Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Tovec" data-source="post: 5969395" data-attributes="member: 95493">Characters are defined by their class. But monsters defined by roll isn't exactly the same.Classes are defined by roll too in 4e are they not?Monsters are defined (or should be) by what kind of creature they are. Roles do not articulate that well.Also, it is prescriptive when the assumptions of a role influence the monster creation instead of assigning a role AFTER the monster has been finished.I would not be surprised to see a brute ogre with d12 and sneaker ogre to have d8s. That is role defining monster instead of monster defining role.The only objections I have to putting &quot;brute&quot; at the top of the monster entry I have is that it is too descriptive, often wrong/inaccurate and often there are multiple titles that fit. I also disagree with the roles that exist.For example, is a goblin with a spear an artillery, an archer*, or a minion**As I said before if a dragon shows up in the MM and it has a role attached to the section that applies to its race/type(subtype) and it says &quot;solo&quot; for example then it is going to be wrong/inaccurate assuming that the dragon is used in any other way. If you decide to use the brute monster as something lurking in the shadows, then there are two problems; first that it is no longer being a brute and acting with brutish expectations and that it is going to do the job poorly because it isn't classified (and designed as) a lurker.*archer being a ranged attacker that doesn't fit into artillery category**minion in a new &quot;low-HP&quot; way instead of the &quot;1 hit&quot; way of 4e</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Tovec, post: 5969395, member: 95493"] Characters are defined by their class. But monsters defined by roll isn't exactly the same. Classes are defined by roll too in 4e are they not? Monsters are defined (or should be) by what kind of creature they are. Roles do not articulate that well. Also, it is prescriptive when the assumptions of a role influence the monster creation instead of assigning a role AFTER the monster has been finished. I would not be surprised to see a brute ogre with d12 and sneaker ogre to have d8s. That is role defining monster instead of monster defining role. The only objections I have to putting "brute" at the top of the monster entry I have is that it is too descriptive, often wrong/inaccurate and often there are multiple titles that fit. I also disagree with the roles that exist. For example, is a goblin with a spear an artillery, an archer*, or a minion** As I said before if a dragon shows up in the MM and it has a role attached to the section that applies to its race/type(subtype) and it says "solo" for example then it is going to be wrong/inaccurate assuming that the dragon is used in any other way. If you decide to use the brute monster as something lurking in the shadows, then there are two problems; first that it is no longer being a brute and acting with brutish expectations and that it is going to do the job poorly because it isn't classified (and designed as) a lurker. *archer being a ranged attacker that doesn't fit into artillery category **minion in a new "low-HP" way instead of the "1 hit" way of 4e [/QUOTE]

Verification