D&D 5E Customize and design monsters in 5e, what would you like?

What would you like from 5e in terms of supporting design of your own monsters or customizing existing monsters?

I have never really created a monster from scratch in D&D, but I have definitely customized them, especially adding class levels to humanoids.

I'm thinking that I don't necessarily need to add levels, but at least I want to be able to create an ogre barbarian or a lizardfolk druid and so on, in the same way I can easily create them for playable races, and even if the base monster has many hit dice to start with.

The main flaw of 3e system about adding levels is that you can only make monsters that are stronger than their base version, so if you make a frost giant wizard, it's not on par with a default frost giant, it's always more powerful. But for spellcasting classes this has the weird effect that adding class levels to an already high-level creature means you add low-level spells, which are probably irrelevant at this stage (a problem similar to that of multiclassed characters).

Instead, I would like something that would allow "replacing" hit dice with class levels, so that e.g. a minotaur (6HD) can be given any amount of cleric levels up to 6 and still end up being a creature of similar power level. (note that this language is based on 3ed way of doing monsters, so it doesn't literally apply to 5e of course!)

---

Second, I would also like to be able to just slap an additional ability or more upon a creature from the monster manual, and I want the book to tell me how much it changes the overall power of the creature.

For example, I think it's really cool that the current playtest packet offers some monsters with optional additional abilities, and tells the DM the XP value of such monsters with and without the additions.

Yesterday's article about dragons mentions that they are supposed to be all unique creatures, but to make this true in your campaign definitely requires some simple system for adding special features (changing stats or other plain numbers doesn't really make them noticeably different, just stronger/weaker), but it definitely needs guidelines on how to calculate the resulting XP value. I would really like something like that!

I think such system would also solve problems related to some (in)famous monster abilities that are endlessly debated, such as energy drain. We could have different versions of this, some of which as mild as additional damage on attacks and others as dramatic as true permanent level drain, but if each of them had an "XP incrase" associated, it would be totally easy for each DM to choose her preferred version and slap it on top of whatever undead is featured in the adventure.

For the most part, I feel that 4e got things about right with the monsters. In most cases, what's needed is a base monster with a few (but not a huge number) of interesting powers. In many cases, there should also be an advanced version of the same monster.

The key exception to this is intelligent humanoids (or giants, or similar), where the DM will likely want a much larger range of these. Even here, I think 4e was pretty good. However, they could take an alternative approach, giving DMs an easy way to add PC class levels to these monsters. This would be more flexible, but also more work for the DM. Either approach could work; I don't really mind either way.

If 4e had flatter math so you could use the same monsters longer, the design would be great. Oh, and make it harder to daze big bosses.

Delericho, good point on 'class templates'.

To clarify, if you have flat math, and the only real difference between a high level monster and a low one is number of hit points and amount of damage dealt (and maybe a few points of attack and AC), then it's blisteringly easy to add abilities.

Dragons could be intentionally designed, for example, to have the usual claw/claw/bite stuff, and then have an open space that says: Add Two Abilities. Normal monsters like ogres might have one slot, or they might come with one pre-slotted in that would be easy to remove.

For instance, one option might be "Brutish," which you apply if you want the simplest increase of MOAR DAMAGE. It adds extra damage once per round based on the monster's level.

Another option could be "Deadly Aura," which causes creatures nearby to take damage. If you want some sort of fire ogre, maybe it does less damage with its fists and club attacks, but it has an aura of flames that make it dangerous to get near.

Stuff like that.

Base monsters obviously, but with both Class Templates which are based on monster/pc HD, as well as Themed Templates.

Having the underlying math listed in the MM for generating monsters would still be great for those who wish to create from scratch with guidelines. Or create a level 1 monster base, and add both Class and Theme Templates to generate higher level monsters/mobs.

Templates could either replace or add or modify monster/mob abilities.

[MENTION=63]RangerWickett[/MENTION], that's an excellent idea on the ability front.

I mostly prefer 4E's monster design approach, though I'd prefer a slightly broader range for where abilities/mechanics could lie. I don't want to fall into the trap that EVERY monster of X level has this AC, hp or whatnot (even actual 4E monsters had some variance; the design rules didn't).

There needs to be some way to build classed NPCs, and as mentioned, you need to be able to build something like a frost giant sorcerer without just slapping it on top of a "frost giant warrior" base.

