PDA

View Full Version : [3.5e] A playable Lizardfolk



Surgo
2009-11-18, 10:22 AM
For the full stats, click here (http://dungeons.wikia.com/wiki/Lizardfolk_Variant_(3.5e_Race)#Racial_Traits).

This race went through a few revisions before I finally settled on something I was happy with. The overarching idea was something along the lines of "in a fantasy game, if I can't play a non-humanoid like a lizard-man effectively, the game is a total failure". To that end, I've tried to fix that part of the game.

The choose-your-own stat adjustments are pretty much on par with elves these days which have essentially the same feature -- and it also guarantees that I don't shoehorn lizardfolk into a single class or small group of classes. I seriously want you to be able to play the archetypical barbarian lizard-man if you want, and also the lizardfolk seer if you want to do that too. To prevent it from basically being a human with the serial numbers filed off, you have the choose-your-own stat adjustments.

The other abilities are pretty much flavor, except for Scent (which can be great more often than a flavor ability) and the natural weapons (which I guess a couple builds could take advantage of, maybe), but nothing that is any better than a human who gets to spend his bonus feat on something out of Races of War. The one thing that worried me was Monstrous, but that was recently cut down to allow for only [Monstrous] feats instead of [Fiend] feats, bringing the race back down to what I believe is an acceptable level of power (comparable to a Human).

PanNarrans
2009-11-18, 11:09 AM
It's cool, but a little much for LA +0. A climb speed, swim speed and water breathing for free, as well as scent?

On top of that, +2/-2 to ANY stat isn't something I've ever heard of, and will make minmaxers squeal with glee.

Besides, I quite like the MM lizardfolk. +5 NA isn't bad for a level in an unoptimised game, and it's pretty flavourful.

Solaris
2009-11-18, 12:25 PM
I agree. Given all of its abilities, I can see it not having any ability modifiers on top of that.

Surgo
2009-11-18, 03:50 PM
It's cool, but a little much for LA +0. A climb speed, swim speed and water breathing for free, as well as scent?
The only one of those listed that's worth anything is the scent. When was the last time any group of PCs went "oh man, I really wish one of us had a swim speed!"? The climb speed's worth is even more atrocious -- that's seriously just a flavor ability.

On top of that, +2/-2 to ANY stat isn't something I've ever heard of, and will make minmaxers squeal with glee.
It's no different than what elves are nowadays, so there's no reason to shy away from it.

Besides, I quite like the MM lizardfolk. +5 NA isn't bad for a level in an unoptimised game, and it's pretty flavourful.
You have to pay three levels for it, not one (you're forced to take two crappy racial hit dice in addition to the level adjustment). Everything I make is so people will want to use it (as in, in an optimized game).

Baron Corm
2009-11-18, 04:13 PM
Elves all have a -2 to Constitution though, which negatively affects every class. Your lizardfolk can have their -2 to Charisma, which has no downside for any class that doesn't depend on it. Classes that depend on it can have -2 to Strength or Wisdom. You might as well take out the -2.

Surgo
2009-11-18, 04:21 PM
Elves all have a -2 to Constitution though, which negatively affects every class. Your lizardfolk can have their -2 to Charisma, which has no downside for any class that doesn't depend on it.
I am almost entirely positive there are elf subraces out there published in official 3.5 books that do not have a constitution penalty. However, it really doesn't matter if any individual lizardfolk can take a -2 to a stat they don't care about or not. At this point anyone can go dumpster diving and find such a race that fits that criteria, but that also doesn't matter. Yeah, the Lizardfolk makes a good race for a Wizard (+2 Int, -2 Str). The fact that it can also make a good race for a fighter (+2 Str or whatever, -2 Cha) is completely irrelevant to the guy who is using it for a Wizard, and vice versa. The race would not be any more balanced if it restricted you to only using +2 Int -2 Str, or +2 Str -2 Cha; it would in fact be exactly as balanced as it is now with the only difference being you suddenly couldn't use it for a large number of classes.

Gpope
2009-11-18, 04:28 PM
"Pick +2/-2" is a reasonable rule if and only if you're giving it to everybody; there's absolutely no reason that these guys should be special. Saying "it's just like elves" is a bit of a stretch, too. I'm pretty sure just about all LA +0 elves can be described as "+Dex/+Something/-Con/-Something" (simplified to "+Dex/-Something" in a lot of cases). If you give these guys +2 Con/pick a -2, they're already decent for just about any character archetype you can name.

Even if you go outside of elves for your ability modifiers if you're going for a rare combination you might not get much in the way of racial abilities you want. But climb speed, amphibious swim speed, and scent are all very decent racial abilities, and on top of that it's got a very nice suite of natural weapons for an LA +0 race. As written these things would be an almost automatic go-to race for any character that didn't desperately, desperately need a bonus feat or other specific race feature.

Surgo
2009-11-18, 04:35 PM
First of all, how on earth is climb speed a decent racial ability? I mean, it's a climb speed. Seriously, when was the last time anyone ever went "oh man, it would be really great if we had a climb speed right now!"? I can almost see swim speed (and Scent is good, no argument from me there), but...climb speed?


Pick +2/-2" is a reasonable rule if and only if you're giving it to everybody
Have to start somewhere. But this...

As written these things would be an almost automatic go-to race for any character that didn't desperately, desperately need a bonus feat or other specific race feature.
I don't know, I can think of a few:
- Human for reasons listed.
- Grey Elf is still the main Wizard race, as that +2 Dex is totally awesome combined with that +2 Int.
- Halflings get to be small and are still the go-to race for Rogues.
- Gnomes, for that matter, are also small and make a great race for anyone who wants to be small (that includes some Races of War fighting types).
- Dwarves are still pretty great and, when it comes to Fighting types, certainly the equal of the Lizardfolk.

If you expand your options list to include Races of War you can add the Hobgoblin, Aasimar, Goblin, and Drow to that list of races you can reasonably expect to want to use.

Gpope
2009-11-18, 05:30 PM
Have to start somewhere.

Why worry about where to start? Just say it applies across the board and you're done. There's no real reason to ever include it in an individual race's writeup.


