I've been deliberately putting this topic off to last because I'm not sure what to say about it.
It's not that solo monsters being more subject to the laws of Critical Existence Failure (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/CriticalExistenceFailure) is somehow wrong-it's just that it's different, and that difference means that some of the common conceptions of how combat works are out of touch.
I have to confess, much of my theory on the topic of solo monsters is based on an arbitrary number someone told me that encounters last for five rounds. And that's about it. It's a completely arbitrary statistic that I don't have the numbers to back up, and yet it's going to found the basis of this essay.
Now, the reality is that no two parties are identical (unless, well, they're identical) and how any given group deals with combat encounters varies. A group with three wizards all tossing Icy Rays everywhere may have monsters drop three at a time but dealing little overall damage. But a group with two strikers is likely to take out one monster per round for the first few rounds while they burn through encounter powers. So, even though there's five monsters in a standard encounter, the longevity and effectiveness of those five monsters isn't a constant.
If we just assume that a solo monster has five standard monster level attacks, that's great-ignoring other action economy problems-but we run into the nasty problem that it's not indicative of how a standard encounter functions*; it's like if everyone was attacking a different creature and not focusing fire. This means that, in a five round combat, you'd expect to see the equivalence of twenty five creature rounds.
Compare this to an ordinary encounter, where there's five creatures in the first round, four in the second, three in the third, two in the forth, and then one straggler in the fifth. That's only fifteen creature rounds by comparison, so your solo monster is 66% more effective over the lifetime of an encounter!
On the other hand, perhaps not. Controllers can't use multi-target damage, meaning that the net damage per round being dealt by the party is reduced. This can partially be balanced by the fact that there is no chance for lost damage in the form of overkill. On the other hand, if you're playing with an Essentials Assassin, there's also no chance for the Death Attack feature to trigger! And finally, despite being worth five creatures, ever since Monster Manual 2, solo monsters are only considered to have 4x HP in order to avoid having fights drag on too long!
The fact of the matter is that, I don't have the hard data to come to a decisive conclusion here. If we assume striker overkill balances out lost controller damage, then the fact that a solo monster only has 80% HP of a standard encounter leads us to the conclusion that we can multiple those 25 creature rounds by 80%. That's still 20 creature rounds, or 33% effectiveness over a standard encounter. So, what's the solution?
If we assume that because it only has 80% HP the solo monster only requires four rounds to defeat, we can expect that the first round it will be unbloodied, and sometime around the middle or end of the second round it will be bloodied. Working from this, we can use a 3 Creature Round x2, plus 4 creature round x2 model; in short, if the creature's effectiveness increases by about 33% while bloodied, but its effectiveness pre-bloodied is only three creatures rather than four, we're somewhere around the proper level we're aiming for. But again, this is very ad hoc, and making a lot of unsupported assumptions. For instance, most multi-target attack type monsters can't effectively attack the entire party, but a creature with sufficiently large close burst powers can.
Also, again, I think a lot of this has to go back to the Game Theory of Solo Monster design. If the players know that solo monsters are more powerful bloodied than not bloodied, they will want a greater percentage of the fight to occur with the monster not being bloodied. Upon first instinct, you may think that doesn't make sense-after all, in addition to our anticipated values above being "Bloodied by the end of the second round," half of the creature's HP is half of it's HP, right?
Not really-the fact of the matter is that party damage is wildly different between at-will output, encounter nova output, and daily nova output. If players know that the creature is more deadly while bloodied, then players can reserve powers for after the creature is bloodied. Of course, if the solo monster is aware that because of this PCs are taking it easy, the solo monster can use that information as well, so it gets complicated. But in reality, it's been my experience that most PCs don't think this way-they like to burn through encounters.
And to a large extent, that's wise. Not every encounter ends with every encounter resource having been spent, and for creatures with regeneration, every round you procrastinate is a round of additional HP you have to deal with.
Other alternatives for dealing with this kind of playstyle are having a creature deal low damage but have extremely high defenses-typically in conjunction with regeneration-for the first half of the battle. Each round is relatively non-damaging to the party, but still a cost in resources; procrastination only works in the monster's favor. Once the monster becomes bloodied, it becomes truly effective, but the party may have to expend its novas in order to get it that far, or risk being bogged down. The major downside of this gameplay style is that it's time consuming, and has a risk of alienating players, regardless of whether it makes for dynamic combat.
