Monsters as PCs

Assuming the lizardfolk's ECL is fair to begin with, it has nothing to lose, and everything to gain by starting off with a powerful race.

If we assume a kobold rogue3 is roughly equivalent in power to a lizardfolk, then at 3rd lv, they are both equally strong, but at lower lvs, the lizardfolk has the edge in terms of strength.

How is this fair? That's why the concept of monster class progressions exist.

You're assuming it's only fair to have the PC's are always equal in power, and that I'm solving for that outcome.

The fact is, I'm not solving for that -- I'd rather do for the correct "feel" than "fair".

In AD&D, fighters were definitely more powerful than wizards at 1st level, and quite the reverse was true at 9th level. It didn't feel "unfair" to me then, and it doesn't feel unfair to me now.

It's the same thing here -- the kobold will start out much weaker than the lizardman (which "feels" right -- it's just a kobold) -- but by 5th level, the kobold is a 5th level character, a legend among kobolds, potentially casting 3rd level spells, while the lizardman is still just a meatshield with teeth (and 2nd level abilities).

In the long term, that's "balanced" to me, and it feels right.

BTW, the other "balance" I use, which generally means people don't bother with monster races, is that I treat them as monsters. The average village isn't going to allow an unknown lizardman -- or a kobold, for that matter -- inside their gates or especially their inn.

So if a player picks a lizardman for extra hitpoints, I'll tolerate it to a certain extent and won't try to nerf its stats. But the pain of not being able to find equipment that fits in treasure hordes, of not being allowed in human settlements and therefore not being able to buy equipment easily, of being shunned and distrusted by most NPC's and bringing that upon your friends, and slow advancement add up pretty soon to not make it an easy choice.

Which means, surprise surprise, I've only seen PC's pick monster races -- a lizardman and a centaur, respectively -- twice in my many campaigns.

BTW, I'd have to get a pretty hard sell to allow anything much more exotic than that. Non-humanoid adventures don't make a lot of sense to me. I'd never allow something like a ghost or a dragon. A werewolf might be interesting, but man, there'd be some serious downsides . . .
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Assuming the lizardfolk's ECL is fair to begin with, it has nothing to lose, and everything to gain by starting off with a powerful race.

If we assume a kobold rogue3 is roughly equivalent in power to a lizardfolk, then at 3rd lv, they are both equally strong, but at lower lvs, the lizardfolk has the edge in terms of strength.

How is this fair? That's why the concept of monster class progressions exist.
Not to mention that leveling and increasing in power is fun. Having a PC that starts off powerful, but utterly unchanging and static in abilities for potentially months of playtime can take a lot of the fun out.
 

Hi,
I am considering starting a Monsters as PCs campaign sometime in the near future. So the PCs will play things like Mind Flayers and Ogres rather then elves and dwarves. Would you guys happen to have any tips on how to run a game like this? I'm still fairly new to DMing. It will be in either Pathfinder or 4th Edition D&D.
Cheers!

-Wierdoom
I have played and DMed for a large number of monstrous races under the 3.x rules. A close runner up for the biggest problem we faced was power balance. Savage Species did a good job with a difficult task, but there are still a monster or two in there that outshines similar level adventures (either standard or other monsters). I'll have to look back, but I think it was one of the eladrin or devas that was one of the only nerfs we ever had to perform in our very liberal campaigns. It had special abilties all over the place plus full spellcasting of a cleric. So basically they were uber-clerics. However, that was a single case out of quite a few that we played.

However, the biggest problem with monsters that we repeatedly faced was Level Adjustment. Some powers are simply very nice and are balanced with Level Adjustment - losing out on advancing your hit dice (and therefore hit points, skills, saves, and BAB). However, with monsters with very high LA, they possessed a few very powerful abilities, but had far lower hit points than wizards, and such low saves and BABs, that they were pretty much unplayable.

