D&D 5E Should Explicit Monster Roles Return?

[CreamCloud0]

Sure, you can slap a one-line role on a monster, it works just like having an alignment tag for the monster instead of getting into its nuanced personality and culture.

do note that in the example i was just quoted in i was referring to the suggestion (or at least my understanding that was their suggestion) that each monster should have it's own set of sub-builds and modifications listed for it to fill different roles in it's entry rather than just 'one-line roles'

i really don't see an issue with having both the tag and the nuanced description, the tag doesn't force you into playing a monster a certain way it just provides a quick reference for what a monster's design is already inherently apropriate for

Personally, I think adding it will lead to the same sort of problems alignment has had over the years.

i will continue to maintain that alignment in and of itself isn't a bad idea, it's just been hideously misused and and poorly presented for most if not all of DnD's lifespan, just like what's being repeatedly said in the neo-trad thread: of course something is going to sound like trash if it's represented by people who inherently dislike it or misunderstand what it's about.

 

[Hexmage-EN]

The point of having tags is that you don't have to read the entry. The point of the tags is to tell you something about the entry without requiring you to scour the entry for information.

I like looking at and evaluating monster statblocks, but it would be nice to have an at a glance way of knowing what role they fill to save time when selecting. It also makes it easier to use mixed groups of monsters.

 

[Clint_L]

[never mind]

 

[DinoInDisguise]

I like looking at and evaluating monster statblocks, but it would be nice to have an at a glance way of knowing what role they fill to save time when selecting. It also makes it easier to use mixed groups of monsters.

I feel like this could be done, more effectively, with an appendix. Once I'm looking at a statblock, I likely know the information provided by the role. Example being a goblin archer, I don't need to see a tag to know it's role. Same goes with an ogre. And making it an Ogre Sharpshooter, doesn't change the outcome here.

But, if say, I was looking for a certain kind of encounter, an appendix would be much more useful, as I could see my options within a role. It's then a short cut, instead of redundant information.

The roles, really, are just categories of statblocks. Categories are, in my opinion, most useful when you can see multiple options at a time. Knowing that one statblock is in a particular category, without the context of other statblocks greatly diminishes the usefulness of the category, as far as I can tell.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Orcs are people, they can learn many skills and be any combat role. 4e didn't have a plain Orc, it had multiple Orcs that had function in an Orc tribe and different skills to deploy in battles and even religious figures and leaders and their entry mentionned other creatures they could ally with.

Who's limiting the Orc here exactly?

I don't know about orcs, but I certainly don't want to play in a game where every single goblin isn't born with a morningstar in its hand that their implied culture can't possibly produce.

 

[Undrave]

We really don't need 30+ different iterations of Orc, but having some templates that can be used to apply different roles with various linked abilities would be cool.

I think that's just a result of the revisions to Monster Math that occurred in 4e. the MM1 didn't have that many. some of these are probably adventure specific too, like Reavers of Harkenwold.

Combat style role, yes
Combat power role, no (that should be a chart if anything)

What does that mean?

 

[Undrave]

I feel like this could be done, more effectively, with an appendix. Once I'm looking at a statblock, I likely know the information provided by the role. Example being a goblin archer, I don't need to see a tag to know it's role. Same goes with an ogre. And making it an Ogre Sharpshooter, doesn't change the outcome here.

But, if say, I was looking for a certain kind of encounter, an appendix would be much more useful, as I could see my options within a role. It's then a short cut, instead of redundant information.

The roles, really, are just categories of statblocks. Categories are, in my opinion, most useful when you can see multiple options at a time. Knowing that one statblock is in a particular category, without the context of other statblocks greatly diminishes the usefulness of the category, as far as I can tell.

Hmm ... I need to look at my 4e MM again but I could swear there was something like that?

But if you already have the label you use for your appendix, might as well place it in the stat block too. If nothing else, it's useful when they get reprinted in adventures.

 

[Chalice]

Definitely not, in my opinion. It’s one part of the dumbing down / railroading of D&D rules that I wouldn’t ever want to see return.

 

[Undrave]

Definitely not, in my opinion. It’s one part of the dumbing down / railroading of D&D rules that I wouldn’t ever want to see return.

If making things easier is classified as 'dumbing down'...

How is it railroading? I want to know how you define monster combat roles, what you think they are and do.

 

[DinoInDisguise]

Definitely not, in my opinion. It’s one part of the dumbing down / railroading of D&D rules that I wouldn’t ever want to see return.

Sometimes I feel like "ease of use" and "dumbed down" are secretly synonyms and I just never got the memo.

I'm not a huge fan of the tags, I don't see a purpose. But I also don't understand this accusation of dumbing down.