I'd like to do a monsters-as-PCs book.

But, like Savage Species (which I worked on), it should be a whole book, not a half-page, one-page, five-page, or even ten-page section in some other book. Sure, you can cover 90% of the monsters with a simple formula, but the remaining 10% are weird enough that the formula is just wrong. It's like classical mechanics, which works to explain most of the world we see, but sometimes you need to use quantium mechanics to explain in detail what's really going on.

Sean K Reynolds wrote:

I'd like to do a monsters-as-PCs book.

But, like Savage Species (which I worked on), it should be a whole book, not a half-page, one-page, five-page, or even ten-page section in some other book. Sure, you can cover 90% of the monsters with a simple formula, but the remaining 10% are weird enough that the formula is just wrong. It's like classical mechanics, which works to explain most of the world we see, but sometimes you need to use quantium mechanics to explain in detail what's really going on.

I would love a savage species book myself. If nothing else, it puts juice in NPCs too

The only thing that has changed, is that the starting point has been changed for one or more of the teams, but not another. While this may change the power balance between the teams, it's not really a change in a design principle. In fact, it only really changes the power balance if you're looking at them to do the same thing, which James' posts have made abundantly clear is not their primary role.

The repercussions of this are annoying. If I want to run Eberron, where orc and goblin PCs are completely in flavor, then I either have PC orc/goblins with different stats from NPCs (ruining 3e transparency), or I have to rebalance orc/goblin NPC CRs when I want a squad of mooks (annoying and also obnoxious if someone wants to run my Eberron module in a non-Eberron game), or orc/goblin PCs are significantly underpowered.

If I'm a publisher considering using PF instead of 3.5, Paizo has just told me "Well, I know 3.5 let orc/goblin/kobald/whatever PCs work transparently, but PF doesn't because we didn't think it was important to keep compatibility with 3.5 in that way or we didn't consider the full impact of our changes. It's not important to us because in our published setting, they're just monsters. Sorry." It's just another conversion annoyance.

+1. And, if/when Paizo does a monster PCs book, I hope Sean gets to do it. 8^)

I would not look forward to a monsters-as-PCs book from either.

I kind of like humanoid races being a bit weaker than PC races in general - it gives options for playing something that's a bit more of a challenge. That being said, I hardly think they will be "hopelessly weaker" by any stretch. E.g. an orc fighter-type or a goblin rogue are going to be quite effective alongside their companions. After gaining a few levels, the stat discrepancy will matter less and less. The one that really would be the most challenging is the kobold, but even these guys can be turned into effective PCs if you are creative.

DMs that want any of these races as more evenly-powered player choices might want to come up with an elite version of the race along the lines of the noble drow. I wouldn't want any of this cluttering-up the Bestiary, though.

Arazyr wrote:

The only thing that has changed, is that the starting point has been changed for one or more of the teams, but not another. While this may change the power balance between the teams, it's not really a change in a design principle. In fact, it only really changes the power balance if you're looking at them to do the same thing, which James' posts have made abundantly clear is not their primary role.

By disrupting the power balance between the teams, a degree of the transparency has been lost. Meepo could join the Sunless Citadel party because he was about on par with the PCs. Now, to try and have Meepo join the PCs, you run into the problem that he's hopelessly weak due to his race. (He's -6 stat points behind the PCs, on top of having few to no racial features.)

However, I think you're over-estimating the level of balance between the teams, even in 3.5. Kobolds, to use your example, have always been behind the curve in comparison to PCs. In 3.5, they were 4 stat points behind most PCs, on top of having few to no racial features. WotC even all but admitted that kobolds were underpowered as PC races in the Races of the Dragon Web Enhancement. If just by giving them some enhancements to bring them "on par". (I'd also say that this is a very good example of how to handle these monster PCs now; give them a bit of a boost if you want them to be on the same level as PCs.)

As for 3rd-party publishers wanting to use Pathfinder for monster races, I'd say this is actually a great opportunity, rather than a problem. If they don't want to wait for a "monsters-as-races" book from Paizo for the Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, they can always come up with their own rules for it...

