Question about Monster classes as Characters

[Xtomjames]

So, I'll first state I despise 4ed for various reasons, but I've been invited to play a game of it and so I'm trying to figure out my character.

What is the best way to determine starting stats for a monster class, say the Quickling or an awakended potted house plant?

[The_Pyre]

Well, first thing to note is that 4e doesn't work like 3e at all, so you can't simply pick a monster and create a level progression out of it. What might work is to figure out what you want your character to do, then look at the available options and see which ones will help you get that.

Unrelated to your question (but since you mentioned it already), despising 4e might make character creation more difficult. Of course, it depends on which reasons you despise it for, but there you go.

[Blackfang108]

And if you're creating a monster class from scratch, choose whatever stats you want.

[Tegu8788]

In the back of the monster manuals are some stats for monster races, but you'd still have to pick your own stats and class. If there is a monster you particularly like, the playground may be able to recommend a class that has the same feel.

[NecroRebel]

Generally, you find the stats for a race that's in the monster manuals by looking at all of the monsters of that race and finding common points between them to build the race off of, then completing to taste.

For instance, the quicklings' highest stat is DEX, so they would get +2 fixed DEX. WIS and CON are also high on both, so they'd be where the swing stats would probably go. They'd get no racial power, fey origin, and small size, since they have those things. Their primary feature would probably be the 12 speed and 6 climb speed (or maybe a climb speed equal to half their land speed rounded down). Speak elven only, the racial skill bonuses in Acrobatics and Stealth, and that's basically it.

If you were building a race that had some common racial powers or features, you'd give them that. For instance, Sahaugin all have a racial feature that gives them +attack and damage against bloodied foes, so if they were made as a PC race they'd have that, while Centaurs all have an at-will immediate interrupt that lets them kick something that moves to flank them, so they'd have that.

If you're trying to make something that isn't based off a printed monster, you have to work a bit harder to make it, but not too much so. You just need to figure out which stat you give a fixed +2 bonus to, which 2 other stats you give the player the choice of +2 to, 2 skills that they get +2 to, and then figure out what racial features, including powers, to give. That last is very much ad-hoc, so it's the trickiest part to balance.

[hamishspence]

Heroes of Shadow has the vampire as a "monster class".

So you could be a human 1st level vampire, rather than a human 1st level fighter- and progress all the way to 30th level vampire.

[Xtomjames]

How in the name of Buddha is telling me to play a Vampire relevant to the conversation that I've started?

The potted house plant is out of the D20 munchkin monster manual (it's a gag character). As for the Quickling it is in the MM for 4ed but it seems a tad bit dumbed down from their Pathfinder and 3.5 edition versions.

I just find it quite annoying that so many things have been changed to such an extent that one must relearn the entire 4ed system. Not to mention the radical changes to some of the character classes (many not for the better). Also this lacking ability to use monsters as racial classes really limits character creation.

[NecroRebel]

How in the name of Buddha is telling me to play a Vampire relevant to the conversation that I've started?

It's relevant because vampires are "monsters" and they're an example of how a "monster class" might be done. You'll note that hamish never actually says to play a vampire, only giving it as an example.


The potted house plant is out of the D20 munchkin monster manual (it's a gag character). As for the Quickling it is in the MM for 4ed but it seems a tad bit dumbed down from their Pathfinder and 3.5 edition versions.

I just find it quite annoying that so many things have been changed to such an extent that one must relearn the entire 4ed system. Not to mention the radical changes to some of the character classes (many not for the better). Also this lacking ability to use monsters as racial classes really limits character creation.

Hm. Wikipedia says that quicklings never actually appeared in 3.0 or 3.5 WotC products. If true, I find it inconceivable that it could be "dumbed down" in 4e, because it would mean that the 4e quicklings are literally infinitely more detailed than the 3.x quicklings :smalltongue:

Anyway, you should look at the differences between OD&D and 1e AD&D, 1e and 2e, and 2e and 3e. Every time, one had to relearn basically the whole system if one wanted to change editions. It is annoying... but that's why people tend to stay with the edition that they started with.