First of all, how on earth is climb speed a decent racial ability? I mean, it's a climb speed. Seriously, when was the last time anyone ever went "oh man, it would be really great if we had a climb speed right now!"? I can almost see swim speed (and Scent is good, no argument from me there), but...climb speed?

With minimal investment having a climb speed is almost as good as permanent Spider Climb. Being limited to 10' climb speed makes it less useful, but it's still a nice perk to have. Nothing amazing, but racial abilities typically aren't.


- Grey Elf is still the main Wizard race, as that +2 Dex is totally awesome combined with that +2 Int.
- Halflings get to be small and are still the go-to race for Rogues.
- Gnomes, for that matter, are also small and make a great race for anyone who wants to be small (that includes some Races of War fighting types).
- Dwarves are still pretty great and, when it comes to Fighting types, certainly the equal of the Lizardfolk.

All these races have penalties that are much more substantial than the Lizardfolk, too. -2 Con hurts wizards quite a bit, halflings are less than amazing for melee, gnomes' +2 Con isn't as good as +2 to a primary casting stat, and dwarves have a speed penalty.

I did exaggerate a bit, but for melee characters and divine characters this race is still phenomenally good as written. For gish it's absolutely incredible, and for arcane characters with no melee focus it's still very good, on par with any published race for general-purpose arcane builds.

Baron Corm
2009-11-18, 05:32 PM
Ok, you're probably right. The ability bonuses are not supplemented by anything except natural attacks and movement speeds, so there's no min-maxing you can really do. Now for some analysis of the other racial features...

The swim speed and amphibious could situationally be either very useful or completely useless. I think you're downplaying how useful it could be in a dungeon with some flooded areas, or in any kind of swamp or beach area. If there's no water, it's not useful. But you have to consider it at full usefulness, because it might be used in that way.

The climb speed is useless just because of how slow it is. A creature with 30 foot base land speed moves at 7.5 feet when climbing normally, and yours moves at 10. I would say either bring it up to 15 or 20, or drop it. Again, this could be useful in an area where a lot of climbing needs to be done, but is no where near as useful as a fly speed, or spider climb, so it's safe to consider it as a minor thing.

Your natural attacks essentially add one attack in a full attack, assuming you're carrying a weapon (the bite attack). It's normally a small amount of damage because you can't enchant it. But to someone who optimizes Power Attack this could add a very large amount of damage. It's probably the best aspect of the race.

Scent lets you track by scent. Woohoo. It's not blindsense. I don't think this is nearly as good as people say.

So basically, the main (only?) reasons to select this race are as a Power Attacker or in an aquatic campaign, ability score bonuses aside. I guess it has a niche. Not many other races get natural attacks.

Lastly, I have no idea what "Races of War" is, or "Monstrous Feats". Are these homebrew? Are you talking about the Monster Manual? And these (http://www.d20srd.org/indexes/monsterFeats.htm) feats? Anyone can really take those feats as long as they qualify, they just tend to not qualify.

Ashtagon
2009-11-18, 05:37 PM
Normally, natural climb/swim speeds come with a free +8 skill bonus to the relevant skill and the ability to take 10 at any time on that skill. That wasn't specified in the write-up, but assuming it is given, that instantly makes those two extremely powerful in situations where they can be used at all.

Cieyrin
2009-11-18, 06:00 PM
The thing about the alternate movement speeds is that they do more than just let you move at them in the medium given, they give you a hefty racial bonus of +8 to the skills in question, as well as other perks, like always being able to take 10 or not needing to roll at all. For the climb speed, despite the slowness of it, it makes for a poor man's fly speed at getting out of reach of creatures quite easily and stay there, so meleers can't get at you as you pick 'em off unmolested.

The mutable stat changes is just a min-maxers wet dream and the territory of Pathfinder Humans and those of Pathfinder Human descent. In normal 3.5, it's unprecedented and powerful, which makes it unbalancing on a LA +0 race. You say in the flavor that most are +2 Con -2 Int, so why not just lock it to such and call it good, as the versatility there alone is well on it's way to LA +1.

Finally, for the Monstrous trait, it makes no sense to specifically cite it, as they qualify by virtue of having whatever qualities they meet (in this case, their natural attacks or movement speeds, which aren't common PC race fare), not that they are specifically 'Monstrous'. If anyone wants the respective feats, they'll qualify by having those aspects, nothing else.

Them's my 2 coppers. Take as you will.

Zaydos
2009-11-18, 06:03 PM
Also a natural climb speed allows you to keep your Dex to AC when climbing. Combine this with javelins or some other thrown weapon and at 1st level you just climb the dungeon wall (that +8 and ability to take 10 make it easy) and hurl weapons down upon your foes. Climb isn't as good as a fly speed, but it is still awesome in a dungeon environment.

Surgo
2009-11-18, 07:02 PM
Replies, with the absolute most important first:


I did exaggerate a bit, but for melee characters and divine characters this race is still phenomenally good as written. For gish it's absolutely incredible, and for arcane characters with no melee focus it's still very good, on par with any published race for general-purpose arcane builds.
That's a good thing. I want the race to be good (so Lizardfolk anything is a good character), but not so good there's no reason to use another race. I think that goal has been accomplished fairly well.


The swim speed and amphibious could situationally be either very useful or completely useless. I think you're downplaying how useful it could be in a dungeon with some flooded areas, or in any kind of swamp or beach area. If there's no water, it's not useful. But you have to consider it at full usefulness, because it might be used in that way.
Yeah that is a perfectly valid point and it's kind of the same thing as giving Resistance to Fire 5 -- that's basically a flavor ability because you could seriously go from levels 1 to 5 without seeing it used even once. The fact that swim gets used way less than resistance to fire makes me think this is okay -- you'll run into a situation where "aha, I can swim and breathe underwater!" is going to solve a problem and you will be happy that your otherwise flavorful racial trait was good for you. Then you'll go a few levels without seeing it and forget about it all over again.

It's inherently problematic to balance those abilities, but I think it's fine to include this one (swim speed) because of the profound uselessness of it all of the time and, even when it does become useful, it's only because the DM is basically throwing you a bone.


