"I’m looking forward to ... see .. if there are any other classic monsters you think could use the same treatment."
I think people have mentioned that Lycanthrope would be a good choice for such a Class-ic Creature. I agree, and different builds could help reflect different types of lycanthropes (bear, wolf, boar, rat, etc.) Make this a Primal class.
Another one I've heard used is Illithid, representing someone whose transformation from victim to aberration went awry. Make this a Psionic class.
Golem might not be a bad choice, representing someone of a race who has been transformed into an inanimate material, but still retains the semblance of his original appearance and personality. Builds could include Stone, Flesh, Iron, or Crystal. Make this a Martial class (even though Arcane magic probably created it).
Or how about Angel? You died as a mortal, but some celestial power decided your mission was incomplete and sent you back as her personal Messenger, ala Clarence in It's a Wonderful Life? Make this a Divine class.
And there's plenty of undead left to mine for ideas. Ghost could be a class. Heck, even a class-version of Revenant, rather than race.
That said, if they could break away from this habit of producing pre-gen characters instead of classes, then I could get behind lycanthropes or ghots as class-type options. I still think these templatish monsters are better served by themes, though.
I wouldn't want to see mind flayers. The unknowable alien abomination aspect of them, which is what makes them cool in my mind, would be rather undercut if I were actually playing one.
That said, mechanically mind flayers make more sense to me as a class if they were to be a PC option at all then most of the others.
Ghosts are the best option for a shadow defender. Permanent insubstantial instead of high hit hp or surges. Plus Ghosts get very attached to there fetters, in fact fetters could be the bases of their defender mechanic. Anyone who attacks or moves beside an individual chosen as a fetter ends up marked. Maybe I will submit some ideas on this as an article for dragon.
Demon as an Abyassal Plague victim, who undergoes a transformation into a demon thanks to infection by the AP. could call the class Carriers. Elemental power source. different types of demons could be different builds.
Tarrasque class could be cool, just not sure how to implement it.
Quasigod. Your a child of a demigod that evovles into a true demigod later on.
Lamia- You had fey blood when you died so your bones were usable to create a Lamia, yet something went wrong with the ritual and you retained your orginal memories.
Dragon Disciple- A dragon in human form gave birth to you and you are trying to regain your dragonic hertiage.
Skull Lords- Just because Skull Lords are cool.
Aboleths- Start out as a servitor and evolve into a shape shifting aboleth.
Slaads-A slaad laid eggs in you, but chaotic as such things go instead hatching a tadpole, it merges with you transforming you into a slaad. Different types of Slaad could be different builds like red or green slaads. Maybe even black or white Slaads. roll a d20 before combat to decide whether you are a defender, striker, or controller, or leader for that battle.
Forgotten- Those dudes that ripped out their eye balls because a piece of god got in them. You just happened to handle it better then most. Divine Power Source. While you draw your power from a shard of a dead god, in FR worshipping a current god allows you to stabilize the power so you don't go insane. This allows it to be FR compatible.
Damned/Exalted a chosen soul that escaped or is driven from their divine domain. Has powers not attached to a god so much as powers dictated from the dominion they left. Like they are piece of that dominion acting as an extention of it. Damned Striker or Exalted Leader or defender or both could be controllers. Could just call the class petitioner or Planar.
Proxy- You are your god. Your god invested a piece of themselves into you, not just a connection to their power. You are not just a servant of your god, you are your god, in the form of a low level manifestation. Might constrain a character too much.
Aasmon- could be a way to bring Aasmon back. You start off as a low level aasmon and evolve into a Solar or Planatar.
I mean, Yes, classed characters are rare. But they exist in more than one or two examples. There's traditions, techniques, abilities surrounding them. They don't exist in a vaccuum. There are Knightly orders, Warding Circles, Priesthoods of Clerics, Mage Schools, Bardic colleges, Assassins' Guilds… these all point to the classes having several individuals with the classes. There's class templates for monsters in the DMG for a reason – so you can give classes to NPCs without building them like PCs.