Besides that, I'm not sure how not having specific classes for monsters limits character creation. While stats for many very inhuman races aren't officially published, they weren't in 3.x, either (and usually if they were they sucked so hard they were unusable as-is), and since races are largely standardized they're fairly easy to homebrew, especially if you're basing them off things that already exist.

The short of it is, if you go into the game assuming you'll hate it and feel limited, you'll hate it and feel limited. If you don't assume that, you'll find character creation and play to be more than robust and versatile, without any real lacks. Your complaint sounds, to me, like someone from outside the car modifying scene claiming that your customization options are "really limited" because there aren't any helicopter cars: it's technically true, yes, but just sort of absurd to bring up given all that you can do.

[the_other_gm]

for a potted plant, Wilden Warden. just sit in a wheelbarrow full of dirt and ask the partyto drag you around and you'll be all plant-like in the enemy grill.

the main reason for the lack of "monster as class" is the overall difficulty of making one viable as a full class.

now, warforged generally work for constructs/automatons/whatnot, wilden for plant types and the revenant works for most generic undead types. the various classes available can let you take thematically appropriate powers to fluff up your class as part of your racial identity.

heck, before the wilden came out, i had used a warforged warden to play a young treant, thanks to all the warden's plant-based attacks as well as it's ability to transform into big tree shapes.

he was fun.

for a quickling, i don't have my books so i can't say what that even is.

[Xtomjames]

The Quickling was originally released for 3.5 in a supplement book by Paizo. It is also in the Pathfinder Bestiary 2.

The thing is that in D&D 3.5 any monster class capable of being used as a racial class for PCs had LA and given base stats. There are over 300 monster classes granted base stats for use as a PC in D&D 3.5, in 4ed, I've counted 12 in the three monster manuals I have for it. What more is 4ed is limited in actual base races compared to 3.5. Hence my point on it being limited in character creation.

In any case I'll just do what I planned to and ad hoc it.

[Tegu8788]

Did you factor in the race/class combination possibilities? It may not get as high, but if you include hybrids and multiclass builds, I'd bet you can make just about anything you want. But if you can just make it up, have fun, and hopefully the "limited" options will make a balanced race easier to measure.

[Vknight]

...There are no monster classes

Monsters are either, Soldiers, Controllers, Brutes, Skrimishers, Artillery, or Lurkers. A monster with a player class is an Elite monster with access to 1of the classes encounter and at-wills but its still a monster.

The 4e model does not want players to play monsters, or monstrous races.

If a PC wants to play a Quickling or the like its suggested you say no. But you can easily whip something up like what was suggested earlier or re-flavor an existing PC race.

Also listen to this you don't have to be that super special snowflake whose a redemption seeking monster for the crimes of his people (http://slangdesign.com/rppr/2011/11/podcast-episode/rppr-episode-67-be-a-better-player/), we already have a snowflake like that (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drizzt_Do%27Urden) it's find to play Bob the farmer, Carl the street magician or, James the gladiator.

Also enjoy the game and don't try and ruin it for others...

Oh and those racial choices and so called unique monster racial classes? Are all based off something simple. Are they a 'Outsider', 'Dragon', 'Construct' etc.
Those are the monster classes.
All those Hags, Orcs, and Goblins are monstrous humanoids. Which is a monster class. They give them the appropriate abilities and done.
4e does not want you to play monsters so use an existing race and simply re-flavor some things or be a decent/good player and use an race as it is rather then cause trouble for your Dm

[tcrudisi]

Also enjoy the game and don't try and ruin it for others...

This +100.

My old 3.5 groups made the switch to 4e. Only one person was adamant against it from the beginning. He happened to be the only one that didn't enjoy 4e more than 3.5. Coincidence? I don't think so. He came in with a bias against it and it ended up costing him a place at our gaming table. We got so tired of him complaining and not participating that we kicked him out of the group. It was a drag on the rest of us until we told him he wasn't welcome any more. We stuck with him for a long time but, ultimately, he wasn't willing to even attempt 4e, so we no longer attempted to keep him in the group.

