D&D 5E monsters with feat and class abilities

[Immoralkickass]

I recently started DMing, and when I create new NPCs, or even BBEGs especially humanoids, I realise that I love to give them player levels. I feel that the rules of the game is like the laws of physics: it applies to everyone.

Of course exceptions do apply, hey even the PCs get special treatment sometimes. But for a starting point, I like to start with the player options. So if you see a half-orc cleric enemy, he has the same racials as any half-orc player, and the same abilities that a cleric has (depending on their domain). I even go as far as to hand pick spells known and spells prepared.

I read somewhere that to make your world more believable and logical, a BBEG wizard for example, would not always be at full available spell slots, with all the combat ready spells prepared and good to go. He might be doing something important that day, like crafting magic items, so he would prepare Invisibility if he wants to make a scroll of Invisibility. Or he wants to beef up his tower defenses, so he would prepare Glyph of Warding, Mord's Faithful Hound, and Guards n Wards. Or he went shopping and sight seeing, so he would have prepared Dimension Door, Misty Step, Locate Object and Locate Creature, and Suggestion for haggling.

 

[CapnZapp]

The terminology stands out. When I think of "templates" I tend to go to bigger things that really change the nature of monsters. Half-fiend. Spectral. Fey-touched. Cursed. Arboreal.
What you're suggesting is really more like the Alternate Powers / Monster Themes from the 4e DMG2. Which are kinda already in the game. They have been since the Starer Set introduced Ash Zombies. Pretty much every adventure has had an instance of a monster that has some variant power added trait.

If you want to add a Trait or Action based on a feat... why not?

In terms of official guidance, that's already there. Pages 282-3 in the DMG. The advice doesn't change. You just need to look and see if it's defences and/or offence have increased enough to warrant an increase of +1 CR.
Sure, some more advice on designing good monster traits and monsters for the game would be nice. And it'd also be nice to have a book of example monster themes and alternate actions and powers (like for giants in Storm King's Thunder or a third of the monsters in Volo's Guide to Monsters. But there's a dozen other topics that'd be equally nice. I expect we'll see more examples when WotC gets around to doing another book of monsters in 2020 or 2021...

You still avoid having to agree with me simple templates would be good.

We don't even have to call them templates if that makes it easier. Just as long as we're not conflating them for generic "advice" or "guidance".

I'm not talking about getting permission to create my own "monster themes" or whatever you want to call them. I want there to be predefined ones right in the book.

And don't tell me there already are, because there isn't.

Finally, please let's not relativize. Sure lots of things would be good to have. But I'm not talking about lots of things. I'm talking about one specific thing.

Sent from my C6603 using EN World mobile app

 

[CapnZapp]

Well most of the options I suggested are part of the game. I don't know if they're presented as being for NPCs in addition to PCs, but I don't think it's discouraged.

I certainly wouldn't have minded a list of alternative options like Feats designed to be added to existing monster stat blocks, but the lack of such is no major obstacle to me tweaking monsters and NPCs.

There are no feat-ish options presented as suitable for monsters.

Even the Parry thing Knights and such get isn't offered as a stand-alone "monster feat" or "NPC class feature". But it would be well suited as one.

Sent from my C6603 using EN World mobile app

 

[CapnZapp]

I recently started DMing, and when I create new NPCs, or even BBEGs especially humanoids, I realise that I love to give them player levels. I feel that the rules of the game is like the laws of physics: it applies to everyone.

Of course exceptions do apply, hey even the PCs get special treatment sometimes. But for a starting point, I like to start with the player options. So if you see a half-orc cleric enemy, he has the same racials as any half-orc player, and the same abilities that a cleric has (depending on their domain). I even go as far as to hand pick spells known and spells prepared.

I read somewhere that to make your world more believable and logical, a BBEG wizard for example, would not always be at full available spell slots, with all the combat ready spells prepared and good to go. He might be doing something important that day, like crafting magic items, so he would prepare Invisibility if he wants to make a scroll of Invisibility. Or he wants to beef up his tower defenses, so he would prepare Glyph of Warding, Mord's Faithful Hound, and Guards n Wards. Or he went shopping and sight seeing, so he would have prepared Dimension Door, Misty Step, Locate Object and Locate Creature, and Suggestion for haggling.

Sure, but moving away from the idea monsters need to follow the same rules as player characters is one of the great things about 5th edition.

So actual class levels isn't what I envision here. (Not that they don't work if you do use them)

I guess I wish that just because NPCs aren't PCs anymore that didn't mean they were so hopelessly outclassed, is all... Sigh

Sent from my C6603 using EN World mobile app

 

[dave2008]

I'm not talking about getting permission to create my own "monster themes" or whatever you want to call them. I want there to be predefined ones right in the book.

Are you saying you want a new book? Obviously you are not going to get them in the MM as it has already been published. At least a few people have already done this type of work and offered it for free on various forums or on the DM's guild. So there are "books' available for exactly what you want. Or do you think it has to be published be WotC?

It seems to me, from your many threads on this subject, that you feel WotC owes such a book (more challenging monsters/NPCs) to the community. And you want to get support for this idea from the community, possible to put pressure on WotC to make such a book. I think that is an admirable idea, but I just don't think WotC or the community in general is on board with it. I could be wrong, but it seems that WotC stance is to left the community itself cater to needs like yours (and others), and the community in general seems fine with that approach. Then again, maybe they would snap up a republished MM with 2x the pages and feat wielding variants of many of the monsters.

