My beef is thus: Can you really have a character with an adjusted ECL of +6(or higher) journeying along with a 1st-level party ? Of course we all know that characters with high adjusted ECLs start out powerful but as time goes on they gain levels slowly, but the character is still the equivalent of a 7th-level character and here you have him(or her) journeying along with four other 1st-level characters.
That does not seem balanced at all, comments ?
~~~
I was wondering how some DMs could allow this(And claim that their Dragonlance game is still balanced). I know one DM on here that is running an AoM campaign and he started the 1st-level group out with a centaur on the team. I do not think that is balanced at all which was why I said this: "That does not seem balanced at all, comments ?"
~~~
So such characters are not typically suited for campaigns where the bulk of the party are 1st level members of the standard races. This is why the PC option for "monster" races typically states something to the effect of such characters should be introduced when x-level characters are in-play.
Typically you have to employ characters with high level adjustments in groups that are similarly situated. This holds true in D&D in general.
So such characters are not typically suited for campaigns where the bulk of the party are 1st level members of the standard races. This is why the PC option for "monster" races typically states something to the effect of such characters should be introduced when x-level characters are in-play.
I completely agree with this ruling and I enforce it in my Age of Mortals campaign. One of my players seems to think that a 1st-level monk character with an adjusted ECL of + 9 is still a 1st-level character. Which I told him is wrong; a 1st-level monk with a race that has an adjusted ECL of + 9 is a 10th-level character for gaming purposes. The + ECL is not just fancy wording.
I was just wondering how some DMs allow their players to start with these races that have high ECLs and yet claim they are starting the PCs at 1st-level ? It does not seem balanced at all to me.
~~~
While the DMs are allowed quite a bit of ley-ways in how they conduct their campaigns. The ECL were presented in a manner to help them from possibly generating too much unbalance when introducing LA-races into the game. It is possible to play a game like that without too much hitch, but on average that usually is not most cases. Still in most cases when it comes to such campaigns, the DM is the one that choose the view on what is appropriately balanced.
To me using a 7th-level character(by way of an adjusted ECL of + 6) with a 1st-level character party is showing favoritism to certain players(The one with the adjusted ECL of + 6.) and is not a balanced game at all.
~~~
THe Centaur player rolls up a normal 1st level centaur, but he gets a penalty to all skill/ability checks and attack rolls equal to his ECL, and a penalty to saves equal to half his ECL.
THen, when the party levels up, he doesn't - he just removes one point of penalty.
Try this:
THe Centaur player rolls up a normal 1st level centaur, but he gets a penalty to all skill/ability checks and attack rolls equal to his ECL, and a penalty to saves equal to half his ECL.
THen, when the party levels up, he doesn't - he just removes one point of penalty.
The method employed in the Players's Guide to Faerun works very much like this. You take a penalty equal to your ECL minus your character level from all attack rolls, saving throws, skill checks, ability checks, caster level checks, etc. It's bought off when the other heroes advance.
Nobody should be playing an ECL 7 character when the others are 1st level. That's an established fact of the mechanics. Unless you engineer some method of balancing it out, the powerful race option is something that should be left for higher level parties.
Cheers,
Cam
I was just wondering how some DMs allow their players to start with these races that have high ECLs and yet claim they are starting the PCs at 1st-level ? It does not seem balanced at all to me.
~~~
They're probably using Savage Species-style Monster class levels where a monster with a higher than 0 ECL (Centaur = +6 ECL) is transformed into a monster class where the abilities and powers of said creature are spread out over a number of monster-levels equal to the monster's ECL, in this case 6 levels of the "Centaur" class. This method allows high ECL monsters to be played with 1st level parties.
Though let me tell youl... A Monk Centaur is a terrifying thing to behold....
Granted a ECL of +4 is drastically different than ECL + 6 in the case of the Centuar.
Granted a ECL of +4 is drastically different than ECL + 6 in the case of the Centuar.
