Boss Monster template

[qwertyu63]

This is likely as original as beans, but I haven't seen it applied to D&D yet, so here we go.

Boss Monster (inspired by PTU):
It can be hard to make one monster or character work as an encounter on its own. The extra actions the PC's have to play around with make a single monster or character a rather minor threat unless its level is overwhelming. This is a template to fix this problem by flipping the action economy back in the bosses favor.

When making a boss monster, you need to determine its Boss Level. This level should be equal to the number of characters it will be fighting.

The boss has hit point bars equal to their Boss Level. Any damage taken is applied to the first hit point bar; when a bar is empty, it is removed.

Each round, the boss gets a number of turns equal to its Boss Level. The first of these turns take place on the bosses initiative count; each turn after that takes place 2 counts lower than the last. On each of these turns, the boss gets a Standard and Move action (or a Full-round action). The boss still has only one Swift action per round (refreshed on the bosses initiative count).

The CR of a monster is increased by its Boss Level.

[kinem]

There is a lot of controversy about this sort of thing, related to the split between 4E (gamist) and every other version of D&D (part gamist, part simulationist).

I am firmly on the latter side. As such, I don't see this as something that belongs in D&D. It makes no sense that 'boss monsters' would be an identifiable category of creatures or that such creatures would be able to move so much faster than normal. It might work as a one time thing (a particular monster was exposed to super-powerful temporal energies and became super fast), but no way as a regular part of the game.

And if "temporal energies" are so common, why can't the PCs get in on that?

If your boss is overmatched, just use more monsters.

[qwertyu63]

There is a lot of controversy about this sort of thing, related to the split between 4E (gamist) and every other version of D&D (part gamist, part simulationist).

I am firmly on the latter side. As such, I don't see this as something that belongs in D&D. It makes no sense that 'boss monsters' would be an identifiable category of creatures or that such creatures would be able to move so much faster than normal. It might work as a one time thing (a particular monster was exposed to super-powerful temporal energies and became super fast), but no way as a regular part of the game.

And if "temporal energies" are so common, why can't the PCs get in on that?

If your boss is overmatched, just use more monsters.

Usually I prefer to keep the story straight over these kinds of things too; however, the drive to have a BBEG that can stand alone without needing backup in the battle is quite great.

[necroon]

I think whether or not this is appropriate really comes down to the type of game you are running. Definitely a neat concept, though.

As for the template itself I'm not sure the CR adjustment is right but... I don't know how to evaluate what it should be, however.

[Hanuman]

http://www.betaarchive.co.uk/imageupload/1260655031.th.063715.jpg

Bosses to me say more about lead-up, weakness and power than a template.

For instance, tucker's kobolds vs a zelda dungeon boss.

Tucker's Kobolds (which I consider a collective boss considering difficulty) are extremely low monster CR but extremely high situational CR, due to the employment of strategy and clever usage of terrain.

A Zelda Dungeon Boss has a large readable weakness (usually from an item you gained to be able to reach the boss), it is activated by the player, obviously noted as being the "boss", and is not technically necessary for the player to attempt to fight, as they can just leave the dungeon. Thus, they have a large monster CR but a low situational CR.

I think this template is interesting, but it's still a bit unclear on how the balance goes or how the turns are resolved. Maybe some more clarification and playtesting?

[Network]

As a side note, this attempt at making a Boss PrC (http://dnd-wiki.org/wiki/Boss_%283.5e_NPC_Class%29) may interest you.

As previously stated, the CR is wrong. Let's look at how the boss template would work depending on the number of opponents :
Against 1 opponent, the boss gains no benefit, so CR should be +0.
Against 2 opponents, the boss has double the number of action and double durability ; thus, it is four times more powerful. CR should be +4.
Against 3 opponents, the boss is nine times more powerful. CR should be around +6.
Against 4 or more opponents, the power level does not significantly increase over +6.

Of course, having many turns per round run into the opposite problem than the one of gestalt characters : the character can use many abilities per round, but his reportory and uses per day are limited. A spellcaster who can cast four times faster also runs out of spells four times faster, so there are circumstances in which the CR is overestimated. This does not apply to abilities useable at will, for obvious reasons, but I think higher level enemies make more interesting opponents overall (unless you can hand-wave all bosses as being super-powered speedsters).

[Stellar_Magic]

Honestly... if you want to make a 'boss' for a party, something akin to an Epic level combat encounter (APL +3), it may be a better idea to use just a much higher level monster. Using standard advancement by hit die or giving the creature class levels are how I usually go about it if I want to make a final 'boss' for an encounter or dungeon.

I also tailor the boss to how the party has been playing, aiming to exploit their weaknesses. If their fighter has been doing quite well, I have them face something optimized to fight him, and so forth.

Do not underestimate the PCs... if they're smart, they can take on a single foe that is four times their level (assuming four PCs in the party) and win (albeit barely). Generally for an encounter I like to say that the number of hit die among the enemy should be equal or greater to the total number of hit die in the party. So four level four PCs are generally good to fight 16x 1st level warriors or up to one 16th level warrior as a boss as an epic, desperate, fight.

I tend to use this as a rule for my campaigns, as it seems to be more consistent then the suggested APL +/- that the Game-mastering section of Pathfinder describes.