Final epiphany RE: playable vs. unplayable races

[Katie Boundary]

I don't know how long I've been working on this problem... maybe a year, maybe two. I can't tell you how many hours I've spent, first trying to figure out which races were playable and which ones weren't, and then trying to organize races into "tiers" of playability based on things like their descriptions and the presence or absence of a favored class... But I finally have my answer.

If a race has a full PC stat block, complete with ability adjustments (like "+2 str, -2 int") and automatic and bonus languages, then it's a playable race as written. Period. We already knew that.

But every other race with a level adjustment? When 3.0 came out, the "playable" races from the Monster Manual didn't just have their level equivalents relegated to a table in the DMG. They had their level equivalents relegated to a table in a section labeled "VARIANT" in Chapter Two of the DMG. Similar tables were found in Chapter 6 in the 3.5e DMG. Do you know what else you'll find in that chapter? A little note, tucked away into the corner of one of the pages, saying "by the way, literally everything in this chapter is variant, alternate, and homebrew rules, and this whole chapter probably should have been put in Unearthed Arcana instead of a core rulebook". Every time an LE or LA is given to a creature with only an NPC stat block, it's for use with this chapter and the alternate rules contained therein. NONE of those creatures are playable unless the DM specifically homebrews them in. If you're not using the alternate/variant rules, then the description doesn't matter, even if the description says "this would make a perfect player character race for any campaign, here's its favored class and level adjustment".

This epiphany has resolved some of my big questions, like just why in God's name the MM2 explicitly endorses Ixitxachitl player characters even though they do not speak any languages and have no land speed or limbs of any kind. It will dramatically simplify and accelerate my writing of the Grand Unified Index of Everything, even if there's a short-term stall while I rewrite and reorganize the information that I already have. It provides the final piece of information that I need in order to competently explain character-creation to other new players. And most importantly to all of you, it means I won't be flooding the forums with tons of threads (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?599987) about the playability of certain races (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?599868) in the future (I've been tempted over the past few days to create a LOT more than I did, but I held back because I didn't want to be spammy). The Index will still have tiers of playability, but they'll be much better-defined and appropriately named: "explicitly playable", "explicitly unplayable", and "default-deny".

Thanks for putting up with my rambling. It's now 5 AM, good night.

[ShurikVch]

Of the six playable monstrous races in the book, only the Bariaurs, Githzerai, and Githyanki were given favored classes. The Canoloth, Spinagon, and Uridezu (found under the "Yogoloth", "Devil", and "Demon" sections) were not.Which is, by default, means "Favored Class: None."


A year after Oriental Adventures, we got the Epic Level Handbook. On level 155, it gives the usual speech about level adjustment and ECL. Then it lists over sixty monsters and gives level adjustments for absolutely none of them. Swing and a miss.It's a common misconception: the Monsters by Challenge Rating table also includes the ECL column, from which, since HD is known, calculate LA is simple - highest is +13 for Pseudonatural; lowest is Ruin Swarm with -25 (minus twenty five); and 28 out of 40 playable monsters are have LA: +0


This was also the very first time when level adjustments appeared on templates, making them usable by player characters. Previous books had included a combined total of at least twenty templates, all of which were restricted to NPCs.The first (AFAIK) case of PC-available template with LA (called "level equivalency") was Bhaalspawn in Dragon #288 with LA +2. That number was released at October of 2001 - 11 months before the Monster Manual II (Dragon was published by WotC back then). Also, in Dragon #293 (still published by WotC), the "Monsters with class" article gave ECL for the whole 3.0 Monster Manual (including templates - half-year earlier than Monster Manual II)

[Katie Boundary]

It's a common misconception: the Monsters by Challenge Rating table also includes the ECL column, from which, since HD is known, calculate LA is simple - highest is +13 for Pseudonatural; lowest is Ruin Swarm with -25 (minus twenty five); and 28 out of 40 playable monsters are have LA: +0

Holy crap, you're right! Thanks! This will be a HUGE improvement to the Index.


Dragon #288... Dragon #293

I don't count dragon mags as canon but I appreciate the effort you're putting into this :)

[Katie Boundary]

Holy crap, the monster ECLs in the Epic Level Handbook are insanely broken. In addition to all the negative level adjustments, there are two new types of True Dragon with a flat LA of +0. True Dragon level adjustments are supposed to scale with age. In its explanation of LA and ECL, it says "a winterwight 1st-level sorcerer/3rd-level rogue has an ECL of 29", but the actual entry for winterwights gives them a minimum ECL of 32, in addition to the explanation itself being wrong.

