D&D 5E Should Explicit Monster Roles Return?

[DinoInDisguise]

I think this is rules bloat for little gain. Adding them to the book does very little outside providing nebulous "guidance" on how to use a monster. It'd be different if the guidance was broadly useful, but it largely isn't. I don't need a role tag to tell me to put the archer at a distance. I believe most DMs simply would ignore them.

A more useful implementation is the one in amazing Forge of Foes by Sly Flourish. There you have templates, and suggested abilities to add, for each role. This, to me, seems far more useful than a label that tells me something I already know.

If the updated monster manual was to include the Forge of Foes version, I'd be overjoyed. If it was to use the former "tag" version, I'd simply ignore it as it does nothing.

 

[MuhVerisimilitude]

Instead of using roles you could also have a quick list of tags, something like these, perhaps. They should be listed where they can be easily seen

• Sturdy: This monster has an unusual amount of hit points
• Heavy-hitter: This hits hard in melee
• Mover: This monster can control the battlefield by moving around allies or enemies

Descriptive tags to quickly tell you about the essentials of the creature, without having to read the finer details of the stat block.

 

[overgeeked]

Yes. Roles are a quick way to encapsulate the monster’s behavior in combat.

Have one page explaining the 6-10 roles and their tactics, then tag each monster with one or more roles.

No more wondering how the monster should act or having to read between the lines of abilities, powers, synergies, etc.

 

[MuhVerisimilitude]

I think this is rules bloat for little gain. Adding them to the book does very little outside providing nebulous "guidance" on how to use a monster. It'd be different if the guidance was broadly useful, but it largely isn't. I don't need a role tag to tell me to put the archer at a distance. I believe most DMs simply would ignore them.

A more useful implementation is the one in amazing Forge of Foes by Sly Flourish. There you have templates, and suggested abilities to add, for each role. This, to me, seems far more useful than a label that tells me something I already know.

If the updated monster manual was to include the Forge of Foes version, I'd be overjoyed. If it was to use the former "tag" version, I'd simply ignore it as it does nothing.

Roles aren't rules, though. As such they cannot be bloat.

If anything, templates are actually bloat since with templates you have to modify the stat block meaning that not only are they rules, but they are more work for the GM.

 

[Umbran]

It might be good, for new GMs, to have it be clear what kind of behavior in combat is good for the monster - possibly in the form of "favorite tactics" or the like - to letting you know that dragons are probably happiest when they can fly and use their breath weapons, and not engage in melee at all.

It might be good to also give guidance on how creatures with different strengths and weaknesses can cooperate to good effect.

Formalizing "roles" is one way to do this, but there are other ways that aren't quite so much like putting them in pigeonholes.

 

[Oofta]

Where is the box for “sometimes”?

I was going to say the same thing. Sometimes a monsters fits a specific niche, sometimes it doesn't. I don't think monster design should be overly constrained, as some others stated maybe instead have different types of tags or templates to add to existing monsters? Speaking of the latter, I hope it's something they add no matter what. Templates can be quite handy when you have a monster with lore and basic feel but it needs to be tweaked.

 

[Charlaquin]

Using it for design purposes is like leaving a stencil or mask on something you painted afterwards. Things that you use for design or production are not something you leave around for consumers.

The thing is, DMs are also game designers. The monsters in the books are just tools, a DM has to actually place them into a dungeon or other adventuring environment to make a game. And it can be useful for them to know what a monster’s combat function is.

IMO the only valid reason to give a monster role out of these is to make combat easier for DMs.

Is that not reason enough? Making combat easier for DMs is a good thing.

And then I think fixing a role to an NPC is limiting. I get how it makes things easier for a DM who is learning, but it also places them in a box. A box that many DMs will allow to constrain themselves. I'd rather see a list of typical roles etc than actually put the value in a stat block.

I mean, I guess you could try using a monster that was designed to be a mobile but frail damage dealer as a a tank, but I expect the results would not be ideal.

 

[Krachek]

Thematic role.

 

[Seramus]

Yes. I want to be able to search for a term and get a list of monsters that apply. I don't think monsters should be forced to fill certain roles, but role tags should be given to monsters after they are made so someone can easily understand where that monster is probably strong, new DMs can immediately get how the monster can be used, and I can pull up a list to pick from.

As in, "Huh, a good CC monster would be great in this encounter. Looks up Controllers."

 

[Yaarel]

Elites (two creatures in one), Solos (about four creatures in one), and Minions (one-shottable) are useful categories.