Upper-Class Monsters
June 28th, 2010
Hello everyone. Those of you who read other columns may remember me saying in a recent From the Workshop that I was tempted to go on into a lengthy discussion of the history of monster PCs and to discuss why we made the nymph class the way that we did. At the time, I didn’t want to make you sit through all of that just to get to the class itself (something I’m very excited about and more than a little proud of), but now that I’m back on my “home turf” of Dark Designs where the meat of the article really is an examination of previous design and a discussion of why we did things the way that we did, well… I was never very good at resisting temptations.
Though my D&D career technically began with second edition, it was for one session and the DM didn’t realize until the end that I apparently should have been getting backstab all that time (for the record, I’m pretty sure he’s wrong, because in the interim I’ve played a little more second edition and backstab is really, really hard to get – at least by comparison to sneak attack). Planescape later seduced me into playing some more second edition games, but the point here is that, at the end of the day, I’m not familiar enough with second edition to swear by anything other than that THAC0 isn’t nearly as complicated as everyone says it is. Because of this, all I can say about playing a monster during the days of second edition is that I’m pretty sure you just aren’t able to. The rules simply don’t support the concept at all. I’m not even sure you can play as a goblin or kobold (though I know from experience you can play as a rogue modron. I kind of have a soft spot for modrons).
Which brings us to third edition (and, for simplicity’s sake, 3.5). One of the things that third edition did for the game was to make it so that everyone used the same rules. Before third edition (and after it, for that matter) monsters didn’t follow the same rules as the players. I’m pretty sure in second edition they didn’t even have proper ability scores. But third edition introduced thorough (and, admittedly, complex) rules governing the creation of monsters. Their hit dice were now vaguely similar to classes, in that their die size varied (all second edition monsters had d8 hit dice unless the entry specifically said to the contrary, and then they usually had “d8+1” hit dice) and they were granted skills and feats and base attack bonuses. Monster hit dice are typically pretty lackluster as a class, however (though dragon and outsider are admittedly pretty impressive, they don’t offer that much in the way of class features), and the game wouldn’t be terribly exciting if all the monsters were just an array of ability scores and a number of levels in a given monster class. So in addition to their classes they had a bunch of unique abilities and ability score adjustments (sometimes obscene ability score adjustments).
Because they now used the same rules, there really wasn’t anything stopping PCs from playing a monster, per se. In fact, the original 3.0 Monster Manual had level adjustments for several monsters. For those of you that somehow aren’t familiar with level adjustments, a monster PC’s effective character level (or ECL) is equal to the monster’s hit dice plus their level adjustment, which is essentially a number of levels (and hit dice, and all the benefits that hit dice bring) that the player sacrifices in order to get the monster’s cool powers and crazy ability scores. There was one major flaw with this system, and while Wizards addressed much of it in 2003, it wasn’t until Pathfinder that any attempt was made to get at the root of the problem.
The problem was that under this system you had to be a very high level in order to be most monsters. Even the lowly CR 4 minotaur required that you be level 8. If you wanted to play a rakshasa or an illithid you were going to have to wait until the campaign was nearly over. In fact, I seem to recall that somewhere in Monster Manual 2 there’s a giant called an “ocean strider” or something to that effect who, for some reason, they decided to include a level adjustment for. His effective character level was 32, or some similarly ridiculous number. I can count the number of character’s I’ve had who reached level 32 on one finger (I wouldn’t even need that, to be honest) let alone characters who started there. Though Savage Species didn’t do a thing to change the overall ECL of any given monster, it provided a sort of layaway system for being a monster PC: no longer did you just have to be level 16 to play a mind flayer, but instead you could take a 16-level class which, by the end, gave you everything a mind flayer was supposed to have.
Though technically the book didn’t really change anything, this new way of looking at monster PCs changed absolutely everything. A PC who started at level 16 as a mind flayer and one who started at level 1 and took 16 levels in the mind flayer class might be identical, mechanically, but the very fact that you had the second alternative made playing a mind flayer a viable option, something it rarely was when it was reserved to the last ¼ of the game.
