Do monster roles in 4E help with encounter design? How about this encounter?

[justanobody]

Justanobody, how could you generate those two controllers just by scaling a "controller" factor up and down? If there was only one thing you could do to make a creature a controller (like giving it a flaming burst) then there'd really only be one kind of controller, with lots of different body types.

Hey there buddy I am an idea guy! So figuring out how to make the idea work is someone else's job!

I think it would work the same way you would scale around the miniature stats for DDM.

When you have say a succubus base type then apply a brute to it for its role, then you would have the thing done by using the overall conversion system for monsters.

Making it a controller is more of a player role anyway rather than one of the monster roles.

I would need to look at the monster roles for a bit and compare them to the player roles to see IF any direct correlation could be made between them or if there is a standard derivation from one to another to be able to make a monster controller.

With the system built to disconnect the NPC/monsters from the PC generation to make them two different construction sets, at first glance I would say that a succubus would not be able to be made into the player concept of a controller, but maybe into a solo per monster roles?

 

[Staffan]

What if monsters had just one variant. To use the old standby say you had a monster entry for kobold.

In the monster manual it gave rates of increase and decrease for various things within the roles.

Brute gets more HP, striker gets more attacks, whatever.

Then for whatever monster you have you can adjust them to the role you need at the time for them to perform without having to have a detailed kobold sycophant, erm striker listed in the book.

I vote against that. That's the 3e solution all over again, with the MM having base monsters that you can add templates and/or classes to.

The main problem with your idea is that it takes a lot of setup time. If I want to have a fight with an orc raiding party consisting of three melee guys (basic orcs), two axethrowers, and a boss, I would have to write up the leader and axethrowers myself. With the 4e MM, I just plonk in two Orc Berserkers, three Orc Raiders, and an Orc Eye of Gruumsh.

A second problem is that it doesn't take unexpected synergies into account, which a more holistic monster design system might. I'll give you an example of a monster that broke the system in 3.5e.

I started with a mind flayer (XPH version, which acts as a 9th level psion instead of just having a few spell-like abilities) and added one level of monk. This single monk level gave me a humongous AC increase (because mind flayers have very high Wis), Improved Grapple (+4 to Grapple checks, which is nice because the Mind Flayer's grapple check sucks for something that's supposed to be its signature attack), and one extra HD. The extra HD took it up to 9, which meant I got another feat. I spent this on Expanded Knowledge: Grip of Iron (a psionic power that gives a bonus on Grapple checks for a couple of rounds).

For a single point of increase in CR, I got something like +5 to AC, +2 to all saves, and +12 to grapple checks (as well as some hp, and some other incidentals like "elite" stats). This is an extreme example, but it shows how a system where you build monsters out of building blocks can break down.

 

[Grimstaff]

My understanding is that monsters in 4E come with a role attached. Artillery, Brute, Striker, Minion, Solo. I was trying to design a 3.5 encounter where an ettin has a big sack full of centipedes, and I wanted to get more synergy between the ettin and the swarm. So I thought, "Can one of them act as a striker? Should I make it a bunch of individual centipedes who will go down in one hit (ie minions) instead of a swarm? Should I add some kind of artillery component for a really good encounter?"

Am I thinking about this in the right way? Does the concept of roles really help make better encounters? Or should I just think about it in terms of "the swarm attacks Fort, so I should put in a monster that attacks Will," or "the swarm hits the wizard and the ettin hits the fighter, so I should put in something that fights clerics."

I think a fun (trans: deadly to PCs) way to handle the encounter would be to take advantage of the ettins reach, and have the swarm in a one square radius around him. Of course, you may want to give the ettin a net or whip so he can slide ranged attackers into the danger zone.

 

[cangrejoide]

Yes, it does. It provides a shortcut to figuring out monsters that work well together.



That's not really what monster roles are about.

Monster roles work more-or-less like character roles. You have soldiers, who are straight-forward melee guys with a defensive focus, and brutes who have an offensive focus. Skirmishers move around the battlefield, and often serve as the "default" monster role. Lurkers sneak around, waiting for the right moment to strike, often bypassing the party's defensive line. Artillery deal buttloads of damage from range, and controllers mess with the PCs. Some monsters are also designated "leader" in addition to their main role, these are monsters that have a beneficial effect on the other monsters in the encounter. The Leader stuff tends to be relatively minor in comparison to its other abilities.

