D&D 5E Should Explicit Monster Roles Return?

[jayoungr]

In any case, I have modded plenty of monsters on the fly over the past 40 years, but I'm not sure why making it easier for new DMs would be a bad thing.

Personally, I feel like it leads to a rather sterile pigeonholing of monsters. I think it's more fun if they can be messy and defy categories.

 

[Cadence]

Personally, I feel like it leads to a rather sterile pigeonholing of monsters. I think it's more fun if they can be messy and defy categories.

I was talking about adding suggestions for modding them at the bottom of each monster page (more strikey kobold, more controllynkobokd, etc...). Would that pigeonhole them more or help make them more flexible?

 

[jayoungr]

I was talking about adding suggestions for modding them at the bottom of each monster page (more strikey kobold, more controllynkobokd, etc...). Would that pigeonhole them more or help make them more flexible?

Ah, got you. No, if you're talking about a whole population, like kobolds, that just makes them more individualized.

 

[Undrave]

Where is the box for “sometimes”?

What does that mean?

I'm not sure I like a single role being assigned in the MM. A cr6 creature can be anything from a solo to a mook depending on the PC level. If anything there should be like a role per tier (i.e. the cr6 gets tier 1:solo, tier 2 elite, tier 3 soldier, tier 4 minion)

Not those roles.

I can't really answer with the options presented. I like roles, but I don't think all monsters need them.

What's a monster without a role gonna look like?

Using it for design purposes is like leaving a stencil or mask on something you painted afterwards. Things that you use for design or production are not something you leave around for consumers. IMO the only valid reason to give a monster role out of these is to make combat easier for DMs.

And then I think fixing a role to an NPC is limiting. I get how it makes things easier for a DM who is learning, but it also places them in a box. A box that many DMs will allow to constrain themselves. I'd rather see a list of typical roles etc than actually put the value in a stat block.

It also makes the design honest.

NPC and Monsters aren't the same thing. I'm perfectly fit to put Orc #45 into a box.

In 4e, each monster had multiple incarnation to represent the various roles. A Goblin Artillery or Controller played different from a Skirmisher. You could improvise fun combat by just grabbing a variety of roles and just drop them into a room with a few signature features. And you didn't need to think too hard you just had to use the ability in the stat block and they would naturally behave like their role indicated and synergies with one another.

 

[Undrave]

A more useful implementation is the one in amazing Forge of Foes by Sly Flourish. There you have templates, and suggested abilities to add, for each role. This, to me, seems far more useful than a label that tells me something I already know.

Sounds like more work to me.

Instead of using roles you could also have a quick list of tags, something like these, perhaps. They should be listed where they can be easily seen

• Sturdy: This monster has an unusual amount of hit points
• Heavy-hitter: This hits hard in melee
• Mover: This monster can control the battlefield by moving around allies or enemies

Descriptive tags to quickly tell you about the essentials of the creature, without having to read the finer details of the stat block.

That's EXACTLY what combat roles for monsters were!!

 

[LordEntrails]

NPC and Monsters aren't the same thing. I'm perfectly fit to put Orc #45 into a box.

Okay... in the context of this thread I was using them interchangeably.
Could you clarify with definitions and some examples of what you mean here?

 

[Undrave]

The thing is, DMs are also game designers. The monsters in the books are just tools, a DM has to actually place them into a dungeon or other adventuring environment to make a game. And it can be useful for them to know what a monster’s combat function is.

It also means you have great reference material for your custom monsters!

Okay... in the context of this thread I was using them interchangeably.
Could you clarify with definitions and some examples of what you mean here?

Monsters are just more disposable, they are game pieces. They exist to combat your PC so streamlining them makes them easier to run and take a load off your mind. You don't track a monster's arrow because they'll be dead or captured in 5 minutes.

NPCs are PEOPLE. They have more layer, more depth, you can have them adapt to situations much more easily. A NPC could fill more than one role in combat and would have their own stuff outside of combat. They're the casters with out of combat spell, the bandits with gear outside their weapon, or the nobles with connections. You keep track of how many Alchemist's Fire an NPC has used because they might retreat and come back later in the day.

