Too fiddly. Monsters won't get to use 2-3 additional powers on top of their exisitng powers, ever. Monsters are lucky to get 2-4 full actions (with controller/defender PCs, the average actions each monster gets is 2, I find). This is one at will attack and 1 encounter attack.

Instead of adding additional optional powers onto a monster to give it flavour, you need to strongly emphasise the flavour in those two full round of attacks it will get (on ave). That means making them count, powering them up, and packing them with flavour.

In reply to jacktannery (msg # 23):

I don't want to overstate this, because this is just a game, but I find that very sad. We want interesting, evocative monsters, but we also want to smash them as quickly as possible. Is there any game that has cracked that, that has made an extended, evocative combat (rather than a rapid slaughter) something everyone at the table works to achieve?

It's probably best if I just try it for myself, but here are my thoughts:

They don't need to be seen as "additional powers." Yes, they are "in addition" but if the creature uses the template powers rather than its own powers, then they're just "powers." Maybe that means that the monster doesn't do whatever it's "shtick" originally was, but a (say) hobgoblin warcaster who casts some specific wizard (or warlock, or sorcerer, or psion, or invoker, or whatever) powers rather than what was written for it is still making use of the options provided by the template. Not that I need a "template" to give a monster arc lighting instead of some other ranged attack.

As I understand it, monsters with templates shouldn't be "average," anyway. They are at least elites at that point, with more HP, an action point, and a save bonus to keep it around. Give it two or three soldier/controller cohorts and they can keep it alive to use some of those additional powers. Seems to me.

I'm not necessarily after enhancing the flavor of a monster. There are some powers and combinations I'm interested to try, and using them as monsters in my own game might be a way to do that. Not to mention aggravating tactics like "spirit companion passage blocking" that I'm interested to see how characters would handle. That's why I was asking about the PHB3 templates, because I've never seen anyone play a battlemind and I never expect to, but I'd like a chance to try one out. I could have a battlemind-run cadre of enemies, with multiple chances for me to try out the concept.

So, while I can just go to the Monster Manual for some examples to work from for different kinds of powers, I'm also interested in "correctly" implementing PC powers in monsters.

In reply to engine (msg # 24):

Personally, I think the templates mostly failed because they were unnecessary.  The monster manuals were really well designed in 4th edition.  I'd argue they were the best part of the edition.  The modularity of the monsters made them easy to customize on their own, and as long as you aren't the type to pile ALL TEH POWAHS on your monsters (always an issue with some inexperienced DMs, regardless of the edition,) the monsters were easy to balance to a party.

Plus, even without a tiny bit of customization, the 4E Monster Manuals gave a variety of every type of monster to us, eliminating the primary need for templates (the issue in previous and later editions where every kobold/goblin/orc/etc had the same stat line if it didn't have a class or template.)  With 4e, it's already easy to have a variety of kobolds in a particular encounter.  And, if it wasn't enough for some reason, you could find another monster of similar level, strip away the racial power and plug in the kobold racial powers to make a new kobold.  (I know I used Goblins, Kobolds, and Halflings fairly interchangeably this way for a long time.)

In the end, templates were just extra options for monster powers...without the actual monsters themselves.  I know that I always preferred when they used that space for something more interesting...like actual monsters to go with the powers.  :-D

Yup, I agree with Godzfirefly. Later 4E monsters in particular were perfectly tuned, and 4E is already so re-fluffable that additional template powers were unnecessary. Also, 4E was always against 3E-style 'build monsters like PCs' on principle.

I'm a big fan of 4th Edition monster design, but there are still things they leave out, I think. And while I couldn't love more the freedom to make monsters differently than PCs, I think there are times when it might be worth giving them or swapping in a PC power or a particular pre-existing magic item.

And, frankly, some monster types were a bit weird. More than one has made me go "who ordered this?" or "can't I just get a kobold monk, or a warforged ranger?"

In 4th Edition, the templates were in the DMG, which, toward the back, seemed to be really grasping for content. Not that almost anything in that book wouldn't be better off if it were replaced by pages that just say "Yes, and..." over and over again.

