NPCs, Monsters, and Classed Monsters

[Foxwarrior]

A certain train of thought in the 5e thread which isn't particularly exclusive to 5e brought this about.

Let us define NPCs as "Characters on Team Monster who are built (almost) exclusively according to Player Character Building rules." Player Characters can also be built starting at a level higher than 1, John Magnum.

Then, Monsters are "Characters on Team Monster who are built with a fair amount of arbitrary handwaving." 3.5e monsters partially fit in this: the actual important bits of a monster (things it can do, attacks it has, special defenses, CR) are totally arbitrary; only HP, saves, BAB, skill ranks, and (some of their) feats are actually derived from rules. I guess it's important to note that there are well defined ways for taking a monster and upgrading it in 3.5e, and not in 4e.

I suppose we need a Classed Monsters definition too: "Characters on Team Monster who are built according to rules other than the Player Character Building ones."


Personally, I think that NPCs and Monsters are good things to have. Monsters allow you to introduce abilities that would combine amazingly well with Class Features somewhere, without having to balance those abilities with the assumption that they will be combined later. Even if you don't have multiclassing, somewhat arbitrarily defined monsters allow you to create a creature with a cool new set of tactics without all the extra overhead involved in making an entire class.

There's a problem with NPCs, though: a lot of (potential) PC classes try to derive complexity from resource management systems and long lists of abilities (looking at you, Wizard and WoF), and DMing several different creatures like that is a pain.

Classed Monsters don't have the arbitrary freedom that other Monsters get to have, and the whole classing thing prevents you from maintaining distinctiveness of creatures (i.e. Only dragons can both fly and breathe fire, Only Tarrasques (who can neither shoot nor fly) are immune to death, etcetera). I guess it's not a big deal in an Extreme Kitchen Sink environment like D&D...

tl;dr: I'm feeling insecure about a design decision.

[John Magnum]

You can start the game at a level higher than one, but even if you begin the game at level 5 you build your character by doing the level 1 chargen and applying the "level up" operation four times.

[Foxwarrior]

You don't build NPCs that way too?

[John Magnum]

I don't understand what your point about mentioning that PCs can start at a level higher than 1 is, then.

monsters should be built by picking a race, picking a class, and advancing in that class from level 1 to whatever level you think the monster ought to be, accumulating wealth and gear along the way.

I guess "accumulating wealth and gear along the way" sounds like I'm saying your monster needs to start as a level 1 character and go on adventures, but I actually had in mind 3.x WBL and 4e's combination of WBL and the rule where starting at level X means you have one item of level X-1, one of level X, and one of level X+1 (or something like that, it's been a while).

[Wrathzog]

I guess it's important to note that there are well defined ways for taking a monster and upgrading it in 3.5e, and not in 4e.

??? p174 of the 4E DMG goes over upgrading monsters and it's stupidly simple. (+1 to Attack Rolls and Defenses; +1 to damage every other level; extra hit points based on some table)
It's also got some guidelines for equipment and templates... but *shrug* they coulda put this in the Monster Manual, but saying that it was undefined in 4e is incorrect.

Anyhow...
As a Designer, I like A because I feel that it's the most elegant solution.
As a DM, I like option B because it'd probably give me the tools to generate monsters the quickest and with the least amount of work.

[Foxwarrior]

Then vote for B. Generally speaking, it's more useful to know what other people want to play than what they want to design. I'm not sure I agree with your reasoning, though: while it would probably be faster, yes, that's only because it doesn't slow you down with tools for making sure the monsters are actually balanced or fun to fight.

[Sigil]

I think it's reasonable to have NPCs, Monsters, and Classed Monsters within one system, though it's not strictly speaking necessary for every system. It really depends on what sort of game you're going for.

If, for example, you're designing Spelunkers of Sarthassos, which is about Indiana Jones style explorers delving into the lost ruins of a dead empire, it's perfectly reasonable to not have any classed monsters. All of your encounters might seriously be against other humans or animals, and nothing else. Allowing you to make your "monsters" completely arbitrary having advancement completely unrelated to any class advancement scheme.

If you're playing Issac Asimov's Foundation: The RPG, you might even not even have any monsters at all, and just have NPCs.

But if you want a broader system that allows the consumer to tell stories in greatly varied settings you probably want all three. At some point a player will want to be a monster with classes, and your system needs to accommodate this. One thing that could help is to divide your "monsters" into two broad categories, let's say "man" and "beast" to choose arbitrarily. You simply design all the "man" monsters to be class compatible, and give a big fuck-you-NO to players being "beast" type monsters. Still problematic in edge cases ("But aboleths are sentient! They shouldn't be beasts! I want to play one!") so mileage may vary.

[Username17]

I think the game would actually be better if Medusae were buildable from scratch as 7th level Lurkers (or whatever). A whole lot of bullshit and heartache could be avoided if monsters had expected bonuses by level and level based ability lists to go with that. I mean, 4th edition tells you exactly how many hit points and what the attack bonus of your creature is going to be by class and level, but since it doesn't bother telling you whether a creature's attack should be a piddling amount of damage or a multi-target stun lock with piddling damage to Tekken Juggle the entire party, the entire system of monster creation is less than useless.