All those suggestions sound like one-of or at least EXTREMELY RARE scenarios. They don't sound like the sort of character archetype that Classes are, encompasing multiple different play styles. Yes, the Vampire is limited right now, but it is a huge archetype of a concept that it has room to expand. "You're victim of a Yeerk Controller Mind Flayer who reclaimed your mind by taking a medicine" is not an archetype. It's a single character concept. These are cool stories to play for a character, but they don't denote classes.
In fact many of these sound like they would work much better in a system akin to Gamma World, where you can make all sorts of crazy combinations of origins.
- Vampires
- Lycanthropes (bear, boar, rat, wolf, etc.)
- Angels (of varying domains -- protection, wrath, conteplation, etc.)
- Scion (offspring of a god, primoridal, demon lord, archdevil, etc.)
- Ghosts (though less arhcetypal in a party of things other than ghosts)
Sure, you might not ever have more than one in a campaign, but I can totally see a party of all lycantropes, or angels, or scions (Argonauts, anyone?), or vampires. And even if there's only one, he would want a full range of subarchetypes to choose from. The rest would probably work better as themes or some sort of feat/background combo ala the Vistani.
The idea of Lyncanthropes sounds perfect for the format. I really like wrecan's idea of the Scion, too. It's an interesting idea, and it provides an excellent flavor buildup to a Demigod or Prince of Hell epic destiny. Does anyone see the divine parentage (god, archdevil, etc.) being the focus of such a class's builds, or would the parents just be background flavor?
I really like wrecan's idea of the Scion, too.
Actually, I just renamed Omegaphallic's Quasigod concept. But yeah, the divine parents should totally be the focus. I actually see it as a sort of Divine Power build with a lot of Martial flavor. And it's a complete homage to Greek myths. After all, your archetypes are Achilles, Aeneas, Autolycus, Perseus, Theseus, Jason, Bellerophon, Helen (of Troy), Clytemnestra, Romulus, Remus, Castor, Pollux, and dozens of other heroes, not to mention the scions that ascended to godhood, Heracles, Dionysius and (according to some myths) Pan. Also the teen novels in the Percy Jackson series give a modern twist to the scion archetype.
And who wouldn't want to play a noble son of Pelor, the barbarian scion of Gruumsh, the drow daughter of Lolth, the beauteous elven daughter of Corellon, or the mighty warlord, child of Bane.
Or play against type -- the scoundrel son of Pelor, the book-burning child of Ioun, the anarchist son of Erathis, and the compassionate daughter of Torog!
I agree though, Lycanthrope, Ghost, and Angel are just as archetypal enough as Vampires are, as would Half-Demon or something similar. I could see this as a space to allow for the creation of more unconvential type characters that we do see a lot in media. But we don't see a lot of Illithid Heroes, for example. I don't think "Class-ic Monsters" is necessarily the way to go as much as characters that appear often in media and roleplaying games whose powers are chiefly defined by that quality, rather than having a separate class on top of it. It's like those monsters stated in various monster books – like Death Knight Fighter or Death Knight Paladin sort of thing. The Death Knight is more important than whether they used to be a Fighter or a Paladin. If I was to make a Death Knight character, I'd rather it just be a Death Knight. Or a Rakshasa Sorcerer vs a Rakshasa Bard. Seriously? Just be a Rakshasa, there's enough going on for you already.
But at the same time, there are certain "monster races" that are too evil, and not present enough in media (because they're so D&D) to do this format for. While I agree with making new races that are very much D&D races, like the Shardmind and the Wilden, and don't appear very often outside of D&D, I think it's important if we're converting monsters into races or classes that we don't lose the "evil" currency we've got going. It's why Githyanki didn't get a PC write-up earlier. They're evil, and the only reason we got them in past editions is because we got Githzerai and what is one without the other (oh, and they're cool)?