I am a big fan of the ideal that monsters are not PCs and PCs are not monsters.  I liked that 4e eliminated the 3e expectation that if an opponent could cast a spell to do something then the PCs should be able to figure out how to duplicate it and vice versa.  I'd generally be opposed to steps backward from that.

PC powers don't belong on monsters.  They're not balanced for it.  And, monster powers definitely don't belong on PCs, since monster powers are designed with the knowledge that the monster has 1 fight today while the PCs probably have multiple.

If you want to make a kobold monk...first I'd ask, "why?"  Second, if you gave a good enough reason for it, I'd just find a monster that is of the appropriate level/power and theme (probably a skirmisher), give it the kobold shifting power, take away any other racial power it might have had, and call it a Kobold Monk.  No need to give it actual monk mechanics...that's probably too complicated for running in an actual tabletop game when you're running multiple monsters, anyway.

I am too. I don't think PC templates step on that significantly.

That's a significantly different consideration from the ones stated before. Not that the designers can't make mistakes, but they seemed to think that three PCs powers on a monster would not go amiss. Arguably it's a cruddy design, and I wish they had offered other versions, but the main vampire in the Monster Manual is a rogue. So, I'm not convinced that there's a significant balance problem with PC powers on monsters.

Criminy, that's just an example, and my reason doesn't need to be "good enough" for anyone other than myself. The point is that I might want monster type X that does thing Y, that happens to be well provided for in PC class Z, and not in any other monster that comes to mind.

It's too complicated to give them flurry of blows, and a full discipline or two allowing them to hop around the different levels of the area I have in mind? PC template monsters are elites, so they're due a little more complexity and focus.

"Just." I don't think there are quite as many monster options as you think there are, unless I look far above and below (assuming I'm not working at 1st level) the monster's level. If I'm lucky, I might find a couple that look suitable. Then I will need to adjust the numbers and possibly some of the effects, if I looked far enough out, and hope that doesn't skew the whole concept too far one way or the other.

Or, I can go to the appropriate Player's Handbook. Sure, there aren't infinite options there, but at least they're all in one place.

I'd generally rather not make monsters like characters, but a semi-viable option along those lines seems to have upsides. I will consider it further and try it myself, I guess.

In reply to engine (msg # 29):

Give me a monster concept and a level, and I can find a monster in one of the 3 monster manuals that works well for it.  :-D

Well...unless you're looking at the very highest levels.  Those tend to be harder, I will admit.

As for asking why, I kinda meant asking myself as a GM why I'd want it so that I'd know what to use and if it's worth finding a monster match for.  I admit, my wording didn't match my meeting, and for that I apologize.

In reply to Godzfirefly (msg # 30):

Apology accepted, and I apologize for being touchy.

I happily concede that monster races can fairly easily be transmuted (in an early sample adventure, the antagonist was a "half-elf" without any clearly "half-elf" features. That's when I realized the game was on to something.) so, how about:

A "monk," who gets into melee, can deal bonus damage to nearby enemies or the original target when it hits, and has one or two movement modes to let it get around. (It occurs to me that one intended function of flurry of blows might have been for the monk to roundhouse packs of minions, which a monster won't tend to need to do, though PCs might have minions or minion-like things on their side.)

A "shaman" who creatures a moveable conjuration or two that benefit itself and its allies and which can attack and be attacked, but not trivially destroyed. If the "conjuration" is another monster that's fine, but it should be somewhat sturdy.

A "battlemind" who can mark enemies, counter their attempts to escape by shifting or teleporting next to them, and punishes transgressions automatically, in proportion the damage the mark dealt.

Another thing that occurs to me is that PC abilities don't just need to work more times than most monster powers, but they need to be more general, since monsters can be picked for an environment or a specific party, but PC powers generally can't. So, while I'm not sure that messes too much with balance, I do recognize that as a difference. On the other hand, PCs also get more powers than monsters, and got a lot of their generalization from that.