Sunday, April 3, 2011
Saturday, April 2, 2011
Solos: A warning about Initiative
I don't believe this is supported by a technical reading of the rules, but it's generally recommended that if the bonus action granted to solo monsters can be in effect invalidated due to positioning, it's important that the creature not be permitted to delay its primary turn to be immediately before its secondary turn-doing so means that the party has no ability to respond and thus mitigate the bonus turn. If the bonus turn is designed with mitigation in mind, this means it becomes disproportionately powerful.
Less of an issue with charge and movement inclusive bonus turns, and not one at all with Demogorgon style solo monsters. It should be noted, however, that from a player standpoint, letting a solo monster get both of its turns consecutively can be very dangerous-but it's no different from letting all five enemies move in sequence with one another.
The primary reason why letting all five enemies move in sequence is that typically the way that happens is that the party universally wins initiative-making the chances of one of those five enemies being stunned or reduced to 0 or whatever extremely high before they can even act. Tomorrow, we'll go into greater detail about the dynamics of solo monsters versus the dynamics of standard monsters as it pertains to creature longevity.
Less of an issue with charge and movement inclusive bonus turns, and not one at all with Demogorgon style solo monsters. It should be noted, however, that from a player standpoint, letting a solo monster get both of its turns consecutively can be very dangerous-but it's no different from letting all five enemies move in sequence with one another.
The primary reason why letting all five enemies move in sequence is that typically the way that happens is that the party universally wins initiative-making the chances of one of those five enemies being stunned or reduced to 0 or whatever extremely high before they can even act. Tomorrow, we'll go into greater detail about the dynamics of solo monsters versus the dynamics of standard monsters as it pertains to creature longevity.
Solos: When a Solo Is Not a Solo
I should point out the following now: If you've ever been in an encounter with two solo monsters, it should be noted that the dynamic probably resembles an encounter with two Level +4 Elites more than that of solo monsters.
When a solo monster is not the sole actor on the opposition side, the dynamic goes from "One creature for five" to "One Creature with five times the hit points."
About half of the problems you run into in a traditional setting don't even really apply-and since solo monsters done right are really complicated, running two "done right" at the same time is bound to lead to DM Confusion™.
When a solo monster is not the sole actor on the opposition side, the dynamic goes from "One creature for five" to "One Creature with five times the hit points."
About half of the problems you run into in a traditional setting don't even really apply-and since solo monsters done right are really complicated, running two "done right" at the same time is bound to lead to DM Confusion™.
Solos: Taking Action about Action Economy
Let me preface this by stating that the Monster Vault style dragons are not only a huge step in the right direction, but they solve between 70 and 90% of the problem. Seriously.
Actions aren't just "how much damage can this creature do here." It's about the ability to respond to the changing circumstances of an encounter
Minor actions: The fact of the matter is that, most creatures don't get a whole lot of mileage out of their minor actions. And excluding trying to make an active perception check or insight check, there's not a whole lot of general-purpose minor actions. Thus, a solo monster only having one minor action usually isn't a problem.
Move actions: This one is surprising-in terms of real net movement, the ability of the solo isn't restricted so much in terms of not having enough move actions; after all, every move action it takes is roughly the equivalence of five move actions. The real problem is in positioning-a solo monster can only be in one place at a time.
Immediate Actions: This is where it gets tricky. Most standard monsters don't have immediate actions, but a lot of elites do. Even if you load a solo monster up with a large number of Immediate action powers, it can only use one per round. My general theory is to treat solo monsters as having two immediate actions per round-possibly taking the Demogorgon Approach (which I'll describe below).
Standard Actions: No matter how powerful a solo monster's attacks, if it only has one standard action, it can only make one standard action attack per round. If that action is somehow invalidated, you've invalidated the equivalence of five creature actions.
As I said before, the "Bonus action at Initiative Count +10" is most of what's needed to solve this problem, but it has to be for all solo monsters. It cannot be seen as "a feature unique to dragons" because this is fundamentally an issue not of just some solo creatures, but of the basic concept of solo monsters in general. In addition, it pays to look into what that bonus action is.
