Solo Monster Template for 3.5?


3.5/d20/OGL

RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32

Has anybody yet tried doing a 3.5 version of 4E's Solo (or Minion) templates? It's one of the few ideas in 4E that I could see having some merit (and I will force some use out of the damn thing if it kills me. Again!) I posted this up on WotC but the boards are now pretty dead, so I figured I'd try here. (The only response I got there was being told, "it won't work don't do it" without a good reason why.)

My initial thoughts - to be concreted out are as follows:

I figure the trick to Solos is to downgrade the effect of SoD without negating them. Nominally, I'd guess you do something lie say, double (and probably max out) a solo monster's hitpoints.

As to Save or die, my starter for ten would be to give the Solo some sort of, for the sake of argument, let's call 'em 'fate points' which would allow it to reroll failed saving throws for effects (say, death, paralysation, polymorph maybe ability damage or stun but not hit point damage) a number of times per encounter. (A second failed save could be either and 'hard cheese dude' or let you spend more 'fate points' to try again.) The clever bit would be that if it chooses to use this power, even if it makes the save the second (or subsequent?) time, it gets some sort of negative effect. By initial thought would be a bit like a negative energy level (only that effects anyone!) That way, SoDs would continue to make some difference in a solo monster, but the chance of them ending the fight would be much less (though possible). Of course the number of 'reroll to not die' is an open question?

Anybody have any thoughts? (Or a link to anyone else's attempt at this?)

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Maybe give them 3 Fate Points each round. They can spend 1 to re-roll a failed save (against any kind of effect, just for simplicity's sake). If the re-roll also failed the Save, the Solo can then spend 2 Fate Points to try again.

Another good idea might be to give the Solo something like "Double Action." They get to roll initiative TWICE, and can therefore act TWICE during each combat round.

I DM for a group of 8 PCs, and against a single big bad, they're usually able to take it down in 2 rounds, maybe 3 if it's really tough. Most big bads have more than 3 really cool powers, so that's a darn shame. Even with me re-alloting feats to get some Quickened Spell-like Effects off, the big bads don't last long against large parties.

Maybe give the Solo some kind of self-healing ability, possibly dependent on some kind of combat circumstance, like dropping an opponent, eating a minion, spending a full round in a trance, something!

RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32

SmiloDan wrote:

Maybe give them 3 Fate Points each round. They can spend 1 to re-roll a failed save (against any kind of effect, just for simplicity's sake). If the re-roll also failed the Save, the Solo can then spend 2 Fate Points to try again.

Another good idea might be to give the Solo something like "Double Action." They get to roll initiative TWICE, and can therefore act TWICE during each combat round.

I DM for a group of 8 PCs, and against a single big bad, they're usually able to take it down in 2 rounds, maybe 3 if it's really tough. Most big bads have more than 3 really cool powers, so that's a darn shame. Even with me re-alloting feats to get some Quickened Spell-like Effects off, the big bads don't last long against large parties.

Maybe give the Solo some kind of self-healing ability, possibly dependent on some kind of combat circumstance, like dropping an opponent, eating a minion, spending a full round in a trance, something!

I think it's a better idea to leave the 'fate' points for status, rather than damage effects (mainly 'cos it's extremely hard, even with Disintigrate to one-shot anything with damage, and doubling (and probably maxing) hit points will definately make it nearly impossible (which is kinda the point).

3 per round seems a little high - unless you've got a huge number of casters. I tend to have partys of six in strength and in my general experience you don't get more than two primary spellcasters (and they don't tend to be throwing save or dies every round). I was thinking more like a fixed pool for the whole (i.e. encounter). Initially I thoguht possibly level-based; although after reflection, maybe it'd be better PC-number based (like say 1-2 per PC).

I have considered multiple actions per round for BBEGs before. Except you get right back to 3.0 Haste problems. Dealing with multiple high-level spells per round is pretty bad (heck, for that matter, who'd want to deal with a Time Stands Still/Full Attack routine every round!?)

I think what mainly needs to be done is shore up the longevity more than offense. Hit points is easy; maxed double hits should be enough even to slow the most insanely hard parties down. (If that's not enough, triple will!) Then we just have to deal with save-ord-e and I think we're there.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Yeah, the party I DM for has an evoker, a druid, a beguiler, a bard, a duskblade, a ranger/rogue, a crazy halfling knife-fighter, a goliath monk, and a DMPC Healer (actually, she's a major treasure from a real long quest--long story. I just wish one of my players would run her!).

So there are 5 or 6 casters to deal with.

I know my BBEGs could use upto 3 re-rolls a round! I also like how it forces you to make a decision, resource-wise. Is this effect so dastardly it's worth using all 3 of my re-rolls (if the 1st re-roll failed), or should I save a couple for later spells in the round?

It should be noted we use UA-style action points.

Scarab Sages

I would say max hit points, and use the Monster Manual to add hit dice (since monster hit dice improve BAB as almost an afterthought, this shouldn't make the monsters too deadly). You might even get a size increase, and reach is always helpful for monster survival.

