D&D 5E Wandering Monsters- playable monsters

[gyor]

I think the way to handle it is for relatively normal humaniods, like 4e, for more monsterous humaniods like orges and pixies start them off young so there less powerful (so you wouldn't play an orger, you'd play teenage orger), for template creatures like werewolves, vampires, liches I'd either do it as a class like 4e or a speciality (more likely a specialty except lich), and for straight up monsters like Naga, Dragons, Aasmon (not assimar just to be clear), Devils, and so on, I'd reserve for a druid subclass that specializes into permantly evolving into a particular creature.

For the Lich I'd take the 3.5 class the Dread Necromancer, update it for 5e and call the class Lich instead, which is what you end up becoming eventually, and I'd make the process even more central to the class.

I still don't understand where the line between dirt simple humaniods and PC races resides, why is a Tiefling, far more monsterious and scary then say a Aasmir or Genasi, is not a monsterous race and Aasmir and Genasi are?

And what about stuff like the Goliath, Shardmind, Shifters, Warforged, and so on, which have been n playable in an mm, but were either a PHB abit not a phb1, or in a setting phb, do they count as dirt simple humans?

 

[the Jester]

And what about stuff like the Goliath, Shardmind, Shifters, Warforged, and so on, which have been n playable in an mm, but were either a PHB abit not a phb1, or in a setting phb, do they count as dirt simple humans?

Good point- I have no interest in several of the PH2/PH3 races, but there are a couple I do like (warforged, goliath, deva).

All of them, however, could wait for a later book than the initial ruleset IMHO. They frankly aren't "core D&D" to me.

 

[Weather Report]

Basic Ed Tall Tales of the Wee Folk handled it quite well, room for improvement, of course.

 

[Jeff Carlsen]

I pretty much agree with monstrous races being loosely-balanced, if at all. However, I'm not certain that an curve indicator is any different than LA in terms of the problems that it faces. The racial benefits that Ogres or Pixies or Minotaurs get aren't going to mean the same thing at first level as they will at tenth or twentieth. There's a point where class abilities will dwarf racial bonuses. For physical races like Ogres, I'm for making an estimate of where that is and just assigning that as a minimum level. For magical races like Pixies, I think growing into power is thematically more appropriate, but the minimum level could work too.

What I'm thinking is that the indicator wouldn't be equated to levels. Levels are not made equally.

I was thinking more along the lines of how feats are being balanced roughly against the +1 ability score increase. Something that lets the DM decide to give a few extra magic items or an extra feat to weaker characters to create a rough sense of balance.

 

[Tovec]

It's not a matter of "fantasy enough". It's that I've always considered the underlying "theme" of D&D to be that of "normal" people who are skilled bravely facing threats that seem extremely dangerous.

Using the term "normal enough" vs "fantasy enough" are almost the same in this context. Plus you didn't answer my question. Humans are good, elves are good, dwarves are good. What about halflings, gnomes, orcs, kobolds, gnolls, goblins, hobgoblins, bugbears, ogres, giants, pixies, dragons. I'm assuming some of these lie on the other side of "normal enough" or "normal people" whereas the others don't. I certainly have a line but rules-wise I don't see it. I personally wouldn't allow a bugbear in my game, but that reason is ONLY a roleplay restriction, NOT a rules one.

It's the hero's journey. It's about people like the Fellowship of the Ring. Relatively normal people whose abilities are comparable in power to humans with a couple of advantages that humans don't have in exchange for some disadvantages humans don't have.

Who says it is a hero's journey, and only such? I mean who says beyond you, of course.
- I assumed the game was more about dungeon delving and slaying monsters. Something that wasn't really done all that often in LotR. Gandalf, probably the strongest caster in the LotR universe displayed power comparable to a 3.5 cleric of 5th level (IIRC). Are we all limited to this vision of yours?
- I like games that are decidedly not hero's journey. Some barely have a beginning and most have no end. I do sandboxes, I do cityscapes, I dungeon delve. I don't have a master who teaches me things, then who dies, I don't save a princess, ascend, then return home, etc. of the hero's journey.
- Who (except you) is saying a dragon should be in a party with a first level fighter? WHO? Not who wants, but who says it SHOULD.

