Common enemy archetypes?

[Bucky]

I'm currently building a list of encounter archetypes, some combat scenarios where the enemies are fungible. But in order to do that, I need to know what enemy roles exist, where the role has many possible enemies that can fill it but has distinctive strategy implications.

Example enemy type:
Tank - Defensively focused enemy. Often formidable in melee, but needs the PCs to come to them.

Example encounter (for context):
Backstab - The party confronts a Tank. Shortly after they engage the Tank, a group of concealed Rogues attacks the party from the other direction. Tests perception and the defenses of the party's back line.

My current list is Archer, Pike, Rogue, Summoner, Support, Tackler and Tank; the encounter descriptions acknowledge that hybrid enemies exist that fill multiple roles. "Caster" isn't specific enough.

What important roles am I missing?

[Cosi]

Tank - Defensively focused enemy. Often formidable in melee, but needs the PCs to come to them.

"Tank" is, I think, a bad role for a TTRPG. There's no "aggro" mechanic to force people to engage the enemy that's harder to kill, and more dangerous to engage. Plus, if the enemy is more offensively powerful than normal, and more defensively powerful than normal, isn't it just higher level?

Anyway, roles:

Skirmisher -- Mobile combatant with high damage output, but low defenses. Weak against lockdown abilities.
Brute -- High damage, high HP, low AC. Weak against kiting.
Leader -- Provides buffs to allies, but personally weak. Weak against getting ganked.
Artillery -- Powerful ranged attacks. Weak against melee.
Minion -- Simple enemy, shows up in groups, fairly weak. Weak against crowd control/AoE.
Rogue/Ambush -- Has powerful attacks that are circumstantial. Weak if you can outplay it.

You could conceivably split that up some, or maybe add some extra roles. I could see a debuffer counterpart to the Leader, or a version of the Artillery who drops crowd controls. Maybe a Summoner of some kind.

You can also have modifiers to roles:

Boss -- Like a regular monster, but better. Minimally, a higher level monster, but potentially also something like the Thoon Elder Brain that is designed as a boss fight.
Multi-Threat -- A Dragon is a Brute, but it's also Artillery, with some Skirmishing abilities. A Cleric is a Leader with the ability to buff himself into a Brute or use some Artillery powers.

Those work with everything except Minions.

[emulord]

Noncombatant and Environmental

Sometimes rescuing hostages, sometimes not aggroing something scary.

Traps or environmental damage can make an otherwise dull fight more varied.

[J-H]

Dungeonscape (3.5 book) addresses this very topic.

[Bucky]

"Tank" is, I think, a bad role for a TTRPG. There's no "aggro" mechanic to force people to engage the enemy that's harder to kill, and more dangerous to engage.

Tanks are an interesting role here precisely because the encounter needs to be designed around giving the party a reason to engage them. For example, in the Backstab encounter the Tank is initially the only obvious target.

[Thurbane]

There are some "aggro" type mechanics in 3.5, albeit not that great.

Levels in Knight, or the Goad feat, can do this to a limited degree. Since coth save DCs are based on CHA, works best for a tank with high CHA score: some Outsiders are good for this. A bucket of HP, and a good CHA bonus.

You can also get some decent tanking with large reach and feats like Improved Trip or Stand Still - although I guess that's more along the line of battlefield control than true tanking.

[daremetoidareyo]

There are some "aggro" type mechanics in 3.5, albeit not that great.

Levels in Knight, or the Goad feat, can do this to a limited degree. Since coth save DCs are based on CHA, works best for a tank with high CHA score: some Outsiders are good for this. A bucket of HP, and a good CHA bonus.

You can also get some decent tanking with large reach and feats like Improved Trip or Stand Still.

You forgot the kender. Playing them makes people attack you.

[Godskook]

League of Legends class archetypes might be of some help here, although the lesser balance of 3.5 should be factored in.

http://na.leagueoflegends.com/en/news/game-updates/gameplay/dev-blog-classes-subclasses
https://boards.na.leagueoflegends.com/en/c/developer-corner/3A5uuBw7-champion-subclass-list

[Mendicant]

"Tank" is, I think, a bad role for a TTRPG. There's no "aggro" mechanic to force people to engage the enemy that's harder to kill, and more dangerous to engage. Plus, if the enemy is more offensively powerful than normal, and more defensively powerful than normal, isn't it just higher level?