Drow use a lot of currency. But Dark Elves appear not as evil in other media, like Warcraft (Night Elves) or The Elder Scrolls (Dunmer). The conversion of the Minotaur made sense, due to the popularity of Tauren in Warcraft. And I can see Goblins and Kobolds getting racial PC stats due to the traditional "they're funny and small and cute little buggers," and because of things like Eberron. But if we're going to make "Class-ic Monsters" they need to be powerful concepts you see a lot, and ones that are defined chiefly by their "racial class" rather than by their race. They also need to be able to have a story connection with any race, unless you disallow race choice for the Class and lock it in, and then we're back to when Dwarf and Elf were classes. Werewolf/Lycanthrope (or Weremammal/Therianthrope), Ghost, Half-Demon, Angel/Half-Angel, Half-Devil, Half-Dragon, heck, maybe even Raptoran (because of the whole flight thing) – these are concepts that work as "monster classes." But it needs to be thought out careful and methodically.
But I'm really liking the ideas forming in that last paragraph. It would be cool to bring the Half-whatever races back without them being overpowered, such as the monster-class setup.
Btw, as Vampires go, why didn't they look at other traditions for class variety? Castlevania might've been a good start, because vampires do all sorts of crazy things in that series.
A mindflayer is a mindflayer. They'd have to restrict your race too.
Angels are also not based on any race.
The thing about playing straight evil is that they made it clear that 4e is about Heroes, not Villains. They're not going to support Villain characters, and if anything is published that would be nice goldmining for an Evil Campaign, it needs to be equally useful by Unaligned heroes, or by Good heroes with a dark spin. You can't publish something that is always evil, unless the backstory is pigeonholed as a once-of. It doesn't work that way. It needs to have many, many possible stories that heroes could derive their origin with.
A half-Angel might work, or an Angel awakening in mortal flesh might work, however.
That's called a Deva.
A half-Angel might work, or an Angel awakening in mortal flesh might work, however.
The example I gave was Clarence from It's a Wonderful Life. He was a mortal, and is sent back by the deity with a mission. So he's a mortal with an angel class slapped on top. Sort of the divine version of a ghost.
So, yes, you could have elven angels and shifter angels and goblin angels. The backstory would just need to explain why the deity chose you to be the instrument of his will. Heck, you could be a deva angel -- a deva who died on the verge of becoming rakshasa, but the deity you once served chose to save you and give you one more chance of rdemption by sending you back with more of your original angelic powers.
So I think an angel class could totally work.
I could actually see the Scion as a Subclass of Invoker.
I don't think that follows the archetype. Scions of the gods weren't generally calling down miraculous prayers from on high. They were mortals writ large. They could do things like change the course of rivers with their bare hands, lead armies, and just be heroic. I see them as divine leaders or defenders. Possibly a paladin subclass.
And whoever posited ghost as a defneder? Brilliant!
I've actually sent something similar in to dragon a month ago.
I could actually see the Scion as a Subclass of Invoker.
I don't think that follows the archetype. Scions of the gods weren't generally calling down miraculous prayers from on high. They were mortals writ large. They could do things like change the course of rivers with their bare hands, lead armies, and just be heroic. I see them as divine leaders or defenders. Possibly a paladin subclass.
The thing is, I wouldn't peg a Scion as a Controller either, but as a Leader or Defender. But that doesn't meant it wouldn't be more closely tied to the Invoker story than the Paladin story. Invokers have direct relationships with deities – sometimes even having a fragment of the deity within them. That sounds much more than a member of a divine Knightly order for the Scion. Role is mutable with Subclasses.
As for Devas being Half-Angels, they are Angels cloaked in flesh, much like Gandalf. But just as we have Vryloka and Vampires, I could see us having Devas and an Angel class, of sorts.
The thing about playing straight evil is that they made it clear that 4e is about Heroes, not Villains. They're not going to support Villain characters, and if anything is published that would be nice goldmining for an Evil Campaign, it needs to be equally useful by Unaligned heroes, or by Good heroes with a dark spin. You can't publish something that is always evil, unless the backstory is pigeonholed as a once-of. It doesn't work that way. It needs to have many, many possible stories that heroes could derive their origin with.
That's not quite true, as seen by the 4e BoVD. Though I do agree that evil-themed books will need to have stuff appealing to the so-called heroic types in order to draw enough of an audience to be successful.
