D&D 5E Monsters taking PC classes: I want it in Next.

slobo777 · Sep 23, 2012

ForeverSlayer said:
It's in the monster manual. Just take the monster then look at creature improvement by type and there you go, the feats are in the back as well.

I can whip up monsters in less than five minutes.

Ah, that's the same sa the "level slider" in 4E. Which does the same thing in ~ 30 seconds.

I guess when people say "build monster", they mean different things, depending on purpose and depth.

Because I enjoy it, my RPG monsters are 90% custom to my own game world. I build them completely from scratch. I did that since 2E. I spent many years doing same in 3E and more recently in 4E.

Maybe I was doing something wrong in 3E (don't know what if so), but I felt that the speed and quality of my monster creations improved dramatically moving to 4E. I do miss the more exploratory "what if I add a half-dragon template, mwahaha, my creation lives!" nature of 3E mosnter build. But the results for me in 4E are better.

ForeverSlayer · Sep 23, 2012

slobo777 said:
Ah, that's the same sa the "level slider" in 4E. Which does the same thing in ~ 30 seconds.

I guess when people say "build monster", they mean different things, depending on purpose and depth.

Because I enjoy it, my RPG monsters are 90% custom to my own game world. I build them completely from scratch. I did that since 2E. I spent many years doing same in 3E and more recently in 4E.

Maybe I was doing something wrong in 3E (don't know what if so), but I felt that the speed and quality of my monster creations improved dramatically moving to 4E. I do miss the more exploratory "what if I add a half-dragon template, mwahaha, my creation lives!" nature of 3E mosnter build. But the results for me in 4E are better.

I build custom monsters as well but my example was building a quick monster for what ever encounter the DM was going to make.

Speed of creation varies depending on how many layers you want to add to your custom monsters. Still takes me no time at all to create monsters for my Pathfinder games even if they are custom. Now if you make each and every monster a custom creation with multiple layers of classes and templates then yeah it's going to take you more than 10 minutes at the end of the day, but if you are going to make groups say kobolds, then it takes no time at all.

Klaus · Sep 23, 2012

ForeverSlayer said:
Class templates were not the same.

Yes it was easier because the abilities of the templates were very small.

Really?

Because a class template tells you to pick one at-will, one encounter, one daily and one utility power if you monster is Heroic; another encounter and utility if it's Paragon; and another daily and Utility if it's Epic. That's a minimum of 4 new spells/powers, and up to 8 new spells/powers. And the ability to use rituals can be handed out freely, adding another layer of "class levels" to any creature (there are no minimum requirements, so your ogre wizard could still be a wizard, even with Int 9).

Lanefan · Sep 24, 2012

ForeverSlayer said:
I had an ogre come across a Headband of Intellect then learned to be a wizard.

What's stopping an orc from being a cavalier, or a hobgoblin?

In my game Hobgoblins could easily do Cavalier, but our games have Hobgoblins being vastly different than the 1e MM makes them out to be.

As written, they're way too uncivilized.

An Orc Cavalier would run aground on the whole honour and chivalry thing; Orcs aren't usually real big on that stuff.

There are several races that could be great monks. Satyr, medusa, Erinyes etc...

Satyr Monk? Never. They're far too chaotic.

Medusa Monk? In theory possible. In practice, who would or could ever train it? (to me, Monk more than most classes is one that just has to be trained in a tradition or whatever-you-call-it)

Not familiar with Erinyes.

Lanefan

Steely_Dan · Sep 24, 2012

Lanefan said:
What monster could ever be a Cavalier, for example; or a Monk?

In 3rd Ed you could be a Treant Monk and it rocked, I also slapped monk levels on an Illithid antagonist, that was badass (good synergy, unarmed strikes, tentacles, psionic attacks, brain sucking).

Centaurs, bariaur and wemics make good cavaliers.

Klaus · Sep 24, 2012

Lanefan said:
In my game Hobgoblins could easily do Cavalier, but our games have Hobgoblins being vastly different than the 1e MM makes them out to be. As written, they're way too uncivilized.

