D&D 5E NPCs With Class Levels?

[Celebrim]

PC-style spellcasting is a pain to manage when it's the only thing you're focusing on

PC spellcasting is only a pain to manage when you manage NPC spell lists in the same manner that you'd manage a PC spell caster. Nothing prevents you from selecting one spell of each level to fill all the slots of that spellcaster. In practice, if you simplify spellcasting by giving the NPC some repeatable spell-like effects as attacks, that's very close to what you are doing.

But when we accept that monsters aren't PCs, we can have stat blocks that aren't filled with justifications for other things in the stat blocks. If bugbears are sneaky, awesome, include that. But I don't want to see their hit dice go up so they can justify a higher skill rating or every monster needing a bunch of skills because that's how many skills "the rules say they have."

Again, nothing forces you to fill out the skills of a monster. Moreover, most of the time the system works exactly like you say you want it to work. Bugbears are sneaky and awesome because they have a +4 racial bonus on Move Silently checks. Racial characteristics are a huge fudge factor that basically lets the designer break any rule he wants and do whatever he wants. Rarely do you need the HD to justify an attribute of a monster the way you almost always did in 1e (and would in any simplistic system).

But even more importantly, you are the DM. You are empowered to break the rules. Do you know when I first encountered the notion of a 'minion' monster? It was 1989, and I was reading the ground breaking module 'I3: Pyramid' by probably the finest module writer the game has ever known - Tracy Hickman. In that module, there is a series of encounter with a large number of desert dervishes. As was typical of the monster building rules of the time, Tracy stated up the 'desert dervish' as a 4HD monster under the subheading 'man' (where in the monster manual it could show up along side berserker, bandit, buccaneer, etc.). That made them powerful enemies capable of overcoming PC armor class and thus threatening foes. But he does something incredibly novel in the room containing the largest number of dervishes. Instead of rolling 4d8 to determine the hit points, if you look at the stat block you see something extraordinary - the hitpoints were determined by rolling a d10. By the rules, it's impossible for a 4HD creature to have 1, 2, or 3 hit points. But there they are; 4HD monsters with the hit points of 1st level fighters. At the time there was no way to do that. Now, we'd stat them as 1st level fighters with 16 strength, weapon focus, etc. Or more simply, just 1st level fighters with an additional unexplained +5 bonus to hit. Tracy just considered the problem - "I want a large number of easily killable foes that nonetheless have the means to threaten the PCs" - and created just what he wanted using the toolset where it suitd his purpose and doing his own thing where it didn't.

If Tracy can break the rules to get what he wants, so can you. Every rule for DM's is a guideline. It's not something you should be hidebound to.

What's need isn't fewer options. What is needed is clear discussion of where you end up when you want to just use a monster without worrying about justifying the components of the monster. If those feats go missing, what simple thing can you replace them with to obtain roughly the same level of prowess? Can you build into 'stock monster templates' a default series of generic feat adjustments (in 3e terms, weapon focus, toughness, improved initiatve, iron will, great fortitude, lightning reflexes etc.), so that you end up for a given HD and monster type at about the right level of power using just a simplified stat block? Can you assume average bonuses to AC, attack bonus, and damage without justifying them in detail? I don't see why not. All you need to do is describe them well. I can easily imagine having 200-300 generic stat blocks that let you grab a generic 12 HD abberation or undead or dragon and run it just by flipping open a book and describing the monster to your color. You could do that for 3e, and I think from what I've seen so far you could easily do that for 5e.

But while that would be a great resource, my point is that while you can go from advanced to basic by just ridding yourself of justifcations and trimming away unwanted details, it's not nearly as easy to go from basic monsters to advanced toolkit.

 

[frankthedm]

3ed monster creation process is so logical and robust (but then at the same tedious in all the details to remember and numbers to re-calculate)

Yeah, I can see describing it as logical in the programming sense. I got tired of the QBASIC flashbacks I had when typing up entries for my Advanced Monster thread.

 

[frankthedm]

Should NPCs Have Class Levels?

No, the Duke will be just fine attacking and rolling saving throws as 6 HD monster. If he is a celebrated combatant, just give him a bonus to hit and damage.

