a general consensus... [Archive] - Wizards Community

a general consensus... [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
3lv3s_R_43vr
09-24-07, 01:45 AM I've noticed from these threads, many people like to play races that are, eh, a bit monsterous? Now I realize drow and kobolds are interesting races, but a lot of these things seem a little redicoulous? So I was just wondering people's opinions on this? Do most of your gaming groups allow pc's with high la's? Do many of you choose these races for their flavor, or their overwhelming pwnability? I'm just trying to get the general conception of these boards.
Salla
09-24-07, 01:50 AM A race with a high LA is a liability 99 times out of 100, because the benefits gained by the LA are nowhere near as useful as class levels.

Quick example: A 3rd level (ECL 3) human fighter, sans Con bonus, will have 21 HP, give or take. An ECL drow fighter will have 10, to say nothing of lower saves, attack bonus, and everything else.

I typically allow a player to play what he wants unless it's completely unworkable ... you have to, for example, have hands, be able to talk, and be size Large or smaller (otherwise, doing stuff indoors is shot), be corporeal, etc etc.

The Goliath and Catfolk are the only two LA+1 races where it really feels worth it, though the Level Adjustment Buyoff is certainly helpful for a lot of characters.
3lv3s_R_43vr
09-24-07, 01:55 AM I think those are very good prerequisites for characterability. You would most definately need to be at largest large, also helpful for spellunking. Hands are also a must. And yes, I could easily see how characters with high la's would die fast at low level. Nice rulings, holmes.
dman11235
09-24-07, 02:44 AM Salla is wise.

I tend to play humans a lot, for that extra feat. It comes in handy. Other than that, I'll play Githzerai, mongrel folk, goliaths, catfolk, elves, and halflings. That's what I stick to usually. But I know what you mean. I've seen people fall head over heels for big brutes with big LA, and they hurt bad (insane str). But when actually following the rules for LA (instead of ECL 9 higher than the rest of the party), they tend to be weaker than non- or low-LA races of the same ECL.
ibayboy
09-24-07, 03:58 AM I am currently playing a Goliath and an Aasimar. The +1 is no problem. Next game i have a Human with the Feral Template, (reworked to +2LA), and a Pixie,(+4LA), Warmage. The Feral has lots of pick-ups, so that should be ok, and the Pixie will be invisible and/or sneaking almost all of the time. That should offset some of her fragility.
dman11235
09-24-07, 04:11 AM There are some LA creatures (see Salla's post) that are worth it. You won't notice that much with LA +1, as it is really close to equal class levels.
The_Shaman
09-24-07, 04:40 AM I think it mostly matters at what levels the game is. A lvl 1 drow fighter vs a lvl 3 human (or even elf) fighter is a pretty certain deal, but if the drow and the human are at ECL 14, for example, the difference is imo less pronounced.
key
09-24-07, 09:27 PM Do many of you choose these races for their flavor, or their overwhelming pwnability?
I chose shimmerling because I couldn't find a 1 ounce, 4 inch tall fey with perfect flying among the core races.
Japan_the_cougar
09-24-07, 09:58 PM Really, it depends on what I can get away with. I've been playing more La +0 races lately, but most of my fav characters are of the monstrous variety. I currently have a Smoke Element human rogue that I basically said was part of the labor union on the plane of Fire, which is why he's on the Material plane.

I've tried to play a troll monster class for the longest time, but nobody will allow it. I understand the reasoning and make something else, but that is something I would like to at least try sometime (with the Detach feat for added funnies)
DarthNick
09-24-07, 10:22 PM I played a Dragonkin once, which is a +2 LA if I remember right. The lack of levels didn't hurt too bad with him since his high strength made up for the lower Base Attack and the Con boost helped with HP resulting from fewer HD. The campaign took place in a frontier like area so I didn't face racial discrimination like I may have in a setting closer to civilization. Overall not bad for the LA.
runestar
09-24-07, 10:27 PM Few monsters are worth their ECL. They do exist, but there aren't many.

I would largely play them if they offer special traits which cannot be readily replicated using existing race/class combinations. There is also the "cool" factor of playing something exotic like an astral deva or centaur.:)
Omega_Grey
09-24-07, 10:56 PM I remember one of my first characters in 3rd edition was a half red dragon elf. I also remember he was a ranger, and when I rolled up his stats and I was imagining him I decided I didnt want him to be that physically buff (no Arnold elves for me) and I put a mid range score (12) into strength to reflect this. The gigantic bonus to strength blew my mind at that point in time, I could put a 12 into strength and still pull off a 20? That character was a lot of fun to role play for me, and given a chance I would do it again. Having said that though, I do tend to play mostly just core races, but I do always have that part of me that wants to play a monstrous character. For instance in an upcoming campaign I will be playing a Doppleganger Warshaper/Mindspy, because I have wanted to ever since Complete Warrior came out. So I guess in this consensus I run the middle.
Kn1ves
09-24-07, 11:47 PM Core races are all well and good and if a GM says that he only wants core races in his game I have no problem playing one, most likely a Gnome, Dwarf or Half-Orc, but I prefer to play things outside the standard fare. They don't even have to have a level adjustment but I'll admit that I prefer Tieflings, Shadar Kai, Worghests and other odd and/or planetouched races. I like to be the odd man out in a party.
P.S.- Tibbit's rock!

