Monster PCs

[Smoss]

We still tell tales of the epic fun that was had when we did a game where all the PCs grabbed monsters out of the MM to play for a one shot.

The guy playing the Gelatinous Cube gave us some epic fun, surviving to the end with only a couple of hit points left (Only a little goo left). After all he had consumed (altering his color) - He was dubbed the Jello Shot.

His quotes were quite awesome too - Usually something like "glub, glub, wobble?"

So yes, lots of fun was had...
Smoss

 

[RedTonic]

My hard and fast rule is that the race has to be sentient.

 

[Haltherrion]

I guess it depends what you mean by monster but if we've had good luck with some of the more exotic half-devils, dragons and such. In 3.5E it meant that we had to start the campaign at higher levels so that we could accomodate the ECLs.

We've only done it in campaigns designed for it though, where the setting allowed for such a mix of critters. I can't say I've done it in a "normal" setting where some PCs are super exotic. DOn't see why you couldn't make it work with a few tweaks.

The main issue we had with 3.5E is that it felt like the ECL was over called we usually dropped it by 1 or so. Being a monster is nice but PC levels count as well. Plus, I always felt that some classes were better suited than others to the ECL "tax". For instance, as a caster, you just want all your effective levels in the caster class so you can have spells appropriate to your level. It's not that much fun being effective level 12 but only casting 2nd level spells. Why bother being a caster?

It is simplest if everyone has some ECL penalty and all are fairly close together. Of course, that's effectively no ECL but it does help.

Anyway, we had a lot of fun with it. Certainly can be a nice change.

 

[Votan]

I have done it a lot in the context of 3.5E rules. Generally, it works well if the game is intended to be fun and offbeat. But way worse if you are treating it in a serious sense. If player to player balance is even a distant objective, it will be nearly impossible under this system as Level Adjustments work poorly and monster abilities may have unexpected synergy with class abilities.

The pixie sorcerer is a good example. Lot at the DR, flight, invisibility and CAH stat boost. A pixie fighter feels hard done by with an excessive LA. A pixie sorcerer is like a cockroach.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

What have been your experiences with Monster PCs in your games? I am mainly talking about DnD 3.X and Pathfinder here, but anyone who has played or GMed a Monster PC under other systems is welcome to share their experience.

I've played my share of "monsters": Minotaurs, Drow, Githzerai and others over the various editions of D&D.*

2Ed was interesting, but could lead to hard feelings if your PC was powerful and your fellow players didn't care that he wouldn't improve until the other PCs caught up.

3Ed's Savage Species was much better in some ways, but Monte Cook's Arcana Unearthed/Arcana Evolved ruleset improved even on that.







* I've also played those kinds of PCs in other RPG systems...fun, fun, fun!

 

[Votan]

Monte Cook's Arcana Unearthed/Arcana Evolved ruleset improved even on that.

That really was the way to go. 4E seems to have finally completed the transition by making vampire into a class rather than a race.

 

[megamania]

I have a Bugbear named Piik in my Eberron game which has been fun to play. In direct melee his ELC seems unbalanced but mixing in the loss of equipment and skills he comes across as balanced.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

That really was the way to go. 4E seems to have finally completed the transition by making vampire into a class rather than a race.

IMHO, in the context of the way 4Ed handles classes, multiclassing and hybrids, that was really not the way to go.

 

[Votan]

IMHO, in the context of the way 4Ed handles classes, multiclassing and hybrids, that was really not the way to go.

Why not? It completed the idea started in Savage Species and refined in Arcana Evolved of making powerful racial abilities into classes. A vampire could multi-class to pick up all sorts of alternate flavor, if you wanted a mage-vampire, for example.

It's otherwise complicated, to say the least, to have strong character balance if one person is playing a vampire mage and the other is playing a human monk. Building these abilities into classes seemed like the obvious route to go, in my view at least.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Why not? It completed the idea started in Savage Species and refined in Arcana Evolved of making powerful racial abilities into classes. A vampire could multi-class to pick up all sorts of alternate flavor, if you wanted a mage-vampire, for example.

Yes, it did, but 4Ed and 3.X handle classes in RADICALLY different ways. In the Arcana Unearthed refinement, you didn't have to take any levels associated with your "monster race" if you didn't want to. You could take the base level of that race and be capped there, or you could mix & match freely, just as if it were a regular class. Under the AU system, you could be a vampire (if someone designed a monster class for it) AND be a powerful wizard.

In 4Ed, however, your primary class rules all, and you can only dabble in classes after that. So the "Vampire as a class" thing means you'll never be the kind of vampire depicted in some legends or games: a powerful mesmerist, arcanist or some such; a rival to those who are fully living. IOW, he ain't never gonna be Strahd.

In addition, as I recall, there is no Hybrid rule for the Vampire in the book, so that option is completely out.

(FWIW, the way 4Ed handles classes is one of my chief dislikes about the game, and I've said enough about it elsewhere, so I won't discuss it further here.)