So I saw "Drow characters" and read through it. They get some decent stuff, but then I noticed "Drow Noble Characters" just below that, and they seem to be vastly superior, all the way from their stat increases, to their lack of light sensitivy, to their SR. The only thing they don't have is sleep immunity.
My initial guess would be that it's not intended for players but it's labeled "Drow Noble Characters"....am I reading something wrong?
Yeah, I looked for a bit trying to find the answer I was looking for, and after posting this I stumbled into the errata thread and saw it talked about there.
I don't really understand why they did it the way they did, I mean there are 11(12 if you count noble drow) races listed as "Race as characters" and they all seem close to balanced with base races. It just seems lazy to have it laid out in such a way that promotes playing these extra races, then claim that it's not intended for such. Just seems like it's an excuse to not have to proofread.
It makes a good amount of sense, but it still just seems off. I think the biggest reason it bothers me is this:
They're labeled as characters, not DM tools, DM options, Non player character, etc. etc. Just Characters, which I think leads most to assume means "Player Character" or "Non-Player Character".
Most people I know who play will see "Character" and assume it's usable by everyone. If that's not the intent, then that's fine, but I don't think they should have said "Characters". The word DM, NPC, etc. all would have done a good job of clarifying this.
But on the other hand Paizo doesn't want to discourage people from doing this, they just want it to be left up to DMs, so instead of specifically labelling them as off limits, they refer to them in a vague way, with rules for how to deal with them hidden away. If a player finds a race he thinks he can play, it's pretty much all good - UNTIL that player finds a discrepancy with something. My race isn't as good as others because of this, or is unbalanced because of that. Now the answer becomes "Well that's not for you".
I don't really see the purpose of those "as characters" stat blocks exist. I'm the DM for my group, and I will never use those when perfectly viable options already exist. The drow warrior 1 has a CR of 1/3. If I want to up him with class levels I can do that without much fear of that 1/3 CR coming back to bite me. The only logical reason I can imagine the "Characters" block existing is for players who want to play that race, and their DM has allowed it.
I say it's lazy because Paizo is giving access to these races to the players with the built in argument that it's not for them. I think a small bit of work could have easily cleared up any confusion that arises, but if they wanted to cut things off before they started to get messy, they should specify "Non-Player Characters" rather than "Characters" because characters comes at the end of both player and non-player.
For the record I love pathfinder, and am playing it exclusively with my group. I love the bestiary, and I don't anticipate having a lot of trouble incorporating it into my games, I just don't understand why they went with what appears to me to be a poorly done design in regards to racial "characters".
Creative Director
|
So I saw "Drow characters" and read through it. They get some decent stuff, but then I noticed "Drow Noble Characters" just below that, and they seem to be vastly superior, all the way from their stat increases, to their lack of light sensitivy, to their SR. The only thing they don't have is sleep immunity.
My initial guess would be that it's not intended for players but it's labeled "Drow Noble Characters"....am I reading something wrong?
Yeah... all of the races that lack their own racial HD, be they drow or duergar or kobold or tengu or tiefling, get a "THIS RACE as Characters" section. We did this specifically because in order to use one of these monsters in a game, you HAVE to build them as characters. They don't work without the HD you gain from taking class levels.
It probably would have been better to say something like "Drow as Non-Player Characters" but the truth is that we actually don't mind if in some games these races get used as player characters. It's all up to the individual GM. Appendix 4 talks a little bit about how you can use these powerful races as player character races... the easiest of course is if ALL of your players are of the same race, then there's no concern about balance really. Each player starts out equal, and the fights they'll face might be easier at first but that'll balance itself out eventually.
For drow in particular, Jason decided to split them into two categories to make it easier for GMs who want to let players play drow while still having drow that work better as monsters.
The Bestiary is very much a GM's book. Players who use it to build characters need their GM's approval.
ALL of the "Character races" in the book are designed to fit monster niches first and foremost. We didn't bother trying to balance them all for equal options among players because THAT'S NOT THE POINT OF THESE RACES in the Pathfinder Game. Some, like the drow or the svirfneblin, are more powerful than humans. Some, like goblins and kobolds, are less powerful than humans. They all use the same basic rules and so you CAN use them as player characters, but the gameplay changes if you do.
The other thing I think would have worked well would have been if, instead of having an example drow, then a "drow characters" section, you simply had all the information from "drow characters" under Drow. Then there'd be no potentially confusing wording, and there wouldn't be any confusion created by what is essentially race duplication.
