Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Enaloindir 06-09-04, 04:36 AM	Hello all, Our DM has recently bought Unearthed Arcana, and says he will introduce racial paragons into the game (no other variants, as they would really upset the current campaign). The DM said that these are like normal class levels, only tied to race. He also mentioned something about gainig 4 skill points per level, with one strong save, and a +2 stat increase at 3rd lvl. Is this correct? With these racial levels, I can't imagine any commoner not taking the racial levels before their commoner levels... Also, depending on the BAB progression, it would seem that any fighter will just pick up the 3 racial levels as fast as possible, perhaps waiting until after 4th to get Weapon Specialization. (Even with +3/4 BAB progression, placing the stat increase in Str would compensate the attack bonus) He mentioned that dwarves even get +1 BAB/racial level, which means that a dwarven fighter simply does not lose anything from taking racial levels. Even dwarven commoners would be better off taking racial levels first... Can you help me regarding this topic? Is this all correct? Thanks, Enaloindir
Lina_Inverse 06-09-04, 06:21 AM	Originally posted by Enaloindir Hello all, Our DM has recently bought Unearthed Arcana, and says he will introduce racial paragons into the game (no other variants, as they would really upset the current campaign). The DM said that these are like normal class levels, only tied to race. He also mentioned something about gainig 4 skill points per level, with one strong save, and a +2 stat increase at 3rd lvl. Is this correct? With these racial levels, I can't imagine any commoner not taking the racial levels before their commoner levels... Also, depending on the BAB progression, it would seem that any fighter will just pick up the 3 racial levels as fast as possible, perhaps waiting until after 4th to get Weapon Specialization. (Even with +3/4 BAB progression, placing the stat increase in Str would compensate the attack bonus) He mentioned that dwarves even get +1 BAB/racial level, which means that a dwarven fighter simply does not lose anything from taking racial levels. Even dwarven commoners would be better off taking racial levels first... Can you help me regarding this topic? Is this all correct? Thanks, Enaloindir why would someone want commoner levels anyways?there strictly worse than every other level in the game.the only reason someone has commor is because the dm said so,applys for every npc class.(which is why in my game there only expert,which is 8sp per level and d4 hitdice/mage BAB) most have cleric BAB.many have 2/3 spellcasting,but thats worthless as it means your giveing up a casting level for a measly +2 to a worthless stat.even humans +2 to any is worthless as you gave up a caster level. so no there not overpowered infact most are underpowered.then again anything without spellcasting is by its nature worthless.
Mr.Waesel 06-09-04, 06:30 AM	Originally posted by Enaloindir Also, depending on the BAB progression, it would seem that any fighter will just pick up the 3 racial levels as fast as possible, perhaps waiting until after 4th to get Weapon Specialization. (Even with +3/4 BAB progression, placing the stat increase in Str would compensate the attack bonus) He mentioned that dwarves even get +1 BAB/racial level, which means that a dwarven fighter simply does not lose anything from taking racial levels. Yep, that is a problem with the fighter.
Enaloindir 06-09-04, 07:44 AM	Originally posted by Lina_Inverse why would someone want commoner levels anyways? Isn't commoner the "default" NPC class for normal working NPC's? We always interpreted it this way: - You need training in a special craft to become an Expert - You need divine training to gain Adept levels - You need special teachings to be an Aristocrat (math classes is not the thing farmers would spend their money on...) - You need military training to become a Warrior e.g. an apprentice to a blacksmith might be a Com1/Exp1, while the blacksmith could be a Com2/Exp3. The PC's and adventurous character types, such as experienced bandits*, or cat-burglars... face danger (the law, death,...) on a more regular basis or follow a special training (wizards study under a master,...), and thus are allowed to take PC class levels. *: The veteran bandit leaders would e.g. have Rogue/Fighter levels, while the simple low-ranked thugs would be experts (with a rogue skill list) or warrior. Now, how can you train to gain racial levels? If it happens automatically, on a subconscious level, then why don't commoners gain racial levels? From a mechanical point of view, they would certainly benefit, gainig better saves, skill points, hit points, and BAB. Thanks, Enaloindir
Mr.Waesel 06-09-04, 07:48 AM	Originally posted by Enaloindir Isn't commoner the "default" NPC class for normal working NPC's? We always interpreted it this way: - You need training in a special craft to become an Expert - You need divine training to gain Adept levels - You need special teachings to be an Aristocrat (math classes is not the thing farmers would spend their money on...) - You need military training to become a Warrior e.g. an apprentice to a blacksmith might be a Com1/Exp1, while the blacksmith could be a Com2/Exp3. The PC's and adventurous character types, such as experienced bandits*, or cat-burglars... face danger (the law, death,...) on a more regular basis or follow a special training (wizards study under a master,...), and thus are allowed to take PC class levels. *: The veteran bandit leaders would e.g. have Rogue/Fighter levels, while the simple low-ranked thugs would be experts (with a rogue skill list) or warrior. Why does the commoner who trains to blacksmith still have commoner levels, but the one who trains to adventurer does not?