That could have been the end of the discussion. Even if the existing system made playing monster characters a relatively weak option, mechanically, and 99% of monster PCs were doomed to be less powerful than their companions, at least now if Timmy REALLY wanted to play a troll, or what have you, he could. Still, the math didn’t quite add up in some places. According to the way the CR system works, an 8th level fighter is CR 8, but a CR 8 monster could require as many as 16 levels to be played as a PC. For that matter, a CR 8 monster is supposed to use up roughly ¼ of a level 8 party’s resources. Which, considering that the assumed party size is 4, also leads to the conclusion that a monster PC’s effective level should be equal to its CR. Or, at least, this was my thinking, back in third edition’s heyday and long before I had this job. Apparently someone at Paizo thought the same way.
In fairness, I’ve since learned that in third edition (not Pathfinder) almost all monsters have their base ability scores set to 10 or 11, meaning that they would be substantially weaker than a PC who might, for example, put all his points in Charisma to maximize the effectiveness of his stunning blast and charm abilities. In most cases this probably isn’t worth 8 levels, and if the monster PC’s ability scores are all 10s and 11s it should probably work out to the right power level (except of course that most monsters aren’t armed to the gills with magic gear like the average PC), but the issue isn’t as clear-cut as the above paragraph makes it out to be.
Whatever the case, Paizo decided to go ahead with the CR=level system. In their defense, THEIR monsters typically use an array of 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, which averages out the same as third edition, but still means that the monster is going to have a higher score for its primary ability, making it more equivalent to what a PC version is likely to look like. For a lot of monsters this seems to work out pretty well. I’m fairly confident that the minotaur is a lot closer to where it belongs (effective level wise) than it was in, shall we say, “classic” third edition. On the other hand, some cases, such as the nymph and the vampire, are absolutely ridiculous. Paizo’s answer to this seemingly important game balance issue? A little paragraph at the back of the book saying that DMs have final say over what monsters can be used as PCs and that they shouldn’t hesitate to use it.
What? Is that supposed to be insightful? DMs know they can disallow or change things (as long as they don’t go far enough to make the players revolt, but good DMing is not what today’s column is about). Their entire system is to present an overly simplified solution which, at the end of the day, doesn’t actually work for several (quite possibly most) cases, and then tell DMs and players, essentially, not to look behind the curtain? Frankly that’s just lazy. It’s all well and good to tell DMs to approach a system with caution (we do it more or less all the time here at NNW) but that doesn’t mean you can just half-ass it, barely produce any kind of rule or system at all, and then tell DMs to be careful with it.
Being a longtime fan of monster races, I thought it would be fun to make some more Savage Species-style monster classes for Pathfinder, especially since those classes haven’t seen an update since 3.0, making several of the classes (most, for Pathfinder) quite out of date. And it wasn’t exactly an exhaustive list of monsters to begin with. When I sat down to write it, I couldn’t help but think of the nymph, who is probably the single worst offender under Pathfinder’s new CR=level system. As long as I was making monster classes, I might as well try to salvage the nymph into something that could actually see play at the table, right? So I set out to do precisely that.
The original nymph class had 10 levels, but I was concerned that maybe it should be increased to 11, for balance reasons. Josh and Justin, however, strongly disliked the idea. Apparently some people really have issues with Savage Species’ uneven levels (i.e., classes with 12, 16, 19, etc, levels). Ideas were tossed around about what could be done. Stretch it to 15? Seems a little harsh, considering players are theoretically entitled to get the benefits of being a nymph by level 7. Leave at it 10? Maybe, but it seems just a schosh too powerful. Give them extra stuff and take it higher? It wasn’t a bad idea, but it moved away from the idea of the class, which was to give PCs access to being a monster man—er, Pathfinder Bestiary monster. What if they didn’t want our extra stuff? And then it hit me: what if we broke the “can’t leave the class until it’s finished” rule? The rule is an important part of the Savage Species style of monster classes, as it prevents PCs from grabbing the good stuff and getting out right before they hit a dead level. But, if we put an “exit point” once the PC would finish the class (i.e., when Savage Species would consider the class complete), we can have the class optionally continue all the way up to level 20, granting the PC new abilities that build and expand on their existing monster stuff. They can, in essence, become a “super nymph” or whatever monster is being addressed at the time.