Lastly, I hope they retain some sort of Bloodied mechanic (perhaps rename it, say "Vulnerable"). Not only could you build in interesting reactions or changes to the creature after they hit that point (like multi-phase video game bosses) but you can also do things like making solo creatures immune to conditions and certain effects until they are worn down - for example, making them immuze to stun/daze effects until they're "vulnerable" (perhaps keying this on the PC side, getting rid of the reviled hp limits and keying it off the "vulnerable" trait) Since it doesn't necessarily need to be incorporated into every monster (save if you do the PC keyed ability), you could make it a selectable ability/power.

I know it's too big a change for D&D, but I'm considering working up a homebrew game where PCs all get equal HP, and the HP Thresholds affect whether you get a weak version of a condition (slowed) or a serious one (immobilized) or a critical one (lost leg). Then conditions and 'finishing moves' would be balanced between different characters. Otherwise it's easier to mind control the low-HP psion than the high-HP fighter, which I'd balk at.

I liked a lot of the 4E theory behind modding monsters. Where it sometimes feel apart was when you added class templates to creatures. Because of the different scales that PCs and the rest of the world used, giving some class powers to a monster could often lead to odd effects. If you want an easy example, add the fighter template to a Boneclaw. In the same vein, giving powers that were bursts to larger creatures could sometimes turn a power which is normally barely noticeable into something somewhat broken.

I'm perfectly fine with the idea that monsters/npcs don't need to be built the same way as PCs; I actually kinda like that approach. However, I still think there needs to be a more common ground when it comes to how the numbers that both sides (PC vs NPC) of the equation interact with the numbers which the physics of the game world are built upon. I'm not asking for a perfect model; just not one in which a low level PC can at-will through the same door that a huge giant has trouble breaking and not one in which NPCs are so poor in comparison to their PC counterparts that it's virtually impossible for any creature to break out of dimensional shackles. Once that is accomplished, I think modifying monsters should be pretty easy.

To keep the topic going I'll offer a system for both multi-classing and for designing monsters.

Having a multi-class and a multi-level party is rather simple.

Have the experience progression be the same for all classes.
When a character reaches experience points enough to graduate to the next class, they may choose which class they want to level-up in.
If they were a level 5 fighter before and got a +1d12 increase in hit points or just got 6 hit points whichever is higher when levelling up before, then if they choose 1st level Wizard, then they get +1d6 or 3 hit points and can only choose 1st level wizard powers.The character would then become Fighter 5, Wizard 1 Level 6. However, because they are no longer a dedicated class but rather a mixed class fighter/caster -- they have to wear medium level armor and use medium damage weapons.

Designing monsters would be like this.
Assign a basic array of 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 and 14 to any 6 stats.
Assign the highest score to the most important ability of the monster.
If it is a Kuo-Toan Priest, then the highest stat would be wisdom.
If it is a Kuo-Toan Monitor/Guard then the highest stat would be assigned to dexterity.
Then assign the second highest score to the second most important ability.
Assign the remaining scores from most to least important to the other 4 stats.
Now use the level progression table of character advancement and assign the same ability score increases that characters of the same level would have.
Here is the table I'm currently working on and playing with.
Look at the powers in the module and manual and try to not assign any similar powers. Always try to turn at least one power into a new DDN reaction.
Note the number of the party.
Place the same number of monsters in the encounter.
If the highest level of the party is 5th level, then make the monsters mostly 3rd level for easy, 4th level for moderate, and 5th to 7th level for hard.
If lower than 3rd level, double the monsters.
If higher than 7th level, halve the monsters.
Fighting a monster over 3 levels higher than the highest level character, is not a good idea if you are an experienced DM who doesn't give his or her party a break.
Note the armor class stated in the module or monster manual for the monster. Use your new armor table to match the AC.
Note the size of the monster and add or subtract strength and dexterity if you want.
You can test the monsters I just designed using this system here.
http://kira3696.tripod.com

Hiya.

I'm of the "just make s#!t up" category of DM. That said, I have no problem with there being rules for more "crunchy" stuff. If there were such things, I'd like to see the 'rules' be less absolute and more 'range-y'. So, I'd rather see "+2d8hp" over "+10hp".

My main reasoning is simple; no rules can predict the *actual* power level and capability of a PC group. You can slap a "CR" on a creature all you want, but if that creature has an ability that nobody in the PC group can defend against, the CR is going to be off. If the PC's all possess resistances or immunities to a creatures main attack or special ability, the CR is going to be off. If the group consists of damage-dealing monstrosities, the creatures CR is going to be off. So...better to not try and base the system around some fictional "power level" when there is no such thing as a definitive power level.

^_^

Paul L. Ming