Post/Author/DateTime	Post
FlameLover 09-23-05, 12:42 AM	Races, monsters, and classes are all very confusing in how they relate to each other and the different things mentioned in the topic titled. So this thread is designed to be a think tank for how to make a much more fluid and stream-lined system. I think HD should be broken up by level like a class levels up so that playing a monster at each level is easy. I also think that you should be able to 'buy' HD later with your XP points. Ofcourse you would keep the same power level D&D already has and still assume a party is made up of 4 people and each fits the archetype (all same so far pretty much). But there are so many different figures though that it can get confuing working this stuff out. So there needs to be some sort of simple system of how this all works. My only thoughts are breaking up HD of all monsters and races into 'racial classes' but umm... yeah. I don't have savage species btw and i'm getting a nigling feeling that it is already the way that i imagine it but if it is just tell me then we can all move on. Oh and one more thing don't be bound by the D&D rules since it wouldn't be practical to re-do all monsters with a different system. It's more like if you could change this system, what would you do? Rather than this is gonna be some sorta big houserule. OK doesn't make much sense so basically just say what you would like to see done to this system and umm.. yeah, that's basically it.
jagggar 09-23-05, 02:56 AM	Well, as long as it's just brain storming for now. . . Savage Species only gets part way there. They have the level adjustments built into the racial classes, so you're still stuck with them. I'd make the classes a few levels longer and provide HD at every level. Such a task would probably involve lowering the power of Outsider and Dragon HD. For the EL/CR stuff I'd make the level-independent XP awards from UA standard instead of the chart that depends on your level and everything. Include a chart that helps figure about how many XP an encounter should yeild for 1-6 players and a simple formula so larger groups could figure it out themselves.
FlameLover 09-23-05, 03:31 AM	Well, as long as it's just brain storming for now. . . Yeah don't worry, it's just thoeretical. But i'm sorta making my own version of D&D so this is also for getting ideas for that, plus just generally thinking about ways D&D could improve on this aspect. Savage Species only gets part way there. They have the level adjustments built into the racial classes, so you're still stuck with them. Well that i don't like and would throw out. I would change it so that even 1HD creatures retain their 1HD-ness when they pick-up class levels for a start, and making all of the monsters have progressions would really help i think. For the base 'races' though i'm not sure whether 3 or 5 racial levels are better (or even 4 I guess). I'd make the classes a few levels longer and provide HD at every level. Such a task would probably involve lowering the power of Outsider and Dragon HD. How long are they in Savage Species btw? But the HD at every level is something i'm not sure on. If you play with the HP system then that is fine but if you play with a WP/VP system then it gets a little hazy. But it's an important point since taking levels in racial classes should be as good as taking levels in a base class or PrC, etc. For the EL/CR stuff I'd make the level-independent XP awards from UA standard instead of the chart that depends on your level and everything. Include a chart that helps figure about how many XP an encounter should yeild for 1-6 players and a simple formula so larger groups could figure it out themselves. Ok you lost me. I should have pointed out i don't own UA *yet* so it's my fualt and not yours but could you just explain in simple terms what you mean by all that? Are you talking about a table that you cross-reference your ECL with the monster's for XP or something? I suppose the ultimate goal of this system would be to make creatures alot more dynamic, blur the line between races and monsters, and make having half-breeds alot easier to adjudicate. By making all of the races infact 'monsters' with HD it makes the rules for playing different creatures alot simpler, and it also helps the DM make monsters more or less powerful based on the group's average level. And one of the other nice benefits is that you can inter-breed things very eaisly with this system. Want a 1/5 Human, 2/5 Elf, 2/5 Dwarf? Done!
Gilean 09-23-05, 08:05 AM	A few ideas A)Replace LA with larger number of racial HD. Conversion ratios below 3/2 HD per LA: Aberration, construct, elemental, giant, humanoid, ooze, plant, vermin 2 HD per LA: Animal, fey, undead 5/2 HD per LA: Magical beast, monstrous humanoid 3 HD per LA: Dragon, outsider B) Races as bloodlines. See my thread in another of the two pages. I'll write more of them if you want. C) Experience penalty. Doesn't work at low levels. D) Remove all racial HD, add LA. I don't like this, but whatever. The conversion ratios above may be of use.
