Monsters as PCs and balance

[Segev]

Over the course of D&D and PF history, we have had several approaches to balancing races and monsters as player characters, compensating for the increased power of some races (drow, trolls, dragons, sprites, etc.) over the basic ones in varying ways.

In D&D 2e, we had the concept of "experience penalties." The character got to be more powerful out of the gate, playable at level 1, but advanced more slowly because he lost a percentage of the exp he otherwise would have gotten due to the decreased threat he faced because of his more powerful race. (Drow, for instance, were a 10% exp penalty, IIRC.)

In 3e, we got the concept of an "Effective Character Level," which evolved to "Level Adjustment" in 3.5. These basically made the character higher level than his character class levels indicate, treating monster HD and an ad-hoc adjustment (LA) as "levels" that are added to his character level. The two ways this is handled is in allowing players to start characters with monster HD and LAs if the party is otherwise at least that level, or in allowing the character to simply BE higher level than the party and start with the same exp as the rest of the party, not leveling up until he'd "caught up."

This method tended to lead to monster PCs being generally weak characters, and often made it impossible to play them in starting games. The former is due to the mechanical quirk of how optimal casters are in 3e and how badly anything that costs caster level out of a build hurts them. The latter is a DM choice, and may or may not be a problem depending on your point of view.

Pathfinder attempted to at least address the issue of level adjustments adding on to monster HD, and the general weakness of monster HD vs character levels, by simply declaring that ECL of a monster is its CR. This has its own hazards, but is at least a step towards not making monster PCs unable to stand up to their NPC equivalents!

Later, PF decided to do away with ECL type concepts at all, if I understand things correctly. Now, a monster or more powerful race doesn't cost the player anything from his character. It's just better. Instead, the rest of the party is penalized for not choosing at least as optimal a race by having the whole party effective level raised for purposes of encounter-design.


Obviously, from my biased descriptions above, I feel that a PC should pay for his race's power as well as his class's power, at least nominally. Imbalance between classes is not something this thread is going to address.

Clearly, the classic mechanisms for trying to balance the power of a stronger race involve exp taxes or level equivalencies. This only makes sense; levels and experience points are the obvious points of personal inherent power. However, this has led to problems of builds being either too weak or too strong.

Still, PF does give us a "race building points" system. Perhaps we can calculate a flat exp cost per point? Or maybe even a scaling cost as more points are spent?

Alternatively, what if those points cost gold? Wealth-by-level is one of the calibration tools for balancing D&D and PF. While characters can wind up with their wealth increasing or decreasing their effective power above or below their actual level's intended strength, it is usually not quite as impactful as level and exp hits.

So perhaps the key should be that the DM fronts the PCs a certain amount of gold for "background" gear - inherited heirlooms, stolen magical gewgaws, potions brewed by Mom the Alchemist, etc. - which can also be "spent" on race points for more powerful races?

Could this be an easier way to balance out front-loaded races at level 1, and to allow some "more powerful" races up to certain extrema to be played? After all, many racial powers could easily be seen as "extra magic items" that they can't get rid of.

How might we calculate the balance in gp per race point? Should it be linear, or should it cost increasing amounts of gold to get +1 race point as you get to more powerful races?

[Mojo_Rat]

The pf setup is basically eyeball the power level of the race anf match it to similar power levels then offered. Guidelines on how to do this.

What the ARG did was help define the raced better so one doesn't look at at an orcs strength and think omg uber. Because the. Sytem tells you. They are worse than humans.

Its shoukd never be about penalizing players. An La system like 3.5 had was horrible.

[Segev]

It's never about penalizing the players. It is about balancing one character against another. Which is the whe point of having levels. Otherwise, why bother even pretending that a level 4 fighter is an appropriate challenge for a level 4 rogue?

It has never been done perfectly, but at least striving for it should remain a goal.

[CIDE]

It sure felt like playing non-core races was a penalty to the player...

[Runestar]

To me, the whole concept of LA / ECL is still the best way to go. The only problem is that Wotc nerfed their viability as PCs by hobbling these monsters with artificially high ECLs.

I don't like xp penalties because it doesn't solve the issue of your PC being stronger than the other players right off the bat. At any point in time, your monster PC should be more or less equivalent on power level, not too strong at one moment and then too weak at another point.

Reduce the monster's ECL to a more reasonable number, rework its monster progression, and you should be fine. Note that this ECL may also vary depending on how extensively your friends optimise their characters as well.

For example, a trumpet archon is ECL20 (cleric14 spellcasting, 12 HD, +8LA). It may be more reasonable to lower its ECL to 17 (making it roughly in line with a half-celestial cleric).

Likewise, a troll is clearly too weak at ECL11. Maybe lower the ECL to 8, and replace the regeneration with fast healing if that proves problematic in gameplay?

[Yogibear41]

I think a large problem with LA and class balance in general revovles around varying levels of optimization. When the game was first designed and people hadn't spent all the time picking this and that to optimized their characters, certain special abilities possesed by certain monsters become incredibly impressive.

I also think that too much compare this to that goes on, I'm fairly sure everyone will agree that wizard 20 is strictly superior to fighter 20 in terms of power, but if you really think about it sure the wizard is crazy powerful and can basically do anything he wants. All it takes is one monster with a good initiative and pounce though and he can go down for the count rather quickly. While a fighter on the other hand sure he doesn't have any fancy special abilities, but he has a boatload more HP and his greatsword never runs out of uses per day.

Basically my point is everything has its purpose, the wizard is suppose to be amazing and all powerful, the fighter not so much he just gets in the way til his buddy does his thing. Best real life analogy I can think of is football, sure the running back scores the touchdowns and runs for all those yards, but he would never get anywhere without his linemen, but do they get any credit at all? 90% of the time no, only by people who really know how the game works, so fighters next time your feeling down just remember that wizard would have never made it past level 1 without you soaking damage for him :smallsmile:

-insert some batman quote about being the hero we deserve but not the one we need-


But back on point, me personally I am pro monster, I like playing them. I play a human everyday why would I want to play one in a game? And while yes often times I have read, and to an extent believe myself that LA is generally overdone, I play a barbarian werewolf lord as a solo character in one game that I play in(use to be with a group left made a new character) anyway he just hit his 5th level of the savage progression barb2/ww5 and honestly about 90% of the time he is running around the world fighting low level cr mooks who just happen to roll up randomly he completely face rolls them 90% of the time they can't even bypass his DR. I know at times my DM must be frustrated to a bit that he can't even hurt me, but then again he rolled up 2 incorporeal undead back to back and I basically had to run for my life to avoid dying because I had 0 way to hurt them.(I have 0 magic items/weapons) Was running from a shadow(I think) once who ran faster than me and DM basically rolled a die randomly to see how long it would follow me only reason I didn't die do to strength drain was because of awesome fort saves.

