Working in the Game Mine

Hussar · Jul 10, 2012

dd.stevenson said:
Thanks. But my question is--are roles prescriptive? Is there such a thing as a brute that does a lot of damage and is hard to hit? A controller that is not physically weak? etc.

Also, do any monsters have multiple roles at the same time? Might I run into a single ogre that is a brute/controller?

The thing to remember here is that there are no "baseline" creatures in 4e. There's no such thing as an "ogre". There are skirmisher ogres, there are brute ogres and there are controller ogres. The skirmisher ogres are more mobile and throw stuff, the brutes beat you up and the controllers IIRC, are shamans.

So, no, you don't really have a controller that is not physically weaker than a brute (ie a controller will always have less hp since the baselines are different) but, in an encounter with any given ogre, you, the player, have no idea which ogre you are specifically facing since they all pretty much look the same. Although, to be fair, it will become fairly obvious after a couple of rounds - the skirmisher ogre is going to be moving around a lot more, while the brute is going to get into your face.

In other words, the role of the monsters is prescriptive, but, since no given monster is only one single role (by and large) the prescription is largely moot.

dd.stevenson · Jul 10, 2012

Hussar said:
The thing to remember here is that there are no "baseline" creatures in 4e. There's no such thing as an "ogre". There are skirmisher ogres, there are brute ogres and there are controller ogres. The skirmisher ogres are more mobile and throw stuff, the brutes beat you up and the controllers IIRC, are shamans.

So, no, you don't really have a controller that is not physically weaker than a brute (ie a controller will always have less hp since the baselines are different) but, in an encounter with any given ogre, you, the player, have no idea which ogre you are specifically facing since they all pretty much look the same. Although, to be fair, it will become fairly obvious after a couple of rounds - the skirmisher ogre is going to be moving around a lot more, while the brute is going to get into your face.

In other words, the role of the monsters is prescriptive, but, since no given monster is only one single role (by and large) the prescription is largely moot.

Gotcha. Thanks. It looks like roles were a serious design element in 4E and this article leaves me fuzzy on whether they will or won't be in 5E.

Crazy Jerome said:
I think this is going to depend a lot on whether or not you read the guidelines on encounter balance as prescriptive or not. That is, if you read them as, "this is a balanced encounter but do what you want," you'll have a wide range of levels of different monsters, and with a few exceptions, this will blur the distinctions. A 4th level soldier is about as hard to hit as a somewhat higher level brute (but will stil play differently in most cases).

So roles are just an encounter balance tool that can be tuned like CR in 3E? (Not that CR was very accurate, mind you.) This is different than what Hussar is saying above, no?

What I'm trying to decide is whether 4E roles are a prescriptive design restriction, or whether they're just a "general guideline" to describe monsters that were created without particular emphasis on roles. If the former, then we have a real problem and the DDN article doesn't make sense to my mind because something will have to give. If the latter, then roles are just a presentation issue and there's nothing to see here IMO.

(I just had a gander over at the rpg.net thread and it looks like the consensus there is that roles are a serious design consideration in 4E and thus that Mearls' article reads as an awkward compromise at best.)

Crazy Jerome said:
It's also going to depend on how you mix and match. I like to sometimes mix in brutes, skirmishers, and soldiers all together, but then describe them similarly. (I don't call minions out as minions, either, except describing them as somewhat less impressive or physical, where warrranted.)

Sounds cool.

But I think I maybe wasn't clear enough. I'm trying to figure out how 4E monsters are built, not how encounters are built. (I assume encounter building is mostly unchanged from 3E.)

Crazy Jerome said:
I've got a counter question. In 3E, there isn't a dime's worth of difference in the stats of kobolds and goblins. Did your players treat them as identical?

If you strip out all the role playing and go straight to the mechanics, then yes. (Except for the kobold sorcerers and traps.)

Otherwise: heck no.

Crazy Jerome · Jul 10, 2012

dd.stevenson said:
If you strip out all the role playing and go straight to the mechanics, then yes. (Except for the kobold sorcerers and traps.)

Otherwise: heck no.

It's not a direct comparison, but I think this is highly analogous to how 4E monsters work. The difference being, of course, that 4E goblins and kobolds are a bit different mechanically, even if you strip out the roleplaying. That does not make stripping out the roleplaying a good idea!

I think this also reconciles what I was trying to get at above with your other responses. From a mechanical perspective alone, you could say that the roles are prescriptive. There are more monster roles than character roles, and more overlap, so this isn't as true as it is for a completely mechanical look at characters. That's why some people have suggested that defender/leader/controller/striker should get dropped for the monster roles. OTOH, characters get a lot more abilities to pick from, which can blur the roles, and every character has a bit of a secondary role, which blurs it further.

