Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 5889241" data-attributes="member: 42582">You seem to be implying, here, that 4e has no rules for monster customisation. Whereas it actually has extensive rules for this in the DMG.The issue with class level rules is - what are they for?There seem to be at least two, potentially conflicting, answers to that question in this thread.One is that class level rules reflect some ingame reality of personal development for warriors, wizards etc. So the addition of class levels is modelling some sort of fictional history (of training, development, etc) for a monster. On this approach, a 3rd level Mind Flayer cleric is no different fro a 3rd lvl PC human cleric, except that it's an illithid rather than a normal person who studied in the seminary. If the way the class levels stack with the monster abilities makes it hard to assign a CR/challenge level to the creature, so much the worse for the CR rules. They are not the priority - modelling character learning and growth - including NPC learning and growth - is the most important thing.The alternative answer is that the point of advancing monsters is to produce antagonists who are mechanically suited for the role they are meant to play in the game. On this approach, adding class levels serves as a technique for achieving this goal. What is crucial is that abilities map properly to CR. If adding class levels is one way of doing this, great. If (as I understand to be the case in 3E) it is wonky in various ways (eg I don't think adding 3 levels of cleric to a Mind Flayer would really dobule the challenge it poses, as the CR rules tell me that it does) then we need something better. Of which 4e might be an example.I don't know of any easy way of reconciling these two approaches. The only game that I know of that tries to achieve the first approach within the constraints of a class/level based game is 3E, so I don't know that there are other models to draw on for inspiration.I'm curious about this, and would like to hear more.My understanding - not based on personal experience - is that CR in 3E is a bit wonky, and that once class levels are added to a creature it can become noticeably wonkier. To put it another way, my understanding is that there is no uniform template (of hp, saves, AC, SR etc) against which a monster can be measure to determine the mechanical level of challenge that it poses to a generic PC party.Conversely, 4e does have such a template.If you aren't too worried about your accuracy relative to a template, then it would seem that customising a monster in 4e is as easy as in 3E - give it a few powers with eyeballed damage and effects, set the defences and hit points to suit the monster level and role, and go! It seems to me that it's only if you're "checking if it works" that you'd take significant time. Is this what is making the difference with 3E? That 3E doesn't have a "checking if it works" stage because "working" isn't such a big priority in 3E?Or is there something different going on that I'm missing (maybe due to a lack of extensive play experience with 3E)?</blockquote>

Verification