A human with a sword and shield fighting a dragon in a picture looks super epic. It looks like that guy has to be super skilled and super brave. A true hero. You can only imagine the wondrous things he's accomplished in his lifetime.

When you see a picture of two dragons fighting, it's more like "Awesome! Two dragons are fighting!" but you don't imagine that either one of the dragons is especially skilled or heroic. They don't have to be. They have all the powers of a dragon.

I'd like the focus of D&D to be about that skill and heroism.

Okay, so human vs dragon = epic. Dragon vs dragon = epic.

Beyond that, the only difference I see is playstyle preference. I like a different one from you. So, they should only make your style and ignore mine? I assumed the answer for that is No. Instead, as they have stated, it should resemble something like; make two options and let people decide what they want to use.

There is no "focus of DnD" style. It is not about heroism anymore than it is about .. dungeon delving (and that alone). The type of disney-esque heroism you describe (of prince charming fighting the evil dragon, winning and story over) is ONE focus among many.

I've played in and run games with monster PCs before. They never came off as satisfying as games without them. Maybe the first 2 or 3 times they were extremely novel in a "Look, I'm playing an Amethyst Dragon!"(which I did) sort of way. After a while, though it just felt like we were playing monsters just to play something different not because they were more fun.

I'm sorry for you. This is different from my experience. Either experience seems valid to me. Both should be allowed for in rules. I feel actually a little jealous that someone got to play a dragon - of any type.

Plus, it always ends up with the monster PC being more powerful than everyone else in the group. Which starts the peer pressure to either play a monster as well in order to feel like you are contributing.

Doesn't have to. There are so far, I think, six solutions (in this thread) to have monster PCs not be more powerful than everyone else in the group.

As far as the second sentence here, let me explain my position of "play a monster to feel more powerful."

At game start, session 1, two OGRES (brothers) and one wizard (might have been a sorcerer, it was a while ago). Ogres killed some farmers, stole some cattle (cooked? and ate it), fled the authorities (because the wizard suggested they should or else they'd get in trouble). They also bashed around and generally intimidated the wizard enough that he was terrified (RP ftw, he could have taken them down with his spells) into helping them. They ended up escaping on a boat to flee.
Session 2, rest of the party shows up (finally) and I gain a centaur and a number of core raced PCs. The two parts of the party adventure around the boat, meeting some monsters, nearly killing some PCs in friendly fights. No one was killed (PCs or NPCs/enemies) and the party even recruited two NPCs (a half-dragon and an eryines[sp?]) for a while.
Session 3, the wizard flees (quit the game for RL reasons) in terror and runs from the boat as soon as it is docked. The new party is about half monsters at this point. They go adventuring in the new town, with the humanoid PCs shepherding the ogres with the half-dragon helping out and the eryines hiding, because she is a devil.
That was literally the first three sessions of my most successful and by ALL accounts most fun game I have run. Probably top 5 (maybe top 3) best games I have ever been in (or run). Over the course of that game I had (PCs or adventuring with them NPCs) two half-dragons, two ogres, two giants, an eryines, a centaur (two if you count his non-adventuring NPC wife), a tiny sentient magical ball, and about two times as many humanoids (compared to all the previous "monsters" combined).
No one had and trouble keeping up with the monsters. Keeping them in check? Absolutely, but that was the fun. In fact, due to LAs and HP inflation the number of the monsters were NOT a factor at higher levels. There were less at higher levels than at lower. In fact the two most alien party members were a little girl (who had a god-spark within her) and an ancient grey elf wizard.

I'd refer you to the hundreds of threads on this message board talking about why balance is necessary in a game but let me summarize:

I am well aware of balance problems. The issue, as I correctly state, is not balance. It is imbalance. No one wants to play in a game where one PC can wreck an entire encounter solo. That is an issue that is very real (as I said) and that they are aware of and working on.

