Take the 2-minute tour ×
Role-playing Games Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for gamemasters and players of tabletop, paper-and-pencil role-playing games. It's 100% free, no registration required.

Monster Classes are completely crippled from what I see. You start out greatly underpowered and it's a slow climb to being half-way decent with most creature's insane Level Adjustment. You don't get to multiclass until you finish it, and I see now way you could optimize playing one as there's so little you can do with feats. So is it even worth playing a monster class?

share|improve this question
    
The ability to create tags is a thing you unlock at 300 reputation. I guess it's mainly there so you learn about what tags we've got before you start adding new ones, or something. –  Jonathan Hobbs Jun 28 at 4:04
2  
For discussions of fitness-of-purpose... we need to know what the purpose is. What exactly do you want to compare playing a savage species monster class against and for what purpose? –  Brian Ballsun-Stanton Jun 28 at 4:23
2  
Could you define "worth it" for the purpose of this question? There are lots of ways to measure worth, and I'm sure you have a specific one in mind, but you have to tell us what that is if you want relevant answers. :) –  SevenSidedDie Jun 28 at 5:50
    
I think, from the tone of the question and its answers, we should just assume "worth it" is from a min-maxer point of view - "do I get as many cool powerz as I lose?" –  mxyzplk Jul 21 at 4:05

2 Answers 2

up vote 8 down vote accepted

Mostly, No.

Compared to Player Character Classes, Monster Classes are typically vastly underpowered.

You talk about 'LA', but refer to classes - a 'Monster Class' typically refers to a Savage Progression from Savage Species, where they take a Monster's LA and RHD and add it together and create a class with that many levels where a player taking that class slowly gets the monster's features. But for the purposes of 'playing a monster', there's little difference between a Monster Class/Savage Progression, and taking the stupid LA and RHD.

The exception to this is a few monsters with full casting (angels, mostly) for their level, and a few low-LA creatures or templates that give great stat mods. Even playing those is vastly sub-par.

As the Tier system (a system for documenting the incredible power-gap between optimized classes) shows, there is a huge power disparity in DnD 3.5e. It goes from 'Gods Amongst Men' all the way down to 'Jim the Guy who can Sometimes Hit People With A Sword'. And players are meant to play both, and be the same rough level of power. That just doesn't occur. Most groups solve this with a gentleman's agreement, a less rules more roleplaying, or by playing very simple characters with very low levels of optimization (and still often run into this problem). Usually the DM compensates on one level or another.

But still, it's an acknowledged fact that 3.5e DnD suffers from 'Quadratic Wizards, Linear Fighters', and most Monster Classes are well on the Linear side of that equation, and even worse, since they often can't even compete with a well-built Fighter.

Fixes

The Tome Project attempted to balance all classes to the Wizard balance standard, resulting in high-powered, almost superheroic PCs. It's my opinion that they didn't go far enough. Their classes, while useful, don't keep up with Wizards etc at higher levels. Their scaling feats, though are a good idea even if again not far enough.

The Tome method for handling monsters is roughly similar to the Pathfinder method (although pathfinder left it remarkably hazy and littered it with warnings). CR is supposed to be how good a monster is, although it's often poorly implemented. A level X PC is supposed to be the same as a CR X monster. And yes, that means that 4 level 10 PCs vs a single CR 10 monster is unfair. Most DnD fights are supposed to be beatdowns that result in victory for the party. Otherwise there'd be too much PC death. The Tome/3.P system simply says CR = Character Level, for monsters'. So if a Gibbering Mouther (or whatever) is CR 4, then you can play it in a level 4 party, and when the party levels up to level 5, you can take a class level. Or advance it to a higher CR, or whatever you want to do.

I've never had problems allowing monsters with the level = CR system. Racial Hit Dice and all. It seems to work fine. Exceptions obviously exist - some monsters in PC hands are going to be way more powerful than normal. Some groups have a very low optimization and weak characters, so the monster will need to be weaker too (and you should lower the CR for monsters they fight, so they don't get wiped). Overall i've never had a problem with it.

Other fixes involve mostly just reworking the monster to fit the power level of the group(often for level 1). This can be a different version of the monster from normal, or just changing the monster in the setting so the player can play it, making Ogres a playable race from level 1 means removing racial HD, most of the stat bonuses, etc. Pathfinder have a Race Creator tool for this, but I found it very unimaginative and easy to create overpowered races. If you're going down this path, just compare it to things of a similar CR/LA in terms of bonuses.

As it Stands, though.

I wouldn't play 99% of monster classes and races. Even the vast majority of templates result in you being left behind or being useless.

The only time i've played monster races or classes in 3.5e DnD, it was in low-optimization groups where my skill at creating powerful characters for the game allowed me to overcome the weakness of the race or class and still have a powerful/interesting character.

share|improve this answer
1  
As a side note, playing an unusual race can be very rewarding from a role-play perspective. The chance to play a creature with a non-humanoid form, different senses or a refreshingly different biology and life-cycle can really spice up the game, for you and for the other players. Over the years I had players who played a minotaur, a grimlock, a troglodyte and even a goblin and his worg mount (the worg was also a PC...) - It can be great fun, but they'll never be on parr with the standard races on high levels. And in my experience work best on short-time tailored adventures, not full campaigns. –  G0BLiN Jun 28 at 10:41
1  
Another aside: Having a group all play monsters can be a lot of fun too. –  Dave Jun 28 at 14:11
    
True - that also solves any issues of their lower effectiveness in higher levels compared to standard PC races. There's a short adventure I ran a couple of times in different groups, where all players play various monster races - starting play as "recruits" of a formian hive, sent to their first mission outside the nest (this neatly answers any questions about why they are cooperating). Worked great as a "filler" between campaigns. –  G0BLiN Jun 28 at 15:51

There are plenty of level adjustment templates that you can take that are quite good for optimised characters. You just need to be careful with it, as some are very character or campaign specific.

A good examples would be half ogre. If you're building something like a knight, going for lots of Attacks of Opportunity, trips, grapples and disadvantages to opponents within your reach etc. 6 strength, +4 to grapple and 5 ft extra reach will do more for your grappling than +2 BaB would. You lose 2 levels of HP but gain 2 con and 4 natural armour. 60 ft darkvision, while very campaign specific can be extremely useful.

share|improve this answer

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.