Fifth edition, in places like monster design, seems to make the assumption that a typical combat is 3 rounds. Now, I have run combats that lasted that long, but they were messy chained battles with huge xp budgets; even wearing down the PCs with multiple encounters per day, a medium encounter might last a round, and if I wanted to do a solo boss fight that lasted for three rounds (defined as the boss getting three actions) against a level 5 party, I would need a boss in the 200-250 hp range. Now, I could use something that tough, but that probably means a boss in the CR 12-15 range that will be one-hit killing PCs.
Is it just me, or does it seem like offense vs defense in 5e is a bit skewed to other people?
I have had several battles lasts 3 rounds and a few went longer. It all depends on what the monsters can do. The Phase Spiders that could strike and then vanish into the ethereal plane, and who the players did not at first realize were more than one spider, took a bit of time because of their abilities.
But I think you are right. If you want something to last against a level 5 party, it needs to be in the CR 10-11 range at least. I have been figuring level x 2 for the CR of my boss-monsters. At level 4 they took out a CR 8 hydra no problem, though I think that did last 3-4 rounds.
For boss monsters I tend to make custom bad guys rather than use the book. This allows me to give them a little more on defense, a little less on offense so they can't one-shot people. On the other hand, only one of the PCs in my game has ever even had to make death saving throws, and they are level 7. So at this point, I do not feel bad if someone faceplants in a single blow. It's not like it happens a lot.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
Much of the game is designed around a typical dungeon which expressly means wearing down the party with multiple encounters.
That said is not that hard to do multi-round combat. A level 5 party, composed of 4 creatures should not be able to take down most CR 7 boss in less than 4 rounds. Are you house ruling a lot? Giving out a lot of treasure/special items?
What seems to be your issue? What is the party composed of?
If it was a party of mostly melee, I would try a Swavain Basilisk. See how much they like saving against petrification every time they hit it.
Mostly ranged? Try an Oni. Darkness screws a lot with archers.
Casters? Try a Korred. Nasty little buggers, meld into stone is 'cheatin!'
That said is not that hard to do multi-round combat. A level 5 party, composed of 4 creatures should not be able to take down most CR 7 boss in less than 4 rounds. Are you house ruling a lot? Giving out a lot of treasure/special items?
With no magic items and spell/ability use appropriate to a fight that's 20% of the daily budget (say, a level 2 and a couple of level 1s), I would expect a CR 7 boss to die in two rounds. I have no idea how you would make it last 4 rounds unless it's being super kitey.
My two cents: wearing characters down with multiple encounters is how the game is meant to be played. That’s why classes like fighters and warlocks, whose short rest recharges thrive on attrition, exist. They get laughably hamstrung otherwise, which is no fun for anyone. At minimum, there should be three fights per long rest (and that only if they’re all Deadly). If that doesn’t jive thematically, try ruling a short rest as one night and a long rest as one week. It should solve the “PCs (especially casters) blow up on one enemy before it can even do anything.” Also I’ve learned to never set single enemies against mid-level parties, because controllers like Wizards or Bards can prevent them from doing anything after just one failed save.
Also I’ve learned to never set single enemies against mid-level parties, because controllers like Wizards or Bards can prevent them from doing anything after just one failed save.
I would only do this with a Legendary enemy, so they get the Leg. Saves and Leg. Actions. Otherwise, yeah... the party will just crush a solo monster.
Like I said, my party of level 5s wiped the floor with a CR 8 hydra, no problem. But the hydra doesn't get legendary actions.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
Vs Swavain Basilisk AC 16, 85 HP, swimming in river, attacking party fording a river, Petrifications secretions, 2 attacks: 5ft reach +6 3d6+3 & DC 10 poisoning 3d6 AND 15 ft reach +6 2d10 +3 with grapple dc 12
First round, partial surprise, Warlock and Paladin do not act.
Ranger Marks and shoots it with a bow, hits twice for 22 Swabain at 63
Swavain attacks Warlock and Ranger, warlock takes 11 (at 22) and makes saves poison Ranger takes 22 damage (22) and is grappled. Remains under water, with appropriate bonuses for being underwater. DM rules Ranger still has head over water as while the Swavain could move himself, could not pull ranger fully underwater without action.
Rogue Attacks, but misses and retreats.