Balance, as you more accurately say, rears its head when talking of "medium humanoid and power of your sword" vs. the human fighter with a sword.

If someone is playing a character way more powerful than everyone else the game becomes about them. They steal the spotlight continuously. Combats becomes about them because they have abilities no one else can ever acquire(which is often the reason they are picked by players in the first place).

Agreed. So, no dragons in first level parties. Check.

Why cast fireball when you have a Mind Flayer that can stun all the enemies at once, at will, for minutes, and eat all of their brains before they have a chance to react? No point is wasting resources...or playing the game really. You can go into the other room and play Xbox or something while the Mind Flayer defeats them single-handed and you delay.

So, no mind flayers at first level, check. Who (outside you) is suggesting this?

Interactions with NPCs become about them because of their high skills/ability to charm or dominate people/monstrous appearance. You know how often other people get to talk in a group that consists of a dragon, and 4 "standard" races? Almost never. I've tried it.

Do you know how often I've ever seen a party of 4 standard races? Never. Especially at higher levels, where a dragon would be present under virtually EVERY model. By that level every party member can have ungodly power or gear, heck, they can even kill powerful dragons by that point in a matter of SECONDS. Hardly heroic

NPCs come running up to the dragon because he's so large, he's the first one they see. Plus, he's the dragon...he has to be in charge.

Um.. why? Why not the bard with insane CHA? The wizard who can charm people? The fighter who might actually be a noble knight?

Plus, they've never seen a dragon and we need to role play their surprise upon seeing one. They need to discuss how they are so glad to meet him and ask him questions they've always wanted to ask a dragon.

While the other 4 players in your group waves your hands in the air and try to get the attention of anyone or even get NPCs in the world to acknowledge their presence.

People might initially notice a dragon. But that doesn't mean anything as far as "acknowledge the other PCs presence" goes.

People might fear a dragon and flee him. Making him a random variable that way. Maybe the dragon should hang back.
If they know chromatic dragons, they might flee or try and kill the dragon PC on sight.
If they know metallic dragons they might question him incessantly or ask him to solve their problems endlessly.

Friends of the dragon might be treated similarly. If this is a real concern (either way) for the party then maybe they should leave him outside of town and go in first to make sure he is okay. This sounds like great RP to me.

This also sounds exactly like the same things that might happen if the party entered town with an angel or a friend, or even an orc or half-orc party member. Roleplaying, just too bad you can't get that out of your heroic RPG.

And if they don't do all that stuff, you have the player of the dragon asking "Wait, no one is running away/towards me? No one is screaming? They're all perfectly ok with a dragon walking into their city? Doesn't that seem odd to everyone else?" The rest of the players agree and it seems out of place.

In general, the villagers should probably be running away. People who kill dragons should probably be running to do that. So, that should happen. No one has to say this seems out of place, because it isn't. Problem solved.

The game becomes ABOUT the fact that the PC is a monster rather than about whatever the DM wanted it to be about.

Right, which is not itself a problem. There have been a lot of good stories about monsters as a member of the team. There have been entire series about it. It is a game style. It is not what you want, and so when you are running a game you should exclude monster-PCs. That has no bearing on the rest of us.

For A: As you said, fighter-wizard dichotomy is hard enough. But by in large 5e isn't trying to balance them.

I'm going to have to disagree with this. They've made a LOT of changes in an attempt to balance them. Limited spell slots, having to prepare spells in higher slots to do more damage, and increased damage as fighters go up levels come to mind. The fighter-wizard dichotomy is much lessened in Next and I suspect you'll see it lessen even more in the next couple of playtests.

