The trouble with Brutes

[Morgan_Scott82]

By and large I love the way monster design has been streamlined in 4e, and the concept of monster roles facilitates thinking in ways that will make for interesting and challenging encoutners (even if I sometimes have trouble designing monsters that fit neatly into only one box).

One thing that I am concerned about is Brutes. In my experience Brutes rarely add anything of consequence to the fight. The definining elements of the Brute role (high hp, low defenses, melee focus, low to moderate damage) make them largely inconsequential in the grand scope of the battlefield. In encoutner design soldiers and brutes serve much the same purpose as Defenders do in the adventuring party: to interdict the enemy advance and keep them from focusing on other perhaps more dangerous mosnters. Soldiers, with their higher damage output compared to the Brute, not to mention frequently having a marking ability are able to make themeselves enough of a credible threat to divert PC attention. Conversely it has been my anecdotal experience that Brutes get bypassed in favor of more prime targets.

Furthermore Brutes, with their high HP totals can contribute to the sometimes drawn out feeling of 4e combat. This is especially true in light of my previous point that they're often ignored until the late stages of an encounter, which means you end up with the monster with the highest hp total, near full hp, who is easy to hit, but isn't much of a threat. So the PCs gang up on him and spend what are likely to be the most boring several rounds of the combat finally putting him out of the fight. The only times I've found Brutes to be useful in encoutner design is when there has been a physical bottleneck I can put the Brute in and let him soak up attacks for a while, however even in that limited circumstance a soldier likely better serves my purpose.

I'm not proposing house rules, or making any changes to the Brute (at least not yet), but I'm curious if others have had similar experiences?

 

[Asmor]

As someone who's designed a lot of monsters, brutes tend to be the most boring in both design and play.

I agree with you that they don't really add much. They're kind of like ineffective soldiers who don't know how to die.

My suggestion is giving them high damage in addition to high hit points; make them a threat unto themselves. Basically, turn brutes into barbarians, melee strikers who rely on hit points as their defense.

 

[Stalker0]

low to moderate damage

If you feel brutes are doing too little damage, make sure to check out the MM errata. A lot of brutes got big damage upgrades with the errata.

 

[Mouseferatu]

*blink*

Where is this idea of brutes doing low damage coming from? I admit I haven't checked every brute in the MM, but by the DMG guidelines, brutes should be dishing out more damage than average.

 

[Asmor]

*blink*

Where is this idea of brutes doing low damage coming from? I admit I haven't checked every brute in the MM, but by the DMG guidelines, brutes should be dishing out more damage than average.

Wow, for some reason I never noticed that. I have a terrible tendency to skim!

Just to save everyone else the trouble of looking it up...

9. Set Damage for Attacks: Use the Damage by Level table to set damage for the monster’s attacks. Most at-will attacks should use the medium normal damage shown on the table. For attacks against multiple targets, the melee attacks of artillery monsters, and controller attacks that also include significant control functions, use the low normal damage column. For attacks that have low accuracy (including brute attacks) and the high-damage attacks of lurker monsters, use the high normal damage column. Use the limited damage expressions for powers the monster can use only once or twice a fight—powers that have encounter recharge or recharge rolls.

 

[BendBars/LiftGates]

Monster roles tend to work like PC roles in terms of battlefield control.

In PCs, Defenders "lock down" monsters, restricting their movement, and Strikers tend to slip around the battlefield easily, getting a lot of movement.

In monsters, soldiers are like defenders, in that they "lock down" enemies or squares. That's why they make good guards. But brutes I see kind of like anti-soldiers. Whereas soldiers keep you in certain squares, brutes keep you out of squares with the threat of a big pummeling.

Brutes, besides soaking up damage, can be used for battlefield control because they can deal so much damage. If they don't deal a lot of damage, they're probably not doing all the job requirements of a brute. If a brute is used right, it can be battlefield control because everything in its reach (and they tend to be big guys with large reach) is a dangerous square to be in.