Does anyone else have issues with some of the articles that have taken different types of creature and presented them as classes? This isn't a recent thing, but perusing some of my old issues of Dragon I did notice several times (most notably with dragons and celestials) that there's been this trend of trying to construct races like classes with saves and BAB and special abilities based on levels. Libris Mortis does a similar thing with undead creatures.
Now I can see the idea that with creatures of massive power scale you would want some mechanical way of scaling them down a bit. That's fine. Even having an entry like the MM has for dragons is cool, where as they pass through age categories they change over time--but leveling up in a race? I mean especially in the case of things like dragons and celestials (and undead too, now that I think about it) are nearly immortal with vast lifespans but if they evolve according to level then I guess the idea is that they spend all of eternity on one end as a weak "level one" creature, then when you play them they what, grow really fast until they hit "level 20" and then stay that way for the rest of eternity? Plus it amuzes me to think of a multiclassed creature with levels in copper dragon who decides to be a silver for a level or two--yeah I know, but you get the idea--why have them as classes if you can't use them like classes?
I mean it would be interesting maybe to do a campaign where characters could take on characteristics of other kinds of creatures, taking levels in moon dog here or wight there. But apart from that I can't see how I'm supposed to use these entries. They're neat to look at, but the only stuff in them that isn't in the MM already I can't find a use for. It's just a pain.
No where does it state you can multiclass as another RACE. Also, you HAVE to finish the whole race-level chart before you can gain your 1st class level. I think that's how it goes.
Leveling in a template, yes, that's possible, too.
I both like and dislike the monster race leveling. For Pros, it does allow someone to play, say a minotaur or mind flayer, as a 1st level character with the rest of his 1st level character buddies without overpowering and imbalancing the game with his double-digit ECL. Also, I can see a creature evolves with experience, well, certain ones.
The Cons are simply the realism. A minotaur actually begins as Medium size, but as he gains levels he eventually becomes Large. Is this Super Mario or something? Grow twice your size after beating down a few mobs? Really silly if you ask me.
I have used monster leveling rules before. There was this guy that wanted to play a pureblood yuan-ti, but his ECL would've been 5th and everyone else was playing ECL 1 or 2 characters. So we used SAVAGE SPECIES and put together a leveling chart for his yuan-ti to mature in power as he gained experience, then he'd be able to take his 1st level of Rogue once it was all over.
The template thing is cool, I can see how a character would, say, perform a ritual or become cursed or possess a latent bloodline and gain a level in a template. I've had players with characters that leveled in the half-celestial template.
Bottom line: experienced players will dabble with playing a monster (like the old Complete Book of Humanoids and the Council of Wyrms) but the reason for monster classes is to just to attract munchkin players so they can sell more books...which is strangely counter-productive as the munchkin/power gamer mentality actually worsens sales in the long run
the problem that has always been around with munchkin role players, especially if they don't have an excellent DM, is that power playing gets boreing in a while, with no real challenges and no sense of accomplishment..every gamer I have ever known (including myself) in their youth went to a munchin "thats cool" phase but the few of us that continued on playing through college ended up going back to simple (i.e. normal) characters for the challenge of the game
the "wow" factor of playing a dragion or illithid or stone giant or whatever is cool in the short run, but if you want to keep players stick to what the game was made for: building your weak PCs into great heros, slaying monsters instead of being monsters...which is another unfortunate legacy of what I lie to think of the "Drizzt Fallout"
Kalin
oh, forgot to say that although templates are very cool and innovative for revamping monsters and making them more versitile...for players templates are just "monster-class light"
Anybody remember the old skills and powers system? Something like that I really like with the base monster or race or whatever and then race/monster exclusive "feats" to add diversity and flavor (and slow their progress a bit--but in a way that feels more like the creature is growing and developing rather than Super Mariobrothering--I love the analogy by the way!)