An Orc Cavalier would run aground on the whole honour and chivalry thing; Orcs aren't usually real big on that stuff.
Satyr Monk? Never. They're far too chaotic.

Medusa Monk? In theory possible. In practice, who would or could ever train it? (to me, Monk more than most classes is one that just has to be trained in a tradition or whatever-you-call-it)

Not familiar with Erinyes.

Lanefan

As written, Hobgoblins are the epitome of military might. They could easily be evil Cavaliers (in old school games; replace with Blackguards in 4e).

Satyr Monk? A master of drunken boxing, that's for sure!

Medusa Monk? Trained by a blind master from a monastery bordering the Field of Statues!

CM · Sep 24, 2012

ForeverSlayer said:
It's in the monster manual. Just take the monster then look at creature improvement by type and there you go, the feats are in the back as well.

I can whip up monsters in less than five minutes.

Ahem. To advance a creature's CR you potentially need to take these steps:
1. Check its type to determine how many hit dice it should gain for each "level-up"
2. Advance ability scores based on hit dice
3. Advance size and resulting strength/dex/con modifiers, natural AC, and attack/defense modifiers
4. Advance base damage die of all the creature's natural attacks and calculate attack and damage values for primary vs. secondary natural attacks
5. Add feats
6. Recalculate BAB, AC, touch AC, flat-footed AC, grapple bonus, HP, fortitude, reflex, will, SR, DR, caster level, save DC of spells and spell-like abilities, and all skill bonuses based on hit dice, creature type, size, ability score values, armor worn, and any feats.

In 4e, to advance a creature's level this is reduced to the following:
1. Pick an arbitrary level you wish to advance the creature to.
2. Check the NPC advancement table for the new HP, AC-attack, NAD-attack, and fort/ref/will modifiers.
3. Advance damage of the creature's attacks, also based on the table.
4. Optionally, advance the size. All this changes is melee reach and area.
5. Optionally, pick new arbitrary values for initiative and any ability scores or skill bonuses.
6. Optionally, if you're advancing a creature a full tier, you might want to give it another arbitrary ability for each tier (paragon, epic). This isn't any more difficult than picking a feat or two.

Sorry but I'll take #2 any day.

Mattachine · Sep 24, 2012

The 4e version of advancing was great and easy to use.

Side note: Monks have to be lawful in D&D because . . . that is the way they were written back in AD&D. Plenty of monks in the Chinese source stories have non-lawful monks, to say nothing of non-ascetics that are martial arts experts.

GreyICE · Sep 24, 2012

Yeah, if we want to point out one of the ultimate sources of inspiration for a lot of eastern tales, Sun Wukong, the Monkey King, is (depending on the tale and telling) definitely Chaotic Neutral or Chaotic Good (or too complex to define with the alignment system, which is most fantasy characters).

The concept of "Monk" appears pretty much drawn solely from 1980s understandings of the legends of Shaolin monks, with a few nods to "Kung Fu, the Legend Continues" thrown in when that became popular.

Shemeska · Sep 24, 2012

Manbearcat said:
I do believe that Mearls or Thompson (or someone) wrote an article on this very subject and explicitly stated that they are aiming for a monster design method whereby both top-down (outcome/target-based) and bottom-up (process/organic-based) work hand-in-hand. Want to build a monster through the organic process of 3e (bottom up)? You're good. Those same monsters will have their derivation formula readily available so you can quickly ad-hoc build (top-down) diverse, of-level (and above and below) NPCs/monsters to challenge your PCs (4e).

Given the absolute, disparate tastes of DMs out there, they must make good on this promise. But they said they aware of the polarization of the user base on this subject so they were adamant that they will. So there you go.

I like this very much if that's what they're going to go for. I couldn't stand the arbitrary, absolute division between PCs and "monsters"; if I want to add a half dozen levels of ranger to a "monster" so be it, same thing with tacking on twenty or so wizard levels to a paragon arcanaloth near the end of a campaign, but at the same time I also want to be able to just add something non-standard to any NPC just because. That's what I've always done, be it in the rules or not. But it'd be nice to see a ruleset that openly discusses both.