Now in a game where the player is expected to run one character for months or years and Mister Cavern is expected to pull out three hundred Hobgoblins for a single encounter using up only part of the evening, the MC obviously needs some sort of corner cutting method. I don't give a flying rat's ass what Hobgoblin Redshirt #184 has for background skills, and neither does anyone else. But Hobgoblin Redshirt #184 is still be abstracted, and if for some reason they become specific they should be able to get player character background skills just as they can develop a specified haircut and name.

Character abstraction level can and should come in more than one degree. We want and need less abstraction for the one-use Hag's Three than for the seemingly endless waves of throwaway Hobgoblins. But if the Hag's Three become long running characters, they are probably going to need to be specified more. But regardless, the existence of "Quick and Dirty NPC Generation Rules" and "Even Quicker and Dirtier NPC Generation Rules" is not an argument against NPCs all having classes and levels. It's also not an argument against monsters being able to go through long-form character creation.

Almost any conceivable monster could be a long running companion of one of the player companions. Even a gelatinous cube could be a mount or pokemon. So any monster needs to be capable of being specified down to the small details. And giving monsters classes and levels to begin with not only makes that sort of shit easier, it makes a whole lot of other parts of the game design and expansion easier as well.

-Username17

[Red_Rob]

A whole lot of bullshit and heartache could be avoided if monsters had expected bonuses by level and level based ability lists to go with that.

The monster creation stuff was the biggest let down for me from 3e. I kept hearing how "3e has standardised monster creation and advancement, you don't just pick things at random and eyeball an XP value like dirty 2e, it's all calculated to be balanced to a certain level!". And I thought that sounded awesome, being able to decide to make a level 10 enemy and having guidelines for the types of powers suitable, expected stat ranges, and all the rest.

What I got was "Choose a creature type, add stats, sure 40 Str is fine I guess, calculate the HD and saves, then add some powers or whatever if you can be arsed, +2 to grapples or instadeath gaze or something, I guess it should have a CR? Maybe? Aww fuck it, eyeball that shit. Congrats, you TPK'ed the group!".

Colour me unimpressed.

[Foxwarrior]

So, if your Gelatinous Cube is a level 4 Bruiser, and one of the level based abilities you can choose from for level 5 Bruisers is "Fling Enemy", can you teach your Gelatinous Cube Pokemon to throw people? Could you teach your Iron Golem "Squeeze Under Doors", because it's also a Bruiser? Is all monster advancement "by DM permission only"?

[Username17]

So, if your Gelatinous Cube is a level 4 Bruiser, and one of the level based abilities you can choose from for level 5 Bruisers is "Fling Enemy", can you teach your Gelatinous Cube Pokemon to throw people? Could you teach your Iron Golem "Squeeze Under Doors", because it's also a Bruiser? Is all monster advancement "by DM permission only"?

Having played Disgaea 3, I think that having slimes get "hurl opponent" sounds pretty reasonable. Having watched Terminator 2, I think that metal golems getting "flow under doors" seems reasonable as well. But I admit that there are going to be combinations that will be hard to justify. A giant spider is a lurker type enemy, so if you "level it up", it might be technically able to trade in its webs for a higher level "trap card" like petrifying gaze.

The monster ability lists are never going to guaranty that the monsters you make are "not retarded". That's why there are still people actually writing these things. But failing to have a system doesn't actually prevent us from being given higher level giant spiders with stupid fucking eye beams. Because: Retrievers.

-Username17

[Previn]

So, if your Gelatinous Cube is a level 4 Bruiser, and one of the level based abilities you can choose from for level 5 Bruisers is "Fling Enemy", can you teach your Gelatinous Cube Pokemon to throw people? Could you teach your Iron Golem "Squeeze Under Doors", because it's also a Bruiser? Is all monster advancement "by DM permission only"?

I'd say you have 2 or 3 lists you choose abilities from from monsters. 'Fling Enemy' is on the role list, 'Squeeze Under Doors' is on the ooze racial list, and the special qualities list.

[Foxwarrior]

Classed monsters still don't help you make monsters with actually new abilities, they just provide a mathematical formula for determining how many unique monsters can currently be described in your game. Wouldn't similar advantages in DM-initiated monster development occur if you simply wrote down a particularly well thought-out list of guidelines for deciding whether a monster was totally broken or not?

I mean, even if you've got half a dozen monster classes with a hundred abilities each, the DM will still need to make something up in order to create a Weeping Angel-like creature if you forgot to provide a "Can't move while observed" flaw.

[Sigil]

I do think having every ability be on a "power list" of some sort is beneficial for modularity. It doesn't really matter if you don't have every ability possible to use to create any conceivable monster, only that when you introduce a new monster with a new ability you tag that new power so it goes into the appropriate lists.

[squirrelloid]

I do think having every ability be on a "power list" of some sort is beneficial for modularity. It doesn't really matter if you don't have every ability possible to use to create any conceivable monster, only that when you introduce a new monster with a new ability you tag that new power so it goes into the appropriate lists.