I took a look at racial paragons just recently too. Yuck. Can I say when the flavor text guys even have problems trying to explain what the thing is and keep a straight face on it's a sign something needs to happen differently. I think a revamp of the old racial feats system from skills and powers works pretty nicely without a lot of the corny realism busting mechanikiness.
Not that I don't dig monsters as PC's--I just usually amp the starting level of a game like that to 8th or so, with players subtracting the ECL (or often the CR) of the creature from their starting level. Works fine. No need for weird new mechanics that don't make no sense.
Why is it Drizzt fallout when Unearthed Arcana allowed drow PCs before Drizzt came along? In fact, you can argue that part of why RAS created Drizzt is because drow rangers were allowed under the rules introduced in Unearthed Arcana.
It is a game balance issue. Your PCs may want to play and ogre, but the party is level 2. To balance it properly, races are turned into classes. Now you can play the race, and when you get to the level that it is fair, you can get some levels in other classes.
In your scenario, monster PCs are not playable until long after. In my games, if a player can describe a logical reason why they could play a race, I would let them- with the understanding of how they would be treated in many places.
I think it is a poor argument to say that this mechanic is for "munchkins." This mechanic acts to specifically stop that kind of activity by creating a balance. I have allowed these in a few games, and often times the monsters are at a slight disadvantage compared to class levels, and once there are class levels, they even out.
It is very cool, actually. There is no need to tell your PCs no on most races now, as long as they are willing to pay the price.
The big problem for me isn't that it's munchkin, it's that race levels don't make a heck of a lot of sense. They're a naked mechanic with no rational explaination except that a full powered monster can't be a PC because it'd be unbalancing. There's no other leveled monsters in the setting though, the PCs apparently are the only ones, and only because of metagaming fairness issues with no in setting rationale.
Now if every creature in D&D was in the process of evolving over the course of days and months into increasingly formidable forms then treating races as classes in terms of the speed of their growth and fitting them into the setting would be less of a big deal.
I'd feel more comfortable if they created new races that were borderline PC races, PC level as far as balance, but with the flavor of the monster and have that just be a whole separate race out there somewhere--like the ogrun and gobbers of Iron Kingdoms, they have the looks and feel of ogres and goblins but are scaled to be appropriate as PCs and end up adding something new and interesting to the world rather than just slapping down some clunky game mechanics so people can play hobbled versions of creatures they really shouldn't.
Personally I'd like to be the medium-sized Terrasque with the d8 hit die, then maybe at second level I can get a gore attack!
It just causes the glue of the setting to come off the binding.
|
It kinda makes sense to me to have certain acquired conditions like vampirism or lycanthropy be leveled templates. If the PCs or somebody gets bitten, they shouldn't become full-fledged werewolves the next day. It takes time (i.e., experience) for their new powers to manifest, or for them to master their powers. Even with other undead like ghouls or wights, the leveling up seems to me to represent "becoming."
WIth other monsterous classes, it doesn't make sense for a human to become a minatuar, but it does make sense for a juvenile minatuar to become an adult and gain power or even size as he does it. The issue of him fighting a few critters and getting bigger over night as he levels up seems to be more of a problem with gaining levels to fast and not with monster-as-classes; even human PCs can gain 20 levels in a year and be Merlin by age 19.
They're a naked mechanic with no rational explaination except that a full powered monster can't be a PC because it'd be unbalancing.
I think you are expecting a lot out of a fantasy RPG. Sometimes, we have to sacrifice realism for balance. Even then, its a world where magic works and there's dragons. I don't think it would seem that weird at all.
You could use it for monsters, too, when there are young found in the lair. Maybe the PCs in most games only run into mature monsters. Roll with the punches.
But either way, you are kind of nitpicking on the fact that it doesn't make sense. Does it make any sense that a fighter who gets a level up on Monday (in game) can take toughness and on Tuesday (in game) have more HP? What about that 24 hour period has increased his HP? Does it make sense that an NPC with levels in expert who has spent all his times studying has more xp than a wizard who did the same? Not really. But this is part of the conceit of the game. Part of the concept.