Arazyr wrote:

+1. And, if/when Paizo does a monster PCs book, I hope Sean gets to do it. 8^)

With respect to Mr. Reynolds and Paizo both, Savage Species was a confused, unbalanced mess and was rightly panned, and Paizo punted on making even non-PHB-humanoid races work in a reasonable and balanced way.

I'd like to do a monsters-as-PCs book.

But, like Savage Species (which I worked on), it should be a whole book, not a half-page, one-page, five-page, or even ten-page section in some other book.

It seems to me that people are looking to the Bestiary do to things it wasn't designed to do. It's a monster book for the DM, pure and simple. Same as the Monster Manual's of previous D&D Editions, and, prior to 3E they didn't have Monster PC rules.

One of my favorite 2E books was The Complete Guide to Humanoids, but it didn't arrive until nearly halfway in that editions lifecycle.

Make no mistake: I WANT to see Monster PCs. The name I post under is my long running Lizardfolk mage, after all. All I'm saying is, and what James said above, is that time is not yet not. Patience is a virtue, after all.

In my experience as a GM of all 8-9 years of 3rd/3.5 edition and Pathfinder since then; the "monster PC's" are ALMOST ALWAYS the preference for power-gaming players who are looking to get an 'edge'. During the times I've been a player in 3.0/3.5 as opposed to a GM, I've played "normal, standard book characters" and found them satisfactory: one, for the tradition & simplicity of the game; and secondly, the game is built around the basic types of character races. If I as a player or a GM want to have a fair and reasonable expectation of what a fair and reasonable challenge is for my 5th level character, then I can get that with the system in place. If I'm playing a monster with reduced levels, I am often either too underprepared, or (more frequently) overpowered because of the Special Abilities and resistances/qualities that my character produces. I agree with Jacobs (not a sycophant either) that the basic game should be tailored to the basics. I dont' want Dragon PCs straight out of the gate, if ever, in the game. There's just no need for them. Sadly, these over-the-top PCs are becoming the preferred norm for the munchkins and powergamers.

Casters are the powerhouses of the game, both in 3.5 and in PF. It is practically impossible to get a race that would be enhanced to help casting and still be on par with a full core race caster. No race in 3.5 had a mental stat boost and was a LA +0 race, none (that I am aware of). All others had racial HD and/or LA that put them significantly behind other casters. If you think a person wanting to play a monster race is doing it because they are a munchkin or powergamer, then you don't have very good munchkin or powergamer players. There was a reason why human was the top of the line for the Optimization boards.

It seems to me that people are looking to the Bestiary do to things it wasn't designed to do. It's a monster book for the DM, pure and simple. Same as the Monster Manual's of previous D&D Editions, and, prior to 3E they didn't have Monster PC rules.

One of my favorite 2E books was The Complete Guide to Humanoids, but it didn't arrive until nearly halfway in that editions lifecycle.

Make no mistake: I WANT to see Monster PCs. The name I post under is my long running Lizardfolk mage, after all. All I'm saying is, and what James said above, is that time is not yet not. Patience is a virtue, after all.

If you think a person wanting to play a monster race is doing it because they are a munchkin or powergamer, then you don't have very good munchkin or powergamer players. There was a reason why human was the top of the line for the Optimization boards.

pres man wrote:

If you think a person wanting to play a monster race is doing it because they are a munchkin or powergamer, then you don't have very good munchkin or powergamer players. There was a reason why human was the top of the line for the Optimization boards.

Just to point out an exception, anyone not wanting to play a caster would go for the race with the biggest Str boost they could get, and break out the two-handed weapons. What was it, lion-totem barabarian Frenzied Berserker? Even just a half-orc barbarian stands out without really trying. Not saying much compared to other melee types, of course.

I know it's presumptuous, but can I please request something along the lines of rules for half-breeds when you work on it? Something that would work for creating human/elf hybrids (IE: Replicating Half-Elf) and yet also work for elf/orc hybrids (rather than considering half-elves either human/elf or orc/elf, which never made sense to me).

