4e: monster levels?

[fireinthedust]

Any word on monsters with class levels in 4e?

I ask because someone mentioned a ban on playing monster characters; does that mean I can't have wizard-mummies, or that I just can't PC them?

personally, having a better class level system for monsters wouldn't be a bad idea, so adding various class levels was more straight forward than 3.5. Oh well.

[Artanis]

Any word on monsters with class levels in 4e?

I ask because someone mentioned a ban on playing monster characters; does that mean I can't have wizard-mummies, or that I just can't PC them?

personally, having a better class level system for monsters wouldn't be a bad idea, so adding various class levels was more straight forward than 3.5. Oh well.
At least some monsters can be given class levels. Gnolls were specifically mentioned as being capable of having class levels, so I think it's safe to assume that anything at least as "normal" as a Gnoll can have class levels, and probably plenty of other, wierder stuff.



A ban on playing monster characters depends on your definition of "monster character". There will still be rules for playing something like...say...a Minotaur (and said rules will supposedly work a hell of a lot better than they did in 3e). In fact, Gnomes and Half-Orcs are explicitly stated as being in the Monster Manual, and there's probably plenty of other "traditionally PC-capable races" being put there as well.

However, playing something like a Gelatinous Cube Paladin probably won't have any support. Not a ban per se AFAIK, but nothing to help you use it either. So if you have a player who wants to play a giant block of Jello with a grudge against the undead, he's probably SOL unless you homebrew something.



Edit: I honestly have no idea which category a Mummy would fall in :smallfrown:

[Fax Celestis]

However, playing something like a Gelatinous Cube Paladin probably won't have any support. Not a ban per se AFAIK, but nothing to help you use it either. So if you have a player who wants to play a giant block of Jello with a grudge against the undead, he's probably SOL unless you homebrew something.

You leave Sir Flannicus the Wobbly Destroyer of Zombies alone!

[Indon]

There'll probably be two exclusive ways to progress monsters - by hit dice, and by class. Creatures that can take classes will have a racial ability progression like PC races do (they effectively would be PC races), and so would be hard to progress other than using class levels. Creatures that progress by hit dice would have 100% of their progression racially, and so would be ill-suited for class levels.

Now, I guess there might be some kind of generic, monster class, but that would be too effective at having variety in monsters that can have class levels. :P

[Rutee]

You leave Sir Flannicus the Wobbly Destroyer of Zombies alone!

Mmm... delicious. ...Wait, he was a Paladin? uh oh.


Now, I guess there might be some kind of generic, monster class, but that would be too effective at having variety in monsters that can have class levels. :P
I think there'll be specific monster classes. Like, there's a Goblin class, a Guhnoll class, etc. At least, that's what it seemed like to me.

[Indon]

I think there'll be specific monster classes. Like, there's a Goblin class, a Guhnoll class, etc. At least, that's what it seemed like to me.

Classes would get much more book space than monsters. The monster manual is unlikely to be filled with entire class progressions - it will be filled with a quick, less sophisticated version that if we're lucky, can be houseruled into compatibility with classes without too much trouble.

[Rutee]

I didn't think it'd be a full progression. More like "Here's some powers, and some levels at which they're appropriate."

[Indon]

I didn't think it'd be a full progression. More like "Here's some powers, and some levels at which they're appropriate."

Oh, you have a good point. The class system itself is so simple now a mechanically workable class probably wouldn't need much space at all aside from the power listings.

[hewhosaysfish]

I think there'll be specific monster classes. Like, there's a Goblin class, a Guhnoll class, etc. At least, that's what it seemed like to me.

Really? The impression I've received is that the "monstrous" PC races will work like the regular PC races i.e each race will have some stat adjustments at level 1 plus a set of abilities that are doled out over the first 10 level (in addition to normal class features), plus the option to take certain race-specific feats that add to, amplify or emphasize these abilities.
(Note: LA will not exist in 4e because all races will get cool abilities and they will be spread out over 10 levels rather than all apparing at level 1.)

Also, if I'm understanding correctly there will be different entries for "Gnoll as PC" (which will be layed out as described above) and "Gnoll as Monster" (which will be just another monster). Both entries will be informed by the same concept (e.g. Gnolls as pack hunters) but will not be directly tied together, i.e no-one at WotC will be losing sleep if a Gnoll-as-Monster doesn't have exactly the same attack bonus and HP as a 3rd level Gnoll-as-PC. Many people on the forums seem distressed by this idea.

This divorce between Monser stats and PCs stats will, however, make it impossible to play something which doesn't have a racial powers progression given for it (unless you want to invent one), unlike 3.5 where you could conceivably slap a LA on Gelatinous Cube and hope.

[Rutee]

Really? The impression I've received is that the "monstrous" PC races will work like the regular PC races i.e each race will have some stat adjustments at level 1 plus a set of abilities that are doled out over the first 10 level (in addition to normal class features), plus the option to take certain race-specific feats that add to, amplify or emphasize these abilities.
(Note: LA will not exist in 4e because all races will get cool abilities and they will be spread out over 10 levels rather than all apparing at level 1.)
I could be wrong, really. This is just the impression I got from what I've read.


Also, if I'm understanding correctly there will be different entries for "Gnoll as PC" (which will be layed out as described above) and "Gnoll as Monster" (which will be just another monster). Both entries will be informed by the same concept (e.g. Gnolls as pack hunters) but will not be directly tied together, i.e no-one at WotC will be losing sleep if a Gnoll-as-Monster doesn't have exactly the same attack bonus and HP as a 3rd level Gnoll-as-PC. Many people on the forums seem distressed by this idea.
I'm less concerned about BAB and HP then I am about the powers and such, tbh.


This divorce between Monser stats and PCs stats will, however, make it impossible to play something which doesn't have a racial powers progression given for it (unless you want to invent one), unlike 3.5 where you could conceivably slap a LA on Gelatinous Cube and hope.

....So what happens when your party doesn't start at a high enough level to have that Gelatinous Cube's ECL fully accounted for, again? I'm pretty sure that either it's "A: You can't play" or "B: You create a level-by-level breakdown of their stat bonuses, etc, like Savage Species"