Savage Species- is there something wrong with me!?

[ColonelHardisson]

If you're the type of player that believes that nothing else besides combat statistics is really relevant, then there's not much point in us debating. We have very different styles.

I don't think anyone thinks those things are irrelevant. It's just that there is no real reason why fluff text should be standardized. Individual campaigns vary, which tends to obviate such material to some degree. If WotC presented a more detailed, more rigid cosmology, people would feel that it restricted them in some way. The mechanics are the standard; the fluff is what should vary from game to game. Beyond the mechanics of the game is what campaign sourcebooks are supposed to cover.

That's not an excuse. They've repeatedly said that they want to "remove the DM from the equation". In other words, the DM shouldn't have to worry about game balance, becuase it's already balanced. I haven't read through SS enough to know if it's balanced or not, but if it isn't, then it should be. I pay for products so I don't have to Rule 0 everything. I want something that is balanced no matter what.

With all due respect, since you haven't read through the book enough to know for sure if it's balanced - and neither have I, for that matter - it might be better to wait a while and see what comes out in the wash. It sounds as if you already expect it to be unbalanced. That could color your examination of the material.

 

[Enceladus]

I'm looking at it more as an extension of the Monster Manual than anything else. Although, within reason and mature players, I don't see anything wrong with players using monsters as characters. Of course I'm still trying to sort this pig of a rulebook out and make sense of it. I could change my mind once I get it all worked out.

I'm 32, been playing since '81.

 

[Anabstercorian]

Actually, if Sean K. Reynolds is still watching this... A Tanar'ri monster class that advances from Dretch to Balor would be simply fantastic! I want it now now NOW!

 

[buzzard]

The only problem I run into is with the suspension of disbelief regarding rapid growth.

I mean, a first-level Stone Giant is...Medium-sized? But a few years later, he's fifteen feet tall.

It works fine with characters who only grow to Large size...you can assume that they start right on the top edge of Medium and keep growing. And elementals and such are fine, because who knows what the elemental growth cycle is supposed to be?

But giants who start at seven feet tall? That's weird.

My dog went from a puppy that could fit in one hand, to a 100 lb engine of destruction in a year. Who's to say what Giant biology is like?

Granted, it may take a stretch of belief, but you didn't watch my dog get huge in no time.

buzzard

 

[jester47]

That's not an excuse. They've repeatedly said that they want to "remove the DM from the equation". In other words, the DM shouldn't have to worry about game balance, becuase it's already balanced. I haven't read through SS enough to know if it's balanced or not, but if it isn't, then it should be. I pay for products so I don't have to Rule 0 everything. I want something that is balanced no matter what.

Well let me say that taking the DM out of the game balance equation is like trying to design a car without a powertrain. Some say you could use a computer to replace the DM, but you are still using an referee, albeit an electronic one, and the issues of game balance are made by the designer of the game which for all intensive purposes is now the DM. Taking the DM out of balance issues is a pipe dream. Its not going to happen. Ever.

Camapigns vary too much and styles of play vary too much. What is balanced for one campaign may not be for another. There are two reasons we have rule zero. The first is that the game is about options and rule zero is the basis for this. The second is if game balance were perfect we would not need rule zero.

So we can balance mathematicly, but largly in the end it really does not matter. A bonus to hit could be unbalancing in one camapign whereas a bonus to diplomacy could be unbalanceing in another, or vice versa. It lies in the DMs hands and what the campaign emphasises.

Aaron.

 

[Spatula]

Seriously folks... I'm all for options but some of these "crunchy bits" are ways for power gamers to circumvent game balance.

Monster PCs are the last thing on a powergamer's list of things to abuse, because of the way 3E balances them out. Sure, you can play a giant or a demon - but you have half the HD (and thus, hit points) of every one else in the party, a lower BAB than the wizard, some of the worst saving throws, and fewer feats. If you want to be a spellcaster you're learning 1st lvl spells when others are casting 5th lvl spells. Sure, you've got some impressive stats and maybe some resistances and spell-like abilities. But powergamers know that those things are all easily achieved just by being a regular spellcaster or owning certain magic items. Missing out on 2-3 feats (as many of the more powerful monsters do) by itself would turn most munchkins off from the start.