Round 2:
Warlock accepts disadvantage (water), makes 1 hit of 2, does 10 pts of Eldrtich Blast. Swavain at 53)
Ranger makes save against being petrified, uses his action to escape grapple, and retreats 10 ft (does not want to be grappled again on on a free reaction)
Swavain goes again, Attacking Warlock, bites for another 15 (Warlock at 7) who fails poison save and goes down at 0 hp. But misses Ranger.
Paladin grabs Warlock and lays on hands on Warlock, bringing him up to 20 hp.
Rogue can not (disadvantage) but does Crits, doing 18 pts of damage, bring Swavain down to 35. But he fails his save against petrification and is restrained.
Round 3:
Warlock attacks twice, but misses both (disadvantage)
Ranger Attacks twice, hitting both for 13 pts Swavain at 23
Swavain moves 10 ft away from restrained Rogue, who misses (disadvantage) on AoO. Swavain attacks Ranger from 5ft with bite (misses) and but hits Paladin for 14 (31) and grapples him.
Paladin makes save against petrification, decides to risk being grappled and petried next round and tries to smite. Hits once, burns a 2nd level and smites 21 points of damage. Oh, too bad, so close, Swavain at only 2 hp left.
Rogue can not attack, is too far away. Fails save and is petrified.
Creature is alive, one party member is down, fight has lasted at least 4 rounds. Here is what happened in my dice simulation:
Round 4
Warlock attacks twice, misses both times
Ranger attacks twice, again misses both times
Swavain retreats as it is at 2 hp.
Paladin tries to Lay on hands to cure Rogue but that does not work. They have to haul his stoned ass around till they cure him.
What made this dangerous:
Creature is not foolish, it knows how to use terrain (underwater) to it's full advantage.
How to kill it. 1) Do not get surprised. 2) Fight it at range till it comes out of water or flees.
So you're being super generous with letting monsters ambush the PCs? It's a Huge creature with a +3 Stealth check, it should have been spotted before the PCs even entered the water unless the water was really deep and really murky, and if the water was that easy to hide in, the PCs should have been suspicious enough to check for hazards before swimming across.
So you're being super generous with letting monsters ambush the PCs? It's a Huge creature with a +3 Stealth check, it should have been spotted before the PCs even entered the water unless the water was really deep and really murky, and if the water was that easy to hide in, the PCs should have been suspicious enough to check for hazards before swimming across.
“Super generous”? He rolled out a whole scenario for you with a typical encounter. The DM is in control of the danger of a situation, how monsters react, and how they ambush their prey.
A level 5 party with typical equipment for that level will only steamroll the competition as long as you play them stupid enough.
A few key things I noticed in the above scenario that he did right:
1) predators know how to sneak up on prey
2) it attacked the weakest AC in the party in the hopes of killing it. Suddenly actions had to be used to save the downed PC, instead of attacking. 3) it used the terrain - although I’d use the water to swim downwards for sure, completely negating most of the attacks if the water is murky.
4) this is a pretty simple example with one foe - a larger force with a smart leader commanding the troops would also do well.
it attacked the weakest AC in the party in the hopes of killing it.
How'd it know the Warlock had the weakest AC? The thing has a 2 INT. I would probably not allow it to "know" who has the lowest AC.
Sure, the Paladin probably looks the toughest, but among the rest (depending on race, outfitting, etc.) they may or may not look substantially easier/harder than each other.
Also, I noticed there wasn't a wizard, sorcerer, cleric, druid, or bard in the party. Just a warlock tossing cantrips. Sure with this setup, maybe the basilisk could last 4 rounds. Now try the same thing one of those other casters in the group, especially one that happened to win initiative and go at the top of the round. Lightning Bolt anyone? Or perhaps Fear?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
It's nearly impossible to make a balanced solo boss fight balanced in 5e.
Like you said, if the overall hp is enough to last more than a round, then the CR is probably so high that it can one-shot yoir players.
For soloable monsters, I think homebrew is your best bet. You can eithet take a lower CR monster and beef up its hp, or a higher monster and reduce the dice on its attacks.
Another technique to make a solo fight more interesting is to give the monster legendary actions. Thus in a three-round fight, your monster can get six or more actions. If you take an appropriate XP fight that would normally risk one-shotting your players, you can divide the damage per round between normal attacks and legendary actions, and thus spread it around to multiple PCs and give them a chance to heal.
