3.5 savage Species [Archive] - Wizards Community

3.5 savage Species [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
Lord_Staven
03-04-07, 01:59 AM Any word or updates to 3.5 for this excellent book?
The White Sorcerer
03-04-07, 02:27 AM Since Savage Species was, like Fiend Folio, kind of a "3.25" book, I doubt we will see a 3.5 version.
DragonBringerX
03-04-07, 02:36 AM No:bored:
Wolf_Boy
03-04-07, 03:45 AM Since Savage Species was, like Fiend Folio, kind of a "3.25" book, I doubt we will see a 3.5 version.

Yeah, which is both stupid and kind of frustrating as it results in the books not quite fitting or working for either 3.0 or 3.5
TheCarrionCrawler
03-04-07, 07:19 PM Although I agree that we probably won't see Savage Species 2 or Complete Monsterous Characters in this edition, I will say that Savage Species is still one of my favorite books out there. I would welcome another type of book like that, I would preorder it on the name alone!

CC
Treymordin
03-04-07, 11:56 PM Is the book still available?
Grand Theft Otto
03-05-07, 01:44 PM Any word or updates to 3.5 for this excellent book?

You are joking right? Any book that is written with the design intent that it NOT be used is pure garbage IMO.

They need to actually make a worthwhile LA system. As it stands now, the mosntrous races are almost always a huge hinderance to any party. Unless you think an umberhulk with no class levels is really pulling its weight compared to a 15th level wizard or cleric. Hell, the wizard probably has more HP. A monster spell caster is pure dead weight, barring 1 or 2 exceptions.
Treymordin
03-05-07, 11:27 PM I agree and then you also get stupid combinations like demons working with lawful creatures, things that just do not make sense.
Burgundy Lotus
03-06-07, 07:45 AM I would like to see this book redone. It would give them a chance to fix the bigger problems and issues people have with it.
runestar
03-06-07, 07:55 AM I agree and then you also get stupid combinations like demons working with lawful creatures, things that just do not make sense.
It is assumed that you will find some way of ensuring that it makes sense...:P
D1Tremere
03-06-07, 09:26 AM Savage Species was made to be used by a DM to help PCs with unusual builds, and to handle things like unusual monsters and characters with lycanthropy or vampireism Etc. As it was alwase designed to be heavy in the DMs domain, there is no reason to update it, as the DM can still use it as a tool for all the above. That said, I never thought it was a very good book.
jaw4ever
03-06-07, 09:46 AM Although I agree that we probably won't see Savage Species 2 or Complete Monsterous Characters in this edition, I will say that Savage Species is still one of my favorite books out there. I would welcome another type of book like that, I would preorder it on the name alone!

CC

I agree with Carrion Crawler. I think Savage Species was one of the most underrated books to come out of WotC. Many people I game with are in awe of the book's flexibility, for player's and DMs. Most lament the fact that when it came out, most didn't think that highly of the book, but now with campaigns like Eberron opening the possibility of various monster campaigns, they now find the the book is no longer available, except like outlets like ebay.

In conclusion, I feel that WoTC should release a 3.5 update of Savage Species and possible a Savage Species II, for monster class progressions of great MM2 and MM3 monsters, like dractoaurs, lumi, yakfolk, and others. Also, Savage Species II should have the monster template class progression for vampires, lycanthropes, half-dragons and such that were orginally posted on the WotC D&D website archive (under Savage Progressions is you want to check themout) and the great dragon monster class progressions of both metallic and chroimatic dragons from Dragon Magazine (which should include the gem dragons found in MM2)!

Whem! Man, that felt good to get off my chest. :w00t:
Treymordin
03-06-07, 10:11 AM It is assumed that you will find some way of ensuring that it makes sense...:P

Many players do not see that though. Oh I get to play a succubus, but I want to play a free willed undead, and I want to play a chain devil. Many players get upset if DMs, at least in my experience, tell them no.
obrysii
03-06-07, 10:16 AM Many players do not see that though. Oh I get to play a succubus, but I want to play a free willed undead, and I want to play a chain devil. Many players get upset if DMs, at least in my experience, tell them no.