You say in the flavor that most are +2 Con -2 Int, so why not just lock it to such and call it good, as the versatility there alone is well on it's way to LA +1.
This is nonsense. The fact that some other guy can get a +2 Int, -2 Cha in no way impacts how I currently have a +2 Con, -2 Int. Why on earth would I pay an extra level when that doesn't even impact me at all? The "versatility" doesn't mean anything for a given character who has a given set of immutable stat mods. It's not like he can go and swap them out.

The reason I don't want to lock it in is because I want Lizardfolk [anything] to be a viable character (not the most optimal because it usually isn't, just viable). Locking in stat mods does not accomplish that goal, and in fact takes it in the complete opposite direction where you've made only a few of the [anything] into viable characters.


Finally, for the Monstrous trait, it makes no sense to specifically cite it, as they qualify by virtue of having whatever qualities they meet (in this case, their natural attacks or movement speeds, which aren't common PC race fare), not that they are specifically 'Monstrous'. If anyone wants the respective feats, they'll qualify by having those aspects, nothing else.
I'm specifically referring to feats with the [Monstrous] tag, of which a few come to mind; most from here (http://dungeons.wikia.com/wiki/Tome_of_Fiends_%283.5e_Sourcebook%29). (A similar book by the same authors is what I refer to by Races of War, for anyone who was curious.)


Normally, natural climb/swim speeds come with a free +8 skill bonus to the relevant skill and the ability to take 10 at any time on that skill. That wasn't specified in the write-up, but assuming it is given, that instantly makes those two extremely powerful in situations where they can be used at all.
Yeah, that's how it works -- if I should specify that I will. It's not breaking the bank in any case...I mean, it's Climb and Swim. Seriously.


Also a natural climb speed allows you to keep your Dex to AC when climbing. Combine this with javelins or some other thrown weapon and at 1st level you just climb the dungeon wall (that +8 and ability to take 10 make it easy) and hurl weapons down upon your foes
So it's kind of like having a horse for a couple levels while indoors? That's cool. I don't think it's gamebreaking, but it's definitely cool. (I might even call it "better than swim" for levels 1 and 2).


I just want to reiterate what I said in response to Gpope -- the race is supposed to be strong. Not gamebreaking strong, which I am absolutely convinced it is not, but strong enough to play with the big boys (human, grey elf, halfling).

Toliudar
2009-11-18, 07:49 PM
I'd definitely consider this a strong choice for just about any class, which sounds like it's exactly what you're going for. If you don't mind a tiny bit of power creep, this build will certainly encourage the race's use by PC's (and make for a great mixed bag of NPC builds, if your DM'ing).

The original Lizardfolk's Claw/claw/bite combo's are 1d4/1d6 damage. Any particular reason you went higher?

Surgo
2009-11-18, 07:53 PM
The only reason I went higher was because I thought the 1d4/1d6 were really quite pathetic. I mean, 1d6/1d8 isn't much better (I mean seriously what's 1 point of damage on average going to mean) but at least they aren't worse than a longsword anymore.

Gpope
2009-11-18, 08:37 PM
That's a good thing. I want the race to be good (so Lizardfolk anything is a good character), but not so good there's no reason to use another race. I think that goal has been accomplished fairly well.

The problem is that you're setting a goal for the race which is much higher than what published WotC races are designed to. Strongheart Halfling is about the only WotC race I can think of that's really on par with these guys as written: it has a niche where it's just ridiculously awesome, but is great for almost any other build. That's setting the bar awfully damn high.

If we set aside ability modifiers for a moment, it's got a very nice grab bag of abilities. The bite attack is the big one, because it's a hands-free extra attack with no strings attached, so it's a great ability for almost anyone who's going to be doing any melee. Claws, scent, amphibious swim speed, and climb speed are all situational bonuses, but most racial abilities are and this is a selection of perks that most races would kill for. Granted, most races suck. If you're aiming for standards like dwarves, halflings, and gnomes then yeah, I think you're pretty much hitting par as far as the racial traits go.

So... if these guys were stuck with a humdrum set of ability modifiers like +2 Con/-2 Int, or even +2 Con/your choice of -2 they'd be doing OK. Similarly, if you're playing in a campaign where everyone does choose-your-own ability modifiers they're obviously fine. Either way they end up with ability mods on par with other strongish races and racial advantages that are about even. Hell, you could probably even get away with "Pick +2 Str/Dex/Con, -2 to anything else." Str is kind of pushing it due to its synergy with their bite attack (already a big draw for melee characters) but there are plenty of options with +2 Str and some of them even have natural weapons to match.

But letting them bump spellcasting scores with essentially no penalty (dumpstat of your choice!) is crazy if they're supposed to be compared to printed races. +2 Dex or +2 Con is enough to make a viable spellcasting race; halflings, gnomes, and dwarves (for non-Charisma-based classes) are all considered acceptable spellcasters last I checked. This works because it's damn near impossible to find anything with a bonus to Int or Cha that doesn't shoot your Constitution in the foot, and usually leaves you with a pretty crummy set of racial bonuses too. If lizardfolk can get +Int/Wis/Cha with a safe dumpstat and a decent set of perks (a really great set of perks if you're planning on a melee caster)... suddenly a hell of a lot of races become a lot less viable as spellcasters.

Solaris
2009-11-18, 10:08 PM
Again, I say removing ability modifiers completely would put them on par with humans, dwarves, and elves. It has natural weapons that allow it to be totally killer in melee at low levels - three attacks to the fighter's one, maybe two if he's dual-wielding. I don't agree that the variability is worth an LA, but I do agree that it's a bad design decision.

Surgo
2009-11-18, 10:12 PM
The thing where the natural weapons are possibly too good at level 1 is legitimately worrying. Perhaps those should scale in -- you get one of them at level 1, and then your claws grow in at level 3 or 4.

That seems pretty legitimate to me. You get your bite at level 1 and you're happy about having a natural weapon, but you don't get to make 3 attacks (even at penalty) where everybody else gets to make 2.

Temotei
2009-11-18, 10:23 PM
The thing where the natural weapons are possibly too good at level 1 is legitimately worrying. Perhaps those should scale in -- you get one of them at level 1, and then your claws grow in at level 3 or 4.

That seems pretty legitimate to me. You get your bite at level 1 and you're happy about having a natural weapon, but you don't get to make 3 attacks (even at penalty) where everybody else gets to make 2.

