Monster Roles mentioned by Monte Cook?

[billd91]

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

Hmmm. Your 1e MM may be defective. Most of my humanoid entries have information in there about advancement - tribal leaders, chiefs, bodyguards - with more hit points and fighting at a higher hit die level.

And, for additional information, the DMG has information on tribal spellcasters including shamans and witch doctors.

 

[Storminator]

If WotC is serious about getting people from *every* edition of D&D back under the D&D banner, then there is very little 4E stuff that can be included as "core" to the game. D&D's monster level, roles and encounter design system is pretty much anathema to OD&D or B/X players. OD&D's encouragement of rulings by the DM as the primary system to resolve things certainly does not mesh with the "rules for everything" approach of 3.x.

My gut feeling at this point is that the majority of RPG players are either 4E or 3.x/Pathfinder players. And if they are the target and all the pre 3.x players are just sort of hand waved when it comes to players of every edition finding what they liked, then I will probably not be on board.

If WotC is serious about their dream of getting all players into 5e, and they're serious about doing it by adding optional additional complexity, then the core game has to be the simplest version.

That's not 4e.

Core monsters would then look like Orc: AC 15 hp 4 to-hit+3 damage 1d8

This doesn't have any of the 4e role info, and it doesn't have any of the fictional basis for its stats you discussed up thread.

PS

 

[Ahnehnois]

Pretty sure this is what Monte was referring to. I would bet good money that he's gonna be surprised his tweet could be taken any other way.

That may be. To be fair, there isn't much information at this point. Hopefully this is the case.

 

[Knightfall]

I didn't mind the roles concept for monsters. However, I hated it for characters. I'd say keep the former and get rid of the latter. (Or, at least, make character roles optional and modular.)

However, I want monster roles to be more fluid. And I want monsters to be simpler to build. The classic monster abilities from past editions should be available for any sort of monster the DM wants to create.

Yes, re-skinning monsters is possible, but that only works if you don't have a bunch of players who like to study the books in detail.

 

[keterys]

Reskinning works even if folks have memorized the monsters; especially if you do minor tweaks.

 

[thedungeondelver]

Ahem...

5. LITTERED CAVE
The small cave you have just entered has bones scattered throughout it. There is a low mound of dung in the middle of the place, and what appears to be a crushed minotaur skeleton at the south end of the cave. Beside the skeleton are two leather sacks. The floor and ceiling are fairly smooth.

...

Attached to the ceiling is a lurker above (AC 6; MV 1"/9" HD 10; hp 51; #AT1 D1-6; SA surprise on 1-4, smother pray in 1d4+1 rounds; SD entrapped prey must have short, stabbing weapon in hand to fight). The lurker above is quite hungry, not having eaten in some time, so it will certainly attack as soon as anyone moves beneath it. The skeleton is that of a minotaur. One sack holds 102 sp and 164 pp. The latter are beneath the silver, and a hurried examination means a 90% chance of mistaking the platinum for silver. The other bag contains 281 gp. There are 5 gems embedded in the belly of the lurker above but they will not be seen unless the party turns the monster over.

emphasis mine. From S4 THE LOST CAVERNS OF TSOJCANTH. I don't have my copy of LOST TSOJCONTH (the original tourney module this was created from) so I am unsure whether the lurker above is in the original or not.

But there you go.

A lurker.

Above.

 

[Zaukrie]

I like monster roles, it makes creating an encounter easier for me. It was one of the things that 4E did to make the DM's job easier....which is a good thing.

 

[DonTadow]

Oddly enough, I find myself "aight" with this word in a new edition. I am also am okay with a template for each class for PCs that was "role specific and said as much". I understand everyone's not going to figure it out. ::grumble, grumble::.

So long as every creature has multiple role versions. Like the orc example. And so long as its VERY specified that the role is optional and that any monster or race or class can serve any role depending on how you build it.

 

[nnms]

Ahem...



emphasis mine. From S4 THE LOST CAVERNS OF TSOJCANTH. I don't have my copy of LOST TSOJCONTH (the original tourney module this was created from) so I am unsure whether the lurker above is in the original or not.

But there you go.

A lurker.

Above.

I am totally 100% okay with being wrong about thinking Monte might be talking about a monster role.

I really like the descriptions and room information in the original S4 THE LOST CAVERNS OF TSOJCANTH.

Just compare that room entry to a 4E module. Compare the stat blocks. The amount of space taken up per individual combat.

I think monster roles as tactical advice for the DM are not a bad idea. I think that having them be how a monster is statted out and how it fits into a larger tactical set piece encounter is where I think things go wrong.

I want to see monster roles become optional in any capacity other than as an aid to help DMs run the monsters. And I want to see a return to an approach where the original room entries from S4 THE LOST CAVERNS OF TSOJCANTH offer everything that's needed to play out that room in a couple of paragraphs.

 

[pemerton]

I want to see a return to an approach where the original room entries from S4 THE LOST CAVERNS OF TSOJCANTH offer everything that's needed to play out that room in a couple of paragraphs.

But I don't think I can run a Lurker Above from that. I need the MM for the mechanics to handle its smothering attack. I need the DMG for its attack and save matrix. And maybe other stuff as well - I remeber quite a bit of cross-referring when running AD&D.