Discussion: Lack of Favored Class for Pre-Mature Monster PCs

Referring to the title, "pre-mature" indicates a monster (non-Core) PC that has not yet completed its savage progression (a.k.a. monster levels).

Boomerwang email wrote:

My ruling is that they [monster races] in fact would not get their own monster class as a favored class while obtaining monster levels. After they complete their savage progression (i.e. all monster levels), their monster racial class no longer counts against them for XP multiclassing penalties, so in that way I suppose it would function similarly to a favored class at that point, in principle[...]

The point of not giving pre-mature monsters a favored class at all is to encourage players to complete their character's savage progression. For example, of the swamplord did in fact have swamplord as a favored class starting at 1st level, you could create a 1st level swamplord druid and never have to level up the swamplord monster racial class ever again. I don't want that to happen, so therefore, the lack of a favored class when starting out means that, at 2nd level, a player has to advance his monster class [...]

Archtemplari email wrote:

[...] I agree that there should be an incentive to level up your racial class, but it really hurts the spellcasting classes to incur XP penalty for choosing /not/ to (ie, negative incentive). It's not too bad for fighting classes to give up +1 BaB, a feat/ability, and some saves in exchange for essentially the same thing, but it's a big deal to be more than 1 level behind in spells. 3 levels of no spellcasting makes sense for some of the more bestial races (maybe swamplord, i'm not entirely sure what your vision of them is) and the races that develop strong innate spell-like abilities (the half-celestial template, for example), but it's pretty crippling to the wizard, sorcerer, cleric, and druid [...]

In my view, that is the price a player pays for selecting a monster race. The ruling quoted above actually makes sense from a logical standpoint - even though Novemterra features many of these monster races as "standard races," most of them are not as advanced as the settlements made by Core races (and races having the equivalent of Core racial power). In those kinds of races it actually makes more sense for there to be less of an incentive to adopt magic-using classes, because such classes are not the backbone of any rudimentary society. For example, a society in general will invariably have barbarians before having fighters and rangers, and it will have clerics (who can provide healing via divine guidance) before it has wizards. That actually fits the context of most races in the campaign setting perfectly.

We don't consider these factors under standard (D&D 3.5E setting) gameplay because such games typically do not take place in a savage environment. In developed city conditions, especially larger metropoli, it is fairly reasonable to assume that all classes are equally accessible and convenient for its native citizens to adopt. (Hence also a human's ability to adopt any class as his favored class).


A second point I would like to bring up is that we are not (if we are, then I am declaring that we are not) comparing these monster races to Core races in literally every single way - that's impossible because how do you properly weigh the usefulness of say, natural weapons and natural armor, against abilities such as a dwarf's stability and an elf's immunity to magical sleep effects? The latter abilities are not necessarily more useful or powerful than the former. Sure, a gnome can use spell-like abilities that involve colorful blinking lights... and a lizardfolk can tear him apart with a single good swipe of the claws. That's something none of the Core races has the ability to do. Core races also do not have natural armor bonuses. If the campaign were to feature no sleep-casting enemies and no Giant sized foes, suddenly the Core elves and dwarves are next to useless, and the savage species shine.

The point is, given that (for example) natural armor and natural weapons are usable and relevant all the time, whereas some of the more sophisticated abilities of the Core races are not, we should not be saying "look, the Core races have favored classes from the start, so the monster classes should too." That's not the definition of fair, because in truth the game lost its traditional definition of "fair" the moment that monster races became a playable possibility for 1st level characters.

Rather, I fee we should compare our monster classes to how the Savage Species book (the source of what makes 1st level mosnter PC concepts possible) portrays them. And here's the breakdown:

Take a 10th level character with its race as Satyr (see Gaia race compendium). Under our rules, one possible progression would be:

Satyr 1, Wizard 1, Satyr 2, Wizard 2, Satyr 3, Wizard 3, Satyr 4, Wizard 4, Satyr 5, Wizard 5... and so on.

Under the default guidelines stated in the Savage Species book:

Savage Species, pg. 27 wrote:

A monster character using these rules may not multiclass until it completes the full progression in its monster
class. This rule keeps characters from gaining the benefits of a monster’s type and then quickly switching to a standard class.

Satyr 1, Satyr 2, Satyr 3, Satyr 4, Satyr 5, Satyr 6, Satyr 7, Wizard 1, Wizard 2, Wizard 3.

The difference becomes very apparent: The uselessness mentioned earlier becomes even more pronounced by the default rules.

So in closing my statement, I want to say in general that, I agree that yes, perhaps the monster favored class ruling hurts spellcasting classes more than it does non-spellcasting classes. But then again, if you think about it, spellcasters normally aren't very nonmagical combat capable, either. A monster spellcaster, on the other hand, is quite so. It's all about balance, and the price we pay for the choices we make.

