|
This is a thread for me and kyrt-ryder to hash out my idea of making every monster into a 20 level class. The goal is to make monsters available at any level, with abilities appropriate to that level, and able to be used as PCs.
Some opening thoughts.
1. SLAs and other such things should be folded into a caster level progression.
2. Nothing has an inflated HD. Thus, evocation spells get a boost.
Kyrt, your thoughts?
Can we come and play too or is this treehouse reserved for the cool kids only?
So is EVERY creature getting the 20 level progression or are the ones that advance by class still only advancing by class? (Goblin for example).
I think he is referring to the idea of racial paragon classes.
I think he is referring to the idea of racial paragon classes.Racial Paragon Classes? I believe I remember reading the term somewhere, but I can't remember it off-hand.
Page 32 Unearthed Arcana, D&D 3.5
So is EVERY creature getting the 20 level progression or are the ones that advance by class still only advancing by class? (Goblin for example).Every creature will have a progression up to their CR. After that we'll probably just dump them into class advancement (wolf rangers... now that's a fun thought... though it would require a Natural Attack combat style)
Alternatively, one idea might be creating a broad 'class' for each creature type (animals, aberations, etc) and you can build monsters from that.
For example, the 'Demon' class would give all good saves, d10 HD and Full BAB, and would have a pool of selectable 'class features' that let you create your own monster at any given level. The goal if we took this option would be making sure the vast bulk of the iconic monsters of these types are creatable within the system, and there's potential for a lot more.
So what do you think ToZ?
I think that alternative would make for a very customizable game. Each monster type is a class with a bank of abilities to choose from.
From the standpoint of one who likes to play with the rules to customize a lot of things, I think this sounds like a fantastic idea.|
|
So what do you think ToZ?
I was thinking everything would be to 20th level, but I could see incorporating the 'up to ECL' for the lower power monsters and then continuing the progression on to 20th. So you could go up to your ECL and then choose to multiclass into a regular class. I.E. 4th level gnoll/ 4th level ranger instead of 8th level gnoll. (I forget the LA on gnolls. I hope my meaning is clear.)
One thing isn't clear for me. Are you guys looking at:
1 level = +1 HD
or
1 level = +1 CR
A few notes from my personal preferences...
I like the concept of "title levels". Some kind of name or visual reference that would instantaneously set where the "typical" monster stands.
Similarly, I like the concept of level caps for certain monsters (demons and devils particularly), where a lemure (for example) can only advance so much before being "upgraded" to a higher devil type.
'findel
One thing isn't clear for me. Are you guys looking at:
1 level = +1 HD
or
1 level = +1 CR
'findel
1 level = 1 CR = 1 HD
Everything has hit dice equal to it's CR equal to it's level.
A quick look around the Bestiary shows that this is not the case at the moment.
Typical example: Allosaurus, 13 HD, CR 6
Is the "exercise" also attempting to reconcile HD and CR as well?
|
|
A quick look around the Bestiary shows that this is not the case at the moment.
Typical example: Allosaurus, 13 HD, CR 6
Is the "exercise" also attempting to reconcile HD and CR as well?
Exactly. The allosaurus would have 6 HD, and if we want to have more HP we use feats and Con boosts to achieve it.
Just a quick suggestion could you use the original HD vs CR to indicate the type of dice?
For instance.
If the creature's Hit Die is more than twice it's CR then its d12
If the creature's Hit Die is greater than CR but less than double its d10
If the creature's Hit Die is equal to it's CR then d8
If the creature's Hit Die is less than CR but more than half it's CR then d6
If the creature's Hit Die is less than half it's CR then d4
Btw, let me chime in and say I am currently playing an 13th level goblin in a campaign. No racial classes. Other than a retarded stealth check, everything seems balanced enough.
I think taking each TYPE of monster (examples: Construct, Demon, Devil, Undead, ect) and working on a class for THEM would be more effective than going though and working out a class for EVERY monster.
