Monster Roles mentioned by Monte Cook?

[nnms]

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.

That is an excellent point. It seems that whenever I want to give you XP, I already have done so too many times and must spread it around.

I think there's probably a way we could make this work for both of us. A Quick Reference Chart or DM screen might help.

Perhaps there's a way to design the stat block such that it gives you all the useful information without being as large as 4E or 3.x statblocks (which could be beyond huge).

If there's some sort of mechanics related to getting free of the lurker above, then perhaps they can be something like a save ends mechanic that is universally used enough that you won't have to look it up? Or an attribute check or whatever. Or it's supposed to be inescapable once you get caught and you don't have to have mechanics for getting out (better kill it!).

 

[thedungeondelver]

Ah, here we go, from the original LOST TSOJCONTH, the WINTERCON V tournament module...

E. LURKER ABOVE: HP: 51. Note pit just before the lair of the monster! There is a skeleton of a minotaur at the back of the cave, and in the center of the place is a pile of dung (from the Lurker Above), as well as other bones scattered about. A sack with 100 SP, 50 PP (looks like silver unless looked at very closely), and 1,300 GP rests near the skeleton of the minotaur. The Lurker has 4 gems in its back -- 500 GP each.

(again, emphasis mine)

I think we can put this to bed.

 

[I'm A Banana]

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.

Which is quite a bit obnoxious.

But, heck, that's just a problem with organization of information.

I think it's a little refreshing, personally, to see that there is one creature, hanging out in this one room, as a bump in the road during an extended exploration session. HP's as a long term resource! Lone creatures that aren't Solos! Fights that aren't so much straight up combats as ambush-like traps!

Yeah...that's the D&D I remember enjoying.

 

[pemerton]

I think there's probably a way we could make this work for both of us. A Quick Reference Chart or DM screen might help.

Perhaps there's a way to design the stat block such that it gives you all the useful information without being as large as 4E or 3.x statblocks (which could be beyond huge).

3E statblocks are huge and require cross-referencing. I've never GMed from them, but have used them to convert to other systems (RM and 4e). Horrible things.

I like 4e statblocks, but obviously they are bigger than AD&D ones, or RM ones.

I'm not a big fan of GM screens - a simple universal mechanic that I can easily memorise, and that can be referenced in the statblock works best for me.

I think it's a little refreshing, personally, to see that there is one creature, hanging out in this one room, as a bump in the road during an extended exploration session. HP's as a long term resource! Lone creatures that aren't Solos! Fights that aren't so much straight up combats as ambush-like traps!

Yeah...that's the D&D I remember enjoying.

I don't mind the trap, and use that sort of thing in 4e. I'm personally not a big fan of hit points as a long term resource, but healing surges can play the same role without mucking up my encounter pacing!

 

[avin]

I'm starting to have serious doubts about this whole "unity" goal.

Wouldn't that be unfair to 4E crowd? I mean, in an unity we should expect some elements we may dislike, from other editions, in the name of put different people on the same table. I don't think it's a forum breaker like Healing Surges.

I dislike level drain since 2E but, hey, if that means unity, bring it back, just don't go back to negative AC

In my 4E experience roles were so easy to use that when I was DMing PF the other day I wish Paizo had it included too.

As for monsters looking the same, never had this problem, I change monsters everytime and steal abilities even from other game systems.

Unfortunately one thing 4E doesn't do well is having fast combats (and I'm comparing that to AD&D1E/B/X/BECMI/OD&D rather than long 3.x combats).

100% agreed here. 5E combat must be faster.

Those G+ updates are about the designers saying "These are the raw elements of D&D that we are experiencing with the new system -- the new game has trolls, and runs modules, and has lurkers, and also has paladins and dwarves?"

Exactly. Or maybe he's testing our reaction using a dubious word.

 

[nnms]

Wouldn't that be unfair to 4E crowd? I mean, in an unity we should expect some elements we may dislike, from other editions, in the name of put different people on the same table. I don't think it's a forum breaker like Healing Surges.

I dislike level drain since 2E but, hey, if that means unity, bring it back, just don't go back to negative AC

I think as long as it is modular options. I don't think anyone should spend their hobby time doing something they don't enjoy so that we can claim we have "unity."

 

[Tallifer]

Nnms, you have it backwards. The dungeon master or writer of an adventure does not have to write down "2 lurkers, 2 brutes, 1 soldier, 1 controller." He writes down "Several orcs led by a chieftain and a shaman." He then looks at the monster manual/monster builder and finds/builds some orcs which match what he figures they would naturally do. "Several orcs" becomes two small ones with bows and big knives and two big ones with giant spiked clubs: lurkers or artillery and brutes. The chieftain has ring mail and a shield, so let us use the soldier stat block. The shaman casts spells and messes up the party, so let us make him a controller.

Of course, many encounters are built from the roles first. But even then, the dungeon master can use the monster manual/builder to search for the most naturally or narratively appropriate monsters to match the situation and each other monster.

The roles are a big help in designing interesting and balanced combats, but if the encounter at hand does not require that, then the dungeon master can freely ignore the roles.

 

[avin]

I think as long as it is modular options. I don't think anyone should spend their hobby time doing something they don't enjoy so that we can claim we have "unity."

I think Monster Roles and negative AC are deep inside core to be avoided.

And then we would face a problem: some people will want their favorite stuff is core and what they dislike is options... so I believe we'll have to accept some things we don't like because, so far, I haven't been presented to a perfect system or edition.

 

[avin]

Nnms, you have it backwards. The dungeon master or writer of an adventure does not have to write down "2 lurkers, 2 brutes, 1 soldier, 1 controller." He writes down "Several orcs led by a chieftain and a shaman."

The way I GM in any system, thus, when I tried 4E, roles never bothered me, never restricted me in any way.

In fact, you can criticize how 4E monters use rules different from characters but if we remove the role names a DM could create an encounter the same way.

I think the question here should be "advanced like a class or advanced by HD or advanced by something else".

 

[Hussar]

Oh gawds, I hope they don't go back to "Advance: By class". Yeurgh. When it takes half an hour to create even a moderate level character, this is something I do not want at all.

Have a standard format for advancement and be done with it. If someone wants their orc to be a fighter level X, then let them make the character.