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

[Dandu]

Ending an encounter with one spell is great... at making your party feel useless.

 

[Noumenon]

We've done a lot of top-down design thus far. "I want a controller; what feats would fit?" How about approaching things from the bottom up? "Here's a feat -- Improved Initiative. What monster roles does that belong with?"

Leaders definitely don't want Improved Initiative -- they want to protect their babies till they get a chance to act. If they won initiative, they'd probably just delay. Artillery wants initiative so it can hit you before you close in. Lurkers, I think they're happy just staying hidden until their initiative comes up. They can still get the drop on you with flyby attack or something. Controllers probably want it so they can get you while you're grouped.

 

[blargney the second]

A lot of this stuff is built right into a fair amount of the material from late-cycle sourcebooks. The designers were developing 4e concepts by incorporating them into 3.5.

From Bo9S you can use stances to get sneak attack for skirmishers or a marking ability for soldiers. Since it spells out fairly clearly the relative worth of any given ability, it wouldn't be a huge stretch to just modify it to fit your needs as a DM. (Don't want sneak attack? Switch Assassin's Stance from +2d6 SA to +1d6 skirmish and +1 AC.)

I think 4e's monster design concepts can be a *huge* advantage for the DM if you're willing to port them back to 3e. They can be used in conjunction with this thread's premise quite nicely, especially if you're willing to tinker a bit with house rules. Swap a couple feats for abilities X & Y and BAM, you're good to go.
-blarg

 

[Runestar]

Quite a number of feats don't seem to fit into any clear role.

For instance, shock trooper improves your damage dramatically, at the expense of AC. Is this supposed to be a brute or artillery concept?

Some of the feats are also fairly general-purpose - they would fit equally well in any role, IMO. I feel improved initiative is one such feat. He who goes last may end up not getting to go at all. Though I feel that if everyone takes said feat, then it is as good as no one taking it at all, and so would refrain from having every single monster take it.

Also, there is the question of whether you want the feat to help showcase a monster's particular role, or shore up weaknesses inherent in that role. In this aspect, iron will can either be a good brute choice or a poor one.

Examples?

 

[Noumenon]

(Don't want sneak attack? Switch Assassin's Stance from +2d6 SA to +1d6 skirmish and +1 AC.)

I think 4e's monster design concepts can be a *huge* advantage for the DM if you're willing to port them back to 3e.

What do you mean by "4E monster design concepts"? 4E lets you randomly tack powers onto monsters as long as they do the right damage -- are you saying getting Sneak Attack with the Bo9S stances is more like that than adding rogue levels would be?

For instance, shock trooper improves your damage dramatically, at the expense of AC. Is this supposed to be a brute or artillery concept?

I looked that feat up here and it said "you must make a charge," so that's brute. Even if it weren't melee-only I still think brutes are philosophically more likely to give up playing defense and take the hits than artillery.

they would fit equally well in any role, IMO. I feel improved initiative is one such feat.

You disagree with me that leaders like Hound Archon Hero wouldn't want to go last so that none of their buddies would get caught flat-footed? I think first they keep their team safe by staying near them till they've all gotten to act, and then they see how the positioning develops and teleport in where their auras can do the most good. Acting last is what they want.

Also, there is the question of whether you want the feat to help showcase a monster's particular role, or shore up weaknesses inherent in that role. In this aspect, iron will can either be a good brute choice or a poor one.

Showcase. Go for a 1 hp 10d6 damage artillery and a 100 hp 1d6 damage soldier instead of two 50 hp 5d6 damage clones. I think with monster roles you shore up a monster's weak points with another monster, rather than making everyone have a good defense for everything. If the troll is so vulnerable to Will saves, put in a lurker to ambush the spellcasters.

That's kind of ad hoc though, I don't know if every brute likes to have lurker backup. Do brutes have especially low Will saves in 4E? Is "vulnerable to status effects" a characteristic of any 4E monster roles?

 

[blargney the second]

What do you mean by "4E monster design concepts"? 4E lets you randomly tack powers onto monsters as long as they do the right damage -- are you saying getting Sneak Attack with the Bo9S stances is more like that than adding rogue levels would be?

There's a big difference between "randomly tack powers" and what I mean. I'm talking about adding or substituting specific abilities of about the same power level with precision and deliberate intention.

If you're customizing monsters anyways, it's worth considering simply making them do what you want them to do. Maybe an example would help.

Take a shadow's feats. Alertness and Dodge don't really scream lurker to me. I picture the shadow darting in and out of walls and the floor, harrying the PCs from multiple directions. That sounds like skirmish damage to me. I'm okay with the base shadow's hit points, attack bonus, and all the rest, so I don't want to add any levels or hit dice.

Remove: Alertness & Dodge
Add: Martial Study (shadow blade technique) & Martial Stance (assassin's stance)

I like shadow blade technique as is and leave it as an encounter power. I'm not completely satisfied with 2d6 sneak attack, so I'll modify that to a level-equivalent amount of scout skirmish damage (1d6). I realize that I'm neglecting the prerequisite initiator level for the stance, and say "screw it" then move on.

 

[Celebrim]

I like shadow blade technique as is and leave it as an encounter power. I'm not completely satisfied with 2d6 sneak attack, so I'll modify that to a level-equivalent amount of scout skirmish damage (1d6). I realize that I'm neglecting the prerequisite initiator level for the stance, and say "screw it" then move on.

Just so long as you realize you've bumped the CR by about a full +1, I'm ok with that. Shadows are plenty dangerous as it is. They have a host of level independent powers (incorporeal, touch attack, ability drain), and while high level parties can waste shadows all dark and stormy night, if you get caught flatfooted or unprepared by a swarm of shadows it can be bad news.

 

[blargney the second]

Just so long as you realize you've bumped the CR by about a full +1, I'm ok with that. Shadows are plenty dangerous as it is. They have a host of level independent powers (incorporeal, touch attack, ability drain), and while high level parties can waste shadows all dark and stormy night, if you get caught flatfooted or unprepared by a swarm of shadows it can be bad news.

Yup. I look at it as making it truly worth its CR when players have access to the same late-cycle material.
-blarg

 

[Voadam]

Here's a leader for you -- Hound Archon Hero. Has aura of courage, magic circle against evil, healing ability, and teleport so it can get where he can do his allies the most good. He even has Leadership. What other feats should he take?

He's an 11th level paladin in addition to the base CR 4 archon hound. His archon stuff doesn't actually do that much monster leader role stuff (aid and magic circle against evil are the only direct buffing of his allies) but there are a ton of paladin feats where he can trade his turn undead for ally buffs. I'd focus that way for the hero.

 

[Voadam]

We've done a lot of top-down design thus far. "I want a controller; what feats would fit?" How about approaching things from the bottom up? "Here's a feat -- Improved Initiative. What monster roles does that belong with?"

Leaders definitely don't want Improved Initiative -- they want to protect their babies till they get a chance to act. If they won initiative, they'd probably just delay. Artillery wants initiative so it can hit you before you close in. Lurkers, I think they're happy just staying hidden until their initiative comes up. They can still get the drop on you with flyby attack or something. Controllers probably want it so they can get you while you're grouped.

If a leader has an active buff he would be happy to get it off quick. Its not part of his role schtick the way it would be for a skirmisher who is supposed to be quick, but it wouldn't be contrary to his role. Brutes, however, are supposed to be slow so Improved Initiative would be actively contrary to his role weaknesses.