[3.X] Boss system (PEACH)

[Bovine Colonel]

Alright, so I keep seeing generally accurate statements about the invalidity of high-level, singular bosses. The problem seems to be that a simple Save or Die spell or a charger's full attack is generally enough to incapacitate any creature of comparable power before it has a chance to act. Meanwhile, an incredibly simplified encounter with 5 PCs against 5 enemies with 100 HP each might look like this:

Round 1: 5 enemies, 100 HP each. Enemies take 5 turns; one enemy down at the end of the round.
Round 2: 4 enemies, 100 HP each. Enemies take 4 turns; one down at the end of the round.

If it continues like this, the enemies will have taken on average 3 turns per round for 5 rounds before they are defeated.

Since we can (probably) assume this is a balanced encounter, a boss might look like this, where X is the number of party members:


Same ECL as an average party member.
X times the normal hit points, where X is the number of party members.
(X/2 + 0.5) turns per round, none of which can be consecutive.
Disabling effects instead knock off the number of hit points the boss would have as a non-boss.
Effects that deprive actions (Stinking Cloud, Slow, etc) only affect one of the boss's turns each.
Assuming a party of 5, slower, more tanky bosses might have (for example) 15 times the normal HP and 1 turn per round, or 7.5 times the normal HP and 2 turns per round. More glass cannon-like bosses might have 3 times the normal HP and 5 turns per round. Anything works as long as the boss's HP multiplier * actions per turn remains the same.


So how well would this work? Is this clear, or should I explain it better?

[Razanir]

Expand it to a party of X members.


Same ECL as an average party member
X times normal hp
X/2 (round up) turns per round, none consecutive
Disabling effects take off 1/X of the hp
Effects that deprive actions (Stinking Cloud, Slow, etc) only affect one of the boss's turns each.

[Bovine Colonel]

Expand it to a party of X members.


Same ECL as an average party member
X times normal hp
X/2 (round up) turns per round, none consecutive
Disabling effects take off 1/X of the hp
Effects that deprive actions (Stinking Cloud, Slow, etc) only affect one of the boss's turns each.


Done and done, thanks for the input.

[Doorhandle]

could you make it a template maybe?

You could also try changing it's stats to match the party. Like, having an orge warlord have the strength of the strongest party member + 8, and the intellegence of the dumbest party member.

I also think that save our dies should take place over a number of turns, with each turn givng another chance to avoid complete desturction but taking greater penaties for each save failed. If this is the case, you should also make it have the equvilent of "Save Half" for reflex saves.

[Prime32]

Hm, what if instead of multiplying things, you had separate creatures for each body part, only half of which can act per turn?

And now that I think about it... you'd probably want to split up a monster so that each section has one natural weapon. Hence one attack.
Hence, why not let PCs with multiple attacks gain the same benefit? That is, normally an lv6 fighter would get two attacks per round at +6/+1. Instead, he gets to be an lv6 fighter and an lv1 member of any class, who act separately (a fighter with a fighter as his secondary character can get a tertiary character if his level is high enough).

[Kymme]

Hm, what if instead of multiplying things, you had separate creatures for each body part, only half of which can act per turn?

And now that I think about it... you'd probably want to split up a monster so that each section has one natural weapon. Hence one attack.
The force is strong with this one. :smallwink: Seconded.

[Bovine Colonel]

Hm, what if instead of multiplying things, you had separate creatures for each body part, only half of which can act per turn?

And now that I think about it... you'd probably want to split up a monster so that each section has one natural weapon. Hence one attack.
Hence, why not let PCs with multiple attacks gain the same benefit? That is, normally an lv6 fighter would get two attacks per round at +6/+1. Instead, he gets to be an lv6 fighter and an lv1 member of any class, who act separately (a fighter with a fighter as his secondary character can get a tertiary character if his level is high enough).

But if the main villain is a human, how would you decide which section's HP is reduced when he's attacked?

Also, I feel that there's a matter of scope to consider here. I'm making a system to model bosses, not a full set of houserules.

[undead hero]

I like this idea, it reminds me of the video games I used to play before my job took over my life haha

The boss is usually faster and throughout a "round" the boss will get two attacks.

Take the party number/2 or /3 and let the boss go on those init counts...

4 PC's, then The Boss would go after every 2 PC's. (/2)
6 PC's, then The Boss would go after every 2 PC's. (/3)

Something like that, maybe give him a extra turn every 1d4 turns.

[Yitzi]

The basic idea is interesting, but seems to me to be too complicated, and perhaps worse it makes non-optimized characters unplayable.

Instead of trying to help him win at the rocket tag game, give him the ability to play by a different set of rules entirely. You can't full-attack-charge him and one-shot him that way because he has an ability that prevents him from taking more than X damage per attack (where X is high enough that a non-optimized character will barely notice the restriction, but a charger will have serious problems.) You can't save-or-die him because he's buffed with undispellable protections against that sort of thing. You're going to have to slug this one out the same way unoptimized characters do.

And every so often, throw a monkey wrench in by making a boss who, once confronted without possibility of escape, is a pushover...but getting to that situation is where the real challenge lies. (Such bosses can be incredibly fun to run or to fight, if your players are looking for something more interesting than hack&slash.)