PDA

View Full Version : Non-humanoids with Class Levels



imp_fireball
2009-03-08, 04:27 AM
Is their any existing rules on advancement with non-humanoid PCs? String attached?

Here's my look at it

First off, the limits -

Intelligence

- 3 or greater = sentient, while 2 or less = animal. 0 can imply either brain dead or that of a machine without emotions (unless you've got some axiomatic machine creature without emotions as a trait). The borderline between sentience and animal is vast, thus drastic changes occur when a creature switches from an INT of 2 to that of 3.

- Sentience = Language. Language is one of the defining barriers of sentience. It doesn't necessarily have to be vocal or even somatic/written however it is considered 'higher' in the sense that it doesn't involve communication by way of pure emotions. All language has some semantics or tradition involved and is at least standardized in some sense, even if it only exists among a very small community. Creature's of sentience also have more complex personalities than animals. Sometimes creatures are incapable of communication and some of sentience are such 'loners' that they have no language to call their own, nor can they speak any, or perhaps have not adapted to uttering language although they could.

- Animal = No language. Independent animals usually have an INT of 2, while the sheep reflect more of an INT of 1, being the only difference as such. Animals communicate purely with emotions, and function by instinct (although INT 2s might express curiosity). Animal is not defined by the creature type, but rather by INT in this circumstance. Animals that do have a language are most likely assisted by means of a more intelligent race, whether psychically, magically, or with technology.

The Main Question: Should PCs be allowed to be non-humanoids? Animals for that matter? The guidelines I made above reflect how this might exist to some degree.

Non-humanoids with an INT higher than 2 might be obliged to have class levels, while animals merely advance in HD and/or are buffed by a third party.

As an example, here is the worg template

http://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/MM35_gallery/MM35_PG257.jpg


Size/Type: Medium Magical Beast
ECL 4 (4d8 HD)
Speed: 50 ft. (10 squares)
+2 Natural Armor
+4 BAB
One Natural Weapon (Bite 1d6)
Special Attacks: Trip
Special Qualities: Darkvision 60 ft., low-light vision, scent
Saves: Fort +6, Ref +6, Will +3
Abilities: +6 STR, +4 DEX, +4 CON, -4 INT, +4 WIS
Skills: A worg has a +1 racial bonus on Listen, Move Silently, and Spot checks, and a +2 racial bonus on Hide checks. *A worg has a +4 racial bonus on Survival checks when tracking by scent.
Non-humanoid Advancement: 5-6 HD (Medium); 7-12 HD (Large); 1 additional class level per 4 ECL up to ECL 12 (if large) or ECL 6 (if medium) and then by class level thereafter.
Level Adjustment: +1 (cohort), +1 (size medium), +2 (size large)

Trip (Ex)

A worg that hits with a bite attack can attempt to trip the opponent (+3 check modifier) as a free action without making a touch attack or provoking an attack of opportunity. If the attempt fails, the opponent cannot react to trip the worg.

Four-legged (trait)

A worg receives all the penalties and benefits of a creature with four legs.


Non-humanoid (trait)

Although the worg acquires all the benefits of being a magical beast, they cannot cast spells with vocal components and suffer -2 to DCs with spells that have somatic components and DCs as well as those with material components. Additionally, they cannot have vocal language. All checks to do with tools, materials suffer a +4 to the DC of such checks.

Finally, even if a worg is proficient with weapons, they suffer a -2 penalty to attacking with them, unless they are grappling with their target. Additionally, only two handed weapons one size category smaller, or one-handed weapons of the same size category as the worg may be of the maximum heft equipped by the worg (unless powerful build is taken).

Non-proficiency with a weapon means that the worg will be unable to use it at all. If the worg is proficient with at least three different weapon categories, then improvised weapons suffer no penalties for being improvised.

Worg Physiology(trait)

According to it's size, a character who is a worg may begin play at a number of HD according to her size and receives level adjustment as such. A large worg may begin with a number of HD between 7-12, whereas a medium worg may begin with a number between 5-6.

Aside from beginning play with at least one class level, a worg always advances by 1 class level/4HD up to the maximum for her size category. When a GM states a level cap (ie. 5) then a large worg would choose to begin play with 8HD (Ie.) and three class levels (LA +2). However she must advance up to four additional HD before reaching fourth level in her class(es).