A level 5 party with typical equipment for that level will only steamroll the competition as long as you play them stupid enough.
I play monsters with the capabilities they actually have, not the capabilities they might want to have. The Swavain Basilisk is a Huge creature with Int 2, Wis 8, no skills, no special abilities that would let it more effectively hide or disguise itself, and nothing that would actually let it see through murky water. It's simply not an ambush predator.
Is it just me, or does it seem like offense vs defense in 5e is a bit skewed to other people?
It is skewed, and I think for 2 reasons.
First, from a player perspective, missing an attack is unsatisfying, so this version makes it a lot easier to hit things. (this also means it is a lot easier for monsters to hit things).
The second is that we have bounded accuracy, in that very few ACs of creatures get very high. For most fights I increase the monster health a bit. For things that need to be slightly grander in scope I give legendary actions and reactions to balance out action economy. I also generally tweak most monster stat blocks to make sense in my world and for my encounters.
As your characters get higher in level, the challenges you throw at them also need to become more cerebral. A basic basilisk may not be able to identify the "weak" character, but an enemy mage or battle commander can, and would direct allies to focus fire, or control. Also, consider what is the purpose of the encounter, is it to provide information, drain resources, be an epic battle, or just fill up time -- or any combination thereof.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"An' things ha' come to a pretty pass, ye ken, if people are going to leave stuff like that aroound where innocent people could accidentally smash the door doon and lever the bars aside and take the big chain off'f the cupboard and pick the lock and drink it!"
I would absolutely recommend homebrewing solo monsters. Legendary actions should not be reserved for only the biggest and baddest creatures - they are basic mathematical fixes to the glaring issue of action economy in a 5 vs 1 fight. Generally I avoid solo battles, but when I do use them I try to make them exceptional foes that have at least two "stages" with a transition in between that wipes all conditions as well as significant numbers of extra actions to ensure it gives as good as it gets.
I also get a lot of milage out of alternative obstacles or goals in a battle. If the party is facing a trio of skeletons and the room is shrinking as the walls close in, they have to make tough decisions about what to do. Attack? Escape? Disarm the trap? Even if they decide the best route is to obliterate the skeletons first, doing that doesn't immediately end the tension of the encounter.
The other thing I do is just add more creatures. Again, action economy is huge and six skeletons are way more dangerous than three with doubled hp. Yeah they might eat a Fireball, but that's one less spell slot for the next encounter. Plus it's fun to incinerate a bunch of skeletons, so it's a win-win.
And I guess lastly I'll say that I've had some really good fights that were over in two rounds. Quality of a fight does not necessarily increase with round count. I think 5e intentionally errs on the side of quick and bloody because the other extreme is a slow boring grind. As long as the party feels they are in danger, I feel like I'm doing something right.
Rogue can not attack, is too far away. Fails save and is petrified.
A rogue that can't attack something 10 feet away? Has he ever heard of daggers? I'd be leaving his stony @ss in the river...
Also, no way in hell my players would ever ford a murky river that was deep enough to hide a huge creature. I've never even jumped them in a scenario like that, but they would still see it for the trap it is.
I play monsters with the capabilities they actually have, not the capabilities they might want to have. The Swavain Basilisk is a Huge creature with Int 2, Wis 8, no skills, no special abilities that would let it more effectively hide or disguise itself, and nothing that would actually let it see through murky water. It's simply not an ambush predator.
^^^ This. Said far better than I did, but the same point I was making.
Yes, it is a predator, and maybe they are entering its natural environment. So it could do some stealth, and maybe get a surprise attack on whoever is nearest (NOT whoever has the lowest AC, mind). But it shouldn't do things that are tactically intelligent from a human-combat perspective. For instance, why would it split its attacks between the Ranger and the Warlock? Just so it can get into melee position with both and force them to disengage or take an Attack of Opportunity? I don't run 2 INT animal-like creatures as being that smart. Presumably the motivation for this thing (as someone said: a predator) is to be kind of alligator-like... Chomp something, and drag it down to the bottom to "roll" it and then eat it. It may well assume, based on past experience with other prey, that everything else in this individual prey creature's "herd" is going to scatter and run away. It's probably not used to something smaller than it is, standing up to it. This would take it completely by surprise. It would not know it is facing a 4-man party who is going to fight it for all they're worth (and who have magical spells and abilities on top of that).