Of course, that's really not important any more since the book is already out and all that :)
I think it works this way for people who are familiar to 3.5, but I also think it will be more confusing to people who are unfamiliar, and starting off with PF.
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
My initial guess would be that it's not intended for players but it's labeled "Drow Noble Characters"....am I reading something wrong?
Officially, all the "Blah as Characters" are only for NPC characters.
Also, notice the Noble says "CR equal to Class Level" which is short hand for CR +1.
Drow = CR +0
Noble Drow = CR +1 (cost 1 virtual level similar to LA)
"You have rules for Drow PCs, why not Dragon PCs?". Doing that would expand the book massively and increase the cost.
To be fair, the old (simple) system of ECL = HD + LA was short and sweet. It didn't expand the size of the book more than one line per Monster. It wouldn't expand the book any lines in the Bestiary if you combined the CR line with the LA information.
|
Creative Director
|
My initial guess would be that it's not intended for players but it's labeled "Drow Noble Characters"....am I reading something wrong?Officially, all the "Blah as Characters" are only for NPC characters.
Also, notice the Noble says "CR equal to Class Level" which is short hand for CR +1.
Drow = CR +0
Noble Drow = CR +1 (cost 1 virtual level similar to LA)
Comment deleted because it was a confusing rant. Carry on. Nothing to see here.
Isn't that what "Monsters as PCs" says to do though?
It even says that a sixth level party with a minotaur would have a minotaur(CR 4) and 2 class levels.
|
Creative Director
|
CR should never be used as a measuring stick to determine a race's "balance" as a PC race.Except when using Bestiary p313, evidently.
My previous post was actually kind of born out of a critical-mass frustration at folks assuming that CR = LA. This has never ever ever been the case. So take that rant with a few dozen pounds of grains of salt. And when using CR to estimate a race's balance as a player race, be prepared to be wrong more often than not.
Yeah, I ran into that issue with some of my old players in the past(3.5) and it was always difficult to get them to listen to reason...it was easy to take advantage of when they were DMing, but when I was DMing and they were trying to abuse it...very hard to get them to listen to reason...
I suppose the question at this point is, in PF, what is the intended correlation between Player Characters, CR, and monstrous races? I think the "Monsters as PCs" section does a pretty good job, though it did take me a while to find.
Any idea as to whether or not there will ever be a savage species esque book for Pathfinder?
My previous post was actually kind of born out of a critical-mass frustration at folks assuming that CR = LA. This has never ever ever been the case. So take that rant with a few dozen pounds of grains of salt. And when using CR to estimate a race's balance as a player race, be prepared to be wrong more often than not.CR should never be used as a measuring stick to determine a race's "balance" as a PC race.Except when using Bestiary p313, evidently.
I can understand your frustration James, just please be aware that there are plenty of us out here who love Pathfinder who are very frustrated by the 'well, do use these rules but we didn't really intend you to but you can but don't really hold us to the fire and they are/n't officially supported' stance taken so far on this subject.
Something concrete is always easier to accept, even if you don't agree with it, than something that's nebulous and contradicted even by the people that wrote it, that sends everyone's frustration levels into orbit, which causes feedback here, which pushes your frustration level even higher.
I think all this will sort itself out when Paizo gets to the 'Savage Species' replacement that was discussed earlier in the year as being on the list of books to do, but I think if you want to cut down on frustrations on both sides you might want to consider giving it a higher priority. Non-standard races are very popular with a lot of groups, and as bad as SS was, it still sold well from all the anecdotal evidence I have (mostly from the FLGS who never could keep it in stock the first year or so it was released).
My previous post was actually kind of born out of a critical-mass frustration at folks assuming that CR = LA. This has never ever ever been the case.
Treat the monster's CR as its total class levels
While the "Monsters as PCs" has more to say about it, it does make it sound like CR took the place of the old LA.
My previous post was actually kind of born out of a critical-mass frustration at folks assuming that CR = LA. This has never ever ever been the case.Treat the monster's CR as its total class levelsWhile the "Monsters as PCs" has more to say about it, it does make it sound like CR took the place of the old LA.
Not exactly.
The old LA was tacked onto the Hit Dice of the race. The CR is not added to the hit dice. Additionally, the LA couldn't be bought off unless you use the rules from Unearthed Arcana. The CR is automatically reduced by one level every 3 levels until it's reduced by half. I'm taking that as a +1 CR is reduced by one level (to 3/4) after 3 levels, which then causes it to go away since it's not a full CR anymore. Theoretically it would also go down again to 1/2 three levels later, but that's really just nitpicky bookkeeping since no template or other modifier adds fractional CR.