So while I don't think LA is perfect, and often times it is considered to high, I have some first hand experience where I have gotten some pretty significant advantage from monster abilities and its only fair that I should have to give something up for them.

Although me and my DM have had short conversations about how magic is too strong in 3.5(mostly me telling him I think its too strong) when compared to say something like a fighter, and his response basically comes back to: why should they be equal? and more or less that a 20th level wizard should be stronger than a 20th level fighter, which if I really think about it makes plenty of sense honestly, but thats a disucssion for another time.

Sorry to write a book just had alot to say I guess lol. :smallcool:

[Raven777]

I don't know. To me it makes sense that a 12th level Human Lich Wizard is going to boast more raw power than a 12th level Human Wizard. That's why they turn themselves into undead abominations in the first place. Obtaining a template or playing a monster doesn't feel much different to me than getting wishes from bound Efreets or pillaging a Dragon's riches. WBL seems to to me to be a decent way to balance the situation without depriving a player from his level progression.

There's also this emphasis on balance that seems to crop up when discussing the topic. D&D ain't World of Warcraft. The raid leader is not gonna bench anyone if they do slightly less good than the rest of the party. If everyone at the table is still enjoying the story and the battles, I fail to see why balance matters if it means taking toys away from a player.

[Yogibear41]

In a way I completely agree with just tossing LA out the window completely, but I feel things could potentially degrade quickly.

Yes in so many ways to things like Lich not even giving a LA, the old standby that well it has a LA because it doesn't have to try as hard, hmm I'm pretty sure a powerful spellcaster who successuflly turned himself into an undead monstrosity only for a powerboost is not going to let "trying" slow his progress to becoming an unstoppable magical force becoming close to that of a diety in the long run.

[Petrocorus]

One possible thing would be to keep the LA, but to allow to buy one LA off every 3 character level, whatever is the initial LA.
For example, an Ogre-Mage could pay 3000 xp to go down to LA +6 after only 3 level despite this not being possible with UA rules.

Maybe we could also allow to buy off racial HD.

[Fax Celestis]

Although me and my DM have had short conversations about how magic is too strong in 3.5(mostly me telling him I think its too strong) when compared to say something like a fighter, and his response basically comes back to: why should they be equal? and more or less that a 20th level wizard should be stronger than a 20th level fighter, which if I really think about it makes plenty of sense honestly, but thats a disucssion for another time.

Because the game is not a simulation of a reality, it is a game to be played and enjoyed. Getting sidelined all the time because one character is way better at basically everything that matters than another is not fun.

[Fouredged Sword]

I don't think that LA is the way to go, but RHD should be balanced from a perspective of class levels, and racial HD should be able to be bought off as you level.

More features on the race should increase the RHD of the race, rather than apply a LA effect that reduces the baseline of the character for things like max ranks and HD effects. Even if the monster manual creature has a diferent baseline HD than the player version it would be preferable.

Instead RHD should be bought off at set levels. Say 1, 4, 8, 12, 16 and 20. At level one, one racial HD becomes a class level for ALL races, not just those with 1 RHD. Races ether buy off a RHD and replace it with a class level OR get +1 to a stat.

It still doesn't solve the issue of players at low levels, but I think it would go a long way to resolve the issue of the level 20 fighter who want to be an ogre. At that level an ogre fighter isn't too much more powerful than a human fighter.

[Segev]

Again, sorry I've been gone for a while; was offline more than I expected. Didn't intend to abandon the discussion.

Something that occurred to me, as well, though: given that LA provides ECL without equivalent HD, must HD be linked directly to level in all things?

I'm still not hugely fond of the way Savage Species handles its progressions, but that's probably in part due to the discongruity of that being the only place level-gains can happen without commensurate HD-gains. (Okay, it also has to do with it bothering my sense of verisimilitude that monsters lack certain obvious physical traits until they level up more.) However, if HD were something you got only at some levels of classes or of racial "classes," or maybe some classes gave multiple HD per level...

...no, that doesn't seem right, still.

In the end, the HD are the least impressive part of any ECL-race. In fact, they get in the way. Oddly, the concept of "extra" HD - more of them than your "effective level" - shows up in monster design, but only in the CR system. Monsters at higher CR often have MANY more HD than their CR, because all the HD provide are feats, skills, BAB, saves, and hp. And I honestly tihnk it's mostly the bonus hp that are considered necessary.

Those same HD are then used as limiters to keep PCs away from them: they make prohibitively high ECLs even on ones given a PC-able LA, and they make it impossible to use shaping magics to become them, or otherwise to control them.


So... monster powers as wealth-by-level things. That is, as things that you pay for with gp. Monsters losing HD so you can start as a "level 1 werebear" who has just the 1 animal HD. But...there's still flaws there. I wonder if we can't figure out some additional mechanism to work those kinks out.

[Urpriest]

I still think the only good solution would be from a Legend/Homebrew Monster Classes perspective. Make monsters work just like different character classes and you solve the problem of balancing them for player use, which also helps when they're summoned or polymorphed into or the like. It was pretty obviously the design direction that 3.5 was going in (compare to 3.0, and you see a lot of streamlining racial hit dice so that they work just like class hit dice), and it's a shame it didn't carry over to 4e.

[Chronos]

OK, so the 3.x level adjustment system means that a lot of races just aren't worthwhile to take, and nobody ends up playing them. But is this really a problem? Monstrous characters are supposed to be rare: That's why the six or seven standard races are the standard to begin with. I'd much rather have a system where almost nobody bothers to play a monstrous race, than one where almost everyone does.

[AuraTwilight]

Except if you don't want bunches of people to play non-standard races, just restrict it at your table. The one guy who chooses to be a monster shouldn't basically be punished for it. "Alright, you can be original, but you're going to objectively be inferior to everyone else. Have fun."

No, that's crap. Monster races should be mechanically just as viable because what's standard and not should be up to the setting and the gamemaster's story.

[Segev]

While I don't approve of it as a base mechanic, GURPS has a trait that is required for you to buy to be something "unusual." All it is - literally - is a CP tax.

Finding the right balance for such taxes - such that you make sure that you're not crippling a character, but are discouraging its use by any save those who most want it for the RP/cool factor over anything else - is tricky. But it has its place.

What they do, done right, is make such characters lower-optimization, but not unplayable, and they make them rare by ensuring that most people will play "standard" things for the higher-optimization capability.

