D&D 5E monsters with feat and class abilities

[CapnZapp]

Are you saying you want a new book? Obviously you are not going to get them in the MM as it has already been published. At least a few people have already done this type of work and offered it for free on various forums or on the DM's guild. So there are "books' available for exactly what you want. Or do you think it has to be published be WotC?

It seems to me, from your many threads on this subject, that you feel WotC owes such a book (more challenging monsters/NPCs) to the community. And you want to get support for this idea from the community, possible to put pressure on WotC to make such a book. I think that is an admirable idea, but I just don't think WotC or the community in general is on board with it. I could be wrong, but it seems that WotC stance is to left the community itself cater to needs like yours (and others), and the community in general seems fine with that approach. Then again, maybe they would snap up a republished MM with 2x the pages and feat wielding variants of many of the monsters.

Nah, you're overthinking this.

 

[CapnZapp]

Okay, fine. I think they're good. They're a good idea. I praised the concept when Paizo did it for the Monster Codex. I praised the little custom monsters in the Starer Set. I've considered doing a book of them myself.
Variant monster powers and generic monster traits are a good.


That's nice. And my standard response is I want a rainbow pony that poops diamonds.

Dude, this week alone you've asked WotC to fix resting/ the 5 minute workday, magic item crafting and downtime, and now monster themes.

I got one acknowledgement and two snides. Still, beggars can't be choosers. I'll take it

 

[CapnZapp]

Okay so let's quote - verbatim - from Storm King's Thunder, an official adventure supplement straight from WotC:

The characters encounter a knight of
the order mounted on a warhorse clad in chain mail
barding (AC 16).

Sir Jordeth Tavilson (LN male Illuskan knight of Tyr),
a believer in swift justice, has a gash in his armor and
a broken lute strapped to his back. The lute belonged to
his squire, who perished in a recent battle against two
frost giants.Jordeth managed to kill one giant, but the
other got away. He wants justice and asks the characters
to join him on his quest to slay the wounded giant.

Okay, so Sir Jordeth is conclusively not merely a knight, he is specifically a knight. And he is specifically mentioned as fighting two Frost Giants to a qualified win (killing one giant, making the other flee, but losing his squire).

A Knight has 52 HP, AC 18 and a +2 AC version of Parry (spend reaction to get +2 AC against one melee attack). It can either make two Greatsword attacks at +5 for 10 (2d6+3) damage, or one Heavy Crossbow attack at +2 for 5 (1d10) damage. He's a CR 3 creature.

A Frost Giant has, wait for it, 138 HP. Its AC is 15. It can either make two Greataxe attacks at +9 for 25 (3d12+6) damage, or one Rock ranged attack at +9 for 28 (4d10+6) damage. He's a CR 8 creature.

Now, if we simplify the battle to one on one, no range, no horses, we see that the Knight hits the Giant on rolling a 10, so that's 2x10x55%=11 damage per round, which means it'll take a Knight 138/11 or more than 12 rounds on average to kill the Giant.

Reversely, the Giant hits the Knight on rolling a 9, so that's 2x25x60%=30 damage per round, which means it'll take a Giant two rounds to kill a Knight.

Apologies for drawing out the obvious conclusion, but clearly, the Knight is entirely the wrong stat block for representing somebody claiming to have survived two Frost Giants (even if we charitably say he faced them one at a time).

The characters might never face this Knight Knight in combat. But as soon as they fight alongside him (the story does say Sir Jordeth asks the party to hunt down the remaining Frost Giant) they will immediately go WTF - how could he have defeated pretty much anything, let alone something as fearsome as a Frost Giant!

My point here isn't to bitch about how improbable this is - my point is that it would have been trivial to represent this particular Knight with something other than the Knight stat block.

Take the Champion (from Volo's) as an illustrative example.

A Champion has 143 HP and AC 18. It makes three attacks each round, either Greatsword at +9 for 12 (2d6+5) damage or Light Crossbow at +6 for 6 (1d8+2) damage. So far, the hit points look more in line with the mission, but nothing else is that much better. For a level 9 fighter, I guess 3x12 damage is okay, but the Champion has 22(!) hit dice to pull off even these not-really-stellar numbers.

But this NPC got a funky "class ability" I'm sure many players would love to learn - as long as the Champion has more than half its hp remaining, it deals another 7 (2d6) damage on each attack.

Now suddenly it doesn't look all that far-fetched to believe Sir Jordeth's tall tale.

A Champion Knight hits the Giant on rolling a 6, so that's 3x19x75%=43 damage per round (at first). This kills off a Giant in just over three rounds.

While the Giant still hits the Knight on rolling a 9 for 30 damage per round, so it needs almost five rounds to down the Knight.

The numbers still indicate Sir Jordeth had a large dose of luck, but then again, we didn't include the warhorse or the squire in the math. And we weren't there . Perhaps the first giant targeted was the one to flee as soon as Sir Jordeth managed to put the hurt to it? Perhaps the second one didn't arrive for a crucial few rounds, and then wasted most of its efforts on killing the poor squire and/or missing a lot.