The thing about playing straight evil is that they made it clear that 4e is about Heroes, not Villains. They're not going to support Villain characters, and if anything is published that would be nice goldmining for an Evil Campaign, it needs to be equally useful by Unaligned heroes, or by Good heroes with a dark spin. You can't publish something that is always evil, unless the backstory is pigeonholed as a once-of. It doesn't work that way. It needs to have many, many possible stories that heroes could derive their origin with.
That's not quite true, as seen by the 4e BoVD. Though I do agree that evil-themed books will need to have stuff appealing to the so-called heroic types in order to draw enough of an audience to be successful.
From what I've heard, however, there's not much player content planned for that book, though. And it's supposed to be useable with Unaligned, apparently. We'll have to see. WotC have said time and time again that they don't think Evil and Chaotic Evil work for the 4e game.
The thing about playing straight evil is that they made it clear that 4e is about Heroes, not Villains. They're not going to support Villain characters, and if anything is published that would be nice goldmining for an Evil Campaign, it needs to be equally useful by Unaligned heroes, or by Good heroes with a dark spin. You can't publish something that is always evil, unless the backstory is pigeonholed as a once-of. It doesn't work that way. It needs to have many, many possible stories that heroes could derive their origin with.
That's not quite true, as seen by the 4e BoVD. Though I do agree that evil-themed books will need to have stuff appealing to the so-called heroic types in order to draw enough of an audience to be successful.
From what I've heard, however, there's not much player content planned for that book, though. And it's supposed to be useable with Unaligned, apparently. We'll have to see. WotC have said time and time again that they don't think Evil and Chaotic Evil work for the 4e game.
Eh. Idk about that.
On one hand, I've met my share of players who can do evil well; in contrast to people who use the alignment as an excuse to play as "jerkass-evil". On the other hand I've seen many posters who've had repeated bad experiences with it. I think playing evil well takes a degree of maturity that WotC can't afford to assume people have if they want the bulk of players to enjoy the game.
As a side note, the people I found that can play evil well are people who can also DM well. Maybe the traits required for both somehow overlap.
Eh. Idk about that.
On one hand, I've met my share of players who can do evil well; in contrast to people who use the alignment as an excuse to play as "jerkass-evil". On the other hand I've seen many posters who've had repeated bad experiences with it. I think playing evil well takes a degree of maturity that WotC can't afford to assume people have if they want the bulk of players to enjoy the game.
As a side note, the people I found that can play evil well are people who can also DM well. Maybe the traits required for both somehow overlap.
MechaPilot, I agree with your sentiments here. My point was that WotC have described in podcasts and columns why evil isn't appropriate for 4e. However, they consistently say, "nope! No evil alignment here! Keep moving!" The point is to encourage most people then, not to play evil or chaotic evil unless they REALLY REALLY REALLY know what they are doing and know that they aren't going to ruin the fun of everyone else.
That's not quite true, as seen by the 4e BoVD.
Fom your link: "this roleplaying game product is intended for Dungeon Masters". There's nothing descibed in the book for players.
My wife said she'd like a mummy class, replete with Egyptian themed powers, summoning swarms, plagues and the like. Definitely a controller.
That's not quite true, as seen by the 4e BoVD.
Fom your link: "this roleplaying game product is intended for Dungeon Masters". There's nothing descibed in the book for players.
My wife said she'd like a mummy class, replete with Egyptian themed powers, summoning swarms, plagues and the like. Definitely a controller.
I think you missed this part: "new character options for players who like to flirt with evil".
Also, the mummy thing sounds awesome. While you are dead on about mummy as controller, I can also see a defender mummy.
That's not quite true, as seen by the 4e BoVD.
Fom your link: "this roleplaying game product is intended for Dungeon Masters". There's nothing descibed in the book for players.
My wife said she'd like a mummy class, replete with Egyptian themed powers, summoning swarms, plagues and the like. Definitely a controller.
I think you missed this part: "new character options for players who like to flirt with evil".
Also, the mummy thing sounds awesome. While you are dead on about mummy as controller, I can also see a defender mummy.
