D&D 5E Templates- What are they like?

[the Jester]

So a few people have the new Monster Manual already... could one of you tell us what the templates in it are like?

I loved templates in 3e, but they were pointless in 4e due to the way one built monsters. How do they look for 5e? Are they easy to apply, versatile, etc, or are they all kind of one-trick ponies?

 

[pming]

Hiya.

Well, as far as I know (and can tell) there is no such animal in 5e. The baseline of 5e isn't "heres somthing simple, now add sixteen different templates, classes, prestige classes, feat packages, etc. and add it all up". It is much more in line with 0e/1e/BECMI style "if you need a bulette to be an arctic variety, use the base bulette and add what you need". (re: make it up).

Personally, I much prefer it this way; as a DM I'd probably tweak/ignore or otherwise change what some particular template/whatever was telling me anyay....no point in giving myself a headache trying to add and correlate all the stuff together.

I'm sure that there will be info about "changing" monsters, and creating them, but I doubt we'll see anything as detailed and number/ability heavy as we had in 3e...at least I hope we don't!

^_^

Paul L. Ming

 

[the Jester]

Hiya.

Well, as far as I know (and can tell) there is no such animal in 5e.

Check out the Monster Manual's table of contents and stat blocks. There are a number of templates, including half-dragon and shadow dragon.

 

[pming]

Hiya.

Awww....you're correct. Ah well, from all I can see there were something like 3, maybe 4...so at least that's a good sign. If they do them "right" (not sure what that is....but I'll know what it isn't ), it may be ok. Hopefully they are simple things that make sense and don't just go for a "This is like a normal Beastything, but turned up to 11!".

^_^

Paul L. Ming

 

[Mouseferatu]

It looks to me like they're going for templates when it's intended as a change to an existing monster, but not when it's the monster itself.

Thus, "shadow dragon" is a change to dragons, and "half-dragon" is a change to whatever, but since vampire and lich are the concept, as opposed to a conceptual tweak, they're not represented by templates.

If that is, indeed, how they're going, templates will be a lot rarer and a whole lot simpler than they were in 3e, and possibly even 4e.

 

[Li Shenron]

I could spot:

Dracolich
Half-Dragon
Shadow Dragon
Spore Servant

It looks to me like they're going for templates when it's intended as a change to an existing monster, but not when it's the monster itself.

Thus, "shadow dragon" is a change to dragons, and "half-dragon" is a change to whatever, but since vampire and lich are the concept, as opposed to a conceptual tweak, they're not represented by templates.

Which is weird, considering that traditionally Lycanthropy, Vampirism and Lichdom are always acquired conditions. I can't see how they could not be templates...

...unless they were actually monster classes, which I doubt.

 

[Li Shenron]

Mumble, mumble....

Maybe there is another way, although I seriously doubt this is what they did.

If the Lycanthropes, Vampires and Liches in the MM were low-level creatures (let's say for instance up to 3 HD), then it would be possible to say they "overlap" with your race and class.

Thus without being technically templates (which presumably have no hit points, ability scores and other stats), you could have a Human Lich Wizard by taking the Human racial features, Lich special abilities and Wizard class abilities, and then for all other stats you take the best between the Lich's and the Wizard's. Or alternatively, you just keep your existing stats and only gain the Lich's special abilities.

Thus the Lich also remains as a ready-to-use monster.

(edit)

Note that there is already a precedent for overlapping races with a MM entry, and that is in the NPC chapter. There it says that all those Dark Acolyte, Soldier, Bandit etc. NPCs are by default humans (or race-less?), but it says you can just take any race in the PHB and add its features on top, to get a Tiefling Acolyte, Dwarf Soldier, etc. So combination with a race is EASY.

Combination with a class may also be additive after all. Presumably the Lich is a spellcaster, and in such case if you combine with a spellcasting class you're going to use the multiclass rules to determine the total spells per day. Just adding class levels would work fine for NPCs, but there is a problem with PCs because if one of them becomes a Lich/Lycanthrope/Vampire, then she would immediately get a huge bump if e.g. HD are additive, so something else might be better.

But the MM should say these kind of things... or the DMG otherwise.