The idea behind this, even though it might generally be troubling to have a non-humanoids and humanoids within the same campaign, is that it offers greater choice to players.

Ultimately, the mechanics should not limit the fluff. The fluff should limit the mechanics.

---------
Opinions/suggestions? Are their other rules out there that deal with this issue?

Tempest Fennac
2009-03-08, 05:32 AM
I tend to go with the idea that animals are as intelligent as humans, but they are intelligent in different ways (Temple Grandin's work in this area is interresting). On the other hand, I'd argue that a lot of classes don't work with animals at all. For instance, I'm not sure if animals can learn to read or write, which makes Wizards off-limites. On the other hand, animals could easily have Sorcerer or Favoured Soul levels due to those classes being born with their powers. I have 1 friend who was able to teach her cat to use Reiki, so Cleric could be an option, along with Shugenjas. Anything that needs weapons is a huge problem unless the character is an ape due to it being impossible for a lot of animals to weild things properly.

Animals are also incapable of using a lot of skills due to not being able to talk or manipulate items. When I joined a freeform RPing group on this forum called HALO, my character was a fennec fox with Generic Spellcaster levels who got his powers from a magical experiment. So that he could communicate with non-animal characters while not needing help with opening doors, I gave him telepathy with unmlimited Mage Hand up to a distance of 5 feet.

Another point about language and sentinace; I'm not that good at it, but I have some animal communication experience and I found that animals also "talk" using images as well as just emotions. I also got some "words" when I've spoken to animals in the past. (I'm way out of practice, but I can find the thread I posted on this forum when I first joined if you want to see how I did it).

LordZarth
2009-03-08, 11:38 AM
Sentience is different from intelligence, and sentience is required for PCs.

Your dog is intelligent. He thinks and can make complex decisions. What he doesn't do (we think) is think about his thinking. He can be happy, but he can't analyze his happiness or think about it. Kind of.

Xuincherguixe
2009-03-08, 12:16 PM
Nothing with less than 3 intelligence gets class levels, nor should they. They all represent a serious investment of reasoning. A dog might be able to figure out to attack people in the ankles, but it's not going to be able to understand Nietzsche. Also, it couldn't comprehend advanced tactics and such.

They really are inappropriate for PCs.

If a thing is capable of abstract thought, then it's not entirely out of reason. Which tends to work a lot better with magical, or psionic classes. I mean really, how is that Unicorn going to swing a sword exactly?

Monk levels on the other hand, can be hilarious, largely for the same reasons why the Unicorn can't swing the sword. One of these days, I intend to have a ridiculous encounter with a temple full of things that have no business having Monk Levels. Such as Beholders.

Non humanoid characters can present problems, but basically, the key point is a sense of self awareness.

Tempest Fennac
2009-03-08, 01:05 PM
I've not seen any evidence that animals can't think in that fashion (I'm not that good at animal communication, but I've got some results which suggest I am making contact when I've tried it). Also, what would that have to do with being born with magic?

imp_fireball
2009-03-09, 04:49 AM
If you really want to get into the philosophy behind thought process - IMO, it's not that animals think differently than humans.

It's that they're less intelligent. Sure, they're capable of emotions (a dog gets depressed) but they aren't capable of complex emotions - perhaps I should reword that to mean, they aren't capable of stressing over complicated matters.

Considering I'm terrible at explaining things, Lordzarth got it right. Abstract thought = sentience.

However I still believe that animals can have a place in campaigns, though generally they wouldn't mix with sentient races. Perhaps the forest industry is driving them out of their habitat and they have to strike back? The quests are a lot more limited and there's a huge constraint on role playing (and even campaign concepts) unless it's for some comical affect, but it should still be possible. Animals might also be denied class levels unless they are of some obscenely high level which could be problematic although they would have skills and interesting feats that take advantage of their body parts. There's also magic, psionics and technology (Dog in powered armor? Cybernetic kitty? Internet surfin' ape? Robot chicken?).

----------
I already detailed some mechanics of not having oppose-able digits, so anyone reading this should at least check that out. The short of it though is this: Lack of oppose-able digits = cannot dual wield unless using implements one size category smaller.