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
My previous post was actually kind of born out of a critical-mass frustration at folks assuming that CR = LA.
Sorry, if you thought I felt that way. I have a handle on the current calculated (B p313) method of playing Monster races. In summary, you take all the abilities of the monster as is (including HD, everything) and you consider that "CR" level's of your 20 levels progression to Epic. So a 10 HD monster with CR 5 would have 25 HD at level 20 PC.
there are plenty of us out here who love Pathfinder who are very frustrated by the 'well, do use these rules but we didn't really intend you to but you can but don't really hold us to the fire and they are/n't officially supported' stance taken so far on this subject.
I think all this will sort itself out when Paizo gets to the 'Savage Species' replacement
+1 on the frustration. I think the new rules are supremely elegant and 100 times better than racial HD + LA old system, but they break down fast when the monster is very powerful. I've prepared an openoffice sheet calculating the "value" of each monster that "could" be played in Bestiary and Bonus Bestiary plus Core races (human/elf/etc.) If anyone wants it, I'll linkify it. I still haven't done all the Lycanthropics and the Dragons.
The supplement sounds awesome, if a new Savage book is coming it may well fix all my issues.
there are plenty of us out here who love Pathfinder who are very frustrated by the 'well, do use these rules but we didn't really intend you to but you can but don't really hold us to the fire and they are/n't officially supported' stance taken so far on this subject.
I think all this will sort itself out when Paizo gets to the 'Savage Species' replacement
+1 on the frustration. I think the new rules are supremely elegant and 100 times better than racial HD + LA old system, but they break down fast when the monster is very powerful. I've prepared an openoffice sheet calculating the "value" of each monster that "could" be played in Bestiary and Bonus Bestiary plus Core races (human/elf/etc.) If anyone wants it, I'll linkify it. I still haven't done all the Lycanthropics and the Dragons.
The supplement sounds awesome, if a new Savage book is coming it may well fix all my issues.
To me, it's not the hit dice (unless I've missed one that's got a lot of them), as it's just hitpoints, and while 10 hp's makes a big difference at 3, it's a burp at 10th level. Even stats are less important at 10th than at 1st.
But some of the special qualities are the ones that bother me. A minotaur for example I'm good with (which is not surprising, it's the poster boy for the p313 rules). I think the Drow NOble should be a +2CR, those stats and boosted spell resistance make it a much tougher foe than a +1CR. IMHO.
I would be interested in your spreadsheet. So far, all the characters that take class levels (Svirnefblin, Duerger, Drow, Kobolds, Froggies (can't remember the name)) can mostly be used without issue. Most of the CR 2's and 1's are ok (Experimenting with Noble Drow now, but it's a 9th level character in a monster campaign, so not sure how much the experiment will actually answer for normal games). It's the 4+ CR's that worry me. I don't think I'd allow 6+ CR's without seriously looking at them.
|
James, 2 questions:
1) Are we going to see more race treatments like the "Tiefling treatment" in the Bastards of Erebus? I liked that a lot!
2) Let's assume the 2 drow entries won't get the "Tiefling treatment" due to the Second Darkness AP being done and over with -- what would you say the XP penalty should be for the common drow and for the noble drow? (i.e. tiefling XP penalty is a one-time payment of XP required to get to 2nd level divided by two, as far as I understand, and I find that it's a great system, as all PCs will be the same level at level 3 or 4 anyways..)
|
|
I think the Drow NOble should be a +2CR, those stats and boosted spell resistance make it a much tougher foe than a +1CR. IMHO.
Hard to say... I'm not sure I'd be ready to slap a +2 CR penalty, especially at higher levels. Remember a drow noble can only do one move and one standard action per round like everyone else... so when comes the time to choose one of their 20 weak spell-like abilities or cast cone of cold, I know what my DM decision would be!
>:)
MUHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAH!
PS: think of it from a DM perspective... if you're planning to put out two CR 10 critters to provide an EL 12 encounter to your party, it will be a cakewalk if you bring two 8th level drow nobles sorcerers instead of two 10th level sorcerers ANYTHING ELSE (i.e. the drow nobles look cool, but they only have access to 4th level spells, while the 10th level ANYTHING ELSES have 5th level spells...)
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
I'm taking that as a +1 CR is reduced by one level (to 3/4) after 3 levels, which then causes it to go away since it's not a full CR anymore.
Yea I didn't get that. I don't think you can reduce CR 1 below 1, since half of 1 is a fraction and rounds down to 0 (zero.)
