| Post/Author/DateTime | Post |
|---|---|
| #1Not.the.chosen.oneAug 30, 2014 0:58:06 | Hey guys. I've always liked the roles for monsters (e.g. Minions and brutes and the like) from the 4th Monster Manual. Does anyone know if it'll be in the 5th? It wasn't mentioned in any of the free to play stuff. |
| #2Xeviat-DMAug 30, 2014 1:48:05 | Nope. You get to guess that yourself now. |
| #3RamzourAug 30, 2014 1:48:30 | I haven't heard anything about it, and frankly I'm happy about that. Monsters should not be pre-baked with roles. We don't need 5 different goblins, for instance, when 1 will do.. I should be able to make a goblin fill any role. Artillery Goblin? Give them a few levels in Fighter or Sorcerer. If I want a tanky goblin, i'll give it 3 levels in fighter or barbarian, heavy armor, and a shield. |
| (Reply to #2)Diffan |
|
| #5Darth_CaffeineusAug 30, 2014 3:45:26 | nope, which is a shame
monsters seem very dull in this edition, whole lot of basic attacking going on.
As a DM I like to come up on my own with wacky, off page things for the monsters to do every few rounds or so, but I feel like this edition just gives so few mechanical tools to the DM to spice up encounters.
Monster fluff is great, but where the crunch to go with it?
I don't want to run an encounter with 8 goblins with the same dull stat block, but I also don't want to have to add class levels or have to make up my own stat block just to run a goblin fight.
Yesh, even 13th age which was deliberilty designed to not offer support for tactical combat, and went very simple with mosnter design, provides more intresting monsters and clear guidance on how to use them in an encounter. |
| #6MecheonAug 30, 2014 3:47:40 |
|
| #7UchawiAug 30, 2014 4:11:41 | I liked monster roles as well. It didn't mean you had to follow them, but it was a good guide. |
| #8RhennyAug 30, 2014 5:47:49 | In 5e, monsters don't have to follow PC building rules, and DMG will probably have advice for modifying and making monsters. In the published adventures, there are unique monsters of different species, and it is very easy to modify any goblin (or other monster) to become artillery, soldier, shaman, leader, witch doctor, skulker, etc.
Add armor for soldiers. Add hit points for brute. Add ranged weapons with +2 archery style. Add spells. Give some a feat of your choosing. Check out the Orc with great weapon fighting feat - he's a scary dude.
in the monster manual, I'd rather they use space for different monsters than different types of the same monster.
DMs create and modify. Surprise the players. |
| #9GrazelAug 30, 2014 22:34:59 | They've gone back to pre 4e style of monsters where the same monster stats can be used as the basis for most roles. Even with roles it really didn't change much. Players usually could quickly figure out which goblins were minions and which were the leader by the end of the first round of combat. With 5e you can just give a goblin a bow and he becomes artillery (and the starter set adventure has a few examples of these "custom role" goblins). If you want a minion just take the general goblin and lower their hp (and CR to match).
Solo's are still there and are still fairly obvious. All 4e roles did was take the usual roles for various monsters and lock them into those roles because the roles were part of the math that went into encounter building and grid-combat. WIthout grid combat and with bounded accuracy the roles are much less important to be represented mechanically.
This does also allow them to put a wider variety of monsters in the MM rather than "recolored" monsters to fill different roles and levels/CRs (ala video games). Notice that monsters in this edition by default usually don't have any weapons or armor so adding them is easy without having to recalculate abilities (just add to AC, give them a new basic attack, etc.) |
| #10pauln6Aug 31, 2014 1:20:07 | It would be nice if they gave us sample roles for monsters with extra abilities/weapons to tie into that. I think this is more Dragon Mag territory. |
| #11setiAug 31, 2014 2:24:19 | I liked monster roles too. While it is easy to just give a goblin a bow or armor or more HP and a versitile weapon, Roles in 4e did more than that. That works for a simple humanoid monster, like a goblin. Not so much with higher level/CR creatures with lots of various abilities.
They supplied a (even a novice) DM with a simple system to build interesting incounters. I can live without roles, but I will definitely miss minions and elites. Solos are still here, just called 'legendary' now.
Having to have the PHB open or having to make spell cards for caster monsters again is much more obnoxious and a clear step backwards. It's also lazy MM writing.