As I've said many times, if you play 4E as a tactical skirmish minis game, it will play like a tactical skirmish minis game. If you play it like a roleplaying game, it will play like a roleplaying game. In this, 4E is exactly like every version of D&D that precedes it--except that some of them would have made better operational or strategic games than tactical ones, were you inclined to do this. I should know. Circa 1983, a friend and I used to play the random dungeon tables in the 1E DMG with a few house rules as an operational fantasy game at times--when we couldn't get anyone else to play the much more fun, 1E as roleplaying game.

What I was aluding to earlier about the encounters is that how the DM structures the encounters is also going to affect this. If you throw a bunch of 1st level AD&D characters against an ogre magic, he can kill them quickly using his full range, or he can be a "brute" and kill them slightly slower that way. The same thing would apply to a 1st level 4E party versus a much higher level controller from a "brutish" race.

You might say that the monster roles are prescriptive, but only in relation to other monsters of about the same level. If you then play the encounter guidelines in the DMG as overly literal, and run with nothing but balanced encounters, you'll collapse this distinction and make the roles more prescriptive than they otherwise would be.

Crazy Jerome · Jul 10, 2012

dd.stevenson said:
But I think I maybe wasn't clear enough. I'm trying to figure out how 4E monsters are built, not how encounters are built. (I assume encounter building is mostly unchanged from 3E.)

As built, if I understand you correctly, I'd say the roles are part descriptive, part prescriptive.

They are descriptive in that nothing stops you from staring with "ogre", adding some particular spells and special abilities, and calling that an "ogre magi". Then if you wanted to publish that thing and/or evaluate it against the 4E encounter rules (which are quite different from 3E in some ways), you'd then decide on the closest role that matched and assign a level. Obviously, if this was for home use, you might not even care. If you did a decent job of translating an earlier ogre magi to the spirit of 4E, this would probably come out as a controller, though a striker or artillery is certainly possible.

The prescriptive part would be that having picked a role, if you wanted to be technically correct, you might need to adjust some of the numbers a bit to fit into the expected range of a monster of that level and role. Or alternately, adjusting the level might do it.

I personally read that as, "If you don't conform to the numbers, level, and role guidelines, your creature won't perform correctly in the quite nifty 4E encounter budget guidelines." Note the "if".

By nature, then, the monster manual entries are going to be more prescriptive than what you can do yourself with the same materials, but this is about the encounter guidelines, not the monsters per se.

This is different in degree, not kind, from if you wrote a 3E PC up with a bunch of Vancian arcane spells, relatively low hit points, etc. you'd be constrained to something like "wizard" or "sorcerer" for the class. You can move those numbers and abilities however you want in your own game and call it a "bard" or something even less obvious, if you want, but that wouldn't wash in a published book of NPCs. You could multiclass for something that the monster roles don't do, but then with 4E's level scaling bonuses, and relatively narrow differences in stats between the roles, there isn't much room for a multiclass role monster to even exist. If you want a "controller/striker" ogre magi, that is pretty much going to be swapping out a power or two, anyway--maybe adjusting a number here or there. It's really going to be a "controller" with some secondary strikerish abilities or vice versa.

TwinBahamut · Jul 10, 2012

dd.stevenson said:
I have a question for 4E players & DMs.

Do 4E monsters strictly conform to roles? Are monsters with the same roles likely to have similar powers and vulnerabilities?

(For example, take the ogre mage. I can't find its 4E role on the internet--and I don't own the MM--but does this monster conform to a single role? And if, as a player, I know its role, do I know more or less what to expect from it in a fight?)

I know some people have already tried to answer, but...

First off, yes, monsters do strictly conform to roles. If you've played 3E, the following analogy might help. In 3E, monsters were built by adding up the hit-dice of their creature type. Giants has so many HP per level and particular saves, undead had different hit dice and saves, and so on. In 4E, that same concept of a creature's "basic math" is tied to their role. All level 5 skirmishers tend to have similar HP and defense, for example. All level 10 lurkers have different stats from a skirmishers, but similar to other lurkers.

So, yeah, the basic numbers behind each creature are absolutely determined by which role it is. The main distinction between creatures is made in resistances and vulnerabilities (such as to fire or ice) and, more importantly, with power selection. There is certainly some link between role and powers (for example, lurkers tend to have a 'lurk mode' of some kind they shift in and out of and focus on making a small number of very powerful attacks), but there is a very, very wide range of powers used across different creatures, and they are used very well to make different creatures behave very differently. So, kobolds and goblins have a large mix of minions, brutes, soldiers, artillery, controllers, and leaders in their mix, but a goblin artillery and a kobold artillery play very differently from each other, and a goblin brute and a goblin artillery will share certain traits, while a kobold artillery and a kobold skirmisher will share a different set of traits.

