I'm going to go out on a limb and say that I disagree with part of that. Playing "like a mage" is actually a fair amount of territory in D&D - literally over a hundred pages of the PHB are dedicated just to things that a "mage type character" might be able to do. A Beholder plays and feels very different to an Efreet despite the fact that both of them are "using magic." Indeed, magic use by monsters has a tendency to be pretty tightly themed. A Mindflayer hurls stun cannons around while a Dao puts up walls, it really honestly varies quite a bit.RC wrote:They were either a basic flavorless brute, or they played like a mage, though usually with more hp. But seriously, for the most part, they were rather bland. Especially the melee types. I mean, you seen one giant in 3.5, you've seen em all, because all of them are just slightly different hit dice with differing strength scores, and that's it. Like literally no interesting attacks.
But of course you're totally right about all the big dumb melee brutes being pretty much the same. The difference between an Ogre and a Fire Giant is pretty minimal as far as actual abilities go. If you just made an Ogre Fighter and gave him some armor and a decent weapon, he'd look an awful lot like a Fire Giant both socially and game mechanically. Certainly his combat participation would follow pretty much the exact same script. They have reach, they do a lot of damage, they have a lot of hit points, and they have mediocre saves.
But it got me thinking, what actual roles should exist?
The 4e stuff has me puzzled. I honestly can't tell the difference between a Brute, a Skirmisher, and a Soldier. They all run up and hit things, it doesn't even fucking matter. The Artillery and the Lurker seem pretty similar to me as well. The Controller stands out, as does the Leader. But the Leader isn't even defined as a role, it's supposedly a template you put on other roles. Totally bizarre thought process here.
Things that I don't want to see:
- Any role based on "getting hate" because that's totally retarded. I can see a place for monsters that get more dangerous if you leave them alone, and I can see a place for monsters whose damage output is disproportionate to their defenses, but having monsters (or characters) whose supposed contribution to the battle is that other enemies spend attacks on them is retarded.
- Any role based on Metagame concerns.
- Any monster role designed specifically to hose a player role or vice versa.
- Imp (-5/-15)
- Speed Bump (-10/+0)
- Grunt (-5/-5)
- Glass Cannon (+5/-5)
- NPC (+0/+0)
- Meat Wall (-5/+5)
- Boss (+5/+5)
So really there's 3 states of enemy:
Offensive Enemies: These are enemies which have an offensive output substantially higher than their defenses. This inherently makes them high priority targets because the amount of enemy offense you can negate per unit of player offense spent is very high.
Balanced Enemies: These enemies have offensive outs roughly balanced with their own defenses. This makes them medium priority targets because the amount of offense you spend to drop them is roughly commensurate with the offense for Team Monster that you eiminate by doing so.
Defensive Enemies: These are enemies which have an offensive and defensive output which are unbalanced in favor of the defenses. This makes them very low priority inherently because they take a long time to get rid of relative to the amount of threat they pose. Defensive enemies often will be unable to accomplish much unless and until other enemies have already come in and softened targets up for them.
Different power levels relative to the PCs push that up and down into various territories. A Defensive enemy above player level, for example, is extremely harsh since he will require positional advantage and such for the PCs to even be able to harm it at all. But a Defensive enemy below the party level is in the same position relative to the PCs - has to pretty much wait for other enemies to damage the PCs before he poses much of any threat. Todays evil fairy (glass cannon) is tomorrow's Imp.
Within those categories however, it seems to me that there is room for roles based on combat actions and depth. Here's the first division:
- One Trick Ponies: Many monsters honestly just want to have one thing they do and have them just spam that. They should have one attack tactic and one defensive vulnerability because they are expendable monsters and that's how they roll. A Cockatrice is a deadly deadly chicken (offense specced), a Salamander is a deadly and resilient lizard (balanced), but both of them basically just have one attack (death breath or fire burst) and spam it incessantly. Any monster that just runs up and hits things like a golem would fit into this category.
- Short Entry Monsters: Many monsters do about three things, and mix it up here and there. Most 4e monsters fit into this category or fall a little short. The standard would be to have two tactically different maneuvers and a use-limited super move.
- Complex Monsters: Sometimes, especially for named characters and major villains, it is nice for a enemy to have the kind of depth one would ask a player character to have. Lots of different abilities, use limitations on many of them. When facing killer clowns or major demons you should expect them to be pulling weird shit every round, and they should deliver.
-Username17