This.

I am going to copy this and paste this quote everytime the monster role conundrum is asked.

 

[justanobody]

I vote against that. That's the 3e solution all over again, with the MM having base monsters that you can add templates and/or classes to.

The main problem with your idea is that it takes a lot of setup time. If I want to have a fight with an orc raiding party consisting of three melee guys (basic orcs), two axethrowers, and a boss, I would have to write up the leader and axethrowers myself. With the 4e MM, I just plonk in two Orc Berserkers, three Orc Raiders, and an Orc Eye of Gruumsh.

A second problem is that it doesn't take unexpected synergies into account, which a more holistic monster design system might. I'll give you an example of a monster that broke the system in 3.5e.

I started with a mind flayer (XPH version, which acts as a 9th level psion instead of just having a few spell-like abilities) and added one level of monk. This single monk level gave me a humongous AC increase (because mind flayers have very high Wis), Improved Grapple (+4 to Grapple checks, which is nice because the Mind Flayer's grapple check sucks for something that's supposed to be its signature attack), and one extra HD. The extra HD took it up to 9, which meant I got another feat. I spent this on Expanded Knowledge: Grip of Iron (a psionic power that gives a bonus on Grapple checks for a couple of rounds).

For a single point of increase in CR, I got something like +5 to AC, +2 to all saves, and +12 to grapple checks (as well as some hp, and some other incidentals like "elite" stats). This is an extreme example, but it shows how a system where you build monsters out of building blocks can break down.

Well I don't mean a direct PC type creation system, but one that provides for EACH monster to be able to be one of the monster roles, while adjusting +/-5 levels. you would really only need to buy the book, and make each monster once for later use.

say our kobold was the list of stats. You turn to the page that tells you how to make this base monster into the other roles. say all monsters are considered solo for the base. This stuff tells you how to make your other things like brute, minion, etc. you go ahead and write them up and when you have all 5 monster roles covered, you are done. You just keep them in a notebook, or on index cards, or whatever. This means each monster can be any role, and the books themselves could have more monsters in them by having less mosnters in them. Or the MM could have less monsters in them but give you the chance to have more than the basic monster for a lower price.

I am not talking about taking a mind-flayer and giving it some vampire template then add an ethereal template and that stuff. Just taking a single entry for kobold written up, and then a system for making that kobold and any other monster from what exists in the brute, striker, etc monster roles.

So the book contains:
kobold
[stats]

monster role system

from this you can create:
kobold -solo
kobold -brute
kobold -striker

Saves paper, printing costs, book size/weight, consumer costs. You have a one time task as a DM to convert the monster stats into the roles. You pay less, but have only a little bit of extra work to adjust the monster to be for any roles. Then adjust for level after making the monster fit a role.

It is work that only needs to be done once.

The encounter budget system can easily support this as well should the level range for monsters in an encounter to keep things balanced for difficulty.

So It isn't like you would need to create your kobold brute 6 times because you need to use it in 6 different encounters. Just like you don't buy 6 copies of the MM because you need 6 kobolds in a single encounter. You reuse the set of stats you made the last time.

Any weaponry would be limited like your axe to the role of the monster and given:

Kobold: [stats]
Brute: uses axe for weapon
striker: uses sword and board
solo: uses these powers.

The extra stats entries would be just a few lines and you do the math yourself for the new HP, AC based on the system to save space in the book.

THEN if people wanted prewritten stat blocks WotC or a 3pp could sell monster cards with the fully stated monsters for quick use. (if the GSL allows for making things like cards for monster stats, powers, etc for GSL made material.)

I really don't see a problem and would love a small book of many monsters that just tells me how to adjust for the other roles, and then might later offer card sized monsters of those roles or no cards at all. cheaper and greener is good for me. I will do that little extra work to turn one monster into 5 by adding the roles, and when needed those 5 into 55 to have the. adjusted for levels for when they might be needed.

Think how many monsters are currently in the MM. Say it is 100 individual races. That would be 500 monsters when each on is made into the various monster roles, and a total of 5500 monsters in the MM when adjusted for levels.

I can't recall the last time I bought a MM for ANY price that had 5000+ monsters in it!