D&D 5E Quick question re: monsters as PCs

[CapnZapp]

[*]Spells and spell-like abilities

Beware spell-casting monsters.

The idea that you can switch out the pre-chosen spells with no change in CR is a complete falsehood.

Monsters usually have a very anemic spell load-out. Essentially, monsters in the MM showcase all the red and brown spells that no player uses ever. This not only helps them stick to their assigned CR, it also makes one monster look and feel separate from another. (In addition: some spells that come off as weak or strange are actually quite good when player characters are the expected foe. One good example is Power Word Kill. At level 17, when you face CR 21+ foes, it makes no sense, since your Fighter buddy can simply cause 100 points of damage and save you a level 9 slot that the monster probably would legendary-ignore anyway. OTOH, when you are a CR 15 creature facing level 10 characters, PWK is excellent since it probably insta-kills the party wizard and saves you a world of hurt)

Somewhat simplified, any player worth his salt would instantly dump the level 3 spells described and load up on Fireball, Invisibility and Shield, just to pick the one combo, and that would significantly empower that character.

I would want to be very restrictive when it comes to monsters with spells. Essentially I would say "these are the spells you know/have learned/prepared", and then ask the player to choose another monster if he or she isn't basically content with the spells given. Sure I would be open to the occasional switch-out, but each such change should be approved by the DM (at least until you trust the player enough), and should mainly keep to the monster's "theme".

The obvious example is: any winter or glacier monster will stick to cold spells, even though 99% of encounters at home will be resistant or immune to your spells. There is no reason for this, it just is the way it is. A player questioning this should be treated as a flag he or she is not ready to play a monster caster.

(or at the very least, become a spellcasting character, so you can pick your own spells - though if you expect your monster abilities to stack with class abilities, you will need to observe your "theme").

 

[77IM]

[MENTION=12731]CapnZapp[/MENTION], you make really excellent points. It's why I'm coming up with loose guidelines, instead of hard rules -- each time a player chooses a monster PC, I'll need to have this conversation all over again, to figure out what they really want from the monster and how it might affect game play.

And good call on the spell swapping. That may be a red flag that a player wants to be a monster for the "wrong" reasons. Some players enjoy abusing the system to make overpowered PCs. By presenting this as a conversation rather than a system, it would be my trust that they are abusing.

 

[Hriston]

If the goal is to have the PCs be equivalent to a CR 3 monster, it seems the best approach would be to create the PCs and then level them up until they are CR 3 according to the chart in the DMG.

I mean, you can say a typical member of such-and-such a class equals such-and-such a CR all you want, but until you have the actual character and what it's built to do in front of you, it's all just theorizing and may not produce the desired result.

 

[JEB]

Now I have to figure out what the hit point values of the defensive CR represent.

Complete speculation here, but maybe it's based on some calculation of how much damage the average party of that level can dish out in a round?

Makes me wonder if they have some kind of "model PCs" they built to get these numbers.

 

[Sword of Spirit]

Complete speculation here, but maybe it's based on some calculation of how much damage the average party of that level can dish out in a round?

Quite possible. If it turns out to be the case it would decode the CR system to a much greater extent than has been done before. Honestly, the DMG should have just told us this stuff.

Makes me wonder if they have some kind of "model PCs" they built to get these numbers.

Again, quite possible.

 

[Tormyr]

[MENTION=12731]CapnZapp[/MENTION], you make really excellent points. It's why I'm coming up with loose guidelines, instead of hard rules -- each time a player chooses a monster PC, I'll need to have this conversation all over again, to figure out what they really want from the monster and how it might affect game play.

And good call on the spell swapping. That may be a red flag that a player wants to be a monster for the "wrong" reasons. Some players enjoy abusing the system to make overpowered PCs. By presenting this as a conversation rather than a system, it would be my trust that they are abusing.

This is why I always go the route of making a custom player race based on the monster and then letting them choose an appropriate class rather than modifying the monster (at least if the PC is going to be around for a while). It keeps things more in line with the other non-monster PCs.

Going back to your original gold wyrmling example, cribbing the breath weapon from the dragonborn and letting the PC take levels of fighter keeps them up with the other PCs and still keeps the general feel of the wyrmling. As the PC advances, they get extra attacks and the breath weapon increases. A beholder could work by increasing all the rays by cantrip damage (1dx, then 2dx, up to 4dx). The antimagic cone slowly gets larger over the levels. Or make it a spectator instead.

I have worked with players to make half-gnoll and kobold player races in the past, although these were humanoid monsters and less of a stretch. My general philosophy is that the player is getting to be a special snowflake. So the PC race should not be more powerful than an official one. You have the right idea of taking it on a case by case basis.

 

[Tormyr]

I just came across this. You might like it.

https://www.reddit.com/r/DnD/comments/7nxy88/dmsguild_i_converted_every_creature_in_the/

 

[CapnZapp]

If the goal is to have the PCs be equivalent to a CR 3 monster, it seems the best approach would be to create the PCs and then level them up until they are CR 3 according to the chart in the DMG.

The problem I foresee here is that completely neuters the benefits of min-maxing...

 

[Hriston]

The problem I foresee here is that completely neuters the benefits of min-maxing...

Well, for the min-max minded, it encourages a different sort of behavior: choosing non-proficient weapons that do the least damage possible, or spells that do no damage at all, in the hope of qualifying for a higher level and knowing they can be changed-out at a later time. To counter this, I'd require the character to be played as-is.

 

[CapnZapp]

Well, for the min-max minded, it encourages a different sort of behavior: choosing non-proficient weapons that do the least damage possible, or spells that do no damage at all, in the hope of qualifying for a higher level and knowing they can be changed-out at a later time. To counter this, I'd require the character to be played as-is.

Yeah, that kind of min-maxing is not gonna fly...

I was more thinking of the fact that min-maxing won't actually put you ahead of the curve (which is pretty much the only reason to min-max) if you efforts only make you gain fewer levels.

Sent from my C6603 using EN World mobile app