Simple Suggestion for making monsters playable

[hirojinbrodie]

I have been pondering the issue of trying to get the monstrous races in D&D to be playable and am wondering if anyone has considered this solution. I know this may not work in all cases (I haven't solidly investigated) but couldn't you have it be that a creatures challenge rating, or its HD, whichever is higher, set's the level minimum to play. So instead of dealing with LA and such you cut that all out. That way people can actually play the monsters they want to and the DM's will likely be secure in the fact that high HD creatures with lot's of power will remain out of reach. Again, this is just a preliminary idea.

[Enran]

The "CR as starting level" version is what Pathfinder does, with the caveat that half of the CR is transferred into an extra class level every three levels, because RHD are generally worth less and less as you advance. It's much more balanced and allows a wider variety of viable character options than D&D's ridiculousness.

[Andezzar]

If you want to play monsters from level 1 on there are savage progressions in Savage Species.

If you want to start from a higher level LA and RHD are supposed to do just that. Unfortunately the writers assigned weird LAs to some creatures. I think you are best served by reevaluating the LAs for the creatures your players want to use.

[hirojinbrodie]

I am aware of the savage species classes, but they have mostly been very hard to justify using due to the mentioned craziness. Where is the rule stating CR as starting level listed in Pathfinder? I have never seen it. And again, making CR the starting level does eliminate the problem of players who suddenly have more HD than others.

Yes the monsterous HD is only a d8, but I worry if HD isn't accounted for then things could get out of hand quickly. I thought the rule in Pathfinder was that the CR of the creatures the party faces was raised to account for the more powerful player. Or perhaps I am thinking of starting 1st level characters...

[Necroticplague]

And again, making CR the starting level does eliminate the problem of players who suddenly have more HD than others.

Actually, it creates it, because some creatures have more HD than CR.

[hirojinbrodie]

Meant to say doesn't, not does. That is why I wanted it to be based on the highest of the two. CR and HD I mean. That way a Giant or something like that with a CR far less than its HD won't be used to try and squirrel their way past logical approximations of where they should be power wise, while also making the class actually usable at a reasonable level. Again, this is simply the idea. More testing is needed.

I was just curious if it sounds like a reasonable way to address the issue. I don't think it is perfect mind you. Certain creatures like Demons and Devils are very high indicators of their respective CR's.

[Crake]

I have an optional LA/gestalt option that I use in my games to allow people to play monstrous races by gestalting their HD/LA alongside class levels. Its seemed to work fairly well in the games I've playtested them in, though it does require a savage progression to work if you want to start at level 1.

Link is in my signature if you're interested.

[Milo v3]

Where is the rule stating CR as starting level listed in Pathfinder? I have never seen it.

In the Bestiary 1 section called Monsters as PCs (http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/monsters/monstersAsPCs.html).

[ko_sct]

One simple and efficient way I've always liked but seldom see suggested is to simply consider LA as also giving you HD. That also allow you to actually use the monster classes in savage species, you just consider them to give HD at every level.

So a monster with 3 HD and 2 LA would be played as a LVL 5 character whit 5 racial HD and no LA.

Of course this need some adjustment, I don't have my books in front of me but I'm pretty sure the shadow monster class would be terribly strong, especially with the feat that allow incorporeal monster to interact with physical objects.


Do note this only apply to monsters classes and not templates, far too many templates would be broken if they gave HD as well as special abilities.

[hirojinbrodie]

Thank you all for your help. Seems I'm not the only one to think along these lines. Though I know the rules of pathfinder are backwards compatible, but are the rules founded in Pathfinder that talk about CR as class level (http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/monsters/monstersAsPCs.html) really compatible. One of the reasons I suggested that the racial hit dice be used if it is higher is because some of the PC classes in 3.5 are not nearly as powerful as Pathfinder. Any thoughts?

I do think the adding of CR and HD does have potential, but invariably it may keep a player from playing the creature because they have to wait so long to do so.

[Telonius]

It's not 100% reliable, but just discarding racial hitdice can go a long way to making monsters playable. You'd still have to examine if the special qualities and racial stat adjustments are still appropriate for the LA. So for example, a Frost Giant character would still be a Large Giant, have stat adjustments of Str +18, Dex -2, Con +10, Wis +4, Natural Armor +9, attack and AC penalties of a Large creature, Immunity to cold/vulnerability to fire, low-light vision, rock throwing, rock catching, and LA of +4. So would that be an appropriate LA for those abilities? ... I might peg it slightly higher, just for the huge bonuses to Strength and Constitution, but it's not completely out of whack. It would be reasonably playable for a melee combatant.

(Note that this will not work for all monsters; there are some where the RHD/LA/CR divide is just plain weird).

[Necroticplague]

Why is having more HD than levels necessarily a bad thing? Part of something's CR includes its HD already (after all, something with twice as many HD is a tougher monster, and thus would have a higher CR).


(Note that this will not work for all monsters; there are some where the RHD/LA/CR divide is just plain weird).
See also: Protean.

[Ferronach]

Accounting for CR and LA is important, but I have always found that the biggest issue is the ECL rules... you may be the same level now but because your ECl (for calculating XP) is 5 higher than the others, they will surpass you very quickly.

Found this out when I played a shadow dragon FVS... group was lvl 5 or 6 I think, I had LA+4 or 5 and 1 level of FVS but an ECL of 13 or 14 iirc for XP calculation.
Unless I have been doing LA/ECL wrond all along? (Distinct possibility)

[sovin_ndore]

The 'CR as Level' option in Pathfinder is actually one of the rules updates from 3.5 I did not like. The reason is that some powers are significantly stronger for PCs than they are for NPCs, most of which are unlikely to survive the encounter they are introduced in. For example, Fast Healing(ex)... Downtime healing only cost resources if you have more than one fight over the course of your career. The healing during a fight is minor, but that function is huge for a PC, freeing up a cleric to do something else with his life and making it almost impossible to keep the PC unconscous for a 'capture by beating them with subdual' type encounter.

The flip side is also true. Disadvantages like a Vampire's issues with Sunlight or a Dryad's need to remain in proximity to their tree are pretty minor for an encounter, but could be devistatingly hard to overcome for a playable PC.

Also, a few spell-like abilities (such as on Drow) are huge at low level and completely useless in the upper echelons of gameplay (where access to only 8th level spells when your opponents have 9th is a huge difference in power level). Which is why LA buyoff is such a useful houserule.

I don't really think the LA system was always a perfect measure of power, but at least it extended an effort toward acknowledging that PCs and NPCs have different requirements and will get different mileage from the same abilities.

[hirojinbrodie]

The example I would give would be a shield guardian. It has 15 d10 HD. This is compared to its 8CR. Its base HP is 112. That is massive at 8th level, and thus my consideration of HD.

Another factor I have considered is the use of the creatures base stats or an elite array of stats. The reason for this is that it helps to keep the creatures from being overpowered. For example, an Annis Hag has 25 str. Add that to a rolled 18 instead of a 10 and the creature (which by the rules I have suggested would be 7th level) would be terribly over powered.

That is why I don't want to use CR strictly, because sometimes it doesn't consider how those abilities would work in a group. A gray render has 23 str and 24 con. At 8th level that is pretty powerful, but if we use it's HD (10) then we get closer to a level where it is balanced. If we consider the fact it doesn't have class abilities, I would think that it is a pretty solid consideration, without the dead levels added by level adjustment.

Two other things. One, creatures without HD, and who only have LA should have their LA possibly count as HD (d8 likely). Not perfect, but just an idea. Two, I would consider Angels and Demons to be perhaps out of line as they are both very high representatives of both their CR and their HD. So baring certain campaigns I would likely say no to those.

[Necroticplague]

The 'CR as Level' option in Pathfinder is actually one of the rules updates from 3.5 I did not like. The reason is that some powers are significantly stronger for PCs than they are for NPCs, most of which are unlikely to survive the encounter they are introduced in. For example, Fast Healing(ex)... Downtime healing only cost resources if you have more than one fight over the course of your career. The healing during a fight is minor, but that function is huge for a PC, freeing up a cleric to do something else with his life and making it almost impossible to keep the PC unconscous for a 'capture by beating them with subdual' type encounter.

It's also a +1 LA template in 3.x (feral), or 1 level dip for very similar capability (Crusader dip for Crusader's Stance [in fact, this extends the benefit to the whole party]). And why is 'freeing up a cleric to do something else' a bad thing? If the cleric doesn't want to heal (because they might find it boring), than this is actually a positive point.

[Enran]

The example I would give would be a shield guardian. It has 15 d10 HD. This is compared to its 8CR. Its base HP is 112. That is massive at 8th level, and thus my consideration of HD.

Another factor I have considered is the use of the creatures base stats or an elite array of stats. The reason for this is that it helps to keep the creatures from being overpowered. For example, an Annis Hag has 25 str. Add that to a rolled 18 instead of a 10 and the creature (which by the rules I have suggested would be 7th level) would be terribly over powered.

That is why I don't want to use CR strictly, because sometimes it doesn't consider how those abilities would work in a group. A gray render has 23 str and 24 con. At 8th level that is pretty powerful, but if we use it's HD (10) then we get closer to a level where it is balanced. If we consider the fact it doesn't have class abilities, I would think that it is a pretty solid consideration, without the dead levels added by level adjustment.

Two other things. One, creatures without HD, and who only have LA should have their LA possibly count as HD (d8 likely). Not perfect, but just an idea. Two, I would consider Angels and Demons to be perhaps out of line as they are both very high representatives of both their CR and their HD. So baring certain campaigns I would likely say no to those.
First off, a shield guardian would be an illegal player character as-is. No Intelligence score. But I'll roll with it anyway.

You are way undercutting class features, in my opinion. If you're playing anything other than a Fighter or NPC class, the extra HP and higher skill cap is worth far less than what you'd get out of actual class features.

Using your shield guardian example, yeah it's got more HP than most non-Con-focused PCs, but what else does it really have going for it? It's got an AC of 24, but can't wear armor and can't get itself enchanted, so it ends up with similar AC to other PCs at that level. It's got a higher to-hit bonus, but does little real damage compared to actual class-based damage dealers in the party, getting about ten damage per hit and twenty if it hits both times on its full attack, so it's doing a lot less than a character with class levels (even a Fighter!) who deals in melee damage output. It has extra defenses based on its creature type, but so do Warforged so that's hardly cause to cry broken. Not to mention the Shield Guardian can't be healed in the normal ways and has nothing to do with its time besides whacking things to make up for not being great at wacking things.

I really don't think a Shield Guardian would be a problem at level 8, and more to the point, at level 15 a party spellcaster can just make a Shield Guardian if they feel like having one, and with stats I could compare disfavorably to a level 8 character, where do you really think you'll fit in as the person with Shield Guardian and no class levels on your sheet? "Uh, yeah, I guess I just try to stay out of the wizard's way but close enough to take half his damage."

[sovin_ndore]

It's also a +1 LA template in 3.x (feral), or 1 level dip for very similar capability (Crusader dip for Crusader's Stance [in fact, this extends the benefit to the whole party]). And why is 'freeing up a cleric to do something else' a bad thing? If the cleric doesn't want to heal (because they might find it boring), than this is actually a positive point.

I was not saying it wasn't a good thing to free up the Cleric. It is actually great. So great in fact that it is pretty OP. It ignores normal balancing factors (like requirement to refresh HP periodically) and it would usually require significant investment to reach equivilant effects.

Are there unbalanced LA templates out there? Absolutely. Feral Mineral Warriors are definitely off the charts. Druids are also OP but are still are an example of how classes attempt (and sometimes fail) to make a level a base measurement of balance and class progression.

The separate standard between CR and LA existed for a reason.

[OldTrees1]

Easy metric:
Count the number of interesting abilities the monster gets. Reduce the LA+2*RHD until it is the same.

Example: Ogre
They are large and have a really nice boost to Str -> 4 RHD + 0 LA or 2RHD/1LA or 0RHD/2LA.

[Urpriest]

Most monsters simply aren't balanced for any level of play at all, with a sprinkling of abilities that are too powerful for lower levels without enough backup to be relevant at higher levels. LA tries to patch that, but ultimately still fails. That said, most monster concepts can be created using PC class levels, and for those that can't there are always homebrew monster classes.

[Necroticplague]

I was not saying it wasn't a good thing to free up the Cleric. It is actually great. So great in fact that it is pretty OP. It ignores normal balancing factors (like requirement to refresh HP periodically) and it would usually require significant investment to reach equivilant effects.
????You still need to to periodically refresh your HP. It's just that now that period is essentially per encounter instead of per day.

Well, the other examples I can think of for equivalent effects are as follows:
1.1 level+1 feat. Dread Necromancer+Tomb-tainted soul, spam charnel touch for infinite healing.
2. 2 feats and a racial restriction: Troll-blooded, grants Regeneration
3. 1 level (and one stance slot): Martial Spirit stance, smack stones for health out of combat.

Not really much more investment, and that 1 level only applies to oneself (as opposed to 1, which can help others if they're undead or have tomb-tainted themselves; or 3, which intrinsically can heal others; and 2 is simply much more potent)

[hirojinbrodie]

First off, a shield guardian would be an illegal player character as-is. No Intelligence score. But I'll roll with it anyway.

You are way undercutting class features, in my opinion. If you're playing anything other than a Fighter or NPC class, the extra HP and higher skill cap is worth far less than what you'd get out of actual class features.

Using your shield guardian example, yeah it's got more HP than most non-Con-focused PCs, but what else does it really have going for it? It's got an AC of 24, but can't wear armor and can't get itself enchanted, so it ends up with similar AC to other PCs at that level. It's got a higher to-hit bonus, but does little real damage compared to actual class-based damage dealers in the party, getting about ten damage per hit and twenty if it hits both times on its full attack, so it's doing a lot less than a character with class levels (even a Fighter!) who deals in melee damage output. It has extra defenses based on its creature type, but so do Warforged so that's hardly cause to cry broken. Not to mention the Shield Guardian can't be healed in the normal ways and has nothing to do with its time besides whacking things to make up for not being great at wacking things.

I really don't think a Shield Guardian would be a problem at level 8, and more to the point, at level 15 a party spellcaster can just make a Shield Guardian if they feel like having one, and with stats I could compare disfavorably to a level 8 character, where do you really think you'll fit in as the person with Shield Guardian and no class levels on your sheet? "Uh, yeah, I guess I just try to stay out of the wizard's way but close enough to take half his damage."

I see your point. In truth I likely should have selected a better example. I do suppose that it should be a case by case basis. The point of this thread was to consider ideas to ensure that people will want to play monsters instead of just normal player races. Perhaps strict CR would be enough, though I still would assert that certain creatures don't represent their CR's as well as others (some weaker, some more powerful). However, by going off of CR as opposed to the standard system (which tends to make players avoid playing monsters like the plague) it can perhaps add some flavor. Again, this is simply the best I could come up with, but I can see how CR may be enough to judge what level a creature should be.

[hirojinbrodie]

Most monsters simply aren't balanced for any level of play at all, with a sprinkling of abilities that are too powerful for lower levels without enough backup to be relevant at higher levels. LA tries to patch that, but ultimately still fails. That said, most monster concepts can be created using PC class levels, and for those that can't there are always homebrew monster classes.

I agree that some things are overwhelming (Vrock for example) but I do feel that many monsters should get some love. I have no doubt that most could be replicated through classes and such, but one of the reasons I have suggested discussing solutions is because sometimes you aren't playing the monster strictly for its abilities. There is RP value to be had, and the original system has made it difficult to allow people to explore those options without feeling stupid for doing so, especially in high tier parties.

[Flickerdart]

Honestly, monsters are played so rarely that you shouldn't need to take shortcuts like this. Sit down with your DM and figure out what portion of the monster's abilities you should have at what level to keep up with a typical character of the type.

I agree with ditching HD (and things that rely on HD, such as casting). Want your rakshasa to cast as a sorcerer? Then take levels in sorcerer.