PCs and Monsters being different - Classes?

[Counterspin]

But we already know that monsters and monster PCs are handled with two different systems.

 

[Li Shenron]

My inquiry is fairly simple: do you think that NPCs/monsters, with their NPC/Monster classes, will have access to abilities similar to players?

Individual abilities will certainly be possible, and many monsters in the MM will have them. It makes no sense that you couldn't slap a curse ability on a creature! And that the designers would do twice the job to redesign them...

Another question is if monsters will be able to acquire class levels. In theory, I guess all of them will, but I suspect it will be even harder than 3e to evaluate the resulting monster level, unless the monster is a humanoid.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Individual abilities will certainly be possible, and many monsters in the MM will have them. It makes no sense that you couldn't slap a curse ability on a creature! And that the designers would do twice the job to redesign them...

Another question is if monsters will be able to acquire class levels. In theory, I guess all of them will, but I suspect it will be even harder than 3e to evaluate the resulting monster level, unless the monster is a humanoid.

Well, some monsters apparently will have "use this for player stats" write-up. I guess you can use these and add normal PC levels and have a classed monster.
This won't be applicable for creatures without such a write-up.

I guess a lot more will be followed within looser guidelines then in 3rd edition. That can be both bad and good. Neither the 3rd edition rules nor the 4E guidelines can avoid all pitfalls. I guess in practice one of the most important things might be that using the guidelines should make creating or modifying a monster a lot quicker, which in turn could mean you'd try that more often and get the experience and can navigate the pitfalls yourself.

 

[Rechan]

Well, we know this:

Monster races have two different write-ups: One for Monsters, and one for PCs (rather than a straight ECL/LA system, they're just written differently).
Monsters have classes (Brute/Soldier/Skirmisher/Artillery/mastermind/somethingelseIforget). Or are these roles? I forget.

The question is "How else do monsters and NPCs differ from PCs"?

 

[Imban]

I'm not sure the monster types are classes in any meaningful sense. I mean, they might be, but they might also just be quick descriptors of what the monster is intended to do in combat - just making explicit something that's always been implicit.

Well, except for "mastermind", which I'm not sure about. Is that what they're calling the equivalent to the PC Leader role? My games have had "support" monsters and bosses, sure, but they've typically been different creatures, with bosses just being big bad versions of whatever role.

EDIT: From what we know so far, the only confirmed mechanical difference between monsters and characters is that monsters aren't actually built to any universal standards of skill points/feats/whatever per level, so while 4e monsters can be broken, they can't have too many/too few skill points, need to fill 20 feats, or need to have a billion HD because they're undead bruisers and undead have poor BAB.

Mechanically, I haven't seen anything to indicate that characters and monsters use fundamentally different systems - monsters have ability scores and skills just like characters do, they're just not constructed by the rules that bind characters.

 

[WhatGravitas]

Can you have a gnoll Warlock fighting the PCs? Or will it have to resort to the Brute/Skirmisher/Mastermind things, which may not have the nice potent powers of the classes.

I guess you can:

In 4e you can make up monster NPCs with class levels, feats, modified skills, magic items, and everything you can do in 3e to your heart's content. We wouldn't dream of taking that away from you - it's too much fun.

From here, thanks to MerriB's info post.

Cheers, LT.

 

[Stogoe]

I do know that at GenCon, it was stated that you could still add classes to monsters, though they're generated differently.

So it's evidence they're thinking about it. I expect them to have considered the Monster Level and XP implications of classing up a monster.

 

[Xethreau]

Mearls mentioned that you can add class levels to monsters, and that was kept because it's 'just that fun.' I think you can see it the thread here called something like "Mearls comments on Design" or something. It's the one where he mentions how bad a 3.5 Trog fighter stinks by comparison to a human one (no pun intended).

 

[Rechan]

After listening to the Monster podcast again, apparently they aren't monster classes, they are monster roles.

Brutes (which are just tough heavy hitters). Soldiers (Defenders; keep you from getting to the squishy guys). Controller and Artillery monsters. Skirmishers. They didn't mention masterminds, but I think we have heard of that.

There was the mention of a Runecarved Edilon was both a Lurker and a Leader.

Then we have a second axis, which I think is the Minion, Elite, Solo axis. (Owlbear=Elite Brute, Death Knight=Elite Soldier, Angels of Valor=Minion Soldiers, Legion Devils=Minions were mentioned).

So the roles aren't the Monster Classes I was thinking. Maybe the roles come with different abilities for the monsters.

The impression that I got, or that I suspect, is yes, like what was suggested above: We'll see an 'Orc Skirmisher' 'Orc Brute' and 'Orc Soldier' in the MM, along with an entry for 'Orc Controller or Mastermind' who's the shaman, maybe. (Something I really wish they wouldn't do).

In addition, we'll see powers that each monster race has for themselves (Gnolls have pack tactics, goblins are evasive and elusive to melee attacks).

 

[ZombieRoboNinja]

Worst-case scenario, you just use the stats for a human warlock (maybe with a couple of the appropriate monster special abilities tacked on) and tell the party it's a gnoll or whatever.