What 3.5 feats would you use to duplicate 4E's monster roles?

[Noumenon]

In http://www.enworld.org/forum/genera...elp-encounter-design-how-about-encounter.html , we looked at designing 3E encounters with 4E's monster roles in mind. (Ettin = brute, centipede swarm = controller, medusa = lurker, will-o-wisp = skirmisher). Now I'm wondering if I could make picking feats easier by making feat "packages" that complement monster roles. For example, Combat Expertise is an ideal Soldier feat. Low damage, high AC. Mobility is a skirmisher feat, Weapon Focus is a Striker feat.

Got any ideas for feat trees every Brute should have? What about monster feats? Which monsters should get Iron Will, and which should get Great Fortitude? Instead of giving every monster the same feats (+2 to each save, then +2 to natural armor) I think it would be really cool if the feats differentiated these monsters. I just want to get a feat list that every Controller can use so I don't have to think hard about synergy.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Power Attack sounds definitely like something for brutes. Low Accuracy, High Damage.
The follow-up feats might also serve this purpose.

 

[Celebrim]

I'm a bit confused. Don't 3e monsters already have feats? What is your goal here? Are you trying to redesign all the 3e monsters so that they are more standardized? That is to say, every monster with the 'brute' role would have the same feats or rather, same progression of feats according to its HD?

For example, 1HD level brutes would all have power attack, and then maybe pick up cleave at 3HD and so forth?

First of all, I think the feats already differentiate these monsters. They've already got feats. Those feats given them a different set of minor abilities.

Secondly, for any given 4e monster role, there are several possible feat trees because any given monster role can be fulfilled in several ways. For example, a striker might move up a melee combat feat tree ('Powerful Charge') or it might take a missile weapon feat tree ('Pointblank Shot') or it might enhance its spell-like ability ('Empower Spell-like Ability'). Similarly, a 'soldier' might take feats that enhance its AC ('Combat Expertise') or it might take feats that enhance its hit points ('Toughness').

Thirdly, the problem I think you'll run into that is the most serious is that there is major overlap between the roles. Most monsters aren't really pure 'brutes' or pure 'skirmishers', but mix different sorts of abilities so that they are maybe 'soldier/controllers' or 'brute/skirmishers'. For example, you might take 'Combat Expertise' for a soldier, but the immediately available feats further up the feat tree are 'controllerish' feats like Improved Trip or Improved Disarm. Is a monster with 'Hold the Line' soldierish for being defensive, or controllerish for exherting control over battlefield space? Heck if I know, and really I don't really care.

 

[Noumenon]

Don't 3e monsters already have feats?

I add Hit Dice and class levels a lot more since I discovered Quickened Monster Advancer, Dingle's Games and NPC Designer. NPCs with class levels are monsters that always need feats.

a striker might move up a melee combat feat tree ('Powerful Charge') or it might take a missile weapon feat tree ('Pointblank Shot') or it might enhance its spell-like ability ('Empower Spell-like Ability').

Empower Spell-Like Ability is a feat I've never used, but it's perfect for a striker! Thanks.

I just realized there's no "striker" role for monsters, though -- "high damage at range" equals artillery, "high damage in melee" equals brute or maybe lurker. So Point-Blank Shot goes to the artillery. Powerful Charge is absolutely great for the "lurker" role. We'll just give them Mobility so they can use it again.

For example, you might take 'Combat Expertise' for a soldier, but the immediately available feats further up the feat tree are 'controllerish' feats like Improved Trip or Improved Disarm.

That makes me wonder why feat prerequisites aren't designed to cluster similar abilities together. If there were a "controller feat tree" starting with Combat Reflexes and then Improved Trip, that would make it a lot easier to express a character concept with your feat choices.

So while Combat Expertise makes a little sense as a prerequisite for Improved Trip (extra defense helps you avoid AoOs), the prereq should really be another controller feat like Combat Reflexes. I don't see huge balance issues with subbing one prereq for another, as long as the depth of tree is the same.

As a sideline, Improved Feint doesn't fit in a Combat Expertise tree from either a realistic or a role perspective. It really fits better with Power Attack -- I know they aren't used together often, but doing extra damage and setting up so you'll actually hit are both striker-like abilities.

Is a monster with 'Hold the Line' soldierish for being defensive, or controllerish for exherting control over battlefield space?

I say controller. "Front line" monsters are typically soldiers, but "Hold the Line" establishes a zone it's not safe to enter -- pure controller. I think it does matter which one you choose -- if you realize you're a controller, you're going to do stuff like pick a reach weapon to expand your range of control. If you mistakenly think you're a soldier, you're going to do stuff like picking a shield to increase your longevity.

I really like "Hold the Line" as a melee control feat, never heard of it before. The SRD has it in a page of Divine Abilities and Feats. Is it fair to give it to my monsters? If it's really for deities only, why is the prereq BAB +2? What about the other feats in that list? Lots of them seem balanced, but some like Repeat Spell seem too good.

 

[Noumenon]

Similarly, a 'soldier' might take feats that enhance its AC ('Combat Expertise') or it might take feats that enhance its hit points ('Toughness').

Oh, that's an easy one. Toughness is for brutes. What I like about this idea is having a reason to pick among feats. I'm not just going "what would make this a better monster," leading to everything having Lightning Reflexes and Ability Focus. I'm going "what will make this a more interesting encounter," which is what roles are all about. Giving them roles creates meaningful choices about which monsters to focus on and what tactics to use (don't send the rogue up against the soldiers, don't leave an opening for the lurker).