 

[Rhenny]

Sure, but moving away from the idea monsters need to follow the same rules as player characters is one of the great things about 5th edition.

So actual class levels isn't what I envision here. (Not that they don't work if you do use them)

I agree. It is so refreshing and much easier to modify because monsters don't follow PC rules.

In my last Princes of the Apocalypse campaign session, I gave a wyvern and rider maximum hit points along with the granting the wyvern the ability to make a grab and a tail sting in a single round and although it made the combat take longer, it helped to make it feel more epic and dangerous. As a set piece battle, using max hit points and maneuvers captures more of the 4e feel and makes the battle more dynamic. I won't do this all the time, but once in a while, it really adds variety.

 

[Jester David]

You still avoid having to agree with me simple templates would be good.

We don't even have to call them templates if that makes it easier. Just as long as we're not conflating them for generic "advice" or "guidance".

Okay, fine. I think they're good. They're a good idea. I praised the concept when Paizo did it for the Monster Codex. I praised the little custom monsters in the Starer Set. I've considered doing a book of them myself.
Variant monster powers and generic monster traits are a good.

I'm not talking about getting permission to create my own "monster themes" or whatever you want to call them. I want there to be predefined ones right in the book.

That's nice. And my standard response is I want a rainbow pony that poops diamonds.

Okay, I get it. You want official WotC branded products only.
But their release schedule has changed. They're no longer doing a product every month and a hardcover book every other month. It's fine to not use anything but WotC content, but you also have to prepare to be disappointed by not always getting what you want.

The aforementioned Monster Codex was Pathfinder's 6th adversary product and its 14th hardcover book. At WotC's current rate, we could expect a similar product by 2028.
This is the kind of content they *might* do sooner (because it adds value without adding bloat, by making existing monsters more interesting). But they're still unlikely to go right back to monsters next year, and if they do it would still likely be in a dragon or undead flavoured monster book akin to Volo's Guide to Monsters rather than a generic opponent book.

Finally, please let's not relativize. Sure lots of things would be good to have. But I'm not talking about lots of things. I'm talking about one specific thing.

Dude, this week alone you've asked WotC to fix resting/ the 5 minute workday, magic item crafting and downtime, and now monster themes.

 

[Sacrosanct]

If there are two knowns:

* You have the tools to add things to your game that you find missing (and/or others have already done this and available to you)
* WoTC will not release an official product that you want

At what point does complaining about it over and over again become tiresome? For clarification purposes, I'm not saying no one should ever complain or criticize something. Merely if the first two things are knowns, then at what point does the complaining hurt overall discussion and at what point do we as players need to take ownership for our own preferences and do something about it? There are many things about 5e I don't prefer (resting mechanics and the uber healing that comes along with it are a big one), but what I do like is that I have the tools to solve those problems at my table how I want to run them.

I understand that's a very subjective line, and don't expect any real hard answer. These types of discussions remind of when my kid didn't know how to do something, I showed him how he could get around the problem, and he basically just came down to "I don't want to. I want it done for me." And my answer is usually, "Ok, then I don't want to hear you complain about it anymore, because you have a solution and you refuse to do it. So stop complaining, or do something else."

 

[Sacrosanct]

Are you saying you want a new book? Obviously you are not going to get them in the MM as it has already been published. At least a few people have already done this type of work and offered it for free on various forums or on the DM's guild. So there are "books' available for exactly what you want. Or do you think it has to be published be WotC?

It seems to me, from your many threads on this subject, that you feel WotC owes such a book (more challenging monsters/NPCs) to the community. And you want to get support for this idea from the community, possible to put pressure on WotC to make such a book. I think that is an admirable idea, but I just don't think WotC or the community in general is on board with it. I could be wrong, but it seems that WotC stance is to left the community itself cater to needs like yours (and others), and the community in general seems fine with that approach. Then again, maybe they would snap up a republished MM with 2x the pages and feat wielding variants of many of the monsters.

Exactly. WoTC, from the beginning of 5e, has been right up front in saying, "We're only going to release a certain number of products. We want those products to appeal to the largest group because that's just basic business 101. However, we acknowledge that means some gamers' wants won't be met, so we're going to give out the toolset so gamers can create what they want and have their needs met that way."

I don't think WoTC gets enough credit for allowing their IP to be used by it's consumers. How many businesses do that? It would be like Coca Cola saying they won't produce brand X any more, but for people who want it, they are giving the formula out for free. And on top of that, small indie company Y decides to make brand X and available for people to get. And then having people complain Coca Cola sucks because they themselves aren't making brand X. Seems silly to me to complain about that because you can still get it or make it yourself.

 

[hawkeyefan]

There are no feat-ish options presented as suitable for monsters.

Even the Parry thing Knights and such get isn't offered as a stand-alone "monster feat" or "NPC class feature". But it would be well suited as one.

Sent from my C6603 using EN World mobile app

It sure is. I use it all the time as a reaction ability for some of my more "martial" NPCs.

It'd be cool for WotC to perhaps provide some of these things for newer DMs so that they're aware that they can and may need to make such modifications. But, the game already has enough to absorb, so I can understand their decision (if it was even an active decision) not to do so. No need to overwhelm a new DM with a bunch of options that they will likely not need immediately.

Because they would also know that the folks most likely to need this material would be more experienced players and DMs, who as you've pointed out, don't need permission to do so, and who are capable of doing it as well.