PDA

View Full Version : [3.5] Rakshasa



weenie
2010-10-06, 03:19 AM
I'm in a 3.5 monster classes game, where we use monster classes from savage species, and I decided to play a Rakshasa. I intend to build my character in a gishy direction, since that's what Rakshasas seem to be good at, but since we started playing I keep feeling a bit weak.

The race/class gets no natural armor, can't wear regular armor without ASF, and loses 7(!) levels on LA by level 14. In exchange it gets good skills, BaB and 7 levels of sorcerer casting. But if I went with a typical gish build, by level 14 I'd have much more than that.

One thing that's quite noteworthy is the spell imunity, but for a gish build that isn't such a great thing either, since it means, that you can't buff yourself without wasting actions turning it on/off.

So, what does the playground think, is Rakshasa really that weak, or am I doing it wrong?

Mystic Muse
2010-10-06, 03:34 AM
Looking at it, I'd say it's really that weak. The abilities don't synergize all that well for a PC from what I can tell.

GoodbyeSoberDay
2010-10-06, 03:39 AM
To be honest, the +7 LA is going to be a serious downer for any build you try. When a DM says 'monstrous,' I tend towards orcs, goblins, kobolds, and any other monstrous races with little-to-no LA and RHD, since WotC seriously inflated those two things for most races.

weenie
2010-10-06, 03:51 AM
That's what I tought.. But if I made a deal with the DM to trade out Magic Immunity for a smaller LA? What would be a reasonable LA in that case? +4?

BobVosh
2010-10-06, 03:59 AM
Rakshasa is one of the monsters best leveled by leveling its HD. Or possibly going something like abjurant champion.

I would ask for something like 4 LA, but it gets +CL and basic outsider HD for those LA. Makes LA something that isn't completely terrible. In effect you get Practiced caster + 4 outsider HD (not counting for the sorc spellcasting)

HunterOfJello
2010-10-06, 04:07 AM
Why do you want to play a Rakshasa? Would another similar race be alright?

You'd be better off playing a Catfolk if you really want to be a cat person.

weenie
2010-10-06, 04:46 AM
Why do you want to play a Rakshasa? Would another similar race be alright?

You'd be better off playing a Catfolk if you really want to be a cat person.

Probably, but we are limited to core + savage species and were strongly encouraged to pick a race from ss.

@BobVosh: Wouldn't that make it a little too good?

Dark_Nohn
2010-10-06, 04:49 AM
At very much higher levels it is theoretically worth it, if you keep to getting RHD which give you 8+I skills, d8, 1 level of sorcerer casting, +1 BaB, and all good saves at all levels. The LAdj does suck (especially +7 yeesh,) but the RHD of the Rakshasa is on par with, if not better than that of most classes.

HunterOfJello
2010-10-06, 04:53 AM
Then play a Feral Changeling.

Changelings are from MM3 and the Feral template is only a +1 LA from SS.


You'll have claws and be able to change your appearance at will so you can look like a Rakshasa.

Runestar
2010-10-06, 04:56 AM
SS uses the 3.0 raksasha, which isn't really compatible with the current 3.5 version (which trades spell immunity for sr, and loses the vulnerability to blessed bolts).

Personally, if you want a "gishy" type monster class, I would recommend one of the angel progressions, such as ghaele. It is quite fun to play, despite its low HD, as it comes with a ton of special abilities which ensures that you will never get bored. :smallbiggrin:

dsmiles
2010-10-06, 05:08 AM
To be honest, the +7 LA is going to be a serious downer for any build you try. When a DM says 'monstrous,' I tend towards orcs, goblins, kobolds, and any other monstrous races with little-to-no LA and RHD, since WotC seriously inflated those two things for most races.

Or templates. Templates are good. Also, the SS Half-Ogre rocks for a Barbarian-type.

soulchicken
2010-10-06, 05:08 AM
nm, i'm retarded
Edit

If you don't like the 3.0 version, ask him if you can use the 3.5 version.

Maryring
2010-10-06, 08:02 AM
Still an LA of +7. However, IMO that LA is just way too much. Ask him to lower the level adjustment slightly, +5 or +4, and include LA buyoff, and if you get to continue on as a Rakshasa, even better. You may be lacking behind, but the DR makes him much tougher than his health suggests, and even a level 7 sorcerer can do many things with some creative usage of his spells. Also, you'll still have the wealth needed, and if you really need a high level spell, as a sorcerer you can cast all arcane spells from scrolls.

Starbuck_II
2010-10-06, 08:19 AM
Probably, but we are limited to core + savage species and were strongly encouraged to pick a race from ss.

@BobVosh: Wouldn't that make it a little too good?

I'd recommend Succubus, Astral Deva, Avoral, Ghaele, Hamatula, and Aranea.

Each is very decent.