Finally, if you really want to up the survivability, give them Damage Reduction or Fast Healing as an extra special ability. The Monster Manual would classify this as a combat ability having significant impact, which would warrant +2 CR.

You should also limit your DR/FH based on HD. In general, if the monster has HD < 5 then they get DR 5/X, HD >= 5 they get DR 10/X. Same thing for Fast Healing: a good rule would be no more than 1/2 HD (rounded down, minimum 1).

Dark Archive

Max hit points is a good idea, although I think I'd go for double hit points just to make the maths easier.

Maybe give them bonus luck feats from Complete Scoundrel? They allow all sorts of re-rolls, but only until you run out of luck points.


Why not just play 4e?

Scarab Sages

Kirth Gersen wrote:
Why not just play 4e?

Good point, if a little clipped in tone. If you notice my suggestions, they are all within the 3.5 rules, and not some wild new template.

If the PCs use a single SoD on a monster and win the encounter, that is fine, but they need to remember that there are more encounters out there.

Part of this is the psychology of g a campaign versus adventure versus encounter. If you go by cookie-cutter encounters and adventures, it is far to easy for the players to simply attack a few enemies, retreat, and repeat. It is more realistic to give the PCs an actual challenge (ie. drain their resources steadily) than give them one REALLY tough encounter that lasts a long time.

I'm all for battles lasting a bit longer in 3.5, but much of that comes down to tactics and careful consideration by the DM.

Allow me to illustrate: in a recent game, the PCs were set to face a Dark Naga Sorcerer as a "solo" monster. It had no chance against them in a confined room, and with the party fighter having an adamantine sword to cut through stoneskin.

My solution? First off, a worg ran from the previous battle as it was sensible - where did it go? To warn the Naga of course. The party enterered the hall, ignored the Naga room and proceeded to engage 3 clerics with some zombie/dretch support. Now the Naga made its move.

Now, according to the adventure design I was way out of line by combining 2.5 encounters into one, but it was organic and more realistic. Plus, it gave the PCs an actual challenge rather than beating up on one monster at a time.


Jal Dorak wrote:

Good point, if a little clipped in tone.

My solution ... according to the adventure design was way out of line by combining 2.5 encounters into one, but it was organic and more realistic. Plus, it gave the PCs an actual challenge rather than beating up on one monster at a time.

You're right -- I apologize for the tone. Thanks!

This following right on the heels of the demands for creation of a "minion" template (which I struggled to mitigate), I'm just wondering why there is such a huge effort to find ways to turn 3.5 into 4e, insofar as 4e already exists.

Personally, I vastly prefer the type of solution you outlined to outright changes in the entire game system, and especially when destruction of the 3.5 model of "PC rules = NPC rules" is advocated. If a super-powerful "solo" template is included, then it must have a LA, and must be available to PCs as well, if any semblance of legitimacy is to be maintained.

RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32

Kirth Gersen wrote:
Why not just play 4e?

Short answer: I don't particularly like 4e.

Long answer: Because while 4E does have some good high end concept ideas, I find 4E generally inferior than 3.5.

3.5, while better than 4E, and being in my opinion the most mechancially superior set of rules I have thus far encountered, still has plenty of flaws. But not enough to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

I hold no set of rules above having it's best bits stolen and slapped on a slightly better set of rules to make an even better one. Never, in 18-odd years of gaming, has there been even one wargame or RPG that has survived contact with me without light-to-major tweaking... So I have every intention of plundering 4E's bloated corpse for every single idea of value I can find and fitting it back to 3.5. (Exactly what I have done with Rolemaster's, what? four? editions.) I bought the damn thing, and I'll be damned if I don't make it do some work for me aside from sitting on my shelf and awaiting somebody else running a 4E game (I'll play it but no way would I DM it.)

* * * * * *

I think adapting the solo template (and maybe minion too) would allow better modelling of some, large set-piece battles. It this one occasion, I am prepared to sacrifice world cohesion for a bit of dramatic lisense. This is quite uncharacteristic of me; I'm usually heavily on the side of PC = NPC dynamic (which, except for 'boss' battles I think is one of 3.5's strengths). And I'm very heavily into world cohesion and consistency. (Though on the other hand, I've never shied away from BBEG deus ex machina for plot/story reasons, either. I consider the rules to be guidelines not absolutes and not everything in the world has to be defined completely by the book; just 99% of it.)

(You could rationalise it a bit by saying the extra hit points come from masses of over-confidence, since hit points can be legitamately interpreted as morale. And 'fate' points or whatever, speak for themselves.)

Without solo monsters, I simply do not ever have single monster encounters. Or at least not anything of moment. Currently, when I have a BBEG encounter it will be him, his half-dozen toughest mates and/or a large number of disposable flunkies. Which forces the PCs to split their fire and give him some breathing room for a dramactic, longer fight.

