Monsters as PCs

[haakon1]

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.

OK, but I still don't care.

I'm thinking it's a team, and it's roleplaying -- not a competition between players where everyone needs to be equal at all times. Since I don't care, I assume my players don't either.

But honestly, I've only had monster PC's twice, so I'm mostly speaking from my "theory", not actual experience with it.

I'm currently running (3.5e) parties with uneven levels (one is 4-7, the other 3-4), and nobody seem to care -- they started at different times, and it is what it is. Eventually, people catch up anyhow.

 

[N0Man]

I have a couple thoughts here...

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.

...

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

Gygax obviously had this notion of balance too. I don't buy into it, but I understand the argument. However, this notion of balance frequently breaks in two very common scenarios.

The first common scenario is that often when starting out at level 1, many campaigns just don't last until the levels where the weaker class gains the advantage to offset the early disadvantages. This is often due to character deaths, real life cutting the campaign short, it was only planned for the low levels, or character deaths and simply not surviving to the high levels.

The second common scenario is when the DM starts you out at higher than level 1. It's well intentioned in order to make starting less randomly lethal, and also to allow some of the weaker characters (in the above balance scheme) to be more useful and more balanced. The problem is that now they start more balanced and only get stronger over time. The "over time" required to have balance is never achieved.

You might argue that the existence of both of these scenarios constitutes "overall", but is it really balanced if it's a balance that compares separate games and campaigns?

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 . . .

This is a pet peeve of mine. Not specifically for races (which I've never played a race), but when a DM allows players to choose something they find interesting and that the DM personally doesn't like (either by flavor, or for their campaign world), and the player is punished for it.

If you don't like something as a DM, then outright ban it. This might get into arguments of DM entitlement vs Player entitlement, however if you are *effectively* banning something by punishing them constantly for the choice anyway then have the stones to just ban it. Either that or just tell them straight up, "you can play that if you want... but I'm going to make it so annoying and not fun that you will regret it the entire time and become an example so that the other players don't make the same mistake."

It reminds me of the pains I felt trying to play a Wizard in a world that the DM decided he wanted to be a fairly low-magic (but not no-magic) world...

 

[N0Man]

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.

I've never played a monster. In editions previous to 4E, I always felt that monster races tended to be picked by the munchkins that just wanted some advantage. At least that was the experiences that I had with players wanting to be monsters.

However, in 4E, it doesn't feel broken or hard to fit in at all. Not only would I be more open to it as a DM, I'd be more open to trying it myself.

 

[haakon1]

I have a couple thoughts here...

Gygax obviously had this notion of balance too. I don't buy into it, but I understand the argument. However, this notion of balance frequently breaks in two very common scenarios.

The first common scenario is that often when starting out at level 1, many campaigns just don't last until the levels where the weaker class gains the advantage to offset the early disadvantages. This is often due to character deaths, real life cutting the campaign short, it was only planned for the low levels, or character deaths and simply not surviving to the high levels.

The second common scenario is when the DM starts you out at higher than level 1. It's well intentioned in order to make starting less randomly lethal, and also to allow some of the weaker characters (in the above balance scheme) to be more useful and more balanced. The problem is that now they start more balanced and only get stronger over time. The "over time" required to have balance is never achieved.

You might argue that the existence of both of these scenarios constitutes "overall", but is it really balanced if it's a balance that compares separate games and campaigns?

OK. You are right about balance.

But repeating myself, but I'm not particularly concerned with whether it's balanced. D&D is a cooperative game, not a competition, and different characters are interesting and fun to play for different reasons. Obviously a minority view.

This is a pet peeve of mine. Not specifically for races (which I've never played a race), but when a DM allows players to choose something they find interesting and that the DM personally doesn't like (either by flavor, or for their campaign world), and the player is punished for it.

If you don't like something as a DM, then outright ban it. This might get into arguments of DM entitlement vs Player entitlement, however if you are *effectively* banning something by punishing them constantly for the choice anyway then have the stones to just ban it. Either that or just tell them straight up, "you can play that if you want... but I'm going to make it so annoying and not fun that you will regret it the entire time and become an example so that the other players don't make the same mistake."

It reminds me of the pains I felt trying to play a Wizard in a world that the DM decided he wanted to be a fairly low-magic (but not no-magic) world...

Nod, I "punished" my player by letting him play a full-strength Lizardman in a 1st level party, to make an example of him, because I like to annoy my players and I have no balls.

I will take your advice about banning stuff that annoys you now . . .

 

[Cyronax]

If you end up going with 4th edition might I suggest using something similar to the companion rules from the DMG2? Basically those rules are used to create an NPC similar in power to a PC of equal level but balanced for play. Essentially it's like creating an NPC except they get healing surges and different powers based on what role they have in the group. It's worth checking out.