 

[Mouseferatu]

Which is weird, considering that traditionally Lycanthropy, Vampirism and Lichdom are always acquired conditions. I can't see how they could not be templates...

And see, back in 3e, I would have agreed with you. Since NPCs were built the same as PCs, and all NPCs had classes, it made sense. Create the character, add the template.

But in 5e, NPCs aren't built like PCs. They're purpose-built, like monsters.

So if you just want a "regular" werewolf, one built on a normal/average human (or elf, or whatever), that's represented by the one in the MM. If you want something more specific--a werewolf mage, for instance--then you use the rules for modifying/advancing monsters.

If you're purpose-building the NPC anyway, the template doesn't save you anything.

Or the lich, for instance. I'm sure making it higher or lower level is an easy enough modification, and otherwise it's just a matter of swapping out spells. Again, if you want something way out there, you'll need to build it from the ground up--but you'd have needed to purpose-build the base character from the ground up anyway.

This is all assuming I understand everything correctly, of course. But if I do, it'll work much like it did in 4e, and monsters in 4e, for the most part, were pretty easy and smooth to build and work with.

 

[kenmarable]

Which is weird, considering that traditionally Lycanthropy, Vampirism and Lichdom are always acquired conditions. I can't see how they could not be templates...

Well, I think it might be (just speculating here especially from Ari's speculation, so this is second order spec, mind you) but the fact that it is acquired doesn't have anything to do with it. Sure, in the world, if a dwarf becomes a vampire, they start as dwarf and add on vampire-ness. However, if you look at the results and not the process, afterwards, they are a vampire who happened to have once been a dwarf. The vampire-ness is their overall defining characteristic, and the dwarf-ness is the add-on.

So, completing ignoring the process in the game world, from a rules perspective, it makes sense to start with a vampire and then dwarf it up some. Same if you have an orc vampire or even maybe an ogre lich or some such.

Sure it doesn't give much guidance if the original monster and the new one are both equal weight (like the crazy stuff such as beholder mummies or whatever), but in those cases it makes more sense to make them as a unique monster than to just build it with templates.

The fact that it is acquired doesn't matter any more than the fact that, say, being a knight is an acquired condition. If you want to make a halfling knight or an orc knight, it's quicker and easier to start with a basic knight and add the race onto that rather than the other way around. It is MUCH more fast and loose than 3e and 4e, however, which will take some getting used to, but I like it even if I did have far too much fun with templates in the past.

 

[Li Shenron]

And see, back in 3e, I would have agreed with you. Since NPCs were built the same as PCs, and all NPCs had classes, it made sense. Create the character, add the template.

But in 5e, NPCs aren't built like PCs. They're purpose-built, like monsters.

So if you just want a "regular" werewolf, one built on a normal/average human (or elf, or whatever), that's represented by the one in the MM. If you want something more specific--a werewolf mage, for instance--then you use the rules for modifying/advancing monsters.

If you're purpose-building the NPC anyway, the template doesn't save you anything.

In 3e, templates saved me A LOT of work. Building a monster from scratch took a long time, applying a template was a matter of minutes.

Now if 5e MM or DMG come with rules for creating monsters from scratch in a matter of minutes (like some say the 4e rules did), then perhaps templates are less useful.

Still, that doesn't mean they are worthless. Otherwise why did they bother to have the templates we did get there? A shadow dragon template has been designed, and that's even a creature that AFAIK used to be a single type of dragon in 3e, not a template. We also get a dracolich template, but not a lich template... why?

Well, I think it might be (just speculating here especially from Ari's speculation, so this is second order spec, mind you) but the fact that it is acquired doesn't have anything to do with it. Sure, in the world, if a dwarf becomes a vampire, they start as dwarf and add on vampire-ness. However, if you look at the results and not the process, afterwards, they are a vampire who happened to have once been a dwarf. The vampire-ness is their overall defining characteristic, and the dwarf-ness is the add-on.

So, completing ignoring the process in the game world, from a rules perspective, it makes sense to start with a vampire and then dwarf it up some. Same if you have an orc vampire or even maybe an ogre lich or some such.

I think you're both focusing only on NPC use of those creatures. I am trying to see both sides, NPC and PC, even tho the latter may be useful to less gaming groups. For NPC use, see my post #7.