I think the authors were drunk/high.

[Psyren]

In the few days since I posted this, I've come to the conclusion that while my supporting data was correct, it was also incomplete and the conclusions that I drew from it were not an accurate presentation of how things happened. I need to take off and nuke the entire site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.

You can't delete a thread, but you could report the opening post and ask for it to be locked, or simply stop posting in it and let it fade naturally.

[ShurikVch]

Holy crap, the monster ECLs in the Epic Level Handbook are insanely broken.Did you took into account the fact most of those creatures - even with negative LA - are so high in ECL when they would take their first class level, Epic Spellcasting would be available not just for Elven Wizard of the same ECL, but for a Cleric cohort of a Dwarven Fighter of same ECL?..


In addition to all the negative level adjustments, there are two new types of True Dragon with a flat LA of +0. True Dragon level adjustments are supposed to scale with age.Note: in the Magic of Incarnum, Adult Incarnum Dragon printed as "Level Adjustment: +0" - despite the fact Juvenile Incarnum Dragon is LA +5


In its explanation of LA and ECL, it says "a winterwight 1st-level sorcerer/3rd-level rogue has an ECL of 29", but the actual entry for winterwights gives them a minimum ECL of 32, in addition to the explanation itself being wrong.

I think the authors were drunk/high.It's not the first case of such strange explanations: in the Fiend Folio, Rager Varrangoin described as "... rager varrangoin already has the abilities of a 9th-level barbarian ..."; but Rager Varrangoin have only 8 HD! (Or, even worse - Lesser Varrangoin "... has the abilities of a 9th-level fighter ...", but only 5 HD! :smallconfused:)

[Buufreak]

Sorry, this isn't facebook. Things are a bit more permanent here.

[Katie Boundary]

Did you took into account the fact most of those creatures - even with negative LA - are so high in ECL when they would take their first class level, Epic Spellcasting would be available not just for Elven Wizard of the same ECL, but for a Cleric cohort of a Dwarven Fighter of same ECL?..

I'm not sure what that has to do with anything.


Note: in the Magic of Incarnum, Adult Incarnum Dragon printed as "Level Adjustment: +0" - despite the fact Juvenile Incarnum Dragon is LA +5

I'm looking through MoI right now to figure out what happens there and I fell into a bit of a rabbit hole. What you describe is far from the most unusual thing in that book. What I find unusual is that it gives "sample" NPCs for a bunch of non-template monsters, while presenting other non-template monsters without calling them "samples". The non-template "sample" monsters all have level adjustments of +0 while the non-template non-sample monsters have level adjustments of ---, except the Totem Giant and early stages of Incarnum Dragon. If there's a method to this madness, I can't find it.


It's not the first case of such strange explanations: in the Fiend Folio, Rager Varrangoin described as "... rager varrangoin already has the abilities of a 9th-level barbarian ..."; but Rager Varrangoin have only 8 HD! (Or, even worse - Lesser Varrangoin "... has the abilities of a 9th-level fighter ...", but only 5 HD! :smallconfused:)

That's not too hard to understand: Varrangoins have the abilities of these classes without actually having levels in those classes. Think of them as "virtual levels" in a class, which are like class levels but without the hit dice, BAB, or saving throws.

[Kayblis]

I'm looking through MoI right now to figure out what happens there and I fell into a bit of a rabbit hole. What you describe is far from the most unusual thing in that book. What I find unusual is that it gives "sample" NPCs for a bunch of non-template monsters, while presenting other non-template monsters without calling them "samples". The non-template "sample" monsters all have level adjustments of +0 while the non-template non-sample monsters have level adjustments of ---, except the Totem Giant and early stages of Incarnum Dragon. If there's a method to this madness, I can't find it.


So all "sample" monsters have LA +0, while normal monsters have no LA? This means "sample" monsters are playable monsters meant to be usable by players. The "sample" tag then means the feats are not set or definitive, the skill ranks can be changed, the stats are not set stats, etc. Just like the sample Dwarf Warrior in MM has Weapon Focus(Waraxe), which is by no means a locked feature of the creature.

[Katie Boundary]

the sample Dwarf Warrior in MM has Weapon Focus(Waraxe), which is by no means a locked feature of the creature.

There is no "sample" Dwarf Warrior in the MM. The word "sample" does not appear anywhere in the MM except in reference to templates.