I like this idea for a lot of reasons. For one, it lets us do a lot more fun things than simply translating an existing monster into a series of bite-sized bits. Making the new nymph abilities (particularly the Inspire the Land ability) was really fun, and ensured that I was giving you something new and fun, rather than just another darkmantle stat-block (those of you who get the reference can send me an e-mail to claim your 500 points). Further, one of the problems I’ve found with the Savage Species monster classes is that, once you’re finished (especially with the higher ECL monsters) you find yourself wondering, somewhat stupefied, “where do I go from here?” Sometimes it’s obvious, such as when the monster has spellcasting ability that will stack with a given class. With the option of continuing on to level 20 for more abilities that fit the monster in question, you can avoid that. And besides, it’s not like you’re playing an illithid because you really want to be an expert grappler. You play an illithid because you want to do illithid-y things (can you tell that I really wish Wizards would let us play with their fun toys, like illithids?).
Hopefully the nymph class will be a success. If I get enough positive feedback about it, “Races with Class” might become a regular part of NNW. And of course, if you hate it, I’d love to know why so that I can make sure we build them better in the future.
And now, this week's Eldrazi: the Pathrazer of Ulamog.
First, in Pathfinder, as usual:
Pathrazer of Ulamog (CR 17)
XP 102,400
N Gargantuan aberration (extraplanar, eldrazi)
Init +2; Senses low-light vision, darkvision, blindsight; Perception +28
Aura Aura of Annihilation
DEFENSE
AC 32, touch 8, flat-footed 30 (+2 Dex, +24 natural, –4 size)
hp 351 (26d8+234)
Fort +17, Ref +11, Will +18
Immune critical hits, disease, energy drain, massive damage, mind-affecting, negative energy, poison, sleep, stunning SR 28
OFFENSE
Speed 50 ft.
Melee 4 slams +34 (2d8+19)
Space 20 ft.; Reach 20 ft.
Special Attacks consume spawn
STATISTICS
Str 49, Dex 14, Con 27, Int 2, Wis 20, Cha 15
Base Atk +19; CMB +37; CMD 49
Feats Awesome Blow, Cleave, Toughness, Improved Bull Rush, Lightning Reflexes, Improved Sunder, Improved Vital Strike, Great Fortitude, Power Attack, Vital Strike, Greater Vital Strike
Skills Climb +24, Perception +34
Languages Eldrazi (can’t speak)
SPECIAL ABILITIES
Aura of Annihilation (Su): Any living creature who moves or begins his turn within 60 feet of the Pathrazer of Ulamog takes 6d6 negative energy damage. For each point of negative energy damage dealt this way, the Pathrazer of Ulamog heals 1 hit point.
Consume Spawn (Su): As a swift action at the beginning of each of its turns, the Pathrazer of Ulamog can absorb the life essence stored in a nearby Eldrazi spawn. The Pathrazer of Ulamog sacrifices a single willing Eldrazi spawn who is within range of the Pathrazer of Ulamog’s aura of annihilation, reducing the Eldrazi spawn to 0 hit points and destroying it utterly. If it does so, the Pathrazer of Ulamog may force each living, non-Eldrazi creature within range of its aura of annihilation succeed on a DC 25 Will save or become panicked for 1 round.
ECOLOGY
Environment any
Organization solitary
Treasure incidental
And, for 4th Edition:
