D&D 5E 5e Monster design and monster PCs

[zoroaster100]

As a DM, what I want from monster design is ease of constructing balanced, interesting monsters that fufill their roles as threats and challenges for the PCs and that are easy to scale for use against PCs of different levels.

I am not opposed to having "monster" PCs but that is but I don't see that as being part of monster design at all, but rather part of having a very flexible character creation system with varied PC races that can include "monster" races like a dragon. That should be handled with a totally different set of rules from monster design (in the sense of PC adversary design).

 

[Stasis_Delirium]

I'm wondering if perhaps it would be easier with 5e than it was with 3rd at least (4th was fairly easy to just make monsters into playable races).

The reason might lie in the fact that stats are capped in 5e. Sure, the ogre might get a +4 to strength when creating him, but he can only have up to a 20 strength no matter what. The limitations, in fact, might be the freedom here, since most humanoid races are bound to the same caps on statistics as player characters are.

Then again, dragons and other such massive, or abberant beings might have stats that are much higher, but honestly the problems of playing a hill-giant character might outweigh the benefits. Never being able to enter towns, being the target of mobs formed to chase you down, etc.

-T.J.

 

[Sunseeker]

I am not opposed to having "monster" PCs but that is but I don't see that as being part of monster design at all, but rather part of having a very flexible character creation system with varied PC races that can include "monster" races like a dragon. That should be handled with a totally different set of rules from monster design (in the sense of PC adversary design).

This is a good point, even though monstrous PCs should emulate their monster counterparts, there's a different math to desgining a PC than there is to designing a monster, and while it would be beneficial to know how to break down a monster into a playable class, it is more important to have a clear and understandable formula for how races are built to begin with in order to better serve players and DMs in the creation of custom races.

 

[Advilaar]

There was one approach in 4e that really bugged me. Monster as class. Prime example would be the vampire in the Heroes of Shadow supplement.

Yeah, it looked balanced and 4e is about balance. But, come on. Something like vapirism is aquired. It should be a template.

Now I guess there is a sort of rationale because in 3e, extra hit dice was "sort of" a class, but I viewed it more as an increased toughness thing or sheer size thing as part of a racial benefit.

I guess if you look at monsters as races, it makes better sense. The only exception are thinks like undead, werewolves, vampires, and liches which are just additional templates. Now is your 5th level fighter going to be stronger than the other PCs because he is now a werewolf? Of course. He is a werewolf now. He is supposed to be more badass.

So my suggestion would be to give us a way to break it down with good templates.

I also would not worry about the "galactus" scenario of it being boring being godlike if the players want that power level. Even an ancient green dragon cleric of tiamat has to deal with pesky epic adventurers that want it's epic horde, powerful good dragons, the emporer's epic wizard and army, and other issues that would make a compelling story in addition to lair and follower management and dragon politics.

 

[Asatru]

Having it be an addition module would be a great idea. I hope that they include Undead creatures in it though because I had fun playing as them and you could create an entire back story as to how you became that way and if you were trying to become Un-Undead.

 

[Stalker0]

4e got this right imo.

Monsters at their core are made for fighting, not for playing. It is hard enough to balance monsters to fight a wide array of pcs, it is nearly impossible to do so and balance them as playable characters.

Now, I'm all for a book that provides rules and guidelines to create playable monsters, but out of the gate.....keep the monsters in their manual and out of the PHB

 

[Transformer]

4e got this right imo.

Monsters at their core are made for fighting, not for playing. It is hard enough to balance monsters to fight a wide array of pcs, it is nearly impossible to do so and balance them as playable characters.

Now, I'm all for a book that provides rules and guidelines to create playable monsters, but out of the gate.....keep the monsters in their manual and out of the PHB

Yeah, the basic fact of the matter is, the standard monster creation rules have got to follow 4th edition's lead over 3rd's. This is one of the few areas where I would dare to say that 4th edition's way is simply objectively better. Having to build high level monstrous NPCs by giving them class levels was insanely time consuming and finnicky. The sheer amount of weight lifted off the DM's shoulders by 4th edition's "monsters are designed like monsters in a simple and straightforward and quick system" justifies that route all by itself. We can't go back.

Now, a book with a new system for player character dragons and ogres and djinns and oozes and awakened pieces of furniture: obviously a great idea. Making the PC version of oozes and the monster version of oozes reasonably consistent (so that, i.e., monstrous oozes can't consistently do something important that PC oozes can't) is a design problem, but only a small one.

 

[GX.Sigma]

In 4.0, they simplified things a bit. Classes were now templates to the monster. Unfortunately, because of the intentional abstract nature of the creation and monster roles, it made it harder to build true canon monster characters. No, in 4e you can not be a dragon (easily).

Really? I would have thought it would be easier in 4e than ever, because of its rules to level up (or down) monsters, and come up with stats based on level and role. It won't have a PC class, but it'll be a dragon with appropriate stats to the party's level.

In 5e, it'll be even easier--monsters have stats by level, and you can add PC class levels on top of that. So you have a dragon, which is a level 10 monster, and then you can have it gain levels and advance as a Sorcerer (or whatever).

the vampire in the Heroes of Shadow supplement...come on. Something like vapirism is aquired. It should be a template.

You could take it as a feat.

A multiclass feat.

 

[KidSnide]

4e got this right imo.

Monsters at their core are made for fighting, not for playing. It is hard enough to balance monsters to fight a wide array of pcs, it is nearly impossible to do so and balance them as playable characters.

Now, I'm all for a book that provides rules and guidelines to create playable monsters, but out of the gate.....keep the monsters in their manual and out of the PHB

Damn straight. Monster PCs are a fun way to kit bash the system, but monsters have to serve as NPC combat fodder first.

Rules for allowing balanced (or arguably balanced) PC monsters has to be a secondary consideration. Even 3.x took years before it provided that particular functionality.

-KS

 

[The Shadow]

So you have a dragon, which is a level 10 monster, and then you can have it gain levels and advance as a Sorcerer (or whatever).

Which raises the interesting question: The dragon sorcerer presumably doesn't get draconic bloodline powers, since it's *already* a dragon. What does it get instead?