 

[Celebrim]

No, the Duke will be just fine attacking and rolling saving throws as 6 HD monster. If he is a celebrated combatant, just give him a bonus to hit and damage.

I would tend to argue that a 6HD humanoid fighter is a 'celebrated combatant' by default, and most systems expect that not only will 6 HD monsters that attack with weapons have a bonus to hit and damage (1e certainly did, consistantly noting such monsters effective strength in their description or else specifying a flat unjustified bonus), but modern systems will also expect him as a celebrated combatant to have 1-2 extraordinary abilities of some sort where by he shows off this prowess in a less abstract manner. Further, these assumptions will generally be built implicitly into the challenge system, so that if a 6HD monster lacks them or any of the other things expected to be part of the package, the estimation of challenge will be off because the PCs - having such bonuses - grow in power exponentially in a way that mere description of HD won't account for.

You can certainly elimenate the need for such expectations, but it probably means either that the Duke is expected to be 8HD (rather than 6) as a suitable challenge and that his damage will scale with HD in some fashion independently of the weapon he is colored as using, or else that the players are expected to lack such things advantages themselves.

 

[Alphastream]

I was never a big fan of class levels for monsters/NPCs. I would spend a lot of time on them, and yet the benefit to players was very low. This was true in 1E and 2E, but especially in 3E. I basically gave up on creating monsters for 3E. When I contributed to organized play I would go through a very common process where a 'story guy' (like me) was teamed up with a 'stats guy' (someone who could create monsters). While you could find men and women that liked both, in general an author was vehemently in one camp or the other. And yet, a person well-versed in monster creation (using feats, non-associated levels, etc.) was critical to challenging PCs. This seemed to turn a lot of people away from DMing 3E. I took about a year to just play 3E before I finally began DMing, and the greatest reason was that I wasn't confident running foes with spellcaster levels.

4E was far more approachable. Monsters (especially after MMIII) came with everything they needed and could be scaled up in level easily. Powers captured all types of abilities, making everything scalable and preventing at-the-table look-ups. In running tons of organized play tables/conventions, the difference was really pronounced. Far less page-turning, no need to have books at the table, far fewer arguments, volunteer DMs could run well, etc.

In other RPGs, I've enjoyed systems like Spycraft 2.0 (and even Shadowrun 4), where foes could be created rather quickly. Of course, all systems/editions have drawbacks and benefits, and style preferences often dictate what any one GM or player prefers.

I've so far liked what D&D Next has provided. It takes the feel of 2E (at times 3E) and brings in some of the simplicity of 4E. In many cases spells are turned into an abbreviated form, so we don't have to look up details. That's my preference. Every time a Next monster does force me to look up a spell, I gain very little from the process. I would rather see monsters be self-contained. I'm also fine with abstracting magic somewhat - I don't need an NPC wizard's lightning bolt to be the exact specifications as a PC wizard's, nor does a foe's tactical move need to be an actual feat. And I certainly don't want to read through all of the text on Magic Jar, the way I did when running 3E adventures. That really slows me down. Most importantly, I don't want to review a level 16 foe and have to spend hours reviewing a spell list. I wrote a little about monster design here, noting how difficult it can be to read older stat block formats.

 

[Kinak]

[MENTION=4937]Celebrim[/MENTION], I think we're talking past each other.

I'm 100% with you that I can make monsters as simple as I want. I throw out complicated statblocks and make simple replacements all the time.

I just want the published material to not require that sort of attention.

If a module asks the GM to run multiple NPCs at the same time, they need to be presented simply enough that GMs can handle that. And, similarly, if we go old school and have random encounters, the MM (or Bestiary) needs stat blocks that GMs can read and use on the fly.

Now, none of that has any impact on me homebrewing for my living room. But I'd like to be able to buy a monster book, open it up, and actually use the stats on the page. That doesn't seem like it should be too much to ask.

Cheers!
Kinak

 

[Obryn]

I'm feeling more favorable about Next after the last packet.

But the quickest way to lose me, personally, is to shoehorn PC classes (and class-like advancement) into monster creation. I've been completely spoiled by the results-based, effects-centric 4e monster design process. I up/down-level or create custom monsters routinely these days; it goes fast, and it's really fun.