If the player has a good story reason for wanting to play one of those, by all means they should be allowed to play it. They should just be aware of the consequences.
Pyke_Moonshadow
03-06-07, 11:15 AM If the player has a good story reason for wanting to play one of those, by all means they should be allowed to play it. They should just be aware of the consequences.

Like the rest of the party saying "holy crap! undead! let's kill it!" :D

I know my players would. I don't blame them either.
obrysii
03-06-07, 11:37 AM Like the rest of the party saying "holy crap! undead! let's kill it!" :D

I know my players would. I don't blame them either.

Well, that would be part of the "good story" thing...you'd have to find a good way to have the PCs not hate the monstrous character.
Pyke_Moonshadow
03-06-07, 12:46 PM Well, that would be part of the "good story" thing...you'd have to find a good way to have the PCs not hate the monstrous character.

Oh, I know what you mean. We actually had a player with an undead character years back but he was able to successfully hise his "condition" for some time. When everyone found out they were like "oh, will you look at that? anywho, let's go save the world."

As far as needing a savage species book...it would be so rare an occurance in my games (player and DM) that I think the DM could just adjucate what he wanted the monster class to be. I don't think there needs to be a whole book for it.
seljuk
03-08-07, 06:34 AM I thought that Savage Species was an excellent book in theory. Obvioulsy, if you're in a Neutral Good party, it would be absurd to play a chain devil, but in a Neutral Evil party, it's a different story. The amount of base classes added to the choices that a player could make.
The problem with the book was, as others have said here, that the classes seemed to be underpowered as compared to the others. Lots of special abilities isn't really a good substitute for hit points, decent BAB progression and lack of hit points, and this makes many of the classes unplayable. (I played a Djinn in one Arabian Nights campaign, and he was quite impressive as he had invisibility at will and flying - but, as he didn't have enough hit points, he died.)

All this means I would snap up a 3.5 version.
ff6shadow
03-08-07, 07:44 AM I'd go for a 3.5 version. Might have some useful advice for when a player wants to play a young Clooud Giant. (I ended up giving him Goliath stats)
Treymordin
03-09-07, 06:59 AM I do not see WOTC republishing it in the foreseeable future.
Airos
03-10-07, 12:19 AM If if might be allowed a moment for pure speculation...

There is currently a thread over in RPG Boards Business titled The pointlessness of "moving" a thread. In this thread, WizO_Paradox brings up the following point:

Because the future release board is not a suggestion board. It's to discuss products that are actually coming out. WotC doesn't take unsolicited ideas/suggestions. And it keeps "future releases" grounded in reality, not for rumors. If someone sees a thread on a book that doesn't exist on a board that is "future releases", they may think aforementioned book really is coming out.

Which is why all 4.0 threads are moved.

Which brings me to a question, and my speculation. Why hasn't this thread been moved?
Luis_Carlos
03-18-07, 04:07 PM In conclusion, I feel that WoTC should release a 3.5 update of Savage Species and possible a Savage Species II, for monster class progressions of great MM2 and MM3 monsters, like dractoaurs, lumi, yakfolk, and others. Also, Savage Species II should have the monster template class progression for vampires, lycanthropes, half-dragons and such that were orginally posted on the WotC D&D website archive (under Savage Progressions is you want to check themout) and the great dragon monster class progressions of both metallic and chromatic dragons from Dragon Magazine (which should include the gem dragons found in MM2)!

I agree. I suggest a ¨zero¨ monster class, race and 1st level class, very weak (like PnCs commoner basic class from DM Guide) to having a -1 level adjustment and making easier a PC with a template like lycantropes, half-fey, half-vampire (libris mortis), half-elemental or wood element (Manual of the planes), or other from Planar Handbook (anarchic, entropic, axiomatic, vivacious) ...