Pretty much; I like that ruling that you instituted though(about the kapak.), it sounds good(I would never allow it, but hey if it works for you.). I had one of my players recently send me an e-mail saying that a + 10 ECL character would get the mess kicked out of him by a 10th-level character. What I had to tell him is that a character with a + 10 ECL is actually the equivalent of an 11th-level character and thus more powerful than a 10th-level character.
~~~
Pretty much; I like that ruling that you instituted though(about the kapak.), it sounds good(I would never allow it, but hey if it works for you.). I had one of my players recently send me an e-mail saying that a + 10 ECL character would get the mess kicked out of him by a 10th-level character. What I had to tell him is that a character with a + 10 ECL is actually the equivalent of an 11th-level character and thus more powerful than a 10th-level character.
~~~
I didn't find that the kapak, with no a class level, all that to much more powerful than rest of the party. Sure he has some abilities, one more HD, and what not, but he didn't dwarf the rest of the PCs. Plus, you have the role playing aspect. Not many NPC are going to trust a kapak and in the case of fights would be the first traget to be taken out by intelligent foes.
I didn't find that the kapak, with no a class level, all that to much more powerful than rest of the party. Sure he has some abilities, one more HD,a nd what not, but he didn't dwarf the rest of the PCs. Plus, you have the role playing aspect. Not many NPC are going to trust a kapak and in the case of fights would be the first traget to be taken out by intelligent foes.
That is cool, for your group, but I do not allow it(I am pretty strict on adjusted ECL characters.). I let new characters start one level lower than the lowest level PC in the group. Therefore if the group is 3rd-level the new character starts at 2nd-level; this means you can use an ECL as high as + 1 with this PC, which makes it a 2nd-level character.
~~~
That is cool, for your group, but I do not allow it(I am pretty strict on adjusted ECL characters.). I let new characters start one level lower than the lowest level PC in the group. Therefore if the group is 3rd-level the new character starts at 2nd-level; this means you can use an ECL as high as + 1 with this PC, which makes it a 2nd-level character.
~~~
I don't have a problem with a player being a little higher from rest of the PCs at the begining of the campaign. Granted I would never allow a ECL +5 or higher to start with a first level party. If the rest of the players have no issue and that the race being used fits and makes sense in the setting I'll make adjustments. The campaign shouldn't be ruled strictly by ridged game mechanics all the time. An exception now and again doesn't hurt a campaign once in a great while.
If you want to play a centaur with a low ECL, just play the Wendle from the Bestiary of Krynn. I've had my players look over centaur and *no one* wants to play them. But the Wendle I foresee one of my players playing in the future. Its ECL is 3. 2 HD and +1 LA. Its not bad.
LOI I have a similar ruling for my games when people die. But anyone who dies gets to make a character up that is 2 levels behind the highest level person in the group. This means that the PC's will always remain near eachother in level. If you do 1 or 2 lower than the lowest, than you *could* see a power decline. If that PC A were to die, than its one lower PC B. If PC B now dies, its one lower than PC A. Over and over again... Just a bad trend. Probably wont happen, but you never know.
This is waht my dm did. Note when you have 1 monster hit die you do not have full skills, feats, attack bonus and saves. As you get more hit dice those things increase to the amounts listed in the dlcs. So you have to figure out at what lvl do they get feats, how many skills, attack bonus .....
Lvl 1 party
Orgre lvl 1
No class lvls
1 monstrous hit die
Orgre lvl 2
No class lvls
1 monstrous hit die
This lvl they have to make up for the first +1 of the +2 lvl adjust
Orgre lvl 3
No class lvls
1 monstrous hit die
This lvl they have to make up for the second +1 of the +2 lvl adjust
Orgre lvl 4
No class lvls
2 monstrous hit die
Orgre lvl 5
No class lvls
3 monstrous hit die
Orgre lvl 6
No class lvls
4 monstrous hit die
Orgre lvl 7
1 class lvl
4 monstrous hit die
....
ECL+ characters start off more powerful but they end
up much weaker...While chacacters with-out ECL
adjustments start off weaker but end up more
powerful...Its a trade-off...