Unless you're using the Demogorgon Approach (again-see below), a solo monster's bonus action doesn't usually come with a move action or a minor action. This means that the creature is, for all intents and purposes, getting a bonus turn each round where it's dazed, and the same dynamic applies. If the creature is melee-only and you can prevent charging (Slow, Immobilization, or simply being exactly one square out of reach), the creature has no means for attacking. This is the crux of the advantage in designing a solo monster that you really don't have in designing a regular monster: you can make a solo monster's bonus attack wildly more powerful than the numbers themselves would recommend, just so long as the party is given some means of counter-acting this ability.
Take the Catastrophic Dragons, for example. Their auras are nasty, certainly, but the real heavy hitting powers are when the auras explode. If you have a solo monster that, on its bonus initiative count, always makes a Close Burst X attack, or makes a melee attack, then the party can plan around this-withdrawing as needed. Note that this is much easier said than done. Most characters don't have a spring attack mechanism, and excluding Master's Wand of Magic Missile, there aren't a lot of at-will forced movement effects. Thus, a party has to come to terms with whether or not it wants to eat that bonus attack, or take the methods needed in order to negate it. If the attack is arbitrarily powerful, then you can bet the party will take the steps needed to negate it. On the other hand, the steps needed to negate the attack may itself be game breaking-most players can't easily withdraw from melee without at least provoking an opportunity attack, so make sure not to be too unreasonable.
Again, it's been my experience that the best solution is to use close burst or "attack all adjacent" type attacks, but rather than balancing the damage output for multi-target, balance the damage output for one target. This way, the party will space itself out in such a way that only one melee unit needs to actually be able to be hit at a time, but they can alternate-move hit, ally hits, then moves, so on and so forth. Again, you can potentially trigger a lot of opportunity attacks using this method, so don't go too overboard.
Of course, the alternative is the Demogorgon approach. In short: Build a creature like an elite, but give it two full sets of actions. The result will be a creature that is MUCH faster than usual (effectively having 10 move actions per round!) but otherwise is similar in function and ability to respond to changes in an encounter to a pair of elites. I recommend this approach when designing monsters intended to have extremely high levels of agility, or-of course-dual minded thinking.
Actions aren't just "how much damage can this creature do here." It's about the ability to respond to the changing circumstances of an encounter
Minor actions: The fact of the matter is that, most creatures don't get a whole lot of mileage out of their minor actions. And excluding trying to make an active perception check or insight check, there's not a whole lot of general-purpose minor actions. Thus, a solo monster only having one minor action usually isn't a problem.
Move actions: This one is surprising-in terms of real net movement, the ability of the solo isn't restricted so much in terms of not having enough move actions; after all, every move action it takes is roughly the equivalence of five move actions. The real problem is in positioning-a solo monster can only be in one place at a time.
Immediate Actions: This is where it gets tricky. Most standard monsters don't have immediate actions, but a lot of elites do. Even if you load a solo monster up with a large number of Immediate action powers, it can only use one per round. My general theory is to treat solo monsters as having two immediate actions per round-possibly taking the Demogorgon Approach (which I'll describe below).
Standard Actions: No matter how powerful a solo monster's attacks, if it only has one standard action, it can only make one standard action attack per round. If that action is somehow invalidated, you've invalidated the equivalence of five creature actions.
As I said before, the "Bonus action at Initiative Count +10" is most of what's needed to solve this problem, but it has to be for all solo monsters. It cannot be seen as "a feature unique to dragons" because this is fundamentally an issue not of just some solo creatures, but of the basic concept of solo monsters in general. In addition, it pays to look into what that bonus action is.
Unless you're using the Demogorgon Approach (again-see below), a solo monster's bonus action doesn't usually come with a move action or a minor action. This means that the creature is, for all intents and purposes, getting a bonus turn each round where it's dazed, and the same dynamic applies. If the creature is melee-only and you can prevent charging (Slow, Immobilization, or simply being exactly one square out of reach), the creature has no means for attacking. This is the crux of the advantage in designing a solo monster that you really don't have in designing a regular monster: you can make a solo monster's bonus attack wildly more powerful than the numbers themselves would recommend, just so long as the party is given some means of counter-acting this ability.
Take the Catastrophic Dragons, for example. Their auras are nasty, certainly, but the real heavy hitting powers are when the auras explode. If you have a solo monster that, on its bonus initiative count, always makes a Close Burst X attack, or makes a melee attack, then the party can plan around this-withdrawing as needed. Note that this is much easier said than done. Most characters don't have a spring attack mechanism, and excluding Master's Wand of Magic Missile, there aren't a lot of at-will forced movement effects. Thus, a party has to come to terms with whether or not it wants to eat that bonus attack, or take the methods needed in order to negate it. If the attack is arbitrarily powerful, then you can bet the party will take the steps needed to negate it. On the other hand, the steps needed to negate the attack may itself be game breaking-most players can't easily withdraw from melee without at least provoking an opportunity attack, so make sure not to be too unreasonable.