I would like a lot of new monster class: for exmple dragons PCS like the gem, lung/oriental, infernal (see draconomicon), and the Firbolg (MM II) or the red ethernaughts (from Fiend Folio). Too the marid (water genie) and dao (evil earth genie), the para-elmentals from Manual of the planes like, and, of course, too the drows, githyanki, the githzerai, duergars, thri-keen), the hobgoblins, the bugbear, the lizardmen, bairaur, aasimar, tieflings, half-giants....

I want a template to givings hands/arms to beast magic (becaming monster humanoid), or adding the livings subtype to conctructs (like warforged from Eberron or the new Modrons).

I want nagas (serpent-like aberrations) with arms and hands to using weapon, like option for my campaigns, and all the zoantropes or
beast-man like lion-man, hyena-man (from al-Qadim), fox-women (from AD&D), crow-man and bat-man (from Ravenloft).
Neutronium_Dragon
03-18-07, 06:48 PM It will only work if the book is allowed to officially contradict/update the MM entries. Supplements aren't normally allowed to do that.

The MM has defined the LA/ECL of pretty much all of those races. However, those LA/ECL values are almost universally (and sometimes rather infamously) overcosted, which means that any book which isn't allowed to revise those valuations is going to produce similarly underachieving characters.

SS itself is perhaps part of the problem; many of the things which are proclaimed as an "automatic" level adjustment are used to justify an LA hike even in the face of obvious counterpoints to the race. (The presence of junk racial hit dice which are nevertheless counted as being equal to a full level being a common one, but certainly not the only one.)
David Argall
03-21-07, 10:41 PM The Savage Species races are there for the cool factor. They are not to be the stud races as well. That is the way the game is set up. Humans are to be the best choice if you want a powerful PC, and the more you want a PC that is "different", the more you have to pay for that. The SS races are often very different, and thus are going to be wimps.

I hope to be able to buy SS 3.5 some day. But powerful PCs are a danger to the game, and any new race needs to be no stronger than existing ones, and preferably weaker.
NightScreamer20
03-26-07, 04:55 AM It's all really there for the 'Gameplay' factor. I'm all in agreement that high LA/ECL Monstrous characters can, when paired with no LA PCs of the same level, seem really... underpowered. However, I have to mention that me and my group of DnDers (that a term) actually have a good time doing Monstrous Campaigns.

We've actually gone into sometimes doing it by saying 'Ok instead of an ECL 7 starting points, your maximum is CR 4' so we all search and come out with stuff like a party of an Ogre with a level of Barbarian, a Centaur with a level of Ranger, an Advanced Wight, and an Azer with 2 levels of Rogue.

Effectively that works out to be a CR 8 encounter, meaning that it would be on par with a group of 4 7th level PCs... but we're weird like that.
danielinthewolvesden
04-01-07, 01:21 PM Really, SavSpec is not a 3.5 book, and I was very angry when WotC published a book that was obsolete the day it was printed. They knew full well 3.5 was coming out and a months delay on SavSpec would have made it current.

I would consider a real 3.5 Sav Spec, but what they can do is just make it full of Monster classes, including those from Libris Mortis and other new Monsters. I would like to see a Jackalwere, please!
Mist of Shadows
04-11-07, 02:14 AM Most of the stuff in there is still useful 3.0 3.25 or 3.5.
Everything in that book is subject to Dm approval anyways. If you like a race talk to your dm about it.

Frankly I hated a large part of the book. Basically I hate the monster character classes. They suck worse than chopped liver. I would rather just bite the bullet and take the la hit. Why you ask? Simple la doesn't effect epic stuff where as the craptastic levels they put in do. My game people also play with La buy off. That makes me view large sections of the book a worthless.

