Signup
Welcome to... Canonfire! World of GreyhawK
Features
Postcards from the Flanaess
Adventures
in Greyhawk
Cities of
Oerth
Deadly
Denizens
Jason Zavoda Presents
The Gord Novels
Greyhawk Wiki
Canonfire :: View topic - Humanoids: "Classy", or Not?
Canonfire Forum Index -> World of Greyhawk Discussion
Humanoids: "Classy", or Not?
Author Message
GreySage

Joined: Sep 09, 2009
Posts: 2470
From: SW WA state (Highvale)

Send private message
Thu Jan 03, 2013 8:52 am  
Humanoids: "Classy", or Not?

A topic came up in one of my storyline threads ("Lost Caverns of Tsojcanth" in the Campaign Journal forum, if you want to see it) that I'd like to post here for input and general discussion.

How many of you give your humanoids classes (fighter, mage, thief, priest, etc.) beyond the traditional and ordinary statistics provided in our Monster Manual (and related) tomes?

Why, or why not?

If you do, what edition do you use to formulate these stats?

-Lanthorn


Last edited by Lanthorn on Thu Jan 03, 2013 5:09 pm; edited 1 time in total
GreySage

Joined: Oct 06, 2008
Posts: 2790
From: South-Central Pennsylvania

Send private message
Thu Jan 03, 2013 10:56 am  

I re-class all my humanoids and use Heroforge to do it. This automatically stats them as 3.5, of course.

But even in Heroforge, I'm not "crazy" about the 3 levels of "humanoid" that the program assigns. To me, that's a meaningless classification.

Most of my humanoids are given stats as 1st level Fighters or Barbarians. A lieutenant stats at 3rd level and the leader of the group usually gets stats of 5th level (unless I'm running 1st level PCs, naturally).

And I usually throw in a Shaman with stats as a 3rd to 5th level Cleric.

If I'm using human bandits, a Wizard will get thrown in as well.

(Incidentally, I use Heroforge to stat all of my story characters as well. It gives me a "range" to keep them in, within that portion of the story. I do make adjustments to those stats, given that I'm a fan of 2e) Wink
_________________
Mystic's web page: http://melkot.com/mysticscholar/index.html
Mystic's blog page: http://mysticscholar.blogspot.com/
GreySage

Joined: Jul 26, 2010
Posts: 2753
From: LG Dyvers

Send private message
Thu Jan 03, 2013 1:47 pm  

Since 2nd edition, I have been giving the leadership of humanoid tribes some class levels (Fighter or Thief for war leaders, plus adding shamans and/or witchdoctors). However, I prefer the ease with which it can be done in 3.5e and Pathfinder, mostly because of the NPC classes like Warrior and Adept.

I'll soapbox here a little, if you'll indulge me. Razz

In my campaign, I object to the philosophy that evil humanoids (goblinoids, orcs, etc.) may gain class levels on a par with humanity and its allied demi-humans. This is from a realistic viewpoint. It is canon that humanoids reproduce much more quickly than do humans and demi-humans. At the same time, they are of a lower average intelligence and live shorter lives. This combination prevents them from organizing sufficiently to dominate the land and destroy their goodly counterparts. Being of lower average intelligence, in my mind, should also prevent them from earning class levels at a similar pace. Therefore, only very exceptional and rare humanoid individuals in my campaign have class levels and those levels are almost always gained in Warrior or Adept as I believe that it requires greater intelligence and dedication to learn all the skills of a true Fighter or Cleric. Exceptions do occur, though. Evil Grin

SirXaris
Journeyman Greytalker

Joined: Mar 05, 2007
Posts: 290
From: The Pomarj

Send private message
Thu Jan 03, 2013 2:27 pm  



Last edited by BlueWitch on Thu Feb 13, 2014 9:00 pm; edited 1 time in total
Paladin

Joined: Sep 07, 2011
Posts: 833
From: Houston Texas

Send private message
Thu Jan 03, 2013 2:41 pm  

SirX,
I concur.. and like you, I tend to populate the "leader" core as exceptional "heroes" of their own "species" so to speak. I think is is an important component in providing challenge to PC characters.
Monster leaders should have skills that set them apart from their peers. Whether that be through Strength of combat or Charisma thru intimidation, Wisdom/ Intelligence to reflect forethought and cunning.

Just this past gaming session, my PCs had a random encounter along a footpath with some goblins. IMC the goblins are not re-known for their intellectual IQ but after several smacking around from the PC group through various encounters they have realized that a frontal assault is not to their advantage. So through that learning curve arises a leader to two that utilizes, ambush, pits, and deadfalls in unison with oil and fire to give the PCs all they want from an "inferior" group. Targeting horses and area effects are great counters for good PC AC. Evil Grin
As suggested posted in your other thread, I too utilize Hero Lab to develop those foes readily... (utilizing a d20 3,5 platform in my case). While the tools have changed, the thought process has not. To me goblins, orcs, kobolds, etc, while the cannon fodder of the world.. do have their "day" at times..
GreySage

Joined: Jul 26, 2010
Posts: 2753
From: LG Dyvers

Send private message
Thu Jan 03, 2013 4:12 pm  

Yep, DLG. I failed to mention it above, but Hero Lab is the tool I use for my conversion process now, too. Though I only use it for 3.5e and Pathfinder, it supports about two dozen game systems at the moment.