The non-humanoid trait also varies for every creature (so the description can change).

It's very broad and automatically applies to anything that's not humanoid (mind you, humanoid can mean anything including something with thirty eyes, twenty ears, four hundred arms, thirty legs, a dozen heads, etc.; as long as it has oppose-able digits although monstrous/outsider/aberration/augmented are often applied for fun/party times).

Yuki Akuma
2009-03-09, 04:54 AM
Sentience is the ability to perceive your surroundings. Almost all animals are sentient.

Sapience is the ability to recognise the fact that you are intelligent, and is the capacity for self-reflection. Most animals are not sapient.

This has been your daily dose of biology pedantry. Have a nice day.

imp_fireball
2009-03-09, 05:10 AM
According to the SRD, INT 1 still indicates that an animal can think, learn, or remember (one of the three at least), so by that logic a jellyfish would have 0 INT (machine) and possibly 0 WIS (object).

By dictionary definition, sentience indicates 'the conscious mind' which is rather vague. But this is assuming that the definition spurred from a time where animals were thought to not have souls (according to christians).

So really, I'd go with sentience being abstract thought.

--------
Also, this isn't a philosophical thread. It's a thread for debating what mechanics could be used in implementing effective non-humanoid PCs into a fulfilling adventure.

Personally, I feel it isn't just humanoids that should be capable of party times. What if you had a race quite akin to beholders, however they used telekinesis to manipulate everything around them? They could be suspended in dream like states. Or perhaps they don't have arms (not humanoid) or don't have legs, or simply have such a low STR score that they can barely move without having to use telekinesis. That's just an example.

Tempest Fennac
2009-03-09, 05:52 AM
I would like to see some actual evidence that animals aren't actually sapiant.
__________________________________________________ _______________

I still think the idea of creatures without human-like hands (such as squirrels or rats) using normal manufactured weapons wouldn't really work. You could develope weapons which could be worn on collars for warrior-types, but this wouldn't work for ranged weapons. What did you think of my other suggestions regarding classes?

Arachu
2009-03-09, 06:22 AM
Sentience is the ability to think or analyze. It really is that simple, you know.

Even the dumbest of sheep can do that, though admittedly they are quite simple...

To not be sentient is to not think or learn. So, you know, technically, a robot that can process thought (or any thought, really) and learn on its own counts as somewhat sentient.

As for the soul argument? You'll have as much luck proving that animals lack souls as you will proving humans have them; you aren't dead yet, are you? :smallamused:

Ooh, and abstract thought. So, the LSD addict down the road is smarter than a rocket scientist? Oh, wait, that actually may be true in some cases...


...Yeah

EDIT: I'll admit, a squirrel with a crossbow would be hilarious.

Tempest Fennac
2009-03-09, 06:49 AM
Do you think a squirrel would be able to reload a crossbow if it knew how to operate it? I'm not sure if their hands are good enough at precision for that. It is an amusing idea, though.

imp_fireball
2009-03-09, 09:40 PM
Ooh, and abstract thought. So, the LSD addict down the road is smarter than a rocket scientist? Oh, wait, that actually may be true in some cases...

The LSD addict would likely not be smarter than the rocket scientist, however both would have at least an INT of 3, thus breaching the reasoning/non-reasoning barrier and as such both are capable of some level of abstract thought, although the rocket scientist merely chooses to ignore undisciplined thoughts (which doesn't suggest lower attributes) while the LSD addict merely perceives things differently (and likely actually has perception/initiative penalties when high).

Again, let me say that this is not a thread for arguing terminology. It's arguing mechanics.

imp_fireball
2009-03-09, 11:29 PM
Ooh, and abstract thought. So, the LSD addict down the road is smarter than a rocket scientist? Oh, wait, that actually may be true in some cases...

The LSD addict would likely not be smarter than the rocket scientist, however both would have at least an INT of 3, thus breaching the reasoning/non-reasoning barrier and as such both are capable of some level of abstract thought, although the rocket scientist merely chooses to ignore undisciplined thoughts (which doesn't suggest lower attributes) while the LSD addict merely perceives things differently (and likely actually has perception/initiative penalties when high).

Again, let me say that this is not a thread for arguing terminology. It's arguing mechanics.