That being said other things in the book were great. For example all of the rituals to change type was cool. There were some neat things in there but you had to pick the book apart to find them.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Lord_Staven 03-04-07, 01:59 AM	Any word or updates to 3.5 for this excellent book?
The White Sorcerer 03-04-07, 02:27 AM	Since Savage Species was, like Fiend Folio, kind of a "3.25" book, I doubt we will see a 3.5 version.
DragonBringerX 03-04-07, 02:36 AM	No:bored:
Wolf_Boy 03-04-07, 03:45 AM	Since Savage Species was, like Fiend Folio, kind of a "3.25" book, I doubt we will see a 3.5 version. Yeah, which is both stupid and kind of frustrating as it results in the books not quite fitting or working for either 3.0 or 3.5
TheCarrionCrawler 03-04-07, 07:19 PM	Although I agree that we probably won't see Savage Species 2 or Complete Monsterous Characters in this edition, I will say that Savage Species is still one of my favorite books out there. I would welcome another type of book like that, I would preorder it on the name alone! CC
Treymordin 03-04-07, 11:56 PM	Is the book still available?
Grand Theft Otto 03-05-07, 01:44 PM	Any word or updates to 3.5 for this excellent book? You are joking right? Any book that is written with the design intent that it NOT be used is pure garbage IMO. They need to actually make a worthwhile LA system. As it stands now, the mosntrous races are almost always a huge hinderance to any party. Unless you think an umberhulk with no class levels is really pulling its weight compared to a 15th level wizard or cleric. Hell, the wizard probably has more HP. A monster spell caster is pure dead weight, barring 1 or 2 exceptions.
Treymordin 03-05-07, 11:27 PM	I agree and then you also get stupid combinations like demons working with lawful creatures, things that just do not make sense.
Burgundy Lotus 03-06-07, 07:45 AM	I would like to see this book redone. It would give them a chance to fix the bigger problems and issues people have with it.
runestar 03-06-07, 07:55 AM	I agree and then you also get stupid combinations like demons working with lawful creatures, things that just do not make sense. It is assumed that you will find some way of ensuring that it makes sense...:P
D1Tremere 03-06-07, 09:26 AM	Savage Species was made to be used by a DM to help PCs with unusual builds, and to handle things like unusual monsters and characters with lycanthropy or vampireism Etc. As it was alwase designed to be heavy in the DMs domain, there is no reason to update it, as the DM can still use it as a tool for all the above. That said, I never thought it was a very good book.
jaw4ever 03-06-07, 09:46 AM	Although I agree that we probably won't see Savage Species 2 or Complete Monsterous Characters in this edition, I will say that Savage Species is still one of my favorite books out there. I would welcome another type of book like that, I would preorder it on the name alone! CC I agree with Carrion Crawler. I think Savage Species was one of the most underrated books to come out of WotC. Many people I game with are in awe of the book's flexibility, for player's and DMs. Most lament the fact that when it came out, most didn't think that highly of the book, but now with campaigns like Eberron opening the possibility of various monster campaigns, they now find the the book is no longer available, except like outlets like ebay. In conclusion, I feel that WoTC should release a 3.5 update of Savage Species and possible a Savage Species II, for monster class progressions of great MM2 and MM3 monsters, like dractoaurs, lumi, yakfolk, and others. Also, Savage Species II should have the monster template class progression for vampires, lycanthropes, half-dragons and such that were orginally posted on the WotC D&D website archive (under Savage Progressions is you want to check themout) and the great dragon monster class progressions of both metallic and chroimatic dragons from Dragon Magazine (which should include the gem dragons found in MM2)! Whem! Man, that felt good to get off my chest. :w00t:
Treymordin 03-06-07, 10:11 AM	It is assumed that you will find some way of ensuring that it makes sense...:P Many players do not see that though. Oh I get to play a succubus, but I want to play a free willed undead, and I want to play a chain devil. Many players get upset if DMs, at least in my experience, tell them no.
