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

ForeverSlayer · Sep 22, 2012

Magil said:
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.

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).

Response to the first part: Not always true and it depends on the person who is DMing. This is all part of playstyle and DMing style. I can tell you right now that I like for me NPC's to be fully fledged out. If they are able to do something then I want that mechanic to be in their write up. If they know a certain amount of "forbidden lore" then I want their stats to reflect that fact. I don't enjoy adding in things for the hell of it or just having them know a certain piece of info "just because".

Response to second part: Give me an example of your "complicated" monsters.

The Choice · Sep 22, 2012

RangerWickett said:
A troll that takes 1 level in wizard should not be considered 1 level more difficult of a challenge. Any magic he's popping off pales next to his claws and regeneration.

I prefer top-down design, with limits based on in-game conceits. E.g., you can't get high AC without heavy armor.

3E (or was it just 3.5) had a system that sorta, kinda did that, I think they called it "associated levels", where they said adding cleric or wizard levels to giants and ogres did not increase their CR as much as adding fighter or barbarian levels. This had two perverse effects, where an ogre barbarian tanked its defences to be more "ogre-y", and adding cleric levels could dramatically increase their offensive strength but not their challenge according to the rules.

The rules were obfuscated in such a way though that you never knew what class was associated or not, which made monster customization even more of a hassle.

ForeverSlayer · Sep 22, 2012

slobo777 said:
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.

This is easily accomplished with entries in the Monster Manuals or even you doing it.

Take a sheet of paper, write out spells of each level, number them, roll the dice, and there you go. Quick and easy list of memorized spells.

Now if you want specifics then you are going to have to sit there and come up with those specific spells and make sure you create something that is going to throw the monster out of balance. It's quick and easy to create monsters in 4th edition by throwing darts at abilities but it takes time to choose ones that the game doesn't cover and be able to create them without killing the balance.

The Choice · Sep 22, 2012

ForeverSlayer said:
Who says?

What does the fiction have to do with it?

Generally speaking, PCs are the protagonists within the confines of a specific campaign. Others might move the plot/the action/the "world-stage" along, but all of those things happen behind the DM's screen and the players have very little control over such things (except when events happen as a reaction to their actions). As such, NPCs and monsters don't really need to function the same way; they are puppets for the DM, his "avatars" to interact with the campaign. PCs are beyond that control and require tools to interact with the plot/the world.

Chris_Nightwing · Sep 22, 2012

Whosoever mentioned the different between humanoids and non-humanoids: this is the nail I was trying to hammer in the 'I don't like elites/solos' thread that came up a while back.

I want humanoids to follow PC rules, because in most cases, the PCs should be able to achieve the same things as them. So if the creature wears armour and uses weapons and casts spells by waving its arms around, build it like a PC. That's always been complicated because we insist on making disparate class mechanics so that things are unique, and we also front load these setups so that PCs are interesting right away. The solution to that goes hand in hand with the multiclass conundrum - you have to try to unify systems so that classes are truly additive, and then uniqueness comes from ability within those systems. Although, their proposed multiclass solution of a separate advancement table, might make it easier to pimp out these monsters.

Other creatures, a shopping list of abilities and a suggested 'cost' for each would be good. 4E did a good job if you wanted the right damage for a particular power, but it was just as nebulous as everything else if you wanted to give a creature a strange defence or non-damage power.

I am also against the 'PCs are special' premise. Your 'fiction' is no better than mine if you run your game this way, it's just your preference.

Ahnehnois · Sep 22, 2012

Of course a monster can have a class in any edition, but standardizing hit points and feats to work the same way for monsters and PCs was a huge step. The next step, to me, would be to make all hit dice class levels and make monsters a set of racial modifiers. Those ogres: just 2nd level warriors with large size and a really big strength score. Then again, their leader is a 4th level fighter, and that ogre mage hidden nearby is a 7th level warlock. It does raise the question of what class a gelatinous cube is, but that's a solvable one.

Consistency is the name of the game. It's so much easier to build what you want when everything works the same way, and particularly, easier to learn. It also imposes some (very desirable) pressure on class design, if the classes are going to see that much use for that many purposes.
Like this:

slobo777 said:
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.