Enaloindir 06-09-04, 08:23 AM	Perhaps because his parents still need some help on the farm? If you want, just make the apprentice an Exp2, and the blacksmith an Exp5. This will solve your problem. Enaloindir
sneaky_pete27 06-09-04, 10:28 AM	I believe the point of the racial paragon class is to denote a creature that is particularly talented at the things a particular race is naturally talented at. If all halflings are agile, you are even more agile, if all orcs are strong you are even stronger, etc. It just means you are a particularly good specimen of your race. As for "Why wouldn't every commoner just take all the levels in this class?" I believe the answer probably has to do with the fact that 1. As a character in a game, a commoner has no idea what a level or class is 2. If a DM wanted to make an npc that was a commoner tougher, he would be much better served to give him a level of fighter, etc. 3. I think these people are supposed to be rare, you know, like fighters and rogues and wizards and such, as a real life commoner myself, I would certainly like to have the size and stamina of a professional hockey player, or play guitar like jimi hendrix, but these people are racial paragons of a sort. But that's just my opinion. Yes, all of the things your dm told you are basically correct, but don't forget, you have to pay for it with class levels. Think of it this way, someone with three levels in paragon xxx effectively has level adjustment +3 IMHO they are not worth it hope that helps
sneaky_pete27 06-09-04, 10:34 AM	not worth it unless you are a fighter, then it's debateable, and of course it is worth it if it fits your character idea:D
JoshRodriguez 06-09-04, 10:45 AM	No no no. You guys misunderstand. Commoner levels: Remember that a lot of the training you recieve happens while you're still a child (before you recieve levels). You're an apprentice blacksmith or the son of a count, right? At age 15 (for humans) you get your first level based on whatever it was that you were training for: Expert for apprentice craftsmen, adept for people training with the tribe shaman, commoner for the unwashed proletareat, etc. It does make sense that if the town blacksmith decides to go adventuring after years of blacksmithery he would have 3-4 levels of expert under his belt, though. The ravenloft 3E campaign setting uses this quite a bit. Paragon Classes: Paragon classes are for people who have come to represent the epitome of their race and would have to have considerable experience under their belt. Can't really be the epitome of adaptability before you've even learned how to hit wheat with a stick.
Enaloindir 06-09-04, 12:02 PM	So there are some prereq's before you can take racial levels? Enaloindir
sneaky_pete27 06-09-04, 12:15 PM	kind of exactly what I was trying to say Josh, paragons are the epitome of their races natural inclinations. Enaloindir asked why all commoners would not take paragon as a class before their commoner levels. The answer is simple, if every commoner you run into has levels in paragon, it kind of loses its meaning right. I mean if evry half-orc stable hand represents the pinnacle of racial develop[ment for the 1/2 orc race, then you should prob. just rule that those are the new starting stats for all half-orcs. I'm also not sure why you think a commoner would automatically select to take racial paragon levels before commoner, if he was able to do this, he could just as well take levels of fighter, wizard, rogue, etc. before he becomes a commoner. Beyond that, I'm not really sure why it matters as most p.c.'s do not take levels in expert, commoner, etc. unless it is for roleplay.
sneaky_pete27 06-09-04, 12:16 PM	no prereq's as far as I can remember, except being of that race of course.
