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

[Voadam]

At level 20, where this feat gives its maximum benefit, you only get 20 extra HP. Improved Toughness is best on casters or anyone else with tiny, D4 hit dice, and even then, casters have better option (Faerie Mysteries Initiate allows you to use Int instead of Con Mod for calculating HP for wizards, for example.)

Do I need to point out the flaw in the above?

Take for example the CR 20 Tarresque.

. . .

Incidentally, I believe the Tarresque chose Toughness for all of its feats?

If the 48 HD CR 20 Tarrasque were to use non PH feats and used Improved Toughness instead of toughness his six toughness feats would instead of being +18 hp leading to 858 hp would be +48 hp each leading to 288 hp an increase of 270 for a total of 1,128 hp.

For a different example take a CR 8 18 HD Tyrannosaurus. Advance it to 51 HD with one size upgrade. That is now CR 20 and has 11 new feats to spend. And if you want to use a couple of them on improved toughness and swap out the three toughness feats for improved toughness it gets to be very, very tough.

 

[Noumenon]

if you get caught flatfooted or unprepared by a swarm of shadows it can be bad news.

"Swarm of shadows," taken literally, sounds like such a great monster for high level encounters. I think I'm going to use it next session. Don't know how to balance it to make it CR 13-15 (my PCs are 19th level). Maybe 2d6 auto Str damage, distraction (Ex) Will 20 or shaken => frightened => panicked, HD 18d12?

 

[Runestar]

You can only take improved toughness once anyways.

Though toughness is so crappy that simply by swapping it out for any other feat, the base monster will likely become stronger.

And I don't mind blowing the monster's feats on passive feats. Just factor them into the stats and you don't have to worry about them afterwards, because they are "always on". So it makes the monster easier to run.

The abyssmal heritor feats from fiendish codex are worth looking into as well, though they don't seem to lend themselves to any particular role. For 4 feats, you get any of the 4: +3NA, +2 floating insight bonuses, +3 damage to all natural attacks, dr4/lawful or +12 to jump checks (the rest don't really strike me as that useful). Maybe great for solos like dragons, to lend them that little extra flavour.

Also, shadows can't qualify for 3rd lv stances (they have an IL of just 1, though they can still take a 1st lv stance), but I do agree that access to maneuvers could make them very scary. Imagine one with steel wind to let it attack 2 PCs simultaneously, with punishing stance for that bit of extra damage,

 

[Noumenon]

Brutes are "tough" in HP, but do they deserve Great Fortitude? It looks like the ones in the 4E MM have it. I'm thinking I'm going to assign Lightning Reflexes to Skirmishers. Reflex save spells do two things: they stop your movement like Spike Stones and Grease, or they punish bunched monsters with area effects. Skirmishers move a lot and get in the middle of things, so they need Lightning Reflexes. Lurkers move, but they can hide from the area spells and wait till the grease goes away. I still don't know who gets Iron Will.

I looked in the 4E MM and came up with this assignment of save feats:

Soldiers and Elites get all three.

Great Fortitude: Brute
Lightning Reflexes: Artillery, Skirmisher, Lurker
Iron Will: Controller, Leader

I note there's not really a "leader" role in the MM, but it seems like a useful distinction for an ally-buffing controller as opposed to an enemy-nerfing controller.

 

[Runestar]

3e monsters were designed largely on the assumption you would run them singly, so it probably made little sense to have a buffing monster.

Are we going to try dividing the 3e monsters into the various roles, and then work out what feats to assign them?

 

[Jhaelen]

3e monsters were designed largely on the assumption you would run them singly, so it probably made little sense to have a buffing monster.

Up to a certain point, yes.

Starting with the 3e Monster Manual 4 monsters were clearly already designed with the 4e roles in mind.

For my 3e campaign I've found out early that single monsters don't really work for my game because I have nine players!
I basically had to come up with some of the techniques that are standard in 4e, e.g. monsters attacking waves, 'minions' buffed by 'leaders', etc.

Generally I try to avoid battles involving more than three different kinds of monsters, though.

 

[Noumenon]

Starting with the 3e Monster Manual 4 monsters were clearly already designed with the 4e roles in mind.

Ooh, you brought new information to the thread!

This review says MMIV is also organized like the 4E MM, with an entry not just for "Drow (add your own class levels, ya bum!)" but "Drow -- drow priestess, dark sniper, arcane guard, Lolth's sting". That could be quite handy.

Are we going to try dividing the 3e monsters into the various roles, and then work out what feats to assign them?

My encounter building usually starts with an idea that determines what kind of monsters I have (well of undead, goblin pirates) and then I have to level up the monsters or NPCs to my current party level. So I care about the roles mainly to help me make the choices I have to make: what feats? what weapons?

I actually went through already and made a list of what monster roles could use which weapons -- skirmishers get shuriken, which are short range and good for sneak attack, elites get 2-blade swords so they can have more attacks and spiked gauntlets so they're resilient to disarm.

 

[arscott]

Haven't played 3e in a while, so I can't help much with feat specifics.

But reading this thread, there are a few places where role description are lacking:

1) On "Are rogues lurkers or skirmishers"--either one. Rogues that stealth are lurkers--Rogues that flank are skirmishers.

2) There's an element of Aggro to the soldier role. Having a million points of armor isn't enough if the PCs can just go around attacking everyone else instead. The Soldier should have something that encourages the PCs stay focused on attacking them instead of the squishier roles.

 

[blargney the second]

2) There's an element of Aggro to the soldier role. Having a million points of armor isn't enough if the PCs can just go around attacking everyone else instead. The Soldier should have something that encourages the PCs stay focused on attacking them instead of the squishier roles.

Yup, that's the Iron Guard's Glare stance from Bo9S. There are also a couple White Raven strikes that give monsters incentive to focus on you.

 

[Noumenon]

The Soldier should have something that encourages the PCs stay focused on attacking them instead of the squishier roles.

Is there anything aggro in core?

Looking in the 4E MM, several of the soldiers have slow or immobilize abilities. That's one way to keep them near you -- especially in 3.5 with the full attack thing. I would have thought those abilities were for controllers, but it looks like the true definition of controller is "multiple targets/terrain altering." Improved Trip is actually a Brute feat mostly in 4E.