The Gaming Den

Good ideas that are getting complicated very quickly. It adds yet another classification to monsters, in addition to all the other stuff that's already there.

It would be of great help knowing that a krenshar even exists, how powerful it would be, and what fashion it might attack in if I'd never heard the word before, but I think I'd have to moan once writers started basing new rules around that category (i.e. new abilities can now do extra damage based on monster class, in addition to what already exists for monster types, subtypes, and so on)

This is further evidence that monster manuals dearly need to come with databases and software for very fast scaling of sample creatures.

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.

I would echo this noting that some players would also like to keep such creatures as pets, whether by summoning them, being attuned to nature, reanimating them, or whatever. Cool pets are easily my favorite thing about 3e.

Not really, 8headeddragon. It's not in addition to all the stuff that's already there, it's making the random assortment of stuff that's already there have a recognizable and coherent pattern. If you've already read the stat blocks of ten Brawlers, knowing that the Krenshar is also a Brawler will give you a much clearer idea about it than knowing that it's a Magical Beast.

I think Sigil's point is a bit confused though. A monster that's designed to be class-compatible isn't a "Classed Monster", it's an NPC with a strange race; "Classed Monsters" are specifically creatures that are built with special Monster Classes. NPCs are probably playable, and whether the other kinds of creatures are playable is mostly independent of this discussion (aside from the side point that Monster Classes can generate really stupid and nonsensical monsters, which makes allowing the players free reign in designing their pets into a somewhat less ideal option).

Oh, if for "Classed Monster" you meant building a monster as a "Lurker 3/Brute 4" I would say you could take it or leave it depending on how flexible you want your system to be.

In my fantasy heartbreaker I've divided all creatures into Person or Beast. Both of them can gain levels in classes, but the Person creatures are restricted to person classes and the Beast creatures are restricted to beast classes. And yeah, it does allow you to make some pretty goofy monsters, but as long as it's appropriately powered too it's not too much of a problem.

All the creatures still require a base race though, so I guess I don't have pure "classed monsters" just monsters that advance by class.

schpeelah wrote: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.

You seem to not have a clue what I was talking about. I was talking about encountering a tiger. You can't know for example if Forcecage is useful when fighting a tiger, because you don't know if the tiger has enough skirmisher levels to have teleportation.

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.

And it still is a fucking rat. I'd rather encounter something that is a bit more interesting.

So...are these monster classes a 4e thing? I've never heard of them, but I like the idea. Is there a 3e conversion? Is that even possible?

Game On,
fbmf

They're based off of 4e monster classes, but Frank's been kicking around these terms for his own ~fantasy heartbreaker~ for a while.

I don't 4e. Can someone give me a rundown of each monster class? Not the whole write up, but just a sentence or two for each.

Thank you.

Game On,
fbmf

fbmf wrote:So...are these monster classes a 4e thing?

The Monster Classes like Brute, Soldier, and Skirmisher were 4e things, yes. As many things in 4e, the initial pitch was solid looking, and the "ah fuckit" design work of the writers turned it to ash. The "Lurker" class sets a monster's to-hit bonus, hit points, and defenses to a rather narrow range bassed on level, but that is ultimately not that interesting or helpful because it doesn't define the creatures' abilities, which are about 100% of what matters. Also, they didn't bother setting which defenses monsters of different classes were good at or against, meaning that the effect they actually had on tactics was essentially nonexistent. Oh, and the numbers were completely fucked, especially at high level.

But the concept of having a monster class be "Artillery", indicating that it was weak in melee and dangerous at range; or "Brute", indicating that it was dangerous in melee but weak to trickery or kiting was a really great concept. They just didn't actually deliver that concept. At all. I mean, this was pretty solid:

4e DMG, page 54 wrote:Artillery monsters excel at ranged combat. These creatures rain arrows, explosive fireballs, and similar attacks on the party from a distance. They’re well protected against ranged attacks, but more vulnerable in melee. They often spread damage out over multiple characters in an area.

But by not having an actual list of Artillery abilities that were appropriate for any particular level (or at all, for that matter), there was zero support for that. The Artillery class ended up telling you less about what a monster was good or bad at than the Magical Beast class did. At least Magical Beasts came with shitty Will saves!

I've never heard of them, but I like the idea. Is there a 3e conversion? Is that even possible?

Game On,
fbmf

I probably wouldn't bother with a 3e conversion, because 3e already has like 7 monster books. But if you were going to ground up the monsters, you'd obviously want to start with role-based monster classes.

fbmf wrote:I don't 4e. Can someone give me a rundown of each monster class? Not the whole write up, but just a sentence or two for each.

The whole list is:

• Artillery - Ranged Attackers
• Brute - Tough dumb Melee fighters
• Controller - Battlefield control and/or debuff specialist
• Lurker - Submarine-type creatures who have large ambush-style attacks
• Minion - worthless but simple horde monster
• Skirmisher - Mobile tactical creature
• Soldier - lightning rods that defend other creatures on their team
• Leader - buff specialist, bizarrely not actually defined as a role, but like a sub-role that other classes would have stapled onto them, because 4e.

I would have a different list, but most of those are decent enough as a place to start. The normal caveats apply as regards the actual implementation in 4e. Soldiers don't inherently have any actual ability to defend their compatriots, but they are also way better than other monsters of their level because their chassis comes with higher accuracy which is worth more than what any of the other class types actually get.

My list, by the way, is:

• Blaster - creature which can trade mobility for more devastating ranged attacks.
• Ravager - creature which becomes more dangerous as they fight and get injured.
• Controller - Battlefield control and/or Debuff
• Harrier - creature which needs to disengage in order to refresh their stunlocks
• Leader - provides bonuses to allies
• Lurker - has activatable "trap cards"
• Soldier - has defenses and inflicts damage

-Username17

Very cool. Does your list have a full write up somewhere?

Game On,
fbmf

ishy wrote:

schpeelah wrote: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.

You seem to not have a clue what I was talking about. I was talking about encountering a tiger. You can't know for example if Forcecage is useful when fighting a tiger, because you don't know if the tiger has enough skirmisher levels to have teleportation.

But, of course, you could say the same thing about a human. The human could be a 17th level wizard, who can deal with forcecage, or a third-level fighter, who can't. (Nor, for that matter, can a third-level wizard). I'd suggest that the rules should suggest that the 17th-level God of Tigers should be described differently from a 2nd level normal tiger, unless he's using some disguise ability, but I'd also say the same thing about wizards.

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.

And it still is a fucking rat. I'd rather encounter something that is a bit more interesting.

Yes, which is why someone upthread said that if you don't like fighting level 20 rats you should tell your DM that. But if your DM wants to use a level 20 rat (maybe it's the avatar of the God of Disease or something), it's better if the system makes it into an actual 20th-level challenge, rather than a giant brute with tons of hit points that's trivially defeated by flying and archery.