Now, if this thing were some kind of Slaad, sure... Slaadi are intelligent or at least cunning (the red/blues aren't all that bright -- but they are way above animal intelligence). But this basilisk has about the mental capacity of a Giant Crocodile (and actually less Wis). I would run it like a Crocodile... not like some sort of J-Park movie Velociraptor. This thing is not Blue, and should not be RPed like her, IMO.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
In our current campaing my single Invisible Stalkker (CR6) defeated whole adventure group of 6 players at lvl5, because they didn't have any means to see it. Made whole group totally paranoid and frustrated... blasting aoe spells randomly in hope to hit it... aah good times. Didnt choose to kill group as it was only after single item that they chose to return to it.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Fifth edition, in places like monster design, seems to make the assumption that a typical combat is 3 rounds. Now, I have run combats that lasted that long, but they were messy chained battles with huge xp budgets; even wearing down the PCs with multiple encounters per day, a medium encounter might last a round, and if I wanted to do a solo boss fight that lasted for three rounds (defined as the boss getting three actions) against a level 5 party, I would need a boss in the 200-250 hp range. Now, I could use something that tough, but that probably means a boss in the CR 12-15 range that will be one-hit killing PCs.
Is it just me, or does it seem like offense vs defense in 5e is a bit skewed to other people?
I have had several battles lasts 3 rounds and a few went longer. It all depends on what the monsters can do. The Phase Spiders that could strike and then vanish into the ethereal plane, and who the players did not at first realize were more than one spider, took a bit of time because of their abilities.
But I think you are right. If you want something to last against a level 5 party, it needs to be in the CR 10-11 range at least. I have been figuring level x 2 for the CR of my boss-monsters. At level 4 they took out a CR 8 hydra no problem, though I think that did last 3-4 rounds.
For boss monsters I tend to make custom bad guys rather than use the book. This allows me to give them a little more on defense, a little less on offense so they can't one-shot people. On the other hand, only one of the PCs in my game has ever even had to make death saving throws, and they are level 7. So at this point, I do not feel bad if someone faceplants in a single blow. It's not like it happens a lot.
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
Medium-CR encounters/boss fights in my experience, usually last 3-4 rounds, and sometimes I just triple the boss monster's HP if it's a problem.
Mystic v3 should be official, nuff said.
Much of the game is designed around a typical dungeon which expressly means wearing down the party with multiple encounters.
That said is not that hard to do multi-round combat. A level 5 party, composed of 4 creatures should not be able to take down most CR 7 boss in less than 4 rounds. Are you house ruling a lot? Giving out a lot of treasure/special items?
What seems to be your issue? What is the party composed of?
If it was a party of mostly melee, I would try a Swavain Basilisk. See how much they like saving against petrification every time they hit it.
Mostly ranged? Try an Oni. Darkness screws a lot with archers.
Casters? Try a Korred. Nasty little buggers, meld into stone is 'cheatin!'
With no magic items and spell/ability use appropriate to a fight that's 20% of the daily budget (say, a level 2 and a couple of level 1s), I would expect a CR 7 boss to die in two rounds. I have no idea how you would make it last 4 rounds unless it's being super kitey.
My two cents: wearing characters down with multiple encounters is how the game is meant to be played. That’s why classes like fighters and warlocks, whose short rest recharges thrive on attrition, exist. They get laughably hamstrung otherwise, which is no fun for anyone. At minimum, there should be three fights per long rest (and that only if they’re all Deadly). If that doesn’t jive thematically, try ruling a short rest as one night and a long rest as one week. It should solve the “PCs (especially casters) blow up on one enemy before it can even do anything.” Also I’ve learned to never set single enemies against mid-level parties, because controllers like Wizards or Bards can prevent them from doing anything after just one failed save.
Wizard (Gandalf) of the Tolkien Club
I know. My point is that, even if you do that, three rounds is an usually long combat.
I would only do this with a Legendary enemy, so they get the Leg. Saves and Leg. Actions. Otherwise, yeah... the party will just crush a solo monster.
Like I said, my party of level 5s wiped the floor with a CR 8 hydra, no problem. But the hydra doesn't get legendary actions.