JoshRodriguez 06-09-04, 12:23 PM	They have one major prereq. The most important prereq EVER: Dm discretion.
sneaky_pete27 06-09-04, 12:51 PM	yeah, that's true josh. I just went to the bookstore on lunch break and looked at these "classes" in UA. There are no game mechanic prereq's for these classes. Just as an example of what they have to offer from memory: dwarf paragon full BAB 4skill points/level 1st Level:improved stonecunning 2nd level:improved darkvision 3rd Level:+2 to CON the rest are relatively similar in power to this. Also interestingly enough, after looking at them they are slightly more attractive than I first thought, check this out. for example, an elf wizard who takes three levels of paragon only loses 1 level of spellcasting elf paragon 1st level, no extra spells 2nd level, +1 wizard spell level 3rd level, +1 wizard Now, I have a question. If you are an elf paragon with no levels in wizard do you still get two levels of wizard spells?:confused:
Enaloindir 06-09-04, 01:00 PM	Now I get it :) Thanks !
JoshRodriguez 06-09-04, 01:12 PM	I wouldn't think so, but I'm not looking at the book right now. Usually PrCs that grant spell levels contain wording that stipulates that a player must already have levels in that spell-casting class in order to gain any additional spell levels. As a DM, though, I probably wouldn't let a non-wizard elf take the elf paragon class. It's not an official rule of course, but the idea that a 15th level elf barbarian is somehow the epitome of the ethereal, ancient, and wizard-riffic elven race is kind of absurd. In general practice I wouldn't let a player take the class unless at least half of his character levels were either in the race's favored class and/or closely associated racial PrC (such as Arcane Archer or Halfling Outrider). Additionally I'd either reserve them for higher-level characters (15 or more) OR make them be earned through really good RP.
sneaky_pete27 06-09-04, 01:33 PM	Yeah Josh that's what I was thinking, it definitely seems like they are geared towards the favored classes. A player in my game was asking the elf wizard/paragon spell question. He is a rogue, so I think I will take your advice, make anyone who wants to take a level in racial paragon required to have at least x levels in their races preferred class. And the higher level thing kind of does make sense. Thanks for the heads up.
Jaerom Darkwind 06-09-04, 09:34 PM	I've done a lot of work with the racial paragons. You can see the results in the link in my sig. I've made them into 5 level classes, but the fundamentals haven't changed. I've also made any changes necessary to make them viable at 1st level, so that you can start your carreer as a paragon. The point of these classes is to enhance your racial strengths. A human paragon is a better human. An elf paragon is like an elf, only better. And I've ruled that characters without levels in the requisite spellcasting class begin gaining them when they enter the class. This makes. As a racial paragon, they're going to concern temselves with their race's common occupations-- like wizardry for elves. So if a paragon isn't already a wizard, they begin learning, to become closer to their race's ideals of perfection. I've also included rules to allow them to enter paragon-style classes like Elven Bladesinger and Dwarven Defender at 5th if trhey normally couldn't. (So they can continue being paragons even after they leave the class.) Although I would refer to the lower-level characters as "paragon ascendants," and reserve the title "paragon" for 5th-level characters.
Sssargoth 06-09-04, 10:11 PM	Originally posted by sneaky_pete27 for example, an elf wizard who takes three levels of paragon only loses 1 level of spellcasting elf paragon 1st level, no extra spells 2nd level, +1 wizard spell level 3rd level, +1 wizard Now, I have a question. If you are an elf paragon with no levels in wizard do you still get two levels of wizard spells?:confused: You wouldn't gain the spell casting benefits of the elf paragon, unless you already had levels in wizard or later take levels of wizard. I believe it is stated in the paragon description, if it's not, then that's just my interpritation of the description.
Giarc 06-10-04, 02:30 AM	The HD for some of the paragons is where I have my problems. Why give the elf paragon (favored class wizard and a -2 CON racial penalty) a d8 HD? The dwarf paragon is good at a d10, but the half-orc is robbed with a d8. I feel the same for the drow and the gnome, which each should be d8 IMO. Shouldn't the favored class be looked at for the racial paragon HD? I think so.
