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

ForeverSlayer · Sep 22, 2012

Magil said:
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.

I can see where it would be made up and yet I can see where it would be "taken" from a similar power because mainly what makes them any different would be the fluff and a few bits here and there. Since 4th edition is mainly based on the numbers then I can see how "easy" it is to create a monster because all you did was look at similar powers and borrow the numbers from it.

It's like having 10 different numbers in a basket and you shuffle them around to make a different set each time.

GX.Sigma · 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.

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.

They've set themselves an interesting challenge by partly separating level and xp for each monster.

They are going to have stats by level, and a generic stat block for each level, so you can just take that, add a few abilities, and go (which is probably what I'll be doing 9 times out of 10).

I'm almost positive they said they also want to enable monster advancement by class level. Either way, there's 3e-style multiclassing, so that will be possible whether the book says so or not. You just need to assign a monster XP value modifier to a class level.

The Choice · Sep 22, 2012

ForeverSlayer said:
"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.

Being a protagonist has nothing to do with success or failure (or the expectation of success), but everything to do with having a certain degree of control over your own action, to be the driving force behind the things happening to you, be they good or ill. You might not think of your players as protagonists, but they are as long as the decisions they make have an impact and result in consequences.

Monsters and NPCs on the other hand are at your mercy as a DM: the orcs of the Bloodstorm clan want to rampage through the village of Quietburg? Why not? Do you need to roll each individual attack the raiders make on the town's defenders? No (doesn't mean you shouldn't, could be fun). If the corrupt duke wants to seduce the now-orphaned princess to gain control of the land, do you need to roll up stats for both those NPCs and roll a series of pointless checks to see if he can woo her? I don't think the game needs to waste precious space to include that when you can just say: yea or nay.

ForeverSlayer said:
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.

I've never had a problem with that in any edition: demons want to rampage across the land, devils plot to gather more corrupt souls, dragons have vast schemes that span centuries, giants raid the borderlands and have internicine clan rivalries, goblin tribes war against each other over territory, etc. I never needed to roll a skills check, or to have The specific spell or even the right alignment to replicate a specific antagonist's impact on the world. I made the decision on what happened or, when I felt it could be interesting either way, simply tossed a coin. Heck I'm not even constrained by the game's binary nature of success/failure, I can nuance it better without having specific mechanics.

Klaus · Sep 22, 2012

ForeverSlayer said:
I'm not sure if anyone has brought this up but it's something that I really hope makes a come back to D&D Next. I loved back in 3rd edition where I could take a class or even a PrC and add it to a monster.

I have had anything from Ogre Wizards to Half-Celestial Satyr Bards and I liked it. I do not want to see 4th edition's monster design because I just didn't like it. I like when monsters and PC's read off the same hymn sheet because it allows me to use PC classes and PrC's very easily.

Discuss.

4E has had the ability to add classes to monsters from the start, with class templates that could be added to monsters very easily (much more so than 3e's method).

Magil · Sep 22, 2012

ForeverSlayer said:
I can see where it would be made up and yet I can see where it would be "taken" from a similar power because mainly what makes them any different would be the fluff and a few bits here and there. Since 4th edition is mainly based on the numbers then I can see how "easy" it is to create a monster because all you did was look at similar powers and borrow the numbers from it.

It's like having 10 different numbers in a basket and you shuffle them around to make a different set each time.

Well, it'd be nice if it was that easy, but for thematic and dangerous encounters you usually need a little more. That monster wasn't just deadly because it had big numbers, it was deadly because of the large number of out-of-turn actions it could take, and how resistant it was to action denial. Since it was a "brute" type monster, its primary defining elements are high HP and heavy damage.

4th edition had monster "roles," which were guidelines for monsters rather than hard-and-fast rules. Skirmishers are typically average statistically, but get powers that make them move around the battlefield quickly and easily. Controllers typically have powers that emphasize battlefield control and thus attack non-AC defenses more easily. Lurkers usually have a "set-up" turn where they either hide or otherwise try to sequester themselves, then follow that up with a very heavy-hitting attack. And so on. I think these worked at least as well as "classes" with defined abilities yet kept things flexible enough to where I could make the kind of monster I wanted.

ForeverSlayer · Sep 22, 2012

Klaus said:
4E has had the ability to add classes to monsters from the start, with class templates that could be added to monsters very easily (much more so than 3e's method).

Class templates were not the same.

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

Mishihari Lord · Sep 22, 2012

I'm going to have to disagree with the OP on this one. Monster design was one of the few things 4E did right. I don't see any reason at all to go through an organic monster design. More work and you end up with the same thing. Just pick the stats and abilities you want and be done with it.

Chris_Nightwing · Sep 22, 2012

The Choice said:
Monsters and NPCs on the other hand are at your mercy as a DM: the orcs of the Bloodstorm clan want to rampage through the village of Quietburg? Why not? Do you need to roll each individual attack the raiders make on the town's defenders? No (doesn't mean you shouldn't, could be fun). If the corrupt duke wants to seduce the now-orphaned princess to gain control of the land, do you need to roll up stats for both those NPCs and roll a series of pointless checks to see if he can woo her? I don't think the game needs to waste precious space to include that when you can just say: yea or nay.

Those are interesting examples, and I agree that if these were background events then there's no need to worry about numbers and dice rolls.

If however, the PCs knew that the orcs were going to raid Quietburg, but were also offered the opportunity to do a quest that will make them a bucket of cash, they need to have reasonable expectations of the outcome. Now, they might reason, the DM has probably got a number of orcs in mind for the raid, because they would be the orcs we would be facing. How much better are the four of us against these orcs compared to the villagers? They might decide to take a risk that those orcs might not devastate the village and grab the gold instead. As a DM I could make it clear that the village has no chance without them, but at low levels this is unreasonable. I could fiat that they win, as that was the tradeoff for getting that bucket of gold. I'd much rather determine organically what happens - allow the party to take a calculated risk and then play out what happens honestly. This is just my style though

timASW · Sep 22, 2012

ForeverSlayer said:
I'm not sure if anyone has brought this up but it's something that I really hope makes a come back to D&D Next. I loved back in 3rd edition where I could take a class or even a PrC and add it to a monster.

I have had anything from Ogre Wizards to Half-Celestial Satyr Bards and I liked it. I do not want to see 4th edition's monster design because I just didn't like it. I like when monsters and PC's read off the same hymn sheet because it allows me to use PC classes and PrC's very easily.

Discuss.

Hell yes. That was one of the best things about 3e. If they dont include it in 5e I'll just do it anyway though. Its not like they could stop us.

ForeverSlayer · Sep 22, 2012

Mishihari Lord said:
I'm going to have to disagree with the OP on this one. Monster design was one of the few things 4E did right. I don't see any reason at all to go through an organic monster design. More work and you end up with the same thing. Just pick the stats and abilities you want and be done with it.

4th edition design covers one area of generating monster and I find that it's not enough. If I want fast monsters on the fly then yes it's good but it doesn't provide enough in-depth building for my tastes.

I don't expect my monsters to last a certain amount of time when used. I don't expect a ratio of time spent on creating versus rounds of battle. If I spend 2 hours creating an NPC and it only lasts 2 rounds because my player's used their abilities the best they could and/or the dice gods was with them then so be it. 3rd edition monster design was easy and yet it was very complex.

The joy about "organic design" is the fact that it can be anything from simple to complex depending on the way you want to build your monsters. "Plug and Play" monster building is fine but I find it can be very limiting when I want to more depth.