WotC product "Savage Species" ???

[William Ronald]

I don't hink ECL was fully figured out when the Monster Manual was being developed.

However, Ryan Dancey did state back in 1999 that there would be rules for monsters as characters. It was even on Eric Noah's original site.

 

[Aitch Eye]

They've stated that a lot of the numbers in the Dragon article will be changed in the final product. Part of their reason for running it was to get feedback.

Also, isn't what's being discussed here as ECL now referred to as LA (Level Adjustment)? According to Dragon #295, page 12: "According to the folks in R&D, the new standard is simply that ECL (Effective Character Level) is synonymous with character level. For monsters, ECL represents the total level of the monster; that is the sum of the monster's Hit Dice plus level adjustment and class levels."

 

[I'm A Banana]

I'm only beefed that they said "Rules for monsters as PC'S!"

....and then gave a watered-down list in the DMG of ECL's and later decided they'd be different.

The dragon article would be nice, but I'm a cheap sonvasomthing, so I can't get it. ^_^;

As it is, I'm going by the web-version which has most of the monsters and templates donw with some formula, and adjusting as nessecary.

But, still....I wish they woulda kept their promise and gave the MM beasties ECL's with the MM. I mean, they obviously had *some* figured out....it shouldn'ta been that tough to do the rest.

But, like I said, it's a rant. I know if I ever make a monster, ECL will be part of it's description, maybe in a stat block, at least in a "Moster Characters" section where right now they give favored classes and cleric domains.

I suppose I just think it was a cool feature that they kinda dropped the ball on....it's something I've wanted since Day One, and something that's been very slow in coming...

Still....at least as a DM I get to make stuff like Otyugh wizards and the like. Almost the same, rught guys?

Guys?

 

[Numion]

Yeah, apperently this was originally listed as Tooth and Claw, but for some reason the name was changed to Savage Species.

WORST TITLE CHANGE EVAR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Can't please everyone. IMHO Tooth and Claw is wacky. In the Sticks and Stones way. (Joke name for the Barb/Dru/Rang splatbook). Savage Species packs a little more punch, but isn't perfect either.

 

[Moon_Goddess]

Can't please everyone. IMHO Tooth and Claw is wacky. In the Sticks and Stones way. (Joke name for the Barb/Dru/Rang splatbook). Savage Species packs a little more punch, but isn't perfect either.

I won't say Tooth and Claw was perfect but to me, it was snappy. As for Savage Species, I really dislike it, first of wall, not all of creature that will be discussed are Savage second the word Species stikes me as being in the wrong genre,

And more importantly it sounds like the name was picked for no other reason than "Kewl" factor. It sound less like DND and more like Fox Kids than any of the other books, what's next Saban producing a D20 company?

 

[Piratecat]

Hey Darwin - I like your quote!

 

[Desdichado]

Monsters as PCs have existed in the rules ever since the DMG was printed. The ECL concept came later. Wasn't FR the first book to feature them?

Of course, now I have the ECL rules in at least 5 places...

 

[Zappo]

I don't think it would have been very easy to list ECLs for each monster in the MM, even if they had the ECL mechanic completely figured out at time of print. Getting the ECL for a simple monster, like an orc or hobgoblin, is not a big problem, but when it comes to monsters that are particularly strange and/or have powerful spell-like abilities or immunities, it becomes much more difficult if not impossible. It would have required loads of testing to get it right, and if they did it all the same and got it wrong because they hadn't had the time to test, people would have complained ten times as much.