Sounds very similar to a swarm druid, who's a controller with defender as a secondary. I think that if you wanted to MAKE a mummy class, that the swarm druid would be the place to start with re-flavoring and adding stuff.
- Release a few other Class-ic monsters, like the lycanthrope, ghost, mummy, etc.
- Release a new campaign setting or write an article on it, or better yet - make "4e Savage Species" the campaign setting! There's one archetype of story that I love, but it never makes it into D&D, and I haven't found a single gaming system that supports it. Like (Aesop's fables), A Wizard in Rhyme series, and other stories, there's a whole archetype of fantasy world where the "monsters" are intelligent creatures with a will of their own. Despite a bad reputation, they're not all evil. Heck, the 3.5 Draconimicon covered campaigns starring dragons. The way I see it, a new campaign setting would be ideal - a world where monsters are people too turns enough on its head that it would require at least a chapter on what this means for the game world.
I think you missed this part: "new character options for players who like to flirt with evil".
Yes I did. Thanks for the clarification. But you cited the BoVD to counter Marandahir's statement that "They're not going to support Villain characters, and if anything is published that would be nice goldmining for an Evil Campaign, it needs to be equally useful by Unaligned heroes,"
Character options for players who like "to flirt with" evil doesn't sound like villains, or people who are actually evil. It sounds like options "equally useful by Unaligned heroes."
All right, I know I'm going to call down some flak for this, but I'd be interested in a Savage Species style book.
Me too. Have a few Class-ic monsters, and expansions for the playable races in the Monster Manuals, like minotaurs, gnolls, goblins, kenku, etc.
Release a new campaign setting or write an article on it
Interesting, but I don't think you need a whole campaign setting for playabe monsters. The fn of being a playable monster is that you are unique. Sure you could make a weird halloween party from a vampire, werewolf, Frankenstein's warforged, and a mummy. But I think most people want to play a monster to be unique in a world of "normals".
If you make a Bizarro Forgotten Realms, where everything is the same, but the orcs live in the forests and the elves have murderous hordes, you lose a lot of what makes playing an orc so different.
Heck, the 3.5 Draconimicon covered campaigns starring dragons.
If they do a third Draconomicon, it whould totally be Draconomicon 3: Council of Wyrms!
I think you missed this part: "new character options for players who like to flirt with evil".
Yes I did. Thanks for the clarification. But you cited the BoVD to counter Marandahir's statement that "They're not going to support Villain characters, and if anything is published that would be nice goldmining for an Evil Campaign, it needs to be equally useful by Unaligned heroes,"
Character options for players who like "to flirt with" evil doesn't sound like villains, or people who are actually evil. It sounds like options "equally useful by Unaligned heroes."
There really isn't much difference between characters that flirt with evil, and characters who take it home to meet their mom (to complete the analogy). That's why starting down the path of evil is so dangerous, because it's easy to lose your way.
Besides, if you flirt with evil long enough I think it becomes your common-law wife.
Release a new campaign setting or write an article on it
Interesting, but I don't think you need a whole campaign setting for playabe monsters. The fn of being a playable monster is that you are unique. Sure you could make a weird halloween party from a vampire, werewolf, Frankenstein's warforged, and a mummy. But I think most people want to play a monster to be unique in a world of "normals".
If you make a Bizarro Forgotten Realms, where everything is the same, but the orcs live in the forests and the elves have murderous hordes, you lose a lot of what makes playing an orc so different.
I think there is room for a monster race or Bizarro campaign setting, but it wouldn't work if you just turn an existing setting into a Bizarro one. Monster races as good guys is a cool hook, but it will take more than just that to retain interest in the setting book beyond "I can use this as a sourcebook for monster PCs in other campaigns".
The mummy controller/defender mentioned earlier could be really neat. I also really like the idea of using the abyssal plague plotline as a way to create a (pseudo) demon class for some fun "must not lose control and murder the world" type games.
I may be alone in this, but I think a zombie class could be fun if you could come up with enough different ways to eat brains in the course of an adventure.
The mummy controller/defender mentioned earlier could be really neat. I also really like the idea of using the abyssal plague plotline as a way to create a (pseudo) demon class for some fun "must not lose control and murder the world" type games.
