Monsters with classes

[Zappo]

Because a creature with CR 10 has to kill other creatures with CR 10 in order to get proportionally the same experience as a 1st level character killing CR 1 creatures. Now, there are lots of CR 1s just about everywhere, but not so many CR 10s, and very few CR 20s. People in D&D worlds face CR 1s even if they don't want to, but they have to be adventurers in order to meet CR 10s, and have to search quite hard for CR 20s.

Therefore, it is much easier for members of weak races to gain a few levels. A 1st level party has to kill 13 orcs to become 2nd level. A CR 23 red dragon has to kill how many balors and pit fiends? I mean, they don't grow on trees. And after doing in half of the Nine Hells hierarchy, he's got, what, ONE level?

Mind ya, I still love and use monsters with levels. But the way I see it, a Human Fighter 8th could be just a good army officer, while a Frost Giant Fighter 8th is a freakin' legend. Mostly, I give levels to outsiders and immortal creatures in general, figuring that if you've lived, say, 20000 years, gaining levels is just a matter of statistics. Incidentally, this is also the reason for which I kinda like the idea of outsiders being relatively weak, rather than the powerful monsters of today. That way, I can reasonably give them some levels without making them into epic challenges.

 

[Evilhalfling]

Because a creature with CR 10 has to kill other creatures with CR 10 in order to get proportionally the same experience as a 1st level character killing CR 1 creatures. Now, there are lots of CR 1s just about everywhere, but not so many CR 10s, and very few CR 20s. People in D&D worlds face CR 1s even if they don't want to, but they have to be adventurers in order to meet CR 10s, and have to search quite hard for CR 20s.

This is exactly my reasoning - The ECL of monsters makes gaining levels very difficult.
humanoids sure, all chiefs, leaders, sub-leaders and perhaps even some vetrans( if a LA +0 or +1) will have PC levels. But a giant with levels? a hill giant has LA +4 and 12 hd ie 16th lvl. HG cr 7 so a HG get 0 xp for defeating another of its own kind. Hmm that sucks, but it is not going to stop me from using occasional gaints with levels. If you read adventures for high lvl characters there are a lot of high level humanoids - in defiance of the above logic.


And for Dragons, at very young they have an ECL of 9-16 and a CR of 4-7, (per draconomicon)maybe a dragon has 1-2 levels in a class, but it has to take a lot of risks to get there. Signing on as a wyrmling familiar, or cohort looks like the best way to actually gain levels.

 

[whatisitgoodfor]

(Not quite answering your question) I'm of the opinion that 4th edition D&D should ditch multiple HD monsters in favor of "monster classes". Each monster would have a base set of abilities (which may or may not be balanced for +0 LA), and would gain HD from these monster classes.
The system is about 3/4s of the way there already with the types -- d8 HD, 2+ skill points, 1 (or 2) good saves.

Nell.

Or, taking it one step further, all monsters could simply have normal class levels. Helps to get rid of some annoying stuff like dealing with monsterous PCs.

<GM> "Monsters work this way, PCs work this way."
<Player> "What about monster PCs?"
<GM> *SLAP!* "You want try that, then buy the book yourself."

Kinda prevents stuff like a monster with 3 HD and a 15+ECL. Mobs with that many spell like abilities should probably have enough levels of sorceror to actually earn them.

 

[Mad Mac]

Everyone knows that Hill Giants favor the Ninja class in complete adventurer...

 

[jmucchiello]

Or, taking it one step further, all monsters could simply have normal class levels. Helps to get rid of some annoying stuff like dealing with monsterous PCs.

I've seriously considered this. But I don't have the energy, staff or money to create an alternate MM where all the monsters are classed. It would be cool though.

Create simple monster classes for simple monsters (and call them obvious things like Animal, Humanoid, Giant, Aberration, etc). But for monsters that "casts spells as 7th level Druid", just stat them as a 7th level Druid. I think the Nymph works well as a 7th level Druid, just say she substitutes blinding beauty, unearthly grace, extra spell (dimdoor), and stunning glance for at 1st, 3rd, 5th and 7th level and does not receive wild shape.

 

[Sejs]

Why don't dragons take levels in barbarian and sorcerer...

Because they want to become more powerful and be able to kill the other dragons that want their lair and hoard.