Making monsters and NPCs by the book was one of the main things that caused me to burn out from 3.x, and that burn-out is still dead and dry.

A mix & match system ... I dunno, maybe? I'd rather just have a table of numbers, tweak them to get something that feels right, and then assign class-like abilities or spells as appropriate. If porting PC abilities on an ad-hoc basis (without the class/level overhead) is feasible for monsters in Next, I'll be pleased. I'd rather not deal with the basic assumption.

-O

 

[howandwhy99]

I would suggest classes are part of world building. Different cultures have different subclasses and most monsters don't have one at all.
NPC classes (remember basic and expert?) would be nice in the DMG as a counterpart to the Services Available section in the PHB.
Learning a class, any class, still takes time, though having a proficient trainer can really speed things up. That's usually for some kind of remuneration of course. But all PCs should have the default option to retain their Mentor/trainer as part of the starting campaign world. Then they know who they received their spells from. Where they might get more. Who might be willing to trade for weapons and armor. And so on. The Henchmen system isn't all that bad.

Anyways, so yeah Classes should be available to all monsters, but they still would need to meet the minimum requirements for each. This usually means stats 3 or better and a certain amount of mobility and "hands" to manipulate their environment. Each class is different of course, but it's always fun to see the players try and teach some strange creature how to swing a sword.

 

[Jester David]

I want to be able to design an orc fighter when I need an orc fighter without having to design a whole new monster from scratch.
I also want the orc fighter to feel like a fighter and not like a higher level orc.
I want the orc fighter to do what the fighter does and not have powers that make the actual fighter say "wow, that's cool, I wish I could do that."

But I also want to just be able to level up an orc and call it a blackfire orc that's five levels higher than a regular orc but otherwise still an orc. Or add a template (read: monster theme) onto it so it's a fiendish orc or aquatic orc with extra powers.

 

[Alphastream]

I want to be able to design an orc fighter when I need an orc fighter without having to design a whole new monster from scratch.
I also want the orc fighter to feel like a fighter and not like a higher level orc.
I want the orc fighter to do what the fighter does and not have powers that make the actual fighter say "wow, that's cool, I wish I could do that."

But I also want to just be able to level up an orc and call it a blackfire orc that's five levels higher than a regular orc but otherwise still an orc. Or add a template (read: monster theme) onto it so it's a fiendish orc or aquatic orc with extra powers.

It sounds like you want the 4E system, plus the 3E system. Is that more or less correct?

I think it is a good question whether there is a lighter way to achieve that.

The problem with the 3E system is that it takes tremendous time for a DM to make the creature. For the company, designers have to carefully balance everything. If we give a mind flayer the monk class, can it flurry with its tentacles and rip out a creature's brain in one round? (This issue was discussed for 3E). How strong is an orc with 2 levels of barbarian as compared to 2 levels of bard? How strong is it to give a tendriculous/gelatinous cube/etc. monk levels so it can use stunning fist and easily consume a creature? The other side is to really make a class (a level 5 wizard), but have it be a monster race. The 3E method was to require one or more levels in compensation (that creature of race x ends up being a level 2 wizard, because the race is considered to have 3 levels worth of power). All of this created pretty big balance issues.

We can abstract it, and create a package. 4E tried to do that with templates, creating a "class template" you would apply, making a normal monster an elite. It required a bit of math, but even that small amount was unpalatable for most, plus being an elite caused all sorts of encounter construction issues. Some templeted 4E creatures were really weak, others very strong. The system really fell into disuse, replace by theme powers. If you wanted the orc to be a psion, you gave it a theme power or two (probably from Dark Sun), and now it felt like it had some mental capabilities (though no one would mistake it for a psionic character). 4E could also do this through custom powers. The orc shaman is just another monster, similar to a melee orc but with just one weak melee power and instead casting spells, plus a racial power that ties it to the orc race (maybe the ability to cast a spell when it dies). For many, this wasn't good enough. The monster powers weren't exactly the same, and some really wanted to have a true class with all the capabilities and to also see the monster's race represented.

Are there some ideas for new ways to achieve all of the above, but avoid the problems?