I just recently DM'd a mod with 2 solo monsters in it. While the rest of the mod was well-written and fun, the combats dragged on and on, especially the 2nd where the Solo didn't have an especially good to-hit chance.
Something of a plea for writers to not do that...
Also, with Astral Seal in play, I think it is starting to be a bad idea to put a Solo in a mod by itself anyway - you end up with the Astral Seal(Divine Power) at-will being competitive with the damage output of the Solo on single attacks - unless it has mass attacks consistently, the Solo can't compete with an at-will.
I understand the options. That doesn't truly stop Solos from being a slog of a combat. It just makes them go faster. But from a writer PoV, that should be a no-no to put two of them into the same mod, especially when there's no 'hey, if it seems to be dragging, do this' in the tactics section.
Yeah, after playing that module I told my club I didn't want to run it because the second half sucked. First half was a lot of fun, though.
I did consider seeing how viable it would be to change it so the two solos are fighting each other and the party gets involved in the mess. Not sure if it's possible, but it'd make it a lot more interesting.
The biggest problem is that by and large solos shouldn't be encountered alone.
They should be with either some sort of dynamic terrain that they and the PCs can use to advantage.
or
They should be supported by other monsters.
Now the first one is sometimes hard to achieve because you need to think up plausible fantastic terrain to have in the encounter, and the second one has big problems with the xp budget of modules, particularly in the heroic tier.
Fortunatley it is possible once you hit the 4-7 or 7-10 band to use lower level solos in combination with party level monsters, but still the xp cap is going to take a big hit from doing so.
I did consider seeing how viable it would be to change it so the two solos are fighting each other and the party gets involved in the mess. Not sure if it's possible, but it'd make it a lot more interesting.
That would be pretty cool-its like a Godzilla movie.
It is a problem for authors. Look at the HP values for most solos and many elites in the P2 range. The thing is, for some strikers (or paladins with fullblades, etc.), 500 HPs isn't so insane. Put a guy on them that dishes out 100+ HPs of dmg and the critter will drop in a fine timeframe. But, in a party without great damage output, that combat will never end. It is really easy to build encounters with two elites and insane HPs...
I suspect this is something that would be caught easily during playtesting however.
The bigger problem with solos, to me, is that you generally can't dish out sufficient damage without picking some very cheesy combinations. This is true in 7-10 and higher tiers. Solos seem to work fine below that in terms of damage output.
I have seen the opposite problem with solos. They allow the PC's to concentrate damage and take them out quickly. Last solo fight I ran, the PC's bloodied it on the first round.
I have seen the opposite problem with solos. They allow the PC's to concentrate damage and take them out quickly. Last solo fight I ran, the PC's bloodied it on the first round.
I agree on the control apsect. That's one of their clear issues, especially as new material gives all PCs ways to stun/daze/etc. As for being bloodied in a round, that surprises me. What tier?
My experiences with ADCP1-1, across 1-4, 4-7, and 11-14, is that at 1-4 just the solo is a formidable threat even for a good party. Low level PCs lack the capacity to control it, and they miss often. At 4-7 the battle is still challenging, but it depends on the party. In both those tiers, it runs long. The nature of the specific solo at those tiers also gives good mobility which can counter lockdown issues.
At 11-14, the battle is non-threatening, even adding all other factors. The PCs have multiple ways to control it and can still take out and/or control the other things. The solo ends up being a bag of HPs, but its damage output, even with breaths used to good effect, are seldom meaningful. Most of my three runs went long but all three had little threat to them, even at all 11th and playing high.
My experiences playing and judging most other solo combats at tiers 7-10 is that the HPs are often way above the threat level. You get 1-2 rounds of ho-hum as the outcome is already established. I can think of two exceptions, one being SPEC1-2 where we have some particularly evil combinations plus other stuff.
In 3.5, a Dragon was to be absolutely feared. A dragon almost had to be downplayed to be killable at some levels, with flight and other options. In 4E, I don't see that fear.
As for being bloodied in a round, that surprises me. What tier?
P1 (11-14) Was accomplished without a crit. There are some really broken builds by that point.
Side comment: The trend I am seeing with regards to 4E combat in general is to make build sthat focus on extremely high damage coupled with some hit reliability. This shuts down many tactics as it kills monsters before they can retailiate. Basically the old addage about the best defense being a good offense.
It's rough. If authors try to use the high HP monsters, then those crazy damage tables will be fine, but the ones that lack that level of offense will take forever on encounters. Yeah, I think I'll live with letting the tweaked-out PCs have their day. It is far better than punishing the more casual players! P1 Low in ADCP1 can be bloodied with 250 or so damage, less with 4 players, more with 6. That's still a lot of damage for a round, but I agree, it can be done.
