Late in 4th edition's design cycle they gave big solo boss monsters multiple initiative counts and had them perform a complete turn each time their initiative came up.

I liked it. It seemed nicely straightforward. I used it a couple of times on homebrew monsters and it didn't cause any problems that I noticed.

Why do you think they went with this much more elaborate "take a limited turn after each player, plus a main turn" paradigm?

I have no idea but I find the whole concept of Boss monsters (in the video game sense) used in a tabletop rpg to be rather lame.

I was rather disgusted when I read the stats for Lolth in 4E. A huge bag of hit points as a giant spider and when brought to 0,-poof- stage 2 begins with a whole new bag of hit points as a drow priestess. Stupid with a side of lame sauce.

Playing out an MMO boss fight on the tabletop for 3 hours is not my idea of fun in an rpg.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;834346I have no idea but I find the whole concept of Boss monsters (in the video game sense) used in a tabletop rpg to be rather lame.

Yeah, it can be done, but I'm not sure I'd want to do it. RPGs and CRPGs have very different strengths and I think of each as a distinct hobby.

Either or is fine by me.

An epic battle against a serious baddy is very fantasy to me.

Quote from: Shipyard Locked;834341Late in 4th edition's design cycle they gave big solo boss monsters multiple initiative counts and had them perform a complete turn each time their initiative came up.

I liked it. It seemed nicely straightforward. I used it a couple of times on homebrew monsters and it didn't cause any problems that I noticed.

Why do you think they went with this much more elaborate "take a limited turn after each player, plus a main turn" paradigm?

My memory is rusty, so the only thing I remember from 4e around this was the introduction of a precursor of the mechanic you describe, on the Behir, where it got three full actions on three separate initiative counts (10, 20' & 30 maybe?). I remember this being underwhelming because it couldn't use the actions together, so slides neutered it down to only ever being able to charge. I'm probably not remembering enough of the details though. It sounds like they ending up changing that solo mechanic to be multiple full rounds per turn?

I haven't used/fought any legendary opponents in 5e yet, so I no have experience with how it plays out. I felt that the 4e evenly distributed actions across a turn were vulnerable to initiative clumping on the player side, so maybe this new model evens that out a bit?

Quote from: Exploderwizard;834346I have no idea but I find the whole concept of Boss monsters (in the video game sense) used in a tabletop rpg to be rather lame.

I was rather disgusted when I read the stats for Lolth in 4E. A huge bag of hit points as a giant spider and when brought to 0,-poof- stage 2 begins with a whole new bag of hit points as a drow priestess. Stupid with a side of lame sauce.

Playing out an MMO boss fight on the tabletop for 3 hours is not my idea of fun in an rpg.

Just don't forget to spam the rocket launcher against her 3rd spider eye on the left, and then switch to the plasma gun to her spleen when she's in drow mode.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;834346I have no idea but I find the whole concept of Boss monsters (in the video game sense) used in a tabletop rpg to be rather lame.

I was rather disgusted when I read the stats for Lolth in 4E. A huge bag of hit points as a giant spider and when brought to 0,-poof- stage 2 begins with a whole new bag of hit points as a drow priestess. Stupid with a side of lame sauce.

Playing out an MMO boss fight on the tabletop for 3 hours is not my idea of fun in an rpg.

Aren't you supposed to want the BBEG to be the big climactic fight though?

All of my players expressed surprise (and maybe disappointment?) how quickly the bad guys drop, even the bosses, in 5E so far. Like Glasstaff went down after one round, after downing a PC with Magic Missile. Most of these bad guys look threatening when they take their turn but die after their first attack so it's a short-lived sense of danger.

I dislike all games in which core rules, like initiative or damage and injury, apply differently to different 'classes' of creatures and/or PC's. The feel artificially complex to me, and impose a layer of 'meta' BS. So, while I very much like some new things introduced in 5E ('lairs' of powerful monsters), the tweaked initiative rules not one of them.

Quote from: Shipyard Locked;834341Why do you think they went with this much more elaborate "take a limited turn after each player, plus a main turn" paradigm?

One of the things that's happened is characters now get power after power after power after power as they gain levels. In old AD&D, wizards got more spells (but most monsters at high levels had great saving throws, if not magic resistance, so most spells dribbled away to no effect), but the fighter got, maybe, an extra attack. Big bad monsters were able to do things.

Nowadays most powers and spells are guaranteed to work to some extent, in most cases.