I honestly think (and even worked on it some at one point) that a 'point buy' system where stat bonus's cost a certain amount, and racial perks (darkvision, bonuses to skills, etc) as well. A fixed amount to be spent on each to ensure balance. Either that or templates (although templates would be much more difficult).

Pres man, get your Bestiary and flip to page 268.

Anyways, +1 to the person who said this was meant to be a bestiary for DMs. The bestiary isn't a race book for players to choose from. Maybe that was the case in 3.0 and 3.5, but we're taking it back. We're taking it all back.

Richard Pett will not be happy, his Celestial Gas Spore Ranger/Paladin/Duelists are undone !

Anyway, +1 for MM being a monster book for DMs.

Somehow I completely and utterly fail to see the point...
As much as I'd like to finally be able to play my Ooze Paladin, or a Gelatinous Cube Rogue for that matter, what is the matter with all this savage species hype?
Rules are rules, but they are not set in stone. If you don't like it, change it.
Pathfinder as opposed to 3.5e is imo a very good attempt at a roleplaying game. I stress that because I think this point gets lost in most discussions.
Why would I want to play a monster PC? Because I have an idea of what I want to play, an Orc escaped from slavery, an outcast Hobgoblin, or a deranged Kobold on a mission. Why then does anyone feel held back by sheer numbers? That reeks of the wish to minmax after all...
This is a BEASTIARY, not a PC-race book (seems this point cannot be overstressed).
Many monstrous humanoids are closely related to evil deities, I don't see the incentive to play one.
If you want to play a monstrous humanoid, the rules are there. If you don't like them, improve them to your needs. I cannot find fault with PF in that respect.

James Jacobs wrote:

I'm not buying this. Enhancing the core races makes playing things like the previously +1 ECL races EASIER, since the core races are no longer that much less powerful than those races. And if you're trying to tell me that 3.5 had a workable and elegant system for playing any monstrous race... you've obviously never seen someone play a pixie sorcerer in a campaign of humanoids. It's sick.

That's not nice for pixies ;)

But that's true.
As much low LA monsters are easy to play as characters, the ones with high LA can be a real headache, being too powerful as a race and too weak without a class at the same time.
So indeed, a small buff to core races cancels the discrepancy with LA+1 races, therefore making them LA+0, on par with the core ones.

In some ways the human now is the spiked chain of they races. Good in specific builds, but in general weaker than others.

Except for the human, IMHO, as they got nothing, and lost their unique favored class ability. At the very least they stayed the same in power, but in comparison to the other races they are far weaker.

Captain Sir Hexen Ineptus wrote:

Except for the human, IMHO, as they got nothing, and lost their unique favored class ability. At the very least they stayed the same in power, but in comparison to the other races they are far weaker.

Having one feat more than everybody else is still making humans stronger than all other races IMHO.

Of course, everyone in PF gets more feats, which lessens the importance of that bonus feat.

All the other races get multiple feat equivalent abilities, just not of choice. The half-elf gets skill focus.

Captain Sir Hexen Ineptus wrote:

All the other races get multiple feat equivalent abilities, just not of choice. The half-elf gets skill focus.

This is what can go wrong with a point-buy race system. People will think a bunch of little things = one big thing. Not true. A bunch of little things = a bunch of little things. One big thing = one big thing. It's a rule of game design that is hard to learn, but DMs who have houserules learn it pretty quick.

Well that is my 2 cent.

If you agree, humans need something.

Disagree with boosting humans more. They are the baseline for races in general. I am fine with their +2 to ability fo their choice, Bonus Feat, and Skilled.

Adding more things to the race is something that could very easily get out of hand.

-Weylin

Captain Sir Hexen Ineptus wrote:

All the other races get multiple feat equivalent abilities, just not of choice. The half-elf gets skill focus.