 

[Celebrim]

I add Hit Dice and class levels a lot more since I discovered Quickened Monster Advancer, Dingle's Games and NPC Designer. NPCs with class levels are monsters that always need feats.

Ok, yeah, I do that alot too because I like to maintain continuity of threats over time. That is, if you are fighting orcs and ogres at lower level, then orcs and ogres ought be credible threats for most of your career.

Empower Spell-Like Ability is a feat I've never used, but it's perfect for a striker! Thanks.

No problem, I'm just trying to understand your thinking.

Powerful Charge is absolutely great for the "lurker" role.

Where as, I see at as a 'skirmisher' role, although really I can see it justified for 'lurkers', 'skirmishers', and 'brutes'.

That makes me wonder why feat prerequisites aren't designed to cluster similar abilities together.

They are, just not the way that you are looking at it.

If there were a "controller feat tree" starting with Combat Reflexes and then Improved Trip, that would make it a lot easier to express a character concept with your feat choices.

That depends on what your character concept is. The 'Combat Expertise' feat is the beginning of a tree that incorporates the idea of a 'skilled warrior' and 'tactician'. The character concept, if you would, is that of a 'smart fighter' who uses tactics, skills, tricks, and manuevers to defeat his foes rather than brute force. The concept of 'controller', per se, doesn't really exist and so its not supported.

The the 3e siloing of concepts is just as arbitrary as the 4e siloing of concepts. The 3e at least has the intuitive feel of being related to a particular attribute. Hense, in 3e you build 'strong fighters', 'smart fighters', 'cunning fighters', 'finesse fighters', 'tough fighters', or 'charismatic fighters' with trees that enhance their attribute strength and concept.

Combat reflexes isn't a 'controller feat' per se, because the concept doesn't exist. Combat Reflexes is, like dodge, a finesse feat that lets you make the most of your dexterity. It gives you both defense, and in combination with other feats some battlefield control, but that doesn't make it a 'soldier' or 'controller' feat. Now, if you build your monster for defense and call it a 'soldier build', that's fine, but you can do that in all sorts of ways.

I don't see huge balance issues with subbing one prereq for another, as long as the depth of tree is the same.

No, but it might change around the concept of the feat, making a finesse feat into a intelligence feat or vica versa. As a result you might end up increasing the importance of some attributes and descreasing the importance of others.

As a sideline, Improved Feint doesn't fit in a Combat Expertise tree from either a realistic or a role perspective.

Really? Depends on what you think the roles and concepts are. If the concept is 'smart skilled tactician', then improved fient may well fit into it.

It really fits better with Power Attack...

???

-- I know they aren't used together often, but doing extra damage and setting up so you'll actually hit are both striker-like abilities.

Yes, but is 'striker' any more realistic of a concept that 'smart tactician'? Does the world inherently contain 'strikers' and 'brutes' and what not?

 

[Celebrim]

I really like "Hold the Line" as a melee control feat, never heard of it before. The SRD has it in a page of Divine Abilities and Feats. Is it fair to give it to my monsters? If it's really for deities only, why is the prereq BAB +2? What about the other feats in that list? Lots of them seem balanced, but some like Repeat Spell seem too good.

None of those feats are for deities only. They are simply feats that deities took that come from sources other than the Player's Handbook. Hold the Line was originally from 'Fist and Sword' or some similar 3.0 supplement.

If it doesn't have 'divine rank' as a prequisite, it's not diety only. And generally, if you meet the prerequisites, it's probably balanced and fair to give your monsters.

 

[Dandu]

Sword and Fist.

 

[Celebrim]

Oh, that's an easy one. Toughness is for brutes. What I like about this idea is having a reason to pick among feats. I'm not just going "what would make this a better monster," leading to everything having Lightning Reflexes and Ability Focus.

I'm still struggling to understand your thinking here. Lightning Reflexes is not what I'd normally consider an optimal feat for monster construction. Many monsters have good reflex saves to begin with, and Reflex is generally considered the least essential save in 3.X. If you are going to pick a save booster, Iron Will is almost always the better choice unless the monster is immune to mind effecting spells, in which case Great Fortitude would be better.

But in any event, one of the nice things about being the DM is that you don't have to worry very much about making your characters optimal. You have infinite resources, so you can make anything you want to show off any concept that you want. If the concept is poorly supported or inherently weak, you can always drop on a few more class levels or advance a few more hit die to adjust the challenge. You can make any sort of concept you want. You aren't limited to roles as such, because the available concepts are almost infinite. If you want to make a mage that specializes entirely in ice themed magic, you can do that. And if you don't have enough ice magic available to play with that, then you can reskin whatever you like, for example, turning 'Hold Person' into a spell that by description encases the target in ice while leaving the mechanics the same.

Your the DM. You don't have to be hide bound to anything. That's one of the benifits that comes with all your responcibility.

I'm going "what will make this a more interesting encounter," which is what roles are all about. Giving them roles creates meaningful choices about which monsters to focus on and what tactics to use (don't send the rogue up against the soldiers, don't leave an opening for the lurker).

Personally, I think roles are mainly there to give some guidance to novices. They are part of 4e's general, 'Make the game friendlier to new players', approach. But I don't think you should let the roles become so rigid that they shape your thinking into narrow arbitary tactical categories. It's a useful technique for thinking about creating tactical problems for your players, and for examining how to properly play a particular monster, but its not the be all end all of what exists in your game.

 

[Dandu]

Oh, that's an easy one. Toughness is for brutes chumps.

Fix'd it for you.