Jaerom Darkwind 06-10-04, 06:36 AM	Originally posted by Sssargoth You wouldn't gain the spell casting benefits of the elf paragon, unless you already had levels in wizard or later take levels of wizard. I believe it is stated in the paragon description, if it's not, then that's just my interpritation of the description. And yet, if the classes are balanced with the spellcasting, they're underpowered without it. If they're balanced without the spellcasting, they're overpowered with it. Either everyone needs casting in order to be viable, or it should be removed completely. Originally posted by Giarc The HD for some of the paragons is where I have my problems. Why give the elf paragon (favored class wizard and a -2 CON racial penalty) a d8 HD? The dwarf paragon is good at a d10, but the half-orc is robbed with a d8. I feel the same for the drow and the gnome, which each should be d8 IMO. Shouldn't the favored class be looked at for the racial paragon HD? I think so. But if the racially favored class were the be-all and end-all of a race, we wouldn't need a paragon. Elves are about a lot more than wizardry-- they have a strong warrior tradition, as well, and the HD represents that. The favored class is looked at to determine many aspects of all of the paragons, but it isn't the only thing cosidered. In any case, the designers stuck to the normal racial HD whenever they could, so only in rare cases, such as the Dwarf or the Drow, is a d8 not used for Humanoids. Half-orcs recieve d8s to represent their humanity-- humans also recieve d8s. Although the Half-orc Paragon is so poorly done that I scrapped it comletely in my revision. (I don't understand the double-standard that exists with Half-elves and Half-orcs.) Check the one in my sig for a fairer treatment.
fish_heads 06-10-04, 02:46 PM	Originally posted by Lina_Inverse then again anything without spellcasting is by its nature worthless. I hope you aren't too serious about that. How "worthless" a class is depends solely on how it's played. While spellcasting is a nice boon for any class, it isn't nessesary. I admit that some classes were meant to be used as a stepping-stool to other classes and PrCs (like the fighter is), but that doesn't mean that a class like the Monk or the Rogue are without any advantages at all. The usefulness of any class depends on how it's going to be used, and what kind of campaign you're in. In a high combat campaign, it could be said that anything without at least a D8 for HD is by its nature worthless, but that wouldn't be true in all campaigns
Silverthrone 06-10-04, 02:59 PM	I felt they were just a half hearted attempt to pander to fans of B/X, but that WOTC, for whatever reason, wussed and only made them like some sort of messed up Prestiege Classes rather than bonafide race classes.
fish_heads 06-10-04, 03:06 PM	Originally posted by Silverthrone I felt they were just a half hearted attempt to pander to fans of B/X, but that WOTC, for whatever reason, wussed and only made them like some sort of messed up Prestiege Classes rather than bonafide race classes. Now that you mention it, it does seem like it should just be a racial template (that ISN'T epic) rather than a PrC. Just a +2 to one or two abilities, some racial skill bonuses, and maybe some improved class features.
Lina_Inverse 06-10-04, 04:09 PM	Originally posted by fish_heads I hope you aren't too serious about that. How "worthless" a class is depends solely on how it's played. While spellcasting is a nice boon for any class, it isn't nessesary. I admit that some classes were meant to be used as a stepping-stool to other classes and PrCs (like the fighter is), but that doesn't mean that a class like the Monk or the Rogue are without any advantages at all. The usefulness of any class depends on how it's going to be used, and what kind of campaign you're in. In a high combat campaign, it could be said that anything without at least a D8 for HD is by its nature worthless, but that wouldn't be true in all campaigns ok,correction.anything without full casting is worthless.as spellcasting does everything better than could be done otherwise. combat heavy?druid,cleric,wizard the best. intrigue?cleric and wizard are the best(divination > gather info) diplomacy?druid and wizard are best(youd be surprised how many diplomatic situations are solved with charm person:angel: ) so is there a type of caimpaign where those arent the best?oh yes i can think of two actully. railroadfest.who cares,the dm will have his story anyways. constant lockup fest.this is pretty much a railroad fest,with slightly more finesse.now PSION is the best,or simply VOP druid.
fish_heads 06-10-04, 04:37 PM	Well, I suppose it's mostly a matter of personal opinion. I think, however, that any class is going to be useless without a well-balanced party to back them. Spellcaster have a lot of advantages over other classes, but that doesn't mean that, for example, a wizard wouldn't need a fighter or barbarian meatshield to hold off attacking enemies while he casts, or to be just dealing a lot of damabe every round to whittle the enemies down. Conversely, the barbarian or fighter would need a wizard to cast buffs on him, or to remove enemy buffs, counter spells, or to just use the right spell at the right time. Also, it's important to note that at early levels, many spellcasters are going to find themselves largely useless. the wizard casts fireball on turn one, and then sits back and shoots crossbow bolts at enemies for the rest of combat. It isn't until high levels that the spellcasters begin to really overpower other classes, particularly classes that don't do anything (fighters), and classes that do a little bit of everything, but excel at nothing (like Bards). Anyhow, I think I'll post a new thread on this issue if the discussion continues so that we don't end up hijacking this one.