Again, it's been my experience that the best solution is to use close burst or "attack all adjacent" type attacks, but rather than balancing the damage output for multi-target, balance the damage output for one target. This way, the party will space itself out in such a way that only one melee unit needs to actually be able to be hit at a time, but they can alternate-move hit, ally hits, then moves, so on and so forth. Again, you can potentially trigger a lot of opportunity attacks using this method, so don't go too overboard.
Of course, the alternative is the Demogorgon approach. In short: Build a creature like an elite, but give it two full sets of actions. The result will be a creature that is MUCH faster than usual (effectively having 10 move actions per round!) but otherwise is similar in function and ability to respond to changes in an encounter to a pair of elites. I recommend this approach when designing monsters intended to have extremely high levels of agility, or-of course-dual minded thinking.
Friday, April 1, 2011
Solos (Followup): Game Theory of Cleanser Rules
As an economist by training (if not by trade) I have a strange fascination with Game Theory. In my previous entry, I mentioned that one potential "solution" (if it can be called that) for dealing with status effects on solo monsters is the usage of what I called "Cleanser" rules, which effectively render one creature as being a different creature as it pertains to things like status effects.
The concept was introduced not for a specific gameplay reaction per say, but rather to better simulate a situation where a solo monster functioned like five individual standard enemies-that is, what applies to one enemy doesn't apply to all five. However, looking at Cleanser rules using Game Theory actually leads to some interesting thoughts.
First, let's assume that the players (and by extension PCs) know that the monster is able to use Cleanser at least once. Thus, players are aware of the fact that after using their powers, there is some chance that they will simply be negated. In this sense, the player and monster get into a relationship where, if the party lands too many status effects at any given time, the monster will remove them all. But if the party delays applying multiple status effects, the monster-in wanting to negate as many status effects as possible-will "Let it pass." However, in ensuring this state where the party uses only one status effect at a time, the party is themselves giving up a valuable resource-the ability to land status effects earlier in a fight.
The resulting dynamic is that players are more hesitant to drop multiple status effects-be they end of encounter, save ends, or even end of next turn-all at once as it applies to limited resources. However, how hesitant players are depends on the monster's own tactics as well, as if players realize that one power won't be suppressed, perhaps two won't be, or three won't be, and so on. Ultimately, we are left with a Price is Right-esque mechanism, whereby players will test the waters until they "bust" and end up negating their hard work-
-or will they? If the party as a whole drops one status effect at a time, it is unlikely that the monster will utilize its cleanser. However, as the fight nears its conclusion-and the monster recognizes what a precarious position it is in-the monster will be less hesitant to expend its cleanser. As thus, players recognize the difference in behavior of monster cleanser usage, and adjust their tactics accordingly.
Of course, this assumes a simple finite usage of cleanser. If the monster treats Cleanser as a rechargable power, then it has an extremely high incentive to use its cleanser when it recharges, as in addition to not removing status effects for the round in question, the creature is effectively "missing" potential cleansers. How missing these cleansers actually affects what status effects it will suffer over the course of the battle, of course, goes back to how the party and the monster play off each other-that is, whether the party "Forces" a usage of cleanser or not. After all, even if it's a rechargable, what monster would risk being stunned for a round in order to negate a -1 penalty to attack? But in making that decision, it is thus accepting that -1 penalty to attack.
Of course, as with any game theory, this only really applies if both sides know what the other side has to gain. A solo monster doesn't know that the enemy party has either one or five stuns ready. And the players don't necessarily know the mechanism by which the monster can use cleanser. The DM, on the other hand, knows both, leaving the DM in a monstrously (pardon the pun) superior position. To make the game "fair" the DM can overcompensate-by letting the monster make deliberately wrong decisions. Or perhaps the DM uses this advanced knowledge to the monster's advantage.
A more cunning DM might even make usage of skill checks as bonus actions in order to determine "what sort of information" a given creature is going to have access to. Can the party bluff the monster into thinking they're holding onto their strongest abilities until after it's dropped its guard? Perhaps an arcana check would reveal to the party the circumstances of the monster's cleanser. If both parties are on equal footing, then game theory can commence-
-however, if someone is misinformed about what the other has to gain, you can generally bet that they'll be at a disadvantage every time.