That's my view, anyway. I'm not trying to be aggressive, but I am very confident in the fairness of the current ruling. Nevertheless I am always open to anyone's thoughts on the matter, so please do not hesitate to discuss this issue further. :)

I'm fine with this ruling (i'm still going to use a core class for my character, though, because first and foremost i want to play a druid). I think it's more important to keep the flavor of the world than perfect balance anyway -- but it's your world, and being a newcomer i don't know the flavor yet (oh god, here come the lolcats quotes).

Also wow, i didn't realize that's how savage species rules on this -- that's pretty harsh on the spellcasters. I don't have any of my um...perfectly legal pdf's of the rulebooks on my laptop, and honestly i'm not terribly familiar with savage species anyway.

yeah, it is pretty harsh, though understandable. on the other hand, the original intent of the whole LA and ECL stuff was to force you to start at a higher level (ie. not be able to play for the first n levels where n is the LA or required ECL of the character). if you did this, then you'd be right in line with the core races at their respective ECL (in their case, their actual level).

Okay, no problem, thanks for understanding. Just make sure you use the Race Compendiums and not the actual Player's Handbook (unless the Race Compendiums ask you to do so).

Why would they want to you to start play at a higher level? It seems like few enough adventures start at 1st level anymore anyway, since players want to have more and more customized characters the longer they play (the core classes and races do tend to get a bit old), which means higher levels and more prestige classing...although as i'm sury Gary will agree (since he was one of the players in the particular campaign i'm referencing) starting off below first level really makes you appreciate those basic little skills you acquire even as a super low level character...

Archtemplari wrote:

Why would they want to you to start play at a higher level?

Just some trivia: They [Wizards] established the ECL/LA system so that monster characters would be playable in a power level measurable in Equivalent Character Levels utilizing the Level Adjustment. This invariably meant that campaigns had to begin at higher level, because this was established well before the Savage Species book came along. So before, like, 2004, it was technically impossible to play monster characters that began at 1st level. So if people wanted to play, say, lizardfolk, they'd have to start the game at at least 3rd character level.

This actually reminds me of a previous recent gaming experience, and helps lend more credence to savage magic-users: About five years ago I played in a campaign that began at 5th level. Savage races were allowed (we just had to check individual monster race requests with the DM), so I opted to be a 2nd level lizardman druid. Ironic how coincidental that is.

In any case, he turned out to be a huge success, and he was easily a match for fellow clerics and arcane magic-users who were at 5th level in their spellcasting class already. The primary reason had to do with the savage features of the race that I had, which the "softies" did not have. Once our entire group was captured and bound, and I tell you what, if it wasn't for a couple of the 10-man group plus myself, we would have been dead. The cleric and wizards, stripped of their equipment, were cowering in a corner afraid to enter combat (their fists could only deal a measly 1d3 subdual damage, afterall), while my character just grinned and had our captors for lunch, tearing them apart with bite and claw attacks. That +5 natural armor bonus to AC was huge, because it was pretty much on par with chainmail.

It's actually funny, because I didn't even have as many hit points as the 5th level cleric. But I was only down by one Hit Die (I had 4d8; 2 savage HD + 2 class HD, and he had 5 class HD), and yet my character was established as the meat tank cleric. My 1st-level spells were used to tremendous effect - I can't count how many times I used Magic Fang. It was incredible. And it wasn't even during situations like that that my character shined. It was pretty much an even spread in capability throughout the entire campaign under any situation, even given the cleric's higher level spells.


So I'm just saying, yeah, a savage magic-user's spell power pales in comparison to a regular caster, but there's an exceptionally good reason for that. But in the end, I agree with your choice, that if you are placing more emphasis on wanting to be a druid over what race you want, then yo should prioritize giving your druid class as many levels as possible. But for players who want to try out new possibilities with exotic race and class choices, especially more experienced players who are bored with the standard selection, savage progressions are a sure-fire way of finding new entertainment value that won't skimp out on game balance.

I'm very confused by Woodling. By my current reading, it appears to be an inherited template similar to half-celestial, but i don't see a level adjustment anywhere. Or is this a different system, such that you gain levels of woodling as you so choose? If it's the former, what's the LA, and if it's the latter...thanks Jerry!

Haha, the short answer is that all classes, whether monster or template, have undergone the Savage Species conversion so that they have monster levels. Thus, Level Adjustments no longer apply to the game itself.

Just FYI, if you're interested in adopting the Woodling template, we'll need to discuss details. :)

In that case, i'm super confused. I'm /interested/, pending them there details.

Oh! Haha.

My meaning is that I don't want players randomly deciding to adopt template classes at later levels. i.e. I don't want to be hit out of the blue by it.

So as long as players mention intent in the beginning, it's fine. So... you're fine. :)