I also stop CR 3 at CR 2, etc.
I'm taking that as a +1 CR is reduced by one level (to 3/4) after 3 levels, which then causes it to go away since it's not a full CR anymore.Yea I didn't get that. I don't think you can reduce CR 1 below 1, since half of 1 is a fraction and rounds down to 0 (zero.)
I also stop CR 3 at CR 2, etc.
I agree with the CR 3 stopping at CR 2. I just don't think a CR 1 is worth a negative level once you get up higher (honestly, at 15th level, a -1 level is not a fair price for most of the 1 CR monsters, not including Noble Drow). I think a Noble Drow is a 2CR monster at lower levels, but if you add enough class levels, they should only be +1 CR (just as the above poster noted, at 10th level, a Noble Drow isn't worth a +2, but is worth a +1).
I've assumed that adding class levels to monsters you'd follow the CR reduction rules, as the Class abilities begin to outstrip the CR's.
I think the Drow NOble should be a +2CR, those stats and boosted spell resistance make it a much tougher foe than a +1CR. IMHO.Hard to say... I'm not sure I'd be ready to slap a +2 CR penalty, especially at higher levels. Remember a drow noble can only do one move and one standard action per round like everyone else... so when comes the time to choose one of their 20 weak spell-like abilities or cast cone of cold, I know what my DM decision would be!
>:)
MUHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAH!
PS: think of it from a DM perspective... if you're planning to put out two CR 10 critters to provide an EL 12 encounter to your party, it will be a cakewalk if you bring two 8th level drow nobles sorcerers instead of two 10th level sorcerers ANYTHING ELSE (i.e. the drow nobles look cool, but they only have access to 4th level spells, while the 10th level ANYTHING ELSES have 5th level spells...)
AH,
But if you up them to 10th level by putting class levels on, then you'd follow the rule and reduce them by 1/2 to +1 CR, so they'd be 9th level Sorcerers with a +1 CR (per page 313). And I do think two Noble Drow Sorcerers (9) would be a good match for two human sorcerers (10).
Perhaps it woudl depend on spell selection, but the lack of 5th level spells would still hurt the drow noble.
AH,
But if you up them to 10th level by putting class levels on, then you'd follow the rule and reduce them by 1/2 to +1 CR, so they'd be 9th level Sorcerers with a +1 CR (per page 313). And I do think two Noble Drow Sorcerers (9) would be a good match for two human sorcerers (10).
Hurt yes, make them not as dangerous? Not sure I'd agree with that. Those at-will abilities are nice, and the stat boosts, and the once/day abilities too. Remember, when using them for an encounter, you are assuming they have full access to everything they could possibly have. Since they are equivalent to 10th level (9 class levels, +1 CR) characters, they would have equipment appropriate to that level (per the RAW, they take class levels and derive their CR from that, which means you have to supply them with equipment of a <Level> character). So they'd have the 10th level character money worth of items (I think it's like 90K?).
So, same equipment as the human sorcerer, heavily boosted stats, at will powers, and spell resistance 20 (which the humans don't have), so that seems pretty equal to me.
|
Creative Director
|
1) Are we going to see more race treatments like the "Tiefling treatment" in the Bastards of Erebus? I liked that a lot!
If it makes sense for a product, probably. We've got nothing on schedule right now that has something like this though.
2) Let's assume the 2 drow entries won't get the "Tiefling treatment" due to the Second Darkness AP being done and over with -- what would you say the XP penalty should be for the common drow and for the noble drow? (i.e. tiefling XP penalty is a one-time payment of XP required to get to 2nd level divided by two, as far as I understand, and I find that it's a great system, as all PCs will be the same level at level 3 or 4 anyways..)
I would say that you'd treat the normal drow as a tiefling when it comes to adjustments; they're CLOSE to similar power levels. Noble drow, though... I can't say. That'd require more thought and work than I have time to commit right now; my advice there is to just not let players play noble drow.
|
|
Hmm... let's see:
PRD:
"If you are including a single monster character in a group of standard characters, make sure the group is of a level that is at least as high as the monster's CR. Treat the monster's CR as class levels when determining the monster PC's overall levels. For example, in a group of 6th-level characters, a minotaur (CR 4) would possess 2 levels of a core class, such as barbarian.