The way I figure it is that dragons usually don't pick up class levels for the same reason dragons don't usually develop artificial arms and armor. They don't have a drive to do those things, because they don't feel the same need to compensate for or supplant their natural abilities. Humans and the like seek out special training and develop weapons because originally they needed to do so as a matter of survival, and the practice just sort of stuck. Dragons never had to do that. There's not much that threatens them over the normal course of things, and anything that did (such as other dragons), they could just run away from.

When it comes to dealing with other dragons, I figure they'd be more inclined to try to chase off an interloper rather than fight to kill. One to one, a dragon realizes there's not much that poses a concrete threat to it aside from other dragons. Because of the validity of that threat, you'd think they wouldn't want to run the risk if they could avoid it.

 

[whatisitgoodfor]

I've seriously considered this. But I don't have the energy, staff or money to create an alternate MM where all the monsters are classed. It would be cool though.

Create simple monster classes for simple monsters (and call them obvious things like Animal, Humanoid, Giant, Aberration, etc). But for monsters that "casts spells as 7th level Druid", just stat them as a 7th level Druid. I think the Nymph works well as a 7th level Druid, just say she substitutes blinding beauty, unearthly grace, extra spell (dimdoor), and stunning glance for at 1st, 3rd, 5th and 7th level and does not receive wild shape.

I've done all the common ones, but normally on the fly, so they're all sitting in my notebooks, and not in a convenient .txt I can post.

Of course, I also took the univerality quite a bit further than even that. I took the class list down to three classes (magic, skill, and weapon users) gave each class a class ability selection every level (with a few extras tossed in) and gave the class abilities pre-reqs based on appropriate base saves. (Oh, and I took out cc skills and multi-classing penalties.)

It's pretty neat to watch new players fool around with it. First everyone hates it, I think because the lack of character rules prevents letter-of-the-law rule breaking/exploiting. Then, later on people start to like the fact that for a neat character concept they don't have to sit down and negotiate for the class abilities they felt were appropriate for the character.

 

[DMH]

The way I figure it is that dragons usually don't pick up class levels for the same reason dragons don't usually develop artificial arms and armor. They don't have a drive to do those things, because they don't feel the same need to compensate for or supplant their natural abilities. Humans and the like seek out special training and develop weapons because originally they needed to do so as a matter of survival, and the practice just sort of stuck. Dragons never had to do that. There's not much that threatens them over the normal course of things, and anything that did (such as other dragons), they could just run away from.

If that were true the survival rate of hatchlings would be 100%. Young dragons are in all kinds of dangers- giants, humans, other dragons, and all kinds of other monsters. They would be more apt to try to gain some edge in surviving the onslaught of beings that don't want to see them mature.

And there is also the question of clerics. If a monster species has a god, then it would make sense that, unless the god is totally apathic to its followers, some of the creatures would be clerics and spreading the word and ideals of that god (Cthulhu is the high priest of his species and worships Azathoth or however that is spelled). So shouldn't most monster communities have clerics, druids or shamans?

 

[The_Gneech]

There's also a certain amount of "the rules are designed to replicate a particular experience, not the other way around" to it. Dragons don't generally take class levels because that's not what dragons do! Bad dragons burninate villages, collect hoards, and carry off maidens; good dragons play chess and riddle games.

Classes are designed to be the "advancement" mechanic for player-type characters -- they're not a collection of numbers that mean anything in the context of the game world.

"So, Bob, what do you do for a living?"

"I'm a Clr 3/Rog 5."

"Oh yeah? What's the pay like?"

"I've accumulated 50,000 gp worth of gear."

"Rockin'."

Sure, from a game mechanic standpoint, there's no good reaon why a dragon couldn't take class levels, but trying to work out the percentage of illithid who take barbarian levels is paying too much attention to the construct and not enough to the experience it simulates, IMO.

-The Gneech

 

[Voadam]

Why don't dragons take levels in barbarian and sorcerer and, with their high level barbarian and cleric orc and goblin slaves, drive humans back into the stone age?

Dragons are a pain enough to stat out without a DM adding on class levels. But for significant NPC ones it is not unreasonable conceptually. I played in a game where my PC watched dragons who had mastery of claw fighting techniques while others had mastered wing buffet fighting styles. This used basic/master/rules cyclopedia weapon mastery rules but feat or class levels in fighter spending their bonus feats on natural weapon feats would portray those dragons well in 3e.