My main complaint about 5e is that the Devs have clearly taken the slacker path this time, cut a lot of corners, and just waived their hands and said "Eh, let the DM's figure that sh** out" instead of actually writing out stuff to make DMing more accessible and fun. |
| #12FFSAAAug 31, 2014 2:30:38 |
|
| (Reply to #12)seti |
|
| #14Brock_LandersAug 31, 2014 2:54:52 |
|
| #15HebitsuikazaAug 31, 2014 3:31:35 |
|
| #16The_JesterAug 31, 2014 9:01:23 | Roles are a neat tool for encounter building but not monster building. Advice on building encounters with monsters in different roles and doing different things.
For example, goblins can use their bows and be artillery, hide in the dark and be lurkers, put on heavy armour and be soldiers, attack high level creatures and be minions, take barbarian levels and become a brute, etc. All using the same statblocks rather than 3-4 pages. And while keeping the base creature simple.
Hopefully there will be some simple templates to customize monster and make them tactical.
I'd rather have lots of different monsters than lots of variants of a few monsters. |
| #17Brock_LandersAug 31, 2014 9:03:35 | Yeah, switching up weapons, HD, adding a class-like feature can go a long way. |
| #18mestewart3Aug 31, 2014 10:44:11 | While I am going to miss roles I can totally live with the fact that they are going to be gone. What I can't live with is that from what we have seen so far we aren't getting the frames (racial style write ups) of any of the monsters in the MM. This means that it becomes really difficult to change them by applying class levels. Because this information is missing I am worried that we aren't going to be getting monster/NPC classes (or they are going to be a weak handwave like they were in 3.5). A tool that we need badly if we are going to be missing role structures for building monsters. |
| #19Brock_LandersAug 31, 2014 10:49:08 |
|
| #20mestewart3Aug 31, 2014 11:00:04 |
|
| #21Brock_LandersAug 31, 2014 11:02:25 |
|
| (Reply to #21)mestewart3 |
|
| #23FFSAAAug 31, 2014 11:59:34 |
|
| #24Brock_LandersAug 31, 2014 12:07:33 |
|
| #25mestewart3Aug 31, 2014 12:15:00 |
|
| #26dmgorgonAug 31, 2014 13:07:00 |
|
| (Reply to #23)thehobb |
|
| (Reply to #3)arderkrag |
|
| (Reply to #20)1eejit |
|
| (Reply to #23)dave2008 |
|
| #31RyokuSep 01, 2014 9:09:23 | It's cool that people can still find what they want in the system.
Sure I could just take a goblin and add some armor or give him a bow. I'd rather have that done for me though and printed in a book. The monster roles did a job that I as a dm don't do because I don't have the time. It made dynamic and varied fights. Now if that burden is back to me, I don't have the time or energy to spend 20 minutes customizing a monster that will only appear in one fight.
This is a classic case of taking the burden off the DM. If you want to customize your monsters, that's fine. You totally can still do that. If you want it easy like me and have all that work done for you ahead of time though, that should also be an option.
And you guys should really learn to respect others opinions. Just because you disagree with them doesn't make their arguments or desires invalid. It is completely okay to agree to disagree. |
| #32Brock_LandersSep 01, 2014 9:49:08 |
|
| #33Brock_LandersSep 01, 2014 9:51:53 |
|
| #34ORC_CricketSep 01, 2014 16:42:55 | We’ve removed content from this thread because of a violation of the Code of Conduct.
You can review the Code here: http://company.wizards.com/conduct
Please keep your posts polite, on-topic, and refrain from making personal attacks. You are welcome to disagree with one another but please do so respectfully and constructively.
Remember, a community is a joint effort of all those involved, and while we want intelligent meaningful and productive banter to ensue we also need it to be polite and considerate of others.
Thank you for your time and support as we continue to try and make a great community for everyone. |
| #35HerrozerroSep 01, 2014 16:43:41 |
|
| #36zgroseSep 01, 2014 17:09:16 | The role labels are gone (for PCs and NPCs) but the roles are still present to some extent. Adding PC levels to monster is overkill, for me. If I wanted to take vanilla creature X and make a varied array of them:
For a Brute you can give it max HP (instead of the average) and upgrade its weapon. Artillery is pretty obvious to apply. Not a lot of Leaders in 5e PC or NPC. Soldier can be up-geared armor. For a Lurker probably grab either some other monster's sneaky traits or Sneak Attack.