jagggar 09-23-05, 09:39 AM	Well that i don't like and would throw out. I would change it so that even 1HD creatures retain their 1HD-ness when they pick-up class levels for a start, and making all of the monsters have progressions would really help i think. For the base 'races' though i'm not sure whether 3 or 5 racial levels are better (or even 4 I guess). I think rather than having the 1 HD creatures keep their HD, I'd create racial paragons (in UA, a 3 level class for which the only requirement is race) for them all. If you want to have a racial HD, take a level of that. How long are they in Savage Species btw?Take the racial HD and add the LA. That's how many levels the class for that creature is. But the HD at every level is something i'm not sure on. If you play with the HP system then that is fine but if you play with a WP/VP system then it gets a little hazy. But it's an important point since taking levels in racial classes should be as good as taking levels in a base class or PrC, etc. Don't HP just convert to VP and Con sets WP? Not hazy, just kinda scary with monsters with huge Con bonuses. Ok you lost me. I should have pointed out i don't own UA *yet* so it's my fualt and not yours but could you just explain in simple terms what you mean by all that? Are you talking about a table that you cross-reference your ECL with the monster's for XP or something? Normally you look at the table in the DMG and find the character's level and the monster's CR then divide by the number in the party. With the Level-Independent XP variant, a CR 3 always gives 900 XP (divided evenly among the party members), a CR 12? 19000 XP. The amount of experience you need to level up also increases so you don't end up gaining a level just by defeating one monster. The last part I mentioned would be a handy reference for those who don't have the standard party size of 4 adventurers which everything is currently based on. Which reminds me, I would ideally like to get rid of the distinction between CR and ELC. I do understand though that it is because monsters show up for 5 rounds and PCs could be around for up to 5 years and so they can make full use of all their abilities. So removing such a distinction might not be such a good idea. I suppose the ultimate goal of this system would be to make creatures alot more dynamic, blur the line between races and monsters, and make having half-breeds alot easier to adjudicate. By making all of the races infact 'monsters' with HD it makes the rules for playing different creatures alot simpler, and it also helps the DM make monsters more or less powerful based on the group's average level. And one of the other nice benefits is that you can inter-breed things very eaisly with this system. Want a 1/5 Human, 2/5 Elf, 2/5 Dwarf? Done!*shudders* "He's so hansome." "Umm. . . 'he' is actually a she." "Wha?! Bu- bu- bu- Beard!"
FlameLover 09-23-05, 08:55 PM	A)Replace LA with larger number of racial HD. Conversion ratios below 3/2 HD per LA: Aberration, construct, elemental, giant, humanoid, ooze, plant, vermin 2 HD per LA: Animal, fey, undead 5/2 HD per LA: Magical beast, monstrous humanoid 3 HD per LA: Dragon, outsider I was thinking of abolishing LA and just having HD so this sounds good. B) Races as bloodlines. See my thread in another of the two pages. I'll write more of them if you want. Since i don't have UA yet they don't make a whole lot of sense but from what i do get it sounds like a good solution. I'll be able to comment further once i get my copy of UA though. C) Experience penalty. Doesn't work at low levels. Do you mean getting rid of the XP penalty or what exactly? OR just adjusting it to work better at low levels? I think that they should get rid of XP penalties for multi-classing though, if the classes were "balanced" you shouldn't really need them. How this would work in practice is another story. D) Remove all racial HD, add LA. I don't like this, but whatever. The conversion ratios above may be of use. This is basically the opposite of what i would like to do, so i wouldn't want to do this either. I think rather than having the 1 HD creatures keep their HD, I'd create racial paragons (in UA, a 3 level class for which the only requirement is race) for them all. If you want to have a racial HD, take a level of that. I was definatley going to design it so that you didn't need all of the HD, it'd be broken up like a class almost. So it'd merge racial paragons and the races together (i think this would work but again, don't have the book so i'm not sure). Take the racial HD and add the LA. That's how many levels the class for that creature is. Oh, k. Don't HP just convert to VP and Con sets WP? Not hazy, just kinda scary with monsters with huge Con bonuses. Guess so, but that's a problem people who use that variant will have to deal with i guess. Normally you look at the table in the DMG and find the character's level and the monster's CR then divide by the number in the party. With the Level-Independent XP variant, a CR 3 always gives 900 XP (divided evenly among the party members), a CR 12? 19000 XP. The amount of experience you need to level up also increases so you don't end up gaining a level just by defeating one monster. The last part I mentioned would be a handy reference for those who don't have the standard party size of 4 adventurers which everything is currently based on. Ok, cool. I really need that book it seams ;) Which reminds me, I would ideally like to get rid of the distinction between CR and ELC. I do understand though that it is because monsters show up for 5 rounds and PCs could be around for up to 5 years and so they can make full use of all their abilities. So removing such a distinction might not be such a good idea. I would like to see the disparity between PCs/NPCs/Races/Monsters erased so i full heartedly agree on this. But as you said it might not work in practice. *shudders* "He's so hansome." "Umm. . . 'he' is actually a she." "Wha?! Bu- bu- bu- Beard!" ROFL, that could certainly be a side-effect yes ;) There are alot of ways you could take this but what's important is in the end making the whole system simpler and if possible turning the 'races' into creatures just like the ones found in the MM. That way rules for playing monsters wouldn't need to exist and would make things run alot smoother. Oh, and you wouldn't need a "commoner" class since the common people would just advance in there racial class or whatever you call it (it's HD but more class like...) Once i get UA i'll see how it does the racial paragons but for now i'll just have to asume they work a certain way. But i think giving the races about 3 - 5 HD broken up into levels would work well (maybe extend to 10). IT'd blur the line between races and classes but i don't mind doing that :)
Hierarch Leviticus 09-24-05, 05:08 AM	Build all monsters as classes. Build all powerful special races as classes. Then, Level is everything.
