Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="eamon" data-source="post: 5286629" data-attributes="member: 51942">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?</blockquote>

Verification