Sometimes you have to give up realism to satisfy the fantasy part of the game, and to balance it. Is it always perfect? No. But this is probably the best solution there is.
The big problem for me isn't that it's munchkin, it's that race levels don't make a heck of a lot of sense. They're a naked mechanic with no rational explaination except that a full powered monster can't be a PC because it'd be unbalancing. There's no other leveled monsters in the setting though, the PCs apparently are the only ones, and only because of metagaming fairness issues with no in setting rationale.
Now if every creature in D&D was in the process of evolving over the course of days and months into increasingly formidable forms then treating races as classes in terms of the speed of their growth and fitting them into the setting would be less of a big deal.
Then it is "less of a big deal". You can make all the creatures in your game lesser versions by using the leveling charts. You can have 1HD Mind Flayers or medium-sized driders. All of the level charts also say the CR of a creature at that level.
I don't get why there are so many posts by people demanding realism in a fantasy game.
The big problem for me isn't that it's munchkin, it's that race levels don't make a heck of a lot of sense. They're a naked mechanic with no rational explaination except that a full powered monster can't be a PC because it'd be unbalancing. There's no other leveled monsters in the setting though, the PCs apparently are the only ones, and only because of metagaming fairness issues with no in setting rationale.
I use leveled monsters all the time. They work especially well when you combine them with some campaign rules that reduce the monster death count (e.g. a set formula to determine ransoms for both creatures and characters, an organization that handles the exchange and a practice of doing the old coup de grace to those who refuse to honor the practice when their turn comes :) ). If you do that you can turn these leveling monsters into long term NPCs, gaining power as the PCs do.
I had a minotaur, "Horns" that I ran sort of like "Jaws" from the Bond movies.
I also had a pair of ogres who made their living as freelance muscle, the PCs kept running into them working for various villains and once they were beaten they would pull out their cards and play poker with the party's rogue :)
The prospect of living to fight another day (plus the cash of ransoms from captured characters) kept even many of the chaotic creatures from breaking the rules.
but leveling up in a race? I mean especially in the case of things like dragons and celestials (and undead too, now that I think about it) are nearly immortal with vast lifespans but if they evolve according to level then I guess the idea is that they spend all of eternity on one end as a weak "level one" creature, then when you play them they what, grow really fast until they hit "level 20" and then stay that way for the rest of eternity?
I wrote an article that touched upon this idea. Won't say anything else about it since I'm still waiting to find out if it will see print, but your question shows at least one reader out there actually is interested in an answer :)
Why is it Drizzt fallout when Unearthed Arcana allowed drow PCs before Drizzt came along? In fact, you can argue that part of why RAS created Drizzt is because drow rangers were allowed under the rules introduced in Unearthed Arcana.
That’s totally true, but there wasn't the "drow" backlash of "drow" this and "drow" that until the Drizzt books, remember that the svirneblin (deep gnomes) and druegar (gray dwarves) also were introduced as PC races in the (AD&D 1st Ed.) Unearthed Arcana and that in 1st Ed., except for a couple of Dragon articles, the Underdark races from UA were the most exotic PC races you could choose
(and if I remember right, the light sensitivity rules in 1st were more stricter and that if you choose a surface drow you lost almost all of the benefits and kept all the penalties, when RAS let Drizzt keep his darkness and faerie fire, that went against dogma, and he acknowledged this by having Drizzt lose his levitation in the sequel trilogy)
I think RAS choose a drow since it was an easy, archetype character, the "evil heritage trying to do good", like you typical anti-hero vampires (i.e. Angel from that Buffy show or Blade) or those with an infernal background (like Spawn). It is a classic archetype that really resounds with "angst ridden teenagers"
[As a sidebar have you ever seen the write up for Drizzt out of the Menzoberranzan Box Set? Sheesh..]
