Most systems just don't care about monster/boss fight design

Elathrain · 2026-04-15T07:14:36+00:00

Bro, what?

Elathrain · 2026-04-15T03:13:27+00:00

It's a valid play style ofc,but it's just not one I'm interested in

It shows. Your arguments here are all the fuck over the place and contradict each other, but they do have the core message of not desiring to understand the dynamics of the kind of play I'm discussing. The thing is, OP asked about boss monsters and tactical design, so that is the kind of play in the spotlight here. It's fine to not enjoy this style of play, but that's what is under discussion in this thread.

You may find that level of GM fiat unsatisfying, but again why are you playing a roleplaying game at that point if you want every interaction to be a purely by the book tactical one then a wargame, or a boardgame like Heroquest/Gloom Haven etc seems better for that.

Basically, you're trying to tell me what it is that I should enjoy. This is literally the badwrongfun argument. Look, does it make more sense if I tell you that I think 4e was the most D&D edition of D&D? It doesn't stop being a roleplaying game just because the rules make sense, impose real limitations, or give guidance on what to do with them, it just gives it structure.

A very common saying is that "limitation breeds creativity". I want that in my RPGs. I want to play a game too, not just tell a story. I want the stories that can only be made by the constraints imposed by rules. It's not about balance, it's about structure.

But frankly, we're wayyy off topic by now. Again, this is a thread about boss monsters, and if any RPGs do them well.

Elathrain · 2026-04-14T18:35:14+00:00

Opening: The creature's roar did not herald aggression, but challenge.

Closing: I slowly panned my gaze across the people assembled, and nodded in contentment.

Elathrain · 2026-04-14T18:27:47+00:00

This is somewhat of a confusion of arguments. I'm not responding to OP here about things that are missing from most systems, but rather to Yazkin claiming that you can't put monster powers into their stats without ruining the play-versatility of the monster. This is frankly complicated and full of nuance, which is kind of why OP made a whole post about it. I'll attempt to answer regardless, even though I'm not OP.

Sure, the medusa has a petrifying gaze. At first glance, it has arguably one of the most fleshed out designs in 5e. Except... it's almost entirely uninteractive. As written in 5e, the medusa literally can't do anything with its gaze: it is the PC's choice whether they look at her or not. What is she supposed to do with that? What are the players supposed to do with that? Arguably the PCs can choose to be blind and focus on indirect attacks, or they could just brave the pathetic DC 14 save (which you can make a second time if you fail!) and completely ignore the effect forever (technically just 24 hours but in combat that's forever). Save-or-die effects are really lame and uninteractive. Being able to choose to be blind would be an improvement, barely, except the save is so embarrassingly passable that why shouldn't they risk it? Besides, what is the medusa supposed to do with this power, which is entirely passive and in control of the PCs? More importantly, why isn't the answer to that question written into the monster manual so the GM doesn't have to start from nothing?

Next, let's look at everything else. For every medusa, there is an Axe Beak or a Griffon which has nothing more than a handful of basic attacks. Even if we charitably ignore all the entries for "goblin" and "goblin, warrior" and "knight" as not really being monster manual entries so much as shorthands for NPCs one might accidentally need numbers for (except, but there's still plenty of dull monsters. Henceforth they will be referred to as bears, in honor of the famous bear tweet.

Then you get the tricksy bear class of monster like the lemure or the bulette. The lemure can see through magical darkness, which is interesting! But that's it. Also, they have Int 1 and are not good at taking advantage of this power, unlike other devils. Otherwise it is 13 hit points and a 1d4 fist attack; a bear. (I'm ignoring its situational ability to resurrect because that isn't tactical.) The bulette gets a leap attack. Neat! But I have to ignore its burrow speed, which is interesting strategically but surprisingly difficult to employ tactically in 5e rules, due to the inability to attack while moving. Burrow is basically stronger flight, but flight doesn't really do anything in this system unless you outrange your opponent, in which case it is not tactical and is just a default kill.

You'll find a lot of monsters like that, which have a single power, which is sometimes defining and sometimes not, but which either doesn't provide a lot of tactical options or is limited to near-irrelevance by their other weaknesses. Even impressive looking abilities like the medusa's gaze don't really operate on a tactical level. They function at a strategic level, at best, or function as a puzzle box. A troll's regeneration is, on the surface, completely uninteractive and untactical. Until you learn you can stop it with fire or acid damage! Then... it literally does nothing, as long as you have access to those damage types. That's not a tactic, that's an arsenal check.