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
LEvel 5 Party
Rogue: AC 14, Init +3, 38 HP, +6 melee attack, d8+3 (+3d6 sneak)
Paladin: AC 18, Init +0. 45 HP, +7 x2 melee attacks, d8+4 (4 +2d8 smites,. 2 3d8 smites)
Warlock: AC 13. Init +2, 33 hp, +7x2 eldritch blasts, d10+4
Ranger: AC 15, Init +3. 44 HP, +9 x2 longbow d8+4
Vs Swavain Basilisk AC 16, 85 HP, swimming in river, attacking party fording a river, Petrifications secretions, 2 attacks: 5ft reach +6 3d6+3 & DC 10 poisoning 3d6 AND 15 ft reach +6 2d10 +3 with grapple dc 12
First round, partial surprise, Warlock and Paladin do not act.
Inits are: Warlock (surprised) 19, Ranger 19. Swavain 17, Paladin (surprised) 12, Rogue 4,
Round 1:
Round 2:
Round 3:
Creature is alive, one party member is down, fight has lasted at least 4 rounds. Here is what happened in my dice simulation:
Round 4
Paladin tries to Lay on hands to cure Rogue but that does not work. They have to haul his stoned ass around till they cure him.
What made this dangerous:
Creature is not foolish, it knows how to use terrain (underwater) to it's full advantage.
How to kill it. 1) Do not get surprised. 2) Fight it at range till it comes out of water or flees.
So you're being super generous with letting monsters ambush the PCs? It's a Huge creature with a +3 Stealth check, it should have been spotted before the PCs even entered the water unless the water was really deep and really murky, and if the water was that easy to hide in, the PCs should have been suspicious enough to check for hazards before swimming across.
“Super generous”? He rolled out a whole scenario for you with a typical encounter. The DM is in control of the danger of a situation, how monsters react, and how they ambush their prey.
A level 5 party with typical equipment for that level will only steamroll the competition as long as you play them stupid enough.
A few key things I noticed in the above scenario that he did right:
1) predators know how to sneak up on prey
2) it attacked the weakest AC in the party in the hopes of killing it. Suddenly actions had to be used to save the downed PC, instead of attacking.
3) it used the terrain - although I’d use the water to swim downwards for sure, completely negating most of the attacks if the water is murky.
4) this is a pretty simple example with one foe - a larger force with a smart leader commanding the troops would also do well.
How'd it know the Warlock had the weakest AC? The thing has a 2 INT. I would probably not allow it to "know" who has the lowest AC.
Sure, the Paladin probably looks the toughest, but among the rest (depending on race, outfitting, etc.) they may or may not look substantially easier/harder than each other.
Also, I noticed there wasn't a wizard, sorcerer, cleric, druid, or bard in the party. Just a warlock tossing cantrips. Sure with this setup, maybe the basilisk could last 4 rounds. Now try the same thing one of those other casters in the group, especially one that happened to win initiative and go at the top of the round. Lightning Bolt anyone? Or perhaps Fear?
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
It's nearly impossible to make a balanced solo boss fight balanced in 5e.
Like you said, if the overall hp is enough to last more than a round, then the CR is probably so high that it can one-shot yoir players.
For soloable monsters, I think homebrew is your best bet. You can eithet take a lower CR monster and beef up its hp, or a higher monster and reduce the dice on its attacks.
Another technique to make a solo fight more interesting is to give the monster legendary actions. Thus in a three-round fight, your monster can get six or more actions. If you take an appropriate XP fight that would normally risk one-shotting your players, you can divide the damage per round between normal attacks and legendary actions, and thus spread it around to multiple PCs and give them a chance to heal.
I play monsters with the capabilities they actually have, not the capabilities they might want to have. The Swavain Basilisk is a Huge creature with Int 2, Wis 8, no skills, no special abilities that would let it more effectively hide or disguise itself, and nothing that would actually let it see through murky water. It's simply not an ambush predator.
It is skewed, and I think for 2 reasons.
First, from a player perspective, missing an attack is unsatisfying, so this version makes it a lot easier to hit things. (this also means it is a lot easier for monsters to hit things).
The second is that we have bounded accuracy, in that very few ACs of creatures get very high. For most fights I increase the monster health a bit. For things that need to be slightly grander in scope I give legendary actions and reactions to balance out action economy. I also generally tweak most monster stat blocks to make sense in my world and for my encounters.