Gilean 09-24-05, 05:24 AM	Some rules found in UA, and being updated:http://www.d20srd.org
Millennium 09-24-05, 06:43 PM	Don't HP just convert to VP and Con sets WP? Not hazy, just kinda scary with monsters with huge Con bonuses. Not really, actually. Although there is a huge difference for low-level characters (a first-level wizard with Con 12 quadruples the number of hits she can take), the difference between HP and VP/WP becomes much less at higher levels, where Vitality increases much faster than Wounds do for all players and creatures. A 30-Con creature with 300HP doesn't gain all that much under VP/WP. Also, keep in mind that critical hits don't do extra damage under the VP/WP system, but that damage goes directly to WP even if the character has VP left and they pierce all damage reduction. With some careful planning, it's possible to kill a creature without ever touching its VP. If a party gets good at doing this, then many monsters become much easier to kill. Of course, so do the players...
FlameLover 09-24-05, 11:08 PM	Build all monsters as classes. Build all powerful special races as classes. Then, Level is everything. That's what i was thinking, by turning races into "classes" that you advance in it adds more variety and removes the need for a "commoner" class. Some rules found in UA, and being updated:http://www.d20srd.org Thanks for the link, now i understand the bloodlines and paragons. The best choice (IMO) is the following: Make both races and monsters have a "class" for themselves spreading their abilities and HD over the levels. This would combine the idea of the paragon class into the race and would mean that at each level-up you could take a level in your racial class or take a level in another class or PrC. That combines the idea of paragons, bloodlines and combing races/monsters all into one. Taking a lvel in your race would be just like taking a level in a class, you'd get more hitpoints, saves, skill points, feats, everything, special abilities, everything. Most NPCs would therefore be about half their racial class and half another (Although they certainly don't have to be). Everyone would need atleast the first level in their race though, and that would be about the power level we have right now for races. The important thing is making sure the racial classes are balanced with the base classes though, but that shouldn't be too hard. OK so opinions on the idea above, need clarifications, or is my idea just silly?
Gilean 09-25-05, 02:43 AM	Will you remove LA?
Hierarch Leviticus 09-25-05, 02:44 AM	Makes good sense to me... However, I would leave in a "level zero" -maybe not with that name, but that idea- for races, so that you can be a starting character with (Regular Class) 1 and (Racial Class) 0 - that way, you don't need to revise existing regular characters, just strange ones.
FlameLover 09-25-05, 02:55 AM	Will you remove LA? That's part of the plan, yes. But in some cases LA might be needed, but we'll see. The only time i can see the need for an LA is for templates, specifically stuff like vampirism that you just get. In these cases i'd still say you start off as a weak vampire and grow in power as you spend levels upgrading that side of you. Makes good sense to me... However, I would leave in a "level zero" -maybe not with that name, but that idea- for races, so that you can be a starting character with (Regular Class) 1 and (Racial Class) 0 - that way, you don't need to revise existing regular characters, just strange ones. True. Maybe have a base level for each race that is counted as 0 levels for the purposes of character level, XP stuff, etc.? That should work out fine. Thanks for the heads up :) The Human racial class for example would probably get a bonus feat every second level and have all skills as class skills (just off the top of my head). But for the basics how does d6 HD, 4+int skill points, and 1/2 BAB sound? This is the only reason i'm not sure racial classes is a good idea: people like fighters would rarley if ever take levels in a 1/2 BAB class unless they got a major return. The only ulternative i can see is bloodlines for the races but then that defeats the purpose of integrating races and monsters so i'm not sure which to go with.
Xeviat-DM 09-25-05, 03:32 AM	In creating races for my setting, I've done my best to never let LA exceed a race's starting HD; but doing away with LA entirely is rather difficult. I can get behind what you're wanting to do as far as it concerns humanoids, but I don't think it will be a fruitful task for other creatures.
FlameLover 09-25-05, 03:39 AM	Why, exactly? I think an important thing to note is that not every level of a racial class would give hitpoints, skills, etc. Some levels would only give abilities, and some might give you nothing at all (accoutning for mutliple levels worth of abilities in one at the end). It's not perfect but in 90% of cases it should owkr out ok.
Xeviat-DM 09-25-05, 03:56 AM	Why, exactly? I think an important thing to note is that not every level of a racial class would give hitpoints, skills, etc. Some levels would only give abilities, and some might give you nothing at all (accoutning for mutliple levels worth of abilities in one at the end). It's not perfect but in 90% of cases it should owkr out ok. ... Then you're doing exactly what Savage Species has done, only CR and Level aren't related on a 1 for 1 basis.