Some of those powers are of the "enemy loses an action" variety, and those are pretty good powers. If the big bad only gets one action, and only on its turn, then it's basically a blob of hit points, nothing more:

One character makes the monster lose its turn...after that missed turn, the next character uses a power for much the same effect, then the next, and the next, and the next. A single monster just can't do anything against a barrage of powers, all with guaranteed effects, and if such powers only work 50% of the time, a party of four characters could have a dozen such abilities.

Now, you'd like to have a game where the "big monster" is actually dangerous, but you really can't have that when every character (after level 7 or so) has half a dozen unique and special powers, powers that will totally be used on the big bad monster.

In 4e, for example, in one fight the monster (hydra? Can't recall, it's been a while) had 12 separate effects on it simultaneously (Alea Tools for the win!), between all the -2 and "half damage" and "reduced AC" and "must attack this guy" effects, the monster was irrelevant.

5e continues the trend of lots of powers for characters, nothing wrong with that, per se.

In a game with everyone having a preponderance of powers, you want big monsters to have abilities that are meta, beyond the ability of those powers to target, and that's basically what the legendary actions and such help with.

Quote from: Shipyard Locked;834341Late in 4th edition's design cycle they gave big solo boss monsters multiple initiative counts and had them perform a complete turn each time their initiative came up.

I liked it. It seemed nicely straightforward. I used it a couple of times on homebrew monsters and it didn't cause any problems that I noticed.

Why do you think they went with this much more elaborate "take a limited turn after each player, plus a main turn" paradigm?

Doing all of the Legendary Actions on the monsters turn would result in a lot of things going off at once instead of being spread out over the round. That would be quite a nova for several creatures.

By spreading them out, the creature can interact with what the players are doing and some characters will most likely act in some way that reacts to the lair action that just occurred.

The end result is a "boss" that fights in a similar way as a group of creatures with spread out initiative.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;834346I have no idea but I find the whole concept of Boss monsters (in the video game sense) used in a tabletop rpg to be rather lame.

Where do you think the Video Games got the idea from?

The problem with certain types of 'boss' monsters is that they should get multiple actions, like say, Dragons.  They have multiple attack points, you get behind them, the tail or back feet/legs can attack.  You get on their backs, watch out for the wings!  Even if you try and flank them, they can slash with the edges of the same wings or attack with front or back paws.  And that's excluding things like breath attack types (single target 'fireball' spit, or a wide breath sweep) and bites, or spells.

That's just one Solo encounter that frankly, should be a challenge.

There are other monsters, but I don't have my MM in front of me.

Quote from: Shipyard Locked;834341Why do you think they went with this much more elaborate "take a limited turn after each player, plus a main turn" paradigm?

Seems pretty straightforward

Ancient Red Dragon.
Frightful Presence
3 attacks of 1 Bite and 2 Claw. And/or a Tail attack or Breath weapon at their initiative?
3 legendary points for Detect(1) Tail attack(1) or, Wing attack(2)
And 1 Lair action on initiative 20

As a CR 24 encounter that seems in keeping with something that should pose a serious threat to adventurers.

I think they went with the current "act after" method to streamline things and save book-keeping. Works for me and does not seem like "boss monster" stuff. Just appropriate for something that is supposed to be a top end threat. The 5e method makes the monster more unpredictable as the PCs wont know when in a turn the monster will act.

Easy enough to do it some other way if you want.

Good responses.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;834394Aren't you supposed to want the BBEG to be the big climactic fight though?

You can want whatever you like for your game. Creating BS meta rules to ensure certain outcomes isn't my preferred way of doing things. Sometimes a big climactic fight takes place, sometimes not. I prefer to just find out what happens along with the players.

In reality, a good tense memorable combat is one that develops organically. Events that are engineered to try and be epic rarely end up living up to their own hype.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;834438Where do you think the Video Games got the idea from?

The problem with certain types of 'boss' monsters is that they should get multiple actions, like say, Dragons.  They have multiple attack points, you get behind them, the tail or back feet/legs can attack.  You get on their backs, watch out for the wings!  Even if you try and flank them, they can slash with the edges of the same wings or attack with front or back paws.  And that's excluding things like breath attack types (single target 'fireball' spit, or a wide breath sweep) and bites, or spells.

That's just one Solo encounter that frankly, should be a challenge.

There are other monsters, but I don't have my MM in front of me.

Multiple attacks aren't a problem. Lots of monsters have multiple attacks and Dragons certainly deserve to be one of them.  Its the bullshit meta abilities assigned because of "boss" status that need to take a hike.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;834543Multiple attacks aren't a problem. Lots of monsters have multiple attacks and Dragons certainly deserve to be one of them.  Its the bullshit meta abilities assigned because of "boss" status that need to take a hike.

How do you feel about Legendary Resistance? Does it bother you if a dragon falls to a single spell?