Please no monster class levels

[RangerWickett]

I know a lot of people like building things the same way all the time. "A human who fight well is a fighter, so a mind flayer who fights with a sword needs to have fighter levels."

To use an architectural metaphor, that's akin to saying, "When I wanted a house, I put in carpet, plumbing, and air conditioning. When I want to drive my car, I need gas stations and traffic lights. So clearly for this parking deck, we need carpet, plumbing, air conditioning, gas stations, and traffic lights."

Build monsters and NPCs so they work. Don't feel compelled to follow some weird formula just because PCs are built that way. PCs fill a different role than monsters and NPCs, so they need different rules to handle their construction.

 

[Dausuul]

I know a lot of people like building things the same way all the time. "A human who fight well is a fighter, so a mind flayer who fights with a sword needs to have fighter levels."

I agree that one should not get too stuck on such things, but there is value in using the same mechanics for the same concept. If a caster-type monster plays by the same rules as a PC wizard, it provides two benefits:

1) It increases player understanding of the game world. Part of the value of mechanics is letting players anticipate the results of their actions. If the PCs know that the monster has only a certain number of spell slots, or that hitting it in the middle of casting will disrupt its spells, they can make more sophisticated plans and become more immersed in the world.

2) It reduces the amount of rules that the DM has to learn. Most DMs spent a while on the player side of the screen before stepping into the big black chair, so if the DM has played a wizard, she knows how the monster's wizardry works.

As I said above, it's important that class levels should not be a required part of monster advancement. Class levels are cumbersome to work with, so DMs should have simpler and more flexible options for throwaway monsters or if none of the classes matches what they have in mind. But I like having the possibility of putting class levels on a critter.

 

[Greg K]

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!

First, don't play with dick-headed players! Such a player would get the boot from myself and every DM that I have know.
Second, there is nothing that says the DM has to show the orc to to the players. If you don't show it, the player does not know if it is a variant orc, if it has template, etc.

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?!?

Because a barbarian is someone that fights with rage rather than fancy techniques and that is not limited to wilderness warriors (which is why I was disappointed that the 3e barbarian was built around raging wilderness warrior rather than being a non-spellcasting wilderness warrior and, like with 1e, customizable by environment/culture). 3e had something called class customization in the PHB that allowed the tailoring of classes to different backgrounds including enviroments. One of my first home made variants in the early days of 3e was the urban barbarian*. It swapped wilderness skills for urban based skills opening up the concept for a character someone grew up in an urban barbarian and flies into rages. The person can be a barroom/back alley brawler that loses it, the skinny guy that flies off the handle when you knock off his glasses, etc. I even remember someone commenting that one of the three musketeers (forget which one) was prone to rage and would have had a level of urban barbarian.

* WOTC, while late to the party, addressed the urban barbarian in the Cityscape web enhancement for 3.5. The enhancement had a wilderness/urban skill swap for the barbarian, druid, ranger (and could be used in reverse for bards and rogues). The enhancement also had alternate class abilities for barbarians that was from urban environments (and the same for the druid and ranger). However, WOTC did have the urban ranger in one of the 3.0 supplements so the urban variant of a wilderness based class was not without precedent.

 

[WarlockLord]

But the monsters really should follow the same rules as players. If the third-level orc has whirlwind attack, but you are playing an orc fighter at third level and you can't get whirlwind attack, that makes no damn sense and needs to die. We don't need another edition with THREE different "evil eye" powers which all do different things. I don't want to have to houserule for my wizard player who wants to learn the nifty spell that drow necromancer had in the last fight. If my monsters run on arbitrarium the game world makes less sense. For instance, take the Awesome Blow feat from 3.5. That feat requires you to be large and have a high strength. This means that if players fight a minotaur, it makes sense in game for it to have the Awesome Blow feat and knock them back. If later they meet a troll, they won't be surprised if it too can Awesome Blow. Likewise, if they are third level PCs and run into a third level wizard, they should have a pretty good idea of what it can do.

However, in 4e, if I run into a monster, I have no idea what to expect because of the "exception based design" and the fact that powersets are pulled out of the developer's rear ends.

 

[Derren]

You end up with half-dragon ettin barbarians who have spent their entire lives living in a major city.

And they are of course so much worse than the half-orc or human barbarians who lived their entire lives in a major city and yet still constantly show up as PCs.

At least the ettin has a rather good reason why he would avoid contact with much of the civilization and instead hiding in a slum, ruling by strength.

Just because something gives you the option to do something silly it doesn't mean that the possibility itself is bad.