I was going to ask for a monster that can augment its powers, but I find that some Dark Sun monsters have a sort of augmentation, and that there's a monster theme that offers it generally. Are themes deemed to be in the same category as templates, or are they considered better since they're more clearly meant to be a grab bag (which I think templates were too, at least the PC-type ones, though that's in the fine print).

In reply to engine (msg # 31):

Are you testing me?  If so, you needed to give me a level or level range.  ;-)

In reply to Godzfirefly (msg # 32):

Right, sorry. Let's say level 4-6. I could bring it up or down to a lot of my needs from there.

And I don't mean it as testing, exactly. I'd like a demonstration of how you'd make such monsters, as I'm not sure how I would.

Monk Option:

---

Battlemind Option:

---

I ran out of time to do the Shaman.  (That's two monsters, in reality, so it's a bit tougher.)

Obviously, the race can be switched about, but I chose races that seem appropriate for the concept.  Plus, the idea of a kobold monk is fun and I like it.

In reply to Godzfirefly (msg # 34):

Thanks. Could you tell me how those were those arrived at?

The battlemind is nicely shifty, but doesn't have any psionic flavor to speak of, let alone something akin to mindspike. I'd use it in an encounter, but I would have trouble thinking of it as a battlemind. It seems to be a fairly typical soldier. Are there any soldiers that behave significantly differently? They're all simple to run, but I don't remember ever seeing one that really made me thing it would make a PC worry too much about the punishment (then again, players will often avoid free attacks purely out of principle, it seems).

In reply to engine (msg # 35):

The monk's base is a shadar-kai chainfighter with the shadar-kai stripped away and the kobold ability added in.

The issues you have with the Battlemind probably come from the fact I've never played one, so I only had your description to go on in a quick search.  It's a bit more piecemeal, and I may have actually stripped away a ranged power that could have been made psionic in favor of the Tactics power.  In that one, the base was a Kenku Ringleader.  Its at will powers were replaced by an at-will from something I literally can't remember because it was so generic...some kind of hunter, I think.  Its Encounter was replaced by the Kobold Dragonshield's Dragonshield Tactics, altered so that it only works when a creature moves away and adding the attack if the triggerer is marked.

I'm not sure anyone ever has.

Thanks for the explanations. The most I've done is reflavor things now and then, or level and de-level things. I don't think I've ever moved powers around.

@Godzfirefly, those monsters are brilliant! I love them, that's a brilliant execution of what engine was describing. I think these would work excellently in play.

@engine, I did not mean to come across negative above. I love changing monsters around, and godfirefly's examples above are really workable, because - key point - they have one or two options per round rather than five.

Have any of you seen the alternate monster themes in 'Open Grave'? Unlike the themes I criticised upthread, these were quite interesting. I used 'Spawn of Kyuss' (on page 218) with great effect a long time ago (admittedly in a D&D next test game but anyway, still).

The best, however, are the 'alternate powers' on page 220. These replace a 'racial/monster-type' power typical of 4E monsters with something else. For example, a power that replaces all mummies' 'despair' aura with a different power that afflicts unlucky PCs with mummies rot disease. These worked for me, in my head, because they replaced, rather than added to, a monsters powers.

In reply to jacktannery (msg # 38):

I get (with some sadness) that monsters aren't going to get to use more than a few powers, but I have to reiterate my infirm grasp of why having extra powers is a problem. If we were talking about monsters in a book that were laden with more options than they could ever hope to use, that would be one thing - though even still a monster that has both melee and ranged powers might be good, even if it's likely only to use one kind or the other in any given encounter.

But we're talking about monsters I'm making myself, by using the templates. Yes, I'm adding powers, but even if I leave the original powers in place, I'm probably focused more on the ones I added. A kobold slinger with a ranger template is probably twin striking his quarry, rather than bothering with special shot. I'd only be adding the class powers and features that I intended to use. In my own notes, I'd probably leave out the other ones.

