a disaster or a terrible grind without either having experienced it once and resetting or reading the walk-thru to understand a particular boss strategy.

What this boils down to is that once players realize they are up against staged bosses they will plink away until they see a "trigger" or change. The more stages a boss has, the more paranoid players will become about wasting their best shots on an early phase and being useless in the endgame. Nobody likes being on cooldown in the final phase!

Ah but, unlike a video game, you as the game master could feed tales of a terrible goblin who, when his back was against the wall, suddenly strengthened in the fight and turned the tide, as told by the only surviving member of an expedition.

That way, you as the DM have given veiled warnings about the goblin and his tactics... and if they failed, I wouldn't have them face him in the exact same circumstances, nor would have him react the exact same way a second time.

 

[Aegeri]

The Black Dragon in the back of the DnD Comic they released recently is pretty impressive. He has an ability that triggers on his initiative +10 that automatically gives him an additional free attack. If he can't take it due to being stunned or dominated, he ends the condition. He also has another ability that at the end of his turns he automatically ends all daze, dominate and stunned conditions imposed on him.

All on a level 4 lurker.

If it's any indication of what the future of solos in 4E looks like combined with MM3/Demonomicon, then I think Wizards have realized and are addressing these problems actively. Also just by publishing creatures like this it creates a strong precedent that DMs can do this in the rules.

 

[TheAngryDM]

What I was referring to was not so much the nuts and bolts of the mechanics but the reactions of the players to a staged boss fight.


We found out how triggered stages work early on with even a simple version such as Irontooth. He wasn't a a true 2 stage boss but his bloodied increased danger level wiped us out and set off our WOW radar all in one go. Like the experienced players we were, the best of our resources were saved until the boss showed up and then we let him have it. This bloodied him triggering his increased damage output and we were left with at-wills to fight with while taking horrendous damage.

The next group of adventurers somehow knew to not only save the best stuff for the boss but to wait until he was bloodied before unleashing it. Metagaming at it's finest I freely admit.

The point is (much like a videogame) you don't learn how to avoid a disaster or a terrible grind without either having experienced it once and resetting or reading the walk-thru to understand a particular boss strategy.

What this boils down to is that once players realize they are up against staged bosses they will plink away until they see a "trigger" or change. The more stages a boss has, the more paranoid players will become about wasting their best shots on an early phase and being useless in the endgame. Nobody likes being on cooldown in the final phase!

What if the boss isn't at its most dangerous in its final stage? What if it is at its weakest then? Or its most dangerous up front? Or in the middle? There is nothing that says that the boss has to get harder with each stage. Bloodknuckles' damage does increase at the end, but he has fewer attacks and loses a lot of his immunites. A party that tries to metagame using WoW knowledge won't benefit at all.

On the other hand, there is nothing inherently wrong with players holding their best abilities for the endgame. In fact, it would greatly improve the feel of the battle. After all, psychologically, people most remember the highest/lowest point and the end of any experience. That's, again, part of what I was driving at when I said that a problem with solo monsters is that they encourage front-loading of the best abilities (going nova).

The strategy that would work best (from a metagame standpoint) against a boss with a fairly even difficulty progression (change tactics, not difficulty) would be for the party to evenly spread their output through the entire fight, realizing that at two points, any long lasting conditions will vanish. Because that's the behavior I want to encourage anyway, any players that do metagame will be doing what is best for the scene anyway.

Finally, a party that is going to engage in metagame behavior is going to try do so whatever system you use. It doesn't matter what you throw at them. At least, this way, I can make the metagaming work for me instead of against me.

 

[eamon]

An ancient dragon is discovered in it's lair sitting atop a mound of treasure.

The demilich awaits those foolhardy enough to navigate through it's tomb and into the burial chamber.

Something awful stirs in the swamp where men dare not go. Monstrous tentacles lurk just beneath the water's surface.