obrysii 03-06-07, 10:16 AM	Many players do not see that though. Oh I get to play a succubus, but I want to play a free willed undead, and I want to play a chain devil. Many players get upset if DMs, at least in my experience, tell them no. If the player has a good story reason for wanting to play one of those, by all means they should be allowed to play it. They should just be aware of the consequences.
Pyke_Moonshadow 03-06-07, 11:15 AM	If the player has a good story reason for wanting to play one of those, by all means they should be allowed to play it. They should just be aware of the consequences. Like the rest of the party saying "holy crap! undead! let's kill it!" :D I know my players would. I don't blame them either.
obrysii 03-06-07, 11:37 AM	Like the rest of the party saying "holy crap! undead! let's kill it!" :D I know my players would. I don't blame them either. Well, that would be part of the "good story" thing...you'd have to find a good way to have the PCs not hate the monstrous character.
Pyke_Moonshadow 03-06-07, 12:46 PM	Well, that would be part of the "good story" thing...you'd have to find a good way to have the PCs not hate the monstrous character. Oh, I know what you mean. We actually had a player with an undead character years back but he was able to successfully hise his "condition" for some time. When everyone found out they were like "oh, will you look at that? anywho, let's go save the world." As far as needing a savage species book...it would be so rare an occurance in my games (player and DM) that I think the DM could just adjucate what he wanted the monster class to be. I don't think there needs to be a whole book for it.
seljuk 03-08-07, 06:34 AM	I thought that Savage Species was an excellent book in theory. Obvioulsy, if you're in a Neutral Good party, it would be absurd to play a chain devil, but in a Neutral Evil party, it's a different story. The amount of base classes added to the choices that a player could make. The problem with the book was, as others have said here, that the classes seemed to be underpowered as compared to the others. Lots of special abilities isn't really a good substitute for hit points, decent BAB progression and lack of hit points, and this makes many of the classes unplayable. (I played a Djinn in one Arabian Nights campaign, and he was quite impressive as he had invisibility at will and flying - but, as he didn't have enough hit points, he died.) All this means I would snap up a 3.5 version.
ff6shadow 03-08-07, 07:44 AM	I'd go for a 3.5 version. Might have some useful advice for when a player wants to play a young Clooud Giant. (I ended up giving him Goliath stats)
Treymordin 03-09-07, 06:59 AM	I do not see WOTC republishing it in the foreseeable future.
Airos 03-10-07, 12:19 AM	If if might be allowed a moment for pure speculation... There is currently a thread over in RPG Boards Business titled The pointlessness of "moving" a thread. In this thread, WizO_Paradox brings up the following point: Because the future release board is not a suggestion board. It's to discuss products that are actually coming out. WotC doesn't take unsolicited ideas/suggestions. And it keeps "future releases" grounded in reality, not for rumors. If someone sees a thread on a book that doesn't exist on a board that is "future releases", they may think aforementioned book really is coming out. Which is why all 4.0 threads are moved. Which brings me to a question, and my speculation. Why hasn't this thread been moved?
Luis_Carlos 03-18-07, 04:07 PM	In conclusion, I feel that WoTC should release a 3.5 update of Savage Species and possible a Savage Species II, for monster class progressions of great MM2 and MM3 monsters, like dractoaurs, lumi, yakfolk, and others. Also, Savage Species II should have the monster template class progression for vampires, lycanthropes, half-dragons and such that were orginally posted on the WotC D&D website archive (under Savage Progressions is you want to check themout) and the great dragon monster class progressions of both metallic and chromatic dragons from Dragon Magazine (which should include the gem dragons found in MM2)! I agree. I suggest a ¨zero¨ monster class, race and 1st level class, very weak (like PnCs commoner basic class from DM Guide) to having a -1 level adjustment and making easier a PC with a template like lycantropes, half-fey, half-vampire (libris