FlameLover 09-25-05, 04:13 AM	Oh, ok well i didn't know that. Tell me what you would do then :) Ofcourse not all LA can be removed, sometimes it's just needed, but mostly turning it into a class you advance in makes it more balanced since LA gets less powerful as you level up until it becomes dead weight at high levels. So yes, how do you see this working? Since i'm sort of disheartened that my idea/system is already in use and considered not very good.
Gilean 09-25-05, 11:07 AM	Savage species uses LA. Separate all racial traits of current creatures into 2 parts; intrinsic and cultural, for example. Half-races get intrinsic qualities of both parents but must take levels to gain other things.
Xeviat-DM 09-25-05, 03:32 PM	Not all LA gets less powerful as you progress. A nice ability score bonus is always nice, it's inherrent and stacks with everything. Scaling SR is nice, as are spell like abilities who's levels increase. LA for monsters doesn't matter: there I said it. There are far too few times where your players won't be playing humanoids or near-humanoids. If you want my advice, worry about tweeking the races you're allowing PCs to use. The savage species system works well for what it is, though it isn't exactly 3.5.
Hierarch Leviticus 09-25-05, 07:34 PM	Oh, ok well i didn't know that. Tell me what you would do then :) Ofcourse not all LA can be removed, sometimes it's just needed, but mostly turning it into a class you advance in makes it more balanced since LA gets less powerful as you level up until it becomes dead weight at high levels. So yes, how do you see this working? Since i'm sort of disheartened that my idea/system is already in use and considered not very good. I would actually turn templates into "Forced Classes", which would also have a Level Zero. That is, if you get turned into a vampire, you get all the drawbacks, and just enough bonuses to balance those drawbacks out to a "flat" level. One of the drawbacks would then be that you MUST advance in this class ONLY - until either you finish it, or it is your highest-level (or tied for highest-level) class. Now, let's change topics. Savage species' system is interesting, and (I think) quite good at doing what it intended. And the most important thing it intended was that when you finish the monster class, you are Exactly the same as the monster in the book. As a DM, that totally rocks. I can put in a big creature, but at lower levels, powered down precisely to suit. And that is cool. As a player, my response to this is: Yechhh. I don't want to be identical to the monster with levels - I want to be a member of the species, but I want the system to make all these monsters and races more diverse, not less so. As for CR and Level/HD not matching, there's only one real way to fix that. CR measures how good a creature is for the length of one fight. Level / HD are more a measure of how good the creature is for a series of fights. When a creature is better in the short-run than in the long-run, it's CR is inflated - because, you know, chances are the PCs will only fight each individual (whatever it is) once. If you build a system where level templates go on everything, for great balance, then you'd need to spot and isolate those abilities, and cut them down to size - a monster that has a CR inflated by the ability to cast a single giant blast once per day would balance better as a level progression if the blasts were smaller, but it had more of them per day. I could go on, but I'll pause for a moment to ask: Am I making sense to you?
FlameLover 09-25-05, 11:35 PM	Separate all racial traits of current creatures into 2 parts; intrinsic and cultural, for example. Half-races get intrinsic qualities of both parents but must take levels to gain other things. While not directly tied to this i 100% agree. If all of the creatures are to be re-vamped then there should be a desciprtor next to each abiltiy saying whether it's racial or cultural. And when you make a half-breed you take the first half of the racial stuff from both, add it together and then add the stuff from the cultural of whever they were raised. Wouldn't help do anyything more than 1/2s but it would be a start. Not all LA gets less powerful as you progress. A nice ability score bonus is always nice, it's inherrent and stacks with everything. Scaling SR is nice, as are spell like abilities who's levels increase. LA for monsters doesn't matter: there I said it. There are far too few times where your players won't be playing humanoids or near-humanoids. If you want my advice, worry about tweeking the races you're allowing PCs to use. The savage species system works well for what it is, though it isn't exactly 3.5. Yeah, getting rid of LAs for everything would probably cause more problems than it fixes so i see what you are saying. But if it's possible i'd like to remove LA as much as possible. In a perfect world a PC could play as anything quite easily but even though that won't ever happen then i'd still like to get as close as possible. I would actually turn templates into "Forced Classes", which would also have a Level Zero. That is, if you get turned into a vampire, you get all the drawbacks, and just enough bonuses to balance those drawbacks out to a "flat" level. One of the drawbacks would then be that you MUST advance in this class ONLY - until either you finish it, or it is your highest-level (or tied for highest-level) class. This works well: it means that vampirism is broken-up into stages of development but it also stops players from getting bitten by a vampire and never really developing that side of them. I would change it slightly though and say that every SECOND level you need to take a level in a forced class. That means you could still progress in your current class but does still force the change on you. Savage species' system is interesting, and (I think) quite good at doing what it