Anyway, the details of the math doesn't matter. What matters is that the Knight is entirely implausible while the Champion is perfectly credible or close enough that I won't make a fuss about it.

---

So why then insist on putting Knights out there? "They're lazy" or "they can only use NPCs from the MM" are inadequate answers.

I guess my real point here is that WotC wants to both eat and keep the cake.

But they can't both put the focus on player characters (by having every NPC be an insignificant low-level wimp) and still portray NPCs as men that eat Frost Giants for lunch.

Either stop saying NPCs can do these things, or give them the stats they need to back up their claims.

 

[Ancalagon]

Either stop saying NPCs can do these things, or give them the stats they need to back up their claims.

Well yes. But that path leads to Elminsterization, so be careful!

 

[Sacrosanct]

Okay so let's quote - verbatim - from Storm King's Thunder, an official adventure supplement straight from WotC:




Okay, so Sir Jordeth is conclusively not merely a knight, he is specifically a knight. And he is specifically mentioned as fighting two Frost Giants to a qualified win (killing one giant, making the other flee, but losing his squire).

A Knight has 52 HP, AC 18 and a +2 AC version of Parry (spend reaction to get +2 AC against one melee attack). It can either make two Greatsword attacks at +5 for 10 (2d6+3) damage, or one Heavy Crossbow attack at +2 for 5 (1d10) damage. He's a CR 3 creature.

A Frost Giant has, wait for it, 138 HP. Its AC is 15. It can either make two Greataxe attacks at +9 for 25 (3d12+6) damage, or one Rock ranged attack at +9 for 28 (4d10+6) damage. He's a CR 8 creature.

Now, if we simplify the battle to one on one, no range, no horses, we see that the Knight hits the Giant on rolling a 10, so that's 2x10x55%=11 damage per round, which means it'll take a Knight 138/11 or more than 12 rounds on average to kill the Giant.

Reversely, the Giant hits the Knight on rolling a 9, so that's 2x25x60%=30 damage per round, which means it'll take a Giant two rounds to kill a Knight.

Apologies for drawing out the obvious conclusion, but clearly, the Knight is entirely the wrong stat block for representing somebody claiming to have survived two Frost Giants (even if we charitably say he faced them one at a time).

The characters might never face this Knight Knight in combat. But as soon as they fight alongside him (the story does say Sir Jordeth asks the party to hunt down the remaining Frost Giant) they will immediately go WTF - how could he have defeated pretty much anything, let alone something as fearsome as a Frost Giant!

My point here isn't to bitch about how improbable this is - my point is that it would have been trivial to represent this particular Knight with something other than the Knight stat block.

Take the Champion (from Volo's) as an illustrative example.

A Champion has 143 HP and AC 18. It makes three attacks each round, either Greatsword at +9 for 12 (2d6+5) damage or Light Crossbow at +6 for 6 (1d8+2) damage. So far, the hit points look more in line with the mission, but nothing else is that much better. For a level 9 fighter, I guess 3x12 damage is okay, but the Champion has 22(!) hit dice to pull off even these not-really-stellar numbers.

But this NPC got a funky "class ability" I'm sure many players would love to learn - as long as the Champion has more than half its hp remaining, it deals another 7 (2d6) damage on each attack.

Now suddenly it doesn't look all that far-fetched to believe Sir Jordeth's tall tale.

A Champion Knight hits the Giant on rolling a 6, so that's 3x19x75%=43 damage per round (at first). This kills off a Giant in just over three rounds.

While the Giant still hits the Knight on rolling a 9 for 30 damage per round, so it needs almost five rounds to down the Knight.

The numbers still indicate Sir Jordeth had a large dose of luck, but then again, we didn't include the warhorse or the squire in the math. And we weren't there . Perhaps the first giant targeted was the one to flee as soon as Sir Jordeth managed to put the hurt to it? Perhaps the second one didn't arrive for a crucial few rounds, and then wasted most of its efforts on killing the poor squire and/or missing a lot.

Anyway, the details of the math doesn't matter. What matters is that the Knight is entirely implausible while the Champion is perfectly credible or close enough that I won't make a fuss about it.

---

So why then insist on putting Knights out there? "They're lazy" or "they can only use NPCs from the MM" are inadequate answers.

I guess my real point here is that WotC wants to both eat and keep the cake.

But they can't both put the focus on player characters (by having every NPC be an insignificant low-level wimp) and still portray NPCs as men that eat Frost Giants for lunch.

Either stop saying NPCs can do these things, or give them the stats they need to back up their claims.

I guess my response would be your response:

Nah, you're overthinking this.

Seriously though, all you know is that the knight and the squire fought two frost giants and one giant died and the squire died and the other giant was wounded. You have no idea what environment the battle took place in. I think once you get out of this mindset of all battles take place in a white room, you'd see how other things might be possible. Battles are not just one stat block against another. Not in any D&D game I've every played anyway. The environment, and preparation has been a huge factor in just about every single one. Maybe the knight ambushed the giants, using rolling logs, or whatever, to put the battle in his benefit.