mortis), half-elemental or wood element (Manual of the planes), or other from Planar Handbook (anarchic, entropic, axiomatic, vivacious) ... I would like a lot of new monster class: for exmple dragons PCS like the gem, lung/oriental, infernal (see draconomicon), and the Firbolg (MM II) or the red ethernaughts (from Fiend Folio). Too the marid (water genie) and dao (evil earth genie), the para-elmentals from Manual of the planes like, and, of course, too the drows, githyanki, the githzerai, duergars, thri-keen), the hobgoblins, the bugbear, the lizardmen, bairaur, aasimar, tieflings, half-giants.... I want a template to givings hands/arms to beast magic (becaming monster humanoid), or adding the livings subtype to conctructs (like warforged from Eberron or the new Modrons). I want nagas (serpent-like aberrations) with arms and hands to using weapon, like option for my campaigns, and all the zoantropes or beast-man like lion-man, hyena-man (from al-Qadim), fox-women (from AD&D), crow-man and bat-man (from Ravenloft).
Neutronium_Dragon 03-18-07, 06:48 PM	It will only work if the book is allowed to officially contradict/update the MM entries. Supplements aren't normally allowed to do that. The MM has defined the LA/ECL of pretty much all of those races. However, those LA/ECL values are almost universally (and sometimes rather infamously) overcosted, which means that any book which isn't allowed to revise those valuations is going to produce similarly underachieving characters. SS itself is perhaps part of the problem; many of the things which are proclaimed as an "automatic" level adjustment are used to justify an LA hike even in the face of obvious counterpoints to the race. (The presence of junk racial hit dice which are nevertheless counted as being equal to a full level being a common one, but certainly not the only one.)
David Argall 03-21-07, 10:41 PM	The Savage Species races are there for the cool factor. They are not to be the stud races as well. That is the way the game is set up. Humans are to be the best choice if you want a powerful PC, and the more you want a PC that is "different", the more you have to pay for that. The SS races are often very different, and thus are going to be wimps. I hope to be able to buy SS 3.5 some day. But powerful PCs are a danger to the game, and any new race needs to be no stronger than existing ones, and preferably weaker.
NightScreamer20 03-26-07, 04:55 AM	It's all really there for the 'Gameplay' factor. I'm all in agreement that high LA/ECL Monstrous characters can, when paired with no LA PCs of the same level, seem really... underpowered. However, I have to mention that me and my group of DnDers (that a term) actually have a good time doing Monstrous Campaigns. We've actually gone into sometimes doing it by saying 'Ok instead of an ECL 7 starting points, your maximum is CR 4' so we all search and come out with stuff like a party of an Ogre with a level of Barbarian, a Centaur with a level of Ranger, an Advanced Wight, and an Azer with 2 levels of Rogue. Effectively that works out to be a CR 8 encounter, meaning that it would be on par with a group of 4 7th level PCs... but we're weird like that.
danielinthewolvesden 04-01-07, 01:21 PM	Really, SavSpec is not a 3.5 book, and I was very angry when WotC published a book that was obsolete the day it was printed. They knew full well 3.5 was coming out and a months delay on SavSpec would have made it current. I would consider a real 3.5 Sav Spec, but what they can do is just make it full of Monster classes, including those from Libris Mortis and other new Monsters. I would like to see a Jackalwere, please!
Mist of Shadows 04-11-07, 02:14 AM	Most of the stuff in there is still useful 3.0 3.25 or 3.5. Everything in that book is subject to Dm approval anyways. If you like a race talk to your dm about it. Frankly I hated a large part of the book. Basically I hate the monster character classes. They suck worse than chopped liver. I would rather just bite the bullet and take the la hit. Why you ask? Simple la doesn't effect epic stuff where as the craptastic levels they put in do. My game people also play with La buy off. That makes me view large sections of the book a worthless. That being said other things in the book were great. For example all of the rituals to change type was cool. There were some neat things in there but you had to pick the book apart to find them.