These are iconic D&D type encounters. There are some "solos" that might have allies but they need to feel right to warrant inclusion. Adding hangers on for the sake of combat planning is just as bad as tweaking rules for loners as far as atmosphere is concerned.

Merely because it's iconic does not necessary means it's good gameplay. I don't remember AD&D very well, but certainly in 3e anything that was solo and well known (i.e. the player's attack it rather than vice-versa) generally needed to be excessively well prepared for all eventualities rather than merely largely immune to ... pretty much everything for no particularly good reason.

Stuff like "the tentacle beast from the swamp" never needed this kind of care because the PC's wouldn't be prepared for it, and because combats didn't take long anyhow. It was perfectly OK if the combat took just 2 or 3 rounds being decided mostly by whether the PC's could land a few solid blows before all being dragged down below, whereas now such a monster would need to survive for much longer, and that means being much more resilient and making it impossible to find any weak spots that might end combat quickly.

And in any case, if "solo" monsters were so iconic - why didn't previous editions have mechanics for them? I still think that the decision to use a solo in 4e is usually the wrong one. Unless the solo's excessive resilience and immunities make sense in game, you're undermining the setting.

Sometimes a solo makes sense. But then, each and every one of his exceptional defenses and other attributes should have an in-game motivation, not merely be a videogamey tool to make the combat work. And if you're going to go to that effort, the boss monster style looks quite attractive - but it'd be nice if there's an explanation why this ogre happens to have far more hitpoints and actions than a usual ogre and why he's much less affected (saving throw bonus) by effects from all sources. Stronger (higher level) ogres don't necessarily have these bonuses - why bloodknuckles?

 

[ExploderWizard]

Merely because it's iconic does not necessary means it's good gameplay. I don't remember AD&D very well, but certainly in 3e anything that was solo and well known (i.e. the player's attack it rather than vice-versa) generally needed to be excessively well prepared for all eventualities rather than merely largely immune to ... pretty much everything for no particularly good reason.

I remember AD&D very well. A big lone monster then didn't need special solo mechanics. They had higher hit dice, did more damage, had good saves, and that was plenty threatening.

Stuff like "the tentacle beast from the swamp" never needed this kind of care because the PC's wouldn't be prepared for it, and because combats didn't take long anyhow. It was perfectly OK if the combat took just 2 or 3 rounds being decided mostly by whether the PC's could land a few solid blows before all being dragged down below, whereas now such a monster would need to survive for much longer, and that means being much more resilient and making it impossible to find any weak spots that might end combat quickly.

Why? I have no problem with a solo or any other combat that ends fairly quick. I want the fight to be exciting game time and that means pressing the panic button. I would rather have 3 rounds of heart pounding action than 10 rounds and 2 real hours of grind.

And in any case, if "solo" monsters were so iconic - why didn't previous editions have mechanics for them? I still think that the decision to use a solo in 4e is usually the wrong one. Unless the solo's excessive resilience and immunities make sense in game, you're undermining the setting.

There were mechanics for them. Before numbers bloat became the norm the attributes I outlined above were enough to make such a lone monster enough of a threat.

Those types of encounters were iconic for setting/flavor not mechanics.

Sometimes a solo makes sense. But then, each and every one of his exceptional defenses and other attributes should have an in-game motivation, not merely be a videogamey tool to make the combat work. And if you're going to go to that effort, the boss monster style looks quite attractive - but it'd be nice if there's an explanation why this ogre happens to have far more hitpoints and actions than a usual ogre and why he's much less affected (saving throw bonus) by effects from all sources. Stronger (higher level) ogres don't necessarily have these bonuses - why bloodknuckles?

A PC Human is capable of far more than your typical villager. Why should that particular human be such a badass?

 

[interwyrm]

If it's any indication of what the future of solos in 4E looks like combined with MM3/Demonomicon, then I think Wizards have realized and are addressing these problems actively. Also just by publishing creatures like this it creates a strong precedent that DMs can do this in the rules.

