Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="I'm A Banana" data-source="post: 5966248" data-attributes="member: 2067">It's possible I'm stepping into a minefield here, but let me maybe explain the thought behind what [MENTION=697]mearls[/MENTION] was saying. Or at least why thinking about "combat roles" can make some sense.So, you've got your typical D&D game. Stereotypical. ARCHETYPAL, even. Folks in a town seek rumors about treasure and go kill things to get it. The Core D&D Experience.You go to kill some goblins and take their stuff.Now, even if the goblins are pretty quick to mow through, round after round of "I attack...it dies...it attacks...deal damage..." in a vacuum is pretty tedious accounting. Tension builds as your players loose HP, but it's only slightly more interactive than watching your toon auto-attack in WoW. So variety in combat is a goal that is worthy of being met for D&D. You can add variety with terrain. Traps, hazards, pits, rocks, cover, difficult terrain, etc. All of those add some interesting variety.You can also add variety by changing up monster abilities. This goblin has a bow, so it attacks at range. This other goblin has a longspear, so it fights from the back ranks. A third goblin uses a flail, so it can trip you up. You can also add variety by adding "recruited" monsters. The hobgoblin has better armor and better coordination. The bugbear is big and tough and sneaky.Guess what?You've created monster roles.Bow goblin? He's artillery. Longspear goblin? Maybe a soldier. Flail goblin? Possibly a controller. Hobgoblin? Soldier. Bugbear? Brute. Or maybe Lurker if you play up the sneaky angle.Recognizing these roles and embracing what they can do helps makes everyone's combats a little better.Now, there is a big difference in brainspace between a descriptive role that describes what the thing is like in combat, and a proscriptive role that mandates that the creature do X, Y, and Z in combat. But the difference in what is actually on the paper is more a difference in page layout than a substantial difference in philosophy. A monster who hits hard with ranged attacks is Artillery, and noting that Artillery monsters have general qualities X, Y, and Z are really helpful to DMs who want good combat encounters.And, as an addendum, not everything is a suitable combat threat, either. Rust monsters and ear seekers and gelatinous cubes and pixies and dryads celestials don't necessarily need a combat role, because they aren't necessarily combat encounters. It's OK if a celestial is wildly more powerful than other creatures of its level in combat -- combat is not the way you deal with them. It's OK if a rust monster is boring except for its rusting abilities -- combat is not what it's there for. A gelatinous cube isn't a "brute" or a "lurker," it acts more like a trap or a hazard. Not everything is there to be fought. I think 5e monster design must learn that lesson, at least. But combat roles for monsters you're expected to enter combat with help define their abilities and limitations and design intents better than "goblin with a bow" does.</blockquote>

Verification