That would make no sense. Levels are representations of experience gained over time. Growing claws because of experience doesn't really make sense to me, although that would balance it a little more.

Get rid of the multiple favored classes, unless they're for different genders, and change the ability scores to be either nothing, or to be a set bonus and penalty for each individual.

Surgo
2009-11-18, 10:30 PM
Get rid of the multiple favored classes, unless they're for different genders, and change the ability scores to be either nothing, or to be a set bonus and penalty for each individual.
Would you like to perhaps give reasons why you make these suggestions?

Because I have a great reason I made two favored classes -- there are approaching or greater than a hundred base classes in D&D now from WotC published books alone. Having one favored class made a lot of sense when there was only the PHB, but that's not how it is anymore. Everybody should have two favored classes instead of one.

As for the ability scores -- they are a set bonus and penalty for each individual. That's kind of the point. They cannot be swapped out at any point.


That would make no sense. Levels are representations of experience gained over time. Growing claws because of experience doesn't really make sense to me, although that would balance it a little more.
It's not like the claws just randomly grow in -- they always have them, they just don't figure out how to make use of them until they're a little wiser (experience-wise). There is precedent for this already -- I refer to the Raptorian.

Delandel
2009-11-18, 11:51 PM
The natural weapons do too much damage. 1d6 bite and 1d4 claws. The flexible ability bonus is cheese. "Elves can do the same thing," is wrong, Grey Elf is the best elf race for wizards and you still suffer a CON penalty. Everyone likes CON. Make the ability +2 CON / -2 CHA and you make the race good for the vast majority of characters.

Temotei
2009-11-19, 12:35 AM
Everybody should have two favored classes instead of one.

They don't have two, though.


As for the ability scores -- they are a set bonus and penalty for each individual. That's kind of the point. They cannot be swapped out at any point.

See Delandel's post following yours.


It's not like the claws just randomly grow in -- they always have them, they just don't figure out how to make use of them until they're a little wiser (experience-wise). There is precedent for this already -- I refer to the Raptorian.

The way you say it now, it makes sense.


...you get one of them at level 1, and then your claws grow in at level 3 or 4.

That's the way you said it before. I was just confused as to how experience would make claws grow. That would be like humans growing noses later because they gained experience in life. "Oh...I just broke up with my boyfriend/girlfriend..." *Nose-grow!* Makes me think of Pinocchio.

Gpope
2009-11-19, 12:37 AM
As for the ability scores -- they are a set bonus and penalty for each individual. That's kind of the point. They cannot be swapped out at any point.

And they've got a free license to pick amazingly good modifiers that often can't be matched at all and come with serious strings attached when they can.

Essentially, you're not making one race, you're making 31 different very similar subraces. One, that's enough variety to make elves sick of them. Two, while half or so of them are entirely in line with other good, solid race picks, the rest are really overpowered for LA+0 (although not really on par with LA+1, either.) There's no reason that these guys should be better at any spellcasting class than 99% of the published races out there and tied with the remaining 1%.

Ashtagon
2009-11-19, 02:38 AM
The only reason I went higher was because I thought the 1d4/1d6 were really quite pathetic. I mean, 1d6/1d8 isn't much better (I mean seriously what's 1 point of damage on average going to mean) but at least they aren't worse than a longsword anymore.

Well, frankly, they SHOULD be worse than a longsword. I really don't think 2-3 inches of tooth and claw should be as powerful as three feet of blade. Even a dagger does less damage than these teeth and claws now, and that is unarguably a bigger weapon.

Plus, these weapons have one other advantage: You can't ever be disarmed by melee disarm attacks or plot fiat.

Latronis
2009-11-19, 04:17 AM
Plus, these weapons have one other advantage: You can't ever be disarmed by melee disarm attacks or plot fiat.

Wanna bet? :smallbiggrin:

Ashtagon
2009-11-19, 04:33 AM
Wanna bet? :smallbiggrin:

I'm not aware of many campaigns in which the characters have their hands cut off and their mouths stitched shut. I certainly wouldn't consider such a campaign something that should reasonably be considered in balancing a new race.

Latronis
2009-11-19, 05:49 AM
You see the elves got all jealous about stealing there shtick so go around declawing and grinding down fangs.

Personally I think Bite attacks should have a higher damage bonus from strength.

Obrysii
2009-11-19, 07:45 AM
Scent, a climb and swim speed, water breathing, and two natural attacks do not LA +0 make.

These guys are LA +1. They would make a very comfortable LA +1, and I'd definitely play one at that adjustment.

Surgo, you are extraordinarily defensive with your stats. If you won't acknowledge or use suggestions given here, why are you posting them?

If all of us are agree that a Climb and Swim speeds are not "free" for LA +0, why are you fighting it?

As well - it is customary that all races, monsters, and classes that gain Climb or Swim to list that little paragraph that states they have a +8 bonus on the respective skill, and can take ten.

Finally, the claw and bite damage is way too high. It might work if they're a dragon, but, they aren't. Standard claw and bite damage for a Medium creature is 1d4+1/2 str and 1d6+str respectively.

As written, they are LA +1. They are way too powerful to be considered comparable to humans, or kobolds, or halflings. They are actually significantly more powerful than Merfolk, who are also LA +1.

Latronis
2009-11-19, 08:04 AM
Merfolk are kind of Suck though.

50' swim (but 5' land speed!)

Amphibious

+2 Dex, +2 Con, +2 Cha.

LA: +1

The stats are nice but they are still kinda useless out of the water.

Surgo
2009-11-19, 08:09 AM
The natural weapons do too much damage. 1d6 bite and 1d4 claws. The flexible ability bonus is cheese. "Elves can do the same thing," is wrong, Grey Elf is the best elf race for wizards and you still suffer a CON penalty. Everyone likes CON. Make the ability +2 CON / -2 CHA and you make the race good for the vast majority of characters.
But why do they do too much damage? You say they do too much damage and expect me to take it on faith. I don't see how an extra point of average damage is in any way overpowering at any level of the game.

Grey Elf is still the best race for wizards, even with the con penalty, because you get +2 to two stats you care about instead of one. You can't do that with the Lizardfolk.


