Please no monster class levels

[Jinete]

Wasn't it mentioned that it will be possible to create a PC in much less time than in 3e/4e (if so desired by the player)?
If this will be the case, then I don't see why DM-s wouldn't be able to use the same method to customize monsters with little or no fuss...

 

[Minigiant]

Quite frankly I like class levels. But there could be 2 ways yo upgrade monster.

One full ledged Monster as PC system.
And
One quick Monster as NPC system

For example the base kobold could be:

Kobold Miner
Small reptillian humaniod
4hp 15AC (leather+Dex)
20ft speed
+1 pickaxe attack (1d6 piercing damage)
Blah blah blah etc...

SIMPLE UPGRADE:
Warrior: +2 Str (+1 damage) +6hp per level, +1 attack per 2 levels
Sneak: +2 Dex (+1 AC) +4hp per level, +1 attack per 3 levels, 1d6 Sneak attack per 2 levels
Shaman: +2 Wis +3hp per level, +1 attack per 4 levels, 1 cleric per level (1st at 1, 2nd at 3, 3rd at 5...)

ADVANCED UPGRADE:
Kobold as Character

Small reptillian humaniod
+2 Dex, -2 Con
Small (+1 attack & AC, can't wield heavy weapons, wield medium weapons with two hands)
+2 on AC and saves vs traps
Blah Blah else etc...


With flatter math, things could be very simple. Something like adding HP and attack to make a warrior or choosing a few spells and some HP for a shaman.

 

[Janaxstrus]

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.

Exactly this.

Because not all "classic" D&D is equal. In 3rd edition (which he specifically referenced), there are feats, skills (hide, move silently, spot, listen, etc etc) class abilities and more, that all have to be taken into account if you are actually adding class levels.

A thief goblin who you only bother with hide/move silently and sleight of hand is missing out on however many levels of Sneak Attack, making him possibly a more viable opponent.
A fighter who is "just hit points", misses out on at least 2 feats (at first level alone).
A Magic User who just has a few spells, but no concentration, spellcraft, etc, is basically a 1 or 2 trick trap before he's surrounded and unable to cast.

So yes, there is a lot more to it. When I DM, I like to make sure my NPCs follow the same rules as the players operate under. The option to add class levels, PROPERLY, is good. However, with 5 or more books full of monsters, it's by no mean a requirement.

 

[Ramaster]

This is how I think monster building should be handled:

First, you pick a role (as in “4e monster’s roles), then you pick a level and consult a table that gives you all the stats for a monster of that level/role.

Say I need a 7th level Brute. I look up 7th level on the “Brute” table and get the following stats:

HP – 34
AC - 19
Attack - +9
DC (For the effects it might generate) - 18
Damage – 21 (Here it gives you some examples of ways to get that average damage: 2d6+14 / 4d4+11 etc.)
Fort – +9
Ref - +4
Will - +5
Etc…

Then you pick a “theme” for the monster. For example, Orc, Dwarf, Beholder, etc. These examples give you some modifications and some additional abilities/stats. The orc might give you +1 to attack and fort, but a -1 to AC and Will; The dwarf may give you +1 HP per level and +1 AC, but a -1 penalty to Reflex and Speed; The Beholder one gives you a couple more attacks, at reduced bonus, maybe a boost to the DC of its effects and the floating ability.

Some of the Special Powers and effects can be assigned by the DM on the fly, perhaps with a table to generate them randomly if need be.

Further expansions could give more specialized Themes, like Frontline Orc, Dwarven Defender or Fire-born Beholder with skills that reflect their flavor.

 

[Dausuul]

I am totally cool with having class levels for monsters. It's a nice option to have around. I just don't want that to be the only way to power-up or otherwise adjust a monster. Applying class levels is worth it for a major recurring villain that's going to play a big part in the campaign. But for a critter that's likely going to see five rounds of combat and then die, I want something quick and dirty.

 

[YRUSirius]

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.

Easy solution: Don't make a level 6/6/3 mind-flayer fighter/rogue/assassin just make a level 15 mindflayer assassin.

It 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.

Dick-headed players that start this kind of argument can leave my game. The DM can do whatever he wants with his game and with his monsters. Salve 4E!

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).

Yes, this might pose a problem. I despise pseudo half-dragon rogue/monk/ranger/barbarians/psions.

The idea of 'tougher' monsters and stuff is good...but then trying to finagle numbers, stats, requirements, restrictions, etc.?

I don't care about requirements and restrictions for monster abilities. The monsters have them, end of discussion (salve 4E again!). If rules lawyering players start to be dickish about it, I'd have a talk with them or kick them out if they continue to make trouble about my fiction.



-YRUSirius

 

[wrecan]

Easy solution: Don't make a level 6/6/3 mind-flayer fighter/rogue/assassin just make a level 15 mindflayer assassin.

The problem is how much guidance the game gives you to make a mind-flayer who has some sneaky attacks, and can also wield a mean longsword on the frontlines.

The 4e approach is to tell you what the defenses, attacks, and hp should be for a creature of that level. Level up (or down) your mindlfayer to the desired level. Then look at some NPC rogues, assassins, and fighters. Take a power from each and add them to the mindflayer. He should be as powerful as two standard creatures of that level.

3e didn't give you that guidance. Instead, you added class levels. So if you wanted him to have a power that a sixth level fighter could have, the sneak attack of a sixth level rogue, and the ability to cast a spell like a 3rd level assassin, you were suggested to go ahead and add all those class levels, which gave the creature more than you needed, and likly put the creature beyond the range of your players' ability to fight. Or you could wing it. But if you were an inexperienced DM, that was a scary prospect and for good reason. Winging it was not easy. Your mind-flayer might end up being overpowered or underpowered. You had not rules of thumb to gauge whether you did it right. (Heck, the CR system in 3e was so borked even when you did it by the book, you didn't have much chance of getting it right.)

As far as I'm concerned, adding class levels is appropriate if the class has very static bonuses (like AD&D fighters). Otherwise, it's an exercise only for the DMs who are not particularly concerned about balance, or for recurring villains who need to be fully statted.

For everyone else, the game needs to have guidance as to expected defenses, hp, attack, and damage for a monster of a given level, and guidance on how to add a few powers to a creature.

 

[Ahnehnois]

I try not to write too many monsters without class levels. Advancing monsters in this way is kind of inherently optional, but I would hope that monsters with class levels are strongly supported, and monsters as characters are dealt with at some point.

 

[hemera]

I liked having goblins/orcs/kobolds/ogres etc.. be a part of my campaign for longer so I loved adding class levels to things. My co-dm didn't though, so he would just use different monsters when he was running sessions. Kept the campaign interesting.

So I'm all for it as a rule. As a mandatory rule? No. As an option for people like me who like to use common monsters even longer than 5e is even proposing? Sure. ^.^

 

[Zaukrie]

4E monster editing is awesome. Any editing needs to be easy and fast. For all its problems, the monster builder is so helpful for this.

Sent using Tapatalk 2