D&D 5E Monsters taking PC classes: I want it in Next.

[FireLance]

A troll that takes 1 level in wizard should not be considered 1 level more difficult of a challenge. Any magic he's popping off pales next to his claws and regeneration.

Actually, I expect that adding class levels to monsters in 5e will involve the multiclassing rules. Whatever ensures that a 6th-level fighter will get some benefit for taking one level of wizard would also ensure that a troll will get some benefit for doing the same.

 

[Hussar]

If it was honestly that easy in 3e to advance creatures, why couldn't the professionals get it right? I mean, the errata for modules from any publisher, WOTC or otherwise, was pretty lengthy and it was very common for there to be mistakes in any advanced creature. I have no idea if this continues in Pathfinder, but it wouldn't surprise me if it did.

So, what's the point of having these highly detailed, intricate mechanics that even people who do this for a living can't get right?

 

[Li Shenron]

Ahem. To advance a creature's CR you potentially need to take these steps:
1. Check its type to determine how many hit dice it should gain for each "level-up"
2. Advance ability scores based on hit dice
3. Advance size and resulting strength/dex/con modifiers, natural AC, and attack/defense modifiers
4. Advance base damage die of all the creature's natural attacks and calculate attack and damage values for primary vs. secondary natural attacks
5. Add feats
6. Recalculate BAB, AC, touch AC, flat-footed AC, grapple bonus, HP, fortitude, reflex, will, SR, DR, caster level, save DC of spells and spell-like abilities, and all skill bonuses based on hit dice, creature type, size, ability score values, armor worn, and any feats.

In 4e, to advance a creature's level this is reduced to the following:
1. Pick an arbitrary level you wish to advance the creature to.
2. Check the NPC advancement table for the new HP, AC-attack, NAD-attack, and fort/ref/will modifiers.
3. Advance damage of the creature's attacks, also based on the table.
4. Optionally, advance the size. All this changes is melee reach and area.
5. Optionally, pick new arbitrary values for initiative and any ability scores or skill bonuses.
6. Optionally, if you're advancing a creature a full tier, you might want to give it another arbitrary ability for each tier (paragon, epic). This isn't any more difficult than picking a feat or two.

Sorry but I'll take [URL=http://www.enworld.org/forum/usertag.php?do=list&action=hash&hash=2]#2 [/URL] any day.

I am totally uninterested in advancing monsters this way. I just don't care for bigger ogres or bigger whatever, so either way these rules above for me are mostly a wasted effort.

The only time when I wanted some straight larger specimen for monsters, were the occasional ultra-giant vermin or dragon, both types of which had a range of size adequately covered in the first MM.

But generally speaking I find scaled-up versions of monsters just boring and not worth my campaign preparation time. When the main purpose of this is dial the CR of an encounter, I can just go straight to picking a higher CR monster of a similar type (e.g. a hill giant instead of an advanced ogre).

OTOH I want to be able to add class levels on monsters, at least humanoids. This allows me to do interesting things, for example:

1- design a hierarchy (vertically diverse) of monsters of the same type: maybe an adventure against a tribe of Orcs where the guards at the entrance of their lairs are 2nd level, the elite guards inside are 4th level, and the boss is 6th level, but they are all Orcs with some shared core abilities

2- design a band (horizontally diverse) of monsters of the same type: maybe an evil adventuring group of Drow that mirrors the good party of PC, each of them being a different class but they are all Drow and again share some abilities

3- mix'n'match the racial abilities of a monster with the features of a class, to make for some diverse challenge: maybe you want to see how does a barbarian ogre or a wizard illithid works against the PCs (or even a barbarian illithid and a wizard ogre, if you're into kinky stuff)

4- allow the monster to be played as a PC (although this is personally very low on my own priority list...)

This has much, much higher priority in my games, because they help me build adventures and campaigns more, and keep the encounters diversified.

Where eventually the problem lies is that:

a) it takes a long time to design an NPC from scratch, especially at high levels

b) it doesn't work well when the base monster already has a high CR

There is no perfect solution for problem a) if you want to do the NPC exactly like a PC. But the point is that you don't have to do that... and the people who usually complain that 3e is too slow are the same people that claim that NPC absolutely need not be the same as PC. So just don't do that, just ignore anything that isn't related to combat (unless you also plan to use the NPC for something else), if you pretend to assign 30 different spells because technically the illithid wizard is entitled to, it's your fault. Unfortunately, the 3e books didn't really help gamers realize that, and kind of made it seem like they necessarily had to conform to full and detailed design. Something extra that can help is class advancement tables in the PHB (otherwise you have to add levels one by one, are you kiddding?) and sample humanoids with levels in the MM (obviously iconic, e.g. hobgoblin fighters at a few different levels, certainly no need for hobgoblin paladins and druids).

And for problem b) I think I'm going to re-state what I previously wrote in this thread: maybe it would be worth investigating a mechanic for swapping "monsters levels" with class levels so that if you had a base frost giant with 6HD, class levels would not be added on top of that but would replace racial HD on a 1-by-1 basis until level 6, and then continue adding class levels normally.

 

[GreyICE]

But generally speaking I find scaled-up versions of monsters just boring and not worth my campaign preparation time. When the main purpose of this is dial the CR of an encounter, I can just go straight to picking a higher CR monster of a similar type (e.g. a hill giant instead of an advanced ogre).

1- design a hierarchy (vertically diverse) of monsters of the same type: maybe an adventure against a tribe of Orcs where the guards at the entrance of their lairs are 2nd level, the elite guards inside are 4th level, and the boss is 6th level, but they are all Orcs with some shared core abilities

So lemme get this straight. You find scaled up monsters boring. But you want a scale of orcs from the basic level 2s to the elite level 4s to the boss at level 6, all of which share core abilities, but also gain new capacities as they're scaled up?

What?

 

[Li Shenron]

So lemme get this straight. You find scaled up monsters boring. But you want a scale of orcs from the basic level 2s to the elite level 4s to the boss at level 6, all of which share core abilities, but also gain new capacities as they're scaled up?

What?

I meant "scaled monsters" = a monster that has more or less only inflated numbers, which is the case in 3ed rules when you advance a monster just by increasing its number of hit dice and consequently its HP, ability scores, BAB, ST, DC of its special abilities... (the exception being feats, where at least you can pick different ones).

Instead, in the case of the orcs example, I wouldn't call them simply "scaled", because by adding class levels I am adding actual additional abilities. Maybe I choose to just add fighter levels (that's clearly the least interesting case) but maybe instead I add barbarian levels to the guards, rogue levels to the elite guards and ranger levels to the boss. There's truly a lot more variety.

The comparison is based on my 3e experience. In 4e it might be completely different if you advance monster always by picking additional abilities, and even more if the pool to choose from is the same as for PC (but I have no idea...).

 

[GreyICE]

4E gives you baseline scores for damage and hit on abilities, and guidelines for what you should have, numerically (2 for minions, 4 for standards, 6 for elites, 8 for solos, +1 per tier, +1 for Leader).

What you choose to slap on the monster is entirely your own affair. So if you wanted to make the front gate one berserker flavored, you give them a rage. If you want to make the elite guards rogues you give them stealth and build them as skirmishers or lurkers (I might even reskin a different skirmisher/lurker for them). For the boss, well, he's an elite, and you want a ranger flavor, so give him lots of bow abilities, some area control with an arrow storm, a beast companion, and since he's a leader, toss in something to order the guards forward (maybe let another orc make an MBA as a minor action, 4/5/6 refresh?).

 

[Steely_Dan]

I want rules to implement monsters as PCs, no matter how crazy (Savage Species had the right idea, but didn't quite deliver).

 

[GreyICE]

Yeah, it can go in the "Broken Things" module of stuff that's a really bad idea if you care about balance in any way, along with Shapeshift, the Deck of Many Things, Gate, Planar Shepherds, Brutal Barrage, etc.

 

[Steely_Dan]

Yeah, it can go in the "Broken Things" module of stuff that's a really bad idea if you care about balance in any way,

Not really, more like the killer idea, but implementation didn't quite deliver.

The word "balance" (that and the word "broken") in D&D is starting to sound sillier and sillier every day.

 

[CM]

Not really, more like the killer idea, but implementation didn't quite deliver.

The word "balance" (that and the word "broken") in D&D is starting to sound sillier and sillier every day.

I expect, no--demand--that the core of the game be filled with character options which the DM can assume will not break the game if they aren't carefully monitored. There is a place for experimental options. Dragon magazine always was (and continues to be) one, Unearthed Arcana (both versions) was another.

Maybe 4e has spoiled me, but if I have to carefully vet every new option in every new book in 5e, I'm out.

 

[slobo777]

I expect, no--demand--that the core of the game be filled with character options which the DM can assume will not break the game if they aren't carefully monitored. There is a place for experimental options. Dragon magazine always was (and continues to be) one, Unearthed Arcana (both versions) was another.

Me too - except:

Maybe 4e has spoiled me, but if I have to carefully vet every new option in every new book in 5e, I'm out.

. . . I think that's one of the things we've signed up to in the play test - at the very least you'll have enough information to make an informed decision on how much of 5E works for you. If you are only vetting out 1% of stuff it's probably OK. If it's more like 10%, then that starts to look like a chore.

 

[Saagael]

I expect, no--demand--that the core of the game be filled with character options which the DM can assume will not break the game if they aren't carefully monitored. There is a place for experimental options. Dragon magazine always was (and continues to be) one, Unearthed Arcana (both versions) was another.

Maybe 4e has spoiled me, but if I have to carefully vet every new option in every new book in 5e, I'm out.

Would love to XP you for this but I must spread it around. For now you'll have to make do with virtual kudos for a well-stated idea, I hope that's okay.

 

[Derren]

I expect, no--demand--that the core of the game be filled with character options which the DM can assume will not break the game if they aren't carefully monitored. There is a place for experimental options. Dragon magazine always was (and continues to be) one, Unearthed Arcana (both versions) was another.

Maybe 4e has spoiled me, but if I have to carefully vet every new option in every new book in 5e, I'm out.

Everything can "break the game" when you give the players enough freedom. So either you restrict the freedom of your players heavily, turning 5E even more into a board game than an RPG, or accept that there will be no perfect balance.

Even more, you can only "break" the game when you have a very specific vision of how the game should be played (most often tactical combat dungeon crawling) and allow no deviation from it (either because of preference or lack of rules).
As soon as you expand the scope of the game it is much more difficult to "break" as it consists of more than just one activity.

 

[mlund]

3.X/Pathfinder monster design is definitely its weakest point. Bolt-on-PC levels might be great for creating DMPC monsters and PC-style BBEG characters that need to overload an encounter or have resources to last for a days-worth of activities like a PC. They were rubbish for everything else. The overwhelming number of monsters have a life-expectancy of 1 scene. The overwhelming number of Class customizations were bolted on Sorcerer or Fighter levels for extra spells or feats.

Heck, even the stat-block and attacks profile of classic Dragons were a complete joke in terms of customizing an encounter at middle and higher levels. What really mattered was the text wall of sorcerer spells appended to the end. The rest was just a static platform of HP, AC, SR, and a cookie-cutter breath weapon just to deliver those spells. Even monsters fell victim to the Quadratic Wizard Trap in 3.X/Pathfinder.

- Marty Lund

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

Everything can "break the game" when you give the players enough freedom. [...] Even more, you can only "break" the game when you have a very specific vision of how the game should be played (most often tactical combat dungeon crawling) and allow no deviation from it (either because of preference or lack of rules).

I don't believe that either of these things is true.

 

[Derren]

I don't believe that either of these things is true.

And why is that?

Lets take a simple decanter of endless water.
If you run a boardgame style "tactical combat" dungeon crawler, it only serves as a explanation why the PCs don't die of thirst in a dungeon. Other than that it doesn't affect the game at all. Balanced, right?
But if you allow your players more freedom in how they interact with the world they might get the idea to get several of them, build a small to medium dam, fill it over a day or two and then release the water to flood the Dungeon instead.
Now this seemingly harmless item has "broken" the game.

At least it has that when the entire point of the game was the PCs having tactical combat in that dungeon. But if you expand the scope of the game to the characters interacting with the world however they want, being combat or not, it suddenly doesn't hurt the game at all that instead of doing tactical combats the PCs flooded the dungeon.

 

[GreyICE]

The larger the scope the MORE broken things have the ability to get, due to how much less contained things are. PunPun wouldn't work if he couldn't call down deities to ambush their power levels, after all.

I do really think there should be a handbook of weird, wacky, and broken stuff. People seem to want it. So let them have it. Monster levels! Ubermensch prestige classes! Magic Items from mars! Arrows that open up rifts to the Astral Sea! Spells that can rip the fabric of reality! Rules for martial arts like Exalted! Handbooks that really break the entire framework of the game into little shards.