Lina_Inverse 06-10-04, 04:42 PM	Originally posted by fish_heads Well, I suppose it's mostly a matter of personal opinion. I think, however, that any class is going to be useless without a well-balanced party to back them. Spellcaster have a lot of advantages over other classes, but that doesn't mean that, for example, a wizard wouldn't need a fighter or barbarian meatshield to hold off attacking enemies while he casts, or to be just dealing a lot of damabe every round to whittle the enemies down. Conversely, the barbarian or fighter would need a wizard to cast buffs on him, or to remove enemy buffs, counter spells, or to just use the right spell at the right time. Also, it's important to note that at early levels, many spellcasters are going to find themselves largely useless. the wizard casts fireball on turn one, and then sits back and shoots crossbow bolts at enemies for the rest of combat. It isn't until high levels that the spellcasters begin to really overpower other classes, particularly classes that don't do anything (fighters), and classes that do a little bit of everything, but excel at nothing (like Bards). Anyhow, I think I'll post a new thread on this issue if the discussion continues so that we don't end up hijacking this one. i point to druids and clerics.who dont suck at low levels and dont need meat shields(really they ARE the meat shields of D&D) but yeah lets stop hijacking.
fish_heads 06-10-04, 04:52 PM	for more on the Spellcasters Vs. the world posts, go here: http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=256199 Sorry if the thread got temporarily hijacked
darkcardking 06-10-04, 04:53 PM	The Paragons all depend on the favered class of the race. Like for the elf you get a +2 to intel at 3rd level and mor spells per day. The half-dargon get more power to sorcerer, The gnome gets for to bard. Also if your dumb enough to play a commaner as an adventerer, then your character should killed aand eaten by rats because that is the dumbest move ever. P.S. Excuss any misspellings.
Quarion Silverfrond 06-10-04, 07:33 PM	The Paragons all depend on the favered class of the race. Like for the elf you get a +2 to intel at 3rd level and mor spells per day. The half-dargon get more power to sorcerer, The gnome gets for to bard. Also if your dumb enough to play a commaner as an adventerer, then your character should killed aand eaten by rats because that is the dumbest move ever. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ It's me darkcardking screwed up my password but its fixed.
Jaerom Darkwind 06-10-04, 08:03 PM	If anyone still has questions on racial paragons, pick any of the classes and I'll explain to you why it is how it is (the UA version or my version, as you wish).
trapspringer 06-10-04, 10:17 PM	Reason to take your first level as commoner: To meet the pre-req's for survivor as of level 1.
Flame_Drake 06-11-04, 12:55 AM	My 2 cp on the wiz/elf paragon debate: Consider this, The orc paragon still gets teh extra rage adn the paragons aren't PrC so it would make sence that the elf will start to gain levels in wizard spell-casting
Dunelord 06-13-04, 10:40 AM	I for one are with Jaerom that they should either have the caster levels or not, and as to PrCs not getting them it should be remembered these aren't PrCs. The fact that if you don't have them before you go in you don't get them but you can still go in seems rather odd. Love your PrCs and classes btw. As to them being worthless that extra +2 can be what puts you at 19 you need for 9th level spells, for Humans and Elves at least. What is B/X? Originally posted by JoshRodriguez I wouldn't think so, but I'm not looking at the book right now. Usually PrCs that grant spell levels contain wording that stipulates that a player must already have levels in that spell-casting class in order to gain any additional spell levels. As a DM, though, I probably wouldn't let a non-wizard elf take the elf paragon class. It's not an official rule of course, but the idea that a 15th level elf barbarian is somehow the epitome of the ethereal, ancient, and wizard-riffic elven race is kind of absurd. In general practice I wouldn't let a player take the class unless at least half of his character levels were either in the race's favored class and/or closely associated racial PrC (such as Arcane Archer or Halfling Outrider). Additionally I'd either reserve them for higher-level characters (15 or more) OR make them be earned through really good RP. Originally posted by sneaky_pete27 Yeah Josh that's what I was thinking, it definitely seems like they are geared towards the favored classes. A player in my game was asking the elf wizard/paragon spell question. He is a rogue, so I think I will take your advice, make anyone who wants to take a level in racial paragon required to have at least x levels in their races preferred class. And the higher level thing kind of does make sense. Thanks for the heads up. I must say that I take the exact opposite veiw on the idea of having to be high level or earn the right to take Racail Paragon levels. It seems to me like it is the kind of thing that would come out because you are a member of a good bloodline or whatever. This seems like the kind of thing that would come out very early in your life same as being tall, attractive, or anything else that is inherited. But that is just my take on it.
