Combining Monster Roles - or doing things you shouldn't do

[Rechan]

I was playing Diablo 3 and there is a certain monster, a cultist that just stands there, summoning a demon into themselves. If you don't kill them in a short amount of time, they burst into a nasty demonic entity that is hard hitting, HP, and - here's the kicker: FAST. They dash right into your face and start wailing. Any time these monsters appear on screen after you figure out what's up, it's a race to kill them fast, ignoring everything else in the room.

This doesn't fit into the monster role matrix. Skirmishers move fast, but they're not nasty unless you're surrounded, nor are they tough. Brutes move slow. Lurkers could do the job, but when you hit them they turn into a nice red paste.

Has anyone experimented with making monsters that have hybrid roles? Or giving them a power that makes them unbalanced as a monster, to some degree?

In this instance, giving a melee brute a skirmisher power to let them move across the field very fast. Or to give one monster a potent area attack it shouldn't normally have - the goal being to keep them in melee, preventing them from firing it.

This wouldn't be something you do every fight, or even every other combat. Furthermore, if you are going to do this, giving the players some kind of warning of what the creature is capable of would be ideal.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

Why do brutes have to be slow? The slayer (which is essentially a brute class) has numerous abilities that let it get right in the opponent's face, as befits a melee class. A horse is a very fast brute, and it can trample its way over the front line right to the back, possibly kicking the squishy to death the next round (not that a horse is normally that aggressive or tactical).

The monster in question sounds like a solo brute, a little higher level than the PCs.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Aren't they kinda Elite monsters? You would by "RAW" still be forced to assign one role ,but you could look into the powers you create for it to mix & match them carefully to have something Skirmisher and something Brute like.

For this one specifically:

You have one Basic Attack that, say, offers moderate damage and a move/shift. And another Basic Attack that's a high damage attack. And the Elite typical "make two basic attack" powers -so one power to get into the players face and then one to wail away. Maybe you give it a sneak-attack like ability that it can only use with the fast attack, meaning overall that it is tactically benefitial to it to move around for flanking bonuses or the like.

Darting Strike - At Will (Basic Attack)
Attack vs AC
Effect: The videogamey monster shifts 2 squares.
Hit: Moderate Damage

Brutal Strike - At Will (Basic Attack)
Attack vs AC:
Hit: High Damage and push the target 2 squares.

Double Attack - At Will
The videogamey monster makes two basic attacks.

Skirmisher's Ploy (Feature)
If the videogamey monster hits an opponent against it has combat advantage after it has moved at least 1 squares since the start of its turn, it deals x extra damage.

Crushing Blow - Recharge
Attack vs AC:
Hit: High Limited Damage and the target is knocked prone and pushed 3 squares.
Miss: Half damage and the target is pushed 1 square.

Clearance Strike - Recharge
Close Burst 1
Attack vs AC
Hit: High Damage and the target is pushed 2 squares.
Miss: The target is pushed 1 square.
Effect: The videogamey monster moves 3 squares


This would create a monster that moves a lot around the battlefield and still deliver strong attacks - and to do so, it must keep moving.

 

[D'karr]

Aren't they kinda Elite monsters? You would by "RAW" still be forced to assign one role ,but you could look into the powers you create for it to mix & match them carefully to have something Skirmisher and something Brute like.

[Snip Cool Monster]

This would create a monster that moves a lot around the battlefield and still deliver strong attacks - and to do so, it must keep moving.

I would have no problem at all with a "Brute" that behaved in this "skirmishing" manner. It makes for an interesting monster. In addition by making it a brute it would be easier to hit, but have some added HP to compensate. This makes it perfect to engage defenders and then hop around to others. It gives the defenders something to do, and it makes the monster an interesting threat. This makes for exciting combats where everyone can be involved, and feel threatened.

I use monster roles mainly as a planning tool for encounters. When I'm creating or converting creatures I use the monster role as a baseline for the creation, not as a straitjacket. I adjust monster stats up and down as I feel necessary to enhance that feel. Then I modify XP awards based on the "perceived" difficulty of engaging the critter.

When I converted the slavelords adventures I used these types of monster building techniques for the Aspis. I ended up creating 3 different monsters for different situations but the base creature was mostly a "soldier" role because that's what "felt" right.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Lurker wouldn't be a bad place to start - they have that sort of relationship between time and damage and evoke a similar "kill 'em quick!" response once they've demonstrated what they can do.

For that specific encounter, you could have an encounter that consists of minions that are replaced by deadlier monsters if they aren't killed by a certain round. It'd be much like having an encounter in 'waves,' just with a twist.

 

[Pickles JG]

Monster roles are tools to create interesting encounters not shackles to restrict DMs. They inevitably blur around the edges, or rather monster concepts do not always neatly fit into one or another role.

The whole premise of this monster is interesting & different so slavishly following the role guidelines is not going to add much.

I would make the emergent monster an elite to give the party some reason to bother preventing their appearance, though I guess targetting a soft summoner rather than an immediate threat might be enough of a dilema.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Yeah, I think the basic premise that monster roles dictate specific tactical designs is just too restricted. A fast hard hitting brute is perfectly fine. It could be like the example above, or it could be some big chunk of monster that can charge in and just brush right past the defender (or try anyway).

A skirmisher can be fast, but it can also just be able to disengage easily. It can use ranged attacks, or melee attacks. It can have a bit of a control power to give it a mobility edge too for instance.

No actual monster needs to embody one role too thoroughly. Its not bad if they do, but tons of monsters exist that could easily be described in a couple of different roles or can basically switch back and forth, etc. It is just a basic tool to make sure you design the monster to do SOMETHING useful and that you can put it in the encounter for some definable purpose.

 

[Tequila Sunrise]

As everyone says, there's no reason you can't intentionally blur the edges of two roles. Most dragons aren't controllers, but they all have area breath weapons and an area stun attack, so there's your precedent.

PS: So jealous of D3 players! My computer is too old to run it.

 

[the Jester]

Brutes move slow.

Brutes move slowly like fighters use greataxes. Which is to say, some of them.

There is no reason at all that a brute can't have skirmisher style abilities; some in the various monster books already do. I don't see a problem with it.

 

[Jhaelen]

Actually, I think there's a very similar monster in 4e. The only difference is they act as a controller(?) until bloodied, then they transform into brutes. IIRC, they first appeared in the 'Thunderspire Labyrinth' and they're called 'Enigma of Vecna'.

Since my DDI account expired I cannot look them up right now, unfortunately.