D&D 5E NPCs With Class Levels?

[AnotherPerson]

many people want to play monstrous characters,

...

This is just to say, that the line between the traditional 4 (or 7) PC races and monsters is blurred.

No it isn't - not from a mechanical perspective, anyway! As you alluded to in your posts monsters to fight the PCs serve a very differnt role than monsters to acts as PCs. It doesn't matter whether human, kobold, or even dragon - the way they are used is determined by their role, and monsters need to be simpler than PCs because they doin't show up for as long and their primary purpose is to fight and die! PC races make some of the most interesting bad guys - evil cultists, misguided wizards, and people in evil hats (who are clearly playing the the Fate of the world) can make far more compelling plots than terrorising a village with a swarm of gelatinous cubes!

I agree that there needs to be some way to lay orcs, drow, kobolds, dragons, or whatever else - one of my favourite characters was a drow - but that is distinct from the simplicity of using these things as monsters!

 

[Dwimmerlied]

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?

awesome

 

[Dwimmerlied]

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?

I like the idea of very homogenous core classes that can handle cultural and racial tendencies by apropriate feat selection. I always liked the idea of the troll ranger for a bestial hunter, except for the dichotmous fighting style. If stripped of some of the 3ed class features, the ranger could represent a primal, bestial predator, yet the more intelligent races could still achieve the default idea of ranger with the right selection of feats.

Perhaps in 5ed feats can be cherry-picked and/or swapped out for a monster without the need for the addition of extraneous and unnecessary class features that simply overburden the creature. I could certainly imagine giving limited spell casting ability as a feat, or a suite of feats that emulate a spell-casting class while retaining the internally consistent environment that 3ed nurtured.

if an orc is advanced by hd, and then fighter feats are tacked on, I can't see that he wouldn't be in every way an orc fighter.

 

[AnotherPerson]

Perhaps racial backgrounds and specialities could come into play - they don't have to be chosen, but if you want to be a really orcy orc then you choose the right background and speciality.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

The limit of this view, is that many people want to play monstrous characters, even more today that we have had popular games like World of Warcraft set in a high-fantasy world with orcs, goblins, minotaurs-like, werewolves-like, undead and other PC races.

Some way must be found in 5e to allow those sort of creatures (and a few more like Drow, Vampires and Hobgoblin) to be playable. I don't care what way they choose, but it clearly implies using classes. Then whether they provide a "race version" of those monsters in the MM or some other solution, it's fine for me.

But it cannot be delayed until a later product* because those monstrous characters are just too popular nowadays, and casual gamers especially would just love to be allowed such PCs. There has to be a way in core, to allow for these, so that fans of those characters can look at D&D as a game that supports them, rather than looking at another game!

This is just to say, that the line between the traditional 4 (or 7) PC races and monsters is blurred.

Then of course, when used by the DM as cannon fodder (they are just going to be slaughtered 99% of the times in the first fight anyway) they don't have to follow the same rules as PCs, but this is already the case for anything that has a MM entry, it can be used as-is (except templates, by definition). But we also need something beyond that.

*a book like 3e Savage Species can still be published for monsters that are much more complicated to handle as PCs because of their wacky abilities or high complexity

What does this have to do with NPC Monsters having class levels? What stops you in 4e from doing this either? All that is needed is at most a race write-up. Even that is only marginally necessary, you can play most 'basically mundane' monsters as PCs without any real trouble. The main decision needing to be made is where ability score bonuses go. Having some racial perks is nice, but not mandatory. Of course 4e runs into the same logical issues with less mundane creatures that every edition has, mainly explaining why it is that your starting dragon doesn't have awesome AC, a huge breath weapon, and tons of hit points. No edition ever solved this or ever could. AD&D just ignored it, much like 4e. 3.x tried to solve it, but the whole 'level adjustment' thing was a disaster and STILL doesn't explain why my dragon PC is nothing like a real dragon numerically (or why he mysteriously seems to 'age' by killing orcs, etc, no explanation really works).