The concept was introduced not for a specific gameplay reaction per say, but rather to better simulate a situation where a solo monster functioned like five individual standard enemies-that is, what applies to one enemy doesn't apply to all five. However, looking at Cleanser rules using Game Theory actually leads to some interesting thoughts.
First, let's assume that the players (and by extension PCs) know that the monster is able to use Cleanser at least once. Thus, players are aware of the fact that after using their powers, there is some chance that they will simply be negated. In this sense, the player and monster get into a relationship where, if the party lands too many status effects at any given time, the monster will remove them all. But if the party delays applying multiple status effects, the monster-in wanting to negate as many status effects as possible-will "Let it pass." However, in ensuring this state where the party uses only one status effect at a time, the party is themselves giving up a valuable resource-the ability to land status effects earlier in a fight.
The resulting dynamic is that players are more hesitant to drop multiple status effects-be they end of encounter, save ends, or even end of next turn-all at once as it applies to limited resources. However, how hesitant players are depends on the monster's own tactics as well, as if players realize that one power won't be suppressed, perhaps two won't be, or three won't be, and so on. Ultimately, we are left with a Price is Right-esque mechanism, whereby players will test the waters until they "bust" and end up negating their hard work-
-or will they? If the party as a whole drops one status effect at a time, it is unlikely that the monster will utilize its cleanser. However, as the fight nears its conclusion-and the monster recognizes what a precarious position it is in-the monster will be less hesitant to expend its cleanser. As thus, players recognize the difference in behavior of monster cleanser usage, and adjust their tactics accordingly.
Of course, this assumes a simple finite usage of cleanser. If the monster treats Cleanser as a rechargable power, then it has an extremely high incentive to use its cleanser when it recharges, as in addition to not removing status effects for the round in question, the creature is effectively "missing" potential cleansers. How missing these cleansers actually affects what status effects it will suffer over the course of the battle, of course, goes back to how the party and the monster play off each other-that is, whether the party "Forces" a usage of cleanser or not. After all, even if it's a rechargable, what monster would risk being stunned for a round in order to negate a -1 penalty to attack? But in making that decision, it is thus accepting that -1 penalty to attack.
Of course, as with any game theory, this only really applies if both sides know what the other side has to gain. A solo monster doesn't know that the enemy party has either one or five stuns ready. And the players don't necessarily know the mechanism by which the monster can use cleanser. The DM, on the other hand, knows both, leaving the DM in a monstrously (pardon the pun) superior position. To make the game "fair" the DM can overcompensate-by letting the monster make deliberately wrong decisions. Or perhaps the DM uses this advanced knowledge to the monster's advantage.
A more cunning DM might even make usage of skill checks as bonus actions in order to determine "what sort of information" a given creature is going to have access to. Can the party bluff the monster into thinking they're holding onto their strongest abilities until after it's dropped its guard? Perhaps an arcana check would reveal to the party the circumstances of the monster's cleanser. If both parties are on equal footing, then game theory can commence-
-however, if someone is misinformed about what the other has to gain, you can generally bet that they'll be at a disadvantage every time.
In Poor Taste
http://www.wizards.com/DnD/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4dnd/20110401c
Too soon, guys. Too soon.
Too soon, guys. Too soon.
Solos: The Status of Status
First of all, my apologies for all the lame titles-but also, my warning that they're here to stay.
The problem with status effects on solo monsters is pretty well recognized-so much so that Wizards of the Coast has already taken action! Well, problem solved-except not. The solution that Wizards took was, in order to negate the impact of two specific status effects (daze and stun), most solo monsters have a mechanism whereby daze and stun are less impacting than for other monsters.
I'm not sure how to feel about this. On the one hand, it's a deliberate fix that partially addresses the problem, and is certainly better than leaving things as they are-and if nothing else, it shows that Wizards at the very least understands that the framework for solo monsters has to be different from the framework for standards and elites.
But the problem with status effects isn't just daze or stun. The problem with status effects is that, most non-controller powers that drop any significant status effect (barring ongoing damage) is single target. When you let, say, Stunning Strike apply to "the entirety of" a solo monster, you're effectively letting the rogue target five creatures with this one power.