So, roles are extremely prescriptive for the basic math, but they are mainly used to add mathematic balance to a set of powers that are generally rooted in the concept of a creature. Something like a Flesh Golem is big, tough, and likes to get up close and deal damage, so it is assigned the brute roles and thus brute statistics. It is given various powers to match that role (nothing complicated, but it hits hard and often), and it is also given special traits and powers designed to evoke the traditional flavor of a D&D Flesh Golem (special interactions with fire and electricity).

Does that explain it well?

I'm A Banana · Jul 10, 2012

This struck me as a "contexting" article.

Mearls was basically saying, "Here's a description of two ways to do things that are sometimes at odds but that don't really need to be, since each is useful in its own way."

It seems that the first attempt at monsters in 5e will have things like 4e roles built-in, but might not discuss them in terms so blatantly artificial. Bob the Demon IS a level 14 solo controller, but he's ALSO a strong demon who made friends with air elementals whose tactics include pushing characters around the battlefield (presumably into pools of lava or somesuch). That kobold IS a minion, even if we don't call it a minion, because a level 1 character is expected to one-hit-kill the thing, and the encounter-building guidelines and the XP value and such reflect that. But it's also a kobold -- that's what kobolds are, because they are weak and pathetic and gang up on enemies to do them harm (much like minions in 4e).

Basically, if you took the skeleton of 4e, but instead of saying "I dunno. Make it up. Whatever. It doesn't matter," you pay attention to the details and say, "Because of X, this is why. His tactics are Z. It matters. There's a reason."

Which is a strong start. It's no third core book strategy, but it ain't a bad starting point, where we can have BOTH elements at work in a creature, rather than just one or the other.

dd.stevenson · Jul 10, 2012

TwinBahamut said:
First off, yes, monsters do strictly conform to roles. If you've played 3E, the following analogy might help. In 3E, monsters were built by adding up the hit-dice of their creature type. Giants has so many HP per level and particular saves, undead had different hit dice and saves, and so on. In 4E, that same concept of a creature's "basic math" is tied to their role. All level 5 skirmishers tend to have similar HP and defense, for example. All level 10 lurkers have different stats from a skirmishers, but similar to other lurkers.

snip

Does that explain it well?

So 4E Roles play in roughly the same design space as races & subtypes in 3E? That explains it very well. Thanks.

Crazy Jerome said:
It's not a direct comparison, but I think this is highly analogous to how 4E monsters work. The difference being, of course, that 4E goblins and kobolds are a bit different mechanically, even if you strip out the roleplaying. That does not make stripping out the roleplaying a good idea!

I think this also reconciles what I was trying to get at above with your other responses. From a mechanical perspective alone, you could say that the roles are prescriptive. There are more monster roles than character roles, and more overlap, so this isn't as true as it is for a completely mechanical look at characters. That's why some people have suggested that defender/leader/controller/striker should get dropped for the monster roles. OTOH, characters get a lot more abilities to pick from, which can blur the roles, and every character has a bit of a secondary role, which blurs it further.

snip

I totally get that. I feel I should make clear that I'm not fishing for a reason to trot out the "4E isn't a RPG" line. I just don't know 4E very well at all, and I'm trying to remedy that. It seems that the impact of 4E roles on monster design space is salient to the discussion of roles in 5E, and to Mearls' article in particular.

Crazy Jerome said:
As built, if I understand you correctly, I'd say the roles are part descriptive, part prescriptive.

They are descriptive in that nothing stops you from staring with "ogre", adding some particular spells and special abilities, and calling that an "ogre magi". snip

This is different in degree, not kind, from if you wrote a 3E PC up with a bunch of Vancian arcane spells, relatively low hit points, etc. you'd be constrained to something like "wizard" or "sorcerer" for the class. You can move those numbers and abilities however you want in your own game and call it a "bard" or something even less obvious, if you want, but that wouldn't wash in a published book of NPCs. You could multiclass for something that the monster roles don't do, but then with 4E's level scaling bonuses, and relatively narrow differences in stats between the roles, there isn't much room for a multiclass role monster to even exist. If you want a "controller/striker" ogre magi, that is pretty much going to be swapping out a power or two, anyway--maybe adjusting a number here or there. It's really going to be a "controller" with some secondary strikerish abilities or vice versa.

Gotcha. Thanks!

EDIT: I can't XP you yet, but I would if I could!