Okay, and? They aren't trying to balance them. They are trying to stop imbalance. Balance is everyone has the same options at the same time at the same level, no one wants this. Imbalance is character A can shoot fireballs, fly, scare people; character B can only run around and hope they fall onto his sword (because let's say he can't hit them on his own). Spot the difference? Both are bad. They are at opposite ends of the spectrum. WotC is moving along from imbalance to balance, but they don't want balance by itself. If they did it wouldn't matter what race/class you choose.

Never balance a combat advantage with a roleplaying disadvantage. I've seen the effects of this as far back as 2e kits that gave you the THAC0 of a Fighter(for a Thief) in exchange for "trouble finding you more often". Almost everyone took the kit because it was an advantage with a nebulous disadvantage.

So, don't make the disadvantage nebulous.

Most DMs had adventures planned out that didn't leave room for adding extra "trouble" for the one character. Most of them had written their adventures long before they even knew what PCs were playing in their game. They were either too lazy or stubborn to change their adventures in order to add "trouble" and some just felt like it would ruin the tone or flow of the adventure to add it.

That they are unwilling or unable to play with that disadvantage does not invalidate the trade off. What if we were playing chess and instead of allowing the knight to jump over other pieces you said they had to have a clear path. That would change the power of the knight. It would change it in a way that should not be allowed. If you don't want to play with the knight as created (only having half the ability and ignoring the other half) then you are using it wrong.

How this translates back to your example is easy. If the DM doesn't want to actually use the roleplay disadvantage, then they shouldn't allow the combat advantage. If they don't care about the people having that advantage then I don't see the problem either way. But DM laziness doesn't really come into my concern when talking of power levels and compatibility.

Even when it did get added, it felt more like an advantage than a disadvantage. The DM paid more attention to the PC with the kit. He became more important because he got his own storylines. Sometimes he got more XP than everyone else because he got to fight his own personal combats while he was off alone(while the rest of us watched him fight for an hour). The combats were never so strong as to kill him because the DM didn't want him dead.

I'm assuming he got more because the DM wasn't willing to force the PC to fight a group alone. I would. That is the specific disadvantage he selected. He wandered off in a dangerous area.. I have no idea what the actual nebulous mechanic actually does so I'm making something up which I hope is similar. Anyway, he wanders off and gets into a fight. If he had a group with him the fight would be appropriate and so, because he is alone, he ends up getting killed or at least beat up badly. That is a nebulous disadvantage that can definitely impact play. All it requires is taking off the kiddy gloves when someone purposely takes a disadvantage.

If I were playing pathfinder and had an oracle PC who had taken the curse that made them blind.. don't expect all fights to suddenly start happening within his vision of 30 (or is it 60) feet. They would be exactly the same as they were before, no extra adjustment needed on the DM's part. That is the value of a pre-written adventure and a properly made disadvantage.

When skills and powers for 2e came out, I decided it was super cool. A friend of mine showed me how wrong I was. He took every roleplaying disadvantage he could find in exchange for combat abilities. I told him the game was going to be no fun for him....he said that we'd see. Nearly every NPC he ran into hated his guts. He was ugly, belligerent, arrogant, unable to hold his tongue, and hated all of them twice as much as they hated him(all for points, of course).

So within 5 minutes he had started a bar fight and had killed 3 random people in the bar simply because he could. The guards showed up and he proceeded to defeat 5 guards single handedly. Then, 5 minutes later 15 more guards showed up. He defeated them soundly. Then 5 minutes later 5 more showed up. These were the elite guards. They were all level 3 and he was level 1. But the abilities he bought easily cancelled out the level difference. One of them had a +1 sword and one had a suit of plate. He looted those and equipped himself. He then proceeded to ask for XP. Which increased him to level 2. I then threw wizards up against him armed with some powerful magic items figuring that he'd learn his lesson. Though, his character was a Cleric/Wizard/Fighter/Thief because of the points he spent. He defeated them as well and got all their magic items.

First, you were the DM?

Second, friend of yours took everything he could to be insanely OVER POWERED and dumb, ugly and stupid as he could?