NPCs are crafted, Monsters are store bought.

 

[LordEntrails]

It also means you have great reference material for your custom monsters!

Monsters are just more disposable, they are game pieces. They exist to combat your PC so streamlining them makes them easier to run and take a load off your mind. You don't track a monster's arrow because they'll be dead or captured in 5 minutes.

NPCs are PEOPLE. They have more layer, more depth, you can have them adapt to situations much more easily. A NPC could fill more than one role in combat and would have their own stuff outside of combat. They're the casters with out of combat spell, the bandits with gear outside their weapon, or the nobles with connections. You keep track of how many Alchemist's Fire an NPC has used because they might retreat and come back later in the day.

NPCs are crafted, Monsters are store bought.

Ok, so every entry in a MM is a Monster (but...*). BBEGS are presented in adventures.

But what about the grey area? A troll champion, or a bugbear chieftain? At low levels those could well be the near unique BBEG yet at higher levels they are certainly no more than monsters. Or something like a specter, what role would they have? I've used them as re-occurring challenges and I've used them as simple tomb guardians.

I'm still thinking that labels have more negatives than they do advantages. Simplifying the game to make things easier is... a trap. It works well early on in a gaming career and even later on when DMs don't want complexity, but risks limiting the game later on. I know, I know, if you don't like a rule you can just ignore it. But a lot of people, a huge number of them, have trouble doing that.

Again, I think there are better ways to accomplish this goal (making it easier for DMs to understand to pick and run a monster in combat) than a single label. Multiple tags or even 1-3 sentences similar to The Monster Know...

 

[Undrave]

It's an observation-interaction problem. One the roles stop being descriptive and starting being prescriptive, the description stops applying to those roles. It's a reification of something that doesn't enhance the game.

... What?

Ah yes, a classic problem of the DnD community: baulking at a tool that will help you build and run your games easier because you think it’s telling you how you should play

Le sigh.

No we are not except in the very broadest/loosest/poor definition of game designer. Yes, I would speculate that most DMs active on this forum are also game designers. But with nothing but experience tells me that the larger pool of DMs simple are not game designers. Since we know this forum represents a tiny fraction of the RPG players and GMs, I think it's more accurate to assume that we are the exception, not the rule.

Nah, being a DM is being a game designer. You design an encounter or a map or an NPC? That's game design. The stuff you buy, the books, they're not the game, they're the game engine. Just like video game designers use the Unreal Engine for exemple, we are designers using the D&D 5e engine.

Nor did I say that such information should be easily accessible to DMs.

why no?

Depending upon how you implement it, it can result in pigeonholing

And that's bad because..?

 

[Clint_L]

Monsters are just more disposable, they are game pieces. They exist to combat your PC so streamlining them makes them easier to run and take a load off your mind. You don't track a monster's arrow because they'll be dead or captured in 5 minutes.

NPCs are PEOPLE. They have more layer, more depth, you can have them adapt to situations much more easily. A NPC could fill more than one role in combat and would have their own stuff outside of combat. They're the casters with out of combat spell, the bandits with gear outside their weapon, or the nobles with connections. You keep track of how many Alchemist's Fire an NPC has used because they might retreat and come back later in the day.

NPCs are crafted, Monsters are store bought.

I don't approach monsters or NPCs any differently. Each orc has a motive, as does each pirate. Even simple beasts and monstrosities have a motive, though perhaps as simple as "eat" or "protect territory." One of my favourite aspects of DMing is that I get to try to put myself in the heads of all these different things as they react to changing situations. I never assume that combat is the guaranteed way to resolve a situation - I often plan on it, but the players choose differently and then I have to figure out how the mobs will react.

The whole endgame of my current school campaign has evolved from the players unexpectedly deciding to avoid an obvious combat, and then make some impressive rolls to wind up teaming up with the guys I assumed they would be fighting. Monsters are definitely not game pieces in my preferred style of play.