Good point. Companion-style rules for the DMG2 are a good option.

A second option, which I think is somewhat easier on both the players and the DM is to simply download the Adventure Tools' Monster Builder from WotC. I'd then choose a baseline level -- lets say 5th level. Then I'd simply use the program to increase or decrease a monster's level to match and then just tack on X number of healing surges to the monstrous PCs and viola! You could even let each 5th level monster (or higher) take a class template in order to get a few player character-like powers but retain their unique monster-ness.

This enables your players to scour the Monster Manuals (etc.) to find really cool ideas for monsters OR it could allow them to easily play with the monster builder system to make entirely new monsters.

One last point, I'd also make sure each monstrous PC were the same secondary role -- i.e. all 'standard' or 'elite' monsters.

That actually makes me want to try this for a one shot for my group.....hmmm....

Edit: The main drawback to my suggestion is that one player or DM would have to sign up for a month's subscription to WotC to get the (complete) Monster Builder. But on the plus side, you could also download the Character Builder, Dragon and Dungeon articles, etc.

C.I.D.

 

[Engilbrand]

Actually, I think that this could be pretty easy in 4e. Think about all of the different monsters that are already easily turned into PCs.

Goblins
Hobgoblins
Bugbears
Gnolls
Minotaurs
Kobolds
Drow
Doppelgaengers (Changelings)
Werewolves (Shifters)
Demons/Devils (Tieflings)
Elementals (Genasi- especially the new "evil" types)
Undead (Revenants)
Vampire (Dhampyr feat)

Through feats and classes, other things can easily be given the flavor. A Mind Flayer? I'm sure that there are enough things out there to create a truly aberrant monster of a PC.
This way of doing things is also balanced, and you can use the Character Builder. There are a couple of them that may be a little unbalanced, like the Goblin or Bugbear, but even that's a fairly minor thing, if it's an issue at all.

 

[Turtlejay]

Did we establish that he *was* doing this in 4e? I think 3.5 has a lot more tools, and a lot more interesting monster races. We did this campaign (it never took off, but the first few sessions were awesome). Consider giving a few levels of 'free' LA or HD. We had 4 levels to spend on just that, encouraging everyone to at least choose a template or something.

It was also an 'evil' campaign. We weren't all jerks (most of us, anyways), but we were working for a Goblin Queen, our enemies were the folks of the topside, etc. This type of campaign can be fun if you give the players a bit of freedom to express their. . . .monstery nature.

Jay

 

[Cyronax]

Sorry we weren't as 'fair and balanced' as you would've liked. I think most of us were clear with our examples as to which edition we were talking about. Why is everything distilled down to an edition war?

I made a 4e example in my original thread post. I don't hold either better in the long run, after much experience with both systems.

 

[Herobizkit]

I have virtually no experience with 4e, but I did read the "Monsters as PC's" section in the back of the MM. 4e seems to play the races as +X to two (or three) stats and a racial power, and then says "go for it". 3e, OTOH, seems to play it as convoluted as possible. I never considerd the word "balance" before in my games pre-3e. You played what you wanted, and it was up to the group as a whole to decide if you're too uber. If you were, well... the DM was justified in ramping up the monsters to compensate.

All that said, if the OP is planning a 4e game, he's free to wing it. If he's playing 3e, he can still wing it so long as he understand that everyone is "supposed" to be of equal strength, but due to the glut of rules and stats, most monsters just aren't at par with PCs.

Also, I played both an Ogre Mage and a Pixie in 2e and 3e. My 3e experience with said monsters was much more enjoyable... I suspect this is largely due to my gaming experience and maturity, as well as knowing what was and wasn't "over the top" to the point of wrecking the DM's campaign.

 

[Turtlejay]

Wow, no need for any kind of attitude. . .just suggestions is all.

I played in a monsters only one-shot when we were still getting the hang of 4e. Minotaur, Gnoll, Undead (warforged), and Changeling try to storm a castle. It was one of the most fun sessions of D&D I have ever played, and it comes up to this day. Nothing like taking the training wheels off and just letting a bunch of boys just behave like jerks. We were slaughtering peasants, and using their organs for rituals. . .we threw some guards out of a window, and basically wreaked havok.

The only thing to watch out for with 4e is some of the under-developed MM classes might be less powerful than their fully supported cousins. No racial feats or PP's, and they seem to be lacking a power or feature to be balanced. Look at the Gnome in MM vs PHB2, he got a small bump in power and one of the often mentioned broken feats (Gnome Phantasmist).

Jay