AD&D Monsters with classes

[Yora]

In my homebrew world, wights, not-yuan-ti, and not-eladrin play a quite significant role. In Pathfinder I can just slap class levels on them and everything is fine, but how would I do that in AD&D (specifically Castles & Crusades, if it matters)?

Increasing HD and giving them better equipment is easy enough, but what about wight thieves or yuan-ti wizards? How would you do that?

[Elriconan]

In my homebrew world, wights, not-yuan-ti, and not-eladrin play a quite significant role. In Pathfinder I can just slap class levels on them and everything is fine, but how would I do that in AD&D (specifically Castles & Crusades, if it matters)?

Increasing HD and giving them better equipment is easy enough, but what about wight thieves or yuan-ti wizards? How would you do that?

One way is to switch their HD to the appropriate type for the class and give them representative abilities for that level, though this would make high HD monsters quite powerful as wizards.

Alternatively, add class abilities without modifying HD (or adding some if you want them tougher) and simply recalculate XP value. There's no reason to bother statting them up with PC minutia, just add whatever class abilities you want and recalculate XP appropriately.

It's implied that only humans and demihumans can gain class levels. Humanoids and monsters might duplicate class abilities but can not truly advance as demihumans, and especially humans, may. This is what makes humana more dangerous than trolls and gods. This means, if you want them to be PCs, they simply can not ever level up. This is why you don't play monsters - even powerful ones - in AD&D. The DMG specifically advises to let PCs play monsters (after explaining such drawbacks), as players will quickly realise why playing loathed, antisocial beasts isn't actually cool or fun. AD&D is openly and unapologetically anthrocentric, which is why level limits shouldn't be ignored by DMs simply to pander to whiny players.

[Yora]

Level caps are irrelevant in low-level settings anyway.

[Elriconan]

Level caps are irrelevant in low-level settings anyway.

Yep, which is why D&D works best as a campaign game. One shots with low level characters usually amount to half of you dying and no one leveling up.

[Premier]

It's implied that only humans and demihumans can gain class levels. Humanoids and monsters might duplicate class abilities but can not truly advance as demihumans, and especially humans, may. This is what makes humana more dangerous than trolls and gods. This means, if you want them to be PCs, they simply can not ever level up.

I don't know what your source is on this. I suspect it may be the 2nd edition of AD&D which was not written by Gary Gygax - and, well, that edition has its share of conceptual problems.

It's true that Gary wrote several pasages discouraging PC monsters in the Dungeon Master's Guide for 1st ed. AD&D, but those have a different contexts, one about power-hungry players. In fact, even in those very passages he pretty much states, citing a hypothetical gold dragon PC as an example, that such creatures WOULD, in fact, have some sort of in-game progression of power!


This is why you don't play monsters - even powerful ones - in AD&D. The DMG specifically advises to let PCs play monsters (after explaining such drawbacks), as players will quickly realise why playing loathed, antisocial beasts isn't actually cool or fun.

Obviously, that's a valid issue, and one addressed in the aforementioned passages. However, it doesn't address the situation I understand the OP to be in, where certain non-standard races are considered to be a part of the "civilised millieu" of the campaign setting. As I understand, his wights and yuan-ti are not considered in-setting to be monsters to kill in dungeon, but rather intelligent races with their own culture and civilisation, possibly sharing habitats in peaceful coexistence with humans, elves and the sort. In such a case, your concern obviously doesn't come up. In other words, in his campaign they're not "loathed, antisocial beasts" any more than dragonborn or warforged are in WotCD&D.

PS: Also, in OD&D, Gary actually explicitly notes the possibility of playing non-standard races as PCs:

At the Dungeon Master's discretion a character can be anything his or her player wants him to be. Characters must always start out inexperienced and relatively weak and build on their experience. Thus, an expedition might include, in addition to the four basic classes and races (human, elven, dwarven, halflingish), a centaur, a lawful werebear, and a Japanese Samurai fighting man.

What he wrote about the matter in 1st ed. AD&D is clearly and specifically a reaction to the problem of munchkin players, not to any inherent problems with the concept of non-standard PC races.

[Elriconan]

"I don't know what your source is on this. I suspect it may be the 2nd edition of AD&D which was not written by Gary Gygax - and, well, that edition has its share of conceptual problems."