Its not too hard to convert up 4e creatures to 5e if there is something close it 5e to work with. |
| #37zgroseSep 01, 2014 17:13:37 |
|
| #38TheLyonsSep 01, 2014 18:52:51 |
|
| #39animeusSep 01, 2014 18:54:42 |
|
| #40GrazelSep 01, 2014 19:19:20 | Also keep in mind you can make an artillery out of a goblin without adding class levels. Just give them some gear (bow and arrows) and it takes maybe a minute to note that they have a bow and what it does for damage and it's attack modifier (assume any weapon you give a monster they have proficiency in). Same with armor, just look at the armor's AC and add in dex mod if that armor allows it.
As another said, you want a brute give them max HP instead of average, or give them an extra HD.
Elite and solo would take more work but there's already tough creatures (bugbears are pretty much elites as is, and dragons are solos as always).
You want minions give a handful of goblins the minimum HP or even just 1 HP if you want, just keep in mind that if you go below the minimum stated for the creature you should lower it's CR as well for encounter budget and XP rewards.
Lurker give them a stelath skill, or maybe even sneak attack.
Leader give them a couple spell slots and healing spells, buff spells, debuff spells, or just a couple abilities and maybe raise their CR some (or lower their AC and/or HP some to balance them out).
Most changes to a monster that 4e did to make them fit multiple roles are done in 5e quickly, easily, and don't take a lot of work, or adding any class levels at all. Monsters don't need to follow the PC build rules in 5e so they don't need to be a cleric or wizard to be able to cast spells found on those spell lists. Even player race NPC's don't need class levels to have class feature (or similar) abilities. Classes are meant for a way to have the PC's advance and relate, but isn't forced on NPCs and monsters. |
| (Reply to #12)Diffan |
|
| (Reply to #39)Diffan |
|
| #43Brock_LandersSep 01, 2014 23:52:51 |
|
| #44Brock_LandersSep 01, 2014 23:59:50 |
|
| #45Lord_VentnorSep 02, 2014 0:21:41 | I personally liked that there were "Goblin Archer," "Goblin Shaman," and "Goblin Meatshield" statblocks in 4e. Sure, I could have tinkered with the monster statblock if I wanted to, but it was nice that I didn't have to.
My beef with 5e monsters is that they use the CR system again. It's really confusing about which monsters are supposed to be appropriate encounters for PCs. According to the CR system, a Pteranadon is as dangerous as a Wolf, but both are less dangerous than a crocodile. Okay, why? |
| #46setiSep 02, 2014 0:31:16 | It's funny. The general tone of this (and most other) threads is:
"I kinda liked 4e, I'm sad there isn't more of it in 5e. Oh well. I still love D&D." vs "F*** 4e, it sucked in every way and wasn't real D&D. 5e can do no wrong because its got bounded accuracy, and, umm, stuff. I'm glad everything I hate isn't even an option."
Some of you really need to grow up. No wonder most TTRPG players don't go on these types of forums. |
| (Reply to #33)dave2008 |
|
| (Reply to #43)dave2008 |
|
| (Reply to #35)1eejit |
|
| (Reply to #49)seti |
|
| #51Snot-ElementalSep 02, 2014 7:52:41 | Monster roles are very helpful. They are not for those who want every single digit in the statblock to represent the real physical world. But in my understanding, giants do not lose hp just because they become minions whit higher PC levels. In 4E, this simply represented the fact that higher level PC could now easily kill those giants they had many problems fighting in lower levels. These mechanics do not represent physics. They do not need to. In 4E, minions are extremely helpful for encounter building because you could spam a battlefield with them without increasing the level of the encounter too much. And despite the single hp, they were not as easily killable because they shared the defenses of an opponent their level and do not lose the hp when an attack against them misses. Again, it must be understood that this follows a certain narrative and does not represent real life physics.
Now, there are no minions in 5th and I think this is not a good thing. I find having to give monsters levels, adjust stats for armour and such like in older editions is time-consuming and not easy to DM. What I am reading in this thread (and over and over again on this board since even before 5th came out) is that I should man up, that it is not a problem, that I am probably not a capable DM (otherwise I would manage to play without minions which supposedly make the game bad) and in general that my taste is not welcome here anymore. I get that for most on these boards 4E is the bad edition which rightfully "failed", an abomination that should never have been published as D&D but rather as a boardgame. Anything that remotely resembles 4E mechanics is not welcome here by a very vocal and I feel large group of board members. And they will have those boards for themselves soon. I am sure they will feel good about themselves, arme Würste, die sie sind.
