Removing Racial HD

[Steinhauser]

if they were a normal member of their species then they wouldn't become an adventurer. They'd follow the "I'm a monster" development and pick up all the normal power and all the normal hit dice, and get killed by adventurers like normal.

This brings up a good point; namely, why big monsters don't adventure.

Or more specifically, why they don't all have magic items to match their ECL. It would be well within their power to acquire such items, and to their immediate and absolute benefit. But for some reason they just don't do it. (Perhaps this can become an in-game explanation to the "monster races don't get magic items" fix.)

On a similar but more off topic note, why wouldn't all dragons take 20 levels of a class as soon as they could? Instead of waiting 1000 years to reach the peaks of their power, they just take 20 levels of a class as wyrmlings and reach the same level of power in 5 years.

 

[Runestar]

Or more specifically, why they don't all have magic items to match their ECL. It would be well within their power to acquire such items, and to their immediate and absolute benefit.

They could, but from a metagame perspective, this is problematic in that when the PCs overcome them, you risk the party getting much more gear than recommended for their wealth guidelines. It is more practical to give a monster extra HD than a +5 weapon and an amulet of con+6.

The crs in the books assume the monsters come as statted (ie: practically naked). If you give them additional gear, then you may need to increase their cr to reflect that they are now more challenging.

It would still be plausible for them to have 1 or 2 cheap magic items (MIC rocks in this aspect - I use it quite extensively to round out my monster npcs' capabilities), but unlikely that they be decked out from head to toe in magic gear.

On a similar but more off topic note, why wouldn't all dragons take 20 levels of a class as soon as they could? Instead of waiting 1000 years to reach the peaks of their power, they just take 20 levels of a class as wyrmlings and reach the same level of power in 5 years.

As a child, I doubt they will have the mental faculties to contemplate taking class lvs. I suppose you could rationalise it that they are confident with their physical prowess, and so do not see the need to improve themselves further by taking class lvs (which means extra work).

From a gameplay perspective, I think it would be cooler to pit your PCs against a fully grown dragon rather than a very young dragon with 20 class lvs.

You could do this. I found the concept horrific. By the time they whittle them down, youre not even playing the same creature.

I agree. I play a powerful race because I want the full package and everything which comes with the stat block in the MM, not some base race which simply shares the same name but none of its abilities.

If I play a minotaur PC for instance, I want it all - the stat bonuses, NA bonus etc, not a half-orc with horns taped to my forehead.

 

[Steinhauser]

I agree - from a gameplay perspective, there is no reason why monsters should have magical items, or dragons have class levels.

But from a flavour perspective, there's no reason they shouldn't. These are power-hungry, evil beings that could, in some cases, level small towns with a minimum of effort (Illithids, beholders, medusas, etc.). That's why the idea came to me that they would have some naural inclination AGAINST using such items, which, as stated, would put them relatively on par with PCs of their ECL who have full item collections.

As a child, I doubt they will have the mental faculties to contemplate taking class lvs. I suppose you could rationalise it that they are confident with their physical prowess, and so do not see the need to improve themselves further by taking class lvs (which means extra work).

Keep in mind chromatic wyrmlings have mental scores on par with the average commoner (10/10/10 for most). Metallic wyrmlings have 14/14/14, which is genius level. That's right out of the egg. I could see the rationalization for the good dragons, but for the power-hungry evil ones, who are constantly forced to defer to their elders, I would think adventuring for a few years and then slaying their parents would be a tantilizing prospect.

 

[Celebrim]

I could see the rationalization for the good dragons, but for the power-hungry evil ones, who are constantly forced to defer to their elders, I would think adventuring for a few years and then slaying their parents would be a tantilizing prospect.

In my campaign, monsters like dragons have greater innate power, but lack the extraordinary ability of the races of free peoples to make of themselves more than they are.

The higher your LA/ECL, the bigger the penalty that you take on earned XP. And, since you are effectively high level, you also learn less XP from overcoming a given challenge so that it's much much harder for a dragon to level up that a person.

LA XP Penalty
0 0%
1 10%
2 20%
3 30%
4 40%
5+ Alot (never worried about it, since I'd probably never approve of it anyway).

This is actually cosmologically speaking a very important part of my world. Not even the gods understand how the free peoples are able to do this, since when the gods made mortals, they never designed them to have this ability and even the gods (especially the gods) themselves lack it. The origin of mortal's ability to attain heights of power not innate to themselves is a campaign mystery. Of course, to even know this is a mystery would take like a DC 30 Know (Religion) check. It's not something most people know about, and its the sort of thing mostly talked about in heretical scholarly tomes that people try not to leave lying around.

 

[Sylrae]

As someone who likes monster-races, I see your campaign options for lowered XP to be painful.

