D&D 5E Humanoids, and playing monstrous races

[steeldragons]

Since now I've been, forgive me, "stewing" over this for a bit now.. @Kobold_Stew , how would you stat up a drow for something like this? Not that I want to be advocating drow PCs because I very much do not. But they are a forgone conclusion in D&D at this point. So out of curiosity/as an interesting exercise.

I'd, personally, LOVE to see them with the "disadvantage in sunlight" you gave the kobolds (which I think I'd give goblins too. But not hob's or bugb's). That would be a nod back in the right direction...and maybe make them a bit less popular.

Or, since the Underdark races are, like, the "next tier" of PC races for a lot of people: a Duergar, Svirf and Mindflayer, maybe even a Derro, as well.

Shidaku's suggestion that there be a stated "level minimum" for these more "advanced" races is a curious one. I think that could work...at least for the "official line" framing the game. Ya know folks'll be breaking that wide open at home. But that's not really something that can be helped. At least the effort is there to say "these guys are BAD! [like Michael Jackson "Bad"] and shouldn't be used in campaigns as PCs below X level."

Almost like D&D would be coming full circle. Started out with level maxes for non-human races, now introducing non-human min's. hahaha. That tickles me in some odd way. [yes, I know, 1e npc Drow already had these].

 

[Li Shenron]

I would never butcher a good traditional monster concept just because some players want it as a PC race.

There can always be a PC-version of that monster, and it certainly doesn't need to always be compatible with a 1st level party! There were "monsters class progressions" done in 3e at some point, and while it doesn't have to be done that way, I think it was a good example on how to make a monster available as a PC at an earlier level: a bit gamist solution, but downgrading monsters and taking stuff out of them to make them more similar to PCs sucks...

At the same time, I would never butcher a good traditional monster concept just because some DMs cannot handle more than 2-3 special abilities. It makes no sense to me to have a "dumb" version of a MindFlayer, a Lich or a Spellweaver with just a tiny bunch of spells... if the DM cannot handle running a complex monster, do not run it at all! Likewise, a player who cannot handle playing a complex PC shouldn't play at epic levels.

That doesn't mean that the majority of monsters need to be as complex as they were in 3e. Many of them can be simplified without sacrificing the monster concept. But not all.

 

[the Jester]

I'm glad that you generally rewrite the rules for your games..but hey if we don't need rules, why are we even playing D&D!?

Who is rewriting what, now? It seems that you are the one arguing for a rewrite. There has never been an edition of D&D that assumes playable monster-type humanoids from the day of release; those rules have always been tacked on to the monster stats- which have always shown significant differences from pc races- well after the initial release of that version of D&D.

Kobolds, in traditional D&D are half a hit die creature. Gnolls are 2 HD. That alone is a huge difference between a gnoll or kobold and a 'standard' pc race. It's no rewrite to acknowledge the stats as presented. It is a rewrite to revise them to be pc types.

 

[Kobold Stew]

There has never been an edition of D&D that assumes playable monster-type humanoids from the day of release; those rules have always been tacked on to the monster stats ... well after the initial release of that version of D&D.

With respect, this is not the case. It's in the 4e, 3.5e and 3e Monster Manuals, from the day of release. (I have 4e at hand: cf. pp. 276-79).

 

[jadrax]

I would never butcher a good traditional monster concept just because some players want it as a PC race.

I would have XP'ed you, but apparently you make sense to often.

 

[Kobold Stew]

Some more low-XP humanoid races

Rakasta
+1 Dexterity, +1 Constitution
low-light vision
languages: common
Pounce: You move up to your speed. If you move at least 10' you can make two claw attacks. If mounted, your move can happen after mount has moved, and two hits render the victim prone.
(proficiency: light armour)
(proficiency: javelin and steel claw)

Note: Steel Claw is a 1d4 light, finesse weapon that does slashing damage.

Lizardfolk
+1 Strength, +1 Constitution
languages: draconic (characters must have Int 12+ to speak common)
Hold Breath: you can hold your breath 10x longer than normal, and there are no penalties for being underwater.
Natural armour +1
Natural weapons: bite 1d6 piercing, claws 2d4 slashing
Multiattack: as an action, you may make one bite and one claws attack.
(proficiency: shield)

Note: between the two Lizardfolk builds presented, there seems to be a discrepancy in what the natural armour is (+1 or +2). I assume +1 here, but I expect one of the two ACs given is simply a typo.

Some notes:
* These could have made the initial cut, but even though humanoid and at the same XP levels, they introduce problems. The Rakasta is fine, but the lizardfolk will make some DMs uncomfortable, as the abilities are exploitable by a player.
* I like the idea that if a race doesn't naturally speak common, that has to be overcome with an "intelligence tax" -- perhaps useful. One could also say that the scales only permit the race ever to wear light armour. Would that be a sufficient balancing incentive? I don't know.
* I also note that claws are implemented differently for these two races. The Rakasta has strap-on claws that combine with the Pounce ability; the Lizardfolk can combine a pair of claws attacks with a bite. It feels sloppy to me, and so I left them out of my initial list.