But I do not think that this kind of behaviour will make 5th a better game. After all, 4E mechanics have their merits. Minions are one of them: easy mechanics that give a lot of good narrative to a game. However, the fact that they do not exist in 5th displays which kind of game the new edition wants to be.
|
| #52Snot-ElementalSep 02, 2014 7:55:05 |
|
| #53arderkragSep 02, 2014 9:24:38 | You have the option. Just like I have the option to add levels to monsters, or resolve attacks with a cheese taste testing resolution system. That second one may be the best idea I've had in a while. |
| #54Snot-ElementalSep 02, 2014 10:35:34 |
|
| #55h347h50Sep 02, 2014 11:09:26 |
|
| #56MechatarrasqueSep 02, 2014 13:53:49 | I wouldn't mind 1 CR miniclass template (warrior, adept, ect.) that could be added to humaniod monsters. It seems like with something like that, you could fit most of the 4e monster roles: warrior to get a brute, adept to get magical artillery, witch doctor to get controller, and skulker to get lurker, or they could just call the miniclasses brute, artillery, controller, and lurker. A goblin is still a goblin, but a brute goblin is a little tougher (and has a higher CR/xp value). This just takes the old 1e "for every 30 goblins, there will be a leader with 12 more hitpoints that does +3 additional damage" and standardizes it. |
| #57Brock_LandersSep 02, 2014 14:49:41 |
|
| #58Brock_LandersSep 02, 2014 14:51:27 |
|
| #59GrazelSep 02, 2014 17:09:43 | No, monsters don't use PC rules in 5e. They do use some core combat mechanics (weapon damage for a wielded weapon, bonuses from wearing magical items, AC from specific armor) but that's not PC creation rules. Look at the Hoard of the Dragon Queen supplement. THe mage is NOT using the wizard class PC build rules, while it functions like a 9th level wizard in some regards it has 9d8+con bonus HP rather than 9d6+con bonus HP. It also doesn't have a tradition nor the full set of wizard class features.
The reason minions aren't in the system from the start is the base system is just that, the base system. Minions and preset roles would be the realm of a module and would therefor be in the DMG or a later supplement, also 4e is the only edition that used the mechanic and 5e's goal for the core mechanics is to get them to feel as much like as many editions as they could. Putting in roles and especially minion mechanics would have the effect of making 5e core feel like 4.5e since it'd reflect only a single previous edition. There are still implied roles, and sometimes even more than a single stat block for a monster (humanoids especially often have 2 or 3).
They've also tried to make the modding of monsters easier by stating clearly in the AC section where the AC comes from: armor worn, natural armor, no armor just 10+Dex if nothing listed. This speeds up the modification proccess since you don't have to try to work out yourself where the AC comes from and can just modify it up or down a couple points by swapping/adding/removing armor.
Weapon additions are easy, just add them on as an attack option.
Modifying a monster has always, even in 4e required looking up things in different locations in order to make the modification. 4e just tried to give you a wide variety (especially for humanoids) right out of the gate, and to stretch monsters across levels (notice that many humanoids of different roles count as different level monsters). With 5e flattening things out some a single monster is relevant for many more levels than in 4e (and many other editions). This means you can modify the goblin to make a goblin archer and unless you refuse to use them more than once can easily reuse that monster for most o the PC's carreer so it doesn't have to be, and likely shouldn't be, a one-shot appearance.
Very likely the DMG will have a section on how to modify a monster and how to build encounters (which modifying a monster is part of). They, or someone else, will likely also come out with some quick and easy templates to slap on a monster so you can just grab one of those and the monster entry and you're done. You could even do that yourself, rather than make a custom goblin archer (for the artillery role), instead just make an archer template that lists what changes to make to a monster (if you're adding armor to it may need to do a bit extra if it's replacing armor on the base monster but this is a minor check). Then any time you want artillery you just slap on that template you made and there's your artillery. There's no reason for it to be a one-off encounter and a bunch of repeated work every time you want to turn a base monster into an archer. |
| (Reply to #44)Diffan |
|
| #61Brock_LandersSep 02, 2014 23:35:55 |
|
| #62Lord_VentnorSep 03, 2014 0:51:46 | I still haven't heard why CR is better than having monster's levels explicitly stated. Because really, CR is bullcrap. |
| (Reply to #61)Diffan |
|
| (Reply to #57)dave2008 |
|
| #65Brock_LandersSep 03, 2014 10:31:31 |
|
| (Reply to #65)Diffan |
|
| #67Brock_LandersSep 03, 2014 15:01:24 |
|
| (Reply to #67)Diffan |
|