That being said, if it works in your game, great. But you wouldn't see me playing an LA race in those games.

Not unless you let me design my own Monte-Cook Style Racial Progression.

lol

YMMV

 

[Celebrim]

As someone who likes monster-races, I see your campaign options for lowered XP to be painful.

I imagine you would.

That being said, if it works in your game, great. But you wouldn't see me playing an LA race in those games.

That's the idea.

Not unless you let me design my own Monte-Cook Style Racial Progression.

You know, I might. I'm not opposed to creativity if it had a good reason, I just can't at the moment think of a good reason for it. Considering that out of 'the box' in my campaign you can play a shape shifting fairy, a creepy goblin assasin, a berserker 'birdman' that goes into battle singing or a person who is slowly transforming into an insect, the notion that you need to play a 'monster race' is something I look on skeptically. What do you have in mind, and how are you going to justify it?

The problem the table tries to solve is the fact that LA is linear but the increase in character power is exponential. So the idea is to apply this adjustment both to keep balance at high levels of play AND to be able to shave points off LA to keep HD in line at low levels.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

Good thread. I always enjoy what you have to say, Celebrim.

Might I suggest, instead of an XP penalty, an "XP Debt" that needs to be repaid? I think this is a closer fit to the gradually flattening power curve of CR (ie, CR1 to CR2 is a bigger jump than CR19 to CR20.)

 

[CAFargo]

On a similar but more off topic note, why wouldn't all dragons take 20 levels of a class as soon as they could? Instead of waiting 1000 years to reach the peaks of their power, they just take 20 levels of a class as wyrmlings and reach the same level of power in 5 years.

My feeling about this is that dragons tend to spend most of their time laying around in giant caverns, and that the only reason they have massive treasure hoards is because they spent 1,000 years collecting them. Because of this, they tend not to be very capable of taking a lot of levels...

In other words, the players would feel like wimps being mauled upon by a wyrmling at 20th level, even a wyrmling with 20 levels in wizard...

These are all alright ideas, but I personally feel that WotC did a pretty good job balancing things out as it is. In truth, I only posted this because one of my players wanted to play a half-dragon stone giant. Maybe the higher LA's aren't such a bad idea...

 

[ValhallaGH]

You could do this. I found the concept horrific.

I found it both delightful and liberating, with a genuine power and flavor boost to the crappy monster races like Gnolls, and getting playable versions of overwhelming creatures like Minotaurs that shine and feel like minotaurs but don't shine any more than a well-played anything-else.

I think this is a poor solution. Mechanically it works.

Which is the part the OP was asking for help on. Which makes it a pretty good solution, unless you hate the flavor.
Is it perfect? Heck no.
Does it work for all monsters? Heck no.
Does it work for the kinds of monsters that players should probably have access to as PCs? Yes.
So, I bring it up.

If it bothers you the same way that tiramisu bothers some diners then, by all means, ignore it. You can mention that you dislike it. That's your privilege and, as a member of this community, a kind of courteous duty you've taken on to warn others that they may not enjoy adding something to their campaign.

P.S. While some of Monte's race-classes are nice, a golden-god of game design he ain't. I'm aware that opinions vary.

 

[Sylrae]

You know, I might. I'm not opposed to creativity if it had a good reason, I just can't at the moment think of a good reason for it. Considering that out of 'the box' in my campaign you can play a shape shifting fairy, a creepy goblin assasin, a berserker 'birdman' that goes into battle singing or a person who is slowly transforming into an insect, the notion that you need to play a 'monster race' is something I look on skeptically. What do you have in mind, and how are you going to justify it?

Honestly, my favorite races are 'monsters'.

1. The Satyr: I enjoy playing these cheeky SoBs. No Pipes, because that's just a race-specific magic item, and magic items shouldn't be a part of a race. If I play a caster, then I usually play a bard. Usually we spread the levels out a bit more, and build in bard spell progression so when you switch over to bard youre only behind in the class abilities. If youre playing a melee character, this isnt an issue. This is if youre building the class progression for a specific character. it's not a good general solution.

2. The Succubus/Incubus. They make for interesting characters. Same as above, but I'd likely be playing a Sorcerer.The ability to lose the wings and look human/elven/whatever is pretty handy too.

3. A Dryad. They make for fun druids, particularly with their bound-tree being sentient. I'd like to have that as an option from level 1, but even if I have to use the 6th level druid spell to make my tree portable, it's quite fun. Dryads with built in druid spell progression would be good, and if you could have your tree replace the animal companion (would need balance tweaks) it would be pretty awesome too. Finally, you take the feat (from the WotC site) that lets fey characters cast druid/ranger spells with CHA instead of WIS.

I find them to be some of my most enjoyable Player Character experiences, and it wasn't for game-breaking reasons.