 

[Darkness]

Heh. Hardhead apparently isn't interested in a debate based on 3e metaphysics; he wants 2e.
Fair enough...

Well, then - here goes:

A vrock is a freakin' greater tanar'ri

Methinks that you're rattling your bone-box a bit too quickly there, friend.

Because actually, back in 2e, a vrock used to be a true tanar'ri - i.e., the "rank" just above greater tanar'ri.

... one that has proved itself in battle time and time again in battles against the baatezu and the celestials. You don't get to be a vrock, unless you've got lots of experience, and are a powerful creature.

The way you're putting it, this sounds awfully like Diablo-style "killing stuff and levelling." (Disclaimer: The practice of which I'm not dissin' here; I loved me some Diablo "back in the day" when it was released. Mmm - good memories... )

And while such behavior could certainly be helpful on a tanar'ri's quest for more power, it wasn't the way to higher tanar'ri forms itself, but instead merely a tool.

In fact, the tanar'ri "have no set procedures for ascending from one rank to another. Instead, their promotions hinge on belief - from candidate and judges alike. If a tanar'ri convinces its brethren that it's stronger, more cunning, and more powerful than they are, that perception eventually becomes a reality, and the fiend transforms. It's a strange mix of self-worth and posturing."

So, metaphysically, you can have whatever you want - including Tanar'ri who have managed to will themselves into Vrocks but don't (yet) have the necessary amount of willpower and prestige - or experience with Vrockdom- to have access to all their potential powers.
(BTW, that any kind of "standard procedure" among creatures of primal chaos like Tanar'ri is inappropriate anyway, IMO.)

(Tangent: Come to think of it, I also can quite easily see newly-Vrocked Tanar'ri who just aren't yet accustomed so well to their new form that they can utilize all of its powers.)

And if you really just don't want to use the Savage Species system for Tanar'ri (and/or possibly other creatures) but instead some 2e rationale or whatever floats your boat, there's no problem, really; just ditch the few fully-listed class advancements for Tanar'ri (et al) and insist that the entire ECL cost (which is also given in Savage Species) must be paid at once (also, see below for an idea on how to do that after character creation).

In fact, he could have made a much cooler class that started out as a Dretch and changed forms as they leveled and advanced through the tanar'ri ranks. That'd have been really nifty.

With Savage Species, that's not very hard to do on your own, IMO.
Just take a few pointers from the Blackguard and let them trade in their Manes ECL cost, plus a sufficient number of PC/Pr class levels, for the Vrock ECL cost as soon as they achieve the necessary in-character requirements.

In closing, a few tangential questions on which I'd like to hear your opinion on, Hardhead:

Does your EN World nick name have to do with the Harmonium?

Further, you seem opposed to broad changes for their own sake. So tell me - what do you think about the adventure modules "Faction War" and "Die, Vecna, Die?"
(Personally, I don't own FW but I'm not a big fan of what I heard about it. I'd like to run DVD one day, though, but only with a few... changes... of my own which make more sense to me. )

 

[I'm A Banana]

One of the first things I'm planning on doing when I get a nano is writing up some planar species classes...dretch to pit fiend, light archon to throne, here we come!

That said, if Hardhead is like most of the berks on the PS list (Hey, Zach!), he didn't so much like FW and especially didn't like Die, Vecna, Die.

And I can almost garuntee that Hardhead, as a fellow Harmonium sypmathizer, drew his name from the Harmonium.

Anyhoo, back to the drawing board...

 

[Hardhead]

Heh. Hardhead apparently isn't interested in a debate based on 3e metaphysics; he wants 2e.

Hardly! I love 3e about a hojillion times more than 2e. However, I also think that 3e should remain faithful to 2e (and 1e) in terms of flavor, just so long as the flavor of 2e isn't unbalancing when translated into 3e terms. The Incantrix from FR is a prime example of bad 2e - 3e translation.

However, I don't think a designer should change pre-existing flavor for no other reason than they want to. Otherwise, we'll end up with comic-book style continuity, where Angel had organic wings, then a writer decided to give him metal wings and blue skin, then organic wings again, then loose the blue skin. If each writer can rewrite flavor as much as he wants, then he will, and then another writer will come along and change it back, because he liked it that way better. Or change it more. All the while making previous continuity muddled.

And if you do change the continuity from previous editons, you should have a reason! Don't change it without explanation, please.