The rate at which my highly skilled, mechanically and tactically adept players saw through things is astonishing, so it would be nice to have a kind of mechanic that would allow the dragon to actually survive more than two-three rounds against a party without being a TPK (which is why just adding HD doesn't help - not too mention many of my BBEGs are humanoids not monsters). Doubling and maxing the hit points is a good start (you could ass DR instead, but then you get the same about of damage from spells and powers and SR doesn't cover all of that either.)

Heck, I max out many if not most of my monster's hit point anyway (and always max out any BBEGs).

So, if one can just alleivate the amount of SoDs from ending the fight right out (one-hit kills is why I've more or less stopped having BBEGs when we play Rolemaster) but prevent them from being totally useless, I think it would be of benefit.

It'd be nice to have a dragon encounter, for example where the dragon didn't either wipe the PCs (due to too-high CR) or gets wiped itself (concentration of fire). Or to have the villianous Evilguy McDoBadder go all Sephiroth slash Magneto slash Orochimaru (sic) on the party without being summarily butchered in the first round.

Anyway, compared to some of the ways I've bent 3.5, this is pretty minor. (You are talking to the Lich whose latest campaign world summarily tossed out the entire MM and who has, by playing around with the front end of, made a spirited attempt at replacing Vancian casting with a mana-based system.)


  • I'm not a big fan of the 4 PCs vs. 1 bad guy. It's contrived, overdone, and somewhat silly.
  • Paizo has eliminated save-or-die effects, so that concern is gone.
  • Max hp, as pointed out, is easy to implement, if you feel like it's warranted.

    So, overall, I'm not seeing the need for a template yet.

  • RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32

    Kirth Gersen wrote:
  • I'm not a big fan of the 4 PCs vs. 1 bad guy. It's contrived, overdone, and somewhat silly.
  • Paizo has eliminated save-or-die effects, so that concern is gone.
  • Max hp, as pointed out, is easy to implement, if you feel like it's warranted.

    So, overall, I'm not seeing the need for a template yet.

  • It would be 6 PCs vs one bad guy actually - for a change of pace instead of the 6 PCs vs the bad guy, his tank, his two-to-three support spellcasters and his half-dozen to score minion chaff thy get currently. For variety.

    I appreciate that this might not be of concern to your play style; fair enough, but it certainly is in mine.

  • I'm not playing Pathfinder. It's got some good ideas - which I shall also steal and implement - but I decided that in the end, overall, their house rules aren't better than my house-rules (and mine have the advantage I can use all of 3.5's stuff with them on top.)

  • I already do - frequently - use max hit points, and believe me, it's not enough.


  • I've tried the D&D 4th edition Solo monster and this is a similar problem (which often goes unsolved) that you find in Superhero games (in which you try to have a 'archvillain' face off against a superteam).

    The problem is two fold. One the solo monster needs to have staying power. This is often easily solved by giving it max HP, double HP or more HP. D&D 4th edition solved this problem.

    The second and by far more important problem is that the solo needs to be able to threaten an entire group. I don't just mean which 'squares' they threaten but it needs to have the ability to respond to each character. This is where 4th Edition fails as many of their so-called solo monsters have few attacks and average damage.

    If the solo monster is going to deal with multiple characters then it needs a way to attack them all. More attacks is one solution but it's only a basic solution. Area of Effect attacks also work but players will manipulate the battlefield so that only some are hit while others are fine.
    Ultimately the ability to react to the characters better is needed. This could be as simple as adding a counter attack ability, so that went attacked in some fashion, your solo monster can make an immediate, if not basic, attack back. Unfortunately, D&D doesn't support much 'acting out of turn', so some players may cry foul.

    Anyway, that's breaking the problem down into it's components. Find an answer to Survivability and Being able to threaten multiple opponents is the key.

    RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

    Actually, the acting out of turn thing can be handled as Attacks of Opportunity. Just give the BBEG some interesting choices in what they can do with an AoO, and maybe some special ability to allow an action that doesn't normally provoke an AoO provoke one (but with some kind of warning to the PCs so it doesn't seem arbitrary or DM fiat).

    Also, allowing a BBEG to roll initiative multiple times in a round allow it to respond multiple times to the PCs actions. You might even be able to make it a BBEG-only feat.

    Iterative Reflexes
    Requirements: BAB +6, Combat Reflexes, Improved Initiative.
    Benefit: You get to roll multiple initiative rolls and act multiple times in a single round of combat. This allows you to act a number of times per round equal to the number of attacks you get based on your BAB.

    Sczarni

    SmiloDan wrote:


    Iterative Reflexes
    Requirements: BAB +6, Combat Reflexes, Improved Initiative.
    Benefit: You get to roll multiple initiative rolls and act multiple times in a single round of combat. This allows you to act a number of times per round equal to the number of attacks you get based on your BAB.

    Didn't some WotC dragons have this? Where their tail was a different init than their claws?

    Scarab Sages

    ugh

    No template needed, just max out HP...

    Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Gaming / D&D / 3.5/d20/OGL / Solo Monster Template for 3.5? All Messageboards

    Want to post a reply? Sign in.
    Recent threads in 3.5/d20/OGL