If that's the case, I wish they'd remove the +5 save bonus. Ongoing damage isn't any stronger vs. a solo than it is against a standard monster.

 

[eamon]

I remember AD&D very well. A big lone monster then didn't need special solo mechanics. They had higher hit dice, did more damage, had good saves, and that was plenty threatening.

Exactly! That's my point. Solo's should need "special" exemptions to the rules for the meta-game reason that they're solos. Rather, they should make sense as is, and perhaps due to their greater power happen to be appropriate for normal use.

Why? I have no problem with a solo or any other combat that ends fairly quick. I want the fight to be exciting game time and that means pressing the panic button. I would rather have 3 rounds of heart pounding action than 10 rounds and 2 real hours of grind.

I couldn't agree more! The way I see it, a solo encounter (barring exceptions) just doesn't work well for the same length as a normal encounter does. Making a "boss" monster is perhaps a way to run those "exceptional" solo encounters that somehow make sense over a period of 10 rounds, but in general, I'd rather have a combat that ends in 3 rounds of heart pounding action than 10 rounds of grind. A solo should be really, really dangerous, not so much invulnerable for reasons that make no sense in game.

There were mechanics for them. Before numbers bloat became the norm the attributes I outlined above were enough to make such a lone monster enough of a threat.

Stuff like hitpoints, defenses, attacks - they vary from monster to monster in a way that somewhat reflects the fantasy of the creature. The variety of abilities should suffice to define a monster. Yet solo's have been imbued with a variety of abilities that aren't reflected in their description or fluff whatsoever. An epic character would find it hard to get a constant +5 save bonus - yet a low-level humanoid solo has somehow achieved the same thing. The whole mechanical construction of a 4e solo is jarring, and should rarely exist.


Which brings me to the next thing you say...

Those types of encounters were iconic for setting/flavor not mechanics.

Which is as it should be. And that's what's wrong with 4e solos. They're so focused on making the mechanics "work" that they're losing sight of the bigger picture - the flavor.

A PC Human is capable of far more than your typical villager. Why should that particular human be such a badass?

Probably because he's got magic gear, superior talents (attributes), superior training, superior motivation/bravery, etc. It's a fundamental assumption that these fantasy creatures can gain impossibly effective fighting skills and terribly powerful magic. The fact that all the monsters they encounter that happen to be alone happen to share a set of features (a template - the solo template) that no normal monster or PC could achieve through the usual means of gaining power, and that this template is so consistent across all creatures even when the fluff has no similarity whatsoever and ensures that these loners are handily resilient without actually being overpowering is like having a string of deus ex machina moments.

It's just too much nonsense, too much coincidence that gets repeated and repeated and repeated until the only possible response is to not think about it and just roll the damn dice because the fantasy of it isn't internally consistent anyhow.

A typical solo encounter from the perspective of a PC:

Oh, a lonely goblin! He's not too hard to hit, can't be a risky opponent. Except he can attack lighting fast, striking 3 times when a normal goblin would once (weird, what a coincidence, just like that dragon last week). Oh, and somehow effect - no matter the type - just don't stick for long on him (weird, what a coincidence, just like that dragon last week). Hmm, taking long for him to go down, how can he survive all those sword cuts (weird, what a coincidence, just like that dragon last week)? Oops, he gets nastier and more dangerous when he's badly hurt - how uncommon (weird, what a coincidence, just like that dragon last week)!
​

Any sane PC would be forced to conclude:

It's a conspiracy - all those suspiciously similar and powerful loners - THEY'RE ALL POLYMORPHED DRAGONS - run!
​

Solo's just don't work well in 4e. Sure, you can fix the mechanics - but that's not helping, just making matters worse by encouraging their use: the real problem isn't the mechanics it's the lack of consistency with the rest of D&D. For creatures that are truly unique it's a template that could be used rarely; sparingly - like nails on chalkboard.