 

[Dausuul]

But the monsters really should follow the same rules as players. If the third-level orc has whirlwind attack, but you are playing an orc fighter at third level and you can't get whirlwind attack, that makes no damn sense and needs to die. We don't need another edition with THREE different "evil eye" powers which all do different things. I don't want to have to houserule for my wizard player who wants to learn the nifty spell that drow necromancer had in the last fight. If my monsters run on arbitrarium the game world makes less sense.

There is some validity to this, but remember that even in 3E, monsters mostly run on arbitrarium. What feat or class power enables the troll to regenerate? The dragon to breathe fire? The annis hag to grapple on a claw hit? Where do all those natural AC bonuses come from? Answer: Pulled out of the developer's rear end, just like 4E. You can't know what a monster will be able to do until you see it in action.

And as for objections to the third-level orc fighter having Whirlwind Attack, that is far too much. It goes way over the line from "in-world consistency" to "obsessive nitpicking." The rules are approximations of the game world, they are not absolute freaking laws. Otherwise there would be no need for Rule Zero or DM adjudication.

To me, a good rule of thumb is that if the characters could reasonably act on a given piece of information, it's worth keeping it consistent in the mechanics--or at least calling it out when you're inconsistent. But if not, screw it. The characters know that a wizard casting a spell can be disrupted, so monster wizards should have disruptable casting. But the characters have never heard of a "third level fighter." They might recognize a Whirlwind Attack, but they don't know from feats or prerequisites.

 

[Derren]

There is some validity to this, but remember that even in 3E, monsters mostly run on arbitrarium. What feat or class power enables the troll to regenerate? The dragon to breathe fire? The annis hag to grapple on a claw hit? Where do all those natural AC bonuses come from? Answer: Pulled out of the developer's rear end, just like 4E. You can't know what a monster will be able to do until you see it in action.

Bad example. That are racial powers they have, just like PC races. They have nothing to do with class levels everyone can gain.

And as for objections to the third-level orc fighter having Whirlwind Attack, that is far too much.

No it isn't. That technique is very advanced and only experienced fighter can do it in combat effectively. When you meat an orc who can do that you should be able to judge by his skill that he is dangerous. Bit instead you are completely clueless about the power of the orc because the DM slapped him together and gave him arbitrary powers. So you can only hope that the DM will never throw a unbalanced encounter at you and charge.

 

[YRUSirius]

But the monsters really should follow the same rules as players. If the third-level orc has whirlwind attack, but you are playing an orc fighter at third level and you can't get whirlwind attack, that makes no damn sense and needs to die.

Why? The dungeon master does not have to follow the same rules as the players. The dungeon master isn't the opponent of the players. He DOES not have to play by the same rules for the monsters.

However, in 4e, if I run into a monster, I have no idea what to expect because of the "exception based design"

This is great!



-YRUSirius

 

[Derren]

This is great!

No, it isn't.
PCs and Monsters playing by the same rules makes for a consistent and believable world. Something that many people value.

Having them play by different rules means that, like in 4E, the PCs are "aliens" who can never do what the "locals" do, even trivial stuff while possessing powers of their own no one else has.
And I leave that to Sci-Fi games.

 

[Janaxstrus]

There is some validity to this, but remember that even in 3E, monsters mostly run on arbitrarium. What feat or class power enables the troll to regenerate? The dragon to breathe fire? The annis hag to grapple on a claw hit? Where do all those natural AC bonuses come from? Answer: Pulled out of the developer's rear end, just like 4E. You can't know what a monster will be able to do until you see it in action.

Know how I get a dragon breath weapon or troll regenerate? Play a troll or dragon. Those are races, not classes that are open to everyone. Dragon's don't get an extra feat at first level either, because they aren't human.

However, if I am a winged PC, Wingover should be available to me, just like it is Dragons (and it is).

And as for objections to the third-level orc fighter having Whirlwind Attack, that is far too much. It goes way over the line from "in-world consistency" to "obsessive nitpicking." The rules are approximations of the game world, they are not absolute freaking laws. Otherwise there would be no need for Rule Zero or DM adjudication.

To me, a good rule of thumb is that if the characters could reasonably act on a given piece of information, it's worth keeping it consistent in the mechanics--or at least calling it out when you're inconsistent. But if not, screw it. The characters know that a wizard casting a spell can be disrupted, so monster wizards should have disruptable casting. But the characters have never heard of a "third level fighter." They might recognize a Whirlwind Attack, but they don't know from feats or prerequisites.

Advanced fighting techniques should be learned by advanced fighters, not whoever it sounds cool on. If the PCs have rules they have to follow, so do NPCs and monsters. In my world anyway. I like it to be consistent.