Two, while half or so of them are entirely in line with other good, solid race picks, the rest are really overpowered for LA+0 (although not really on par with LA+1, either.) There's no reason that these guys should be better at any spellcasting class than 99% of the published races out there and tied with the remaining 1%.
I'm sorry, but this doesn't make any sense. If the goal is to make a race that's playable for spellcasters, there is no reason that I would want to make the race not better than 99% of the published races out there (which suck) -- I would want to make it equal to the spellcaster races (Grey Elf, Human, Gnome).


Scent, a climb and swim speed, water breathing, and two natural attacks do not LA +0 make.
You keep saying this, but nobody bothers to say why -- they don't show how the Lizardfolk performs vastly better against monsters at level 1 than a good LA0 race (sort of the definition of level adjustment right there).

And that's because they don't. Those abilities don't make them strong enough that they're too strong in a party of a human, a grey elf, and a halfling.

Surgo, you are extraordinarily defensive with your stats. If you won't acknowledge or use suggestions given here, why are you posting them?
In case you missed it, I already did (the natural weapons). Of course I'm defensive about the stats -- because they aren't overpowering. The argument against them so far boils down to "because some other guy might use a version that's awesome for them, in addition to you using a version that's awesome for you" which is frankly nonsense because you'll never see any of that benefit, so you have no business getting charged for it.


Finally, the claw and bite damage is way too high. It might work if they're a dragon, but, they aren't. Standard claw and bite damage for a Medium creature is 1d4+1/2 str and 1d6+str respectively.
Once again, why? This seems to me to be nothing more than an application of The Tale of Five Monkeys.


Well, frankly, they SHOULD be worse than a longsword. I really don't think 2-3 inches of tooth and claw should be as powerful as three feet of blade. Even a dagger does less damage than these teeth and claws now, and that is unarguably a bigger weapon.

Plus, these weapons have one other advantage: You can't ever be disarmed by melee disarm attacks or plot fiat.
That last part is a fine argument to make, but here's the deal: make it so much worse, and nobody is ever going to use their natural weapons. As it is you are worse than a longsword, which has another advantage on you: you can go enchant it. I'd call that quite enough.


I'm sorry, but I have not seen a convincing reason why "pick your own stat modifiers" makes you stronger than a Grey Elf, a Halfling, a Dwarf, or a Human. All those races, which were mentioned as the target point, are still every bit as good as a Lizardfolk.

Ashtagon
2009-11-19, 09:04 AM
But why do they do too much damage? You say they do too much damage and expect me to take it on faith. I don't see how an extra point of average damage is in any way overpowering at any level of the game.

We've established that they are a tool-using race (otherwise, they wouldn't be a PC race at all). Given that, any major combat tool they make will logically be superior to their natural weapons - to make them otherwise wouldn't make sense. Making their natural weapons the equal of any primary weapon means they would never have had reason to develop tool use.


I'm sorry, but this doesn't make any sense. If the goal is to make a race that's playable for spellcasters, there is no reason that I would want to make the race not better than 99% of the published races out there (which suck) -- I would want to make it equal to the spellcaster races (Grey Elf, Human, Gnome).

RP point: If lizardfolk are supposed to be the equal of notably good spell-caster races, where are all the famous lizardfolk mages? If you want a campaign world in which lizardfolk mages are just as famous as elf mages, fine. But taht isn't reflected in any established literature or campaign world.


You keep saying this, but nobody bothers to say why -- they don't show how the Lizardfolk performs vastly better against monsters at level 1 than a good LA0 race (sort of the definition of level adjustment right there).

Climb a wall, then shoot at it out of its range. That's immunity to counter-attacks against everything that isn't a giant spider, pretty much. Need more examples?



And that's because they don't. Those abilities don't make them strong enough that they're too strong in a party of a human, a grey elf, and a halfling.


That last part is a fine argument to make, but here's the deal: make it so much worse, and nobody is ever going to use their natural weapons. As it is you are worse than a longsword, which has another advantage on you: you can go enchant it. I'd call that quite enough.


As a counterpoint, make it so much better, and no one is ever going to use a weapon. I'm not aware of a single race that has a natural attack superior to their customary manufactured weapons.


I'm sorry, but I have not seen a convincing reason why "pick your own stat modifiers" makes you stronger than a Grey Elf, a Halfling, a Dwarf, or a Human. All those races, which were mentioned as the target point, are still every bit as good as a Lizardfolk.

One reason is that it removes some of the character from teh race. D&D isn't just a game of min-maxing numbers; it is first and foremost a ROLEplaying game. One point of stat modifiers is so people have a better idea of what kind of creature a given race is. People know to p[lay elves as lithe, dwarves as hardy, orcs as strong, and so on. With this choose your own mods, you're left with no characterisation hook at all.

Choosing stats is best left to point buying - that alone gives plenty of flexibility.

Surgo
2009-11-19, 09:36 AM
First of all, Ashtagon, I'm glad to see you replying -- because these are some things that I haven't been reiterating over and over.


We've established that they are a tool-using race (otherwise, they wouldn't be a PC race at all). Given that, any major combat tool they make will logically be superior to their natural weapons - to make them otherwise wouldn't make sense. Making their natural weapons the equal of any primary weapon means they would never have had reason to develop tool use.
That's actually a good point, and one I hadn't thought to consider. One I'll have to consider now -- thanks!

Thinking it over a little more, it's still fine -- they needn't have necessarily developed the tools originally, they could have traded for them. Being able to enchant a sword is a pretty big deal and one that would make a lot of people adopt swords as-is.

RP point: If lizardfolk are supposed to be the equal of notably good spell-caster races, where are all the famous lizardfolk mages? If you want a campaign world in which lizardfolk mages are just as famous as elf mages, fine. But taht isn't reflected in any established literature or campaign world.
I'd call that one more a failure of imagination of the writers of the literature than a failure of mine -- the same reason nobody bothered to write about the sahuagin even though they already won at everything in the world.

Climb a wall, then shoot at it out of its range. That's immunity to counter-attacks against everything that isn't a giant spider, pretty much. Need more examples?
The thing with that, though, is that while it's a valid example of power it's not an example of being more powerful than anything else at level 1. You get the same level of power by having a horse (something that defeats all those closet troll monsters like giant spiders by default).

