Monster Roles mentioned by Monte Cook?

[Jawsh]

You might have a point about orcs and gnolls wanting to be unique and stand out for their orc-ness and gnoll-ness. However, I think what led to this development was game groups facing orcs and gnolls by the buttload. The designers saw a problem in all those orc encounters going exactly the same, and orcs became vanilla to them. "Lurker", etc. is their attempt to spice things up with "these aren't your daddy's orcs".

 

[Aldarc]

When I talk about categories being bad I'm talking about when the categories become so definitive of what the monster does that it is more important in game terms than the actual attributes, description, etc., of the monster.

It's more a general and broad guideline to give an idea of how it operates in its behavior.

Like in 4E. You can have an orc with a bow that is a skirmisher. You can have one that is a lurker. In 4E, It's more communicative to talk about lurkers and skirmishers than about orcs. If you have an orc and a gnoll working together, the game system is very concerned with what category they belong to. What category they belong to is more relevant and communicative than any actual fictional detail of the monster in the narrative.

That's the type of category I don't want.

"The fictional detail of the monster in the narrative" is up to your discretion and imagination, which I would like to imagine that you have.

 

[Ahnehnois]

4e doesn't define an entire race with a role.

But 5e might. In any case, defining even one individual by a single role is the problem, defining more individuals multiplies it.

Besides. Open your 3e MM. It has "Orc" and just has one entry with the same stats. Is that like having a race defined as a single role, since the monster entry only has one entry?

It also says Advancement: By Class.

 

[Rechan]

In any case, defining even one individual by a single role is the problem, defining more individuals multiplies it.

If presenting a single statblock defines a race, then we can't have any statblocks of any humnaoid monsters because that would define what they are.

It also says Advancement: By Class.

Open your 1e MM. You get a single statblock, no mention of advancement.

Or take a look at the 2e MM entry on orcs.

 

[nnms]

It's more a general and broad guideline to give an idea of how it operates in its behavior.

"The fictional detail of the monster in the narrative" is up to your discretion and imagination, which I would like to imagine that you have.

I wish it was just a general and broad guideline to give an idea of how it operates in its behavior. But it's not. It's a specific game building block that determines damage potential, movement, defenses and the type of things that are appropriate as far as damage riders go.

The fictional detail of the monster in the narrative is indeed up to my descretion, but when it is a Role A of Level X, it is going to have a certain DPR, certain defenses, etc., and if that constrains the range of non-contradictory fictional detail. And not because a lizardman warrior is supposed to be a certain thing in the stats, but because it happens to belong to the larger category of brute or soldier or whatever.

Pre 3.x monster design: What are the main characteristics of this monster? How deadly is it compared to a common man or a trained warrior? How tough is it? Now make stats that represent that. Monster uses a weapon? Do damage by weapon + bonuses.

4E monster design: What role is this monster? What level? Spit out stats based on the formula. Then tack on abilities or powers to give the impression that it's somehow different than every other monster of that type and level. Monster rules a weapon? Ignore that and do standard monster damage by level.

See the differences?

My experience with 3.x is too limited to comment on how that game handles things. I think it has more of a absolute framework approach like the rest of Pre4E D&D does.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

As bad as roles are for PCs, they're even more limiting if they're the basis for an entire race. Imagine taking all orcs and defining them as "brutes". Or even worse, "minions". That sends a very bad message on a lot of levels. It's not a remotely accurate description of play either; orcs have a full range of characters represented by every PC class. Anything intelligent is a person, and should be holistically described and treated as such under the rules.

Hopefully. They start doing stuff like that and "unity" will be over before it starts.

Ok first I think there should be Orc Minons, Orc Soldiers, Orc Controlers, Orc Artillary, Orc Brutes, and Orc Leaders...

Second, I think that we can't go backwards in ease of use. I spend 20 hours or so each week working on my games (not counting table time), but I play in games that the DM can't put 1/10th of that time in (2 kids under 8, 45+hr job, and elderly mother needing care), and I want his games to still be runable.

Monster roles are short hand, and work best when they are invisble. I am not fighting a level 7 elite Brute and 2 Level 5 Soldiers being lead by a level 6 Controler (Leader), I am fighting a Hobgoblin were wolf (Skin dancer) with 2 Hobgolin swordsmen, protecting a Hobgoblin Wizard...

I am not fighting a Level 9 solo lurker with 8 Level 7 Minonsoldiers... I am fighting a black dragon with 8 kobold guards...

However when I build those encounter it is easier for me and other DMs to use them.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

Aren't there enough real things wrong with each edition to critique, without making up stuff that isn't in any edition and going after that?

 

[Aldarc]

I wish it was just a general and broad guideline to give an idea of how it operates in its behavior. But it's not. It's a specific game building block that determines damage potential, movement, defenses and the type of things that are appropriate as far as damage riders go.
-snip-
See the differences?

My experience with 3.x is too limited to comment on how that game handles things. I think it has more of a absolute framework approach like the rest of Pre4E D&D does.

So would advocate for a mixed approach?

 

[nnms]

Aren't there enough real things wrong with each edition to critique, without making up stuff that isn't in any edition and going after that?

You don't think monster roles and how they function in the system math of 4E is a real thing?

 

[mkill]

I'm not happy to see "lurker" unless it's actually a monster called a lurker he's talking about. I dislike combat roles for monsters as well and if combat still revolves around them, the game may end up being too close to 4E for my liking. I don't want a game where I fight "brutes" or "soldiers" or "elite lurkers" or whatever.

Ok, so you want the 3.5E Monster Manual V, which invented monster roles implicit in design but didn't make them explicit.

I mean, yeah, the devs could remove the descriptors and leave it to DMs to figure out that they should put some fat Ogre in front of the squishy kobold archer. How does that make the DM's life easier?

The point is that descriptors like "brute" or "artillery" shouldn't come up at the game table anyway. They are handy tools for the DM to design interesting encounters, that's all.

If players start talking about lurkers, elites and solos, they are metagaming. Are you blaming the system for reducing your immersion through metagaming?