The DMG class templates form pretty good guidelines for what the Eberron and PHB 3 templates would have looked like. My main question is really about power points for psion, ardent and battlemind. But, going by how Dark Sun monsters use augmentation, I imagine that, rather than messing with power points, the rules would say something like "Instead of choosing an encounter power, choose an augment from an/the at-will power/s. If you choose the [mid-range] augment, the creature can use that twice in the encounter, though only once per turn. If you choose the [top-range] augment, the creature can use that once during the encounter. If the daily power you chose has an augment, apply that to an/the at-will to form a power the creature can use once per encounter."

By the way, are there any guidelines for creating recharge powers, in terms of what kinds of powers should recharge, and how often?

In reply to engine (msg # 39):

There are a few reasons that having a monster with too many powers is a problem.

1) From a practical standpoint, too many options slow down the game as the DM has to consider them all before deciding on them (not as much of an issue for PbP, admittedly, but still a concern.)

2) The more powers you have, the more likely you'll include one that breaks an encounter.  This is particularly an issue for inexperienced DMs that want to have 'super-cool awesome monsters!'

3)  If you have too many powers (especially passive ones,) the monsters start stacking effects like PCs do.  Which is another risk of breaking an encounter.  (Again, monsters shouldn't really be acting like PCs.)  This is especially an issue since there's a temptation to give every monster an option to use every type of action...Interrupt, Opportunity, Minor, Move, etc.  At higher level, that's fine.  At lower levels, that's a balance issue.

There's no problem with having both a ranged and melee attack power.  Many monsters do.  There's nothing wrong with having a variety of powers or a variety of monsters in an encounter with varying power roles.  That's often good encounter design.  There is a bit of an issue with the desire that many inexperienced (or even experienced) DMs fall into to munchkin or power-game encounters.  And, that can result in super-long combats.  (Or super fast TPKs...)

As for power points on monsters...what is the point of that?  Monsters don't have to save resources for multiple encounters like PCs do, so they don't need power points any more than they need a difference between Daily and Encounter powers.

4) If monsters have powers to cover every eventuality, it detracts from the tactical-combat-mini-game which is a key part of 4E from a player perspective. What's the point of immobilising the brutes if they have a ranged attack?

5) When a monster has the ability to inflict a condition on a PC, consider carefully the duration. If it's something that can effectively lock down that character -- like dazing or stunning -- give it a fixed duration, like until the monster's next turn. "Save ends" should be reserved for conditions that hinder or inconvenience, so that players can still do something. Under no circumstances should you have an ability that stuns with "Save ends)".

Just because the monster has additional powers doesn't mean I'm going to use them. If I went to the trouble of adding a class template, I'm probably most interested in using those powers.

If that were to happen, I could just stop using that power, and resort to using the monster as written (and as bulked up into an elite). Instead of the extra powers being problematic, they're a nice fallback.

Anyway, broken powers can happen even with premade monsters, so I already have an approach for working around that.

What makes you think I have that tendency? It sounds like you're arguing against them as a general thing, and no general thing works for everyone. I'm just thinking of them for myself.

That's not a concern for me.

As normal monsters can do the same, I already have ways to work around this.

If this were about creating monsters for other people to use, I'd tend to agree with you. But this is just for me. If my templated monster happens to have more powers than it can possibly use, I'm not going to find that confusing or frustrating, because I'm not expecting to be able to use all of those powers (though I still think, as a general thing, that a monster with a lot of powers just needs a few soldiers to run interference and buy time.)

The same point as for PCs. But did you read where I conceded that they're probably not needed for monsters to achieve the same effect?

Power points aren't saved from encounter to encounter. They come back after a short rest.

"Brutes" would probably be, at most, two per encounter, since a PC template brute is an elite. I suppose I could have a group with a lot of elite members who show up frequently, but I don't see anything wrong with shaking up the "tactical-combat-mini-game" a little with a brute who is also artillery (especially since I'm probably focused on using the artillery powers I picked out.)