Anyway, roles:

Skirmisher -- Mobile combatant with high damage output, but low defenses. Weak against lockdown abilities.
Brute -- High damage, high HP, low AC. Weak against kiting.
Leader -- Provides buffs to allies, but personally weak. Weak against getting ganked.
Artillery -- Powerful ranged attacks. Weak against melee.
Minion -- Simple enemy, shows up in groups, fairly weak. Weak against crowd control/AoE.
Rogue/Ambush -- Has powerful attacks that are circumstantial. Weak if you can outplay it.


I disagree somewhat about tanks. Soldier (I prefer this name to "Tank") monsters have a valuable role, but they require more careful builds or encounter design where they can shine. This is obviously easier at low levels where PC's mobility toolbox is more limited, but at all levels there are some common pitfalls that make these monsters underwhelming.

Mistakes I've made and see made regularly:
--Too many hit points. (This is part of why I dislike the "tank" designation.) Soldiers should have good defenses but just ok HP. Soldiers should reward high-probability/low-damage plays, and they should reward the decision to remove them from the board early by having the good manners to leave the board early if targeted.

--Low mobility. Soldiers are melee-types, mainly. They need to get where the action is. At low levels in classic, cramped dungeons this is less of an issue, but at higher levels they *have* to be able to chase the PC's around.

--Not enough ability to interfere. At lower levels, they need trip, grab, combat reflexes, and so on. They should be a wall for PCs and a door for baddies. At higher levels they need to be fighting in more dimensions though--they can't just get more AC and attack bonus. For example, close-range Dimensional Anchor-type effects or Invisibility Purge keep the soldier melee-oriented but still make it a pain for higher-level PCs.

--Gotcha abilities. This is more to taste, but I think soldiers should be pretty transparent. Leaders, artillery, ambush monsters and to a lesser extent skirmishers can have misdirects built into them that contribute to interesting, memorable encounters. Soldiers should have fairly clear strategies and few surprises though. A lot of the fun with one of the former monsters is seeing their nasty attack/ability actually get used, and then triumphing, so a misdirect is useful because it can keep them alive long enough to show off. The fun with a soldier is assessing how they impact the battlefield and then coming up with a gameplan to neutralize them. Surprises generally work against this gameplay goal.

[Cosi]

Tanks are an interesting role here precisely because the encounter needs to be designed around giving the party a reason to engage them. For example, in the Backstab encounter the Tank is initially the only obvious target.

I don't think it's a role if the encounter has to be designed to facilitate it. A monster's role should be something it does natively, without having to be set up.


You can also get some decent tanking with large reach and feats like Improved Trip or Stand Still - although I guess that's more along the line of battlefield control than true tanking.

I think this is probably better. For a game where all the parties are piloted by a real intelligent person, I think you want to have rational incentives that back tanking. So I think that gives you three options:

1. The monster has really weak defenses, but is offensively powerful. This encourages you to kill it fast so it doesn't kill you. Feels kind of weird to call this a "tank" unless you mandate lots of HP on these guys.
2. The monster makes it hard to hurt its allies until you kill it, either by BFCing you or buffing them. This is probably the closest to a real "tank", because it involves using defensive abilities.
3. The monster has some kind of supermove that you need to disrupt. Also feels kind of strange to call a "tank".


--Not enough ability to interfere. At lower levels, they need trip, grab, combat reflexes, and so on. They should be a wall for PCs and a door for baddies. At higher levels they need to be fighting in more dimensions though--they can't just get more AC and attack bonus. For example, close-range Dimensional Anchor-type effects or Invisibility Purge keep the soldier melee-oriented but still make it a pain for higher-level PCs.

I think this is the key. There needs to be some reason why I should kill the "tank" first beyond just "I'm supposed to".

[Bucky]

I currently have four encounters that call for Tanks in particular. The Backstab encounter is an outlier. One way to run that encounter would give the Tank a ranged weapon, which it drops when closed on.

The other three Tank encounters have the Tank occupying some sort of choke point.


----

Speaking of Improved Trip, I should explain what I mean by a Pike; It's a large enemy with a Reach weapon and (usually) Combat Reflexes. Its purpose is to passively control a large area around it. This role overlaps with Tanks a bit.