Isnt the reason for the penalty (advancing in levels
much slower) to balance out the benefit (starting off
more powerful than average races)?..
So youre going to take away the benefit while leaving
the penalty in place?..
This would mean that a first level character with an
ECL of 7 would campaign with characters 7th level
characters with + 0 ECL...This isnt that bad,but the
1st level character will be 3rd level while the rest
of the group is at level 15...So much for balance...
Yes ECL+ characters start off more powerful than
characters without ECL adjustments,but they end up
much weaker in the long run...
His problem is he fails to see the significance of an adjusted ECL rating, which alters one's effective character level within the game. He seems to think that ECL is just wording with no in-game effects. In his mind he still sees a 1st-lvl monk with an ECL adjustment of + 4 as nothing other than a 1st-lvl character(Which is wrong.).
Comments ?
~~~
another situation occured as the party had to descend into the caven system under the manor as the were escaping by a horde of gobleins. the only means of accessing the the cavern was by descending a rope ladder in a hole about 3 feet in diameter. the cntaur couldn't fit for one, for 2 how can he climb a ladder. after all was said and done I lost a few goblins (kill all you want, I'm the DM-I've got more) and teh centaur found himself unconsious but stable (holding at -5 h.p.). none of teh clerics had any spells, and the goblin horns are signalling that more are coming. the rest oof teh party decided to try to carry their fallen comrade, but agian we're talking 1st level characters without much magic and no extreme ability scores. as much as the tried they were only able to drag him a few feet. in teh end they ended up leaving the centaur and running from the goblins, who enjoyed centaur stew that night. The player soon rolled up a more appropriate character.
moral of the story? Starting out as an effectively 6th level character at first level looks so good on paper that all those advantages can really blind you to the reality of the situation. if i'm a goblin horde and i see a few humans, a dwarf, a kender and a centaur, i'm going to concentrate on taking the toughes opponent down first. as a large creature sure he has an improved range to hit in melee, but he makes a large target for ranged weapons as well. His size makes him a liability in close quarters, his weight makes him a liability in a lot of situations, and the fact that he is a centaur is going to make him the odd man out, or even a circus attraction in most city/town encounters. there are ways to make teh player blinded by the abilities of a centaur player character uncomfortable and off balance long enough for the other party members to advance to even things out. it just requires thinking a bit outside the box and looking at the practical aspect of playing such a creature.
~~~
What are your comments on the player's statements concerning ECL(quoted above in my last post) ? It seems as if he is stuck on believing that a 1st-level character(class-wise) with a + 3 ECL is not the equivalent of a 4th-level character(He still thinks that it is only a 1st-level character with no adjustments[even though the ECL rules say differently.].).
~~~
Tell him:
"You're wrong. I'm right. End of discussion. If you persist in your patently uninformed arguments I'll kill your character."
Bottom line you and I both know that it is a 4th level character. If the palyer refuses to see it, arguing with him may prove to futile. He is going to see what he wants to see and nothing more. but there are bound to be some drawbacks that he hasn't figured on and you, as teh DM, have the right to exploit that. what creature does he want to play?
Lord of Illusions-
Bottom line you and I both know that it is a 4th level character. If the palyer refuses to see it, arguing with him may prove to futile. He is going to see what he wants to see and nothing more. but there are bound to be some drawbacks that he hasn't figured on and you, as teh DM, have the right to exploit that. what creature does he want to play?
That is what I find to be amazingly funny about the whole discussion. He is going to be playing a Kagonesti monk(A race with no ECL adjustment.). His standpoint is pointless, especially since it is a faulty one.
~~~
That's bizare. since Kagonesti has no level adjustment, why is he arguing for an ecl? maybe i'm missing something here.
It is beyond me.