Think of an action movie with all these tough heroes, and this guy with a HUGE rocket launcher, but such a weakling that stepping on a rusty nail kills him. If he gets to use that rocket launcher, watch out! But an untied shoelace takes him out of commission. So they can be very powerful in a very narrow window, and balanced by being painfully weak in everything else.

we found low LA monsters - even those with lots of hit dice and therefore high ECL - to be far more comparable to standard PCs and the only trouble was that monstrous hit dice sometimes lacked any interesting abilities. The "dead level" problem of just increasing some numbers, but getting nothing new or interesting when you level. Balanced fine, just felt a little underwhelming when leveling.

So Savage Species did a noble job of trying to make the monsters straight out of the MM into playable races, and succeeded as best as anyone could at that goal. (Although I do disagree with the basic advice on estimating LA/ECL by starting with monster hit dice = level, and then special abilities are added on top of that. That's like saying you determine the ECL of a wizard by counting his wizard hit dice and then adding a certain number onto that for his spell casting ability. Not to mention all monster hit dice are certainly not created equal. Compare fey hit dice to dragon hit dice for example.)

However, the 4e method of just going for the monster's theme and completely forgetting trying to match the exact numbers and powers, is a far better way to address it in either edition. If I were to re-write Savage Species for Pathfinder (hmm....), I would make a baseline PC race for the monsters comparable to all other PC races. Then you would level in ordinary PC classes but could "buy" monster abilities either with feats or swapping out class features. For power balance, the monster abilities would have minimum levels. So a mind flayer's mind blast may be crazy powerful at low levels, but if you don't allow access until a higher level, it's much easier to integrate without having to "pay" for it through lost hit dice.

Perhaps something could also be worked out for "classes" based on monster types as well. So instead of leveling in Fighter, you could level in Monstrous Humanoid. That'd be trickier to balance, but not out of the question. It could help capture some of the monstrous feel as well for those who want their monster PCs to be even more unique.
 

Re: Savage Species.

I liked what they tried to do, but it did have some flaws.

However, if you look at Monte Cook's Arcana Unearthed/Arcana Evolved, you'll see he took the basic idea of what SS tried to do and did it right with his Racial character levels.

Essentially, the changes he made were:
  • The PC starts off with a stripped down basic version of the racial abilities...and need never take any racial levels at all.
  • The racial class levels are real levels: there are BAB bonuses, skill points, HD and all the other things you get with advancing in a character class.
  • If you do take levels in the racial class, you don't need to take them all. You can take as many or as few as you wish.
 

I did the same thing in a 2e campaign. With due diligence, it can work. My version had ogres, goblins and such as regular playable character right along side the "norms" it worked and everyone had fun. That is the biggest challenge, making sure everyone has fun. Monsters have different goals and dreams from humans and such. Make sure you take those in to account.

Other than that, I think you have the right idea, balance is a long term issue not an every level thing.
 

Not to mention that leveling and increasing in power is fun. Having a PC that starts off powerful, but utterly unchanging and static in abilities for potentially months of playtime can take a lot of the fun out.

Conversely, playing a "lizard man" that's nerfed into being essentially just a big kobold/human with a tail can also take a lot of the fun out of it.
 


Conversely, playing a "lizard man" that's nerfed into being essentially just a big kobold/human with a tail can also take a lot of the fun out of it.
That's why I'm a fan of the 4e MM style of monsters where you take something iconic to that race and include it at a reasonable power level. So, I agree with you that a lizardman who is just a human with a tail is lame. But I disagree that it's either "you get everything at first" or "you get nerfed into just being a human that looks funny". That's a false distinction, and I prefer a middle ground.

I also just have to say that advancing in level and growing a PC's lizardmanliness is both fun and a really nifty word. :)
 

Conversely, playing a "lizard man" that's nerfed into being essentially just a big kobold/human with a tail can also take a lot of the fun out of it.

Only in the beginning. You eventually get all the abilities of the lizardfolk. The purpose of the monster class is so you don't overshadow the rest of your party at lower lvs. :)
 


Pets & Sidekicks

Remove ads

Top