L5R actually does this pretty well. Their various Clans (akin to races, though not quite) have certain things they're "known for," and so it's typical to see samurai of certain talents and skills from certain Clans (or to expect samurai from certain Clans to have certain talents and skills). Each Clan has a number of Schools (akin to character classes), and most cover the gamut of standard "archetypes" for a party. However, each has a flavor to their approach, and some are just better than their counterparts in other Clans. Playing a member of the Phoenix Clan (known for their shugenja - the magic guys) gets you access to the generally-best Shugenja School in the game (at least in theory). Playing a Crane gets you access to the best Duelist school.

Members of other Clans CAN get into these schools; it costs them resources that are just a tax for being "weird." They can also, often, get into their own Clan's versions of these schools, but they have different foci, unique tricks, and aren't quite as good at that focus of the Clan known for it.

This enforces a certain amount of parties appearing fairly typical for the setting, because people will tend to find their concepts work best if they play to the setting flavor. But it doesn't wholly cripple those who want to do something unique; it just costs them a little more to do it. Moves them down a proverbial Tier, so to speak.

[awa]

see the thing with l5r example is it is a setting with both a rich and more importantly focused setting. d&d setting tend to have a kitchen sink approach to world building that makes that kind of thing a bit less logical.

[Segev]

Sure, but if you're designing a system for DMs to use to build races of disparate power and of varying rarity, this would seem a good tool to examine.

[Chronos]

Except if you don't want bunches of people to play non-standard races, just restrict it at your table. The one guy who chooses to be a monster shouldn't basically be punished for it. "Alright, you can be original, but you're going to objectively be inferior to everyone else. Have fun."

Except that with the 3.x system as it is, nonstandard races aren't always inferior. There are still a fair number of races which are usually inferior, but which might be worth it in just the right build. So someone with just that right build takes the funky race, the character fits into the party, and the funky race is still rare.

[Tvtyrant]

On another note, the abilities of monsters often degrade quicker than class features. A Beholder would be unbelievable at level 11 (HD based) extremely strong at level 13 (CR) and unplayable with almost any Level Adjustment (monster abilities do not stack with class levels.)

Having a level 3 Wizard/Beholder at ECL 20 would be considerably weaker than a Wizard (probably better than a fighter though.) A Fighter/Beholder would be frankly awful without incredible optimization, etc. The only real solution I can think of is to only grant access to a monster when the player has reached the appropriate ECL, but have only their monster HD count towards their own ECL. IE a Beholder with an LA of 8 (instead of -) would be accessible at level 19, but would still have 8 character levels. This nullifies the monster's native abilities but still lets them be somewhat playable.

This approach also breaks down with monster PRCs and monsters with equivalent class levels (psionic Mindflayers, Ethergaunts, etc.)

[AuraTwilight]

Except that with the 3.x system as it is, nonstandard races aren't always inferior. There are still a fair number of races which are usually inferior, but which might be worth it in just the right build. So someone with just that right build takes the funky race, the character fits into the party, and the funky race is still rare.

That skills leaves problems on the table like "Orcs shouldn't be Wizards/anything but beatsticks" and the like. I should be able to do as much with a nonstandard race as I can with a standard race. Again, because rarity is determined by the setting, not by world-generic rules. Outside Eberron, Warforged are rare as hell but they're still LA +0 creatures.

[awa]

an orc is non optimal but a -2 int is not going to be the end of the world.
Say a hill giant wizard on the other hand is nonfunctional.

of course if all races are equally good at all things then all the races become more or less interchangeable which in my opinion is not a particularly good answer either.

[AuraTwilight]

an orc is non optimal but a -2 int is not going to be the end of the world.
Say a hill giant wizard on the other hand is nonfunctional.


I was pretty much just giving the most basic example, but yes.


of course if all races are equally good at all things then all the races become more or less interchangeable which in my opinion is not a particularly good answer either.

That's not what I'm saying. You can have something be viable at multiple things without being equally good at those things, not to mention equally good at those things as everyone else.

Chronos is effectively arguing "Creatures should be rare, so it's alright if they're completely unrewarding to play unless you do a specific build." That's terrible game design. You shouldn't structure options so that the choice is between "fun" and "trap." We have enough of that already, and everyone hates when Monte Cook calls it a design feature.

[awa]

I understand his idea and dont agree with it
I just don't think you should go to far the other way. I'm fine with an orc or a hill giant making a better barbarian then a wizard.

the problem is when the hill giant isn't good at being a barbarian either.

[AuraTwilight]

I'm fine with a hill giant being a better barbarian than a wizard. But a hill giant being a wizard should still be an option and the game shouldn't make being a hill giant at all a nigh-waste of a character sheet.

[Runestar]

I'm fine with a hill giant being a better barbarian than a wizard. But a hill giant being a wizard should still be an option and the game shouldn't make being a hill giant at all a nigh-waste of a character sheet.

That's the problem - monsters were never intended to be playable as PCs. There's just too many hurdles from a rules and game balance perspective. I personally think that wotc has done the best they can when they came up with the LA / ECL system. It's not perfect, but I haven't really seen anyone come up with a better alternative.

The next best thing would be to play some weird race/ template combo (like a primordial giant half-giant) and reskin yourself as a giant wizard. You get +4 int and some other nice bonuses, and are only set back by +1LA.

[LordBlades]

OK, so the 3.x level adjustment system means that a lot of races just aren't worthwhile to take, and nobody ends up playing them. But is this really a problem? Monstrous characters are supposed to be rare: That's why the six or seven standard races are the standard to begin with. I'd much rather have a system where almost nobody bothers to play a monstrous race, than one where almost everyone does.

Except most standard races aren't really standard in a lot of games because most of them are just bad (even compared to the good PHB races). I see warforged and neraph much often than anything in the PHB that's not human (and a lot of humans are silverbrow) or dwarf.

[Amphetryon]

To me, one of the major problems in 3.X's LA/ECL paradigm is the lack of understanding shown in how the game plays at higher levels. Specifically, the fact that the devs apparently didn't playtest at higher levels means they didn't have a grasp on how the game's balance (no laughing, guys) changes as Characters hit higher levels of play, let alone what happens in games that start at, say, 8th level. Because they didn't understand how the game's balance morphs at higher levels, they naturally struggled to balance Races that didn't fit with the apparent default assumption that games would start at 1st level and proceed until 'round about the point where Characters started to enter PrCs.

[Cheiromancer]

On another note, the abilities of monsters often degrade quicker than class features. A Beholder would be unbelievable at level 11 (HD based) extremely strong at level 13 (CR) and unplayable with almost any Level Adjustment (monster abilities do not stack with class levels.)

Having a level 3 Wizard/Beholder at ECL 20 would be considerably weaker than a Wizard (probably better than a fighter though.) A Fighter/Beholder would be frankly awful without incredible optimization, etc. The only real solution I can think of is to only grant access to a monster when the player has reached the appropriate ECL, but have only their monster HD count towards their own ECL. IE a Beholder with an LA of 8 (instead of -) would be accessible at level 19, but would still have 8 character levels. This nullifies the monster's native abilities but still lets them be somewhat playable.

This approach also breaks down with monster PRCs and monsters with equivalent class levels (psionic Mindflayers, Ethergaunts, etc.)

I think this is a very promising approach, although it needs tweaking for the cases you mention (races with built-in class levels) and maybe a few other odd-ball cases. Templates, species with low RHD (like sprites) and so on.

I'm not quite sure how to determine LA for races without one given. It would be nice if there were a formula based on CR. So if a beholder should be playable starting at ECL 19...

I'm tempted to say CR +1/2 * CR (in class levels) = ECL

So a beholder (CR 13) with 6 class levels (1/2 * CR) is an ECL 19 creature, and this is the minimum level it can be played; prior to that, the CR has not degraded enough. (Although maybe you can take off two class levels to reduce the ECL by 1. A beholder with no class levels could be ECL 16.)

I'm not sure what to do about templates. LA buyoff works fine for LA +1 or LA +2, but after LA +3 it doesn't work very well.

[Komatik]

Ditch LA. LA is a horrible, horrible thing that needs to die in a fire. The point of being an Ogre is to be a 3 metre tall mound of muscle, not to be the human fighter's incompetent counterpart. Likewise, it makes no damn sense that daemon-blooded Elves - about as sorcerous a being as you can get without being a dragon or being made of magic - is a worse sorcerer than a human and is so by a lot. Oh, you could make a thing, give it Powerful Build and +2 Strength and call it an Ogre, but it really isn't one. It's a retarded faux-Ogre that ends up feeling cheap and lackluster and bad.

Some things just should be better. Class levels in not-substandard (and by this I mean "can't handle level-appropriate encounters") are 99% of a character's power anyway, especially later on. Just look at group/character dynamics, see if the idea fits, and decide based on that. Not much else is really needed.

[Segev]

The ogre fighter should not be "just better" than the human fighter in the party, though. By which I mean, if the party is level 5, and the Ogre has 5 levels of fighter and the human has 5 levels of fighter, the Ogre is going to be more powerful, but that's because the Ogre is more powerful than a level 5 character.

Something needs to counterbalance the advantage. Whether it's LA, "monster hit dice" that give the racial features as "class abilities" to go along with them, or spending feats or gold or something on the bonuses that a human fighter wouldn't get, there needs to be something that makes it so that you're not a chump for playing a human fighter when an ogre fighter was an option.

[Komatik]

IMHO? The Ogre should be better at smashing things. It's a three-metre tall hulk made of muscle and just as experienced as it's Human companion.

No, it's not ideal game balance, but D&D is not a head-to-head competitive game where such strict attention to balance is needed. That things feel right is about a million times more important, and that the Human Fighter is still competent enough to face the challenges set before the party. We're also playing at a gaming table and trying to tell an entertaining story, not at some cutthroat tournament playing for money, which is where strict, clear rules and at least passable balance are key to enjoying yourself.
"Negotiate with DM, and ffs try to make a character that fits" is pretty key here.

Also, our Human is probably smarter and more suave than an Ogre or similar bruiser by a lot, which should count for something (ideally, anyway. The class designs leave something to be desired on that front).

tl;dr: It's a-ok if the Ogre is better than the Human. It's the desirable state of things even. If the Ogre is strictly better than the Human, then something is wrong.

[Fax Celestis]

tl;dr: It's a-ok if the Ogre is better than the Human. It's the desirable state of things even. If the Ogre is strictly better than the Human, then something is wrong.

No, it really isn't.

Being consistently outshone by your party members at the things you are supposed to be good at is not fun. And, as a game, it should be fun.

[awa]

the problem is if ogres are just better fighters always all martial classes will be ogres (or hill giants or what ever) and now human barbarian is no longer a valid choice because it is so dramatically inferior to the no la / hd ogre.

And in my opinion making the core races non viable is even worse a problem then making unusual races nonviable.

[Chronos]

No, it's not OK if the ogre is better than the human. Human should always be at least a viable option for any class. Certainly, some PHB race should always be a viable option.


Also, our Human is probably smarter and more suave than an Ogre or similar bruiser by a lot, which should count for something (ideally, anyway. The class designs leave something to be desired on that front).
It does count for something. The human is a lot better at learning new weapon techniques and fighting styles. In other words, the human gains XP more rapidly, due to the lack of LA.

Perfect balance between the standard races and monsters is impossible. Given that, I'd much rather err on the side that favors the standard races than on the side that shuts them out.

And LordBlades, do you really mean to say that nobody in your games plays a halfling, or elf, or half-orc? I don't think I've ever seen a game where the players chose their own races that didn't include an elf.

[LordBlades]

And LordBlades, do you really mean to say that nobody in your games plays a halfling, or elf, or half-orc? I don't think I've ever seen a game where the players chose their own races that didn't include an elf.

Pretty much.

Halfling :my group doesn't feel attracted to the 'halfling' archetype much, but even if they did, Strongheart Halfling is plain better than PHB Halfling in 99% of cases, adn RP wise it's still a halfling.

Elf: +2 Dex, -2 Con is a very bad stat spread, so literally every time anyone wanted to play an elf has found that another elf subrace fit their build better than the PHB elf

half-orc: Only half orc i've ever seen in my group has been played by me, and even then it was dragonborn half-orc druid. For everybody else it's been go full orc or go home(pick another race). If you're picking half-orc, you're probably doing something that uses Str. a lot. and for that, going full orc gives you a quite favorable trade-off (+2 str -2 wis).

[Komatik]

the problem is if ogres are just better fighters always all martial classes will be ogres (or hill giants or what ever) and now human barbarian is no longer a valid choice because it is so dramatically inferior to the no la / hd ogre.

And in my opinion making the core races non viable is even worse a problem then making unusual races nonviable.

Already said that many classes are a poor fit for this kind of thing - like our dear Fighter, for example, who is so one note I want to fall asleep.



No, it's not OK if the ogre is better than the human. Human should always be at least a viable option for any class. Certainly, some PHB race should always be a viable option.

I said as much. I said that if an Ogre is strictly better than a Human, or if the Human could not handle appropriate challenges, then yes, we do have a problem.
The thing I didn't have an issue with was the idea of the Ogre being better overall. To bring in an analogy from Street Fighter - we have Ryu, a basic but versatile enough warrior, and Akuma who has similar, but slightly different techniques and a bunch more stuff ontop. In SF4, Akuma is clearly the better character - he fares better in most cases. But that doesn't mean Ryu does badly. He is worse overall, yes, but still easily solid enough to hold his own and feel good and solid. The small differences in his and Akuma's tools mean there's things Ryu is better at than Akuma, and obviously vice versa. Both are very much playable, it's just about what style/look you find more appealing, both pass the Good Enough? Test.

Fighter is undeniably a bad class for that because it's so limited, though.

Let's use a good, versatile class that actually rewards mental scores. Say, Human Warblade, Ogre Warblade? Human Warblade definitely passes the Good Enough? Test. He's clearly competent against the usual adversaries.

Better Int means spiffy bonuses from Warblade abilities, and more skills from a good list. The extra feat opens up build options. You get a bit of that nice vibe from earlier.



It does count for something. The human is a lot better at learning new weapon techniques and fighting styles. In other words, the human gains XP more rapidly, due to the lack of LA.

Works to an extent for the Ogre and the Human Fighters (still fails to explain the extra HD and stuff, but is plausible enough).

Fails utterly with the Human and the Fey'ri Sorcerers. For some reason a daemonblooded Elf with an Int bonus is a craptastic Sorcerer compared to a Human. Which. Makes. No. Damn. Sense. The creature screams "superb sorcerer" and yet is a totally craptastic one. It's hideous. The Warblade example from above ought to work much better for a Human and a Fey'ri, too - Fey'ri are just so much less extreme than Ogres.

In fairness, I probably should've said that the "Ignore, be done with it" approach works well only in relatively tame cases - there's some borderline stuff obviously, and lack of party role overlap makes a lot of things a lot more acceptable. But some things are just too monstrous for ordinary PC-dom. Like Beholders. But there's a whole bunch of races that are justifiably better than the (a bit too low, IMHO - LA 1 feels about right) baseline but just get murdered either mechanically, conceptually or both by attempts to balance a game that is wildly imbalanced to begin with and not head to head competitive by nature in the first place.

[awa]

i would have no problem if the ogre was better at smashing things in certain context for example hit harder but with less accuracy. Unfortunately the way d&d is designed high strength increase both accuracy and damage.

edit an ogre with no la or hd would be a vastly better war-blade then a human the ogres strength and size boosts vastly out weigh it's int penalty.

I had a solution to this in a modified mutants and master mind game with races.
You could play a slightly above average dragon or you could play a legendary vanarra of the ages whos strength and cunning are legends amoungst his people and who wields mystic artifacts of the heavens or ancient and mysterious magics of breath taking power. Both are balanced in a party.

So switching back to D&D this changes the dynamic a bit it's not that drow (insert high int race with la) are dumb and learn slower then humans its that the pc human is a prodigy while the drow is merely above average.

now this does not change the fact that la does not work very well almost always being way to high for the benefits given but it deals with the fluff break down that la provides and also explains why a pc can reach level in 20 in a few months while most of the world is still level 1

[Komatik]

i would have no problem if the ogre was better at smashing things in certain context for example hit harder but with less accuracy. Unfortunately the way d&d is designed high strength increase both accuracy and damage.

There's a lot of annoying oddities in the game IMHO. One thing Warhammer did right was separating skill in wielding a weapon from sheer muscle or dexterity. Ogres also happen to have a small Dex penalty, which would fit right in with that idea.

In D&D, I'd have to settle for automatic Weapon Finesse for all (NOT OGRES XD) and perhaps give trained classes the ability to make a Concentration check or something to use Int for To Hit rolls to simulate intentional tricks/techniques to get the blow to land.

[XenoGeno]

I don't see anything wrong with D&D making certain choices bad, especially monster races. It fits the genre and style it goes for, that of epic fantasy. Admittedly, I don't know if they handled it the best way in 3.5, but I like Pathfinder's method. As a rule though, I don't think playing monsters fits 3.x's style at all, but that's okay; Mutants and Masterminds, Legend, and GURPS can all do that better. It doesn't make 3.x a better or worse system, just more specialized.

[Segev]

There will be optimal and sub-optimal choices at any level, yes. A half-orc barbarian is a better choice than a halfling barbarian. A halfling rogue is a better choice than a dwarven rogue. An elven wizard is a better choice than a half-orc wizard.

There are some points where certain things are just better than the "base" choices, however. While an ogre wizard is a terrible idea compared to a human wizard, if both were level 1, the ogre would still be at least as good a fighter as the level 1 human FIGHTER. And only because he lacks the int to really play the class he took at ALL is he not better by having access to at least one spell/day.

At that point, this means that the race is effectively giving LEVELS worth of benefits. Crossing the levels is going to be as bad as playing a multi-class character, but there are ways they synergize.

A level 1 ogre fighter is probably at least equivalent to a level 3 human fighter. Maybe level 2 if we strip out the monster HD. This is where it's hard to balance; you need to examine these features of the race versus those of class levels. But a level 20 ogre fighter and a level 20 human fighter still has the ogre come out ahead...even if it's by only a level or two. (Barring, of course, things that really start removing the race as a factor, such as polymorph.)

[awa]

my personal problem with that and it relates to more then just monsters, is i strongly dislike the idea of we will give you rules to do something but make it so costly or bad that it will never be a viable much less optimal choice (and if you need to use loop holes and take it in a direction never intended to make it work that's still a failure.).

the vampire is a great example it la is so high as to be virtually unplayable (particularly because the average vampire will not be built to take advantage of its new abilities.)

If you don't want people to play something don't give us rules for it. Don't make us spend money on content virtually no one will ever use.

edit this was in regard to bad choices should be part of D&D

[Doug Lampert]

the problem is if ogres are just better fighters always all martial classes will be ogres (or hill giants or what ever) and now human barbarian is no longer a valid choice because it is so dramatically inferior to the no la / hd ogre.

And in my opinion making the core races non viable is even worse a problem then making unusual races nonviable.

Bingo. If SOMEONE is going to be marginalized it should be the non-standard options. I'm fine with a ballanced ogre (see Legend), I'm fine with a worse than human ogre (see 3.x), I'm not fine with a better than human ogre.

If monster levels were built like class levels, and if multiclassing were handled well then monster ballance is handled fine, you end up with a legend like construction where monster is simply part of the multiclassing mix and things are reasonably ballanced. This can also work in point buy systems.

If race just gives you a ballanced racial power or two and some fluff, and the mechanical reason your ogre is a monster of destruction is his class levels then we have something like 4th edition, and those monsters made playable for 4th mostly worked fine.

If the ogre is dumb, and so he doesn't learn as much or as quickly as the human fighter and takes an XP penalty, then I can live with that as long as human remains viable, whether the ogre remains viable is optional.


my personal problem with that and it relates to more then just monsters, is i strongly dislike the idea of we will give you rules to do something but make it so costly or bad that it will never be a viable much less optimal choice (and if you need to use loop holes and take it in a direction never intended to make it work that's still a failure.).

Agreed, if vampire (to use your example) is actually non-viable then the correct solution is to simply disallow it.

In game design never make something expensive if what you want to do is make it impossible.

But if the ogre is simply a bit weaker but still playable then it's fine.

DougL

[Gnarnia]

A halfling rogue is a better choice than a dwarven rogue.

A dwarf rogue has distinct advantages over a halfling rogue in subterranean settings. Dwarves have darkvision, and an advantage with search and disable device for stonework traps. Dwarves also make good fences with the appraisal bonuses.

In some cases, halfling rogues will be more effective. In others, dwarves will. I don't see these races as being so far apart as you think them to be :)

[Komatik]

If race just gives you a ballanced racial power or two and some fluff, and the mechanical reason your ogre is a monster of destruction is his class levels then we have something like 4th edition, and those monsters made playable for 4th mostly worked fine.

"+2/+2 + ability"-izing monsters is pretty much the worst thing to do in my book. If you intend to not let people play an Ogre, don't let them. The crude fake feels just like that - a fake thing watered down so it doesn't really do jack anymore.

[Gnarnia]

To the topic at hand, I don't think that level for level, races should be equivalent.

A 1st level storm giant fighter should certainly be stronger than a 1st level human fighter.

But I do have an expectation that, as far as PCs go, that they come out fairly close (meaning that if you're in a 1st level campaign, no one gets to play a storm giant. If you're in a higher level campaign, and someone wants to try a storm giant, they can, but their character level is reduced to compensate)

[Zubrowka74]

Just tossing an idea here. How would this work : you have a monster definition for a given race and a player definition. Any OP abilities are absent from the playable race. For example : an troll would have a monster statsheet with the ususal ECL and a "balanced" player race with fewer goodies. No LA, XP penalty of any buyoff. Perhaps regeneration is a feat obtainable at level X, fluffing that the player as fast healing instead or is still an immature idividual of the specie.

Of course this doesn't work with things like flying. As in "I want to play a dragon, I have wings but I can't fly until level X."

[Segev]

Just tossing an idea here. How would this work : you have a monster definition for a given race and a player definition. Any OP abilities are absent from the playable race. For example : an troll would have a monster statsheet with the ususal ECL and a "balanced" player race with fewer goodies. No LA, XP penalty of any buyoff. Perhaps regeneration is a feat obtainable at level X, fluffing that the player as fast healing instead or is still an immature idividual of the specie.

Of course this doesn't work with things like flying. As in "I want to play a dragon, I have wings but I can't fly until level X."

That really goes back to the "watered down" feel that some - including myself - object to in things like the Savage Species monster-classes concept.

[Chronos]

Quoth Doug Lampert:

Agreed, if vampire (to use your example) is actually non-viable then the correct solution is to simply disallow it.

In game design never make something expensive if what you want to do is make it impossible.
I see your point, but I disagree with it. Players aren't machines. Sometimes, some players just want to play a big dumb smashy ogre, or whatever, and don't care that it's not as good as a standard race. There maybe should be a little more warning built into the system that standard races usually aren't mechanically worthwhile, and the DM should say the same thing, but if the player knows that and still wants to play the character he has in mind anyway, let him.

[Psyren]

I still think the only good solution would be from a Legend/Homebrew Monster Classes perspective. Make monsters work just like different character classes and you solve the problem of balancing them for player use, which also helps when they're summoned or polymorphed into or the like. It was pretty obviously the design direction that 3.5 was going in (compare to 3.0, and you see a lot of streamlining racial hit dice so that they work just like class hit dice), and it's a shame it didn't carry over to 4e.

The Legend approach is fantastic in theory but it loses a lot in practice, as we discussed over in the Legend thread recently. The main problem is that some monster abilities are both too iconic and too specific to properly facsimile through more general tracks, such as Vampire sunlight vulnerability and a Ghost's ability to haunt and a Werewolf's ability to transmit lycanthropy to its victims or a Hag's innate circle magic etc. Doing those in Legend requires coming up with very specific tracks which (a) are unlikely to be useful to other creatures (which goes against the modular design of the system) and (b) are difficult to balance, making them hard to grant to PCs.

So while it has lofty goals, actually pulling them off believably in game is another matter.


Because the game is not a simulation of a reality, it is a game to be played and enjoyed. Getting sidelined all the time because one character is way better at basically everything that matters than another is not fun.

D&D is actually both; part of what makes it so compelling is that it does attempt to model things in a way that at least approaches realism. Some races (even PC races) are better swimmers, because that's what we'd expect from what we know of that race. Some races are faster or slower, because that's what we'd expect. Some races are significantly stronger or significantly weaker, because that's what we'd expect. And so on.

I agree that no race or class should be better at "basically everything." My philosophy regarding magic is that while it can do anything, it can't do everything and if you prepare for the wrong set of challenges then you should be outclassed by someone who is geared towards those challenges.

[Zubrowka74]

That really goes back to the "watered down" feel that some - including myself - object to in things like the Savage Species monster-classes concept.


It all depends on what you keep for the players, it could be in-between. Also If one race get +2 to two abilities and -2 to another, and the monster gives +4, +2, +2, -2 without any drawback, why should anyone play the watered down first race ? That the danger of creating player races (or converting monsters) that are more powerfull than what already exists. You get "Powerfull" on one side and "Watered-down" on the other.

[Fax Celestis]

D&D is actually both; part of what makes it so compelling is that it does attempt to model things in a way that at least approaches realism. Some races (even PC races) are better swimmers, because that's what we'd expect from what we know of that race. Some races are faster or slower, because that's what we'd expect. Some races are significantly stronger or significantly weaker, because that's what we'd expect. And so on.

I agree that no race or class should be better at "basically everything." My philosophy regarding magic is that while it can do anything, it can't do everything and if you prepare for the wrong set of challenges then you should be outclassed by someone who is geared towards those challenges.

Granted. D&D's goal, though, is to be a game, not a simulation, and therefore fun should be a priority over realism.

[Psyren]

Granted. D&D's goal, though, is to be a game, not a simulation, and therefore fun should be a priority over realism.

Well, for many people, this is a false dichotomy; verisimilitude can itself be fun. I do get your point though.

The bigger problem is that "fun" means different things to different people. For myself, I think it is fun when casters are capable of more than mundanes because that fits with my perception of what fantasy is. (Note that this doesn't mean I'm in favor of melee being marginalized - just that at some point in their progression they should expect to no longer be purely mundane.) But while I do recognize that not everyone feels the same way, I think enough do that it's a valid assumption to base a game system around.

[Segev]

My thoughts have recently gone towards rethinking "monster classes" as simply being done by having the character reduced in HD (to a minimum of 1) so that his ECL (HD+LA) is as close to the game's level as possible. So an ogre in a level 1 game would have its LA of +2 and one Monstrous Humanoid HD. His various numbers based on HD are recalculated appropriately. He has an ECL of 3. He is, admittedly, still stronger than any other PC who lacks an LA. So he gains exp slower, and even when he starts gaining levels, he has to "buy" monster HD until he's "caught up" with a standard ogre. Then he levels normally.

This doesn't quite solve the problem of the LA+HD not being WORTH the power of the race. That requires rethinking LAs.

I still kind-of think PF's original idea of CR being the ECL of a monster-as-character is the right way to go.

[Fax Celestis]

Well, for many people, this is a false dichotomy; verisimilitude can itself be fun. I do get your point though.

The bigger problem is that "fun" means different things to different people. For myself, I think it is fun when casters are capable of more than mundanes because that fits with my perception of what fantasy is. (Note that this doesn't mean I'm in favor of melee being marginalized - just that at some point in their progression they should expect to no longer be purely mundane.) But while I do recognize that not everyone feels the same way, I think enough do that it's a valid assumption to base a game system around.

Right. Certain games are tailored towards different demographics. 3.5 D&D's biggest failing, IMO, is that it tries too hard to be simulation when it should be more worried about how good a game it is. 4e took the opposite tack: it was so invested in making a good game that it fell short on the realism aspects (again, IMO).

[Alex12]

The disparity between CR and LA has always bugged me. If Battles McSwordsman the human Fighter becomes a vampire, his CR increases by 2, while his LA increases by 8. One or the other of these doesn't work.

[awa]

cr and la being different actually does make sense lets take a hypothetical template as an immediate action you can explode dying instantly destroying all your gear and may never be brought back to life in any way and dealing 6d6 force damage is a 20 foot radius. stick this on a bunch of kobolds and you have deadly suicide bombers worth a substantial increase in cr a pc on the other hand does not get much out of this template.

An ability like being incorporeal or being a swarm is not a big deal for a monster because most parties have some counter. If a pc has these abilities at low level they are immune to most of the monster manual.


monster are not pcs and an abilities usefulness is reflect by this

[Segev]

It is true that some things are less impressive in a one-off monster than in a PC who's always in the game. The converse example you give of a self-destruct power is also true. However, D&D and PF have never treated it in the latter fashion; no LA+HD has ever been less than the CR.

[Alex12]

cr and la being different actually does make sense lets take a hypothetical template as an immediate action you can explode dying instantly destroying all your gear and may never be brought back to life in any way and dealing 6d6 force damage is a 20 foot radius. stick this on a bunch of kobolds and you have deadly suicide bombers worth a substantial increase in cr a pc on the other hand does not get much out of this template.

An ability like being incorporeal or being a swarm is not a big deal for a monster because most parties have some counter. If a pc has these abilities at low level they are immune to most of the monster manual.


monster are not pcs and an abilities usefulness is reflect by this

I tend to assume that NPCs (at least the sapient ones) are basically like players, or at least like people, in terms of motivation. Unless they're fanatics or something, those kobolds wouldn't use that ability except as a last-ditch effort (just like the PCs!). And at the same time, because they don't have other abilities, they'll die much faster.
But let's take, say, the Vampire template. It illustrates the point I want to make best. Take a 5th-level human Wizard (or whatever) and stick the Vampire template on him. CR +2, LA +8. So this vampire now has ECL 13. But his CR is much lower. Who would win, him, or his twin brother the Level 13 human Wizard?

[Psyren]

I tend to assume that NPCs (at least the sapient ones) are basically like players, or at least like people, in terms of motivation. Unless they're fanatics or something, those kobolds wouldn't use that ability except as a last-ditch effort (just like the PCs!).

Goblins are sapient, but they would love an ability like that (particularly in Golarion) regardless of the consequences, and it would be just as dangerous on them as on Kobolds. Some creatures just see things differently.

[awa]

I'm not saying that a vampire la of 8 is appropriate.
but looking at a vampire ability the power to create spawn does not affect the cr of a monster because each new spawn add cr to the encounter individually but it gives a pc a tremendous advantage. like wise the ability to turn into mist and scout an entire dungeon is of minor utility to a monster but may be game breaking for a pc.



For the exploding kobold as an immediate action they use it as soon as you kill them assuming they are in range of you and not your allies.

For a pc they will use this ability once in there life the kobold will for all intents and purposes use it in every battle he has with the pcs.

[Chronos]

The other two major differences between the PCs and the monsters are that, first, the PCs are usually in a group, while monsters often are not, and second, that the PCs are expected to usually win.

Consider, again, the vampire, with its turn-to-mist-when-it-would-be-slain ability. If the party kills a vampire, their next step is probably going to be to scout out the dungeon, find the vampire's coffin, and drag it out to the sunlight. The vampire's escape ability is a nuisance, but it doesn't ultimately make all that much difference. On the other hand, if one member of the party is a vampire, and a monster kills that PC, the rest of the party will probably finish off the monster, then go back to defend the vampire's coffin until he's back solid again. The escape ability has made the difference between a dead PC and a live (well, active) one.

Now, that's not to say that the vampire's LA is where it should be. Maybe it should be a bit lower; that's hard to pin down. But it is reasonable that it should be higher than the CR.

To use another example: Suppose we have two hypothetical abilities. One of them lets you, at will, force an opponent to roll a save or fall asleep. The other one lets you, once per week, force an opponent to roll a save or die. Assume that everything else about the two abilities (save type and DC, range, what's immune to it, etc.) is identical. Which one would you rather have as a player? Why? Which one would you less like to face in a monster? Why?

[Psyren]

Note that Vampires in PF are +2 CR (i.e. +2 LA), a far cry from the +8 given in 3.5. This puts them a bit on the strong side, but the normal races are generally stronger too.

[Svata]

What's odd about that is that it is double the LA for a Lich, which are even harder to kill.

[awa]

vampires do have a lot of special abilities though and much higher stats

[Komatik]

vampires do have a lot of special abilities though and much higher stats

That matter jack in the face of a nigh unkillable prepared caster. Then again, SKR seems to believe that Fireball is the height of magical ability, so...

[AuraTwilight]

Note that Vampires in PF are +2 CR (i.e. +2 LA), a far cry from the +8 given in 3.5. This puts them a bit on the strong side, but the normal races are generally stronger too.

CR and LA aren't equivalent; not even in PF.

[LordBlades]

The other two major differences between the PCs and the monsters are that, first, the PCs are usually in a group, while monsters often are not, and second, that the PCs are expected to usually win.

Consider, again, the vampire, with its turn-to-mist-when-it-would-be-slain ability. If the party kills a vampire, their next step is probably going to be to scout out the dungeon, find the vampire's coffin, and drag it out to the sunlight. The vampire's escape ability is a nuisance, but it doesn't ultimately make all that much difference. On the other hand, if one member of the party is a vampire, and a monster kills that PC, the rest of the party will probably finish off the monster, then go back to defend the vampire's coffin until he's back solid again. The escape ability has made the difference between a dead PC and a live (well, active) one.

Now, that's not to say that the vampire's LA is where it should be. Maybe it should be a bit lower; that's hard to pin down. But it is reasonable that it should be higher than the CR.

To use another example: Suppose we have two hypothetical abilities. One of them lets you, at will, force an opponent to roll a save or fall asleep. The other one lets you, once per week, force an opponent to roll a save or die. Assume that everything else about the two abilities (save type and DC, range, what's immune to it, etc.) is identical. Which one would you rather have as a player? Why? Which one would you less like to face in a monster? Why?

Another huge issue related to vampires are the dominate and create spawn ability. As an opponent it doesn't matter much. You're still building interesting encounters as a DM, and it doesn't matter all that much if it's a vampire and 3-4 dominated guys or a vampire and 3-4 guys that are helping him for other reasons.

As a PC however, the abililty of turning any humanoid or monstrous humanoid that you meet in a loyal minion is practically Leadership on steroids.

[Segev]

CR and LA aren't equivalent; not even in PF.

Perhaps not since they came up with the asinine "adjust the whole party's effective level" that penalizes those who don't choose the most powerful race the DM will allow, but it originally was. This page (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/races/other-races) has the old rules retained for our convenience.

The topic of this thread is discussing the wisdom of the various methods for allowing monsters-as-PCs, including proposing new ideas that might balance better, so it's valid to consider all of them. Even those that have been abandoned. (I, personally, think "use the monster's CR as its base ECL" is the best balance idea they've had so far.)


Another huge issue related to vampires are the dominate and create spawn ability. As an opponent it doesn't matter much. You're still building interesting encounters as a DM, and it doesn't matter all that much if it's a vampire and 3-4 dominated guys or a vampire and 3-4 guys that are helping him for other reasons.

As a PC however, the abililty of turning any humanoid or monstrous humanoid that you meet in a loyal minion is practically Leadership on steroids.

This is nothing a wizard with the right spells - or, heck, an evil cleric with a Commanded vampire - can't replicate, though. All the tricks that would remove the minions from the cleric or wizard would do the same to the vampire. (In fact, one of the tricks to do so - killing the controlling vampire - would more inconvenience the vampire than it does the cleric!)

[awa]

that's a separate issue of a tier 1 being better then every one and unrelated to the fact that at will dominate is more powerful in the hands of a pc then a monster and a vampire having more powers then a lich

[Psyren]

CR and LA aren't equivalent; not even in PF.

They may as well be, because it's really the only clear guideline we have, per Segev's quote.


Another huge issue related to vampires are the dominate and create spawn ability. As an opponent it doesn't matter much. You're still building interesting encounters as a DM, and it doesn't matter all that much if it's a vampire and 3-4 dominated guys or a vampire and 3-4 guys that are helping him for other reasons.

As a PC however, the abililty of turning any humanoid or monstrous humanoid that you meet in a loyal minion is practically Leadership on steroids.

This is certainly true - but at the same time, the bevy of Vampire weaknesses and the spawn control limit will make it easy for the DM to thin your herd if you get out of control with spawn creation. The hunger variant rules can also be used to make PC vampirism less attractive.

[Segev]

that's a separate issue of a tier 1 being better then every one and unrelated to the fact that at will dominate is more powerful in the hands of a pc then a monster and a vampire having more powers then a lich

Oh, sure, but that doesn't mean one should simply throw any effort at balance out the window. "Oh, well, wizards are going to win against fighters at high level, so there's no reason not to allow Storm Giant PCs at level 1, next to a half-orc wizard and an elven rogue" is the reductio ad absurdum of that particular argument, but the moment we find the place you'd draw the line of a race being "too powerful," the point is made: you wouldn't allow a level 12 wizard in a first level party and just "raise the average party level" and tell the 1st level characters that it's okay because the wizard will carry them, so don't do the same with more-powerful races.

[awa]

reread my posts i have never said anything remotely supporting that interpretation of my views

[nyarlathotep]

There's also this emphasis on balance that seems to crop up when discussing the topic. D&D ain't World of Warcraft. The raid leader is not gonna bench anyone if they do slightly less good than the rest of the party. If everyone at the table is still enjoying the story and the battles, I fail to see why balance matters if it means taking toys away from a player.

Alright I just need "player privilege" to complete grognard bingo for today.

[AuraTwilight]

"Players need to stop being so damn entitled, anyway. If they don't like race restrictions, they can walk and find a new table. I mean, APPARENTLY these people who want to play monster characters are just powergamers who don't want to compromise on being the biggest badass in the lands.

I mean, I let them play a warlock! That class is so overpowered, meet me halfway here!"

[Fax Celestis]

I MEAN JUST LAST WEEK MY PLAYER CAME TO ME AND ASKED TO PLAY A GESTALT MONK/WARLOCK AND OF COURSE I TOLD HIM NO I MEAN I CAN'T LET HIM COMBINE THE TWO MOST OBVIOUSLY OVERPOWERED AND BROKEN CLASSES IN THE GAME AMIRITE OR AMIRITE

:smalltongue:

[Psyren]

My sarcasm meter is currently pulling a DBZ scouter because of you two :smalltongue: (Shouldn't we be on blue text?)

[Fax Celestis]

BLUE TEXT IS FOR SQUARES AND PHILISTINES ALSO I AM NOT REALLY USING CAPSLOCK I AM REALLY JUST HOLDING DOWN SHIFT IT IS QUITE EMPOWERING AND I HIGHLY RECOMMEND TRYING IT SOMETIME ALSO I SHOULD PROBABLY GET BACK ON TOPIC

The tl;dr on monster PCs is that there isn't a quick, standard, easy way to do it. If you're lucky, you can get two of those options.

[awa]

sure you can get quick, standard, and easy as long as you are willing to skip out on useful. for example human only is quick it's easy and it applies equally to all races (by saying no to all of them).:smallsmile:

[Fax Celestis]

sure you can get quick, standard, and easy as long as you are willing to skip out on useful. for example human only is quick it's easy and it applies equally to all races (by saying no to all of them).:smallsmile:

Trufax. do u c wut i did thar