As your characters get higher in level, the challenges you throw at them also need to become more cerebral. A basic basilisk may not be able to identify the "weak" character, but an enemy mage or battle commander can, and would direct allies to focus fire, or control. Also, consider what is the purpose of the encounter, is it to provide information, drain resources, be an epic battle, or just fill up time -- or any combination thereof.
"An' things ha' come to a pretty pass, ye ken, if people are going to leave stuff like that aroound where innocent people could accidentally smash the door doon and lever the bars aside and take the big chain off'f the cupboard and pick the lock and drink it!"
I would absolutely recommend homebrewing solo monsters. Legendary actions should not be reserved for only the biggest and baddest creatures - they are basic mathematical fixes to the glaring issue of action economy in a 5 vs 1 fight. Generally I avoid solo battles, but when I do use them I try to make them exceptional foes that have at least two "stages" with a transition in between that wipes all conditions as well as significant numbers of extra actions to ensure it gives as good as it gets.
I also get a lot of milage out of alternative obstacles or goals in a battle. If the party is facing a trio of skeletons and the room is shrinking as the walls close in, they have to make tough decisions about what to do. Attack? Escape? Disarm the trap? Even if they decide the best route is to obliterate the skeletons first, doing that doesn't immediately end the tension of the encounter.
The other thing I do is just add more creatures. Again, action economy is huge and six skeletons are way more dangerous than three with doubled hp. Yeah they might eat a Fireball, but that's one less spell slot for the next encounter. Plus it's fun to incinerate a bunch of skeletons, so it's a win-win.
And I guess lastly I'll say that I've had some really good fights that were over in two rounds. Quality of a fight does not necessarily increase with round count. I think 5e intentionally errs on the side of quick and bloody because the other extreme is a slow boring grind. As long as the party feels they are in danger, I feel like I'm doing something right.
A rogue that can't attack something 10 feet away? Has he ever heard of daggers? I'd be leaving his stony @ss in the river...
Also, no way in hell my players would ever ford a murky river that was deep enough to hide a huge creature. I've never even jumped them in a scenario like that, but they would still see it for the trap it is.
My homebrew subclasses (full list here)
(Artificer) Swordmage | Glasswright | (Barbarian) Path of the Savage Embrace
(Bard) College of Dance | (Fighter) Warlord | Cannoneer
(Monk) Way of the Elements | (Ranger) Blade Dancer
(Rogue) DaggerMaster | Inquisitor | (Sorcerer) Riftwalker | Spellfist
(Warlock) The Swarm
^^^ This. Said far better than I did, but the same point I was making.
Yes, it is a predator, and maybe they are entering its natural environment. So it could do some stealth, and maybe get a surprise attack on whoever is nearest (NOT whoever has the lowest AC, mind). But it shouldn't do things that are tactically intelligent from a human-combat perspective. For instance, why would it split its attacks between the Ranger and the Warlock? Just so it can get into melee position with both and force them to disengage or take an Attack of Opportunity? I don't run 2 INT animal-like creatures as being that smart. Presumably the motivation for this thing (as someone said: a predator) is to be kind of alligator-like... Chomp something, and drag it down to the bottom to "roll" it and then eat it. It may well assume, based on past experience with other prey, that everything else in this individual prey creature's "herd" is going to scatter and run away. It's probably not used to something smaller than it is, standing up to it. This would take it completely by surprise. It would not know it is facing a 4-man party who is going to fight it for all they're worth (and who have magical spells and abilities on top of that).
Now, if this thing were some kind of Slaad, sure... Slaadi are intelligent or at least cunning (the red/blues aren't all that bright -- but they are way above animal intelligence). But this basilisk has about the mental capacity of a Giant Crocodile (and actually less Wis). I would run it like a Crocodile... not like some sort of J-Park movie Velociraptor. This thing is not Blue, and should not be RPed like her, IMO.
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
In our current campaing my single Invisible Stalkker (CR6) defeated whole adventure group of 6 players at lvl5, because they didn't have any means to see it. Made whole group totally paranoid and frustrated... blasting aoe spells randomly in hope to hit it... aah good times. Didnt choose to kill group as it was only after single item that they chose to return to it.