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
3lv3s_R_43vr 09-24-07, 01:45 AM	I've noticed from these threads, many people like to play races that are, eh, a bit monsterous? Now I realize drow and kobolds are interesting races, but a lot of these things seem a little redicoulous? So I was just wondering people's opinions on this? Do most of your gaming groups allow pc's with high la's? Do many of you choose these races for their flavor, or their overwhelming pwnability? I'm just trying to get the general conception of these boards.
Salla 09-24-07, 01:50 AM	A race with a high LA is a liability 99 times out of 100, because the benefits gained by the LA are nowhere near as useful as class levels. Quick example: A 3rd level (ECL 3) human fighter, sans Con bonus, will have 21 HP, give or take. An ECL drow fighter will have 10, to say nothing of lower saves, attack bonus, and everything else. I typically allow a player to play what he wants unless it's completely unworkable ... you have to, for example, have hands, be able to talk, and be size Large or smaller (otherwise, doing stuff indoors is shot), be corporeal, etc etc. The Goliath and Catfolk are the only two LA+1 races where it really feels worth it, though the Level Adjustment Buyoff is certainly helpful for a lot of characters.
3lv3s_R_43vr 09-24-07, 01:55 AM	I think those are very good prerequisites for characterability. You would most definately need to be at largest large, also helpful for spellunking. Hands are also a must. And yes, I could easily see how characters with high la's would die fast at low level. Nice rulings, holmes.
dman11235 09-24-07, 02:44 AM	Salla is wise. I tend to play humans a lot, for that extra feat. It comes in handy. Other than that, I'll play Githzerai, mongrel folk, goliaths, catfolk, elves, and halflings. That's what I stick to usually. But I know what you mean. I've seen people fall head over heels for big brutes with big LA, and they hurt bad (insane str). But when actually following the rules for LA (instead of ECL 9 higher than the rest of the party), they tend to be weaker than non- or low-LA races of the same ECL.
ibayboy 09-24-07, 03:58 AM	I am currently playing a Goliath and an Aasimar. The +1 is no problem. Next game i have a Human with the Feral Template, (reworked to +2LA), and a Pixie,(+4LA), Warmage. The Feral has lots of pick-ups, so that should be ok, and the Pixie will be invisible and/or sneaking almost all of the time. That should offset some of her fragility.
dman11235 09-24-07, 04:11 AM	There are some LA creatures (see Salla's post) that are worth it. You won't notice that much with LA +1, as it is really close to equal class levels.
The_Shaman 09-24-07, 04:40 AM	I think it mostly matters at what levels the game is. A lvl 1 drow fighter vs a lvl 3 human (or even elf) fighter is a pretty certain deal, but if the drow and the human are at ECL 14, for example, the difference is imo less pronounced.
key 09-24-07, 09:27 PM	Do many of you choose these races for their flavor, or their overwhelming pwnability? I chose shimmerling because I couldn't find a 1 ounce, 4 inch tall fey with perfect flying among the core races.
Japan_the_cougar 09-24-07, 09:58 PM	Really, it depends on what I can get away with. I've been playing more La +0 races lately, but most of my fav characters are of the monstrous variety. I currently have a Smoke Element human rogue that I basically said was part of the labor union on the plane of Fire, which is why he's on the Material plane. I've tried to play a troll monster class for the longest time, but nobody will allow it. I understand the reasoning and make something else, but that is something I would like to at least try sometime (with the Detach feat for added funnies)
DarthNick 09-24-07, 10:22 PM	I played a Dragonkin once, which is a +2 LA if I remember right. The lack of levels didn't hurt too bad with him since his high strength made up for the lower Base Attack and the Con boost helped with HP resulting from fewer HD. The campaign took place in a frontier like area so I didn't face racial discrimination like I may have in a setting closer to civilization. Overall not bad for the LA.
runestar 09-24-07, 10:27 PM	Few monsters are worth their ECL. They do exist, but there aren't many. I would largely play them if they offer special traits which cannot be readily replicated using existing race/class combinations. There is also the "cool" factor of playing something exotic like an astral deva or centaur.:)
Omega_Grey 09-24-07, 10:56 PM	I remember one of my first characters in 3rd edition was a half red dragon elf. I also remember he was a ranger, and when I rolled up his stats and I was imagining him I decided I didnt want him to be that physically buff (no Arnold elves for me) and I put a mid range score (12) into strength to reflect this. The gigantic bonus to strength blew my mind at that point in time, I could put a 12 into strength and still pull off a 20? That character was a lot of fun to role play for me, and given a chance I would do it again. Having said that though, I do tend to play mostly just core races, but I do always have that part of me that wants to play a monstrous character. For instance in an upcoming campaign I will be playing a Doppleganger Warshaper/Mindspy, because I have wanted to ever since Complete Warrior came out. So I guess in this consensus I run the middle.
Kn1ves 09-24-07, 11:47 PM	Core races are all well and good and if a GM says that he only wants core races in his game I have no problem playing one, most likely a Gnome, Dwarf or Half-Orc, but I prefer to play things outside the standard fare. They don't even have to have a level adjustment but I'll admit that I prefer Tieflings, Shadar Kai, Worghests and other odd and/or planetouched races. I like to be the odd man out in a party. P.S.- Tibbit's rock!