Actually though it's a good deal worse than having a horse, because with a horse you can be outside the range of a closet troll all the time. In the dungeon (where you'd want to use this instead of a troll), you've got it substantially worse because your speed is only 10'.

As a counterpoint, make it so much better, and no one is ever going to use a weapon. I'm not aware of a single race that has a natural attack superior to their customary manufactured weapons.
Well, the point wasn't to make it superior (which it isn't), but make it a little closer to the manufactured weapons.

One reason is that it removes some of the character from teh race. D&D isn't just a game of min-maxing numbers; it is first and foremost a ROLEplaying game. One point of stat modifiers is so people have a better idea of what kind of creature a given race is. People know to p[lay elves as lithe, dwarves as hardy, orcs as strong, and so on. With this choose your own mods, you're left with no characterisation hook at all.
I don't think that's true at all. Does giving humans a choice of a feat remove character from that race? No, it doesn't.

Yes, D&D is a roleplaying game. I don't see what that has to do with the choose-your-own-stat-modifiers thing. Being able to do that doesn't take away any roleplaying potential from the lizardfolk, it's all still there. The roleplaying and roleplaying potential is what you choose to make of it -- some classes or races aren't magically more role-playable than others (though some come close (http://dungeons.wikia.com/wiki/Pumpkin_King_%283.5e_Prestige_Class%29)).

dsmiles
2009-11-19, 09:41 AM
Sorry, I like the Lizardman as is. Equivalent to a reptilian human (basically).

AdalKar
2009-11-19, 09:50 AM
Maybe I missed something, but aren't racial ability modifiers set because come from the generations the race spent living a way of live because of which they needed their bodies to develop to have these stats? The stats are kind of genetic I think.

To come to the natural weapons: you want to make them as powerful as martial melee weapons, which isn't quite normal, except maybe for dragons. of course i can make my longsword magical, but there are ways to do that with a natural weapon, too. just take the claws: you buy Beast Claws (Savage Species p.49) and you have +2 claws that do 1d6 of additional damage (so they are kinda like greatswords) and you can enhance them even further... or you take a necklace of natural weapons for the bite attack, you would have like a magical longsword and two (!) magical greatswords which is badass. take the improved natural weapons feat and you deal an enormeous amount of damage...
Also, why should they use their NW all of the time and don't get them weapons like many other monsters do? a lizardfolk like the one you call "playable" would use his bite attack no matter what because he just gets like an extra longsword attack (or shortsword if he would do 1d6 like all the other medium creatures), he just wouldn't use his claws all of the time because they are inferior to the weapons existing and developed by the race...

just what I am thinking...


PS: sorry if i mispelled me, but it's quite a time since i wrote english

Ashtagon
2009-11-19, 09:54 AM
I'd call that one more a failure of imagination of the writers of the literature than a failure of mine -- the same reason nobody bothered to write about the sahuagin even though they already won at everything in the world.

This is fine, but bear in mind that none of your players have the same specific imagination that you do. Unless you go to a LOT of work to characterise them as famous mages in your campaign world, your players are going to be surprised and angry when they find this. And if you give this knowledge in metagame, then you have player knowledge vs character knowledge issues. Basically, you've hit the "our orcs are different" issue.


The thing with that, though, is that while it's a valid example of power it's not an example of being more powerful than anything else at level 1. You get the same level of power by having a horse (something that defeats all those closet troll monsters like giant spiders by default).

Actually though it's a good deal worse than having a horse, because with a horse you can be outside the range of a closet troll all the time. In the dungeon (where you'd want to use this instead of a troll), you've got it substantially worse because your speed is only 10'.

Actually, a horse is strictly inferior to climbing. First, your horse can be killed. Second, there are plenty of places where your horse can't go, so the two of you can be separated. Third, the slow climb speed is irrelevant in a situation where the enemy can't climb at all. If you've climbed 10 feet up and he has no ranged weapon, then you are effectively immune. With a horse, you would sooner or later run out of terrain to retreat into, and you'd only have standard attacks. With climb, once you have climbed up, it's full attack every round.

Plus of course, you can't lose your climb speed.

Surgo
2009-11-19, 10:06 AM
Actually, a horse is strictly inferior to climbing. First, your horse can be killed. Second, there are plenty of places where your horse can't go, so the two of you can be separated. Third, the slow climb speed is irrelevant in a situation where the enemy can't climb at all. If you've climbed 10 feet up and he has no ranged weapon, then you are effectively immune. With a horse, you would sooner or later run out of terrain to retreat into, and you'd only have standard attacks. With climb, once you have climbed up, it's full attack every round.
Horses aren't inferior to climbing. There are plenty of places where your horse can't go (inside), and plenty you can't climb (outside).

The fact that the climb speed is slow is hardly irrelevant -- in the first round of climbing, you have to make the choice if you want to attack and not waste your turn, or attack and be vulnerable. Climbing up only 10 feet still leaves you vulnerable to anyone with 10' reach or large-sized without 10' reach -- and that includes virtually every single closet troll that a climb speed is supposed to save you from.

The thing about a horse archer running out of terrain is basically the same point as a climber having a low ceiling -- situational enough (with about the same frequency) that I'm comfortable calling that equal.

A horse archer will always defeat a closet troll; a climber will sometimes defeat them (they do have that initial moment of vulnerability or turn-wasting).

Baron Corm
2009-11-19, 10:38 AM
I'm sorry but most of the things people have been saying here are kind of silly. You guys want him to balance against existing races which mostly suck, and he wants to balance against human, halfling, and grey elf.

The idea that "there is no established literature calling them spellcasters" is really silly because obviously this is a homebrew race. Are you saying that no one should ever homebrew a race with a bonus to a mental stat? Any time you use a homebrew race in your world you, of course, have to incorporate them into the setting.

I think the most valid argument still in the air is about the damage die size of the natural attacks. It's valid just because every other bite/claw is this way. There's three ways to fix this. You can state in their fluff that they are notorious for their nasty natural weapons, you can make every other bite/claw one die size higher, or you can revert theirs to one size lower. Pretty easily solved.

And Ashtagon: just remember that you can climb without a climb speed. It's harder, but you can.

