Questions about Savage Species

[Condé]

Strangely enough, in Savage Species, the Phasm is referenced page 4, 21, 208 and 211... But its Monster Class is nowhere to be found.
Same for the Quasit, page 20, 206 and 210.

I know the rules are terrible. I posted a thread about Monster Classes and still not satisfied by it... I wonder what could the phasm should have been? I mean it has 15HD so I believe it would only have 5LA. Which is not bad compared to some other in the same book.... But I already digress.

I have some questions...


Has anyone ever done a Monster Class for the Phasm?
Is there updated, not monster class, but RULES TO MAKE THEM, or is Savage Species the only book with them?

And the last one, I did not find any answer anywhere. I suppose there is no definitive answer and is probably table specific but you can never be 100% sure, right?

If you try to follow the rules at 100% and apply them in order to create a new Monster Class... Not trying to rebalance things, to be more fair or anything. Would it be still considered homebrew? I believe yes... But I really want someone to say no to me. (And without having to lie)
And if yes, why?

(I lied that was not the last one) I know some Monsters have been updated to 3.5 and the Monster Classes from Savage Species are not... So... Is there some monster that got "better"? Like... I don't know, reduced LA or something?


I really suppose it is table specific but at my table the rule is "You have more than enough to make what you want with 1st party stuff". But... BUT. I'm not satisfied by the monster classes. At all.

I know there is at least one or more big threads homebrewing monsters, made by people who know the rules better than most of the designers at the time (And because they had like 20 years to do so while back then they probably didn't.) But for what I know they are homebrewed to make them more playable... But I don't want to do that. I want to stick to the rules 100% because we don't like fun at my table.
We like rules.

TL;DR: Still want to play a monster. They all are mostly not good. I'm sad. Trying to find a way to make them following the rules AND not homebrewing (Technically you are following the rules by making a Monster Class from Savage Species, right?) or please someone convince me there is a good one somewhere.
(Big + if possible to start from level 1 and not from a web enhancement...)

Thanks!

[pabelfly]

3. If you try to follow the rules at 100% and apply them in order to create a new Monster Class... Not trying to rebalance things, to be more fair or anything. Would it be still considered homebrew? I believe yes... But I really want someone to say no to me. (And without having to lie)
And if yes, why?

I'll take a paragraph from Chapter 3 of Savage Species, "Monster Classes":

"Rather than rework all the monsters in the Monster Manual that could make good characters in this way, this chapter presents one example to illustrate the technique. Dozens more appear in Appendix 1: Sample Monster Classes. Each example discusses the reasoning behind the decisions made about how that monster advances. Players and DMs, working together, can use these rules and that reasoning to develop other monster kinds as classes for their campaigns."

There's homebrew and there's homebrew. I can't see a monster progression for Phasm, but Savage Species itself is telling you that you can, with your DM, develop your own monster progression for it, and gives you a bunch of examples to use to help create your own, and Phasm seems like a great candidate for it.

[Condé]

As I go deeper in the rules, I can see exactly why people wanted to make better rules for creating playable monsters.

Grimalkin, from MM2. It is a cat-like sentient magical beast (I believe, because in the book it is still a shapechanger and this type no longer exist) who can turn into a small or medium Animal or Vermin at-will. Which is dope. But not ground breaking.

If we follow the rules as written, its LA should be +3. It comes with 4 HD so you have a nice little ECL7 package... For what?

Let's see...


Unbalanced Ability Scores: Table 2–7: Ability Score Equivalencies in the DUNGEON MASTER’s Guide shows how to balance ability scores. A monster that does not follow those rules gains at least a +1 level adjustment. A higher level adjustment is appropriate if the monster’s ability score bonuses (especially Strength or Constitution modifiers) are particularly high. Not having a Constitution score is actually a benefit, since a monster without one can ignore most effects that require Fortitude saves

Grimalkin racial ability modifiers are: -2 FOR , +2 DEX, -2 INT, +2 WIS, +2CHA. So a net +2... "Unbalanced Ability Score" so... +1... Just for a +2. Yeah.


Natural Armor Bonus: A natural armor bonus is worth at least a +1 level adjustment, plus an additional +1 for every 5 points of natural armor bonus beyond the first 5.

Hurray, a free +1 to your LA because of that very powerful +1 to your Natural Armor. I really like the AT LEAST. Imagine having 2 points of Natural Armor. Disgusting.


Natural Weapons: If a monster gains multiple attacks ina single round before a fighter of equal Hit Dice would do the same, or if the monster’s natural weapons deal more damage than a simple or martial weapon it could wield in one hand, the monster gains a +1 level adjustment.

This one kinda feel arbitrary... I mean, more than the last one. Natural weapons and Simple/martial are not comparable because of their damage but because of how you use them. (Mostly because of iteratives attacks)



Funny enough, I just picked a monster because I liked its ability and it happens to be the worst case of why this system is not approriate. The only thing really worth a LA (+1 or even +2) is its ability to use Alternate Form at will. (Polymorph became Alternate form via the errata)
But +1 LA for 1 NA and 1 more for three Natural attacks you are probably never going to use and are probably near-to-useless even if you have 3 of them and they are not totally garbage?

Maybe the Natural attacks are not that bad. But it feels out of place for a creature that is going to almost never been in its original form.

For instance, this kind of system encourage people to look for races with at least 3 but no more than 5 Natural Armor points. Because your LA does not improve between 1 and 5. And... If you have only 1 point of NA, you feel cheated because you will have a huge penalty for basically no return. A singular point of natural armor is never going to make a difference. Maybe at first level. No more.

So yeah, sure, now I start to understand why these races are not considered "good".

(I'm probably not adding anything to the debate but we never now, maybe some people are going to discover these rules with me and how they don't work.)