[Rijan_Sai]

There is no "sample" Dwarf Warrior in the MM. The word "sample" does not appear anywhere in the MM except in reference to templates.

Dwarf (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/dwarf.htm)

The table at the top is (as far as I can see) identical to the one in the Monster Manual. That would be a "sample character," unless your contention is that any such "Dwarf" character (be it PC or NPC) must be a warrior with those stats... (no, the word does not appear as such, but please don't be pedantic...)


The dwarf warrior presented here had the following ability scores before racial adjustments: Str 13, Dex 11, Con 12, Int 10, Wis 9, Cha 8.

[Katie Boundary]

Dwarf (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/dwarf.htm)

The table at the top is (as far as I can see) identical to the one in the Monster Manual. That would be a "sample character,"

No, a "sample" monster, when discussing Monster Manuals and Fiend Folios, is one explicitly identified with the word "sample". The page to which you linked does not have the word "sample" anywhere.

[Buufreak]

You're kidding, right? It is literally a table of stats that gives an example, or sample, of what the creature looks like in numbers. Are you actually trying to imply that every creature in the Monster Manual that doesn't explicitly use the word "sample" isn't a sample?

This is your classic case of "not every dictionary term needs defined in game."

[smetzger]

You seem to be of the opinion that LA is generally too low.

You may want to read through some of the LA re-assignment threads. Particularly earlier ones. You will find very good reasons why LA is generally too high.

[Kelb_Panthera]

The example incarnum dragon's LA +0 line is an error. An obvious one. A lot of the samples and examples in the books have minor errors like that. Don't overthink it.

The soulfused flesh-golem doesn't have a LA because a fesh golem doesn't have one. A null value and zero are not the same thing so the template making a construct's LA one point higher only applies if it has one in the first place, if you insist on attempting to parse the game's rules as computer code (which I strongly advise against, btw.)

Savage species has guidelines for making ad-hoc level adjustments for new creatures or old ones from before the implementation of the LA system as well as for creatures that become playable through the appllication of a template.

MM2 is from before the 3.5 changeover and has a lot of its figures way out of whack. It's not a good source for samples of anything except poor editing and questionable game design.

The Epic handbook is best ignored outright. Playing beyond level 20 is inherently broken long before the infamous epic spellcasting feat enters the fray.

__________________________________________________ ______________________

No disrespect intended, Katie, but I don't think you've developed a strong enough grasp of the game and its esoteric rules and guidelines to try and make a definitive guide for others to follow. I can't stop you, obviously, but if your intent is to help others this current incarnation of your work is fairly counterproductive. If you're just trying to get feedback on your thoughts, by all means, carry on but I hope you realize you're still a good ways off.

For example: you've explicitly contradicted the written rules in your belief that having a LA means anything other than that the creature is playable at an ECL equal to the sum of its HD, class levels (if any), and LA, at least for any 3.5 supplement.

[Katie Boundary]

You're kidding, right? It is literally a table of stats that gives an example, or sample, of what the creature looks like in numbers. Are you actually trying to imply that every creature in the Monster Manual that doesn't explicitly use the word "sample" isn't a sample?

I'm not trying to imply it. I'm explicitly saying it. "Sample " has an extremely specific and [I]template-related meaning in Monster Manuals and other splatbooks, which you can confirm for yourself by just opening up the books and noting the location of every instance of the word "sample".


You seem to be of the opinion that LA is generally too low.

You may want to read through some of the LA re-assignment threads. Particularly earlier ones. You will find very good reasons why LA is generally too high.

I think you're in the wrong thread...

[Katie Boundary]

A null value and zero are not the same thing

Yes, I'm quite aware of that, and in fact my problems with the Incarnum dragon specifically depend on assuming that LA +0 and LA ---- are not the same thing.


Savage species has guidelines for making ad-hoc

ad-hoc = homebrew = not RAW.


MM2 is from before the 3.5 changeover and has a lot of its figures way out of whack.

MM2? Are you even in the right thread?


The Epic handbook is best ignored outright.

Agreed...


For example: you've explicitly contradicted the written rules in your belief that having a LA means anything other than that the creature is playable at an ECL equal to the sum of its HD, class levels (if any), and LA, at least for any 3.5 supplement.

Wrong. I never said that, and am fond of pointing out in another thread that I explicitly do not believe that.

[Psyren]

Are you even in the right thread?


