Do the traditional demihuman classes have anything going for them? Because to me it appears that the 36 level variant makes sense in so many ways.
If presented with the two choices, which would you prefer using in you campaign. The traditional demihuman classes (Dwarf = 12 + attack ranks, Elf = 10 + attack ranks, Halfling = 8 + attack ranks) or the optional 36 levels variant from p. 266 of the Rules Compendium?
Do the traditional demihuman classes have anything going for them? Because to me it appears that the 36 level variant makes sense in so many ways.
The 36 level variant rules are arguably badly unbalanced, though. Demihumans end up needing much more experience than their human counterparts to go up in levels, and gain not much more for their efforts than the humans receive for levelling.
Dwarves are possibly (possibly!) semi-balanced against fighters - needing 200,000 XP to level rather than 120,000 but taking less damage against spells once Level 16 is reached. The halfling, though, is incredibly underpowered, with XP breaks of 200,000 per level and a lot less improvement compared to any human class. The elf, meanwhile, is arguably underpriced, getting improved attacking ability and 36th level spellcasting on the cheap. OWCH.
Given my druthers, the tables would look much as follows:
- Dwarf needs 800,000 XP to reach Level 13, +150,000 XP per level beyond this point. Hits Level 36 at 4,250,000 XP, just before the magic-user.
- Elf needs 3,100,000 XP to reach Level 20, +300,000 XP per level beyond this point (increased because of the enhanced power of 9th-level spells). Hits Level 36 at 7,900,000 XP (and hopefully has stopped mortal powergaming and started questing for immortality long before that point).
- Halfling needs 250,000 XP to reach Level 9, +150,000 XP per level between levels 9 and 16 (reaching level 16 at 1,300,000 XP), 100,000 XP per level beyond that. Hits Level 36 at 3,300,000 XP, just before the thief.
I'd use the original classes as per BECMI, but with the following optional rule:
Demihumans have the option of taking one of the human classes (Fighter, Cleric, Magic-User, Thief, Rake, Forester, Druid, Mystic) at character creation instead of their default class.
They get the following racial modufications:
Elf
Infravision
Detection ability
Immunity to Ghoul Paralysis
Increased lifespan
Dwarf
Infravision
Detection ability/Engineering skill
+2 to saves vs poison, disease and magic
Increased Lifespan
Reduced Movement
Halfling
+1 to Missile attacks
-1 to AC
Hide ability/Hide skill
Increased LifespanCannot use large weapons
To compensate for these characters slight disadvantage, the DM may either:
a) give humans and standard demihuman characters a +2 bonus to one ability score of their choice
or
b)Incur a 10% XP penalty to this unusual race/class combinations.
The DM may not allow all race/class combinations. Particularly Magic-user, and Forester may not be allowed for all races.
Note:
Immunity to Ghoul Paralysis and Increased Lifespan abilities are considered very minor advantages to the races. Apart from those, elves have 2 abilities, while dwarves and halflings have 3, but the two latter also have 1 disadvantage each.
Havard
Demihumans have the option of taking one of the human classes (Fighter, Cleric, Magic-User, Thief, Rake, Forester, Druid, Mystic) at character creation instead of their default class.
This variant, with the XP penalty, is used e.g. for the Rakasta and Lupins, IIRC.
However, I find that demihuman characters are quite balanced in BECMI.
The only real problem is with Thief characters, and even then, allowing the Thief class option doesn't solve much, since the class itself is not that good.
This variant, with the XP penalty, is used e.g. for the Rakasta and Lupins, IIRC.
Yeah, it is basically an expansion of that rule. I decided not to replace the existing demihuman classes, but instead use both in combination.
However, I find that demihuman characters are quite balanced in BECMI.
It is more of a problem of lack of elegance that not all characters follow the same pattern (ie 36 levels) that annoys me rather than anything else.
The only real problem is with Thief characters, and even then, allowing the Thief class option doesn't solve much, since the class itself is not that good.
The Thief class can be very useful, but it depends alot on the DM. To balance this off, I suggest increasing his HD to 1d6/+1 in campaigns where the Thief seems weak.