Reasonable general advice, and probably good for players too. Bear in mind that I'm not really talking about inventing powers here, so everything is going to have a duration.

In reply to engine (msg # 43):

I think we might be misunderstanding each other here.  I thought we were talking about the concept of a GM altering monsters in 4th edition...an abstract concept that would apply to a hypothetical GM.  I didn't realize you were asking purely for the purpose of you as a GM using the information in your personal campaigns.  I would certainly have phrased my points differently had I realized that was the thrust of your side of the discussion.

In reply to Godzfirefly (msg # 44):

I'm not sure I've been consistent in my points in this discussion. I had wondered if the templates had been published, and learned that the concept was not well thought of (I've certainly never seen the approach used outside of the vampire lord in the Monster Manual). I wondered why that was and received a number of different reasons. The reasons mostly seemed valid, but fairly general, and rather worse-cased. At some point I realized that I (especially after being made aware of them) could personally side-step those concerns, in my specific case.

I'm not a powergamer, trying to squeeze as much into a monster round as possible (despite meager estimation of monster survivability being an incentive to do just that), but if I hadn't looked for advice here, it's likely that I would have perplexed and frustrated myself by hoping to use all of the template monster's powers in the encounter without planning for how to keep the monster around long enough to do that. Thanks to the advice I've received here, I know to take to heart the DMG's note that a full template need not be applied, and I can bear in mind that the point (for me) is not to load up a monster with powers, but to give it class powers and abilities, in a relatively balanced way, primarily so I can see rarer classes in (a sort of) action.

Imagine that the party is pursuing or being pursued (or both) through or throughout a region. How would you run that in such a way that:

A) The pursuit isn't the main action, but more of an overarching goal. That is, the PCs are still interacting/exploring/fighting as one would expect, but with the pursuit always in the background.

B) Skills, rituals, utility powers, racial features, class features and items can make a difference. If the PCs work to hide their tracks, sleep minimally, use wilderness knacks, set up camps magically, use magical/alchemical/mundane alarms or traps, ride mounts, etc (or if the opposition does!) this should matter, but not all of these things are easily tracked or made applicable.

C) The time spent on adjudicating aspects of the pursuit are relatively minimal. Camp or travel preparation and execution should take no more than two exchanges of posts between player and DM and no more than just a few rolls. The same for incidents that occur during rests or on the road, pertaining to the pursuit.

Normally, I'd be happy to use skill challenges for this kind of thing, but I'm not sure how to mesh those with say, an instant campsite or items or rituals that allow for a campfire to be hidden and silenced (oddly, scent is never addressed), or even mounts. Adjudicating these for the players would be tricky enough, but I also feel like I should adjudicate them for the other group(s) in the chase. It seems daunting. Is there a way to make those options meaningful, but not overly complicated?

In reply to engine (msg # 46):

I'd say ...

There would have to be enough enemies that the PCs know they couldn't just fight them all and win.  Effectively infinite enemies (though not literally, in-story), so that the PCs can win fights against groups of them without reducing the threat of the whole.

The PCs would need enough of a head start that they can conceivably hide, use stealth abilities, and make preparations.  But, not so much of a pursuit that they feel someone catching up to them is unreasonable.

While most of the pursuit should be trackers and scouts who the PCs can reasonably defeat, the PCs should know there are foes just behind those pursuers (who can't track, but can be alerted to the PCs' presence) that the PCs would probably be captured/killed by.

Skill Challenges should not describe the entire pursuit, but instead overcoming particular obstacles of the pursuit.  And, they should be designed so that failure doesn't get them "caught" but does give away their position to the trackers.  And, success shouldn't get them "away" either...it should give them enough breathing room to get some rest, at most.  (Unless you're ready for the PCs to get away...)

Terrain should be varied and meaningful, educating both skill challenges and combat maps.

And, probably the #1 thing to remember is that the PCs need to always want to get away from whatever bad thing the enemies are threatening more than they want to surrender to stop dealing with the frustrating challenges of pursuit.

It's a razor's edge of challenges that you propose.