With all the title changes I'm not sure anymore.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Yes, I'm quite aware of that, and in fact my problems with the Incarnum dragon specifically depend on assuming that LA +0 and LA ---- are not the same thing.

As I said, the sample dragon's LA is an error and an obvious one. It contradicts the main entry for the creature which explicitly states that incarnum dragons older than juvenile have LA - and, thus, are unsuitable to non-epic play.

[quote]ad-hoc = homebrew = not RAW.

A specific method is given. That outline is RAW and using it to derive a suitable LA for a creature is -not- homebrew. It's a specific ruling in the presence of deliberately vague RAW guidelines.

There is a -world- of difference between homebrew and making rulings based on vague RAW.


MM2? Are you even in the right thread?

The Ixi-whatsit appears in a number of sources. MM2 is one of them. Now that you mention it, I suppose you were refering to the FF incarnation. In any case they're a creature of above average human level intellect that advances by character class. It's far from an ideal PC race but it has a LA so it's playable. It obviously stops being so very quickly if the campaign isn't a seafaring one and it lacks the ability to take a more suitable form from its class levels.


Agreed...

Yeah... Don't know what they were smoking that month.


Wrong. I never said that, and am fond of pointing out in another thread that I explicitly do not believe that.

Are you kidding? Your entire thesis is that having a listed LA isn't enough to be playable by the default rules and guidelines. You believe that it means what I've said "if <something else>." It's doesn't. It means -exactly- what I've said; nothing more and, particularly for this discussion, nothing less.

[Katie Boundary]

The Ixi-whatsit appears in a number of sources. MM2 is one of them. Now that you mention it, I suppose you were refering to the FF incarnation.

I just checked the FF. It's not in there.


Are you kidding? Your entire thesis is that having a listed LA isn't enough to be playable by the default rules and guidelines.

Sorry, I thought you were misunderstanding one thing that I said. It turns out you were misunderstanding a completely different thing that I said.

Yes, having a listed LA isn't enough to be playable by the default rules. Citation: 3.5e DMG, page 171, sidebar: "Variant: no sidebars for variant rules"


In contrast to the way the rest of the Dungeon Master’s Guide is structured, this chapter is composed of alternative rules, concepts, and ways of doing things. So, in this chapter, you won’t find variant rules set off in sidebars—the variant rules are actually the meat of the chapter.

[Kelb_Panthera]

I just checked the FF. It's not in there.

Wait, you -did- say the MM2 version. It may not have been FF but I -know- it was listed elsewhere. Doesn't matter.


Sorry, I thought you were misunderstanding one thing that I said. It turns out you were misunderstanding a completely different thing that I said.

Yes, having a listed LA isn't enough to be playable by the default rules. Citation: 3.5e DMG, page 171, sidebar: "Variant: no sidebars for variant rules"

The sidebar says that the meat of the chapter is alternative rules but you don't make a sandwich with just meat. The bread and cheese are the "concepts and ways of doing things" the sidebar's introductory sentence mentions.

It also outlines how the designers went about making the decisions they did, how you might make your own decisions in line with that to avoid breaking the game, and how world building might include restricting other options by race or the racial options themselves.

Are you seriously going to sit there and argue that prestige classes, that appear in virtually every non-core book, are also supposedly not a default assumption?

[Katie Boundary]

Are you seriously going to sit there and argue that prestige classes, that appear in virtually every non-core book, are also supposedly not a default assumption?

Well, I certainly could. Or, I could let the 3.5e DMG, page 176, do the talking:

"Prestige classes are purely optional and always under the purview of the DM. We encourage you, as the DM, to tightly limit the prestige classes available in your campaign."

The biggest difference between prestige classes and Macguyvering an NPC race to work as a PC race is that the Prestige classes are all finished and work out of the box.

[Flame of Anor]

Well, I certainly could. Or, I could let the 3.5e DMG, page 176, do the talking:

Does the DMG also say that it's alright to treat the official content in Dragon magazine as non-canon? :smallconfused:

[Psyren]

Does the DMG also say that it's alright to treat the official content in Dragon magazine as non-canon? :smallconfused:

Not defending Katie here, but licensed or not, Dragon Magazine is third-party (in 3e anyway, I think that changed in 4e.)

[ShurikVch]

Not defending Katie here, but licensed or not, Dragon Magazine is third-party (in 3e anyway, I think that changed in 4e.)Not entirely: issues from 274 to 298 were published by WotC, and ## 360 and 363 still have some 3.5 stuff in them