To quote you again from earlier today:

Having more than one perspective might actually benefit you.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Is it just me, or does the world feel more belivable to you too when exceptional monsters gain similar awesome powers as player characters do?

I'm sure it's not just you, but 'more believable' can also mean 'less fantastic.' It helps for characters to have unique abilities, too, sometimes. And, a BBEG casting magic missile can be a tad anti-climactic.

I'm thinking WotC could do well in adding a couple of very easy templates to be applied to mainly humanoid monsters but also NPCs.

Sure, fine idea. Simpler than building a full character, more interesting and evocative than a bland monster block. Would be a great thing to have.

[sblock="It's been done before"]Of course, 3e had NPC classes, which were less potent than PC classes, and made NPCs slightly less involved to build - but only slightly. And all sorts of templates you could put on an NPC to make a monster or on a monster to make it a ...whatever, though, again, not a lot of savings in effort relative to a full PC build.
And, of course, while I'm sure no one wants to hear it, 4e did exactly the PC-class Template thing: take a standard monster, up it to Elite, add a feature, at-will, & encounter (or encounter as a recharge or daily as an encounter), and you have a quick 'NPC' usable as an enemy with that class. Or, for an allied NPC, there were the Companion character guidelines, which produced with a standard-monster-like stat block with a few abilities emblematic of the class in question, and able to handle it's role in a basic way to fill in a gap in the party without challenging the PCs for the spotlight.[/sblock]

Tldr - questing knights need the War Priest or Champion stat block (from Volo's) to -- all by itself -- credibly pull of victories even tier II heroes might struggle with.

Sure, CR isn't all its cracked up to be.

There are no feat-ish options presented as suitable for monsters.

Even the Parry thing Knights and such get isn't offered as a stand-alone "monster feat" or "NPC class feature". But it would be well suited as one.

True. I suppose it might be an extension of the fear that explicit choices stifle creativity, though applied to the DM. The DM can lift an ability from one monster and put it in another, or give a monster spells, or adapt a class feature to a monster block. That's a tremendous degree of freedom for customizing monsters, precisely because it's unstructured and un-guided. There could be a concern that to take a few such things out, and make them into 'monster feats,' would create an impression that monsters aren't supposed to have anything else available for customization?

 

[Jester David]

My point here isn't to bitch about how improbable this is - my point is that it would have been trivial to represent this particular Knight with something other than the Knight stat block.

I'm sure they would have preferred another statblock. Such as the gladiator with better armour.

But, they're limited by the options they have and couldn't devote pages in SKT for a single unimportant NPC. It's trivial for us, because we're not the ones looking at 280 pages of adventure and having to compress it down to 256 pages. We're not looking at the chapter that goes on half a column too long and needs to be edited to end with a complet d page. We're not the ones who need to alter text to acomodate a piece of art and make the page fit.

So why then insist on putting Knights out there? "They're lazy" or "they can only use NPCs from the MM" are inadequate answers.

Why is "they can only use the MM" inadequate? Was there another book they could use at the time? VGtM wouldn't be published for two more months. And, as shown by TFtYP, monsters from Volo's need to be reprinted.

How's "books have finite space?" for a reason?

I guess my real point here is that WotC wants to both eat and keep the cake.

But they can't both put the focus on player characters (by having every NPC be an insignificant low-level wimp) and still portray NPCs as men that eat Frost Giants for lunch.

Either stop saying NPCs can do these things, or give them the stats they need to back up their claims.

How dare WotC ask us to use our imagination in D&D!

I can't even count the number of video games I've played where a character does something amazing in a cut scene that they can't do when they join my party or in regular combat.
I don't have a problem believing a low level NPC could have gotten lucky...

 

[Ancalagon]

Well, finite space is a good argument, but how much room "... But with double hp and an extra attack" (for example) take? It's quite easy to buff a template.

I think that the real reason that they gave that knight mediocre stat is so he doesn't outshine the PCs. And that is probably a good thing! But then it can create false expectations.

Sent from my SM-G930W8 using EN World mobile app

 

[dave2008]

Nah, you're overthinking this.

I do that sometimes

 

[CapnZapp]

Well yes. But that path leads to Elminsterization, so be careful!

I think that the real reason that they gave that knight mediocre stat is so he doesn't outshine the PCs. And that is probably a good thing! But then it can create false expectations.

Thing is, NPCs are never at risk of outshining the PCs, not in 5th Edition.

Sure a Veteran NPC could boss around a couple of level 1 characters, and a Champion NPC owns any party still at third level or less.

But we have to judge the stat blocks in context. This NPC arrives sometime around when the PCs themselves can start picking off Frost Giants, so I see no upstage risk at all.

I appreciate how 5th edition so clearly (but not expressly, AFAIK) have scaled back the world and its NPCs. No longer is the tavern keep a "Fighter 12", for instance.

It's only when said tavern keep has a subdued Frost Giant out back doing yard duty, she really needs those levels...

There is a place for scaling back NPCs and putting the spotlight squarely on the PCs. What there isn't a place for, is giving NPCs that have a defined job stat blocks that can't handle that job.