Because actually, back in 2e, a vrock used to be a true tanar'ri - i.e., the "rank" just above greater tanar'ri.

Were they? Crap! I've just lost Planescape fanboy points.

The way you're putting it, this sounds awfully like Diablo-style "killing stuff and levelling." (Disclaimer: The practice of which I'm not dissin' here; I loved me some Diablo "back in the day" when it was released. Mmm - good memories... )

And while such behavior could certainly be helpful on a tanar'ri's quest for more power, it wasn't the way to higher tanar'ri forms itself, but instead merely a tool.

In fact, the tanar'ri "have no set procedures for ascending from one rank to another. Instead, their promotions hinge on belief - from candidate and judges alike. If a tanar'ri convinces its brethren that it's stronger, more cunning, and more powerful than they are, that perception eventually becomes a reality, and the fiend transforms. It's a strange mix of self-worth and posturing."

So, metaphysically, you can have whatever you want - including Tanar'ri who have managed to will themselves into Vrocks but don't (yet) have the necessary amount of willpower and prestige - or experience with Vrockdom- to have access to all their potential powers.
(BTW, that any kind of "standard procedure" among creatures of primal chaos like Tanar'ri is inappropriate anyway, IMO.)

Yes, that's true. But they do that typically by impressing fellows in combat, stealing souls, or doing well in the Blood War. Regular PCs can get XP from non-combat situations, but combat situations are still the norm.

And either way, when you get that experiecne, no matter from what source, it increases your combat prowess in 3e.

(Tangent: Come to think of it, I also can quite easily see newly-Vrocked Tanar'ri who just aren't yet accustomed so well to their new form that they can utilize all of its powers.)

I could see that, too. Just not by backsliding all the way to ECL 1.

They're true tanar'ri for a reason. A lesser shouldn't be able to beat the crap out of them.

With Savage Species, that's not very hard to do on your own, IMO.
Just take a few pointers from the Blackguard and let them trade in their Manes ECL cost, plus a sufficient number of PC/Pr class levels, for the Vrock ECL cost as soon as they achieve the necessary in-character requirements.

No, not too hard at all. Which is why it's kind of diappointing it wasn't done instead of what's in the book.

Does your EN World nick name have to do with the Harmonium?

Yup.

Further, you seem opposed to broad changes for their own sake.

Not really, actually. I just like an explanation for the change and not "the old way was in 2e" used as some kind of blanket excuse for broad setting changes.

Think of it like the drow invasion in FR. They didn't say the drow were attempting to take over the surface world, as if it'd always been that way. They introduced it has a new occurance. Similarly, if you're going to totally rewrite Outsider advancement, which has a huge effect on one of the D&D settings (even if it is no longer supported), I'd appreciate at least a short story/plot explanation as to why.

So tell me - what do you think about the adventure modules "Faction War" and "Die, Vecna, Die?"

I've heard bad things about Die, Vecna, Die, but never read it. I understand it says that the Lady of Pain is a god, which was a theory I never liked, as it was so blah. I always liked the idea that she was something else, probably less powerful than a god, in fact. But that's just me.

As for Faction War, it was a nifty idea that was poorly implemented in several places. Orri, who used to run Kytos's Hooks on Planewalker.com, posted a really good "remake" of it on the Realms Of Evil Planescape boards that I plan to use eventually (I only lately actually got to start running PS again after a long hiatus).

 

[Fictionaut]

The monster classes could be abused if a person could multiclass with them before finishing them up, but they can't. So- it is not a problem.

I will probably rule-zero this. I'm intrigued by the notion of changing some of the races such that the "default" version is actually a lower level creature. It might make integrating some monsters into humanoid societies easier, or at least make cool monster races that can exist in significant numbers without wiping out humanity (Mind Flayers, for instance) I'm happy about the level-based CRs for the monster classes for this reason.

Still, I agree with how unbalanced some of the first- and second-level monster classes looked in comparison with each other and with the standard races and classes. I just can't picture running a low level adventure with flying or incorporeal things, in particular. I don't usually start games below 4th or 5th level though, so it's not a big deal for me. And otherwise, I liked the book a lot, the chapter on templates especially. The easier it is to throw a slightly unusual monster at the party to keep the on their toes, the better.