I agree, but that isn't a problem with the monster rules, it's a problem with the wizard class being too complicated. Wizards simply get way too many spells. Having to pick dozens of spells/magic items/powers is a problem, one that would be fixed by making the wizard class mechanically simpler by giving him much fewer spells (as well as by having simplified casters like the 3.5 warlock that don't have slots or points, both for the players and the DM). This would also address a lot of other issues.

Magil · Sep 22, 2012

ForeverSlayer said:
Response to the first part: Not always true and it depends on the person who is DMing. This is all part of playstyle and DMing style. I can tell you right now that I like for me NPC's to be fully fledged out. If they are able to do something then I want that mechanic to be in their write up. If they know a certain amount of "forbidden lore" then I want their stats to reflect that fact. I don't enjoy adding in things for the hell of it or just having them know a certain piece of info "just because".

It's fair if you want ONLY fully-fleshed out monsters, but I don't really care to "fully flesh out" each of the 12 kobolds that my players will fight or bargain with when passing through a particular cave. I think the system should support either.

ForeverSlayer said:
Response to second part: Give me an example of your "complicated" monsters.

Mechanically complicated? I mean, I've made a great many monsters with a backstory and a real role in the world. Speaking in terms of mechanical complexity, however, this was a rather controversial (and nearly fatal for some PCs) solo I created and had the PCs fight (and yes, if you know what Boatmurdered means you probably recognize it).

ForeverSlayer · Sep 22, 2012

The Choice said:
Generally speaking, PCs are the protagonists within the confines of a specific campaign. Others might move the plot/the action/the "world-stage" along, but all of those things happen behind the DM's screen and the players have very little control over such things (except when events happen as a reaction to their actions). As such, NPCs and monsters don't really need to function the same way; they are puppets for the DM, his "avatars" to interact with the campaign. PCs are beyond that control and require tools to interact with the plot/the world.

"Generally speaking" is a loose term that can be read several ways. I don't play, nor do I run a lot of "story" based games where PC's are protagonists. They have the same amount of equality when it comes to succeeding as well as failure. There are other "adventurer's" out in the world and sometimes the enemy does win, and not because I wrote it that way but because the dice wasn't with the PC's during specific encounters and they lost. I don't want "all" non PC's to follow a universal "built for combat" style of design and I don't want to have to sit there and scratch my head when it comes to coming up with something the creatures can do out of combat.

ForeverSlayer · Sep 22, 2012

Magil said:
Mechanically complicated? I mean, I've made a great many monsters with a backstory and a real role in the world. Speaking in terms of mechanical complexity, however, this was a rather controversial (and nearly fatal for some PCs) solo I created and had the PCs fight (and yes, if you know what Boatmurdered means you probably recognize it).

I'm not talking about creating a backstory, you don't need a system to create a backstory.

Now was this creature fatal because of balance or were the PC's just having bad luck on the dice? How much of the powers were made up?

Magil · Sep 22, 2012

ForeverSlayer said:
I'm not talking about creating a backstory, you don't need a system to create a backstory.

Now was this creature fatal because of balance or were the PC's just having bad luck on the dice? How much of the powers were made up?

All of the powers were "made up," though I'm sure there are functionally equivalent powers. I based the average damage values on similar monsters from the MV, like the level 8 elite brute Owlbear. Of course, as a solo, the monster needs a way to constantly threaten the party outside of its turn, and that's why I designed it the way I did. I did not directly steal any power (aside from Stand the Ground) from any particular monster or class, instead I followed the guidelines for creating challenging solos as per my understanding of them.

As for why the creature was nearly fatal, I'd say it was a combination of bad luck, a few risks they took that ended up backfiring, and being intended as a very difficult challenge. One character only survived because I rolled rather low on the damage dice, so I'd say they had luck swing both ways. Solos have an interesting balancing act to manage well because the PCs each get a turn for every one of the solos turns, it's difficult to make them a challenge that's just the right amount of hard, and I feel this one was rather successful at it.