So why is this a problem? Well, let's look at a typical lineup at 17th level*: Fighter, Rogue, Wizard, Cleric, Warlock. All PHB heroes.
Each character has three encounter attacks**. Now, not every power can be a daze or a stun-but at least one power from every class sure can be. So, over the course of a standard five round encounter, you can expect creature-rounds of stun***. But if that's a solo monster, that means you're effectively getting 25 creature-rounds of stun! That's the entire fight.
But it's not specific to stunning. It applies equally well to weakening. And certainly, if the entire party focuses on weakening powers, then it's not entirely out of line to halve the damage of the enemy for the duration of the entire encounter (though I wouldn't necessarily suggest it's the right solution either). And if it's immobilizing the enemy and the enemy is all melee, you can certainly let your melee withdraw for those rounds, and turn it into "safety damage."
The point is, every status effect is valuable, and letting status effects intended to apply to one creature apply effectively to five creatures fundamentally alters the expectations of the game.
Of course, there's exceptions to this. When I use Icy Rays (Wiz3) or Freezing Bolts (Wiz23) I'm immobilizing two or three enemies, respectively. Against a solo monster, I don't get that advantage-it's one creature, all or nothing. But all is five (whereas nothing is still nothing). So, whatever solution we choose to integrate has to take into account the controller's already disadvantaged state-after all, when it comes to solo monsters, overpowered status effects are all they have.
The situation is complicated further by the fact that "status effect" really isn't one single well defined concept. After all, solo monsters being one monster that equals five plays into a lot of powers in unexpected ways. The durability of a "The entire party gets +6 to attack and damage against the targeted creature" is much higher against a solo monster than it is against a standard; for a standard, the chances of the party taking down that creature and, as thus, "wasting" the remaining duration (end of next turn, end of encounter, save ends, whatever) is pretty high. But in the event of a solo monster, it is as if the remaining duration "transfers" over to the next monster. This is a pretty staggering fact! But on the other hand, I don't think the game developers were necessarily unaware of that fact-indeed, I'd find it pretty unlikely that anyone would expect you to use an End of Encounter party buff vs target daily resource against a standard monster
On the other hand, I've seen too many fights that essentially boil down "Daily power saves the day." Some powers aren't overwhelming in the generic scenario where they apply to standards, but you never use them in those scenarios, so they can't be evaluated in those scenarios. So we can either measure how these powers function in the scenarios where they're reserved for, or we can try and address solo monsters.
One potential option is the idea of a "Cleanser" ability. A solo monster at certain times in a fight (probably no more than twice, and usually no more than once) would have the ability to cast off any status effects affecting it. How this is written is pretty important though-does it just remove conditions, or does it fundamentally make the monster treat itself as an entirely new token on the field, to which no earlier effects apply? I'm cautious of this approach, simply because it requires a lot of ad-hoc intervention to make any sense at all.
Another option is to grant solo monsters the ability to save against "short term" conditions at the start of their turn. 1d20+5 means that a solo monster has an 80% chance of success on any such roll, so an end of turn effect has only a 20% chance of actually affecting the creature's turn. From a simple math standpoint, that answers the question of End of Next Turn (or ENT) effects, but it leaves something to be desired from the standpoint of rewarding player actions. Furthermore, if mark powers grant conditions to the target, then if the target also has the ability to shed marks (see part 1 of Solos), you're double penalizing defenders. Fortunately, this is almost never relevant-mark powers typically trigger on the triggering creature's turn, meaning that they'd almost always end before the start of the creature's next turn anyway.
Of course, this style of rule, like all End of Turn Start of Turn rules, tends to have problem with what I like to call "Turn Shenanigans." That is, readying an action for after a creature's start of turn, such that they cannot make a save against it for a full round. This kind of behavior requires DM Ad Hoc intervention-I don't have any way around it other than to say "You want to play that way?" and instigate "Mutually Assured Destruction Mode."
Of course, there are two things to remember. One: Solo monsters already get a bonus to saving throws. A standard creature has a 55% chance of passing a save, whereas a Solo has an 80% chance of passing a saving throw; this translates into a 45% chance of failure (extend duration 1 round) for a standard, and 20% chance for a solo monster. Assuming an effect is purely save ends, it lasts for one round + X + X^2 + X^3, and so on (I'm not good with the calculus but it's relatively easy values). In short, a typical save ends effect lasts for approximately 1.8 rounds against a standard monster, and about 1.25 rounds against a solo monster.
