What do you think about Monte's new PHB Racial Levels?

[GoodKingJayIII]

Personally, I love them. They're just.... cool

 

[buzz]

I think the concept is a neat one, but I'm not sure what they were thinking with the +1 caster level for humans. Doesn't make any sense to me.

Every race that has either no favored class (humans and half-elves) or a spellcasting favored class (elves and gnomes) gains caster levels at some point in the race progressions. It's definitely in line with the 3.5e attitude towards PrC's, i.e., trying to offset the multiclassing spellcaster problem.

I think it makes perfect sense that elves and gnomes who are more "of their race" should not be penalized when acting in the favored classes for their race. I think it also makes sense for humans and half-elves, who're equally apt at everything, not to suddenly *not* be apt at everything just becasue they're more "of their race."

Not that I'm saying the current implementation we're discussing is perfect... I just think it's a fantastic idea. As someone said in another thread about this topic, it's a great way to have PCs start off as "normal people caught up in extraordinary circumstances" (hello, LOTR) without forcing them to take levels of commoner.

I dunno; it's just a really cool *option*. Kudos to Andy Collins & co. for putting this out there.

 

[Arken]

D'oh I was going to do somethign just like this!

Trust a game designer to ge there just before me, at least I've got less work to do now I suppose

 

[Sinistar]

I like it. I think it is interesting. I found the racial levels in AU to be interesting. My wife on the other hand hated the idea. She thought it was absurd to have different levels of racial ability.

I chalk it up to different tastes. The only one I really have a hard time getting my mind around is human. I feel like a bad Shatner clone. "What does it mean to be... more... Human."

As for implementation, I think the half- races were meant to mean that you have one level as the half then you can pick one of the other two, (but not both), and advance all 3 in them. And that you could also advance the other two in half whatever. But again that is what I thought.

 

[Numion]

Quite right. However, www.montecook.com is sprinkled througout the document and the Credits and Legal page to proclaim his involvement as well as Sue's.

I really do like this piece, it's just that I wish they had taken an extra day to proof it and think about it before tossing the thing out there for distribution. And that's what I think about the majority of offerings from montecook.com, free or retail.

Hmm... that disclaimer is printed on the first page of the pdf in question, so I don't really know what more they could do.

 

[AeroDm]

I really enjoy the concept of racial levels but feel they aren't quite where they should be. To me they seem obviously worse than a class because a class scales up in power. Thus dropping 3 levels behind is a serious hindrance for +2 to a stat and "nifty" powers.

However they are clearly better than +1 races because of the BAB, HD, saves, and skills.

With these given I just have one gripe. The elven ability to see three times as far in starlight or what not. I thought that was changed in 3.5 to something akin to light sources granting 20' light and 20' "shadow" where people with lowlight can still see.

Perhaps I am off as I haven't read it too recently, but if I am correct that is a 3e rule when the majority of people use 3.5. Not hard to fix, so my gripe is very small.

 

[Nellisir]

I like them overall. I'd have liked to see them sourced off the humanoid monster type a little more (d8 HD all around, skills at 2+Int) and then beefed up via special abilities (dwarves get Toughness at 1st and 3rd levels; elves double their Int bonus to their elven class skill points...), but it's a nice start. AND OGC, which makes me happy.

Comparing them to 1 HD ECL races is tougher -- ECL races usually have significant advantages over core races (additional ability modifiers and spell-like abilities at least) and I don't think the racial classes here are really overpowered against them. greater elven sight is nice, but it's still overcome by a globe of darkness (drow) or invisibility (duergar).

Cheers
Nell.

 

[jokamachi]

I think we all know what this means. It means Monte is secretly Gary Gygax in disguise! Woo-hoo! Things have come full circle. OD&D is back and better than ever!

 

[LightPhoenix]

I'll play Devil's Advocate.

I personally don't find any use for them at all. Perhaps it's my training as a biochemist, but a human is a human is a human. Any variation within the species is covered by ability scores, skills, feats, and class abilities.

More than anything though, I really don't see how someone can be "more Elven" or "more Dwarven". If you're talking culture, then you can just simply have alternate races with differing racial features. If you're talking biology, well then I think these are better represented by feats. I see no reason why this is necessary, and would hate to see this become standard in the future. Luckily I don't see that happening.

 

[Seule]

I really do like this piece, it's just that I wish they had taken an extra day to proof it and think about it before tossing the thing out there for distribution. And that's what I think about the majority of offerings from montecook.com, free or retail.

This is pretty much exactly my response. I like the ideas, I like most of the abilities, there's just not enough thought and playtesting put into it. I mean really, the hit die types are all wrong, just to start, as others point out. There's other things I'd do differently, but it all falls under tweaks, rather than rewrites. Overall they are good, but not good enough that I'd use them in my game.
On Malhavok Press:
I own the first two Books of Eldrich Might, and don't currently use anything from either one. I find the balance is a little off, most things just seem a little too powerful. On the other hand, the Banewarrens was a great adventure, I just finished running it.

--Seule