This is what can go wrong with a point-buy race system. People will think a bunch of little things = one big thing. Not true. A bunch of little things = a bunch of little things. One big thing = one big thing. It's a rule of game design that is hard to learn, but DMs who have houserules learn it pretty quick.

Statistics : Your race should have +2 overall. Choose one mental and one physical stat for a +2 each, choose one stat for a -2. Beyond that, you may choose additional +2's to stats by counterbalancing them with -2's.

Racial Abilities : Your race should have no more than 10 points worth of racial abilities as selected from below.

+2 racial bonus to one skill : 1 pt
Small Size : -1 point
Medium Size : 0 points
Large Size : 2 points
+2 to a single stat : 4 points
Darkvision : 2 points
Low-Light : 1 point
+5 Inches Movement : 1 point
Natural Attack (claws) : 4 points
Natural Attack (Slam) : 4 points
Natural Armor +1 : 2 points

and etc. So, your base stats for the race are supposed to be balanced, but you can give up racial features for slightly unbalanced stats. Now, I didn't test any of the above, but you can at least see what I'm talking about. I'm not suggesting put every last ability in the Bestiary into the fray, just a list of small racial abilities with rules to use them. Basically a way for a GM to pop out a race for a new campaign and confirm it's balanced. If you can't make the core races and have them end up being within a point or two of each other that way then it's not done correctly.

Allen Stewart wrote:

In my experience as a GM of all 8-9 years of 3rd/3.5 edition and Pathfinder since then; the "monster PC's" are ALMOST ALWAYS the preference for power-gaming players who are looking to get an 'edge'. During the times I've been a player in 3.0/3.5 as opposed to a GM, I've played "normal, standard book characters" and found them satisfactory: one, for the tradition & simplicity of the game; and secondly, the game is built around the basic types of character races. If I as a player or a GM want to have a fair and reasonable expectation of what a fair and reasonable challenge is for my 5th level character, then I can get that with the system in place. If I'm playing a monster with reduced levels, I am often either too underprepared, or (more frequently) overpowered because of the Special Abilities and resistances/qualities that my character produces. I agree with Jacobs (not a sycophant either) that the basic game should be tailored to the basics. I dont' want Dragon PCs straight out of the gate, if ever, in the game. There's just no need for them. Sadly, these over-the-top PCs are becoming the preferred norm for the munchkins and powergamers.

I am really trying to hold back the natural amount of snark that would develop from reading a post like this, really.

Casters are the powerhouses of the game, both in 3.5 and in PF. It is practically impossible to get a race that would be enhanced to help casting and still be on par with a full core race caster. No race in 3.5 had a mental stat boost and was a LA +0 race, none (that I am aware of). All others had racial HD and/or LA that put them significantly behind other casters. If you think a person wanting to play a monster race is doing it because they are a munchkin or powergamer, then you don't have very good munchkin or powergamer players. There was a reason why human was the top of the line for the Optimization boards.

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/elf.htm#grayElf

pres man wrote:

Allen Stewart wrote:

In my experience as a GM of all 8-9 years of 3rd/3.5 edition and Pathfinder since then; the "monster PC's" are ALMOST ALWAYS the preference for power-gaming players who are looking to get an 'edge'. During the times I've been a player in 3.0/3.5 as opposed to a GM, I've played "normal, standard book characters" and found them satisfactory: one, for the tradition & simplicity of the game; and secondly, the game is built around the basic types of character races. If I as a player or a GM want to have a fair and reasonable expectation of what a fair and reasonable challenge is for my 5th level character, then I can get that with the system in place. If I'm playing a monster with reduced levels, I am often either too underprepared, or (more frequently) overpowered because of the Special Abilities and resistances/qualities that my character produces. I agree with Jacobs (not a sycophant either) that the basic game should be tailored to the basics. I dont' want Dragon PCs straight out of the gate, if ever, in the game. There's just no need for them. Sadly, these over-the-top PCs are becoming the preferred norm for the munchkins and powergamers.

I am really trying to hold back the natural amount of snark that would develop from reading a post like this, really.