Note that in a mixed group, the value of racial Hit Dice and abilities diminish as a character gains levels. It is recommended that for every 3 levels gained by the group, the monster character should gain an extra level, received halfway between the 2nd and 3rd levels. Repeat this process a number of times equal to half the monster's CR, rounded down. Using the minotaur example, when the group is at a point between 6th and 7th level, the minotaur gains a level, and then again at 7th, making him a minotaur barbarian 4. This process repeats at 10th level, making him a minotaur barbarian 8 when the group reaches 10th level. From that point onward, he gains levels normally."
Ok... must put my serious thinking cap on this one.
Group: 6 (avg CR)
Minotaur: 4 CR + 2 barb = 6
For every 3 levels gained by group, monster gains extra level...: 6/3 = 2 extra levels for minotaur
2 extra levels received 1/2way between minotaur's 2nd and 3rd barb's levels, meaning when group is 1/2way to 7, mino gets another level (so Mino is now 4 CR + 3 barb = 7, let's say, although it's not... :P) and then mino gets his "other" level when the group gets to level 7 (so Mino is now 4 CR + 4 barb = 8)
So we now have let's say a bunch of level 7 fighters with a level 4 barbarian mino.
When group is level 9, which is divisible by 3, the minotaur is due for an extra level. To get there, the group has gained two more levels (7 to 8, 8 to 9) so minotaur is now at 4 CR + 4 barb + 2 barb = 4 CR + 6 barb. The mino's extra level must now arrive between group's 9 and 10, so when group is at 10, mino is now 2 higher for a total of 4 CR + 8 barb. Group at 12, mino due for another one, so group group goes to 13, and mino is now at 4 CR + 8 + 2 + 2 = 4 CR + 12 barb. Group at 15, mino is 4 CR + 12 + 2 + 2 = 4 CR + 16. Uh oh! we've gone over!!! what's wrong with this picture? we forgot to stop the process after the second time, because we're supposed to do it only once per 2 CR of the base creature. We should have stopped at 4 CR + 8 barb, like the example provided.
Now I'm going to do a triceratops (let's say my druid dies and decides to play an awakened triceratops :P)
CR 8 Triceratops (let's assume CR has not been modified to account for awaken's 2 extra HD), so the bump process will occur 4 times
Group averages to level 9 (so will take 9/3= 3 levels between 2 and 3; i.e. will jump from 2 to 5, a +3 level bump 4 times)
We have: triceratops 8 CR + 1 barb = 9 initially
Group at 9, tri at 1
Group goes to 10, tri goes to 2
Group goes to 11, tri goes to 5 (BUMP ONE)
Group goes to 12, tri goes to 6
Group goes to 13, tri goes to 7
Group goes to 14, tri goes to 10 (BUMP TWO)
Group goes to 15, tri goes to 11
Group goes to 16, tri goes to 12
Group goes to 17, tri goes to 15 (BUMP THREE)
Group goes to 18, tri goes to 16
Group goes to 19, tri goes to 17
Group goes to 20, tri goes to 20 (BUMP FOUR)
So, nice! it seems that CR 8 critters will catch up fully over a 20 level run! nice! :)
That's (in the case of the triceratops) a 34 HD critter (14 racial HD + 20 class HD) instead of the plain old human fighter at 20 HD.
I think I did something wrong... my head hurts... :(
PDK,
The minotaur works out about right, he's probably got slightly higher ballpark hp's than a human barbarian at the same level (at 10th, he's got 8 levels of barb, plus his 6 racial 6d8 + 8d12 vs 10d12, the average would be 8 + 5*4.5 + 8*6.5 = 8 + 22.5 + 52 = 82 hps vs 12 + 9*6.5 = 12 + 58 = 60, not counting con bonus, since that's variable by character). So, call it 20-40hps difference, or one or two hits. He's giving up 2 levels of Barbarian, rage rounds, 1 rage power, and gaining the extra hp's and stat boosts, and a few more skill ranks. Actually, that's the biggest one that bothers me, because, the Minotaur would have a max rank of 14 at equivalent of 10th level, and an extra feat.
No one's saying it'll always perfectly balance, it's a squishy thing. You can't even balance one human fighter against another if you point buy by 10th level, mainly because each person will build them different, and one build can be vastly more powerful than another just using the feats available.
|
|
Is my triceratops math right though? surely I must be mistaken: a triceratops barbarian 20 PC would have 34 HD and be in a group of level 20 humans/elves/dwarves who would each have 20 HD!?!?
I'm sure I went wrong somewhere by using a 3 level bump four times; I'm just asking where I went wrong as I am no longer clear if I followed the formula correctly...
PS: I agree the minotaur sounds about right... but a CR 8 critter (four bumps) with a 9 level party (3 levels for each bump) sounds a little off... especially with the vast discrepancy of HD at APL 20...