Along these lines, having a list of powers - and when it's okay to have them - gives the DM benchmarks to compare his new powers to and ballpark what an acceptable level for those powers would be.

Similarly, level guidelines on basic things like creature strength and grapple check modifier would have prevented giant crab.

[Sigil]

Yeah, I forgot to say it, but you should definitely tag the powers with some value too. A point value or a level or something, however the system you end up using works.

[Chamomile]

Go away Sigil, we had a whole thread about how much we hate you.

[Sigil]

Go away Sigil, we had a whole thread about how much we hate you.

[Username17]

Classed monsters still don't help you make monsters with actually new abilities, they just provide a mathematical formula for determining how many unique monsters can currently be described in your game. Wouldn't similar advantages in DM-initiated monster development occur if you simply wrote down a particularly well thought-out list of guidelines for deciding whether a monster was totally broken or not?

I mean, even if you've got half a dozen monster classes with a hundred abilities each, the DM will still need to make something up in order to create a Weeping Angel-like creature if you forgot to provide a "Can't move while observed" flaw.

Yes, you're going to need and want to write new content, but as squirreloid pointed out:

Along these lines, having a list of powers - and when it's okay to have them - gives the DM benchmarks to compare his new powers to and ballpark what an acceptable level for those powers would be.

Similarly, level guidelines on basic things like creature strength and grapple check modifier would have prevented giant crab.

You want examples and guidelines of both numbers and abilities that are appropriate at each level of monster.

-Username17

[Dean]

I think the idea of "Ooze" or "Construct" or maybe even "Golem" subclasses is a good one.

If a Gelatinous Cube is a 5th level Bruiser/Ooze and has both 5th level Bruiser and Ooze abilities I think that would be awesome. Something like a Black Pudding could then be Lurker/Ooze and thus would have similar abilities as the Cube but it's approach to combat would then be different.

Obviously this relates to the racial subclasses discussions we were having recently.

[ishy]

Should monsters be able to play at all levels though?

Is it better for the game if you can encounter goblins at all levels or if you graduate and move on to different creatures?

If you meet a vrock should you have an idea of how powerful it is, based on the last vrock you fought or should it only matter how many 'Lurker' levels it has?

[Username17]

I think the idea of "Ooze" or "Construct" or maybe even "Golem" subclasses is a good one.

If a Gelatinous Cube is a 5th level Bruiser/Ooze and has both 5th level Bruiser and Ooze abilities I think that would be awesome. Something like a Black Pudding could then be Lurker/Ooze and thus would have similar abilities as the Cube but it's approach to combat would then be different.

Obviously this relates to the racial subclasses discussions we were having recently.

Certainly, having "chakra binds" that represent common scaling monster sets would make it easier and more thematic to have related monsters of different powers and allows us to make blue mage characters, which is something we want. So the "Ooze Set" is something which uses up a magic item slot and gives you standard ooze bullshit (like being immune to crits and flanking) and scales up with some stuff that oozes generically get at higher levels. If you wanted to have your wizard be a Goopizard, you could invest in getting the Ooze Package attached to your own chakra, give up a magic item slot and be all flooby like a boss.

Should monsters be able to play at all levels though?

Is it better for the game if you can encounter goblins at all levels or if you graduate and move on to different creatures?

If you meet a vrock should you have an idea of how powerful it is, based on the last vrock you fought or should it only matter how many 'Lurker' levels it has?

Goblins are playable as player characters. So like it or not, we're stuck with Goblins appearing at all levels. Vrocks should definitely have a level minimum, but I would argue that they shouldn't have a level maximum. You have Chaohinon of the Void and The Beast and all that nonsense. So basically, Vrocks can appear at whatever level of Skirmisher (or whatever) they can buy all their signature powers as a Screaming Demon Type I True Tanar'ri Vrock. And they can appear at higher levels by upgrading those signature powers or by buying new powers or whatever.

-Username17

[ishy]

Well take giant rats or tigers as a better example then.
It would be nice to know how strong a tiger is without having to know which classes it has.
But then again, if the tiger is an animal companion of a druid you want it to scale too. And you don't want to force the druid to switch animal companions every level.
So I guess what I was talking about doesn't actually work in a level based game.

And if your DM brings out a Giant Rat (+20 bruiser) for you to fight at level 20, you should just tell her/him out of game that you prefer different kinds of enemies.

[fbmf]

Do we have 3.5 compatible monster role classes statted up somewhere?

[schpeelah]

Well take giant rats or tigers as a better example then.
It would be nice to know how strong a tiger is without having to know which classes it has.

I think you are taking the system we're talking about backwards. A tiger is a Skirmisher. Specifically a Level 4 Animal Skirmisher with Stealth and multiple melee attacks. That's literally all the information you need to know everything about the Tiger's stats, you derive everything else from that.

And if your DM brings out a Giant Rat (+20 bruiser) for you to fight at level 20, you should just tell her/him out of game that you prefer different kinds of enemies.

Take note that a Level 20 Giant Rat is going to be by default a Colossal Chosen Minion of the god of disease that breathes radioactive fire. Because this is the default size for Level 20 Bruisers and it needs to have its slots filled with level-appropriate magical powers.