D&D 5E Should Explicit Monster Roles Return?

[Vaalingrade]

Nah.

Making the game more difficult to plan and run for DMs by obfuscating information can only be good for the game.

While we're at it, we need dice with all the numbers hidden.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

Monster roles existed before and exist now. Not using the names just takes away a tool for DMs.

 

[Stormonu]

On paper, this seems like a great idea, but I think I'd rather steer clear of it as I would expect it would pigeon-hole a creature's use and we'd end up with some creatures whose stat block only exists to create a "striker", "brute", or "elite" version of the same monster.

I'm also not overly fond of reducing a creature to what its good for in combat - stat blocks do enough of that already as is (for example, have you ever considered purchasing a guard dog to protect your wizard character because it sounded like a good, fluffy idea vs. dismissing it because of their "bad stats"?)

 

[Hexmage-EN]

As promised, here are some examples of existing 5E monster abilities I've identified as helping to act in combat roles. I'd already been looking at these so I could have abilities to bolt onto existing statblocks as needed to quickly customize monsters.

Controller

• Grave Bolt. Ranged Spell Attack. Necrotic damage. If the target is Large or smaller, it must succeed on a Strength saving throw or become restrained as shadowy tendrils wrap around it for 1 minute. A restrained target can use its action to repeat the saving throw, ending the effect on itself on a success.
• Whispers of Compulsion. The creature chooses up to three enemies it can see within 60 feet of it. Each target must succeed on a Wisdom saving throw, or it takes psychic damage and must use its reaction to make a melee weapon attack against one creature of the creature's choice that it can see.

Leader

• Call to Attack. Up to three allies of the creature within 120 feet that can hear it can use their reaction to make a weapon attack.
• Command Ally. The lieutenant targets one ally it can see within 30 feet of itself. If the target can see or hear the lieutenant, the target can make one melee attack using its reaction, if available, and has advantage on the attack roll.

Soldier

• Piercing Claw. Melee Weapon Attack. Reach 15 ft., one target. Piercing damage plus necrotic damage. If the target is a creature, the boneclaw can pull the target up to 10 feet toward itself, and the target is grappled. The boneclaw has two claws. While a claw grapples a target, the claw can attack only that target.
• Furious Defense. After an ally the creature can see is dealt damage by a foe within melee weapon attack reach of it, the creature makes a melee weapon attack against that foe as a reaction.

 

[Hexmage-EN]

Here's also a custom leader/soldier Azer I made for a session recently:

Azer Hell Hound Whisperer
Medium Elemental, Lawful Neutral
Armor Class 17 (natural armor, shield)
Hit Points 52 (8d8 + 15)
Speed 30 ft.
STR +2 DEX +3 CON +2/+4 INT +0 WIS +2 CHA +0
Damage Immunities Fire, Poison
Condition Immunities Poisoned
Senses Passive Perception 11
Languages Ignan
CR 4 (Offensive CR 3; Defensive CR 5)
Proficiency Bonus +2
TRAITS
Aura of the Pack Master. An allied firebred hell hound that begins its turn within 15 feet of the azer can roll twice to try and recharge its fire breath.
Heated Body. A creature that touches the azer or hits it with a melee attack while within 5 feet of it takes 1d10 fire damage.
Heated Weapons. When the azer hits with a metal melee weapon, it deals an extra 1d6 fire damage (included in the attack).
Illumination. The azer sheds bright light in a 10-foot radius and dim light for an additional 10 feet.
Sentinel’s Vengeance. When an enemy within melee attack range makes an attack against a target other than the creature, the creature may make an opportunity attack against the triggering enemy.
ACTIONS
Multiattack. The azer makes two whip attacks.
Flame Whip. Melee Weapon Attack: +5 to hit, reach 15 ft., one target. Hit: 1d4+3 slashing damage plus 1d6 fire damage, and the creature is pulled up to 10 feet closer to the azer.
Call the Hounds (1/day). Range 30 feet. The azer conjures two allied firebred hell-hounds within range.
BONUS ACTIONS
Release the Hounds. Up to two allied firebred hell hounds within 120 feet of the azer that can hear it can each use their reaction to move up to half their speed and make one bite attack.
REACTIONS
Opportunity Attack: Sentinel’s Snare. Melee Weapon Attack: +5 to hit, reach 15 ft., one target. Hit: 1d4+3 slashing damage plus 1d6 fire damage, and the creature is pulled up to 10 feet closer to the azer and has its speed reduced to 0.