Ashtagon
2009-11-19, 10:48 AM
And Ashtagon: just remember that you can climb without a climb speed. It's harder, but you can.

I know that. The difference is that a climb speed means you can take 10, and take 10 plus the extra +8 racial bonus that is intrinsic to having a climb speed means that a 1st level character can hit DC 22 at any time without needing to make a roll (DC 32 when he can take 20). Characters without a climb speed will always need to roll to make a Climb check in combat, and won't do better than DC 24 when allowed to take 20.

Baron Corm
2009-11-19, 11:41 AM
If you have a rope with a wall to climb against, you only need to hit DC 5. A grappling hook costs 1 gp, and requires a DC 10 Use Rope check to use (+2 per 10 feet thrown). So with 4 ranks in Use Rope and 1 gp, you're pretty much set for climbing stuff. Then cry at your wasted 1 gp as you attain level 3 and spider climb becomes available.

There is an extremely specific circumstance in which a climb speed is helpful, and that is when you're facing a sheer wall with nothing on the top to grapple on to, and you're also level 1 or 2. In any event I don't think it's overpowering, just a nice perk.

Ashtagon
2009-11-19, 11:51 AM
If you have a rope with a wall to climb against, you only need to hit DC 5. A grappling hook costs 1 gp, and requires a DC 10 Use Rope check to use (+2 per 10 feet thrown). So with 4 ranks in Use Rope and 1 gp, you're pretty much set for climbing stuff. Then cry at your wasted 1 gp as you attain level 3 and spider climb becomes available.

If you are using a rope to climb up, the enemy can follow you easily, and so you remain vulnerable to attack. Not so if you have your own climb speed.

Zaydos
2009-11-19, 12:38 PM
+2 Int, -2 Str is better than grey elf racial modifiers for a wizard (+2 Dex is not worth -2 Con past the first few levels). Climb speed is good and the a horse is better is not a valid argument since they can have both. The natural weapons are good but they don't synergize with the climb speed and the ability scores they do synergize with are ones which a feat might make up for and if you're keeping the claws back till 3rd well all the better.

Gpope
2009-11-19, 01:21 PM
I'm sorry, but this doesn't make any sense. If the goal is to make a race that's playable for spellcasters, there is no reason that I would want to make the race not better than 99% of the published races out there (which suck) -- I would want to make it equal to the spellcaster races (Grey Elf, Human, Gnome).

You keep talking about races being "playable" and "viable". That to me would peg it more at around the 90th percentile or so, maybe 95th. Halflings (plain, non-strongheart variety) and dwarves are eminently playable races for wizards--not as good as Int bonus races or humans, but perfectly viable--and lizardfolk as written blow them out of the water. Outside of specialized illusionist builds, gnomes are overshadowed by lizardfolk too. You're arguing that grey elf is the preeminent wizard race, so evidently an Int bonus outweighs the human bonus feat, so I guess humans are out. And grey elves are at best equal to lizardfolk, having an extra bonus to a relevant stat (Dex) while eating a penalty to an arguably even more relevant stat (Con) and a package of racial abilities that's even less useful. This is assuming you're not trying to make a spellcasting melee build, because lizardfolk are automatically a million times better than grey elves in melee.

Moreover, it's not like these races are extended the same privilege of lizardfolk. Why should lizardfolk be as good as grey elves at spellcasting, if grey elves can never be anywhere close to lizardfolk in melee? Why are you so adamantly opposed to putting lizardfolk on equal footing with everyone else? If someone wants to be a lizardfolk your attitude is that they automatically must be mechanically on par with the best of the best races for whatever role their character is designed for, but if someone wants to be another race that's not a perfect fit for their concept you just say "screw 'em, they can go choose a completely different race if they want to be optimized." Why the discrepancy? Did you neglect to mention that this homebrew is designed for Lizard World, where lizardfolk make up all the dominant cultures and 50% of the average adventuring party can reasonably be expected to be made up of lizardfolk?

Delandel
2009-11-19, 05:00 PM
But why do they do too much damage? You say they do too much damage and expect me to take it on faith. I don't see how an extra point of average damage is in any way overpowering at any level of the game.

Grey Elf is still the best race for wizards, even with the con penalty, because you get +2 to two stats you care about instead of one. You can't do that with the Lizardfolk.

Shouldn't the "why" be obvious? Your bite is equal to the best one handed weapons in the PHB and your claws are still equal to handaxes. Why are your natural weapons as strong as manufactured ones? Are your claws really as lethal as a handaxe? There's a reason why races have a table to determine their natural weapon damage.

No it wouldn't be. +2 DEX is NOT a fair trade for -2 CON. Why can't you understand that? Min/maxers would LOVE Grey Elves that gave +2 INT -2 STR without the DEX/CON change, because it's better. Simple enough? Lizardfolk can do this, therefore they're better than Grey Elves.

You want the race to be just as good as humans, if not better in some situations? Fine, you've accomplished that (when you change the natural weapon damage to normal). I don't have a problem with it at all. If you just wanted them to be the next "human" race, I'd congratulate you on a job well done.

But saying they're balanced to the other races is just garbage.

There's more than enough people telling you this already. If you stubbornly refuse these very basic points then sorry, I'm done trying to help you.

Surgo
2009-11-19, 05:07 PM
First of all, where are people getting this idea that the +2 DEX, -2 CON on Grey Elf is somehow a horrible trade? It's a great trade; as a wizard your #1 most important job is going first. That's a trade that I'd make any day. That's why Grey Elf is still the best wizard race.

Shouldn't the "why" be obvious? Your bite is equal to the best one handed weapons in the PHB and your claws are still equal to handaxes. Why are your natural weapons as strong as manufactured ones? Are your claws really as lethal as a handaxe? There's a reason why races have a table to determine their natural weapon damage.
So the reason is apparently "because people are uncomfortable with natural weapons that deal equal base damage to manufactured ones"? That's a strange position if you ask me; I'm much more comfortable with the natural weapons actually being useful as opposed to never-used.