All I'm saying is that you should try to enjoy the game. If you go into it expecting it to be worse, you will find all the differences and not be able to enjoy the game. If you go into it with the mind that it's a different game, then you might just find that it's incredibly fun.

And one last thing: try out 4e before you try to break the system. Why is it that many people immediately want to break the mold when they try out a new system? "The game doesn't support this (by RAW), so I want to do it!" ... /sigh. Try it out as it is intended first, then if you don't like it, go to a system that will handle it (if you can) or try to make the current system fit it.

One last thing:
Awakened potted plant? That's basically a Wilden, found in PHB3.
Quickling is easy to recreate. Guttersnipe theme gives you the Running Slash (except no penalty to the attack roll). Various races will get you other benefits that a Quickling would get. (Elf, for example, gives you increased speed, better mobility in the form of shifting, and the fey type.) The class can further enhance this. Something like Predator Druid continues with the theme of attacking on the move (Predator's Flurry is a great example at level 3) and further increases your movement.

[Tengu_temp]

Each monster manual has stat blocks for the PC-viable nonstandard races that are present in it (do note that the minotaur and whatever other race can wield large weapons got a re-update later, because they were overpowered). They tend to be weaker than normal races due to the lack of racial feats, but that's the price you pay for wanting to play a speshul snowflake.

[Lucy Land]

I just find it quite annoying that so many things have been changed to such an extent that one must relearn the entire 4ed system.
Gee, who would have thought that playing a new game requires learning new rules?

See, we really can't help you play a 4e quickling any more than we could help you play a 3e wombat. Why? This is home brew territory. So talk to your DM, because he's the one in charge of home brew.

Oh, and one word of advice that I can give you: I assume the DM is a good friend of yours, so try not to denigrate the game he wants to run. At least until you give it an honest try.

[Reluctance]

If your DM wanted to play Exalted, would you sit there complaining that it wasn't Pathfinder? Or would you accept that it's a different game with different design goals, and thus different strengths and weaknesses? 4e, once you get over the D&D name on the cover, is basically a completely different game. It should be treated as such.

And I, for one, am completely missing the point of playing a screwball character just to be a wet blanket. Do you value your time and your friendships so little that you'll waste the former to jerk around the latter? If I don't want to do something, I say "no thanks" and do something I like instead.

[Duos Greanleef]

If you value the people you're gaming with, and hate 4e so much, don't play. You're literally doing no one any favors to play a game you've set your mind on a negative view thereof. Decline the invitation.

Or play an elf and reflavor it as a quickling. Change power names. Change feature names. Be CREATIVE. :smallsmile:

[Ravian]

Best I can think for a Quickling:

Race: Elf (probably one of the most mobile in the game)

Theme: Guttersnipe (don't know alot about it but seems to be very mobile)

Class: Monk (gotta love those movement powers, and Psionic power has a feat for increased speed in heroic tier)

Overall: you have a fast fey creature that is capable of great attacks on the run, not a perfect quickling but that's as good as I can figure with 4e rules

By the way nothing good can ever happen from disliking a game as you go into it. For example I once went into a D&D encounters session at the game store all ready with my 4e monk but what do you know they were only allowing essentials. I had always disliked essentials because they seemed dumbed down, and I might have gone home right then and there. But I decided to make the most of it, picked up their premade cleric, which wasn't so different from the 4e cleric and played the encounter, and had a decent time. Would I have preferred to play a regular 4e character? Yes. But did I let this ruin my or, more importantly, the other people at the table's time? No. I sucked it up and ran with it, and with some creativity, in this case sticking to a spellcaster, was able to enjoy it.

[Mando Knight]

The thing is that in D&D 3.5 any monster class capable of being used as a racial class for PCs had LA and given base stats. There are over 300 monster classes granted base stats for use as a PC in D&D 3.5
And probably 99% of those are actually useless as written from an optimization standpoint, and maybe 50% are useless by any measure other than flavor. High LA nets you terrible HP and skills, RHD makes you lag behind others of your class (unless you're a Dragon Fighter or something... but why would you waste a Dragon on Fighter levels?), and often don't give you much beyond stat adjustments and a few special abilities.