The general idea with this guy is to keep the hell Hounds close so that they can benefit from the greater chance of recharging their fire breath and keeping the PCs close to include them in the AoE.

 

[pawsplay]

It's an observation-interaction problem. One the roles stop being descriptive and starting being prescriptive, the description stops applying to those roles. It's a reification of something that doesn't enhance the game.

 

[overgeeked]

On paper, this seems like a great idea, but I think I'd rather steer clear of it as I would expect it would pigeon-hole a creature's use and we'd end up with some creatures whose stat block only exists to create a "striker", "brute", or "elite" version of the same monster.

I'm also not overly fond of reducing a creature to what its good for in combat - stat blocks do enough of that already as is (for example, have you ever considered purchasing a guard dog to protect your wizard character because it sounded like a good, fluffy idea vs. dismissing it because of their "bad stats"?)

Nothing saying you can't do the same tagging with other kinds of stuff. Take social interactions as an example. You could just as easily write up something similar for social roles. It's not about pigeonholing anything, it's about helping referees easily find appropriate content quickly.

"There's an ambush ahead, I need an ambush predator."

Good luck trying to find that in the sea of monsters in the MM or the dozens of other monster books unless: 1) you already know which monsters are good at ambushes, or; 2) one of those books is Flee, Mortals.

 

[CreamCloud0]

Ah yes, a classic problem of the DnD community: baulking at a tool that will help you build and run your games easier because you think it’s telling you how you should play

 

[overgeeked]

Ah yes, a classic problem of the DnD community: baulking at a tool that will help you build and run your games easier because you think it’s telling you how you should play

There's always two responses.

"It's in the game, therefore I have to use it."

and

"It's in the game, but I can ignore it."

 

[LordEntrails]

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.

No we are not except in the very broadest/loosest/poor definition of game designer. Yes, I would speculate that most DMs active on this forum are also game designers. But with nothing but experience tells me that the larger pool of DMs simple are not game designers. Since we know this forum represents a tiny fraction of the RPG players and GMs, I think it's more accurate to assume that we are the exception, not the rule.

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

There are many ways to make combat easier for DMs. And a whole lot of them are horrible ideas. Let's make combat easier for DMs; All monsters have the same attacks, saves and abilities, only their HP varies. All creatures have three actions; single attack, full defense, and disengage. All movement is the same, there is no terrain. There is no cover. There is no range, if you have line of sight you can attack. Their are no combat modifiers. There is no advatage or disadvantage.

There, the game is now really easy for DMs.
No, making the game easier for DMs is not a good goal in and of itself.

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.

So every encounter must be ideal? Come now, variety and spice and all that. But, I did not say that monsters should not have things they are good and bad at. Nor did I say that such information should be easily accessible to DMs. I said making it part of the stat block was a bad way to implement it. There are quite a few others in this thread that agree with that statement, and have suggested other solutions.

Nothing saying you can't do the same tagging with other kinds of stuff. Take social interactions as an example. You could just as easily write up something similar for social roles. It's not about pigeonholing anything, it's about helping referees easily find appropriate content quickly.

Depending upon how you implement it, it can result in pigeonholing. There are other ways to share this info with DMs without making it fraught with many DMs assuming it is inviolate. (Such as the old monsters by terrain tables. Creating similar for roles would work easily and not risk the downsides. And I'm sure others have even better solutions.)

Ah yes, a classic problem of the DnD community: baulking at a tool that will help you build and run your games easier because you think it’s telling you how you should play

Bad tools are bad, even if their goal is desirable. There are better ways to achieve this goal that do not have the drawbacks of this method.