So, I guess depending on your school of thought, solos might be just great at high tier so twinked out PCs don't walk away in two rounds with a victory, but I suspect it would overall still be a bad idea for most tables to use too many high-HP creatures.
Well the problem as I see it is that the design often breaks down into the math of Damage output vs. hit points. This is why some combats end up taking too long as they turn into a stagnant slug fest. Once all the cool powers are used up (on both sides), and the combat is left to at-wills and basic attacks, my recoomnedation to all DM's out there, is to find a way to end the combat quickly.
Part of the problem is that MM1 monsters in some cases are just badly designed, the lich, most of the dragons being 2 examples that leap to mind. When looking at solos they need to be able to basically generate 2 fights, one before they are bloodied and one after they are bloodied.
They also need to work with other things: solo, experience has taught, doesn't mean alone.
Putting a single solo monster in a room with standard terrain is going to lead to a dull fight more often than not.
I think we've had this debate elsewhere, but essentially it boils down to the same thing: solos are too easy under the standard 4e rules, once players have gained a few levels or so. It's basically a question of action economy, with the added ability to focus fire effectively.
The problem with using solo + other monsters is that either you have to blow your XP budget on one massive fight (which doesn't work in LFR so well because players will have all their dailies to use), and even then the PCs will likely focus all their control on the solo and lock it down, neutralising a large part of the threat of the encounter. The other option is having a low-level solo, but then it gets hit so easily it's a bit pointless.
I've had three challenging solo fights in 18 months of 4e. They've all happened at around party-level 4-5, which I don't think is entirely co-incidence.
For people with the Draconomnicon, take a look at Tiamat. That's how solos should have been done. Hydras I think will also be scary, as they get more dangerous as they're hurt. I think there is a pretty nasty solo in a 7-10 mod out there, but it's nasty because it's a de-levelled paragon monster, which has retained its paragon abilities.
To provide a credible threat, solos need the ability to reduce the effect of action denial without making such powers completely worthless. The ability to act multiple times a round seems to be key here.
Well the problem as I see it is that the design often breaks down into the math of Damage output vs. hit points. This is why some combats end up taking too long as they turn into a stagnant slug fest. Once all the cool powers are used up (on both sides), and the combat is left to at-wills and basic attacks, my recoomnedation to all DM's out there, is to find a way to end the combat quickly.
It depends a bit on the players and the tactical situation. I recently had a fight with one opponent left and the PCs having only at-wills left. It never felt like a slug feast and it was over in record RL time despite the fact that it took 8 rounds or so. There was no point in thinking about what attack to use, or whether a reposition was necessary. So it was just a swift roll attack plus damage, next, and so on. I admit though that those are rare (and the only reason I even did it was because with two or three bad rolls on the PCs' side it could easily have been a TPK).
My experiences with ADCP1-1, across 1-4, 4-7, and 11-14, is that at 1-4 just the solo is a formidable threat even for a good party. Low level PCs lack the capacity to control it, and they miss often. At 4-7 the battle is still challenging, but it depends on the party. In both those tiers, it runs long. The nature of the specific solo at those tiers also gives good mobility which can counter lockdown issues.
At 11-14, the battle is non-threatening, even adding all other factors. The PCs have multiple ways to control it and can still take out and/or control the other things. The solo ends up being a bag of HPs, but its damage output, even with breaths used to good effect, are seldom meaningful. Most of my three runs went long but all three had little threat to them, even at all 11th and playing high.
The variation between levels in ADCP1-1 was also due to the fact that the dragon changes type from green to red. If it had been a green dragon all the way up the higher level fights might not have been much harder, but they would have been much more interesting.
It depends a bit on the players and the tactical situation.
This is exactly correct. Solos can be a great combat when custom designed for a known party make-up with a well known level of tactical experience. Part of the Problem with Solo's is that they limit the DM's tactical options, if for no other reason then the fact that they can only be in one place at a time....... *light bulb*....... excuse me I need to go build a new solo monster.
Mmmm... solo's that split up in multiple creatures at the same time that can merge and split up like an advanced form of mirror image... I like how you think 
The variation between levels in ADCP1-1 was also due to the fact that the dragon changes type from green to red. If it had been a green dragon all the way up the higher level fights might not have been much harder, but they would have been much more interesting.
I'm really not sure the green would have been more interesting. It can certainly last longer and be more annoying, but I'm not sure it's really all that interesting in an open area with no real terrain.
Especially not for folks who might have already fought one boring fight against a green dragon at the same convention they played ADCP.
Mmmm... solo's that split up in multiple creatures at the same time that can merge and split up like an advanced form of mirror image... I like how you think
What I think Solos should be able to do is roughly as follows:
Have 2 Init rolls, let's call 'em A and B.
On A, be able to do one action - standard, minor, move, don't take ongoing damage, refresh immediate actions or make saves.