No, it's pretty clearly implied by the anthrocentrism. Humans can level to infinity, demihumans can level, and everything else is a monster (including most 0 level humansx who can't level). I am drawing on 1e, OD&D and B/X here, as well as Gygaxs Appendix N literature such as "The Broken Sword" where the unique growth potential of humans is a major plot element. Humans have souls in AD&D and even elves do not (BTB, and directly from the aforementioned novel). The crypto-Christian cosmolgy of such a Universe does not admit of anyone being more important, ultimately, than mankind.

Of course new demihuman races could be devised, but that doesn't mean monsters are demihumans. And that progression of a gold dragon you refer to was thst of changing age categories, a process of hundreds and thousands of years. Not game relevant.

Monstrous PCs are most appropriate for Arnesonian gamez of domain management where PC statistics and race aren't as limiting or potentially group destroying, ie a Balrog might run an obscure dungeon s his domain without being totally out of scale/theme.

Anyone can change the anthrocentrism of D&D, but there are a lot of built in assumptions about the world that don't fit if you do that. For example, D&D is not modelled after modern notions of moral Universalism and egalitarianism. Orcs are a threat to human expansion, ergo orcs are evil. Which is really more honest than the self righteous wankery of universalist ninnies, but the point is that the pseudo medieval world is not compatible with the UN Declaration of Monster Rights ala Eberron. If you have any thought for taking into account consequences of changes like ghese a seemingly small adjustment, like extending the franchise to interdimensional psychic monsters, can have huge repercussions. I guess some people don't care about mileu coherence, but the lack of it is a serious negative for me as a player/DM.

[LibraryOgre]

2nd edition had some rules for Monsters as PCs that might work for Monster-as-NPCs.

IIRC, you took their normal HD and added it as bonus HP to their class levels... so if you gave an Ogre 4 fighter levels, you'd have 4d10 (fighter levels) +4 (for Ogre HD), plus any you decided from a high Con.

Personally, I'd do something similar so long as your class levels equalled or exceeded your racial HD. If you're adding spellcaster levels, just add a couple effective HD for determining their level, per the guidelines for determining XP in the 2e DMG.

[Yora]

I was thinking entirely in the context of NPCs. Forgot to mention that. "Balance" issues are not a concern here. I'm really looking just for a way to customize monsters to be major villains and henchmen.

[Rhynn]

Increasing HD and giving them better equipment is easy enough, but what about wight thieves or yuan-ti wizards? How would you do that?

Just give them the abilities and increase their XP value accordingly. Without bothering to look at the XP table, I'd say backstab is a +1 to +2 (depending on the multiplier) increase and thief abilities are a +1. Spellcasting adds "virtual HD" based on the spell levels. Increase HD arbitrarily to fit your needs (I'd probably add 1 HD per 2 levels of wizard spellcasting, for instance).

There's no need to worry about "balance" as such because all the abilities and HD are accounted for by the XP system. It's wonderfully simple.

Fun fact: AD&D 2E totally dropped the rules for humanoid witch doctors and shamans, but kept the terms in the Monstrous Compendiums and Manual, creating no small confusion for me. The 1E rules are pretty specific (witch doctors have both magic-user and cleric casting, both use special narrow spell lists, etc.).

[BWR]

If this is entirely for NPCs, you don't really have to worry. Just pump up hp to a point you think is appropriate, improve STs to something you like and add "has abilities of a level X Y-class.
Just looking at some older creatures, admittedly BECMI and not AD&D, there are some uniques with descriptions like "has the stats of a planar spider with the abilities of a vampire and a level 15 magic user".
So you use the HD and saves etc. of a planar spider, throw on the vampires abilities of level draining, mist form etc. and the spellcasting of 15th level magic user.

[Yora]

In GDQ, there are kuo-toa who are "assassin 6/cleric 6" and other creature entries like this. What does that mean?

[LibraryOgre]

In GDQ, there are kuo-toa who are "assassin 6/cleric 6" and other creature entries like this. What does that mean?

I'd simply give them equivalent skills... they have assassin skills at 6th level (with the resulting thief skills, assassination chances, etc.) and cleric spells at 6th level (spellcasting, command/turn undead). I'd assume these were figured into their XP already.

[Premier]

No, it's pretty clearly implied by the anthrocentrism. Humans can level to infinity, demihumans can level, and everything else is a monster (including most 0 level humansx who can't level). I am drawing on 1e, OD&D and B/X here, as well as Gygaxs Appendix N literature such as "The Broken Sword" where the unique growth potential of humans is a major plot element. Humans have souls in AD&D and even elves do not (BTB, and directly from the aforementioned novel). The crypto-Christian cosmolgy of such a Universe does not admit of anyone being more important, ultimately, than mankind.

I have to say you're just going too far there, projecting your own assumptions onto the game. YES, old-school D&D is humanocentric, that's obviously true. As for Appendix N, it contains a vast amount of stuff, and you have to keep in mind that Gary cherry picked his bits of inspiration rather than trying to copy EVERYTHING wholesay. When it comes to somethign as nebulous as the role and importance of humanocentrism, you can't just point to a single notion in a single book on that list and claim it as definitive proof. And I don't see how your idea of a "crypto-Christian cosmology" necessitating that only humans should level up is supported by anything in the actual rulebooks. That's just, like... (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pWdd6_ZxX8c)


And that progression of a gold dragon you refer to was thst of changing age categories, a process of hundreds and thousands of years. Not game relevant.

Incorrect. I was referring to the sub-chapter "The monster as a player character", 1st edition AD&D Dungeon Master's guide, page 21. If you read it, you'll acknowledge that the dragon example therein explicitly and unambiguously describes a scenario where a player wants to play a dragon, so the DM allows him to with the proviso that he starts as a young one and gains levels as he accumulates treasure. NOT over hundreds and thousands of years, but over a single campaign. If you don't believe me, go, read the chapter, I've given you the citation.

Also, please also look at the following quotation:


Other Character Types: There is no reason that players cannot be allowed to play as virtually anything, provided they begin relatively weak and work up to the top, i.e., a player wishing to be a Dragon would have to begin as let us say, a "young" one and progress upwards in the usual manner, steps being predetermined by the campaign referee.
- Original D&D boxed set, Men & Magic, p.8. (Before this version of the text, it was a balrog instead of a dragon.)

It is made absolutely clear that such player characters are within the scope of the game and are supposed to start weak and progress in a manner fundamentally similar to humans and demihumans.

[Thrudd]

In GDQ, there are kuo-toa who are "assassin 6/cleric 6" and other creature entries like this. What does that mean?

1e AD&D was pretty loose with this sort of thing. If you want a monster to be a thief, just give them the level of thief skills you want, and increase their XP by whatever amount you think appropriate. For a spellcaster, add some spells and do the same. Easy.

[Yora]

But is it never actually defined anywhere? That seems weird.

[Thrudd]

But is it never actually defined anywhere? That seems weird.

I recall the XP chart in the DMG had a basic XP value per HD, XP/HP, and extra XP for each special ability and exceptional ability. Spellcasting would be an exceptional ability. To create your own monster, you would just use the XP chart to figure out what to award for it after deciding on its abilities. There was nothing like the monster templates of 3e. Some monsters were described as having the abilities of a PC class of a certain level, this would simply add extra XP. An entry might say "has abilities of a 7th level cleric". Some monsters had abilities as though their HD were their class level, but not always. Like I said, all very loose. If you want to create your own monster or give an existing monster extra abilities, just do it, and award whatever XP you think is appropriate. The DMG helps you out with that XP chart so you have a guideline how to decide the XP award.

[Rhynn]

But is it never actually defined anywhere? That seems weird.

Old D&D doesn't define things very rigorously. The assumption is that every DM can figure it out for themselves, and that the DM will be able to make the decision that is right for their campaign.

This is a very big OSR principle, in general. For instance, I can't help but imagine that Alexander Macris is getting a bit tired of answering really specific ACKS rules questions on their forums about things that I feel any GM should be able to make a good ruling on, when the game's motto is "Every campaign is a law unto itself..." :smalltongue:

[Yora]

I'm fine with comming up with spontaneous solutions for things not covered by the rules most of the time. But when a book says "frost giant 6th level shaman", I think it makes quite a serious difference if they mean a 10 HD creature with 6th level spellcasting or a 16 HD creature.

[Rhynn]

Sure, but aren't you, as the DM, the only person actually capable of deciding which is better for your game? That's the point I'm getting at. (BTW as far as I can tell, the answer is almost always "the HD are unchanged.")

[Thrudd]

I'm fine with comming up with spontaneous solutions for things not covered by the rules most of the time. But when a book says "frost giant 6th level shaman", I think it makes quite a serious difference if they mean a 10 HD creature with 6th level spellcasting or a 16 HD creature.

