Please no monster class levels

[Greg K]

Even at the end of 3e, WotC was starting to figure this out. In Eberron, there were a lot of NPCs who had class levels "just because". There was a 7 year old somewhere who was a 7th level cleric -- not because he'd been adventuring for 7 years -- but because that's how powerful he was. The advancement rules were explicitly for PCs only, because "PCs are special.".

If the kid had the BAB (let alone BAB and skills) of a 7th level cleric, I would consider that lame.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

The game is better? That is a matter of opinion.

To a certain degree: yes.

1. It is easier for the DM to create monsters.
2. Players can´t guess easily how powerful exactly the monster is.
3. The Dm does not have to apply a strange amount of levels, just because a monste should be able to do x.

But you have a point:
Randomly assigning powers to NPCs of PC races. Or maybe even other humanoids should be carefully considered.

My way of creating 4e NPCs usually involves taking abilities of PC classes and add some generic bonuses that take care of the things PCs would use feats and to a certain extend magic items.

I hope 5e monster advancement system will use class levels. As feats and skills are gained by themes and background, you probably don´t get weird results and you don´t have to worry about assigning skills and feats, just because you used a PC class. The theme would be NPC and the background too.

But I also want not only advancement rules, but modify rules. Take a monster and just add certain abilities of classes. Monster creation should not be limited by adding class levels. If an orc brute had learned whirlwind attack and nothing more, and he is meant to be a shocktrooper that should die after having dealt this damage, i want to do it.
Maybe all the goblin learned in his warrior training was swinging that giant flail wildly around himself. (I am making this up on the fly).
So if a player asks, why the goblin can do the whirlwind trick and he has to wait some more levels, i can reply: "you can learn whirlwind, but you can´t use armor, your hp is only d4 and you only know how to wield an oversized flail in this manner.

 

[pemerton]

Again, those are RACIAL abilities. I don't expect PCs to have access to RACIAL abilities unless they are that race. What I am discussing is more akin to allowing players to be Stirges, but saying they can't fly.

If an Orc is a fighter, there is nothing it should be able to do that a fighter of the same level can't do

I understand the assertion. What I'm missing is the reason for it.

Because HD and level are not part of the fiction, how does it undermine the consistency of the fiction for a 3HD monster to have an ability that a PC can't get til they're 4th level?

If a human npc is a necromancer (wizard) then any player using a human necromancer should be able to access the same power and skill set at the same times.

Magic use raises different issues from matial abilities, because spell levels probably do correspond to something in the fiction, and therefore caster level also perhaps corresponds to something in the fiction. Still, access to special powers via cultic rites, having sworn fealty to a dark lord, or something of that sort seems pretty unproblematic to me. Just the same as NPC knights have access to money and retainers (as a result of swearing loyalty to the king) that aren't available to PCs (because they would break the game).

 

[AdmundfortGeographer]

"Monsters" also often include hostile members of PC races as well as humanoid non-pc races without any racial power. And they certainly need class levels as otherwise they would be the mentioned arbitrary piles of powers who break immersion and consistency.

Hostile members of pc races are by the core books pc races. Nothing complicated there yet, you haven't actually countered what suggested.

 

[Derren]

Hostile members of pc races are by the core books pc races.

And? They are still monsters in the sense that they are a pile of arbitrary powers the PCs can never get. The whole problem of randomly assigning powers to enemies is just more obvious with them as the player can easily ask "why couldn't my PC learn any of this stuff", making the inconsistency of such a rule really glaring.

 

[pemerton]

They are still monsters in the sense that they are a pile of arbitrary powers the PCs can never get. The whole problem of randomly assigning powers to enemies is just more obvious with them as the player can easily ask "why couldn't my PC learn any of this stuff", making the inconsistency of such a rule really glaring.

When one of your players asks "Why can't my 1st level PC be as rich as a 0-level or 1st-level NPC merchant or noble?", what answer do you give?

 

[Janaxstrus]

I don't agree with this at all. But more importantly, I don't think it's a meaningful position. It's OK if monster X gets a feat as a racial ability but not as a class ability? What if their racial ability is "can qualify for feat early"? It's not OK for NPC necromancers to get access to powers PC necromancers can't get? What if there's a Prestige Class with pre-req "must join secret cult."

What I'm saying is that even within the context of super rigid 3e, exception based rules were all over the place. And at the point that you have rigid exceptions, you might as well arm waive it. (Well, he could be using a variant prestige class, but there's no point in statting out the entire class. I'm just going to give him XYZ.)