Telonius
2010-10-06, 08:25 AM
I think that Rakshasa would actually make a decent gish just out of the can. Massive natural armor, pretty good saves, +6 Con, 40 movement, decent skills (same number of skill points as an equivalent-level Barbarian when you take LA into account), humongous SR, DR 15/good and piercing. It can certainly mix it up in melee without running too heavy a risk of being immediately splattered. The only things it's really lacking are BAB and proficiencies. I don't have time to compare it at the moment, but I'd think it probably ends up at about the same place a half-casting PrC would at ECL 14. Not terrifyingly powerful, but a decent combatant.

weenie
2010-10-06, 09:31 AM
I think that Rakshasa would actually make a decent gish just out of the can. Massive natural armor, pretty good saves, +6 Con, 40 movement, decent skills (same number of skill points as an equivalent-level Barbarian when you take LA into account), humongous SR, DR 15/good and piercing. It can certainly mix it up in melee without running too heavy a risk of being immediately splattered. The only things it's really lacking are BAB and proficiencies. I don't have time to compare it at the moment, but I'd think it probably ends up at about the same place a half-casting PrC would at ECL 14. Not terrifyingly powerful, but a decent combatant.

Yeah, but that's the 3.5 Rakshasa. Any suggestions how to adapt the savage species Rakshasa to 3.5?

And for a gish build SR isn't all that good, because you tend to buff yourself. The Rakshasa's DR is the only really good thing, that a Sorcadin doesn't do much better.

Maryring
2010-10-06, 09:47 AM
You can lower your SR voluntarily as a standard action.

Ernir
2010-10-06, 09:51 AM
The Rakshasa is... not good. And the only real solution is to take away some of that LA.
How much depends on how powerful your teammates are. Just start removing it until you are on par.

But if you are having trouble buffing up, here's a line that should help:
A creature’s spell resistance never interferes with its own spells, items, or abilities.Since Spell Immunity is essentially infinite SR, you can buff yourself just fine.

weenie
2010-10-06, 10:01 AM
I know you can lower or raise your SR, but that takes a standard action, and those are quite valuable in combat. And most of the good buffs don't last enough to be cast out of it..

Maryring
2010-10-06, 10:04 AM
Yeah, but you can still cast your own buff spells without worrying about SR. If you want buffs from your allies, ask them to take... I forgot the name, but the feat that allows you to take 10 on SR checks.

weenie
2010-10-06, 10:14 AM
Oh, I see. I tought SR applies to your own spells too, my bad.

Zeofar
2010-10-06, 10:26 AM
I think the biggest flaw here is that the Savage Species monster classes are pretty trashy. They seem to assume that the player wants to be powerful and a play a monster straight out of the book, when most of the time, they just want some flavor and the ability to play a creature they think is cool or interesting. Ask your DM to give a Rakshasa LA+1 or 2 for claws and outsider traits, remove the ridiculous bonuses down to +2 Int or Cha, and make a 5-level class that gives full spellcasting, any combination of Change Shape or Detect Thoughts 3/day by the end, and a small amount of DR, of which you must take at least 1 level.

Yes, I know that on the box you mention that you're playing a Savage Species game, but with the fact that the obvious solution is so much better and easier, why bother?

Starbuck_II
2010-10-06, 11:28 AM
I think the biggest flaw here is that the Savage Species monster classes are pretty trashy. They seem to assume that the player wants to be powerful and a play a monster straight out of the book, when most of the time, they just want some flavor and the ability to play a creature they think is cool or interesting. Ask your DM to give a Rakshasa LA+1 or 2 for claws and outsider traits, remove the ridiculous bonuses down to +2 Int or Cha, and make a 5-level class that gives full spellcasting, any combination of Change Shape or Detect Thoughts 3/day by the end, and a small amount of DR, of which you must take at least 1 level.

Yes, I know that on the box you mention that you're playing a Savage Species game, but with the fact that the obvious solution is so much better and easier, why bother?

There is a better version on another thread:
http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7956421&postcount=32

10th level class, but casts as a Sorcerer = Class level -2.

Zeofar
2010-10-06, 05:01 PM
There is a better version on another thread:
http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7956421&postcount=32

10th level class, but casts as a Sorcerer = Class level -2.

I'm aware of that thread. My point was not that the class I made up in the course of 15 seconds was actually the precise and perfect solution to the problem, and I will say, while that thread is great, it isn't necessarily the solution either, or even “better.” What is better than either is that 1), the player gets the abilities that he wants and is still a viable party member and 2), the DM believes that the class is balanced (Alternatively, the class IS balanced, but both can cause just as much trouble).

My point is that both of those goals can be achieved far more easily and better by just not using Savage Species, because, although it was a good attempt, it failed at giving people what they wanted. This thread? Case in point. Trying to make something work that was broken in the first place is far harder than just starting from scratch; Savage Species tried to be as true to the Monster Manual as possible so that it would please everybody, be easy to use, and wouldn't have to be updated. Nobody wanted to just play something straight from the Monster Manual, so it pleased nobody, it isn't easy to use because you spend most of your time trying to make the character barely decent, and it doesn't need to be updated, ever, because very few people liked it. Picking and choosing what features and abilities are important to the player and balancing when he gets them will almost always turn out better.

Perhaps he won't like the class in that thread or the one I made up, but as you can see, my point is that there is already a better way to do it that bears repeating simply because of how much better it is. By the way, unless I don't understand the adjustment system, LA+2 will mean that he'll cast at his Rakshasa level -2.