I agree it wouldn't make much sense for a PC to take levels of dragon class and get dragon wings and a breath weapon. I'm not sure I would want that to be a possibility. What I really want is the ability to build a dragon, or nearly any other monster, of any level, and to know how to compare the strength of such a monster vs. PCs. They could be two separate, parallel systems, but I thought maybe it would be cool if they weren't fundamentally distinct.
I agree it wouldn't make much sense for a PC to take levels of dragon class and get dragon wings and a breath weapon. I'm not sure I would want that to be a possibility. What I really want is the ability to build a dragon, or nearly any other monster, of any level, and to know how to compare the strength of such a monster vs. PCs. They could be two separate, parallel systems, but I thought maybe it would be cool if they weren't fundamentally distinct.
It's worth also remembering that DnD is not built for PVP. If you get 2 players of the same level, the one who's winning is the one who goes first. PC's can deal out a huge amount of damage compared to "equivalent" monsters. On the flipside, monsters tend to have more HP than PCs, because monsters need to survive long enough for a fight to be interesting, and not kill PCs with one hit.
Now, I would be interested in seeing a variable range of monsters. This would be a huge undertaking, but to have, say, 3 variants of each monster for different levels would make the game quite interesting - meta-knowledge goes out of the window if the players don't know if you're seeing 5 CR1 goblins or 5 CR3 goblins on the road ahead. Obviously as soon as they start popping spells and the like, it becomes obvious.
I might make a thread suggesting this, so as not to derail this one...
Dragon wings and a breath weapon aren't even that powerful. The single biggest difficulty would be getting the scaling right, although you'd need to tweak some things - PCs can access Recharge abilities via things like Wild Shape and Polymorph, but they never ever get them as core class abilities, so you'd need to rewrite the breath weapon to be rest-based. 2/short rest might make sense, for recharge 5+.
For example, I think all of the true dragons have proficiency in all three good saves and charisma. No PC should get that at level 1, so when do you give them the two good saves you don't have them start with? That's what I mean about the scaling being challenging.
If people want to okay gnolls (or whatever), it's OK for me. However the initial idea to have ONE system for creating both players and monsters is not a good idea. It was more common in RPGs around year 2000, and it was a pain for the GMs. Almost all RPGs has since moved away from this and created a "detailed" rule set for PCs, while the DMs monsters doesn't have the same depth since that makes a lot easier to keep the game fun and smooth for the GM.
There is a cultural precedent for having a character turn into a dragon. In Norse legend, Fafnir the dwarf took possession of a magic rind and cursed gold and turned into a dragon to guard it. This would be a pretty boring existence for a PC though. What are you doing today? Guarding my gold.
did you mean ring or did they find a magic cheese rind.
Watermelon
I don't recall there being watermelons in the far north.Espically in the viking days.
If people want to okay gnolls (or whatever), it's OK for me. However the initial idea to have ONE system for creating both players and monsters is not a good idea. It was more common in RPGs around year 2000, and it was a pain for the GMs. Almost all RPGs has since moved away from this and created a "detailed" rule set for PCs, while the DMs monsters doesn't have the same depth since that makes a lot easier to keep the game fun and smooth for the GM.
The key thing about PC vs NPC is that each player normally controls one PC at a time and no more than a small number over the course of a campaign, while the DM normally controls multiple creatures at a time and a rather large number over the course of a campaign. As such, you want NPCs to be simpler than PCs. However, it can be nice if it's "low resolution version of the same thing a PC is" rather than being different in kind.
If people want to okay gnolls (or whatever), it's OK for me. However the initial idea to have ONE system for creating both players and monsters is not a good idea. It was more common in RPGs around year 2000, and it was a pain for the GMs. Almost all RPGs has since moved away from this and created a "detailed" rule set for PCs, while the DMs monsters doesn't have the same depth since that makes a lot easier to keep the game fun and smooth for the GM.
