Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Dausuul" data-source="post: 6152779" data-attributes="member: 58197">I agree with this. I approve of having support for monster PCs in the game, but a) it should be explicitly stated as an "opt in" for the DM, and b) monsters should not be wussified to make it work. What's the point of playing a monster PC if you have to play a sanitized, scaled-down version? I have no problem being told I'm not allowed to play a dragon in a 1st-level party. Better I should have to wait until 10th or 15th level, and play a real dragon, than have something that's cosmetically a dragon but functionally just another Joe Fighter.As far as the mechanics go, the problem with 3E level adjustment was the same as with 3E multiclassing: Having the 5th-level abilities of two classes is nowhere near as good as having the 10th-level abilities of one class. Classes built around physical combat, like fighter and rogue, could multiclass pretty well because their abilities stacked. You got to add the fighter attack bonus to the rogue attack bonus, likewise for hit points, and then you could add fighter feats and rogue sneak attack and they all worked together. And the same was true of monsters built around physical combat. An ogre could take levels in barbarian or fighter and stay more or less on par with its human counterparts.But when you had a monster with magical abilities, then you were in the same situation as the multiclassed fighter/wizard. The monster's magical powers didn't improve your class abilities, nor vice versa, so you wound up sucking at everything. WotC kludged up a solution to the fighter/wizard problem with prestige classes like the eldritch knight, but it never did the same for monster PCs.If WotC can solve the multiclassing problem for D&DN, it shouldn't be hard to implement monster PCs using the same system.</blockquote>

Verification