Casters are the powerhouses of the game, both in 3.5 and in PF. It is practically impossible to get a race that would be enhanced to help casting and still be on par with a full core race caster. No race in 3.5 had a mental stat boost and was a LA +0 race, none (that I am aware of). All others had racial HD and/or LA that put them significantly behind other casters. If you think a person wanting to play a monster race is doing it because they are a munchkin or powergamer, then you don't have very good munchkin or powergamer players. There was a reason why human was the top of the line for the Optimization boards.

Gray Elf: +2 Intelligence, -2 Strength on top of the usual Elf...

and etc. So, your base stats for the race are supposed to be balanced, but you can give up racial features for slightly unbalanced stats. Now, I didn't test any of the above, but you can at least see what I'm talking about. I'm not suggesting put every last ability in the Bestiary into the fray, just a list of small racial abilities with rules to use them. Basically a way for a GM to pop out a race for a new campaign and confirm it's balanced. If you can't make the core races and have them end up being within a point or two of each other that way then it's not done correctly.

With respect to Mr. Reynolds and Paizo both, Savage Species was a confused, unbalanced mess and was rightly panned,

The Drow look pretty balanced from my first glance. The base-line Drow has been reduced slightly in power (SR is now 6 + level instead of 11), but there's a "Noble" drow variant that goes up in power considerably, with no change in CR. My guess is that the "Noble Drow" are meant to be strictly NPCs. I certainly wouldn't allow a player to play one in my campaign without some serious penalties.

The humans are powerful enough. I wouldn't want them any stronger.

The way things are now, I occasionally see non-human characters. I think that's great.

A core design principle of 3e has been abandoned in part, and it's causing this confusion and disagreement.

One of the core design principles of 3e is that Team Monster, Team NPC, and Team PC work the same way

And they didn't work the same. There are a lot of similarities, sure, but there are still differences:

NPCs get less cash than PCs, and often a less powerful ability generation method. Monsters didn't really get cash, they just got treasure.

The way you gauge the power level for a PC is different from the way you gauge the power level for everything else, too.

to attempting to make all monsters playable

to making monster creation work like PC creation.

One consequence of this core design principle is that you could play a goblin, kobald, or orc and do just about as well as playing a human or elf.

Are they at the same power level, mechanically? No. But that can be evened out with a bit of work (and stuff like that tends to be fluid, anyway). Nothing has changed here.

And the flavour part of this, the part where an orc is much harder to play because they're universally hated, is still there as much or as little as before, because that is a setting thing, not a rules thing.

I don't see much reason for keeping them inherently even. It doesn't give enough to the game to be better than the alternative.

The alternative, of course, is to have critters of many different power levels, even the power level "significantly weaker than even your average 1st-level character, so you can use them in mobs from the beginning".

I think the benefits far outweigh the drawbacks.

After all, you could just say "give orcs +2 wis instead of -2 and all's well". Don't underestimate their ferocity.

The DROW is 1/3 CR and the DROW Noble is 3 CR. I allow one in my game but I broke the Drow Noble's powers in to 3 parts and created Prestige Class that has few pre-requisites.

The specific CRs we get are because the commoner is a warrior 1 (level 1 -1 for drow -1 for npc, and instead of -2, that becomes 1/3), while the noble is a cleric 3 (level because it's a noble drow with PC class levels, so you stick to 3).

The drow is on par with the standard races (human, elf etc.), while the drow noble is more powerful and you should probably downscale them bit, or upscale everyone else.

Anyway, +1 for MM being a monster book for DMs.

... And if you're trying to tell me that 3.5 had a workable and elegant system for playing any monstrous race... you've obviously never seen someone play a pixie sorcerer in a campaign of humanoids. It's sick.

(It didn't help that the player liked loading up on pixie stix in order to 'get into character' either. My head hurts just remembering the carnage.)