In other words, save your single target save ends effects for solo monsters, because you're getting 6.25 creature-rounds worth of status effects for every one-that's three and a half times as much as against a standard monster!
For once, I see no problem with this. Single target save ends powers scream "Use this against a solo monster." And it's certainly true that, no matter what your deadly Level +4 solo monster boss fight is, if the entire party loads, one by one, save ends stuns and you decided that you wouldn't include a "still effective while stunned" property because you figured dealing with End of Next Turn effects was enough, your boss will never get a turn-barring crappy hit rolls. But ... actually, I have no retort for that. Use the cleanser rules too.
The danger, as I alluded to earlier, is of players feeling like their options don't count. No one really wants to bank on the 1 in 5 chance that their end of next turn power will really work. And no one wants to see their daily powers go up in smoke due to a 1/encounter status cleanser. Players will feel cheated. Implementing changes without negating player input is important. But so is challenging characters. And if the only solution to challenge characters is to simply not run solo monsters, then solo monsters really shouldn't be a part of the game.
Whatever mechanism is used, controllers need to be compensated somewhat. Either a bonus to hit or damage, or a penalty to enemy saving throws. It's an ad hoc solution, but I wouldn't be opposed to having controller powers grant a -5 to the start of turn saving throw for solo monsters.
Obviously, when running against an entire party of thieves and scouts, it's a non-issue. If the group uses straight DPS, you don't have status effects to worry about. But that's of little consolation when your group deals 700 damage over the course of two rounds at 16th level!
*17th level is when Wizards get Ice Tomb and Phantasmal Horror, their first encounter stuns, so it's a convenient level to use.
**We're ignoring paragon path powers for the moment, but trust me-they make the model worse.
The problem with status effects on solo monsters is pretty well recognized-so much so that Wizards of the Coast has already taken action! Well, problem solved-except not. The solution that Wizards took was, in order to negate the impact of two specific status effects (daze and stun), most solo monsters have a mechanism whereby daze and stun are less impacting than for other monsters.
I'm not sure how to feel about this. On the one hand, it's a deliberate fix that partially addresses the problem, and is certainly better than leaving things as they are-and if nothing else, it shows that Wizards at the very least understands that the framework for solo monsters has to be different from the framework for standards and elites.
But the problem with status effects isn't just daze or stun. The problem with status effects is that, most non-controller powers that drop any significant status effect (barring ongoing damage) is single target. When you let, say, Stunning Strike apply to "the entirety of" a solo monster, you're effectively letting the rogue target five creatures with this one power.
So why is this a problem? Well, let's look at a typical lineup at 17th level*: Fighter, Rogue, Wizard, Cleric, Warlock. All PHB heroes.
Each character has three encounter attacks**. Now, not every power can be a daze or a stun-but at least one power from every class sure can be. So, over the course of a standard five round encounter, you can expect creature-rounds of stun***. But if that's a solo monster, that means you're effectively getting 25 creature-rounds of stun! That's the entire fight.
But it's not specific to stunning. It applies equally well to weakening. And certainly, if the entire party focuses on weakening powers, then it's not entirely out of line to halve the damage of the enemy for the duration of the entire encounter (though I wouldn't necessarily suggest it's the right solution either). And if it's immobilizing the enemy and the enemy is all melee, you can certainly let your melee withdraw for those rounds, and turn it into "safety damage."
The point is, every status effect is valuable, and letting status effects intended to apply to one creature apply effectively to five creatures fundamentally alters the expectations of the game.
Of course, there's exceptions to this. When I use Icy Rays (Wiz3) or Freezing Bolts (Wiz23) I'm immobilizing two or three enemies, respectively. Against a solo monster, I don't get that advantage-it's one creature, all or nothing. But all is five (whereas nothing is still nothing). So, whatever solution we choose to integrate has to take into account the controller's already disadvantaged state-after all, when it comes to solo monsters, overpowered status effects are all they have.
