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

Ratskinner · Sep 22, 2012

slobo777 said:
Prediction (with no basis in fact): They will try to do this very simply with a set of ability ranges by level/xp. You will either use them directly and read a range of allowed monster attacks, hitpoints and damage from a table, or you'll build the monster from components and eyeball where it falls into the table to decide level/xp.

hmm....this brings up another issue I've thought of before: Monsters vs. "people". That is, should the rules be different for creating something with the incorrect number and type of limbs that roars, bites, claws and other untoward things and for creating something that has a basically humanoid form and could learn things like humans do?

slobo777 said:
Second prediction (with even less basis in fact): It will kind of work, but won't be perfect. Not as tight as 4E's designated values, but not as loose as 3E's CR system.

I think I'd be generally OK with that (depending on what "won't be perfect" means. I think there's a limit to how accurate or precisely any such system can be (from either direction) and worrying about nailing it exactly from any direction is likely an exercise in futility.

Li Shenron · Sep 22, 2012

I liked the 3ed simplicity of adding class levels (building a monster from scratch was another issue, but generally I'm not interested in such thing) but it had its own problems: you just had to start adding classes from level 1, each level adding +1 CR, and that meant that if the monster was "big" since the start, you would be adding low-level powers to a high-level monster, which doesn't work well especially for spellcasters.

Maybe it would work better if those levels were added in a "gestalt" way? So if you start with a CR 10 giant, you would rather make it immediately a 10th level cleric, ending up with something like a CR12 or a bit more?

Manbearcat · Sep 22, 2012

@Ratskinner

They've allocated a lot of time (2 years till live?) to nurturing our hope (or cynicism)

. Lets hope its hope!

Ratinyourwalls · Sep 22, 2012

Monster stats and Character stats and the methods of creating each should remain distinctly separate.

ForeverSlayer · Sep 22, 2012

Ratinyourwalls said:
Monster stats and Character stats should remain distinctly separate.

Why?

ForeverSlayer · Sep 22, 2012

Stalker0 said:
I will provide a very big disagreement with the OP on this one.

While some didn't like 4e interpretation of monster design, it had the right idea. Monsters at their core are meant to be foils to the PC, not PCs themselves.

Its hard enough to design a good monster to challenge a party of players. But expecting the designer to also consider the same monster as PC worthy is simply asking too much.

I have no problem with supplements to tailor core monsters into being more PC like, but I don't want that to be the monster design focus.

To be perfectly honest, I thought 4th edition got monster design completely wrong because it tailored more to DM's who like to whip up monsters quickly and I don't like this all the time. Give me detail and quality over quick and less detail any day.

I never liked the fact that PC's were the only ones on the planet who had classes. It's like every creature in the MM has these unique powers no matter who it was. You could have a PC wizard and an enemy wizard who went to the same school to learn wizardry and yet the enemy wizard is going to be this simplified version of your character.

It's hard to explain but the creatures seem too "gamish" to be honest. I always felt like the creatures had no depth when it came to their abilities.

The Choice · Sep 22, 2012

ForeverSlayer said:
Why?

To put it simply, within both the fiction of the game and the mechanics of the game, they fulfill very different roles and are meant to be used in completely different ways.

Magil · Sep 22, 2012

ForeverSlayer said:
Why?

PCs and NPCs fulfill different roles in both the game system and the narrative. Therefore, they should be treated differently by the system. Also, it's typically easier.

ForeverSlayer said:
To be perfectly honest, I thought 4th edition got monster design completely wrong because it tailored more to DM's who like to whip up monsters quickly and I don't like this all the time. Give me detail and quality over quick and less detail any day.

I never liked the fact that PC's were the only ones on the planet who had classes. It's like every creature in the MM has these unique powers no matter who it was. You could have a PC wizard and an enemy wizard who went to the same school to learn wizardry and yet the enemy wizard is going to be this simplified version of your character.

It's hard to explain but the creatures seem too "gamish" to be honest. I always felt like the creatures had no depth when it came to their abilities.

A "class" is in and of itself a gamist construct. They exist for simplicity in the rules, not because they necessarily make a lot of sense from a purely simulationist standpoint.

So, for example, if you gave a monster powers and traits that were similar to fighter powers and class features, isn't it essentially a fighter anyway? You can still do this in 4th edition. A 4th edition monster is exactly as complicated as you want it to be--no more, and no less. I like that the rules support making both highly complicated monsters that might as well be PCs, and a minion who might show up in the campaign for a grand total of 2 rounds of combat. I'd like it if DnD Next continues that trend.

For the record, I homebrew 4E monsters all the time, and I've made some viciously potent and complicated monsters. Occasionally I have given them powers that the PCs have access to as well. I don't feel limited at all in what I can do in 4E, and I can do it quickly and efficiently if I need to (thank you Adventure Tools).

ForeverSlayer · Sep 22, 2012

The Choice said:
To put it simply, within both the fiction of the game and the mechanics of the game, they fulfill very different roles and are meant to be used in completely different ways.

Who says?

What does the fiction have to do with it?

slobo777 · Sep 22, 2012

ForeverSlayer said:
It's hard to explain but the creatures seem too "gamish" to be honest. I always felt like the creatures had no depth when it came to their abilities.

This is fine for many for the same reason that a "typical stormtrooper" doesn't have take all the options of a main character like Luke Skywalker (they may have all those options in theory in the setting, but they just choose to follow orders, blast away and miss).

As a DM, I'm willing to be flexible on this in any game system (I loved building Runequest NPCs, using same rules as PCs), but one thing I don't want to go back to in D&D is picking out whole spellbooks and lists of memorised spells for enemy wizards. Maybe for the BBEG, but not any of its henchmen.