Further notes:
There are three other races that are in this low-level range, for which I feel the XP are simply too low (given what else they can do):
Troglodytes: have the goblinoid Stealthy and lizard folk multiattacks, plus Stench and (as a penalty) light sensitivity. Everything about the race says "doesn't play well with others" and the XP seems too low for an opponent with so many abilities.
Phanatons: have a climb and a glide speed. Perhaps it would be viable, but I'm not interested.

Then there's the low-XP humanoid races that aren't technically humanoid. There's the Dryad, which is not humanoid but fey. 18 charisma, dominate person ability, magic resistance. for 40 XP. There's also the Doppelgänger (a monstrosity), with change shape and read thoughts. As opponents, this seems not to have been thought through, or else both of their XP is too low, or else it's another typo. But something is clearly wrong.

I'll repeat the claim I made in the OP:
Little thought seems to have been given to the bestiary (at least for the low-level opponents one often faces). There are problems with them as opponents, and these problems reveal themselves when one considers how they would serve as PC races.

I was fine with all the races in the OP. Here, there's nothing wrong with the Rakasta and (perhaps) the Lizardfolk. Phanaton, Troglodyte and (non-humanoid) Dryad and Doppelgängers are too powerful.

And so, [MENTION=92511]steeldragons[/MENTION], is the Drow. Magic resistance, spells, multi attack, poison, lots of HP... Worth the listed 160 xp (still, nowhere near the 40 xp Dryad). But not part of the exercise I'm undertaking, trying to sort through what has been presented to us in the testpack. Yes, a watered down version will eventually appear, but that's not this, and any answer will depend on the multiclassing rules that are eventually presented to us. Until they are, it's not worth pursuing (at least for me).

 

[CAFRedblade]

If they keep with the concept of 3rd level being the start of one's adventuring career, this could help develop monsters as PC's, preferably in my preference a separate book.

In a PC group that has monster PC's all non monster pc's are level 3, while monster pc's class start at level 1, perhaps with a slower XP mechanic inherent to having a Monster PC. And depending on which kind of humanoid monster as PC, the slower XP progression could vary... Different between a full Orc, and a Drow.

 

[Kobold Stew]

Yes, exactly --

but the precise implementation will depend based on how the "apprentice" levels work, how multiclassing works, etc. It should be possible, but any speculation would be unfounded at this point.

 

[the Jester]

With respect, this is not the case. It's in the 4e, 3.5e and 3e Monster Manuals, from the day of release. (I have 4e at hand: cf. pp. 276-79).

True enough.

But remember: the 4e designers almost immediately stated that the monster stats in the 4e MM were for the dm to use when designing npcs, and would prolly need revision to function as balanced pc races (and hey, I think that mostly happened later, didn't it?).

However, while the 3.5 MM did indeed have info on playing some monsters (at least with level adjustments and such, and with some having more specific entries), the 3.0 MM did not. It had a few "X Characters" entries, but IMHO they are, again, for making npcs of that monster type. Indeed, in discussing monsters with character levels on pg. 14, the 3.0 MM uses an ogre as the example- a creature clearly not intended to be a pc choice.

As an example, the complete text for the "Gnoll Characters" entry is:

A gnoll's favored class is ranger; gnoll leaders are usually rangers. Gnoll clerics usually worship Erythnul, deity of slaughter.

That is pretty far from a pc racial write-up IMHO; there's no indication of what its ability mods should be, what racial traits a pc should gain, etc.

So I'd argue that my statement is true (as I don't think 3.5 counts as an initial release of a new version of D&D anymore than I consider the Essentials books to be a new version vs. "PH Classic" 4e).

 

[Kobold Stew]

This seems a weird thing to be disagreeing about: one could equally say the statement is false and has been since 2003 or (arguably) 2000.

Regardless of what people said after publication or what you consider a new edition, and not considering the many races (including several of those I'm considering) without LA, I'm looking at and talking about the playtest documents. And I'm testing them.

* There are simple mistakes in the Bestiary. These should be identified and fixed, and this exercise has identified some. There are also some deeper errors that reveal (perhaps) rushed design. These should be considered and refined.

* Further, there exists enough information with some races to make the sort of guidelines that have been part of the core rules of the game for the past ten years. Are they rules everyone uses and likes? No. Does that matter? No. I expect DDN to have these guidelines -- optional, likely -- for playing orcs and goblins, and (based on the information we have) they are not going to be overpowered or require LA-type mechanics.

So far the resistance in this thread has been to the concept of PCs-as-orcs, not to the (derived) mechanics. That, in its way, is telling (and actually, I find, quite interesting/surprising).