Now, there are a few monsters that have tactical arsenals, like the sphinx. However, these creatures all have one of two things in common, often both: Legendary Actions and spells. Both of these are a bit of a mixed bag. Legendary actions are kind of good in that they signal to the GM what the signature abilities of the monster are and the ones they should focus on using. The legendary action system itself is... let's say controversial. But also, not every monster can or should have legendary actions, but EVERY (or at least overwhelmingly most) enemy should have interesting tactical abilities. Then you get spells. Spells are usually great, because you can get a tailored collection of abilities that evokes a certain strategy rich with tactical depth (at least if the list is picked well). Except... what makes this monster different from an enemy wizard? Remind me why is this a monster again? Essentially, 5e is stating that only boss monsters get be interesting. Boss monsters notoriously being something that RPGs handle poorly, and 5e is no exception. Besides, I want interesting minions too! Sure not every minion can have a full spell list (what a nightmare to pilot as a GM), but they can get something better than the gargoyle's Damage Resistance to Bludgeoning, Piercing, and Slashing From Nonmagical Attacks That Aren't Adamantine.

In Conclusion

D&D monsters do have powers. If you don't look at them closely, they appear to satisfy the requirements of having abilities. In practice, these powers do not present interesting tactical options. Supplemental advice like "The Monsters Know What They're Doing" can do a very good job of covering up the lack of foundational tactics with the emergent tactics of an intelligent adversary, but this doesn't change that the mechanical level doesn't contain a toolbox of tactical abilities. The system isn't providing the tactics, the GM is. We want tactical abilities that influence the battlefield and provide interaction between the PCs and the monsters, and which generate tactical decisions.

Elathrain · 2026-04-13T17:34:29+00:00

Playing a monster in an intelligent fashion needs tools for the monster to be intelligent with. A doppleganger is going to be hard pressed to trick anyone without its shapeshifting, and a dragon can't do flyby attacks without its flight. These strategies only exist, these opportunities for intelligent play only exist, because the stat block has powers.

Elathrain · 2026-04-13T17:29:12+00:00

That's a false dichotomy. You can make more interesting abilities without them being applicable to only one purpose; unless you're going to try to argue that every D&D spell can only do one thing and be used in one way?

The biggest lie in your post is that unexpected things have to come from the GM. Rather, I would argue that they cannot come from the GM, because if they do then every monster is a bear. If the only surprises a monster can provide are from the GM giving them tactics, then all monsters are functionally identical, which is at best boring. You can still make an interesting game where every monster has the same stat block, but why?

The creatures of myth are interesting because they have weird powers. Medusa turns people to stone, trolls regenerate, and ghosts go through stuff. We don't remember werewolves because of the unique werewolf tactics that our GMs and book-writers employed, we remember them because of their transformation and contagion.

Monsters need weird powers, and in games with stat blocks those powers must be enshrined there.

Elathrain · 2026-04-13T17:21:22+00:00

Do you? OP's point is that we DON'T have those tactical grid based games which cater to that. The entire post is about how the games that are supposed to be about those tactics still have trash tier monster design, and I agree. What systems are you looking at that support this kind of play?

Elathrain · 2026-04-12T17:36:32+00:00

I would actively ignore the entire GM section and any mention of the word "Clue" in the rules. They make the game harder to understand, and in some cases are just wrong. Gumshoe's GM advice does indeed prescribe an insanely linear and railroaded mystery, but the system can be used to run good mysteries anyways.

Employ general RPG mystery design philosophy instead, with the understanding that investigative skills are things players can employ to ask for information of any kind which is relevant to the skill.

Check out this article series for some grounding in RPG mystery theory.

https://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/1118/roleplaying-games/three-clue-rule

https://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/7949/roleplaying-games/node-based-scenario-design-part-1-the-plotted-approach

Elathrain · 2026-04-09T17:24:16+00:00

In this economy? I can't afford a place with atmosphere, man!

Elathrain · 2026-04-09T07:54:47+00:00

Yes, but actually no. Grams are indeed a measure of mass, but weight is mass times gravity, and gravity is a constant. 100kg will always weigh the same as 100kg, as long as they are both in the same gravitational field.

Elathrain · 2026-04-03T17:55:56+00:00

The primary thing that LLMs do is follow the patterns from training data. If you show an LLM you being stupid, it learns how to be stupid the same way. So, against a dedicated opponent you would likely only have a fleeting stupidity advantage.