~~~
That said, I do think that high LA races tend to be weaker, especially for spell casters. Level adjustment doesn't give you any hp, it doesn't help your saves or you BAB, and those nifty spell-like abilities won't do squat when you're staring down a disintegrate spell. There are some LA races that tend to be worth it. Those with relatively low LA and few racial HD can be quite effective. A wererat (LA+3 and 1 racial hit die) rogue, for example, really benefits from the hybrid form's dex bonus (+6), damage reduction, and weapon finesse as a bonus feat. The rogue loses out on 2d6 Sneak Attack, 3 points of BAB, and 4 ranks in several skills. Racial bonuses balance the BAB loss and many of the skill losses, and the DR will really help a stereotypically low HP rogue stay in melee and slug it out a lot longer.
~~~
I have used the Monster Level Progression for a Centaur from Savage Species in a Dragonlance game. It works out well keeping the Centaur fairly balanced untill the Party gets high enough level...
I'd go with this, if the other PC's are first.
Mike
I'd go with this, if the other PC's are first.
Mike
There is no problem with the adjusted ECL rules, they are quite balanced, the problem is with the player not wanting to see outside of his own belief that they are somehow broken.
~~~
LOI I have a similar ruling for my games when people die. But anyone who dies gets to make a character up that is 2 levels behind the highest level person in the group. This means that the PC's will always remain near eachother in level. If you do 1 or 2 lower than the lowest, than you *could* see a power decline. If that PC A were to die, than its one lower PC B. If PC B now dies, its one lower than PC A. Over and over again... Just a bad trend. Probably wont happen, but you never know.
My ruling is the closest to the ruling in the v.3.5 DMG; also, the above hypothetical situation assumes that the PCs are dying on a consistent basis in one's campaign. If that is happening you might need to tone down your campaign a bit.
~~~
As far as the wererat rogue is concerned, I thought the point of being a rogue is so you dont get involved in melee combat, and slug it out. If you wnat to slug it out in melee then play a fighter. sometimes melee is unavoidable- i know that. so use your tumbling ability to get out of base to base combat, put your sneak attack to good use, then hide and move to get out of there. there is no need to be a wererat if your only reason for doing so is to last in melee longer. That line of thinking almost defeats teh purpose of the rogue. at that point just tough it out at first level then cross class with fighter if that's what he is worried about.
I think the whole point behind the ECL arguements is because alot of players pick these races thinking that it is going to put their character eons ahead of the other characters.
When they find out that it eventually evens out, as it was supposed to do(As the group gains levels.), they get upset. Munchkinism at its finest ladies and gentlemen.
~~~
I agree wholeheartedly, Munchkinism at it's best, thats why I had fun playing mind games with the centaur player in my group. Our group also has a rule that if a character dies that, the new character comes in at 1 level below the lowest surviving member of the group. My take on teh whole wererat thing was there are better ways to do what the player wants to do without going to the extrene of being a wererat. of course all the palyer is probably thinking is "cool! being a wererat would kick a**/"
LoL, That is basically the thought pattern of an inexperienced player. I have more respect for a player that develops the traits and gives thoughts on the history of their player rather than only concentrating on rolling up the strongest character(stat-wise) that they can.
~~~
I think the whole point behind the ECL arguements is because alot of players pick these races thinking that it is going to put their character eons ahead of the other characters.
There are some of us, though, that would just like to play a centaur because we like the race. They are my favorite PC race...its unfortunate they have to be so powerful...it was easier in SAGA...they didn't get anymore powerful than any other race...you just had to be strong in order to be a centaur.
But, I agree...if someone wants to be a centaur in a 1st level party...I think Savage Species is the way to go. Although the Player's Guide to Faerun is an interesting way of doing it as well.
The biggest question is...is the +3 LA accurate. Meaning...if you took away the monstrous hit dice (and all the feats and skills that went with it), then added 1 level of fighter (plus a feat and (2 + INT) x 4 Skill points), then pit that 1st level centaur fighter against a 4th level human fighter...how would the centaur do?
The +3 to the over all ECL due to monster hit dice isn't in dispute here...I don't think anyone can dispute that aspect. But are all the special racial abilities of the centaur truly equal to 3 class levels? I don't know. It seems a bit high to me...but I've never sat down and tried to determine it.