Again though, how does this bear on monsters as monsters and not as PCs? Monsters need no rules for progression, they don't have to be assumed to be of any specific class (class is just a construct of the game mechanics, not part of the game world) etc. Certainly in 4e it was TRIVIAL to give a monster some sort of power (or just fluff) that associated them with whatever narrative you wished. If a monstrous NPC was to be depicted as a champion of evil you just gave him heavy armor and maybe a couple powers that were like the ones a PC Blackguard would get, perhaps. An NPC 'wizard' likewise can have a fireball, a magic missile, and a couple other spells, and his digs can be tricked out with a couple ritual effects. I never saw the need for the obsession with the notion that said NPC/Monster was "an XYZ level wizard", that's just a tool to be used to decide which wizardly goodies PCs get and how they get them.

In any case, I don't see that 4e's approach really limited you, there were a LOT of monsters that were given race treatment. I mean right now in my weekday game I have a Goliath, a Minotaur (these have full PHB2/3 writeups and full feat selections), a Hengeyokai (also has a full writeup in Dragon 404, though the race lacks many feats), and a Kenku (this one is simply an MM entry with a brief writeup at the back, still perfectly viable and fun). Depending on just how obsessed the DM is with balanced PCs I can't see any real problem with less humanoid monsters like Centaurs, Aarokokra (or other basic fliers), aquatic humanoids, etc. as long as they fit within the campaign milieu and players don't try to be munchkins. IMHO 5e will be much the same, there won't NEED to be elaborate rules for mundane type monsters and elaborate rules for other types won't really help much.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Perhaps racial backgrounds and specialities could come into play - they don't have to be chosen, but if you want to be a really orcy orc then you choose the right background and speciality.

Sure, but that still of course doesn't impact on the non-necessity of monsters having PC type classes and such. Frankly I just thought it was one of the more daft ideas that 3e had. Something that no doubt is greatly pleasing to people who love to diddle with numbers, but anathema to DMs wanting fast prep time everywhere.

 

[AnotherPerson]

I completely agree, Abdul. My comments you quoted were tackling the other end of the argument - the idea that if people want toi play orcs then it must be possible tog give orcs class levels. I was simply pointing out that it's important to give PC orcs class levels, and has no bearing what so ever on NPC orcs. PC orcs could be made to feel more like their monstrous cousin using other facets already built into the game - no special or complex rules needed!

 

[Dwimmerlied]

I never saw the need for the obsession with the notion that said NPC/Monster was "an XYZ level wizard", that's just a tool to be used to decide which wizardly goodies PCs get and how they get them.

Well, level has game world currency too; The numbers are abstractions of 'real' qualities. Two people that have achieved the same level of worldly experience have similar levels of personal power. So, at least internally, we might be able to say something about a wizard who casts only magic missiles, and another who casts dominate monster. It works within a framework of expectation about the workings and laws of the game world.

I will agree with you though about the artificiality of wealth by level. Personally I hate this.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I completely agree, Abdul. My comments you quoted were tackling the other end of the argument - the idea that if people want toi play orcs then it must be possible tog give orcs class levels. I was simply pointing out that it's important to give PC orcs class levels, and has no bearing what so ever on NPC orcs. PC orcs could be made to feel more like their monstrous cousin using other facets already built into the game - no special or complex rules needed!

Oh, you and I are NO doubt in complete agreement. I'd think a "barbarous heritage" background or something like that would be quite fine. It could be even more specific, like "Raised Amongst the Orcs" (which could be applied to any race for various reasons).

 

[Dwimmerlied]

Sure, but that still of course doesn't impact on the non-necessity of monsters having PC type classes and such. Frankly I just thought it was one of the more daft ideas that 3e had. Something that no doubt is greatly pleasing to people who love to diddle with numbers, but anathema to DMs wanting fast prep time everywhere.

or appeals to people who think that it adds to the internal consistency, for whatever reason. I don't know most gamers, but I can't imagine a lot of people love to diddle with numbers.