Classed Monsters in the Monster Manual

[Minigiant]

How do you feel about having monster entries in the Monster Manual with PC class features?

What got me on this topic was the hobgoblin. Depending on how militaristic and disciplined the DM makes them, the DM could make them have straight fighter class features. A hobgoblin monster entry with 1d6 expertise dice, deadly strike and parry.

Now I expect to see rules and guidelines to add class features to monsters. But I wonder if there could be classed monster entries straight in the monster manual.

My preference would be yes to classed monsters. I wouldn't want it to be forced. There would be no need to force every humanoid to have at least one classed representative. When the generic D&D fluff of a monster matches well with a class like a high elf wizard, a classed entry could be made.

What do you think?

 

[slobster]

Like you said, I wouldn't want there to be classed versions of every humanoid monster just to tick the boxes and fill pages. Especially since adding class abilities is something that should be relatively simple to do yourself. Classy monsters in the MM should be there as examples of how to execute the process, enough to be illustrative and let GMs make more examples as suits their needs.

I'd also like it if the process weren't exactly the same as it is for adding levels to a PC, at least not necessarily. PC progression is designed differently from monster progressions. We see that with higher initial numbers for PCs to hit, for AC, and so on, and presumably these numbers continue to be different over the course of advancement. Thus I'd like to see options for giving monsters fighter CS die, or wizard spells, without necessarily having to chose backgrounds or advance hp at the same rate etc. Monster classes (behind the curtain, this is detail that players never need to know) share similarities with PC class levels, but shouldn't be slavishly identical out of nothing more than a misplaced sense of symmetry.

 

[RangerWickett]

Design monsters and foes for the GM to use. They don't need to have exact player classes. That said, if you're going to make a "sample hobgoblin warband," it makes sense for the hobgoblin spellcaster to at least feel similar to a human wizard, even if he isn't as complicated.

 

[Zaukrie]

I see no advantage to using classes for monsters. Just make them useful and sometimes interesting for GMs to use.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

Depends on how well and often it is used (PC abilities tend to be more ... fidlly? ... then well-written monster abilities, IME), but sure, why not?

 

[AntiStateQuixote]

I like how 4e handled this: add a "class template" to the monster by adding a power or two, trait or two, bump HP, and call the monster elite.

A similar approach for D&DNext could be to pick the defining traits/abilities of the classes, streamline them, and show how to add to monsters.

The example in OP is perfect for one version of fighter.

For wizard: give the monster an at-will minor spell and one or two daily spells. Done!

The author leaves the other classes for the reader to work out as a personal exercise.

 

[Scribble]

I'm not really a fan of monsters built the same way PCs are, so having classes layered on top seems needlessly limiting in my opinion.

I agree with RangerWickett- make monster serving a similar role feel similar, but no need to use the same rules.

 

[CleverNickName]

I don't want to use them all the time, but it would be nice to have the option. If I want to give a Minotaur a few levels of Barbarian, for example, I would like some elegant and simple rules for doing that.

A good set of rules for giving PC levels to monsters, along with a handful of examples, would be ideal.

 

[Yora]

Don't make something different for the sole reason that you want it to be different. When it fits and makes perfect sense, there is no problem with having something appear in two or more different places.
Making a good rule worse and adding a new name to remember only so you can say "it's not the same" is a very, very bad thing.

 

[slobster]

Depends on how well and often it is used (PC abilities tend to be more ... fidlly? ... then well-written monster abilities, IME), but sure, why not?

This too. Adding class abilities onto monsters should be an option, but not the only way to advance monsters. Some Hobgoblin warmasters have fighter abilities to represent their badassitude, some have more hp and a few special maneuvers that aren't on any class list. It's situational, and you should have both options.