Third, you (as the DM) let him play this OVER POWERED character? Rookie mistake, but alright. When that happens, which I again say you shouldn't let him do (power gamer meets inexperienced DM who lets him do whatever he wants), this is going to be a recipe for disaster. There are two solutions, neither of which have to do with the direct power level (advantages in combat vs disadvantages out of combat).
1. Everyone else gets the similar adjustments. So, he gets ugly and strong then why not all the guards? This is the nuclear deterent method. My least favourite (after experience) but an acceptable one at times.
2. JUST SAY NO. Basically, skip right down to "he proved his point that he can make an insane character" and then move on.

This is decidedly a problem of a power gamer and NOT a problem with the game he is abusing.

Then I gave up and realized that although I could kill him, I couldn't do it in a way that made sense in the game. The city didn't have 10th level guards. I had figured out their resources in advance. He was on track to kill every guard in town.

Okay, so, you let one person have the powers of a god but then NO ONE else did? Yeah, seems like a break down in the entire system, never play 2e again.[/sarcasm] Or put another way, if there is reason enough for such a powerful PC to be in the town (which I argue there wasn't) then there is such a reason for similarly powerful NPCs to be in town. You say it didn't make sense, I say it is the only way it makes sense.

We jointly agreed that he had proved his point. Giving a character more combat power in exchange for roleplaying disadvantages is a BAD idea.

Having never met the guy, I can't say this for certain, but I'm guessing his point was to make a powerful PC that could do amazing things in combat. It probably wasn't to point out that roleplaying disadvantages were a BAD idea.
Also, at the point you described above, they aren't a PC anymore; they are a villain. They willingly kill dozens of people for no good reason because they could = villain. Evil groups can exist but I'm guessing that wasn't the point. If they were trying to NOT do these things then they failed at RP. Yes, he could have wiped out every guard in town but that isn't a failure in itself with the roleplaying disadvantage. The disadvantage (if I'm reading correctly) worked fine. The problem was the player, or the outcome of that disadvantage.

Ex2. Party enters throne room to meet the King.
Character 1: You suck King, kiss my butt.
King: Kill that man!
OP character proceeds to kill EVERYONE because he can.
OP character: Problem solved.
Horrified other PC members: Um.. NO! You just murdered everyone, you are the bad guy now.

Ex2. Party enters throne room to meet the King.
Character 1: You suck King, kiss my butt.
King: Kill that man!
Character 1 proceeds to kill EVERYONE because he is a barbarian and rages.
Character 1: Problem solved.
Horrified other PC members: Um.. NO! You just murdered everyone, you are the bad guy now.

So, are you saying that barbarians and rage are now no longer allowed, because they can allow this?

I'm much more in favor of using weaker forms of creatures. However, when it comes down to it...if you are going to use a weaker form of a creature, why allow it at all?

"I'm a flightless, human sized dragon with no breath weapon or magical powers and my claws do 1d8+3 damage, just like your sword!"
"So, you're a human fighter then..."
"Yeah, basically...but I look like a dragon."

That is part of my problem with weak forms actually. I agree that weak forms are a poor option for other reasons too, but you have definitely nailed part of my objection

At least Wizards can be balanced from the point of view of "You have limited resources and what you choose to do with them determines your focus for today." It's impossible to balance a creature that has wings and can fly at will.

No it isn't. As they tried in previous editions, you can balance that against someone who can fly as a spell. They just get At will instead of X times per day. They also don't get the OTHER things that caster can do at that level. They also have then START leveling at that point and are forever behind, set back from all the other spellcasting the person who gets X per day will get. There are a lot of ways to try and balance those things.

Oh, and you might as well have the same objection to the wizard vs. fighter at pretty much any level. Which I'll grant is a valid argument to have, but not one we should have here, as far as I see things.

The only way to balance it is to say "Sorry, you can only fly twice a day" and that is bound to disappoint the person who wants to play that creature as well as strain disbelief as to exactly why his wings only work twice per day.