(oh...and the numbers I used might be off. I couldn't remember if the centaur is a LA +2 or +3)
Centaurs are +2 so a centaur with no monsterous hit dice and 1 lvl of fighter should be = a lvl 3 human fighter. Has anybody play tested this to see if it actually works out ?
Is that the ECL from the Savage Species ? I was referring to the centaur in the DragonLance Campaign Setting. I believe that it has an ECL of + 6 ?
~~~
As for the +2 LA I'd say yeah it fits. Reasons? Lets look at the SRD
CENTAURS AS CHARACTERS
A centaur druid is usually a tribe’s designated leader and speaker. Centaur characters possess the following racial traits.
— +8 Strength, +4 Dexterity, +4 Constitution, –2 Intelligence, +2 Wisdom.
—Large size. –1 penalty to Armor Class, –1 penalty on attack rolls, –4 penalty on Hide checks, +4 bonus on grapple checks, lifting and carrying limits double those of Medium characters.
—Space/Reach: 10 feet/5 feet.
—A centaur’s base land speed is 50 feet.
—Darkvision out to 60 feet.
—Racial Hit Dice: A centaur begins with four levels of monstrous humanoid, which provide 4d8 Hit Dice, a base attack bonus of +4, and base saving throw bonuses of Fort +1, Ref +4, and Will +4.
—Racial Skills: A centaur’s monstrous humanoid levels give it skill points equal to 7 x (2 + Int modifier). Its class skills are Listen, Move Silently, Spot, and Survival.
—Racial Feats: A centaur’s monstrous humanoid levels give it two feats.
— +3 natural armor bonus.
— Automatic Languages: Sylvan, Elven. Bonus Languages: Common, Gnome, Halfling.
—Favored Class: Ranger.
—Level adjustment +2.
Large size = bigger weapons, better against bull rushes and grapples
Great speed
extra attack
natural armor
Darkvision
just look at those stat adjustments!
Don't get me wrong, there are downsides, dungeon crawls are a lot harder, armor costs a boatload more. ECL 6 on this is not bad at all.
Everyone eventually comes up against the "What if I get rid of the HD" line of thinking. But its not that easy because certain abilities are added in with the HD. If you take away the HD, you would have to add to the LA. And it sucks to see a "5th level character" that really only has one HD.. a +4 LA with one level.
Eventually, I'm hoping, in 4th edition(hopefuly no time soon) they will just show the stats without HD, with just LA and instead of giving HD they will just say "The average member of this race has 4 levels in warrior" or something to that effect. ECL by no means is an easily fixable thing.
I have been looking over the Draconians and Noble Draconians a lot to get rid of the HD in them. I find too many HD dont give anything and just take away. Its unfortunate.
Everyone eventually comes up against the "What if I get rid of the HD" line of thinking. But its not that easy because certain abilities are added in with the HD. If you take away the HD, you would have to add to the LA. And it sucks to see a "5th level character" that really only has one HD.. a +4 LA with one level.
Not really...take away the Racial Hit Dice (including the BAB and saving throws), the Racial Skills, and the Racial feats...then the centaur is just a ECL +2...so a first level centaur would be like a 3rd level human. That's much more managable (I'm not a big fan of the 3.5 rules that added in the Racial Hit Dice).
I'm not sure why you think you would have to add to the LA if you take away the HD and all that they give.
Nived, I know that a centaur would need specialized armor (and large sized)...but I think their weapons are still considered medium. At least it seems like they should...it's not like the humanoid part is oversized...
I think they are more powerful than a 2nd level fighter.
It'd have to be a 3rd level fighter and a 1st level centaur.
So... STR +4 DEX +2 CON +4 INT -2 WIS -2 maybe? Said take away the HD and all that goes with it...so I didn't know what all went with it, but that doesn't change the fact that meant everything the HD includes. Someone somewhere must know what it uses...it wouldn't be that hard to make a centaur a +2 ECL.
Anyway...I didn't say I disagreed with you, I said I didn't understand why you thought that, because you didn't say why I was wrong...just that I was.
Thanks for the attitude, though.
Didnt really mean to give an attitude, sorry if it came off that way. I realized that you might not have Savage Species or have looked over that part, so I posted the breakdown of why I thought it was the way it was. I've had this come up many times because my players always want to play other races and monsters and they dont like having to wait till high levels to play them. I really do wish it was as easy as taking away the HD. It sucks it isnt. I think in the next edition, they will have a system sort of like that. But then I noticed some powerful creatures have way to high of a LA, without an HD. And this makes them unplayable. A +5 LA is just killer if you had one level. So now you are a 6th level character, with a d10 HD or something. I've tried tod evise a system where for every +3 LA you get a HD, but I lost interest and stopped it *shrug*
I think those scores are closer to what you would need. Obviously you are only losing mental stats, but than again there is a +2 LA. They are Large but dont get reach, so this would cancel out say the extra speed. They get a +3 NA, but have to pay more for different armor and materials. Maybe not exactly balance out, but close. They get extra attacks.. but then again elves get proficiency with all bows, swords, have immunity to sleep and paralysis, and +2 to some skill checks.. so maybe the extra attacks would be the centaurs "cool abilities". I think the scores are pretty close to a +2, so maybe that would be a good centaur without the HD, skill points, etc.
again sorry if it seemed I had an attitude. Just was trying to point out where I got the stuff from.
Nived, I know that a centaur would need specialized armor (and large sized)...but I think their weapons are still considered medium. At least it seems like they should...it's not like the humanoid part is oversized...
It may seem like it, but that's not how it works. Since the standard centaur is large-sized, so must all his equipment (armor and weapons included). Otherwise he'll suffer a -2 size penalty for wielding medium-size weapons.
Didnt really mean to give an attitude, sorry if it came off that way.
That's okay...I'm probably just being over sensitive anyway.
I really do wish it was as easy as taking away the HD. It sucks it isnt.
My biggest problem is that, since the centaur, ogre, and draconians are PCs...I think WotC should have allowed these races to have LAs only. I mean, I have the original chapter one from when we were playtesting them. At that point, there was no additional HD (written pre-3.5)...and I'm pretty sure the stat bonuses weren't nearly that high, now that I think about it. It was either a LA +2 or +3 at that time, I don't remember for sure. I'm guessing that once WotC got it and updated it for 3.5...that's a change they made to the DLCS. Which is unfortunate. It's one thing to have a creature in the bestiary have additional rules for playing a monstrous humanoid, but another thing to impose it on a PC race.
That's just one man's opinion, though.
(and, if I didn't like centaurs so much...I probably wouldn't even be having this debate, heh heh)I've struggled with HD in monsters for the longest time. My campaign is very broad and for the most part, my PC's can play any race/class combo they want to. I believe in choices and have a lot of books from them to choose from. But... Dragonlance doesnt have as many "monsters" or races" as say..FR. This means after awhile, they want to try weird combinations and different things. Centaurs have been a race that a couple of my players have shown interest in. But with the HD, they just unplayable. Thats why I liked the Wendle in the Bestiary. Although they are medium, my only shtick with them.
As I said before, I have researched extensively, trying to find ways to take away the HD and still come out with a good race. But basically I've come to the conclusion that any race you want to do this with, you basically have to rehaul. You can keep a lot of their "abilities" but you'll have to go through each one and try to determine if they need a LA or not. I find this cumbersome and tiresome. It just gets annoying. I know my players want to play a Bozak, Sivak, Aurak.. so I've actually started cutting them down. Because I know for sure I'll have players who will play them. Also I know one of my players would maybe play a noble draconian.. if they just didnt have those stupid "virtual levels" they do.