Zombies can be fun. I played a zombie lord once in the last edition. I do think you'd need to go with a zombie lord or a species of sentient zombies to make it work though. Oh, and a healthy dose of campiness wouldn't hurt. Done right it would be a guilty pleasure akin to this:
There really isn't much difference between characters that flirt with evil, and characters who take it home to meet their mom (to complete the analogy). That's why starting down the path of evil is so dangerous, because it's easy to lose your way.
But the losing your way is the journey, and it's the journey, not the destination, that we play. The whole point is to play whether your character will fall, or be able to stay faithful, even though it's so much fun to flirt. Once he falls, you're done (as far as Wizards is concerned), but ever since they introduced the Warlock class in 4e (which was Day One), they have allowed characters who flirt with evil, as long as they just flirt.
Besides, if you flirt with evil long enough I think it becomes your common-law wife.
You have to do more than flirt for that.
With such a release, WOTC might actually reconsider adding talking animals and centaurs as races after all!
I may be alone in this, but I think a zombie class could be fun if you could come up with enough different ways to eat brains in the course of an adventure.
The mummy controller/defender mentioned earlier could be really neat. I also really like the idea of using the abyssal plague plotline as a way to create a (pseudo) demon class for some fun "must not lose control and murder the world" type games.
Zombies can be fun. I played a zombie lord once in the last edition. I do think you'd need to go with a zombie lord or a species of sentient zombies to make it work though. Oh, and a healthy dose of campiness wouldn't hurt. Done right it would be a guilty pleasure akin to this:
I think a Juju Zombie class would be better than the flesh eating variety. Most zombies in media are actually ghouls, I want a proper zombie. Preferably a defender for a squishy spellcaster. Maybe making making unarmed attacks with fear effects and gained temporary hit points. Also, Zombie Strippers is perhaps the squickiest film I've ever seen.
Let's you play the heir to the throne who must master the Imperial Sword of Nerath before they claim their right to unify the Points of Light.
But not really closely enough. Summoning crunch and hexey stuff isn't as "noble heir" as the typical He-Man/Aragorn/Ren from Pirates of Darkwater etc. I think the class shoudl be a bit more defendery/leadery in my mind. Teleporting and stealing hit points doesn't really work either.
I may be alone in this, but I think a zombie class could be fun ...
Yeah? But you've got Aquaman as you're avatar!
I may be alone in this, but I think a zombie class could be fun ...
Yeah? But you've got Aquaman as you're avatar!
And Cthulhu. Aquaman is summoning Cthulhu.
In fact, reading the Shadowfell preview stuff gave me a fun idea for a campaign: escorting a departed soul to the afterlife. With the Ghost class, one of the PCs could be the deceased. (I was thinking that the Revenaut race might have to suffice for the time being, alas.)
That being said, I'd like to see Tauric as a monster class, taking the top of one race and placing it on the body of a quadrapedal animal of some sort. It's like having a mount that actually scales with you for a change XD
Which makes me want to do a Kobold Lich for some reason. :symb:
In the recent May and Beyond article, they just hinted ever so strongly to do full support for some monster races (Kobolds and Hobgoblins were mentioned outright). They also hinted at the possibility of doing more class-ic monsters, amongst them the lich.
Which makes me want to do a Kobold Lich for some reason. :symb:
Tiniest dracolich. <3
In the recent May and Beyond article, they just hinted ever so strongly to do full support for some monster races (Kobolds and Hobgoblins were mentioned outright). They also hinted at the possibility of doing more class-ic monsters, amongst them the lich.
Which makes me want to do a Kobold Lich for some reason. :symb:
Tiniest dracolich. <3
Now picturing a Kobold Wizard with the Archlich . . .thing. Epic Destiny, I think? Anyway, kind of spiffy. And it might be interesting to see a lich-like class, gifted by the Raven Queen or some such, that would be a Shadow specific class. But really, I also like the idea of the Kobold Dragon Sorcerer.
I love new races though. Kobold and Goblin and Orc are the ones I most hope for.