That touches on another issue I have with weak forms. If a real angel has wings and can fly all day every day, then an angel PC should be able to too. Using another example, if regular angels don't need to eat, breathe or sleep, then I expect an angel PC to not be forced to either.

Now, if you are going to create a weaker form; that has to do any of those things, then I can understand that but in that case I NEED the weaker form to not just a weaker form but to have a roleplay reason why he is different. Why does a weaker one exist, why aren't all angels that weak and level up from there? If they are just weaker (younger, baby, will grow into it) then why isnt the weaker (younger, baby, will grow into it) a NORMAL form of the monster in the first place.

For B: I haven't seen anyone, who wants monster PCs, say they want to play a dragon at first level. Nor a mind flayer. In fact the few people I have seen post about that says (myself included) that they would be willing to wait to get a full blown version. Again, the weaker monster could be implemented here. Or a buyoff as I (via PF) suggested. Heck even my half-baked Half-monster idea could work.

I have seen people ask for it in my games before. Especially new players:

"I want to be a dragon! That would be awesome!"
"Sorry, Dragons are too powerful, they have a level adjustment so you'd have to be 8th level to be a level 1 dragon. We are starting at level 1."
"Well then, I'll be a giant!"
"Sorry, level adjustment. You have to be level 5 for a giant."
"Ogre?"
"Nope, level 3. But you could switch character to make one when we get to level 3."
"But, I don't want to play a character for 2 levels and then switch to a different one."
"Sorry, I guess you could play this scaled down Ogre when you start with the same strength and size as everyone else and slowly grow."
"What's the point of playing an Ogre if I'm not bigger and stronger than everyone else? I'll just be an elf."

Solid and conclusive.[/sarcasm] Being a dragon, giant, ogre or anything like that is too strong for level 1. Sorry, but it is true. Play something with a lower adjustment that fits in the range or not. I don't really care. It doesn't mean you can't be one later. Not really an argument either way for monsters as PCs. Just an argument that a player has come to you wanting to play it.

My post, and I assume the part this was mostly directed to, said that no one is suggesting that playing at level 1 as a dragon, etc. should be allowed. It is too powerful at that level. WANTING TO is a completely different thing. I definitely have wanted to do all kinds of crazy things but that doesn't mean I should be allowed to do that at level 1.

It is as silly as (3.5'd only for this example)...

"I want to be able to cast Wish! That would be awesome!"
"Sorry, Wish is too powerful, they are 9th level spells and cast only by a 17th level wizard. We are starting at level 1."
"Well then, I'll take disintegrate!"
"Sorry, 6th level spell. You have to be level 11th level."
"Fireball?"
"Nope, level 5 wizard."
"But, I want to play a character with leet magical powers at level 1."
"Sorry, you start with the some spells and work your way up slowly."
"What's the point of playing an wizard if I'm not smarter and stronger than everyone else? I'll just be a fighter."

Just because a player, or anyone, wants to play it doesn't mean it should be available at first level. Available eventually? YES, please. But at first level is a silly place to start and expect it. Or at least to expect to be any more powerful than anyone else.

Oh, unrelated to those two above, Level Adjustment:
What if LA wasn't a number added onto the HD. What if the monster had HD (along with HP, saves, and abilities) and that was it. Some of those HD might be relatively useless and you could even have a reverse LA, wherein you reduce the effective level to UNDER the HD total. That reduces the problem of saves (though that is much less an issue in 5e) and HP with a HD 4, LA 2 monster who ends up with far less HP than a 6th level PC. Just a thought.

Those issues only apply to 3.5e/Pathfinder. In D&D Next HD don't affect saves, BAB, or abilities, so it becomes kind of moot.

I did mention (before) that it applied much less in 5e. HP do still scale at an astounding rate and so it would work for those at least.

I never liked LA. It always seemed so clunky and never made an even remotely balanced character.