You want the race to be just as good as humans, if not better in some situations? Fine, you've accomplished that (when you change the natural weapon damage to normal). But saying they're balanced to the other races is just garbage.
No, it's not garbage. They make strong characters of any class (which is the point) but if you want your mouth to taste like velveeta you'll make your wizard a Grey Elf, your fighter a Dwarf, and your rogue a Halfling. I'd certainly call that "balanced to other races".


Why should lizardfolk be as good as grey elves at spellcasting, if grey elves can never be anywhere close to lizardfolk in melee?
When it comes to race balancing, this question doesn't even matter. The wizardfolk never sees that benefit to melee, and the fighter lizardfolk never sees that benefit to spellcasting.

If someone wants to be a lizardfolk your attitude is that they automatically must be mechanically on par with the best of the best races for whatever role their character is designed for, but if someone wants to be another race that's not a perfect fit for their concept you just say "screw 'em, they can go choose a completely different race if they want to be optimized." Why the discrepancy?
This is something of a bootstrapping issue (only one race can be made and posted at a time, after all) but at least for elves (with their 65535 subraces) and humans and halflings (with their versatile feat) it's already solved. Yeah, admittedly, the other guys are a bit harder. Maybe somebody should make 65535 subraces for the dwarf too.

Gpope
2009-11-19, 06:00 PM
The real benefit from the natural weapons here is that the bite is a free extra attack in any full attack. The damage die isn't a big deal here one way or the other; it's not a matter of "attack with bite" vs. "attack with longsword", it's "attack with longsword and bite" vs. "attack with longsword only." At low levels that -5 secondary natural attack isn't going to land all that often, and at high levels all your damage is going to be coming from sources like power attack or sneak attack anyhow. I think 1d8 is kind of large, but it doesn't matter much at all.

High Dex/mediocre Con is definitely a viable build for wizards, but it's not the best one by any means. Winning the encounter in one turn instead of winning it before it begins is not a terrible burden. If the DM is vicious enough that losing initiative is fatal, they're vicious enough that you're going to want all the hitpoints and Fortitude/Concentration bonuses you can get.


No, it's not garbage. They make strong characters of any class (which is the point) but if you want your mouth to taste like velveeta you'll make your wizard a Grey Elf, your fighter a Dwarf, and your rogue a Halfling. I'd certainly call that "balanced to other races".

Dwarves are not really big for general fighter cheese. There are some dwarf-specific builds that can get moderately cheesy (nothing too crazy, though), but their general bonuses aren't anything amazing. They're a good all-rounder race, which makes them an excellent benchmark for trying to make an all-rounder race. They're not really the absolute best at very much, but they make for strong characters of any class (using variants to get around -2 Cha if you need charisma) even though there are other races that are head and shoulders above them for a lot of character archetypes. They're not the best wizards or rogues or even fighters, but they're more than playable... and lizardfolk as written are better than dwarves at nearly everything. Dwarves have a bit more tankiness, but this is 3.5e. "Tank" is not a very useful character role.

There is still no reason to hold lizardfolk to a different standard for ability modifiers than every other race. None. You've spent more time defending your decision to give lizardfolk this special advantage than it would take to completely fix the problem for all races everywhere.

Averagedog
2009-11-19, 06:16 PM
My 3 cents.

The racial stats of your lizardfolk look pretty flavorful with 2 exceptions. + 2 to any stat and - 2 to any stat is pretty damned powerful with the added ability of having both a swim speed and a climb speed. Lizardfolk are generally portrayed as dumb unlikeable fellows in most books and video games that have them in them. But they are also portrayed as being tough very tough.

Therefore I propose that they get + 2 to con and - 2 to one of the mental stats.

The climb speed has to be removed. Lizardfolk are aquatic creatures that can live on land there is no reason that they should be able to quickly climb over anything and everything. if they were to climb a swampy tree to ambush adventurers, they would have had skill ranks in climb, because, you know, they were taught to do that by others.

The swim speed is a little too fast. I'd just keep it at 30 even though lizardfolk probably do travel faster in water than on land. But if I remember correctly a normal swim check allows a person to travel half their movement speed. having a swim speed of 30 allows lizardfolk to circumvent this problem.

If these 3 changes were made I think it would make for a nice la 0 race.

Toliudar
2009-11-19, 06:38 PM
Surgo, the argument "1 point of damage doesn't make that much difference" makes no sense here, because it works both ways. If it's more consistent for medium races' natural weapons to do 1d4/1d6, why not adjust downwards? As you say, it doesn't make that much difference.

Latronis
2009-11-19, 09:59 PM
The point is you've haven't had something that is strong for any class, you've made something that is a match for the very best choices for any class.

And quite frankly pretty much better at melee than the standard races.

deuxhero
2009-11-19, 10:20 PM
Everybody should have two favored classes instead of one.

I prefer dumping that silly rule myself.

hoverfrog
2010-08-28, 08:40 AM
Just a couple of things. I'd make the climb and swim speed either/or. Some reptiles are not aquatic and the swim speed and amphibious type should be reserved for one sub species. The other could well have a climb speed and it might be worth giving them an enhanced land speed of 40 feet. I'd reduce the damage of the natural weapons to d4 each but allow feats to enhance them to higher levels. The MM has multi attack as a suggested racial feat. I'd keep this as is. Also I'd keep make the favoured class Druid or Ranger rather than Cleric or Fighter.

Admiral Squish
2010-08-28, 09:29 AM
Okay, really, this all boils down to one, very final point:

Surgo. why are you posting this here if you don't want help? I will admit, there are times I like my creations a lot. They are my children, after all, the fruits of my labors. But the reason I post homebrew is so people with more experience than me can tell me if I've made a mistake or there's something that needs to be fixed. You don't seem to be listening anymore. We understand you like the way you have made your lizardfolk. But all but two or three of the posters in this thread agree that this race is too powerful, and believe you need to do something to change it. There's no need to be defensive and hostile.

Really, I like they way you have it. But I think it's too powerful for +0 LA as it stand. What I, personally, would do, is +2 con, -2 cha, lose the climb speed, reduce the natural weapons to normal, lose the water breathing, and give them back the hold breath. If you want LA +1, I would say normal natural weapons, raise the climb to 20 feet, and you'd be fine. I would very happily play either one of those.

Vaynor
2010-08-29, 11:48 AM
The Red Towel: Thread necromancy.