Havard
It is more of a problem of lack of elegance that not all characters follow the same pattern (ie 36 levels) that annoys me rather than anything else.
Uhm, what do you do with Mystics?
The Thief class can be very useful, but it depends alot on the DM. To balance this off, I suggest increasing his HD to 1d6/+1 in campaigns where the Thief seems weak.
The problem is that, at low levels, the Thief's chances to hide, move silently, etc. are extremely small (to the point of making the attempt more a danger than an opportunity). At high levels, the Thiefs becomes more playable. Also, if the rules for demihuman/humanoid Thieving Skills are used, Thieves become definitely redundant.
Indeed, a larger HD at lower levels would help, as would using AD&D2e flexible Thieving Skill points assignment.
Uhm, what do you do with Mystics?
It hasn't come up, but I think this version looks solid:
http://pandius.com/mystic.html
The problem is that, at low levels, the Thief's chances to hide, move silently, etc. are extremely small (to the point of making the attempt more a danger than an opportunity). At high levels, the Thiefs becomes more playable. Also, if the rules for demihuman/humanoid Thieving Skills are used, Thieves become definitely redundant.
Indeed, a larger HD at lower levels would help, as would using AD&D2e flexible Thieving Skill points assignment.
There are many ways to fix this problem, but here is one that doesn't involve too much revision:
Thief skills can be bought as general skills. However, they are not used as regular general skills. If one slot is put into the Pick Pockets skill, the character now knows how to pick pockets as a 1st level Thief. Thief characters can also spend skill slots to increase their Thief abilities. One slot raises that ability worth of one Thief level.
This fix should adress all three of the problems you raise above.
Thoughts?
Havard
This fix should adress all three of the problems you raise above.
One slot = one level is not enough. Slots are too few to spend in Hide in Shadows.
Uhm, could I have the third door please?
Well, I didn't want to clutter this thread with so many things to discuss, I considered starting another thread eventually with just this 'third door' as discussion points. However, I'm glad you took it and ran through. ;)
Do you allow any multi-classing options that could re-create the dwarf-cleric from Dwarves of Rockhome?
The saving throw advancement is a significant boon to demi-humans. Compare a BECMI halfling at 64,000 xp to a magic-user, or any class really, at 64,000 xp.
Shouldn't all demi-humans get saving throw bonuses across the board? All demi-humans to all save categories?
One slot = one level is not enough. Slots are too few to spend in Hide in Shadows.
It could be made better I suppose. The balance here is between making it useful for Thieves, and not making the actual Thief abilities redundant as you mention.
Ofcourse, there is the other and more complex sollution I am toying with where Thief abilties are turned into general skills, and where skill checks are made by rolling below 6+ability adjustment+(level/2) on 1d20, and where Thieves get the Thief abilities as free skills in addition to their starting skills.
This completely changes how thief abilities work (including in terms of chance of success), but I still think it would work fairly well.
A Third Option is setting the General Skill as a "flat" bonus of 5%+ (Ability adjustment x 5). A Highly dexterious Elf would get a 20% of Hiding in shadows while his fellow Thief would get a +20% bonus to his Hiding In Shadows Thief ability.
Havard
Well, I didn't want to clutter this thread with so many things to discuss, I considered starting another thread eventually with just this 'third door' as discussion points. However, I'm glad you took it and ran through. ;)
Yeah, I felt a bit guilty by taking it there right from the start. Hopefully others will go back to the original question now that we have been through this path.
Do you allow any multi-classing options that could re-create the dwarf-cleric from Dwarves of Rockhome?
I would still allow the Dwarf Cleric as it is. Also, I would allow a dwarf to select the human dwarf class as presented above.
As for multiclassing, this is probably going to take some work coming up with a decent and fairly balanced system for that. I have seen some talk of it over at Dragonsfoot, but I dont know if there are any complete writeups for that yet.
The saving throw advancement is a significant boon to demi-humans. Compare a BECMI halfling at 64,000 xp to a magic-user, or any class really, at 64,000 xp.
