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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Aegeri" data-source="post: 5292657" data-attributes="member: 78116">I am going to say this again, but your argument still fails to make any sense to me on numerous levels. Attacking mages in 3E had nothing to do with fluff, because of the fact numerous monsters at an almost completely (and entirely) random hodgepodge could have billions of spell like abilities as well (Demons, Devils and many epic level creatures for example) and it had everything to do with monsters (or NPCs) with spell like abilities being more out-right lethal. This is where your argument is really laughable. What about the following creatures supports your argument at all?Lolth: You think LOLTH is a poor solo? REALLY? I mean really? You don't think fluff supports the fact Lolth should be highly resilient and easily take a party of five heroes by herself?Allabar: He's a giant planet and you don't think he should be a solo?Imix: Is one of the most powerful remaining primordials and a major antagonist.Ogremoch: Again, is a giant living mountain of stone and a very powerful primordial. Two Krakens (Sea and Astral): Massive beasts that have been described in all kinds of literature as being capable of downing an entire ship and its crew easily. I would point out that every single one of these monsters accomplishes being a solo entirely differently to every other one. I've run the Kraken, Lolth, Allabar and Imix to see how they play. Not ONE Of them plays identically to the others. Also these are the only solos that were actually published in MM3, everything else is largely a standard monster or an elite. I just fail to see how anything about the MM3 supports your argument. Either these monsters are NOT worthy of being solos, where you're going to have a gigantic uphill battle here explaining why they shouldn't be or being reserved for creatures that should be solos is exactly what they have done here. Yes they have more HP and resistance to effects. Do you honestly think ANY of the above shouldn't be more resilient than a normal monster? To be honest, I think having +5 saves and more HP is better than 3rd, where everything had to have a specific list or access to a list of magical abilities and specific immunities or be an irrelevant encounter. Solos in 4E need a comparably smaller list of things that they need to deal with (daze, dominate and stun) and generally less specific preparation. It's the MECHANICS that make a solo what it is. More power is not just saves and resistance to conditions, but also their abilities and capabilities.I disagree entirely with every argument you've made because the +5 saves and resistance to conditions is never the important part about solos. It has come down every single time to how they fight. A solo that can't deal with the spellcaster hiding all the way in the back is not the same as the one that is highly mobile, teleports everywhere and is simply a more challenging, interesting and tenser fight.</blockquote>

Verification