D&D 5E Should Explicit Monster Roles Return?

[jmartkdr2]

Eh, I think the act of DM is itself game design, even if you don't realize, but I guess it's philosophical at this point.

Yeah that's usually why you give multiple option per monster to cover multiple roles that still feel like that specific monster, that match it's style in its own unique way. The Orc Archer shouldn't be just the sames stat as the Orc Ravager with his weapon switched, that's just boring. They should have unique special abilities while still having those unique traits Orcs usually have. The goal is actually to help B make entertaining encounters on their own by giving them a variety of tools they can mix and match.

Maybe you would prefer if we limited that to humanoid monsters?

I can see why that would be interesting. I'd personally use this opportunity to pre-build a couple different liches, and then maybe a Lich template so you can turn any other monster into one so you can use the base role.

That's... that's what we want???? and then you give that goblin a special ability to facilitate that sort of actions.

Oh yeah, I'm pro-roles. They just make encounter building easier, and that's (to me) one of the more annoying parts f dming.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Yeah, and? That's just having synergistic stats. it's not like 5e gives you details on what the monsters AC or HP means, they just do it.

Ok. I really don't understand what you want to say here.

4e had monsters with stats by role.

5e at least has some connection between equipment and stats.

I think 4e method was terrible as players had no chance to gauge how hard a monster is to hit etc. I hated the 4e way of doing monsters and encounters.

 

[dave2008]

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

I would think it would look a lot like the typical WotC monster. In my mind simple monsters, like an generic orc, don't need roles. Now, you make an orc chief or shaman or scout - then yes, give those roles. But a plan old orc doesn't need a role. IMO, it should be versatile.

 

[Undrave]

Ok. I really don't understand what you want to say here.

4e had monsters with stats by role.

5e at least has some connection between equipment and stats.

I think 4e method was terrible as players had no chance to gauge how hard a monster is to hit etc. I hated the 4e way of doing monsters and encounters.

It wasn't a 'rule', it was a design principle, not the same thing.

You can't really judge how hard something is to hit in 5e either? There's a Battlemaster ability to do that even!

Know Your Enemy at level 7 says :

Starting at 7th level, if you spend at least 1 minute observing or interacting with another creature outside combat, you can learn certain information about its capabilities compared to your own. The DM tells you if the creature is your equal, superior, or inferior in regard to two of the following characteristics of your choice:

• Strength score
• Dexterity score
• Constitution score
• Armor Class
• Current hit points
• Total class levels, if any
• Fighter class levels, if any

And PCs like the Barbarian or Monk have bonus to AC and go around in cloth or hide so I don't know why monsters would be more predictable.

 

[Undrave]

I would think it would look a lot like the typical WotC monster. In my mind simple monsters, like an generic orc, don't need roles. Now, you make an orc chief or shaman or scout - then yes, give those roles. But a plan old orc doesn't need a role. IMO, it should be versatile.

We can give them the role of 'Plain'.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

It wasn't a 'rule', it was a design principle, not the same thing.

OK

You can't really judge how hard something is to hit in 5e either?

You can guess AC by looking at humanoids.

There's a Battlemaster ability to do that even!

Know Your Enemy at level 7 says :

Oh. Never heard of that... oh wait. I also read the book.

And PCs like the Barbarian or Monk have bonus to AC and go around in cloth or hide so I don't know why monsters would be more predictable.

Yeah. Monsters should always surprise players by having abilities they never expected...

I really hated 4e design. Both because of its randomness. And because of the encounter design that somehow always expected even level foes who had the same stats with different dressing.

I really despise how that worked in 4e. Having played ot for several years I am totally sure. So no. Anything resembling stats for roles (rules or design principles) and AC dissociated from equippment is terrible in my books.

I even don't like 5e hit dice assignments too much. I think monsters get too many hp in general and prof bonus should be derived from hit dice, not CR.

 

[Undrave]

And because of the encounter design that somehow always expected even level foes who had the same stats with different dressing.

That's just for equal level encounter. You can adjust difficulty by playing around with level. And different types of monster have different stats.

Anything resembling stats for roles (rules or design principles) and AC dissociated from equippment is terrible in my books.

So you just want monsters made randomly with no design principles whatsoever? Or painstakingly made with the exact same rule as PCs?

shrug Just give the Soldiers heavier armour than the skirmisher, that's usually how it turned out for the humanoids... But there's millions of critters that don't wear armour at all so it doesn't really bother me that equipment is not a big deal.

Also 5e doesn't have rules for destroying armour and the subpar equipment most humanoids wear isn't worth selling maybe if you have a wagon?

I even don't like 5e hit dice assignments too much. I think monsters get too many hp in general and prof bonus should be derived from hit dice, not CR.

I don't really like Hit Dice mechanic, and I agree the monsters have too much HP. CR is pretty random in 5e, it's super unreliable and seems to be based on nothing but vibes, too.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

That's just for equal level encounter. You can adjust difficulty by playing around with level. And different types of monster have different stats.

Not too different. In the end, all felt samey.

So you just want monsters made randomly with no design principles whatsoever? Or painstakingly made with the exact same rule as PCs?

shrug

No. I did not say this at all. I want them to be more varied and not categorized into 5 roles with strict stats by role.

I want the stats to make sense for the particular monster or humaoid. And CR derived with a better formular than we have in the DMG (or 2014 MM).

Edit: For example: the gelatineous cube is a level 5 brute in 4e with plain old AC 18.
In 5e it has AC 6. Which could have never happened in 4e, because it is totally out of bounds. I really love that design.

But as I said: add a lurker tag onto the 5e cube. So the DM knows it is not used to fight a fair fight.

 

[Stormonu]

wouldn't it use up far more redundant space to specify it for each and every monster entry than dedicating 2-4 pages to really go into detail on how to customise different monsters for different roles in a more general sense.

Sure, you can slap a one-line role on a monster, it works just like having an alignment tag for the monster instead of getting into its nuanced personality and culture.

Personally, I think adding it will lead to the same sort of problems alignment has had over the years.

 

[MuhVerisimilitude]

Sure, you can slap a one-line role on a monster, it works just like having an alignment tag for the monster instead of getting into its nuanced personality and culture.

Personally, I think adding it will lead to the same sort of problems alignment has had over the years.

Alignment is trash because alignment is fundamentally not something that can be defined accurately.

What kind of problems could monster tags lead to?