You don't like it therefore we should all abandon it. Good to know. Or, maybe we can make LA work. I have proposed two ideas so far, more than I have seen from WotC on the same subject. Maybe they should hire me. They can't hire you because you don't want to make anything, just criticize why something hasn't ever worked and never will.

The problem is that a PC has HP, Saves, Bonuses to Attack, Bonuses to Damage, Defenses. Normal PCs are balanced around the difference in these numbers. One class might have 3 less hitpoints in exchange for an average of 5 more points of damage per round. So, when a monster attacked the party, the one with less hitpoints was slightly more likely to die.

Agreed. Doesn't mean LAs can't work. I think the Jester is onto something here. What if all monsters didn't just have monster levels but NPC versions of class levels; so those that become PCs can use their current level as an equivalent level of PC class and advance from there. It might even make monster building easier, more balanced and make the abilities they get make more sense.

However, with LA creatures, you always ended up with someone in the party who had 2 HD and a LA of +8 or something in a group with 10th level people. The LA creature had an extremely powerful ability but had 15 hitpoints while the rest of the party had 100. Meanwhile he had +5 to hit while everyone else had +15.

Sigh, you didn't even read the thing you quoted there did you? I'll clarify here then.

If a let's say 8 HD monster was being used as a PC then maybe 8 is the effective character level. Meaning they have a total adjustment of 8, before they can start taking class levels (or different/more levels if we use the Jester's idea). Then, with my idea in the last post, if they are a 8 HD creature with a 2 LA they are an effective character 6. In this model the LA should never INCREASE the effective level.
Meaning an 9th character with an effective level 8 has 1 class level and 8 monster levels, whereas a 9th character with effective level 6 monster has 3 class levels.

That bypasses the problem of effectiveness and relative power, as well as HP, and the things that HP and levels could be traded off as. Seems like a win-win as far as your specific concerns go.

This is a 5e discussion thread, I figured it might be a good idea not only to talk about the issue but perhaps to try and come up with a solution. WotC almost certainly isn't going to take it but they might see it or be spurred into working on it.

 

[Hussar]

Not really surprising considering that 4E went heavily against the idea of monster races (except for a few allowed ones) and that most people voting on the WotC boards prefer 4E.

I'm not sure if that's true or not to be honest. In other cases, there's been a strong sentiment to go back to another edition's version of various elements. Look at the recent Planescape stuff. We saw a pretty strong rejection of 4e's approach.

I don't think it's quite that simple.

I mean, we've had 4 editions try to make monster races and every time it's been problematic. And monster races (and by this I mean stuff that's actually monsters, not just orcs or hobgoblins or lizard men) have never really been popular IME.

You have to be careful reading into those kinds of stats.
Another way of saying it might be "I might not use it, but I think it should be in the game" as 34% and then add it to the people who DO want it. Ultimately the best idea isn't to lump people into categories. Putting people who are neutral or apathetic in with people who ABSOLUTELY WANT it is as wrong as putting them in with ABSOLUTELY HATE it. I do like the "too polite to tell people what to do" from an internet poll. That was an interesting interpretation. So, I say that we should take the 34% who said "not in my game, but.." to be just that.

Well, I wouldn't do it that way. There was 4 options there. The first two were basically, I want this in the game, either, I really want it, or my game will have problems if it's not there. The third option basically couldn't care less. Their game won't be affected in the slightest by the inclusion or exclusion of these rules. And the final group actually would prefer not to have these rules in the game.

Basically, only 20% of respondents actually care if these rules are included. 80% either don't care or flat out don't want. And, even excluding the "don't care" crowd, the numbers that flat out don't want double those who do.

So, if you're a game company, what do you spend time and resources on? Getting these rules right is difficult. Thirty years of game history shows just how difficult getting these right are. It's a very tricky element of game design that has never actually worked in the past. Or at least, not worked very well.

But, OTOH, if you don't include it, you're pretty much guaranteed the gnome effect. Sigh.

 

[Li Shenron]

Basically, only 20% of respondents actually care if these rules are included. 80% either don't care or flat out don't want. And, even excluding the "don't care" crowd, the numbers that flat out don't want double those who do.