but if you remember that "Crystal Shard" was the first "Drizzt" book, and in that book he was one of a supporting cast, not the star...but I think that the drow with "dueling scimitars", not his soul-search for meaning and purpose, tickled the munchkin youth group and RAS saw that there was $$$ to be made more than "a story needed to be told"
And with the door now opened it wasn't long before "You Can Role Play a Monster !!" and first the Complete Humanoids Handbook, then Dark Sun, then Council of Wyrms, then Reverse Dungeon...cumulating into D&D 3.0
ANYWAY...I kinda suspect the teens, the target group (like myself) that started playing in AD&D 1st Ed. (when actual books and old 50's-70's adventure movies were our inspiration, before even The Legend of Zelda) were a bit more refined than the "show me, give me, entertain me" generation of today...we all tried the UA races, but we usually got over it and stayed with "the heart of the game" Ha!
I think that with the Drizzt books and with the advent of video games, the high-ups figured to start throwing supped-up oddities and monsters to hook the young players, not caring that, since they are barely more than children, if you give them too much they get tired of it and leave...
|
I like the idea of monster levels. I hate that a dragon can be a cleric, rogue or whatever. An adult dragon who sleeps in his lair for a few centuries should be different than an adult dragon who goes about trying to expand its territory and fighting any opposition. So to show the increase in power(level) I like the monster levels, I don't like a dragon taking levels in rogue or cleric, that is a humanoid class to me.
Just my 2
FH
I don't get why there are so many posts by people demanding realism in a fantasy game.
There is "realism" and the is REALISM
If you say that your campaign world has 50% Earth's gravity then that’s the REALITY of that FANTASY world and you adjust everything in that world to reflect 50% gravity, to it is REAL
If you say that your world is 90% human (as my friend's campaign is) how real is it that out of our party (of 6 players) only one character is human? The REALITY of the world says that 9-10 sentients in that world is a human, what are the odds that in that party there is a human, dwarf, 2 halflings, a half-ogre and a baby copper dragon? To me that is not REAL, but it is his campaign and he says our "freakish" party will be reflected in the game...
so the bottom line is, every world/game, no matter if it is in the 24 1/2 century or the 8th layer of Baator (except maybe, for Limbo, the Far Realm and other planes of pure chaos with absolutely no laws of "realism")there has to be some level of REALISM
Kalin
|
ANYWAY...I kinda suspect the teens, the target group (like myself) that started playing in AD&D 1st Ed. (when actual books and old 50's-70's adventure movies were our inspiration, before even The Legend of Zelda) were a bit more refined than the "show me, give me, entertain me" generation of today...we all tried the UA races, but we usually got over it and stayed with "the heart of the game"
You are either engaging in creative revisionism or you had a very different experience from me. In the late 80s I was gaming at the MIT GAMIT group, and they were a mixed group. Some were munchkins and power-gamers who wanted to try out anything new that might allow them to achive something more powerful than they were "supposed to". Some were hard-core role players who wanted almost nothing to do with combat and mechanics. And there was everything in between.
I see the same in my games today. I have the munchkins who want to abuse any mechanic they can get their hands on, and I have the people who are working on ways to build characters with reasonable excuses to avoid any kind of conflict.
It's always been a very mixed bag, and the material that Wizards ne TSR has been putting out have always catered to the full spectrum of buyers as much as possible.
Further, keep in mind that the "heart of the game" was the Gygax-inspired dungeon-diving, miniature war-gaming experience. Playing monsters may not have been part of the original concept, but I don't see how it's any more of a munchkinish thing than 90% of what was in the original rules.
As for the monster-as-class concept, I think the primary reason to allow for that is that it lets a player be more creative. If they're not creative enough to make that worth while, that's going to be a problem no matter what choices are offered to them. But, if they are, it can tremendously expand the potential of the story. It also lets you run games were ALL of the players are non-core-races. A party of all goblins might be quite interesting. A party of wyrmlings can be a blast! It's all a matter of how creative you want to be.