The key thing about PC vs NPC is that each player normally controls one PC at a time and no more than a small number over the course of a campaign, while the DM normally controls multiple creatures at a time and a rather large number over the course of a campaign. As such, you want NPCs to be simpler than PCs. However, it can be nice if it's "low resolution version of the same thing a PC is" rather than being different in kind.
If people want to okay gnolls (or whatever), it's OK for me. However the initial idea to have ONE system for creating both players and monsters is not a good idea. It was more common in RPGs around year 2000, and it was a pain for the GMs. Almost all RPGs has since moved away from this and created a "detailed" rule set for PCs, while the DMs monsters doesn't have the same depth since that makes a lot easier to keep the game fun and smooth for the GM.
The key thing about PC vs NPC is that each player normally controls one PC at a time and no more than a small number over the course of a campaign, while the DM normally controls multiple creatures at a time and a rather large number over the course of a campaign. As such, you want NPCs to be simpler than PCs. However, it can be nice if it's "low resolution version of the same thing a PC is" rather than being different in kind.
If people want to okay gnolls (or whatever), it's OK for me. However the initial idea to have ONE system for creating both players and monsters is not a good idea. It was more common in RPGs around year 2000, and it was a pain for the GMs. Almost all RPGs has since moved away from this and created a "detailed" rule set for PCs, while the DMs monsters doesn't have the same depth since that makes a lot easier to keep the game fun and smooth for the GM.
The key thing about PC vs NPC is that each player normally controls one PC at a time and no more than a small number over the course of a campaign, while the DM normally controls multiple creatures at a time and a rather large number over the course of a campaign. As such, you want NPCs to be simpler than PCs. However, it can be nice if it's "low resolution version of the same thing a PC is" rather than being different in kind.
If people want to okay gnolls (or whatever), it's OK for me. However the initial idea to have ONE system for creating both players and monsters is not a good idea. It was more common in RPGs around year 2000, and it was a pain for the GMs. Almost all RPGs has since moved away from this and created a "detailed" rule set for PCs, while the DMs monsters doesn't have the same depth since that makes a lot easier to keep the game fun and smooth for the GM.
The key thing about PC vs NPC is that each player normally controls one PC at a time and no more than a small number over the course of a campaign, while the DM normally controls multiple creatures at a time and a rather large number over the course of a campaign. As such, you want NPCs to be simpler than PCs. However, it can be nice if it's "low resolution version of the same thing a PC is" rather than being different in kind.
I agree monsters should be simpler. There are even some NPC-type "monsters" in the monster manual (e.g. Mage) that I think are a little too complicated. I'm not going to stop in the middle of combat and pick which one of its 16 spells to cast. And I don't really want to track how many spells slots it has remaining in five different levels. In this case, it does seem like they built this character using the player creation rules. Some simplified rules for caster monsters would probably be nice. For example, just make their highest level spell slot a recharge feature and the rest of their spells at will.
I think a point buy system helps this a little bit. Players will probably want to buy a variety of abilities and get something at every level. But for a monster you'd probably just buy a few expensive abilities and maybe spend your change on one little interesting ability. And I want to emphasize again: this is optional. There would still be a monster manual full of pre-built monsters, and they'd be built this way, with a few key abilities.
I think a point buy system helps this a little bit. Players will probably want to buy a variety of abilities and get something at every level. But for a monster you'd probably just buy a few expensive abilities and maybe spend your change on one little interesting ability. And I want to emphasize again: this is optional. There would still be a monster manual full of pre-built monsters, and they'd be built this way, with a few key abilities.
Having used multiple point buy systems over the years -- point buy systems often provide a useful language for describing abilities, but actually counting point costs for NPCs and monsters is annoying bookkeeping. For the most part, I would just write down some abilities for the critters and not bother to add up points.
