Class Levels on Golems

[Ralcos]

I'm planning a cool encounter where a mage animates a brass golem (using the iron golem statblock), that just so happens to have a few Fighter levels.

I know what the DMG says, but could this be done? Does it make sense to add class levels to certain monsters?

How would an Iron Golem with 3 fighter levels turn out for a high-level encounter?

[Lines]

I'm planning a cool encounter where a mage animates a brass golem (using the iron golem statblock), that just so happens to have a few Fighter levels.

I know what the DMG says, but could this be done? Does it make sense to add class levels to certain monsters?

How would an Iron Golem with 3 fighter levels turn out for a high-level encounter?

It makes perfect sense to add class levels to plenty of monsters, any creature that can think and learn can and often should have class levels (there better be a damn good reason why a several hundred year old very intelligent innately magical dragon hasn't taken the time to get a few wizard or sorcerer levels, for instance) golems just don't happen to fit that category. They're intelligence 3 and specifically stated to be unable to think or act for itself.

[Thrudd]

Give any monster any abilities you want. You don't need to call them "fighter levels", because the monster won't be gaining XP or more abilities.
A monster with the number and type of abilities that players have in addition to their own could be a very difficult challenge if you play them to their fullest.

[Lines]

Give any monster any abilities you want. You don't need to call them "fighter levels", because the monster won't be gaining XP or more abilities.
A monster with the number and type of abilities that players have in addition to their own could be a very difficult challenge if you play them to their fullest.

Use actual class levels whenever possible. Enemies may very well gain more levels, just not ones like iron golems that will neither end up being fought again later or have the ability to learn. Class levels have a huge advantage in verisimilitude, instead of the enemy necromancer spontaneously developing abilities your players can never have (because apparently being a non player character makes you just different somehow, made of a completely separate kind of matter) he takes levels in necromancy wizard.

[Giant2005]

I actually agree with both Thrudd and Lines on this, even if their opinions seem opposing.
You should give the Golem the Fighter's abilities so it at least seems like something that was made with the same rules available to the players, but don't just take the Golem chassis and stick some Fighter levels on there.
The MM write-ups aren't designed to do such a thing intuitively - you need to reverse engineer the level via their proficiency bonus and hit dice in order to be able to add character levels on top of it authentically. I wouldn't even expect them to line up in the way that they should if made via the conventional rules.
Give it authentic abilities, just don't try to create it authentically.

[RickAllison]

Use actual class levels whenever possible. Enemies may very well gain more levels, just not ones like iron golems that will neither end up being fought again later or have the ability to learn. Class levels have a huge advantage in verisimilitude, instead of the enemy necromancer spontaneously developing abilities your players can never have (because apparently being a non player character makes you just different somehow, made of a completely separate kind of matter) he takes levels in necromancy wizard.

There are times that it makes more sense to just give abilities to NPCs, but those tend to be due to unorthodox training that is theoretically available, but the PCs didn't know about it and/or the campaign doesn't incorporate the years required for the alternate training. An example might be a sorcerer who forsook the standard sorcerer levels to specifically train his ability to lob fireballs at will.

[Thrudd]

I actually agree with both Thrudd and Lines on this, even if their opinions seem opposing.
You should give the Golem the Fighter's abilities so it at least seems like something that was made with the same rules available to the players, but don't just take the Golem chassis and stick some Fighter levels on there.
The MM write-ups aren't designed to do such a thing intuitively - you need to reverse engineer the level via their proficiency bonus and hit dice in order to be able to add character levels on top of it authentically. I wouldn't even expect them to line up in the way that they should if made via the conventional rules.
Give it authentic abilities, just don't try to create it authentically.

You don't even need to reverse engineer anything. Just give the monster whatever abilities you want it to have, based on how difficult you want it to be. Some HD, +x to hit, +y damage, AC z, movement whatever, uses a big sword that does 1d10 damage, unarmed attacks do 1d8 or whatever, resistant to this and that. Give it fighter abilities like increased critical threat range or battle master moves and dice. If it survives a fight, and the next time the players find it you want it to be stronger, give it some more power. It's really that simple. There's no need to track levels on monsters like this. Special NPC's may be described in the same way as PC's with class levels. Unimportant or one-use NPC's can be treated just like monsters, like the ones found in the back of the monster manual. Verisimilitude is preserved because players should never know what the NPC or monster's stats are, exactly, anyway. They don't need to line up exactly with how character classes are built.

[Lines]

There are times that it makes more sense to just give abilities to NPCs, but those tend to be due to unorthodox training that is theoretically available, but the PCs didn't know about it and/or the campaign doesn't incorporate the years required for the alternate training. An example might be a sorcerer who forsook the standard sorcerer levels to specifically train his ability to lob fireballs at will.

Then give the players that option, I'd take it in a heartbeat. If the PCs have options for weird stuff like druids then I can't see why they wouldn't know about something unorthodox, and time wise you can just make your character old enough to incorporate that training.


I actually agree with both Thrudd and Lines on this, even if their opinions seem opposing.
You should give the Golem the Fighter's abilities so it at least seems like something that was made with the same rules available to the players, but don't just take the Golem chassis and stick some Fighter levels on there.
The MM write-ups aren't designed to do such a thing intuitively - you need to reverse engineer the level via their proficiency bonus and hit dice in order to be able to add character levels on top of it authentically. I wouldn't even expect them to line up in the way that they should if made via the conventional rules.
Give it authentic abilities, just don't try to create it authentically.
You don't need to reverse engineer for the most part. Just stick levels on and you're good, it's just the golem is not intelligent enough for class levels.


You don't even need to reverse engineer anything. Just give the monster whatever abilities you want it to have, based on how difficult you want it to be. Some HD, +x to hit, +y damage, AC z, movement whatever, uses a big sword that does 1d10 damage, unarmed attacks do 1d8 or whatever, resistant to this and that. Give it fighter abilities like increased critical threat range or battle master moves and dice. If it survives a fight, and the next time the players find it you want it to be stronger, give it some more power. It's really that simple. There's no need to track levels on monsters like this. Special NPC's may be described in the same way as PC's with class levels. Unimportant or one-use NPC's can be treated just like monsters, like the ones found in the back of the monster manual. Verisimilitude is preserved because players should never know what the NPC or monster's stats are, exactly, anyway. They don't need to line up exactly with how character classes are built.
Works fine, especially considering 5e's baseline of simplicity. It's like how you don't need to actually give the 5 year old the PCs just killed any stats, you just assume it dies.

[Giant2005]

You don't even need to reverse engineer anything. Just give the monster whatever abilities you want it to have, based on how difficult you want it to be. Some HD, +x to hit, +y damage, AC z, movement whatever, uses a big sword that does 1d10 damage, unarmed attacks do 1d8 or whatever, resistant to this and that. Give it fighter abilities like increased critical threat range or battle master moves and dice. If it survives a fight, and the next time the players find it you want it to be stronger, give it some more power. It's really that simple. There's no need to track levels on monsters like this. Special NPC's may be described in the same way as PC's with class levels. Unimportant or one-use NPC's can be treated just like monsters, like the ones found in the back of the monster manual. Verisimilitude is preserved because players should never know what the NPC or monster's stats are, exactly, anyway. They don't need to line up exactly with how character classes are built.



You don't need to reverse engineer for the most part. Just stick levels on and you're good, it's just the golem is not intelligent enough for class levels.

I think we are all basically saying the same thing.

[RickAllison]

Then give the players that option, I'd take it in a heartbeat. If the PCs have options for weird stuff like druids then I can't see why they wouldn't know about something unorthodox, and time wise you can just make your character old enough to incorporate that training.

The PC can learn it! While the rest of the party goes adventuring for the next few years, the character can be off learning those techniques. Roll up a new character because the original is off learning and is now an NPC!

As for starting with it, the only reason they can't is because they would be starting at a higher level. Same reason why someone can't just start as a glabrezu or dragon instead of the humanoid races without DM approval. If the party is coming in at level 17 and a player wanted a PC whose only trick was lobbing fireballs, why not?

