Leveling up Monsters

[Endur]

For 5e, should monsters be leveled up through adding class levels, through an advancement process (such as Monster Manual advancement adding abilities per additional hit dice), or something like AD&D advancement (Fire Giant King has combat ability of a cloud giant, orc leader has maximum hit points, etc.).

 

[jodyjohnson]

What you have are:

1. Hit Dice based advancement (present in 1e, 2e, 3.x, 4e)

2. Class based advancement (present in 1e, 2e, 3.x)

3. Re-skinning (1e, and encouraged in 4e)

I'll continue to do all 3 without regard to the standard method of 5e. But, I believe they already mentioned having both 1 & 2.

 

[delericho]

4e got monster advancement right.

In fact, the only real way it went wrong was that they never quite got around to providing the 'toolkit' book, giving the bare-bones stats for monsters of the various roles at levels 1 - 35, plus a big set of powers that could be added. The Monster Builder effectively provides this, but it would have been good to have it in book form. (Then again, I imagine making it too easy rips the heart out of the market for new Monster Manuals, so...)

 

[Mattachine]

4e has class-based "advancement", too, by adding class templates.

 

[avin]

Monster creation should be easy as in 4E, period.

Adding class levels to a creature is something that must also be suported, but not the default.

 

[Sunseeker]

Monster creation should be easy as in 4E, period.

Adding class levels to a creature is something that must also be suported, but not the default.

This, basically. Monsters should be monsters, intelligent monsters may have classes, but shouldn't be the default.

 

[howandwhy99]

For 5e, should monsters be leveled up through adding class levels, through an advancement process (such as Monster Manual advancement adding abilities per additional hit dice), or something like AD&D advancement (Fire Giant King has combat ability of a cloud giant, orc leader has maximum hit points, etc.).

Yes to all?

The possibility of Class levels and Class level advancement were far more about racial alignment and intelligence scores. Racial abilities also cemented the possibilities available (like having opposable thumbs). Classes were all of human origin too, so non-human classes and class levels were not represented in this manner. Humanoid 5th level fighters, let's say bugbears, were uniquely qualified for the class because of their race.

Racial advancement for non-human classes was not based on class as I currently understand it. There may not have been any at all, but racial abilities grown into through maturity did fit into certain cultural aspects rather than physiological. Elves learned long swords and longbows as a people. It wasn't a unique trait bodily born into (although they do qualify for such because of their bodies).

Variance within a race is important too. Not everyone need be a 17 strength just because they share the same race. If they were, then we need to drill down into 17 to get a greater variance, even if the scope of play shrinks as well.

 

[RangerWickett]

Basically, I love 4e monster design. However, it's important to "get it right" in two ways.

1. Make sure the math works. High level monsters are pushovers in 4e even after a lot of retooling.

2. Tie the numbers to some narrative reality. Okay, you want an orc warlord to challenge your 10th level party, so he oughta have X HP, Y AC, and do Zd10+Q damage. Why?

Don't just slather on HP to humanoids like you've got a trowel of meat. Make a HP mean something other than just "you have to stab him more times" (while also making it so you do have to stab a huge dragon more times).

Don't just boost defenses "because he's higher level." Either provide a list of templates in a sidebar, or make it so AC doesn't have to scale so fast, so it's okay to have an orc warlord with AC 10. If you go the first option, have the sidebar include three columns: AC, lightly armored, heavily armored.

For AC 15, maybe the Light entry reads "unarmored agile enemy, mage with magical shield, or leather armor and shield." Heavy reads "chainmail, hastily-donned plate, or bear hide."

AC 25 for Light might read "supremely agile enemy in enchanted mithril chain, mage who flickers out of existence to dodge attacks, or masterful swordsman who parries and deflects attacks with unparalleled skill." Heavy might read "enchanted plate and shield, armor crafted from the scales of a draconic demigod, skin transmuted to adamantine."

 

[Hassassin]

Monster creation should be supported both via HD/class levels and through a simple 4e-like process. For leveling them up, I would also like to have simple templates like seen in PF and I think 4e (can't remember what 4e templates were like, exactly).

 

[UngeheuerLich]

I´d like no advancement rules in general. Maybe adding class levels for humanoids. I like stereotype monsters. An orc is usually an orc. Actually in this case I´d like to have race based restrictions. Maybe not that granular. But you should be able to say: it is an Orc, they won´t ever make it better than 3rd level wizard. But their shamans may be quite tough. 10th level or so.