Just don't insist your favorite broken idea belongs in the core game. Monster PCs will always be broken. In 3E they nerfed them so hard it wasn't even funny (95% of all monster PCs were terrible) and they STILL made broken combinations. Screw making them terrible! Let people take monsters as PCs and level as normal (with the multiclassing rules they're talking about it would work really well). Just accept that it will break things, and put it in a module where the DM knows 'here there be dragons, open at your own risk.'

AND LABEL IT AS SUCH

 

[nogray]

Now this seemingly harmless item has "broken" the game.

Nah. The game was broken by a lazy, unskilled DM (who is also potentially ignorant with respect to the magnitude of the proposed task, as well as dungeon design) that decided to have lazy, unresponsive, inactive dungeon residents who let a party perform a major construction project (a dam or other containment "pen" large enough to hold water volume similar to the dungeon and something to channel the flow of said water, all quite close to the dungeon entrance), fill said reservoir, and release it, all without molestation.

The game's tactical focus, if any, has little to do with it.

While I am not [MENTION=23094]Patryn of Elvenshae[/MENTION], I can see where his (or her?) argument comes from. I don't honestly believe "anything" can break the game. +1 sword? I can't see how that can break a game. Decanter? Perhaps in a world-building sense (as in: every city in the desert should have one or more, and the presence of one could let a small settlement spring up in a desert pretty much anywhere), but not in an "overcoming challenges" sense (unless acquisition of water was the challenge, but by the time you have 9k to "spend" on a decanter, that's likely a trivial challenge). Heck, most magic items are in the same category.

Contrariwise, there are things that can break a game regardless of the intended vision or lack of such.

[sblock="Aside:"]Well, I suppose the caveat applies that I automatically think of the basic premise -- a team of adventurers that, roughly speaking, work together to do things generally too dangerous for commoners to attempt -- should be held up as an inviolable vision. Note that doesn't imply heroics. The adventurers may be black-hearted mercenaries, or they may be heroes of destiny, or even aspiring tyrants. The important bit is, essentially, "go on adventures" as opposed to "run a village smithy (or similar business)." The "team" bit is pretty important, too, though I have played and DMed solo PCs.[/sblock]Unless you are emulating the Ars Magica meme, a lot of high level magic (and even some mid-level stuff) can "break" the game.

Similarly, presenting two options as "balanced" or "equivalent" when they aren't can break the game if fairness is any small part of your vision for the game. (Example -- though some will disagree with it -- The 3.x fighter is simultaneously handicapped in out-of-combat utility and underperforming in most high-level combats. The wizard or druid, on the other hand, have markedly more out-of-combat utility, in-combat power, and easy flexibility to change focus.)

Anyhow, I agree with you that broader focus of activities can make the game harder to break, but disagree with some of the specifics of both statements given by your quote, below.

Everything can "break the game" when you give the players enough freedom.

[and]

Even more, you can only "break" the game when you have a very specific vision of how the game should be played

 

[Paraxis]

4E has this right. Monsters should be monsters, if you want to represent a spellcasting monster give it a couple magical powers, thats it. Make sure all powers (in this case spells) are described in the monster's stat block. I hate having to look through multiple books or pages to run a monster EVERYTHING I need to know to run that monster should be in it's stat block.

Monsters are killed in a few rounds, I don't want to spend an hour or more making one, or spend a lot of time deciding what it is going to do on it's turn. All this is going to do is make DMing be more work and make combats take longer.

Ohh and 4E has rules for giving monsters class levels it has been in since the first DMG.

 

[pemerton]

Everything can "break the game" when you give the players enough freedom.

<snip>

Even more, you can only "break" the game when you have a very specific vision of how the game should be played

if you expand the scope of the game to the characters interacting with the world however they want, being combat or not, it suddenly doesn't hurt the game at all that instead of doing tactical combats the PCs flooded the dungeon.

Even if the aim of the game is "world exploration" - and that's only one fairly narrow approach to RPGing - it is still possible for items to break the game. For example, a ring of wishes at will will probably break a world exploration game, turning it instead into a world creation game.

But the idea that mechanics and game elements can't break a game unless it is aimed at tactical combat is without foundation. For example, any indie-style narrativist game - where the idea is that players will tackle full-on the scenes that the GM frames to push their PCs - will break if the players have abilities that let them side-step rather than engage the scenes.