Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 3839336" data-attributes="member: 42582">&quot;Roles&quot; for monsters dictate their combat abilities, and therefore contribute importantly to their comat tactics.Whether or not a GM chooses to run monsters in the way your example sets out presumably is up to the GM, but I don't understand why it would be dictated by a monster's role in the way you suggest. &quot;Fighter&quot; PCs have been called fighters (or fighting men) since the earliest editions of the game, making their role pretty clear, but this hasn't stopped players from sometimes having their fighter PCs engage in conversation with NPCs.The interesting question to me about monster roles is the extent to which the rules support the re-statting of monsters as their roles change. For example, I imagine that the stat block for a typical brute will not include their social stats, as (given the expected use to which the monster is to be put) that would be unnecessary information. But if the players decide to attempt negotiations, the situation suddenly turns from one of combat challenge to one of social challenge. In such a situation, it will be necessary for the GM to have social challenge information to hand for that brute. I'm wondering how the rules will handle this.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 3839336, member: 42582"] "Roles" for monsters dictate their combat abilities, and therefore contribute importantly to their comat tactics. Whether or not a GM chooses to run monsters in the way your example sets out presumably is up to the GM, but I don't understand why it would be dictated by a monster's role in the way you suggest. "Fighter" PCs have been called fighters (or fighting men) since the earliest editions of the game, making their role pretty clear, but this hasn't stopped players from sometimes having their fighter PCs engage in conversation with NPCs. The interesting question to me about monster roles is the extent to which the rules support the re-statting of monsters as their roles change. For example, I imagine that the stat block for a typical brute will not include their social stats, as (given the expected use to which the monster is to be put) that would be unnecessary information. But if the players decide to attempt negotiations, the situation suddenly turns from one of combat challenge to one of social challenge. In such a situation, it will be necessary for the GM to have social challenge information to hand for that brute. I'm wondering how the rules will handle this. [/QUOTE]

Verification