Alternately, the idea of scaling CR for all monsters is a good one :D
|
|
Scott makes a good point about the goblin PC. Initial focus should be on the higher CR monsters with more numerous and problematic abilities. I have a Savage Species ghaele in my SCAP campaign right now, and his SLAs are interesting to plan around. He hasn't gotten too crazy with them yet, and his lower HD makes him pretty fragile.
|
|
So are you more interested in the racial progression for each creature idea, or in the 'type class' with a big option pool per level?
Undecided. Monster type progressions would be easier and take up less word count mostly, but wouldn't be as easy to use for specific monsters. But individual monster progressions will probably end up as twenty stat blocks stuffed into a class chart.
Edit: That sounds like a reasonable test to figure out which we should go with.
One thing I disagreed with in the SRD link was that higher CR monsters should have stronger abilities in their base classes.
An interesting thing would be this:
I have a CR7 demon.
I have a 20 level Racial Demon Paragon Class for it.
That monster should only be able to take the first 13 level of that class.
it's easier to just incorporate a 'pseudo-toughness feat' trait into the grab bag of options per level, that allows people creating those monsters to spend some of their per level abilities to have higher HP.Lets leave the hit dice tied to BAB for simplicity. (Where a casting-ish creature like a demon would take more SLA's, and a brute type creature would take the toughness or other combat abilities)
Hmm Fair enough just a random thought :)
One more random thought have you looked at the Summoner from the APG? The Eidolon it summons isn't quite right for what you want but may be a good jumping off point if you see what i mean.
|
|
Yeah, we're going with the 1 to 20 idea. While capping lesser demons at certain levels makes some sense, if the demon gets promoted you have to rebuild his stat block using the new progression.
I think perhaps doing progressions for each type will work out better in the long run than doing one for each monster, as much as I would rather be able to say 'he is a 14th level Balor'. :) Still, nothing is stopping me from creating a Demon progression AND a Balor progression except my own laziness.
To keep with my probably not very helpful posts how about class as demon and do the types as variants much like the APG ones for the core classes?
So a 20 level demon class with a lot of different options?
(So you could "make" balor at 14th level)
Hmm i think i was wrong about the archetype. Now that i think about it it may be better to set subtype as race and type as class that way you can set a base line using racial abilities and still allow for flexibility in character builds.
For example take said Balor, using our Demon archetypes why not allow for a caster style modeled on cleric with all the fire and summoning magic/spell likes you can pile on, A skill monkey version based on bard, inquisitor or ranger with some magic/spell likes, a outright combat build much like a paladin with a minimum of magic/spell likes and a complete monster based on a barbarian type character that doesn't use them at all?
You guys are crazy.
I like it.
If you are going to start better try alphabetical order.... or the coolest thing in the order...
Solar Angel...?
|
|
Random question: What do we want to do about monster abilities that become gamebreaking in PC hands? Things like Fast Healing, that negate out-of-combat healing, and other monster-only abilities. Leave them in at the point the monsters get them as part of the upped power level of monsters, or have a notation stating PC monster characters can't get them until later/at all?
|
Weird. I just looked a few things up, and it seems the line between Eladrin and Angels is much thinner than the one between Demons and Devils. I guess the two just never got very fleshed out since PC's are assumed to usually be good.
I've always visualised the iconic alignment diagram, not as a square, but as a trapezoid. Narrow at the Good side, wide at the Evil side.
Good creatures, by definition, are trained and compelled to find common ground with each other beings, for the Greater Good, so their differences of opinion are more easily shrugged aside.
Evil creatures are trained and compelled to always consider their own needs first, to consider themselves, and only themselves, as being in the right, deserving of the spoils of any endeavor. Thus, any evidence that another being refuses to bow to them, or share their solipsistic world-views, will more easily drive them to rage.
I tire of flavour text or mechanics that imply or state the Law-Chaos divide is as important as that between Good-Evil.
A L-C spread shouldn't split up a group, the way a G-E spread often would.
There's a reason paladins gain Smite Evil, not Smite Chaos. Their divine patrons simply don't care enough about the issue.