So, if you're a game company, what do you spend time and resources on?

With these number, I would definitely give the game these rules, although not in the first core books but in supplements.

20% is definitely enough to be worth making a supplement with these rules.

40% of people who voted "we don't want" should be considered irrelevant in this case, because these rules are clearly optional and have NO EFFECT to those groups who aren't going to use them. If released in supplements, they won't take any space away from the core books and that 40% of people will never see them and will never spend 1$ on them.

Most likely, those 40% of people just don't want these rules in their books, so keeping these for supplements is OK. And if some of those 40% of people really don't want these rules to exist even in supplements, because they don't want other people to play what they want... well, IMHO their opinion deserves to count nothing.

 

[gyor]

They really should have added template races, like werewolves, as a seperate catogory, because they don't change your base race, they merely mutate it. So an dwarf wereboar is still a Dwarf, he's just a Dwarf +.

The catogories should be exotic humaniods, humaniod Templates, complex humaniods (those with problematic abilities), and true monsters/magical beasts.

So far it appears exotic humaniods are doing well and will like be in, complex humaniods are not doing as well, but most people don't appear opposed to it.

And last true monsters are out of luck.

I will mention the easiest way to play a monster in 3.5 was to take the leadership feat or something like it and get a monster companion, and then primarily role play as the monster with the actually pc as companion.

 

[Quartz]

Just an idea but perhaps there's another way? Put aside 3E's LA and ECL and take a look at 4e's tiers and consider the monster's powers. Then allow them as PCs in the tier above. Adapt for 3E or 5E.

Let's take the Siren as an example. In 4e terms it's in the middle of the Heroic tier, and its powers are a good fit for a Paragon or Epic PC. So just create a standard PC, say it's a Siren, define its song as an Encounter power and drop one of the character's other Encounter powers, define Flight as a Utility power and drop one of the character's other Utility powers. For stat boosts, simply assume they've been pre-applied to the relevant stats. So an Ogre would be a standard Paragon PC and you just assume that the discretionary stat boosts were applied to Strength. Similarly with a Centaur PC - at a sufficiently high level you can ignore the fact that it can run faster.

I suppose the point is that the monster part should be very much less than the character part.

 

[Alzrius]

They should stop the d20 process of deriving saves and To Hit bonuses from Hit Dice / Hit Points. Hit Dice does not equal level and getting rid of the concept of "character level" would be a positive thing.

I think that the problem is the opposite issue.

A standard class level, overlooking specific class abilities, will grant four things: Hit Dice, BAB, saves, and skill points. Each Hit Die that a monster earns will come with those other three as part of the same package, so superficially they're the same - one class level is worth one "monster level."

The problems start to come when we look at the issue of class features. Specifically, they're two-fold:

1) Monster abilities don't build on themselves across levels the way significant class abilities do, and can't be built on by existing classes. Hence why your 1st-level gnoll ranger will not be as effective as your 3rd-level human ranger; the latter character simply has more class abilities that are increasing or improving on themselves over multiple levels.

2) Assigning a "level adjustment" to special monster abilities is problematic at best. Saying that special powers are, collectively, worth a certain amount of levels is difficult, because those special powers will only be useful at certain (usually very specific) times, whereas by contrast the standard fare of levels (the aforementioned Hit Dice, BAB, saves, and skill points) will, collectively, be useful in virtually all situations. A 3.5 aasimar has several special abilities (most notably a +2 to Wisdom and Charisma, resistance 5 to acid, cold, and electricity, and can use daylight once per day), but these aren't going to help when trying to hit an enemy, or survive being hit in combat, or make a Reflex save, etc.

There's a reason why each class levels grant a suite of things that, while certainly not sexy, lay the foundations for a workable character in the game system - and that's before their special class abilities are taken into account. Special abilities, even when grouped into a whole, can't be so easily declared to be worth X number of levels.