Yes, it is a big difference. Since there is nowhere in the 1e materials that I can find which suggest there is anything that adds HD to a monster beyond what is in the monster manual entry, I would say it is a 10HD creature that can cast 3rd level spells. The exception to this are the PC races and related races, like the Drow, which clearly have HD progression by level.
In the DMG there is an entry describing tribal spellcasters, shamans and witch doctors that certain monsters may have in their tribes. It gives the list of spells for each level, up to fourth. Seventh level is the highest that any tribal caster can reach. There is no discussion if being a tribal caster adds HD to the creature, again I would say no. However, it also doesn't say precisely how much XP should be awarded for a tribal caster. I would count each level of spell known as an additional exceptional ability (so a 7th level shaman is worth more XP than a 1st level shaman). Awarding XP was really more of an art than a science in 1e, likewise with determining the appropriate power level of challenges.
In the case of published adventures like the G series, I would say monsters have the HD shown in their Monster Manual entry unless it specifically says otherwise.

[Yora]

Kuo-toa with class levels have been fully statted out on some cases, and they have the same number of HD as their class level, so the class HD replace monster HD. Havn't seen any cases where class HD are simply added to monster HD.

I think it's also more interesting. In 3rd Edition, it always disappointed me that I can't use monster spellcasters because they would have a CR way above the PC level.

[Rhynn]

Kuo-toa with class levels have been fully statted out on some cases, and they have the same number of HD as their class level, so the class HD replace monster HD. Havn't seen any cases where class HD are simply added to monster HD.

Now that I think about it, I think that's how I've done it, since otherwise you end up with 5th-level orc witch doctors with 1 HD.

Still, it keeps things wonderfully simple. An 4th level orc witch doctor? 4 HD (usual monster HD), 2nd-level spells (+1 virtual HD in 2E), done. :smallbiggrin:

[Thrudd]

Kuo-toa with class levels have been fully statted out on some cases, and they have the same number of HD as their class level, so the class HD replace monster HD. Havn't seen any cases where class HD are simply added to monster HD.

I think it's also more interesting. In 3rd Edition, it always disappointed me that I can't use monster spellcasters because they would have a CR way above the PC level.

I think 1HD monsters are easy to progress as PC's. Drow, Kuo Toa, Orcs, all can easily be given a PC class and extra HD as though they were PC's to make for higher level challenges. For monsters with higher HD like giants, it's a judgement call. Is a 10HD creature with 4th level spells enough of a challenge? If not, give them a few more HD.

I just noticed in OSRIC, in their entry on tribal spellcasters, they have an optional rule to add 1d6 HP and +1 to hit per level of spellcaster above the first.

[Yora]

Kuo-toa are 2 HD or more.

[Thrudd]

Kuo-toa are 2 HD or more.

oh yeah, guess they are, so are Drow for that matter. All the statted Kuo Toa and Drow in D-series and Fiend Folio are more than level 2, so same difference. If you had a level 1 Kuo Toa cleric, it would have 2 HD with an extra XP bonus tacked on. Or you simply would never have a level 1 kuo toa cleric or any other class. They are all level 2 or higher. Above that, normal level/HD progression. Could be the same with 2HD gnolls or 3HD Bugbears with levels as shaman or witch doctor. Only add on HD if the class level exceeds the racial HD. By this interpretation, giants would never have added HD, because the max level for a giant shaman is 7th.

Overall, only a handful of monsters in the Fiend Folio and Monster Manual II were mentioned as having class levels in anything, probably why there was never any overall rule about it. The monstrous humanoids like orcs and goblins in the first Monster Manual will have chieftains with extra HP and will say "fights as a gnoll" rather than "level 2 fighter".

How you handle it should depend on how difficult a challenge you want your monsters to be, that's the bottom line. You can make all your wight thieves 4th level thieves because of their HD, or decide that wight thieves have ability progression a couple levels below or above their HD. A monster manual entry might say something like "There is a 10% chance that any group of 4 or more wights includes 1-4 wight thieves. A wight thief has abilities as a 2nd level thief and otherwise attacks as normal. In any group of 20 or more wights, there will be one master thief with 6HD and 6th level thief abilities."

[Jay R]

The exact quote from the original Dungeons and Dragons:


Other Character Types: There is no reason that players cannot be allowed to play as virtually anything, provided they begin relatively weak and work up to the top, i.e., a player wishing to be a Balrog would have to begin as let us say, a "young" one and progress upwards in the usual manner, steps being pre-determined by the campaign referee.

However, there is no reference in any of the three pamphlets to non-player character monsters who rise in level.