Even at the end of 3e, WotC was starting to figure this out. In Eberron, there were a lot of NPCs who had class levels "just because". There was a 7 year old somewhere who was a 7th level cleric -- not because he'd been adventuring for 7 years -- but because that's how powerful he was. The advancement rules were explicitly for PCs only, because "PCs are special."

I know some folks don't like that. They want rules to equal physics. But if you hold to that, all that's going to happen is that people are going to make much more complicated rules to do exactly the same thing.

Can PC's join this cult and get the power? If not, no, I wouldn't allow it in my world. If the players have the chance to do so, it's less of an issue.

I really don't care how you guys want to justify it or how you guys play it in your campaign. 3e did the best job, in my opinion, of making a logical world, because NPCs and PCs had the same rules. If they want to have "He can do this because, he just can and I'm the DM" in 5e, fine. I won't use it, I want the "PCs and NPCs live in the same world and are logical and consistent" version, which is what the OP was advocating the dissolution of.

Not every monster needs them, there were 5 books of monsters in 3e, the vast vast majority of which don't have classes, nor would they necessarily make sense on. I do want the option in the core to do it, in what *I* consider the right way, for my world.

 

[herrozerro]

Personally im against the 3e method, is much too complicated and only serves to hamper a DMs ability to create a game.

I would rather give a level 1 wizard some cool abilities to fight the party rather then have to wait to spring a level 7 monstrocity of feats and class levels just to get that cool idea to work.

An I have had in my games disconnects with my players on monster vs PC rules, but each time we sit down and talk it out. the most recent i can remember was the mounted rules, in 4e monsters if they are considered a credable threat still act separately. So for instance a wizard riding a manticore both creatures would have actions.

THis upset my cavalier player who cried foul that his mount had to share his actions. which got a few more player going ... Hmm yeah why cant we have full actions for our mounts. I just told them the straight truth, that if they were gonig to have mounts with full actions i would have to start counting them as at least half PCs for encounter building purposes, you can just add +6 more rounds of actions and expect the game to function as normal.

Was it a meta reason? Yes. But it's for the betterment of the game.

Much like the PCs gaining NPC powers. If a player wanted to learn a specific power that a monster wielded in a fight, I would first consider the method that the NPC aquired the power, if its just a fighting style or a spell aquired form a book, i'd let the player attempt to learn it. following the rules for regular power assignment.

if it's a racial ability or some kind of unlearnable thing most likely not.

my point is that sometimes PCs and NPC IMO need to play by different rules.

 

[Alzrius]

If I had to pick between the 3E method of being able to add class levels to monsters (which was rather painstaking) and the 4E method of simply having different pre-made monsters for different roles, I'd go with the former. Customization is better simply because there's no set of pre-packaged creatures that will be exactly what's needed every time.

Having said that, I think that there's already a compromise to this issue, at least where 3.X is concerned. Bad Axe Games' excellent Trailblazer takes the CR system that Craig Cochrane/Upper_Krust originally wrote, refines it, simplifies it into an easy system for adding class abilities to monsters piecemeal, and easily calculating the resulting CR changes.

It's a fairly ingenious, and certainly intuitive, method of making adding class abilities to monsters without having to add the extra baggage. Want your frost giant to have the spellcasting ability of a 10th-level cleric? Just use Trailblazer, and you can find that that's roughly a +2 CR adjustment, without having to add the extra BAB, skills, save bonuses, commanding undead, etc.

Insofar as I can see, that's pretty much the best of both worlds.

 

[Gold Roger]

I want the new edition to provide both 4e and 3e approaches.

The reasons are:

a) It's necesary if wotc wants to stay true to it's unifying goal. So many people want one, but not the other approach in their games.

b) Personally I loved both approaches in their respective editions, but both gave me headaches as well.

Thanks to system mastery, in 3rd I could create "bosses" to high specification and to do exactly what I wanted. It'd take time, but for such opponents, it was worth it. But I pretty much had to do it for most mooks and small fries as well.

Meanwhile, 4th provided incredible monsters. Fun to play, fun to fight, easy to use. Minor modifications where easy as pie. But when I wanted an unique baddy, it took me longer than in 3rd. First I had to search for a suiteble baseline, then for powers to swap in. Any power modified had to be checked if it works.

If I could go the 4th approach most of the time, but fluently switch to the use of PC rules for major characters, I'd be a happy man.