Stormonu · Jul 10, 2012

If you can put "Alignment: Lawful Evil" in a stat block as shorthand for this guy will oppose the party, but he's got a code of honor, I don't see the problem with putting Large Outsider (Air, Extraplanar, Fire) [Controller] into the same stat block.

Truename · Jul 10, 2012

dd.stevenson said:
Gotcha. Thanks. It looks like roles were a serious design element in 4E and this article leaves me fuzzy on whether they will or won't be in 5E.

Monster crunch in 4e is frikkin awesome. I can literally read a stat block at the table while the players are taking their first turn and figure out the monsters' tactics and evocative ways of describing how the monsters behave that are backed up by mechanics.

I have my criticisms of 4e, but the monsters are really, really good.*

*Once they fixed the math. :-S

So roles are just an encounter balance tool that can be tuned like CR in 3E? (Not that CR was very accurate, mind you.) This is different than what Hussar is saying above, no?

They're three things:

1- A design tool for creating new monsters. You decide, based on the monster fluff, what role it plays, and that tells you what the math of its stats should be. You of course design the monster's powers according to its fluff, but the role tells you how much damage an e.g., limited-use "wild charge" power should do.

2- A planning tool for creating encounters. If you have a particular flavor in mind for an encounter (such as a spooky hit-and-run fight through dark corridors), you look for monsters that have a corresponding role (lurkers and skirmishers). Or perhaps you have the heroes in trapped in a courtyard, being ambushed by their erstwhile ally. Then lots of artillery might be appropriate, along with an Huge elite brute bursting through a gate to add that lovely "oh spit" feeling.

3- A DMing tool for understanding tactics. You're running a published adventure at the last moment and haven't reviewed any of the monsters' stats. No worries; the role tells you roughly how the monster behaves and the power names help you flesh it out.

But I think I maybe wasn't clear enough. I'm trying to figure out how 4E monsters are built, not how encounters are built. (I assume encounter building is mostly unchanged from 3E.)

Here's an example. Monster Vault, the newest entry-level monster book, has four types of ogres listed.

* The Ogre Hunter is a level 7 skirmisher. As a skirmisher, he's a mobile fighter. His standard actions are "Club", "Javelin", and (about half the time) "Hurling Charge," which lets him throw a javelin and charge if it hits. As a move action, he can "Clear the Ground," which shoves everyone within his reach back ten feet, then he can move his speed if any of those hits.

From the stat block, it looks like the Ogre Hunter's schtick is to throw a javelin and charge. Then on his next turn, he slams somebody with his club, knocks everyone back, then moves back to javelin range to repeat. Of course, the PCs will be doing their best to prevent that.

* The Ogre Juggernaut is a level 10 brute. As a brute, he hits hard and is easy to hit. His schtick is to (about every third turn) bull rush you to the ground and plow you along the ground for 1d8 damage per square of movement. (Up to 8d8 damage and you end up prone. Ouch.)

* The Ogre Mercenary is a level 8 soldier. As a soldier, he's hard to hit and punishes you for attacking other enemies. His schtick is to threaten you with a morningstar, causing you to take a -2 penalty to attacking anyone else. He'll also sweep around and hit everyone within reach, knocking them prone in the process.

* The [just plain] Ogre is a level 6 brute. Once per encounter he winds up with a huge attack that does 4d10+4 damage, throws the target 10 feet, and knocks it prone. It does half damage and knocks prone even on a miss.

You can see how each monster has its own unique schtick that's thematic and flavorful, yet reflects the role of the monster. Ogres aren't really "skirmish-y" but the Ogre Hunter is a good example of how the role is in service to the concept, not the other way around.

erleni · Jul 10, 2012

Libramarian said:
I basically disagree that rigorous encounter balancing procedures are a tool that the DM is free to use or not use.

If you provide them, then the culture of the game will gravitate towards its use, because part of the job of the DM is to ensure that everyone has a good time, so they're going to take control over as much of the experience as you enable them to. They're not going to abdicate control unless it's explicitly discouraged.

Randomness is a recessive trait. If you present it alongside options for greater control, then it will be squeezed out.

The culture of this game is going to be basically the same as 4e. DMs will only ignore the encounter balancing guidelines, or balance them to areas of the world instead of the PCs, if someone on the internet convinces them to try it -- and then they'll have to explain this to the players and get their buy-in before proceeding. Tight encounter balance will be the assumption.

I disagree. I'm a 4e master and often throw LVL+6 encounters at my PCs (a completely unbalanced encounter), but I know exactly every time what I'm throwing at them BEFORE starting the encounter. This helps me in keeping the pace of the adventure where I want it to be.