intended. And the most important thing it intended was that when you finish the monster class, you are Exactly the same as the monster in the book. As a DM, that totally rocks. I can put in a big creature, but at lower levels, powered down precisely to suit. And that is cool. As a player, my response to this is: Yechhh. I don't want to be identical to the monster with levels - I want to be a member of the species, but I want the system to make all these monsters and races more diverse, not less so. Agreed. Eahc mosnter/racial class would be like a normal class: you'd get feats, skills and special abilities like you would from a class. So this does allow monsters to be more than just static blocks of numbers, it means that bugbear A might be VERY different from bugbear B. As for CR and Level/HD not matching, there's only one real way to fix that. CR measures how good a creature is for the length of one fight. Level / HD are more a measure of how good the creature is for a series of fights. When a creature is better in the short-run than in the long-run, it's CR is inflated - because, you know, chances are the PCs will only fight each individual (whatever it is) once. Yeah, so CR, LV and HD need to stay. Ohwell, i knew not everything could be "banished". Isn't CR mainly (levels+HD)/4 though? I know there are some exceptions but mostly it just assumes that 4 lv10 creatures is a fair match for another group of 4 lv10 creatures (If i'm way off on this tell me: I never did fully grasp monster stuff because it's just so complicated with a whole nother set of rules for advancement) If you build a system where level templates go on everything, for great balance, then you'd need to spot and isolate those abilities, and cut them down to size - a monster that has a CR inflated by the ability to cast a single giant blast once per day would balance better as a level progression if the blasts were smaller, but it had more of them per day. I hope to make everything have a level progression and some monsters will need tweaking to account for such things. But i would balance it in that case by just making the blast weaker at lower levels: if it's only useable once per day it shouldn't be too unbalancing (unless it's got as huge AoE for example). But some monsters just won't work with this system and for them i'll just set their current level as level 0 and go up from their. I could go on, but I'll pause for a moment to ask: Am I making sense to you? I little bit of column A and a little bit of column B... No i get most of what you are saying, it's just that i never fully understood how monsters worked so i realize i'm not the optimum person to be leading a charge for reform but i suppose that sums up the problem. I get how to balance feats, classes, races, etc. and i konw how they work rather well but monsters feel like they are completley alien to me when they should be pretty simple. Classes and races are easy to understand, so why can't monsters also be?
jagggar 09-25-05, 11:54 PM	That's part of the plan, yes. But in some cases LA might be needed, but we'll see. The only time i can see the need for an LA is for templates, specifically stuff like vampirism that you just get. In these cases i'd still say you start off as a weak vampire and grow in power as you spend levels upgrading that side of you. I think it could technically be done without LA, it would just cost a ton of levels and make some characters a bad idea for pre-epic campaigns. Currently I've been messing around with a (humanoid) half-dragon class that gives full hit dice, no LA. I'm thinking of giving it several jump off points the way Dragon designed the dragon classes (Once you finished an age category you could take other classes, but if you went back, you couldn't advance in any other classes until after you finished that next age cagegory. If I ever get some product put up I'll link to it.
FlameLover 09-26-05, 12:20 AM	I think it could technically be done without LA, it would just cost a ton of levels and make some characters a bad idea for pre-epic campaigns. It can but some monsters would need extensive re-working with this system and as you said some would be rendered useless per-Epic. Ohwell, that's what you get for playing a monster with an LA in the double-digits :) Currently I've been messing around with a (humanoid) half-dragon class that gives full hit dice, no LA. I'm thinking of giving it several jump off points the way Dragon designed the dragon classes (Once you finished an age category you could take other classes, but if you went back, you couldn't advance in any other classes until after you finished that next age cagegory. If I ever get some product put up I'll link to it. I don't have the Dragon issues with that in them yet so i can't comment on how that would work exactly but it's probably a good way to do the forced classes. By having certain "jump" points as you call them it would allow different levels of advancement. Thanks for explaining this!
Hierarch Leviticus 09-26-05, 03:19 PM	FlameLover - As for being the one to lead the charge, well, the people that already understand these things aren't all that likely to do so. I understand the numbers pretty well, and I'm not really that motivated to do for my own purposes. I'm interested in the process, because I can't avoid tinkering around with the system. And, yeah, "Jumping off" points as the basis for forced levels sounds brilliant, especially if they make sense in the game-world. Although it could be taken even further... For example, a Lycanthrope class in which the first, say, two levels were "just the basics", the next three were "taking control over your powers", and the last two were "joining lycanthrope culture", one could even extend the idea to have the first two levels be forced, the second two be optional, and the last two levels only available if one meets the Lycanthrope culture.