Actually, something I would be tempted to add to all monster writeups:
Proficiency: being an X. The monster is allowed to add its proficiency bonus to any characteristic behavior of the type of creature it is. For unnatural creatures, the DM decides what those behaviors are.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I agree it wouldn't make much sense for a PC to take levels of dragon class and get dragon wings and a breath weapon. I'm not sure I would want that to be a possibility. What I really want is the ability to build a dragon, or nearly any other monster, of any level, and to know how to compare the strength of such a monster vs. PCs. They could be two separate, parallel systems, but I thought maybe it would be cool if they weren't fundamentally distinct.
It's worth also remembering that DnD is not built for PVP. If you get 2 players of the same level, the one who's winning is the one who goes first. PC's can deal out a huge amount of damage compared to "equivalent" monsters. On the flipside, monsters tend to have more HP than PCs, because monsters need to survive long enough for a fight to be interesting, and not kill PCs with one hit.
Now, I would be interested in seeing a variable range of monsters. This would be a huge undertaking, but to have, say, 3 variants of each monster for different levels would make the game quite interesting - meta-knowledge goes out of the window if the players don't know if you're seeing 5 CR1 goblins or 5 CR3 goblins on the road ahead. Obviously as soon as they start popping spells and the like, it becomes obvious.
I might make a thread suggesting this, so as not to derail this one...
Make your Artificer work with any other class with 174 Multiclassing Feats for your Artificer Multiclass Character!
DM's Guild Releases on This Thread Or check them all out on DMs Guild!
DrivethruRPG Releases on This Thread - latest release: My Character is a Werewolf: balanced rules for Lycanthropy!
I have started discussing/reviewing 3rd party D&D content on Substack - stay tuned for semi-regular posts!
Dragon wings and a breath weapon aren't even that powerful. The single biggest difficulty would be getting the scaling right, although you'd need to tweak some things - PCs can access Recharge abilities via things like Wild Shape and Polymorph, but they never ever get them as core class abilities, so you'd need to rewrite the breath weapon to be rest-based. 2/short rest might make sense, for recharge 5+.
For example, I think all of the true dragons have proficiency in all three good saves and charisma. No PC should get that at level 1, so when do you give them the two good saves you don't have them start with? That's what I mean about the scaling being challenging.
If people want to okay gnolls (or whatever), it's OK for me. However the initial idea to have ONE system for creating both players and monsters is not a good idea. It was more common in RPGs around year 2000, and it was a pain for the GMs. Almost all RPGs has since moved away from this and created a "detailed" rule set for PCs, while the DMs monsters doesn't have the same depth since that makes a lot easier to keep the game fun and smooth for the GM.
Ludo ergo sum!
I don't recall there being watermelons in the far north.Espically in the viking days.
Check out my homebrew subclasses spells magic items feats monsters races
i am a sauce priest
help create a world here
The key thing about PC vs NPC is that each player normally controls one PC at a time and no more than a small number over the course of a campaign, while the DM normally controls multiple creatures at a time and a rather large number over the course of a campaign. As such, you want NPCs to be simpler than PCs. However, it can be nice if it's "low resolution version of the same thing a PC is" rather than being different in kind.
I agree monsters should be simpler. There are even some NPC-type "monsters" in the monster manual (e.g. Mage) that I think are a little too complicated. I'm not going to stop in the middle of combat and pick which one of its 16 spells to cast. And I don't really want to track how many spells slots it has remaining in five different levels. In this case, it does seem like they built this character using the player creation rules. Some simplified rules for caster monsters would probably be nice. For example, just make their highest level spell slot a recharge feature and the rest of their spells at will.
I think a point buy system helps this a little bit. Players will probably want to buy a variety of abilities and get something at every level. But for a monster you'd probably just buy a few expensive abilities and maybe spend your change on one little interesting ability. And I want to emphasize again: this is optional. There would still be a monster manual full of pre-built monsters, and they'd be built this way, with a few key abilities.
Having used multiple point buy systems over the years -- point buy systems often provide a useful language for describing abilities, but actually counting point costs for NPCs and monsters is annoying bookkeeping. For the most part, I would just write down some abilities for the critters and not bother to add up points.
Actually, something I would be tempted to add to all monster writeups: