Talk:Monstrous Player Characters (3.5e Variant Rule)

How do I solve the problem of even-CR monsters potentially being stronger choices than odd-CR monsters? (Since you take 50% racial levels for even-CR monsters, and more for odd-CR monsters.)

For the most extreme example, a CR 3 and 4 monster have 2 racial HD each, but that's 66% of the CR 3's HD/CR, while it's only 50% o the CR 4's HD/CR.

One thought is to reduce the racial ability score bonuses (+2 to only one ability score? No bonuses to ability scores?), but I'm not sure if that's too hard of a nerf or not. --Ghostwheel (talk) 03:23, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Monster CR doesn't really translate well to player power anyways. Even look at your Succubus example: is it really fair for players to have access to unlimited teleporting at 6th level? Or being able to have four permanent monster lackeys? You already know my reservations with the monster CRs in 3.5 anyways though. This variant is just putting that imbalance on the player's side. So, I don't expect some sweeping rule for even or odd CR monsters to make much of a difference to the outcome. Some monsters are going to have grossly overpowered abilities for their CR and some are going to be grossly underpowered. --Aarnott (talk) 13:53, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

You know I have the same reservations. That said, players will want to play monsters regardless, and not just pale imitations that follow the same power as PCs.

Now let's pretend for a moment that monsters were created perfectly, and that CR meant what is says it does--that a monster of CR X has abilities that are in-line with a level X character (that is, basically, what it boils down to, more or less). Players might still be gimped playing that race were in the case due to a lack of scaling of abilities.

As for the specific example, it's level 7 :-P Though yes, that doesn't make a huge difference. Still, isn't that better than having them waste 12 levels on their fantasy of playing a succubus and being *entirely* useless? Or not being able to progress any other shtick? Or having a complete glass jaw HP-wise to compensate for their utility? Or to fall off the RNG as far as ability scores and AC are concerned?

I agree that this isn't perfect, not because of the design principles, but because monsters aren't created very well, or with abilities that meant to be used in player hands. Despite that, I think it's the best compromise I've seen to date on playing actual monsters with all their actual abilities amongst PCs. That, is what I'd like you to consider its merits on. --Ghostwheel (talk) 11:38, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Another point I want to make; first, if this variant were available, would you necessarily be a monster at H and VH levels of balance? If so, then there's a good chance that it might be overpowered, if it eliminates other options from being viable compared to it, though I don't think that's the case. --Ghostwheel (talk) 19:20, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

To answer your initial question, rather than a nerf, you could do a buff. Have it so that odd-leveled monsters don't have a penalty to an ability score.

As far as compromises to have rules for players to play monsters, this generally works well. That lack of ability score changes with size is likely not necessary. Generally, monsters either have powerful abilities or they are big and strong. Taking away the "strong" part makes a Hill Giant seem pretty crappy when compared to a Succubus. If you are worried about the RNG, which may not be something that is very easy to control with this kind of variant rule, you could always translate extra strength to +2 bonus damage per modifier above +4. Something like that. Then at least the hill giant is "strong" in that it hits harder. --Aarnott (talk) 23:35, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

I had forgotten about the penalty to attack/AC from size, so I think +2 to str per size category would be good.

Regarding the buff instead of penalty... most people don't use EVERY one of the ability scores, so I'd rather remove one of the +2s from the monster (or both? Not sure how much +1 CR is worth) than simply eliminate the penalty completely from the other one. --Ghostwheel (talk) 11:11, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

I wasn't just talking about size penalties, although it is definitely good that you changed it to account for that. I'm talking about the fact that there is a whole monster archetype of being a big brute that hits hard. The hill giant is going to have 22 strength with an 18 to start, which, to me, seems underwhelming for the level investment. I did pick that example because it is basically strictly worse than an ogre using these rules, however, so it was kinda a dumpster dive for something bad. --Aarnott (talk) 17:14, 13 June 2014 (UTC)