Separate Base/Core Classes for Non-Humans

[Roman]

The standard classes such as barbarian or ranger or other core/base classes are designed with humans or humanoids in mind. If, however, your campaign focuses heavily on a certain type of non-humanoid monster such as for example dragons, or simply something other than humanoids, would it make sense for these dragons or other monsters to have separate base/core classes that are more appropriate to them? I think so - what are your opinions?

 

[Altamont Ravenard]

Hm. I think that point has somewhat been adressed, in the sense that I've seen a couple of monster-specific Prestige Class around (instead of Base, 20-level classes). Also, most monsters can advance in "monster" classes (ie more HD).

If you had a campaign where the players weren't playing the usual humanoid races, it would make perfect sense to throw the base classes out the window and use different ones, but it'd be a hassle to come up with brand new base classes that'd fit (for example) dragons.

Let's take your Dragons example and see how the base classes fit with them (IMO):

Barbarian: The idea of a "savage" dragon is pretty good to me, but simply giving a dragon barbarian levels isn't enough, and the barbarian abilities do not necessarily fit well with the general abilities of a dragon. Rage would need to be pumped up to matter. Uncanny dodge sounds silly for a giant creature, and so does Trap sense. Damage reduction could also be pumped up. Indompitable Will is still good, as are the other Rage-related abilities.
Bard: The idea of a bardic dragon is really cool, IMO. The bard class could pretty much stay as it is.
Cleric: A Dragon could be devoted to one of the dragon gods, or to a particular philosophical concept. Turn/Rebuke undead could be granted to Dragons that actually worship something that has to do with life/death/undeath. Dragons should get domains.
Druid: A Druidic dragon is an interesting idea, but some abilities wouldn't really be appropriate: Animal companion, Woodland stride, Trackless step, etc. A Wild-shaped dragon is an interesting idea as well.
Fighter: The feat list would have to be changed a bit
Monk: Doesn't really apply, now, does it?
Paladin: Again, i'd have some difficulty accepting a Dragon paladin.
Ranger: doesn't fit.
Rogue: doesn't fit.
Sorcerer: the most obvious choice for a Dragon class.
Wizard: Also a good choice, but familiar rules would need to be revised.

As for other non-core base classes, the Mystic (DLCS), the Favored Soul (CD), the Marshal (miniHB), the Shugenja (CD), the Spirit Shaman (CD), are, IMO, good base classes to start with.

AR

 

[Roman]

Hm. I think that point has somewhat been adressed, in the sense that I've seen a couple of monster-specific Prestige Class around (instead of Base, 20-level classes). Also, most monsters can advance in "monster" classes (ie more HD).

True, it has been somewhat addressed with prestige classes and monster advancement.

If you had a campaign where the players weren't playing the usual humanoid races, it would make perfect sense to throw the base classes out the window and use different ones, but it'd be a hassle to come up with brand new base classes that'd fit (for example) dragons.

Yes, that's what I was trying to say - basically in a campaign that centers on creatures other than humans or humanoids it seems to me that new base/core classes specific to monsters (+ possibly the modification of some 'standard' base/core classes) would make sense. It could be a hassle to come up with them but it could also be quite rewarding.

Let's take your Dragons example and see how the base classes fit with them (IMO):

Barbarian: The idea of a "savage" dragon is pretty good to me, but simply giving a dragon barbarian levels isn't enough, and the barbarian abilities do not necessarily fit well with the general abilities of a dragon. Rage would need to be pumped up to matter. Uncanny dodge sounds silly for a giant creature, and so does Trap sense. Damage reduction could also be pumped up. Indompitable Will is still good, as are the other Rage-related abilities.
Bard: The idea of a bardic dragon is really cool, IMO. The bard class could pretty much stay as it is.
Cleric: A Dragon could be devoted to one of the dragon gods, or to a particular philosophical concept. Turn/Rebuke undead could be granted to Dragons that actually worship something that has to do with life/death/undeath. Dragons should get domains.
Druid: A Druidic dragon is an interesting idea, but some abilities wouldn't really be appropriate: Animal companion, Woodland stride, Trackless step, etc. A Wild-shaped dragon is an interesting idea as well.
Fighter: The feat list would have to be changed a bit
Monk: Doesn't really apply, now, does it?
Paladin: Again, i'd have some difficulty accepting a Dragon paladin.
Ranger: doesn't fit.
Rogue: doesn't fit.
Sorcerer: the most obvious choice for a Dragon class.
Wizard: Also a good choice, but familiar rules would need to be revised.

Not a bad assessment at all!

 

[ecliptic]

I think PrCs are the best way to go.

 

[Frostmarrow]

Most (if not all) PrCs can be used as core classes without hassle.

 

[Samothdm]

Paladin: Again, i'd have some difficulty accepting a Dragon paladin.
Rogue: doesn't fit.

Just curious about these two.

How about a gold dragon paladin? I could see that, I think.

For the rogue, I can imagine a small/young black dragon (or other evil dragon) with a few levels, maybe. Not for the trap sense or disable device or whatever, but for the sneak attack. That could make some amount of sense, I suppose.