EDIT: I think I know where I went wrong... CR 8 divided by 2 is 4 bumps, correct, but each bump should be ONE level, not Group level/3, thus the revised progress is:
Group at 9, tri at 1
Group goes to 10, tri goes to 2
Group goes to 11, tri goes to 4 (BUMP ONE)
Group goes to 12, tri goes to 5
Group goes to 13, tri goes to 6
Group goes to 14, tri goes to 8 (BUMP TWO)
Group goes to 15, tri goes to 9
Group goes to 16, tri goes to 10
Group goes to 17, tri goes to 12 (BUMP THREE)
Group goes to 18, tri goes to 13
Group goes to 19, tri goes to 14
Group goes to 20, tri goes to 16 (BUMP FOUR)
There you go... that makes more sense... still... a 30 HD critter nonetheless!!! (14 racial HD + 16 class HD). The 16 HD cap means the awakened triceratops will never get the level 20 abilities his fellow humans/humanoids are getting, but the slight disadvantage is replaced by 10 freaggin' animal HIT DICE!! :)
I think this formula is best used with low CR creatures (CR 6 maximum), and I fully agree with James that the focus of this RPG should be based on the core PHB races.
Still, I am happy we seem to have a semi-decent system to calculate the odd weirdness from time to time... :)
Hmm...by my math your Triceratops should have only 16 levels. You're upping it by 3 levels at every bump instead of 2.
Personally I want to play a succubus or nymph. But if I do the latter, I am not going to take the bumps, even if my GM says it's allowable. The idea of being a Druid caster 3 levels higher than my character level is not my idea of a good time.
And let's not forget the disadvantage that almost all awakened animals have...No hands or (in the case of some) no thumbs. Which really limits your options.
Actually, I think rings could work, as well as the armor (though it would be expensive up front), but yeah, it would suck. My girlfriend and I thought it over fairly thoroughly when she was playing a character that we had start as an elf, and got reincarnated as a panther before the game started. It was hilarious, though, how long it took the party to realize the panther was intelligent...
Enchanting costs don't change, in any place that I have seen. And as for armor? That's what the Barding costs are for. Just use those, and you're good. Unless, of course, one of your friends is an enchanter and willing to make you Bracers of Armor.
Enchanting costs don't change, in any place that I have seen. And as for armor? That's what the Barding costs are for. Just use those, and you're good. Unless, of course, one of your friends is an enchanter and willing to make you Bracers of Armor.
Barding works fine for awakened animals. And you can get very creative with equipment.
I had a player with a psuedodragon cohort. The cohort had two rings... but they went on her wrists as bracelets instead of rings (still one per hand). She had a tiny belt of many pockets that she kept her gold and wands in (she was a sorcerer, obviously). A tiny necklace of natural armor +2 (as a gold coil that went around the base of her neck). She also had boots of speed she'd had made tiny as anklets instead of boots, to be wrapped around her dainty clawed rear legs. ;)
For the triceratops, I'd probably let them have 3 rings (one for each horn instead of one per forefoot), barding, amulet. Hmm, not sure if you'd use horseshoes, but I can see four anklets being used for the equivalent of horseshoes for the triceratops.
Just as a note though, I agree that playing the triceratops would be HUGELY limiting outside combat, which is probably worth those extra hit dice.
That's it. Next time I run a campaign for PC's at the appropriate level I am SOOOOO using a Terrasque (with the Beastiary's buffs of course:) ) with the aquatic template and levels in barbarian and have it rampage up out of the sea and attack the major metropolitan seaport+national capital there :D
(Maybe I should give him dragon shaman levels instead so he gets a breath weapon, hmmmm....)
Gochira! Gochira! Run!
Make the tarrasque a 10th level Barbarian. *grins*
I once made the mistake of putting an 'End the world' item in my game. One of the PCs ended the campaign because he wanted revenge, decided he couldn't get it, and thus turned on the item. Game over. I was...amused.
|
That brings up one of my pet peeves with size-rated armor...cost changes, AC provided doesnt. Even in an abstract combat system like D20 that bugs me. Pixie plate armor gives the same AC bonus as Storm Giant armor (unless Pathfinder changed that and I havent found it yet).
Oh, even better, a Pixie's longspear has the same Reach that a Storm Giant's longspear does. Weapon size is irrelevant, only creature size.
It's just one of those sacrifices we accept to not have to deal with another dozen pages of rules that will only matter for *highly* unusual PCs.