Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Nest
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
NPCs With Class Levels?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="AbdulAlhazred" data-source="post: 6119629" data-attributes="member: 82106"><p>Personally I'm always very dubious about rules that are made to "save the DM from himself", especially when they don't really seem to do that job. I mean who's to say what is 'gotcha' and what should or shouldn't be 'bundled'? I think there can be reasonably some guidelines for that, but I don't see any evidence that PC classes and options, which are designed for a completely different purpose, serve that end. MANY things that in the hands of the PCs are OK are gotcha! in the hands of monsters for instance. Nor do a vast array of PC options really make much sense for monsters. Many of them at best require some reflavoring and rewriting before they DO make sense at the very least. As a general principle of rules design for D&D I am not really buying it. </p><p></p><p>Looking at 4e's approach I see instead that the general concept of powers is pretty nice, they tend to be small modular reflavorable units of crunch that are unlikely to be problematic in the hands of a monster, even in odd combinations. Beyond that monsters evince a pretty coherent theme and DMs are strongly advised to do the same when designing new monsters. Gotcha! abilities don't generally exist, and when they do they are pretty easily made thematic and interesting, especially since they aren't SoD type mechanics anyway. This is a pretty good system, and it is further buttressed by monster roles, which give you a very nice indication of what you should do. Can a DM create a monstrosity by ignoring all those guidelines? Sure. The guidelines aren't flawless either, you can construct some rather silly encounters, mostly at levels 1-4 or so, if you really try which are technically following the guidelines. Of course it is far more trivially easy to do that in 3e, and I would humbly suggest that class levels on monsters doesn't help that. </p><p></p><p>My advice to game designers is that adding such a large degree of complexity to the game is VERY unlikely to have a high payoff. If there's one consistent thing that people agree on about 4e it is that monster design was a huge boon. While there's no denying that there's SOMEONE out there who will love class leveled monsters its likely to be a minority taste. If you're going to go out of your way to support THAT then where's the justification for dropping other things that aren't so popular? K.I.S.S</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="AbdulAlhazred, post: 6119629, member: 82106"] Personally I'm always very dubious about rules that are made to "save the DM from himself", especially when they don't really seem to do that job. I mean who's to say what is 'gotcha' and what should or shouldn't be 'bundled'? I think there can be reasonably some guidelines for that, but I don't see any evidence that PC classes and options, which are designed for a completely different purpose, serve that end. MANY things that in the hands of the PCs are OK are gotcha! in the hands of monsters for instance. Nor do a vast array of PC options really make much sense for monsters. Many of them at best require some reflavoring and rewriting before they DO make sense at the very least. As a general principle of rules design for D&D I am not really buying it. Looking at 4e's approach I see instead that the general concept of powers is pretty nice, they tend to be small modular reflavorable units of crunch that are unlikely to be problematic in the hands of a monster, even in odd combinations. Beyond that monsters evince a pretty coherent theme and DMs are strongly advised to do the same when designing new monsters. Gotcha! abilities don't generally exist, and when they do they are pretty easily made thematic and interesting, especially since they aren't SoD type mechanics anyway. This is a pretty good system, and it is further buttressed by monster roles, which give you a very nice indication of what you should do. Can a DM create a monstrosity by ignoring all those guidelines? Sure. The guidelines aren't flawless either, you can construct some rather silly encounters, mostly at levels 1-4 or so, if you really try which are technically following the guidelines. Of course it is far more trivially easy to do that in 3e, and I would humbly suggest that class levels on monsters doesn't help that. My advice to game designers is that adding such a large degree of complexity to the game is VERY unlikely to have a high payoff. If there's one consistent thing that people agree on about 4e it is that monster design was a huge boon. While there's no denying that there's SOMEONE out there who will love class leveled monsters its likely to be a minority taste. If you're going to go out of your way to support THAT then where's the justification for dropping other things that aren't so popular? K.I.S.S [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
NPCs With Class Levels?
Top