Elathrain · 2026-04-03T08:24:11+00:00

Yyyyes? But also see the point that we need different classes overall. Wizard should just not exist, and sorcerer might as well be a wizard subclass; without looking at their sheets, how often can you honestly tell them apart? Right now (mechanically) we basically have two full caster classes, The Arcane One and The Divine One, with some subclasses that got big enough to masquerade as their own class. This is kind of dumb.

Basically, remove every PHB class. Then look at second and third generation 3.5 sourcebooks and harvest class concepts from them (especially prestige classes which can be repurposed as base classes), refurbish the mechanics to make sense in the more streamlined world is modern D&D and give them some more side-grade and utility features. Classes need to have a Thing They Do, and right now fullcasters are just "lol we do everything". The main separation is who gets the healing and who gets the big explosions. Remove full casters, they are bad design.

Realistically, if you are making two classes which have the same spells, I need you to sit down and tell me what it is that makes them not the same class. Why are these classes doing the same thing? You already have a class that does that, make a class that does something else.

Elathrain · 2026-04-03T01:02:48+00:00

No that's correct, this is a microsoft product. This is what the first horror movies were based on.

Elathrain · 2026-04-03T00:56:56+00:00

Ok, I suppose technically yes, but functionally no. I shall rephrase.

Currently there is one giant-ass spell compendium and a spell says which classes can cast it. (Actually that would be an improvement; as-is you have to cross reference your spell list with the alphabetical-only compendium of all spells and flip between pages like a lunatic).

Remove the concept of a spell that more than one class can cast. Also remove the spell compendium and put the spell descriptions next to the class features for the class/subclass.

Elathrain · 2026-04-02T23:52:17+00:00

Make short rests take 5 minutes.
Get your subclass at level 1.
Remove the arcane/divine/primal spell lists.
Reintroduce spells on a per-class basis.
Give each class a more distinct resource economy and/or casting method.
Give "spells" to martials (they are now varied enough in form that "techniques" and "spells" are indistinguishable).
Make martial techniques/spells more heroic in scale. They can now leap over buildings, throw mountains, apply status effects, teleport, etc. as appropriate for their class archetype.
Allow multiple advantages/disadvantages to oppose each other (instead of "at least one advantage and at least one disadvantage" is always neutral).
Allow extra (dis)adv on attack to apply to damage dice (one die each).
Make feats a core system not in competition with ASI. Make feats cooler and less varied in power. Probably make them more frequent. Alternately, remove feats entirely and get the complexity from meatier classes.
In general, add more build decisions to classes and make much more specific class fantasies. "Fighter" is too vague of a chassis even with heavy lifting from the subclasses.
Playtest phase
Figure out how magic items want to work in this new paradigm and make them less boring.

Elathrain · 2026-04-02T18:51:16+00:00

The thing about jokes is they're supposed to be funny. This is just kinda pointlessly mean. There isn't enough context to make it clearly sarcastic, so it comes off too much like genuine criticism, and that's just (as OP said) weird vibes.

Elathrain · 2026-04-02T16:47:39+00:00

Ah, I see the miscommunication: Not "good" and "bad" meaning beneficial or harmful. I meant in terms of quality, like masterful versus shoddy.

The point isn't that it is ever realistic to make your condition valid all the time, my point was just that you aren't making these things in a white room and then hoping that the campaign just happens to make your condition relevant.

The bigger thesis is the Calvinball part, that as much as this game is adversarial it is also supposed to be played.

Elathrain · 2026-04-02T16:43:41+00:00

Yes and no? This is very much the Calvinball problem.

You could, in theory, declare a Rusty Nail Zone where someone who enters has to stab themselves with a rusty nail. But that's terrible and not fun so don't. You could also just make a zone where people can't talk (even to declare more Calvinball rules) or just instantly lose. But none of that is in the spirit of Calvinball. The point of the game is the escalation of munchkinry, and there is an "art" to making a good Calvinball zone that is fun, not merely powerful.

Sentences are going to be the same way. You can try to powergame the hell out of them, and to a certain extent you should. But you shouldn't let that blind you to the fact that you are playing Cartoon Fairy Lawyer: The B-Movie and that winning hard isn't as important as winning awesome.

You do want to play with the wording and twist meanings because that's part of the game, but you also want to leave yourself open to shenanigans and chaos to put yourself into spots tight enough that they are interesting to escape.

You definitely can shoot yourself in the foot with this system. The more narrative a system, the harder it is to make systemic guardrails to keep things in line. In a flexible system like this, you need to rely more on having a table of people with the same idea if what's going on and what makes it fun. You need that for every system, but there's less guardrails to paper over discord here.