Arcticflare 06-18-04, 10:05 AM	Originally posted by Quarion Silverfrond The Paragons all depend on the favered class of the race. Like for the elf you get a +2 to intel at 3rd level and mor spells per day. The half-dargon get more power to sorcerer, The gnome gets for to bard. Also if your dumb enough to play a commaner as an adventerer, then your character should killed aand eaten by rats because that is the dumbest move ever. If the paragons depend on favored class, why do Elves and Half-Orcs get d8s when it should be d4s and d12s, respectively. A commoner makes sense. After all, everyone technically starts as a commoner. They have to start somewhere.
Jaerom Darkwind 06-18-04, 10:17 AM	Originally posted by Arcticflare If the paragons depend on favored class, why do Elves and Half-Orcs get d8s when it should be d4s and d12s, respectively. It's a falacy to assume that the paragon is based 100% on the favored class. The paragon is based on the racial image. For elves, this is a lot closer to the Bladesinger than the Wizard. For half-orcs, well, WotC has always screwed half-orcs over. I had to rewrite the race to make it playable before I could give them a decent paragon.
JoshRodriguez 06-18-04, 10:52 AM	I must say that I take the exact opposite veiw on the idea of having to be high level or earn the right to take Racail Paragon levels. It seems to me like it is the kind of thing that would come out because you are a member of a good bloodline or whatever. This seems like the kind of thing that would come out very early in your life same as being tall, attractive, or anything else that is inherited. But that is just my take on it. That's perfectly fine. The paragon classes are open to interpretation and the DM always gets final say on how they're used. "Paragon" means rare, powerful, and special in my mind, which is why I'd not let low-level characters without a reasonable degree of experience in their race's favored class access to them. If you feel that any member of the race regardless of class, experience, or ability can take levels of the paragon class that's fine, too. It just makes them less special and more a twink tool. They're very powerful, especially at low-levels and it just doesn't seem to be in the spirit of the thing. Ultimately, though, it's your decision as a DM and if you and your characters feel that it makes the game more fun, who am I to argue? :)
Dunelord 07-04-04, 03:34 AM	Originally posted by JoshRodriguez That's perfectly fine. The paragon classes are open to interpretation and the DM always gets final say on how they're used. "Paragon" means rare, powerful, and special in my mind, which is why I'd not let low-level characters without a reasonable degree of experience in their race's favored class access to them. If you feel that any member of the race regardless of class, experience, or ability can take levels of the paragon class that's fine, too. It just makes them less special and more a twink tool. They're very powerful, especially at low-levels and it just doesn't seem to be in the spirit of the thing. Ultimately, though, it's your decision as a DM and if you and your characters feel that it makes the game more fun, who am I to argue? :) I wouldn't let just anyone take one. I am just of the mind set that if you are going to let someone take it would HAVE to be at early levels. I just don't see someone who is 10th leve suddenly becoming a shining example of their race. That seems like a from birth thing. I suppose it could be roleplayed that they are and then they take the levels. As to the power I played these from early levels and had no problems with being more powerful. In fact they seem right on par with everything else.
Skeptical Clown 07-05-04, 04:56 PM	I don't think that a commoner would normally take Paragon levels, for the same reason that they wouldn't take PC class levels. But yes, what you're seeing is basically correct; Paragon Classes are inherently powerful. I don't allow them, not so much because they're potentially powerful, but because they don't make sense; PC races who are more powerful and naturally talented than other members of their race are the ones who have PC classes in the first place.