On B, be able to act as normal
Adjust damage appropriately down by a little
What this would do is make Solos less likely to get caught out tactically by a poor initiative roll, yet at the same time, not let them do all their tricks if A rolls high. It also makes them tactically a lot more interesting.
Many of the new solo's already have such a mechanism (multiple actions). The problem is that it does not solve the stun/daze-lock problem, especially not for effects that end at the end of the next turn of the PC inflicting the status effect upon the solo. In fact, it turns some of the daily abilities with a (save ends) on a hit and 1 turn on a miss into the odd situation where the player really wants to miss with that daily.
Yeah, it's not a good sign when someone closes their eyes and doesn't use a weapon or implement on an attack, cause they want to miss.
Likely most 'until end of your next turn' effects should have been 'until end of _its_ next turn' effects, which do work quite well with the multiactivation setup. It'll be interesting to see if the MM3 adjusts for this quandary.
I think a good way to get an understanding of the flaws of some (if not all) solos is to compare: Blue Dragon Wyrmling with Young Blue Dragon. There really isn't enough difference between the two given the level difference, and the idea that the Young dragon is supposed to be faught alone.
The Daze/Stun problem is another reason that Solos need buddies - their much weaker allies can use their actions to give the solo saves against the effect (great use for minions).
As to adventure budget issues.. sort of.. Take a low 4-7 adventure and you get 3200xp total. That's about 1k xp per encounter, add the extra 200 to the one you plan to put a solo in.
Young White Dragon - level 3 solo brute. (750xp)
Kobold Slyblade x2 - level 4 skirmisher (175xp ea)
Kobold Cleaver x4 - Level 2 minion (31 xp ea)
Total xp: 1224.
Should be an ok fight, where the minions main job is to help the Dragon and the Slyblades by providing or protecting flanks, and providing assists and saves. Especially if you put in some terrain to spice it up. It also still leaves you 900xp each for the other two fights, and 175xp for a complexity 1 level 4 skill challenge.
It is only in the 1-4 range where using a solo with buddies is a huge drain on mod resources, simply because of the comparitive levels of the monsters and the available xp.
Solo's could be fixed to be allowed a save against every effect that is not ongoing damage at the start of their turn without the solo save bonus (including till end of next turn effects) and you just go from there, stunned till end of next turn, 55% chance of it having no stun at start of solo's turn and letting him operate normally etc.
Solo's could be fixed to be allowed a save against every effect that is not ongoing damage at the start of their turn without the solo save bonus (including till end of next turn effects) and you just go from there, stunned till end of next turn, 55% chance of it having no stun at start of solo's turn and letting him operate normally etc.
Hmm that is a great idea, I might adopt that as a house rule for my home games, alas it will be a long time before we see that become official for LFR use, if ever.
Solo's could be fixed to be allowed a save against every effect that is not ongoing damage at the start of their turn without the solo save bonus (including till end of next turn effects) and you just go from there, stunned till end of next turn, 55% chance of it having no stun at start of solo's turn and letting him operate normally etc.
That doesn't really fix the stun problem. Stun's a powerful effect attached to a daily(usually) attacking a creature with high defenses - it ought to stun a Solo for a round if you can hit. The issue with stun is that there are too many things out there with properties that absolutely destroy the Solo's ability to save against the Stun effect.
It might be good if Action Points were changed such that they could be spent regardless of condition(including potentially dying) and then Solos gain an action point any time that they spend a round doing no actions vs. PCs.
So a stunned Solo might look like this:
Round 1: attacks normally, spends an action point
(gets stunned, save ends)
Round 2: Spends action point to make 1 attack
Round 3: Gains an action point.
Round 4: Spends an action point to make 1 attack
Still pretty lethal, but the Solo gets to keep acting, even when stunlocked...
And there's the reverse, too. The party gets all stunned, they're able to do various things with their action points. It feels heroic to think of a PC staggering around, but then managing to still get one swing off while shaking their head in confusion.
Another idea: Add to "things you can do with an action point" - automatically end one effect that a save can end (no action). Counts as the use of the action point for the round.
I have seen the opposite problem with solos. They allow the PC's to concentrate damage and take them out quickly. Last solo fight I ran, the PC's bloodied it on the first round.
I agree on the control apsect. That's one of their clear issues, especially as new material gives all PCs ways to stun/daze/etc. As for being bloodied in a round, that surprises me. What tier?
The problem with solos of any level is that players save up their daily powers, and use them to nova. A well-written adventure should put the PCs in the situations where they'll need to use their resources before they get to the big bad.
Even at low levels, solos can drop really fast, depending on party composition.
ADAP1-5's big bad met up with an artificer with punishing eye and magic weapon. Every PC that hit it had +9 damage. It went down in two rounds.