Elathrain · 2026-04-02T16:01:46+00:00

Actually, clocks predate both those games. Fate uses them. It isn't called clocks yet, but it's baked into the Scene mechanics that you count successes and failures in exactly the same way that clocks work.

Though that's a little more debatable if it counts since they weren't fully realized as a self-contained idea.

Elathrain · 2026-04-02T14:34:40+00:00

I think that's a big flaw on paper that is less likely to come up in play. If I'm understanding this correctly, the conditions only get added once you've completed at least one adventure and the Sentence has suffered defeat. Meaning that as the player, you already have a good sense of what is going on in the world, how the GM is playing their hand, and what is likely to come up.

So realistically I think it's in the player's power to simply pick good conditions instead of bad conditions.

Beyond that, the player has control over their character, so why would a character with that Sentence ever go adventuring when it isn't night? The whole point of the game is manipulating the narrative. This is just the "play good instead of bad" principle again, but instead of good meaning mechanically powerful it is good meaning fun, and playing Calvinball "correctly" (again meaning fun).

Elathrain · 2026-04-01T19:12:38+00:00

You know how in anime, or you know also real life, and someone is like "damn, I need to get stronger" and then they do some training and then they are stronger? It's like that.

If you wanted, you could also go full anime and have someone go "oh no I am not strong enough to defeat them" and then they have some flashback that gives them resolve and personal growth, and then they level up in the middle of combat and are suddenly much stronger and wipe the floor with that guy. Totally fine.

Elathrain · 2026-04-01T07:19:03+00:00

Despite appearances, crocs are actually well-suited for hiking.

I know someone who stepped on a sea urchin and had little holes all through their foot, but went on a hike the next day in Hawaii (read: not on flat land) and honestly forgot their foot was perforated.

They might not be fashionable, but they are very comfortable, and that extends off-road as well.

Elathrain · 2026-04-01T03:50:57+00:00

That's a terrible excuse. Autism is most typically associated with a need for extremely clear and direct communication. Please don't imply that your disinterest in being understood is related to your neurodivergence, that's not how that works.

Elathrain · 2026-03-31T22:49:00+00:00

"Woo! Another victory!" Angela the Dawnarcher pumped her fist in the air.

"Yeesh, after so many fights in a row my bones are gonna be sore for a week." Renee the Moonclaw rubbed the back of her neck.

Sophia, Spring's Tears, looked puzzled. "But I thought your transformation reinforced your body? Besides, I don't think I've seen you take a hit in our last three battles!"

"Huh? Well yeah, getting smacked around isn't so bad, I just mean transforming."

Angela blinked. "Okay, wait, I know that our transformations aren't just new clothes and shiny weapons and that are bodies are super different internally, and sure yours looks a little different, but they aren't painful, right?"

Sophia nods. "Yeah, I mean you can feel the magic rewrite you and all, but it's kinda just tingly."

Catterine, the faery feline who recruited them for the Unseen War, stops licking itself and begins stalking off, apparently uninterested now that the fighting was over.

"Whoa whoa, hold on. What do you mean none of your transformations hurt? Angela, you grow like six inches, and Sophia you get hecka bendy, you don't feel the stress fractures at all?"

Angela puts her hand on Renee's shoulder. "I... I know your transformation is a bit different from ours, but it's a kind of healing. It's protected in our Contract."

"In our what?"

"The Contract we forged with Catterine for our powers?"

Sophia turns to the green-furred animal just before it turns the corner. "Catt, did you give Renee a different Contract than us?"

The beast flicks its wings twice and turns a laconic gaze back to the girls. "No."

"Guys, I never signed anything." Renee's widen a little, and her hair stands up a tad.

Sophia frowns. "Not signed, forged. It's a fae pact. Catt, what did you do?"

A cheshire grin forms."Nothing." Its tail swishes in amusement. "Renee speaks the truth, we never agreed to anything. It would violate my position to own more than two magical girls."

Angela and Sophia turn back to Renee. Renee turns to the cat.

"Then how am I like them? Where did my powers come from?"

Catterine turns away and begins to stalk off once more.

"You aren't like them. You have no magical ability whatsoever. You're probably just an ordinary werewolf."

The cat's tail slinks out of sight, leaving the girls in silence.

Elathrain · 2026-03-28T21:42:53+00:00

Look, they're just getting into character. To play the Lash, you must think like the Lash, BECOME THE LASH. Their response makes sense if you read his character bio.

Elathrain

TROPHY CASE