A Man In Black wrote:

With respect to Mr. Reynolds and Paizo both, Savage Species was a confused, unbalanced mess and was rightly panned,

Not the monster classes appendix, which is the part I wrote. ;)

I don't think that it works really well with creatures that have a higher LA than they have HD though. Makes them too much of a glass cannon, especially at low level.

In my opinion, something more akin to the Bloodlines from UA would work better for those creatures: slowly gaining racial abilities as they level up in a PC class.

Sean K Reynolds wrote:

A Man In Black wrote:

With respect to Mr. Reynolds and Paizo both, Savage Species was a confused, unbalanced mess and was rightly panned,

Not the monster classes appendix, which is the part I wrote. ;)

That was my favorite part of the book! </brown-nosing>

I don't think that it works really well with creatures that have a higher LA than they have HD though. Makes them too much of a glass cannon, especially at low level.

In my opinion, something more akin to the Bloodlines from UA would work better for those creatures: slowly gaining racial abilities as they level up in a PC class.

The DROW is 1/3 CR and the DROW Noble is 3 CR.

As for the other posters Pixie problems in 3.5, what were the problems exactly? I've seen the Pixie played in more than a couple games (3 I can think of in the last year) and I wouldn't call it a problem in either direction (under power or over powered.)

+1 for the "I'd love to buy a new Savage Species book" camp.

voska66 wrote:

The DROW is 1/3 CR and the DROW Noble is 3 CR.

Actually as per Bestiary p313, they are Drow +0 CR and Drow Noble +1 CR.

As for the other posters Pixie problems in 3.5, what were the problems exactly? I've seen the Pixie played in more than a couple games (3 I can think of in the last year) and I wouldn't call it a problem in either direction (under power or over powered.)

+1 for the "I'd love to buy a new Savage Species book" camp.

voska66 wrote:

As for the other posters Pixie problems in 3.5, what were the problems exactly? I've seen the Pixie played in more than a couple games (3 I can think of in the last year) and I wouldn't call it a problem in either direction (under power or over powered.)

+1 for the "I'd love to buy a new Savage Species book" camp.

The problem came with a combination of Irresistable Dance, one level of sorcerer (to get a bat familiar), max ranks in Perform (Ventriloquism), 5 levels of Rogue, the Pixie's Greater Invisibility, and a player who decided they were bored.

My level 5 sorcerer got reincarnated as a pixie once. Epic.

I don't have the Beastery yet but can't wait to get it. I don't mind it not having 'Monsterous PC' rules beyond the advice.Though I do like playing some MPCs like Drow , Genesai & Tieflings. If I want to play them I'll use the FR setting & the rules published in the FR supplements. If I want to play monsterous races such as Orcs , Hobgoblins n' such I'll play in Eberron setting. If I play in Golarion (sp?) I'll play standard races or Tieflings , using the rules in PF adventure path player's guide that includes them.

Would I like to see a Monsterous PC book ? Sure but I'm not biting at the bit for it.I didn't like the Savage species book , just to confusing.If as a DM & a player wants to play a monsterous race, i'd 1) decide whether it'd work in the given setting I'm using at the time . 2) If not, deny the request or 3) If it would work, come up with rules so he could play it & it wouldn't break the game.

Question: Does the Beastery have stats for Genesai ?

I don't have the Beastery yet but can't wait to get it. I don't mind it not having 'Monsterous PC' rules beyond the advice.Though I do like playing some MPCs like Drow , Genesai & Tieflings. If I want to play them I'll use the FR setting & the rules published in the FR supplements. If I want to play monsterous races such as Orcs , Hobgoblins n' such I'll play in Eberron setting. If I play in Golarion (sp?) I'll play standard races or Tieflings , using the rules in PF adventure path player's guide that includes them.

Would I like to see a Monsterous PC book ? Sure but I'm not biting at the bit for it.I didn't like the Savage species book , just to confusing.If as a DM & a player wants to play a monsterous race, i'd 1) decide whether it'd work in the given setting I'm using at the time . 2) If not, deny the request or 3) If it would work, come up with rules so he could play it & it wouldn't break the game.