I think you are right though.. any race shown as a PC race should not have any HD. This would have just simplified things a lot more. I would have liked to have seen the Ogres tuned down a lot on the HD, and maybe given the Improved Toughness feat or something to show their extra HP's, with also having a high con. But who knows, I can always hope they fix this kind of stuff when they release a new edition(hopefully a long time away)
Actually I think if they would have made some of the other races more unique, than not as many people would have been looking toward "monster races". The half-kender, half-elf, and brute races just plain suck and have no unique abilities that make them neat. But I know no matter what you do you'll still have people wanting to play a certain "monster race".
It may seem like it, but that's not how it works. Since the standard centaur is large-sized, so must all his equipment (armor and weapons included). Otherwise he'll suffer a -2 size penalty for wielding medium-size weapons.
That just doesn't make logical sense to me (although I don't doubt that that is the acutal rule). The centaur's Space/Reach is 10ft./5ft. Which to me says for all intents and purposes, defensively the creature is large, offensively the creature is medium. If he's not large enough to have a reach equal to his space...how can he handle a weapon meant for a large creature effectively (ie without penalties?)
That just doesn't make logical sense to me (although I don't doubt that that is the acutal rule). The centaur's Space/Reach is 10ft./5ft. Which to me says for all intents and purposes, defensively the creature is large, offensively the creature is medium. If he's not large enough to have a reach equal to his space...how can he handle a weapon meant for a large creature effectively (ie without penalties?)
Because he's a Large (long) creature. Only creatures that are bipedal and large end up with reach, like ogres, trolls, etc. Centaurs, Large dragons, etc don't have reach (although a dragon always has more reach with its bite than its other natural weapons, so it's a special case).
Cheers,
Cam
Because he's a Large (long) creature. Only creatures that are bipedal and large end up with reach, like ogres, trolls, etc. Centaurs, Large dragons, etc don't have reach (although a dragon always has more reach with its bite than its other natural weapons, so it's a special case).
Exactly...he's long. Meaning his humanoid torso is not very big...so how could he effectively handle weapons meant for properly proportioned large creatures?
Exactly...he's long. Meaning his humanoid torso is not very big...so how could he effectively handle weapons meant for properly proportioned large creatures?
In addition to being long ... he's also strong, +8 Strength, ya know. :D
Exactly...he's long. Meaning his humanoid torso is not very big...so how could he effectively handle weapons meant for properly proportioned large creatures?
He has the support of his equine body and overall much greater muscle mass and endurance than a human being would. He has greater leverage, improved stance, and is ultimately better able than a humanoid of Medium size to deal with weapons sized for his Large size.
He doesn't have reach because he doesn't have long arms, that's about the only issue.
Centaurs really are your Kryptonite, aren't they Brim?
Cheers,
Cam
he's also strong, +8 Strength, ya know.
I know, but it can't be strength alone. If that were the case then a 20th level Kender could conceivably have a 23 Strength (or maybe 21...either 16 + 5 or 18 + 5). Should he be allowed to weild a medium two-handed sword without penalties? I personally don't think so...it takes more than strength to weild a weapon properly.
He has the support of his equine body and overall much greater muscle mass and endurance than a human being would. He has greater leverage, improved stance, and is ultimately better able than a humanoid of Medium size to deal with weapons sized for his Large size.
He has all those things except what I think is the most important...I disagree with the "greater leverage." Because the part weilding the weapon, the hands and arms and torso, are the size of a medium creature. Because of this, the leverage needed is based on proper hand placement, arm length, as well as stance. And because the first of those two are medium size I believe that with a weapon designed for a proportionally large creature, it will be clumsy because of improper sizing of hilts, handles, cross pieces, pommels, length, etc. The cross piece on a large bastard sword would still be greater than the length of the centaur's forearm...how could something like that be wielded without penalties?
Or what about a bow? The centaur's arms are still the same length as a human's, so he could only pull the string as far back as a human could. It doesn't matter how strong he is...it's a question of arm length (if he does it properly). This would only be half the length the bow needs to be pulled back to be used properly.
It just doesn't make sense to me.
Centaurs really are your Kryptonite, aren't they Brim?
Yeah...tell me about it. It's almost laughable, (To me anyway...I'm sure it is laughable to everyone else. LOL!)