Shouldn't all demi-humans get saving throw bonuses across the board? All demi-humans to all save categories?
The reason why I didnt do this is because I didnt want to make the Races too powerful or complex. Limiting them to a few advantages would allow me to balance it off by giving human characters a +2 to their ability scores. I don't really like the XP penalty option, but it seems to be popular among Classic D&D fans, probably because of it already being part of the system.
The more I tinker with BECMI though, the more I just feel like it would be easier to start with 3E and work my way down towards the RC, rather than the other way around. Hmmmm.... :embarrass
Havard
The more I tinker with BECMI though, the more I just feel like it would be easier to start with 3E and work my way down towards the RC, rather than the other way around.
Well, my problem, based on uncountable tables where I played 3.x games with characters above 10th level, has made me despise high-level 3.x play. The upgrade from 3.0 to 3.5 fixed problems with low- to mid-level play that made it funner for players and DMs, but the problems still inherent with 3.x high-level play has sent me running for BECMI/Rules Cyclopedia.
*shrug*That said, I am seeing some of the same structural problems with these classic rules and I am torn with sticking with very simple and subtle changes rather than wholesale rebuilding, vs. thoroughly stripping the the classic rules down and putting them back together. I'd like to not go there because I'd like to be able to use some of the wonderful fan work collected at the Vaults without even more work.
That said, I am seeing some of the same structural problems with these classic rules and I am torn with sticking with very simple and subtle changes rather than wholesale rebuilding, vs. thoroughly stripping the the classic rules down and putting them back together. I'd like to not go there because I'd like to be able to use some of the wonderful fan work collected at the Vaults without even more work.
I am totally buying that argument
Fotr multi-classing I would probably leave that alone, and rather make up new "mixed" classes combining abilities of existing classes. For classes which combine spellcasting with say combat ability could use the Cleric class as a basis and replace abilities and spell lists as you see fit.
Havard
Fotr multi-classing I would probably leave that alone, and rather make up new "mixed" classes combining abilities of existing classes. For classes which combine spellcasting with say combat ability could use the Cleric class as a basis and replace abilities and spell lists as you see fit.
This has always been my position. There was a reason that non-humans weren't originally allowed the freedom of choice that humans were. Beyond the Tolkein/Gygaxian humanocentrism, it has always been understood that humans are more chaotic, as a society, than the structured demi/semi-humans. True, non-humans generally live longer and have more time to learn their trade (thus the multiclassing option), but they have never (even in 3e) had the adaptability that humans do.
As a "fix" to the classic game system, instead of tyring to reinvent the wheel and seperating class/race all over again, theres nothing that says that a DM can't tailor a demihuman class to his campaign. 3e encourages this, stating that PrCs, in particular, should be tailored to the campaign and not taken straight from the book. In classic we, as a fan community, have generally waited for TSR to do this for us via the Gazeteers. Why didn't we do this all along? In my own classic games (which I will be starting a new one again, after having played 3e for the last few years) I have tailored classes to mimic every Base/PrC combination that 3e offers (except things which I just don't like--Psionics, Dwarven Wizards, etc.). I have stolen a classic Ranger from the Vaults... I've created classic Elven Cleric and Hin Pirate classes. And to mimic the Sorcerer, Barbarian, and Bard classes, I've created a template to be applied to the Magic-User, Fighter, and Thief classes respectively. That way my players have all the versatility of 3e, the simplicity of classic, and I, as a DM, have the control I like over PC race/class combinations.
Roger
Because they are (slightly less) than 1 fighter level + 1 magic user level per 1 elf level, I'd limit them to 18th. Under the traditional attack rank scheme, a fully maxed elf (3 attacks per round) slightly exceeds 36 total levels of "stuff". The hit points are a little lighter than what a true multi-class option might give, but that is offset by the dragon breath saves.
If you want to single-class your elf, GAZ F1 Realm of Wendar offers some guidelines (cheap, shameless plug :embarrass :embarrass )
-Old Dawg