Classed Monsters in the Monster Manual

[Scribble]

The advantage of going for a middle-ground approach is that those people who want to comb through books can, those who don't can just use book monsters or the simple templates to customize.

If they can do it that WOULD be awesome!

Which is a mixed blessing. It can certainly add some surprise to an encounter.
However, when every monster is unique and does something unique, all the powers blend together. Unless it's really interesting (or really sucks) it's seldom memorable.

Mystery powers work best when they can be applied to well known monsters, as a nasty add-on. When players know it's something special and aren't ready for it.

And sometimes it's nice to use standard powers. When you know how nasty a spell is, it's much more terrifying. And name spells don't need to be described. There's a lovely narrative ease to just saying "the wizard casts fireball."

See I don't agree here. I'm not a fan of it being special by virtue of it just not using standard rules. (In my experience that just ignites a 10 minute battle with the rules lawyers- Especially when its eating their characters spleen... ) I also don't agree that nothing can be memorable without "standard" monsters. My experience tells me otherwise.

What I DON'T want to return to is planning by rules approach... IE "Oh it's a fire creature so it will use fireball so if we apply x defense we'll be ok..." Or long drawn out arguments again with the rules lawyer about how X couldn't do Y...

Creatures built using their own rules in my experience tend to negate a large percentage of these types of issues. So I'm in favor of them.

But I'm also not trying to ruin anyone else's fun...So if they can find a way to do both? Awesome!

 

[Aenghus]

I prefer the 4e way of keeping npc/monster mechanics and stats separate from PC mechanics and stats. PCs can afford be a lot more complex than monsters/npcs as players typically only have one or two PCs to run whereas DMs have to run multiple monsters and npcs at the same time.

It makes sense for PCs to have mechanical depth and a variety of options and avoid player boredom - the degree of complexity is a matter of taste and there should be less complex and more complex PCs to suit different people.

Whereas IMO most monsters should be simple but distinctive in their mechanics. PC abilties aren't balanced for monster use, and adding them to monsters can produce undesirable results.

This is particularly the case with spells. Whatever about the 15 minute workday for PCs, npc spellcasters haven't had any rules in 3e- to restrict them novaing. NPC spellcasters used in a combat context are likely to die in that encounter and the DM knows this. They can nova a full suite of attack spells and be much more powerful than non-spellcasters in encounters (which is why killing the magic user was so important in pre-4e combat).

I would prefer spellcaster monsters and NPCs to have a smaller selection of spells and powers to PCs, this being easier on the GM's overworked brain, reducing the npc nova problem and IMO creating more distinctive monsters.

Exceptional NPCs and monsters can be given more detail, of course. But standard monsters shouldn't be saddled with PC weight mechanics - certainly I never intend to go back to doing things that way, I found it counter-productive.

 

[Lord Mhoram]

I've always felt the same. For me the fantasy world is and will always be an environment of its own, not built around the PCs. The gaming action is, but not the world.

So for me the idea of having the possibility to use the same rules for monsters as I use for PCs is very important.

Yeah - my rule of thumb - take two characters, both drow, twins. Do everything the same. Then one gets a helm of opposite alignment, decides to stay good, loses the helm and becomes a PC.
One is a "monster" one is a PC. They should be able to do exactly the same things and built the same way. If not, I tend not to play the system.

Similar things for other types of creatures that can be made PCs whether PC races or monster as races rules.

 

[The Shadow]

My take:

I don't mind using different rules for monsters whose only role is to show up once and then, most likely, die.

But I do want the option to build recurring NPC's with PC classes, because I'm going to get more use out of them that makes the extra work worthwhile.

And if for some crazy reason, a monster I'd intended as a throwaway gets 'promoted' to recurring status, I can always rebuild them.

 

[delericho]

It depends on how they structure their monsters, and more specifically on how DMs are supposed to advance them.

If, as was the case in 3e, humanoid monsters are generally advanced "by class", then it's a good idea for them to include "classed monsters" wherever it is appropriate to do so, provided this is done in addition to the 'base' version of the creature. Although 3e's Monster Manual 4 came in for a lot of criticism for including 'classed' monsters, I've found that it is one of my most-used monster books, precisely because of them.

However, if monsters are designed as in 4e, such that advancing humanoid monsters is more a matter of updating the spine of the monster, adding some new powers, and perhaps upgrading to Elite or Solo (but not a matter of adding classes), then they should not include "classed monsters" as such. Instead, they should do as 4e did, and provide multiple variants of the creature, showing several different roles and potentially at different power levels.

Oh, and incidentally: my preference is very definitely for 4e-style monster design. The 3e approach read really well, but it was pretty hellish whenever I needed half a dozen advanced/levelled monsters for use in a given session!