Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Tovec" data-source="post: 5966417" data-attributes="member: 95493">Because the concepts of roles are so easy to understand and follow?Not only do you have to understand what a Controller does and what its strengths and weaknesses are. But you now have to understand how to use those traits in combat and pick from a list of similar controllers (because each stat block starts by saying it is a controller). You also have to do this in relation to seeing skirmisher, and figuring out what is different about skirmishers and how skirmishers work in combat differently than controllers.In that case, it isn't any different from having expertise in one form versus having it in another. Without the roles you would do the exact same thing, when learning the system and trying to figure out where a character would be best served. A better idea might be teaching new people (and experienced people) how a creature might best be used. Which IS mutually exclusive with saying "elite brute 7".Teach them (instead of saying elite) that a certain monster or race of creatures might be best used only one at a time. AND how things change dramatically based on what is with them. A group of dragons could all be the same role, but they are going to play much differently than a creature used as a solo/boss. They are also going to play much differently than a mix of different typed/stated dragons or even a dragon by himself, or a dragon with a group of kobolds. All these things are nuances that need to be taught or learned at some point. What roles do is NOT articulate this different or distinction, when something else could do it much better. Teach people how to read the stat block and pick out key details and this will serve them much better than relying on a keyword at the top of the entry. Especially when that keyword may be misapplied or inaccurate.I think that it would work best as far as customization to have a base goblin and then be able to add archer or other things to him. But I think if it is done poorly then it will be a LOT more work. And if done well then it would probably resemble (easily applied) templates in a lot of ways.Sadly, the extra work is probably what will kill the idea before it goes anywhere, even though I happen to agree with the sentiment that there should be a "base" goblin.Okay, but having 13 different kinds of orcs doesn't work for me anymore than having 13 types of pre-gens works for my players when selecting characters. How do you appeal to me in that regard?I don't want to spend hours on monster creation by any means, but I would prefer to see a base creature that can be used exactly as it is. If there is a new concept or special variant that makes sense then I'll entertain it but I want to be able to say "orc" and use an orc, not have to specify if I mean the orc minion, boss, elite, skirmisher, controller or anything.That is what a monster manual is FOR YOU.A monster manual for me should be a single book I can use to get any monster I need in my game. If other manuals or splatbooks come out with new options, or variants or whatever that is cool. But if the MM can't allow me to use or create very simple monster design then it fails right out of the gate for me.Ideally I wouldn't have any creatures categorized by type or role or anything like that.I would have a few different styles of monsters presented.- Monsters as characters/a race would work for orcs, goblins and things that would have a distinct personality from monster to monster. That is where it makes sense to have ones with different abilities. For these I need something that is basic, even if it is "pidgeonholed" into one class/setting to start. I can easily swap a fighter orc for a wizard orc.- [Semi-]Unique monsters are ones that should be reasonably few in existence, or that rely on their natural talents for powers. A lot of the classic "monster" monsters are like this. I expect every medusa to have petrification. And in general I'll be very displeased if there are a number of class variations for these creatures. Every rust monster should be the same for me. Most dragons should be the same - certainly all reds to eachother unless they have class levels or something.- A mix of both - like a lot of outsiders in 3e. These creatures are ones who have random abilities which neither conform directly to race (and usually not to class either). These I can see both forms - with "class" or "role" more closely aligned but not necessarily. A lot of those variations can be more related to what they are and where they come from. I can get more variation and use out of different kinds of devils than I can if I have 3 types of the same devil - because of power level.I realize a lot of what I just said applies to existing design. But it is something I want 5e to look at and work on more going forward. I don't want to see every upper level fiend have some random power (presumably from different sources) because they killed the air-rulers (or whatever demon bob did). Nor do I want them each to have different elements because somehow each "demon-bob" killed the rulers of different elements. That is where it starts to fall down for me.</blockquote>

Verification