Question: Does the Beastery have stats for Genesai ?

I don't have the Beastery yet but can't wait to get it. I don't mind it not having 'Monsterous PC' rules beyond the advice.Though I do like playing some MPCs like Drow , Genesai & Tieflings. If I want to play them I'll use the FR setting & the rules published in the FR supplements. If I want to play monsterous races such as Orcs , Hobgoblins n' such I'll play in Eberron setting. If I play in Golarion (sp?) I'll play standard races or Tieflings , using the rules in PF adventure path player's guide that includes them.

Would I like to see a Monsterous PC book ? Sure but I'm not biting at the bit for it.I didn't like the Savage species book , just to confusing.If as a DM & a player wants to play a monsterous race, i'd 1) decide whether it'd work in the given setting I'm using at the time . 2) If not, deny the request or 3) If it would work, come up with rules so he could play it & it wouldn't break the game.

Lucifer Draconus II wrote:

Would I like to see a Monsterous PC book ? Sure but I'm not biting at the bit for it.I didn't like the Savage species book , just to confusing.If as a DM & a player wants to play a monsterous race, i'd 1) decide whether it'd work in the given setting I'm using at the time . 2) If not, deny the request or 3) If it would work, come up with rules so he could play it & it wouldn't break the game.

I'd like to see a monstrous PC adventure path!

I might actually buy that one.

Folks,

I can virtually assure you that we will get to a monsters as PCs book. Yes, these rules were available in the core system, but you either had to use the utterly broken LA system or the designed-before-its-time Savage Species rules, both of which sucked.

Rather than put a secondary rules subsystem at the heart of our monster book, we decided to leave the monster book a monster book and wait for monsters as PCs until we can give it the attention it deserves.

I can understand why some folks are disappointed with that, but then some folks want psionics and epic level rules immediately, and we are only just getting started developing the core rules.

Stick around a while. We will get to the corner cases and oddball stuff eventually.

Absalom was not built in a day, is what I'm trying to say.

Folks,

I can virtually assure you that we will get to a monsters as PCs book. Yes, these rules were available in the core system, but you either had to use the utterly broken LA system or the designed-before-its-time Savage Species rules, both of which sucked.

Rather than put a secondary rules subsystem at the heart of our monster book, we decided to leave the monster book a monster book and wait for monsters as PCs until we can give it the attention it deserves.

I can understand why some folks are disappointed with that, but then some folks want psionics and epic level rules immediately, and we are only just getting started developing the core rules.

Stick around a while. We will get to the corner cases and oddball stuff eventually.

I'm all for Paizo taking their time and getting it right, it just seemed for a day or two there like there was open hostility to doing such a book, which was highly disappointing to say the least. This post makes me feel much better! Thanks!

I'm all for Paizo taking their time and getting it right, it just seemed for a day or two there like there was open hostility to doing such a book, which was highly disappointing to say the least. This post makes me feel much better! Thanks!

And in the hopes of managing expectations... it will probably be more than a couple years before we get to this topic. If things change and we get to it by 2012, then that's cool... but we're not yet committing to an actual release date for this (or any other often-requested rules expansion) quite yet. Note that, as Erik says, that's not the same as saying never.

Folks,
I can virtually assure you that we will get to a monsters as PCs book. Yes, these rules were available in the core system, but you either had to use the utterly broken LA system or the designed-before-its-time Savage Species rules, both of which sucked.

Erik Mona wrote:

Folks,
I can virtually assure you that we will get to a monsters as PCs book. Yes, these rules were available in the core system, but you either had to use the utterly broken LA system or the designed-before-its-time Savage Species rules, both of which sucked.

Neither the LA system nor Savage Species "sucked".
Maybe they are not perfect, but they are not that bad.

EDIT: If the problem is that race X is a class-jaw and race Y is over-powered, that would seem to be indication that some adjustments need to be made for those races (the ECL needs to be reduced for race X and increased for race Y), not necessarily a need to toss the system out.