FlameLover 09-26-05, 07:23 PM	FlameLover - As for being the one to lead the charge, well, the people that already understand these things aren't all that likely to do so. I understand the numbers pretty well, and I'm not really that motivated to do for my own purposes. I'm interested in the process, because I can't avoid tinkering around with the system. The reason i'm trying to do this is that i'm designing a large homebrew, verging on new RPG based on d20 rules and i really wanted to make races and monsters all use one system. When i posted this i was sort of thinking about making each race a class but i didn't have any of the details or any idea if it would work. I'm pretty sure now this would work though, but it will require quite alot of time and help. For example, a Lycanthrope class in which the first, say, two levels were "just the basics", the next three were "taking control over your powers", and the last two were "joining lycanthrope culture", one could even extend the idea to have the first two levels be forced, the second two be optional, and the last two levels only available if one meets the Lycanthrope culture. Yep, good thinking. Jump points could be seperated by age, progression of an affliction, RP reasons (like meeting other lycanthropes), etc. adn things could get really interesting. I suppose each set of levels would be almost a class in itself i guess, each requiring the completion of the levels before and sometimes other requirments (maybe even like a monster PrC then?). That might be taking it a little far but the option is there and it allows someone to have monsters who diverge or converge at some level, and it would just make monsters and races as a whole immensly dynamic. Now the first thing is making races use this system. But what level should they start at? We've been thinking at some sort of lv0 but what level are children and teens at? I suppose D&D doesn't really bother with them so we won't either: everyone is at lv0 unless they take levels in their racial class. So below is what i'm thinking of for a Dwarf RC: Lv BAB Frt Ref Wil Special - - - - - See 'Dwarves' pg14 1 0 2 0 2 Improved Stone Familiarity 2 1 3 0 3 Bonus Feat 3 1 3 1 3 Improved Favoured Enemies 4 2 4 1 4 Improved Stability 5 2 4 1 4 Constitution +1, Bonus Feat 6 3 5 2 5 7 3 5 2 5 8 4 6 2 6 Improved Darkvision, Bonus Feat 9 4 6 3 6 10 5 7 3 7 Constitution +1, Greater Stone Familiarity 11 5 7 3 7 Bonus Feat 12 6 8 4 8 Greater Favoured Enemies 13 6 8 4 8 14 7 9 4 9 Greater Stability, Bonus Feat 15 7 9 5 9 Constitution +1 16 8 10 5 10 17 8 10 5 10 Bonus Feat 18 9 11 6 11 Greater Darkvision 19 9 11 6 11 20 10 12 6 12 Constitution +1, Bonus Feat That's just what i was tossing around. It's underpowered at the moment because of the 1/2 BAB but if it had full BAB it would be a little better than the fighter. When it says "Improved ..." it doubles the bonus you get from the related features and you add to itself again when it says "Greater ...". This is the general shape i expect every race ro take and even monsters would (except they would be alot harder to balance). Anyway what are your thoughts about this, what do you see as wrong, etc. ? I would give them extra abilities at higher levels and remove the Bonus Feats but i wasn't sure what to give them so i "copped out".
Hierarch Leviticus 09-26-05, 07:54 PM	Some playing with the Dwarf, just to regularize it. I dropped the favored enemies and stability, though not for any specific reason; they just didn't sit well with me. This version would require a list of "Dwarf Feats", much like "Fighter Feats". Lv BAB Frt Ref Wil Special - - - - - See 'Dwarves' pg14 1 0 2 0 2 Improved Stonecunning (+3, 20 Foot search range) 2 1 3 0 3 Constitution +1 3 2 3 1 3 Improved Darkvision (80 Feet) 4 3 4 1 4 Dwarf Feat 5 3 4 1 4 Improved Stonecunning (+4, 40 Foot search range) 6 4 5 2 5 Constitution +1 7 5 5 2 5 Improved Darkvision (120 Feet) 8 6 6 2 6 Dwarf Feat 9 6 6 3 6 Improved Stonecunning (+5, 80 Foot search range) 10 7 7 3 7 Constitution +1 11 8 7 3 7 Improved Darkvision (180 Feet) 12 9 8 4 8 Dwarf Feat 13 9 8 4 8 Improved Stonecunning (+6, 160 Foot search range) 14 10 9 4 9 Constitution +1 15 11 9 5 9 Improved Darkvision (360 Feet) 16 12 10 5 10 Dwarf Feat 17 12 10 5 10 Improved Stonecunning (+7, 320 Foot search range) 18 13 11 6 11 Constitution +1 19 14 11 6 11 Improved Darkvision (460 Feet) 20 15 12 6 12 Dwarf Feat
Kldran Achran 09-26-05, 11:05 PM	While it might not be a big issue most of the time, one thing I think is important to look into, is how your system works with shape changing spells like Polymorph and Shapechange. My biggest complaint with the current system, is that there is no good measurement for how powerful a monster is when a character is polymorphed into one. The shape changing spells normally restrict monster forms according to HD, but I find that HD is a very poor measurement of how powerful the form is (the 7 HD treant with 29 str comes to mind). Another big issue when trying to balance out the CR and ECL of monsters, is the fact that most monsters don't have equipment, and equipment is often a large part of a players power. This often results in a monster's CR being much lower than its ECL is. It might help to figure out how much equipment affects the power of a creature/player so that there is a simple formula (or chart) for determining how much to adjust a creatures CR based upon it's equipment.
Gilean 09-27-05, 07:03 AM	It would be simplest to use humanoid racial clas for all humanoids; d8 HD, medium BAB, one good save, 2 skill points a level. Otherwise you should start customizing all the other monsters, not relay on the type they have which will increase your job immensely.