The situation is complicated further by the fact that "status effect" really isn't one single well defined concept. After all, solo monsters being one monster that equals five plays into a lot of powers in unexpected ways. The durability of a "The entire party gets +6 to attack and damage against the targeted creature" is much higher against a solo monster than it is against a standard; for a standard, the chances of the party taking down that creature and, as thus, "wasting" the remaining duration (end of next turn, end of encounter, save ends, whatever) is pretty high. But in the event of a solo monster, it is as if the remaining duration "transfers" over to the next monster. This is a pretty staggering fact! But on the other hand, I don't think the game developers were necessarily unaware of that fact-indeed, I'd find it pretty unlikely that anyone would expect you to use an End of Encounter party buff vs target daily resource against a standard monster
On the other hand, I've seen too many fights that essentially boil down "Daily power saves the day." Some powers aren't overwhelming in the generic scenario where they apply to standards, but you never use them in those scenarios, so they can't be evaluated in those scenarios. So we can either measure how these powers function in the scenarios where they're reserved for, or we can try and address solo monsters.
One potential option is the idea of a "Cleanser" ability. A solo monster at certain times in a fight (probably no more than twice, and usually no more than once) would have the ability to cast off any status effects affecting it. How this is written is pretty important though-does it just remove conditions, or does it fundamentally make the monster treat itself as an entirely new token on the field, to which no earlier effects apply? I'm cautious of this approach, simply because it requires a lot of ad-hoc intervention to make any sense at all.
Another option is to grant solo monsters the ability to save against "short term" conditions at the start of their turn. 1d20+5 means that a solo monster has an 80% chance of success on any such roll, so an end of turn effect has only a 20% chance of actually affecting the creature's turn. From a simple math standpoint, that answers the question of End of Next Turn (or ENT) effects, but it leaves something to be desired from the standpoint of rewarding player actions. Furthermore, if mark powers grant conditions to the target, then if the target also has the ability to shed marks (see part 1 of Solos), you're double penalizing defenders. Fortunately, this is almost never relevant-mark powers typically trigger on the triggering creature's turn, meaning that they'd almost always end before the start of the creature's next turn anyway.
Of course, this style of rule, like all End of Turn Start of Turn rules, tends to have problem with what I like to call "Turn Shenanigans." That is, readying an action for after a creature's start of turn, such that they cannot make a save against it for a full round. This kind of behavior requires DM Ad Hoc intervention-I don't have any way around it other than to say "You want to play that way?" and instigate "Mutually Assured Destruction Mode."
Of course, there are two things to remember. One: Solo monsters already get a bonus to saving throws. A standard creature has a 55% chance of passing a save, whereas a Solo has an 80% chance of passing a saving throw; this translates into a 45% chance of failure (extend duration 1 round) for a standard, and 20% chance for a solo monster. Assuming an effect is purely save ends, it lasts for one round + X + X^2 + X^3, and so on (I'm not good with the calculus but it's relatively easy values). In short, a typical save ends effect lasts for approximately 1.8 rounds against a standard monster, and about 1.25 rounds against a solo monster.
In other words, save your single target save ends effects for solo monsters, because you're getting 6.25 creature-rounds worth of status effects for every one-that's three and a half times as much as against a standard monster!
For once, I see no problem with this. Single target save ends powers scream "Use this against a solo monster." And it's certainly true that, no matter what your deadly Level +4 solo monster boss fight is, if the entire party loads, one by one, save ends stuns and you decided that you wouldn't include a "still effective while stunned" property because you figured dealing with End of Next Turn effects was enough, your boss will never get a turn-barring crappy hit rolls. But ... actually, I have no retort for that. Use the cleanser rules too.
The danger, as I alluded to earlier, is of players feeling like their options don't count. No one really wants to bank on the 1 in 5 chance that their end of next turn power will really work. And no one wants to see their daily powers go up in smoke due to a 1/encounter status cleanser. Players will feel cheated. Implementing changes without negating player input is important. But so is challenging characters. And if the only solution to challenge characters is to simply not run solo monsters, then solo monsters really shouldn't be a part of the game.
Whatever mechanism is used, controllers need to be compensated somewhat. Either a bonus to hit or damage, or a penalty to enemy saving throws. It's an ad hoc solution, but I wouldn't be opposed to having controller powers grant a -5 to the start of turn saving throw for solo monsters.
Obviously, when running against an entire party of thieves and scouts, it's a non-issue. If the group uses straight DPS, you don't have status effects to worry about. But that's of little consolation when your group deals 700 damage over the course of two rounds at 16th level!
*17th level is when Wizards get Ice Tomb and Phantasmal Horror, their first encounter stuns, so it's a convenient level to use.
**We're ignoring paragon path powers for the moment, but trust me-they make the model worse.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)