[Lines]

The PC can learn it! While the rest of the party goes adventuring for the next few years, the character can be off learning those techniques. Roll up a new character because the original is off learning and is now an NPC!
Since training can happen well before class abilities, why can't they have been training before the campaign started? You seem to be grasping at ways to keep them separate here.


As for starting with it, the only reason they can't is because they would be starting at a higher level. Same reason why someone can't just start as a glabrezu or dragon instead of the humanoid races without DM approval. If the party is coming in at level 17 and a player wanted a PC whose only trick was lobbing fireballs, why not?
They don't have to start with it, just the knowledge. If my character starts at level 1 as a 40 year old character, he's a fighter and I take my second level in wizard, it's not like he's just in the last week started to study magic. He was already a warrior mage, 5e just doesn't have the mechanics to represent that immediately. Have him have learned how it worked before the game starts and let him put it into practice once he reaches the appropriate level.

[RickAllison]

Since training can happen well before class abilities, why can't they have been training before the campaign started? You seem to be grasping at ways to keep them separate here.


They don't have to start with it, just the knowledge. If my character starts at level 1 as a 40 year old character, he's a fighter and I take my second level in wizard, it's not like he's just in the last week started to study magic. He was already a warrior mage, 5e just doesn't have the mechanics to represent that immediately. Have him have learned how it worked before the game starts and let him put it into practice once he reaches the appropriate level.

Based on AL time frames, the general time it takes to level is significantly more than one week. The PCs spend significant amounts of off-time training to achieve the new level's abilities, and so they haven't dedicated the time to being able to master particular skills. If you would like that as part of your backstory, then that is trying to get something for nothing, which is up to DM approval. PC levels are a matter of simplicity, attempting to break down a large variety of skillets into easy chunks. A DM could happily okay a character having abilities outside of classes, but the character becomes an NPC for the sake of verisimilitude-breaking simplicity.

[Lines]

Based on AL time frames, the general time it takes to level is significantly more than one week. The PCs spend significant amounts of off-time training to achieve the new level's abilities, and so they haven't dedicated the time to being able to master particular skills. If you would like that as part of your backstory, then that is trying to get something for nothing, which is up to DM approval. PC levels are a matter of simplicity, attempting to break down a large variety of skillets into easy chunks. A DM could happily okay a character having abilities outside of classes, but the character becomes an NPC for the sake of verisimilitude-breaking simplicity.

How is it trying to get something for nothing? It isn't gaining you any mechanical benefit, the mechanical cost is the one you pay sacrificing other class features. That's like saying that having your character trained at wizard university is trying to get something for nothing.

[RickAllison]

How is it trying to get something for nothing? It isn't gaining you any mechanical benefit, the mechanical cost is the one you pay sacrificing other class features. That's like saying that having your character trained at wizard university is trying to get something for nothing.

As I finished, those abilities that fit outside the mold exist to fill out the wider variety of ability sets across a world. The verisimilitude-breaking classes you have mentioned on other threads exist for simplicity. If you want a mold-breaking alternative level structure, talk it out with the DM because by default those abilities exist for NPCs only. Yes, it makes it odd that PCs would be precluded from those alternative abilities, but that is because of the simplistic class system that makes the game D&D and not GURPS.

[Sir Pippin Boyd]

There is no reason not to staple some fighter levels onto a golem to create an advanced golem. While some would argue that class levels are the result of cumulative experience that wouldn't be applicable to an unintelligent construct that is, by nature, unable to learn, that isn't to say that this golem couldn't be of a superior construction that simply grants it additional levels upon creation. This kind of thinking also creates some good fluff hooks for the golem, perhaps it was the creation of a fame savant of magical construct creation, or a necromancer imbued it with the trapped soul of a famed warrior to augment its abilities.

I wouldn't consider them to be genuine class levels because they weren't acquired in the same way, but it could still be an advanced golem whose additional benefits resemble class levels.