FlameLover 09-27-05, 08:03 PM	Some playing with the Dwarf, just to regularize it. I dropped the favored enemies and stability, though not for any specific reason; they just didn't sit well with me. This version would require a list of "Dwarf Feats", much like "Fighter Feats". I see why you'd remove stability but i think you need to increase the attack and AC bonus against their enemies. But some sort of list of bonus feats for each race would work well. But that looks good to me, it seems a little weak still though so i might add the stability and favoured enemy back in again just so that it's a little more attractive for PCs to take. While it might not be a big issue most of the time, one thing I think is important to look into, is how your system works with shape changing spells like Polymorph and Shapechange. My biggest complaint with the current system, is that there is no good measurement for how powerful a monster is when a character is polymorphed into one. The shape changing spells normally restrict monster forms according to HD, but I find that HD is a very poor measurement of how powerful the form is (the 7 HD treant with 29 str comes to mind). I beleive the issue here is with polymorph and not the HD system. HD was never designed to be a guage of power and i think polymorph should be limited by ECL or something. But there is nothing one can do about this spell except fix it and all it's similar effects. Another big issue when trying to balance out the CR and ECL of monsters, is the fact that most monsters don't have equipment, and equipment is often a large part of a players power. This often results in a monster's CR being much lower than its ECL is. It might help to figure out how much equipment affects the power of a creature/player so that there is a simple formula (or chart) for determining how much to adjust a creatures CR based upon it's equipment. Ofcourse many monsters CAN'T wear equipment so i agree that some sort of allowance for that should be made. How to actually do it though... well for now we'll have to put that on the back-burner. But some sort of table for advancing ECL based on equipment is required i guess. It would be simplest to use humanoid racial clas for all humanoids; d8 HD, medium BAB, one good save, 2 skill points a level. Otherwise you should start customizing all the other monsters, not relay on the type they have which will increase your job immensely. Good point, although only 2 skill points doesn't sit well with me. I think i'll base each creature off of there types general design but tweak a little bit. Here is all of the "pure" races from the PHB using this system based on the formula Hierarch Leviticus fixed up: Lv BAB Frt Ref Wil Special - - - - - See 'Humans' pg13 1 0 2 2 2 Able Learner 2 1 3 3 3 Extra Skills (+2 skill points) 3 2 3 3 3 Bonus Language 4 3 4 4 4 Bonus Feat 5 3 4 4 4 Able Learner 6 4 5 5 5 Extra Skills (+3 skill points) 7 5 5 5 5 Bonus Language 8 6 6 6 6 Bonus Feat 9 6 6 6 6 Able Learner 10 7 7 7 7 Extra Skills (+4 skill points) 11 8 7 7 7 Bonus Language 12 9 8 8 8 Bonus Feat 13 9 8 8 8 Able Learner 14 10 9 9 9 Extra Skills (+5 skill points) 15 11 9 9 9 Bonus Language 16 12 10 10 10 Bonus Feat 17 12 10 10 10 Able Learner 18 13 11 11 11 Extra Skills (+6 skill points) 19 14 11 11 11 Bonus Language 20 15 12 12 12 Bonus Feat Able Learner: Choose one skill at each level listed. You can now buy ranks in it on a 1-1 basis but are still limited to the cross-class skill rank limit if it isn't a class skill for any of your classes. Extra Skills: At every level listed your bonus skill points increase to the number given in brackets. These skill points are not retroactive but can be used starting from the level that you receive them on. Bonus Language: At every level listed choose one language from the Speak Language skill. You now know this language. Bonus Feat: At every level listed choose a feat. You can choose any feat you want as long as you meet the prerequisites. Lv BAB Frt Ref Wil Special - - - - - See 'Dwarves' pg14 1 0 2 0 2 Improved Stonecunning (+3, 20 Foot search range) 2 1 3 0 3 Constitution +1 3 2 3 1 3 Improved Darkvision (80 Feet) 4 3 4 1 4 Dwarf Feat 5 3 4 1 4 Improved Stonecunning (+4, 40 Foot search range) 6 4 5 2 5 Constitution +1 7 5 5 2 5 Improved Darkvision (120 Feet) 8 6 6 2 6 Dwarf Feat 9 6 6 3 6 Improved Stonecunning (+5, 80 Foot search range) 10 7 7 3 7 Constitution +1 11 8 7 3 7 Improved Darkvision (180 Feet) 12 9 8 4 8 Dwarf Feat 13 9 8 4 8 Improved Stonecunning (+6, 160 Foot search range) 14 10 9 4 9 Constitution +1 15 11 9 5 9 Improved Darkvision (360 Feet) 16 12 10 5 10 Dwarf Feat 17 12 10 5 10 Improved Stonecunning (+7, 320 Foot search range) 18 13 11 6 11 Constitution +1 19 14 11 6 11 Improved Darkvision (460 Feet) 20 15 12 6 12 Dwarf Feat Lv BAB Frt Ref Wil Special - - - - - See 'Elves' pg16 1 0 0 2 2 Improved Perception (+3, 10ft range) 2 1 0 3 3 Dexterity +1 3 2 1 3 3 Enchantment Resistance (+4) 4 3 1 4 4 Elf Feat 5 3 1 4 4 Improved Perception (+4, 15ft range) 6 4 2 5 5 Dexterity +1 7 5 2 5 5 Enchantment Resistance (+6) 8 6 2 6 6 Elf Feat 9 6 3 6 6 Improved Perception (+5, 20ft range) 10 7 3 7 7 Dexterity +1 11 8 3 7 7 Enchantment Resistance (+8) 12 9 4 8 8 Elf Feat 13 9 4 8 8 Improved Perception (+6, 25ft range) 14 10 4 9 9 Dexterity +1 15 11 5 9 9 Enchantment Resistance (+10) 16 12 5 10 10 Elf Feat 17 12 5 10 10 Improved Perception (+7, 30ft range) 18 13 6 11 11 Dexterity +1 19 14 6 11 11 Enchantment Resistance (+12) 20 15 6 12 12 Elf Feat I was going to do the Halfling and the Gnome but just want to see what you think of these first. I think the races need to be re-written myself but i know alot of people like things RAW so i hope these fit the bill.
