Please no monster class levels

[WarlockLord]

I would like to see all the monsters with class levels, this way PCs can play monsters.

Of course, it's more important to deliberately design level adjustment to encourage people to play an elf, thanks to Gygax and his little "only powergamers want to play monsters, sou you should let them play one and then screw them" rant.

So I'm sure I won't get my wish.

 

[trancejeremy]

I would like to see all the monsters with class levels, this way PCs can play monsters.

Of course, it's more important to deliberately design level adjustment to encourage people to play an elf, thanks to Gygax and his little "only powergamers want to play monsters, sou you should let them play one and then screw them" rant.

So I'm sure I won't get my wish.

Well, bear in mind, he wrote that from his own experience. Originally in the first little books, he said there was no reason monsters couldn't be played. So his mind was open to it. But he quickly discovered it was exploited, thus the turn around.

Indeed, look at the past discussions about racial modifiers of ability scores - lots of people get upset and outraged at the suggestion that races shouldn't get modifiers, that if you want to play a Minotaur or Half-Ogre, you simply put your highest score in strength, etc.

But people insist on having a mechanical advantages for playing larger, more powerful races, which leads me to think that's basically the only reason they want to play them, the bonuses, not for role-playing purposes.

 

[GX.Sigma]

Solution: have 4e-style monster stat blocks that you can quickly and easily modify with templates, but also have a little 3e-style "[race] as characters" entry with racial traits so you can make it a fully fleshed out NPC (or PC) by giving it a class, theme, and background.

Would that work?

 

[Mircoles]

ECL's sucked.

 

[Nathal]

Some great responses and ideas. It looks like there are a good number of ways they could do similar ideas without the extra work...

 

[Li Shenron]

I remember making up NPCs and Monsters in 3rd Edition started to feel like a chore. I know, to each his own, but that's one thing 4E did much better. I am more of a 2nd Edition guy overall, and would rather play 3rd than DM it. I'm still hoping 5E takes the best of each edition, at least in spirit. Class levels on monsters sounds like a bad idea to me. I'm the sort of DM who likes fast prep time. Anybody else with me on those points?

Your reasoning makes no sense to me... Class levels on monster does not become a bad idea just because its implementation was not done properly. Idea and implementation are different things.

Otherwise it would be like saying that computers are generally a bad idea because once they were entirely mechanical and therefore bulky, slow, costly and noisy. They were a great idea since the start, but they needed to find a good way to implement them (electronics).

Classed monsters are in fact a damn good and useful idea! They need to keep working until some edition finds a good solution that both yields satisfactory results and requires a reasonably small effort on the DM's part. It is not necessary that it is based on levels of course.

 

[Nathal]

Your reasoning makes no sense to me... Class levels on monster does not become a bad idea just because its implementation was not done properly. Idea and implementation are different things.

Put that way, you are right. What is a bad idea for me is implementation that requires lots of prep time.

Classed monsters are in fact a damn good and useful idea! They need to keep working until some edition finds a good solution that both yields satisfactory results and requires a reasonably small effort on the DM's part. It is not necessary that it is based on levels of course.

Good point...I think I was trying to avoid just saying I disliked 3rd Edition implementation, avoiding edition war language, but it made me unclear.

 

[Li Shenron]

What is a bad idea for me is implementation that requires lots of prep time.

Ok now it's clear, and to this opinion I certain agree!

 

[pming]

Hiya.

IMHO, monsters with classes was/is a bad idea. It has three major problems.

1) Prep time, as mentioned, increases drastically. "Weak" and "simple" monsters, no problem...like, say, a 3rd level orc fighter. But try making a level 6/6/3 mind-flayer fighter/rogue/assassin or someshuch and the GM is in for a whole world of pain. Don't even mention magic-using classes...ugh!

2) If forces the GM's hand as far as what the monster can/can't do, and dick-headed players will call (or try to) call a GM on any little change/tweek once they see it. "That orc is a 3rd level fighter? And he has whirlwind attack? I call schinannigans! He can't have that feat at level 3 and does he really have a 13+ Int? Cheater GM!" So, basically, because the GM decided to slap 3rd level fighter in front of the orc, the GM is actually *limiting* what he 'can' do with that opponent. Extend to it's logical conclusion...that a GM will just put in all the requirements as needed (re: he's now a 5th level orc fighter with a 13 Int and 13 Dex), and you have the makings of a true migrain for something that *should* be as simple as the GM thinking Hmmm...I'm going to give this orc whirlwind attack and an orc double-axe...that'd make him a tough warlord for these guys...should be quite the fun challenge!

3) In relation to #2, the class-for-monsters thing has spawned one of the most hated things (for me anyway) I've ever seen; GM's with no in-game logical thinking capability. Basically, 3.x GM's that I've had the (dis)pleasure of playing under or talking to have all more or less put levels on monsters to make the monsters "tougher"...in spite of it makeing absolutely *no F'ing sense at ALL*. This has, unfortunetly, been consistent even with so-called 'profesional' writers. You end up with half-dragon ettin barbarians who have spent their entire lives living in a major city. Really? Barbarian? WHY barbarian?!? Oh yeah..."'cause thems tough n' such..durrrr....". *THIS* is why classes-for-monsters pisses off so many players (myself included). I don't mind fighting an extra-tough ettin. But then having it 'rage' on me when I know it's basically been living as a guard for a bad guy in a major city it's whole life...grrrr! At that point, there isn't any reason to even attempt to try and think or prepare for "likly challenges" becasue there is no longer any such thing as 'likely'. If there was no such thing as "classes for monsters", I honestly wouldnt' have ANY problem with it. Why? Because I know the GM wasn't using a 'class' for the monster; he was just giving it a berzerking-rage type ability. The difference may be subtle, but it's there. (yeah, I'm a picky old fart! ).

So...'classes' for monsters was/is a very bad idea. The idea of 'tougher' monsters and stuff is good...but then trying to finagle numbers, stats, requirements, restrictions, etc.? That's insanity and contrary to encouraging GM's (and players) to use their brains. All IMHO, of course.

^_^

Paul L. Ming

 

[pemerton]

What is the point of adding fighter levels to a goblin? In classic D&D, all a fighter is is attack plus hit points - just make the goblin higher HD and be done with it!

Likewise adding MU levels - the goblin (or whatever) doesn't need the additional HD and attack bonus. Just give them a few spells and you're good to go!

Thief levels - just give the monster good bonuses in Stealth and Pickpocketing.

After all, adding a class to a monster in 4e was pretty easy -- pick some powers, and you're good. I wouldn't mind something that easy for 5e, either.

Exactly this.