Gilean 09-28-05, 02:22 AM	Humans: All good saves? No way. The ability to select one good save, or two good saves, is enough. Dwarves: Exponential growth is a bad idea, generally. Anyway, change a few con increases to increase str or wis instead. Both are things dwarves are known for. Elf: As above, but int and cha boosts, maybe wis, would be in order. The enchantment resistance gets a bit excessive. It is not of any use to improve it from +10 to +12, in almost all cases.
Hierarch Leviticus 09-28-05, 03:35 AM	Now that I look back at it, the exponential curve on the "Dwarf sense" is probably unwise (I know, it was my idea), a gentler curve might be in order - and to compensate, maybe tag on stability in the same line. Letting humans Pick two good saves, but only having two, would actually rock almost as hard as having all good ones. Still, it's pretty close to balanced as-is.
jagggar 09-28-05, 10:28 AM	On human, you're going to have to ban the Able Learner feat since it does just this only tons of times better (or waste the class feature should the character take it). I'd change it to the ability in the UA human paragon. Lets you pick a skill and have it be considered a class skill for all classes from then on.
FlameLover 09-28-05, 07:26 PM	Humans: All good saves? No way. The ability to select one good save, or two good saves, is enough. The ability to select 2 good ones would work fine. I'm even considering making all racial classes have one good, one medium and one poor save but i know some people don't like the medium save. If i did this then Humans would have all medium. Dwarves: Exponential growth is a bad idea, generally. Anyway, change a few con increases to increase str or wis instead. Both are things dwarves are known for. I agree about the exponential growth but i don't see why Dwarves should get a bonus to Str or Wis. But it would make things more balanced i guess to "share the love" so what about +1con, +1wis, +1str, +1con? By the end of the class you'd have +4con, +1 wis and +1 str. Elf: As above, but int and cha boosts, maybe wis, would be in order. The enchantment resistance gets a bit excessive. It is not of any use to improve it from +10 to +12, in almost all cases. Yeah, unfortunatley i wasn't sure what else the Elf should get. Any ideas about what else they could get to pad it out a little? Now that I look back at it, the exponential curve on the "Dwarf sense" is probably unwise (I know, it was my idea), a gentler curve might be in order - and to compensate, maybe tag on stability in the same line. Good idea to add stability back in, i felt it needed some advancement. Letting humans Pick two good saves, but only having two, would actually rock almost as hard as having all good ones. Still, it's pretty close to balanced as-is. Yeah picking two good would work, or just making them all medium saves would be good. The reason i went with all-good is because it would be alot more friendly to multiclass with for all Human characters (all those extra feats and skills have got to be nice). On human, you're going to have to ban the Able Learner feat since it does just this only tons of times better (or waste the class feature should the character take it). Able Learner is "broken" anyway so i would ban that feat if you used this. I'd change it to the ability in the UA human paragon. Lets you pick a skill and have it be considered a class skill for all classes from then on. Seems a little too powerful to me but it certialny fits the theme. Unless anyone has any objects then i'll change it to that.
Gilean 09-29-05, 11:00 AM	Stats for dwarves; +1 con, +1 wis, +1 con, +1 str, +1 con, +1 wis... Elves: Minor spellcasting or spell-like abilities, nature-themed abilities (fey type at 20th level?)
Hierarch Leviticus 09-29-05, 11:08 AM	Elves: Minor spellcasting or spell-like abilities, nature-themed abilities (fey type at 20th level?) Hm. Maybe. Or: Have one or two of the features replaceable with +1 level of arcane spellcasting, at the player's option, and give them the ability to 'change in' a few Druid spells as arcane ones... That's just how I'd do it, though. Fey type at 20 sounds solid, if the class is altered to make Elves more "magical", though.