SirXaris
GreySage

Joined: Oct 06, 2008
Posts: 2790
From: South-Central Pennsylvania

Send private message
Thu Jan 03, 2013 4:25 pm  

Yeah, the only two draw backs are: 1) you can't use it to create a Shadowcaster and 2) it hasn't been updated since November 2011. Sad

But, hey, Life isn't perfect either! Laughing
_________________
Mystic's web page: http://melkot.com/mysticscholar/index.html
Mystic's blog page: http://mysticscholar.blogspot.com/
GreySage

Joined: Sep 09, 2009
Posts: 2470
From: SW WA state (Highvale)

Send private message
Thu Jan 03, 2013 5:29 pm  

I appreciate everyone's opinions, and look forward to reading more. Now, it's my turn, I guess.

I've gone from one side of the continuum, to the next, and have swung to a middle ground (mainly b/c of the chiding remarks of my primary player, good friend since high school, and fellow DM...more on that in a minute). Let me elaborate:

As a novitiate DM (0-3rd or 4th lvl, shall we say Wink ) I didn't attribute any class levels to humanoids for years. I merely followed the listings given in the 1e or 2e books, primarly Monster Manual, Fiend Folio, and MM2. This was true of young Lanthorn of the 80's to early 90s.

Later on in the middle stages of experience (presumptively 5th-7th, roughly) I went to the far side when the Complete Book of Humanoids and Monster Mythology came out, and started classing most of my humanoids, especially the Lawfully aligned, military-based orcs and hobgoblins. It probably didn't help that my friend killed one of my PCs in the Pit of Greyhawk City by a 1st lvl (?) fighter goblin... Evil Grin My reason was that orcs, hobgoblins, and even goblins are a warrior caste society, in spite of their relatively primitive (compared to dwarves, elves and humans, at least, in most literature) culture. I postulated that they SHOULD have a large number of skilled fighters in their ranks, just as you would assume true for Vikings, Mongols, Huns, Goths, Zulus, Apaches, etc. Warrior cultures should have...ahem! WARRIORS, right?! Happy

And then my friend started chiding me that EVERY humanoid he faced was some sort of fighter NPC, and that there were no more (or very few) typical 1 HD orcs...

I took the sarcasm in good humor, made a mental note, and, considering him a respectable fellow gamer, started to dial it back a bit.

Now as an older (more experienced?) DM (unknown level, but still waiting for followers!!! Anyone may apply, but I will ask for references! Laughing ), I allow many, perhaps even most, humanoids to class, but not necessarily all of them. It depends on the campaign, the specific tribe, the type of humanoid, etc.

that's my 2 cents,

-Lanthorn
GreySage

Joined: Jul 26, 2010
Posts: 2753
From: LG Dyvers

Send private message
Thu Jan 03, 2013 7:37 pm  

Interesting, Lanthorn. Let me consider it by comparing it to humans in the Flanaess.

If the vast majority of humanity are zero level commoners and they have a higher average intelligence than most humanoids, shouldn't there be even fewer classed humanoids than humans? Note that in every edition, the basic non-classed humanoid is more powerful than the zero-level human, which I consider to represent the fact that they grow up in 'warrior' societies rather than agrarian ones.

Additionally, remember that The Vault of the Drow left most drow, even those living within, and members of, the noble houses, as zero-level NPCs. Only those considered 'special' were given training in one of the warrior societies or as another class. Simply growing up in a 'warrior' or violent society doesn't, in my opinion, give one the skills of a Fighter or a Thief. I do believe that equivalent skills can be self-taught by exceptional individuals, but such advancement would be much slower than that of an individual given proper training.

So, creatures of low intelligence, short life spans, and especially those of chaotic alignment, are unlikely to gain more than a very few class levels unless they have access to some special mentoring. The rare individuals who manage to gain even a single class level would be the leaders (chieftains, sub-chieftains, bodyguards, etc.) of the clan.

SirXaris
GreySage

Joined: Sep 09, 2009
Posts: 2470
From: SW WA state (Highvale)

Send private message
Thu Jan 03, 2013 7:50 pm  

SirXaris, I think your arguments were similar to those proposed by my friend.

My counter (take it or leave it, of course) is this: Most humans are given 1 HD. So are orcs. This is written down in the 'old' books of 1e and 2e. Peasants, scribes, lawyers, common laborers, etc, may have less, but the stereotypical human is the same as an orc. Bugbears are 3+1 HD. Gnolls are 2+1. Hobgoblins are 1+1. Goblins are 1-1. And so on. I think that the HD listed has less to do with their fighting ability and just raw strength, size, and physical fortitude.

Thusly, I started to treat my humanoids, born, reared, trained, and bred, in a savage, brutal, warrior-ish social structure as 'special' unto themselves and started making more of them into fighter types (less so thieves, wizards, and clerics, unless appropriate to that humanoid). There are the standard Monster Manual entry humanoids in my campaigns, but they tend to be, as with humans, the 'common' stock of humanoid. About half of all my humanoids, especially the lawful types (again, orcs, hobgoblins, and occasionally goblins), are low level fighters.

Where you and I will agree may be the level limits and advancement of these humanoids compared to humans, elves, dwarves, gnomes, and halflings. But I don't see their Intelligence, which is, basically, nearly 'on par' with their more 'civilized' enemies, as the limiting factor. Primitive humans from the Paleolithic were undoubtedly skilled hunters and warriors, and I'd put them about on the same level as your garden variety humanoid.

Actually, as I think about it while I type, I'd say that most orcs, etc., are MORE culturally advanced (could this be the start of ANOTHER thread?! Shocked ) than Paleolithic humans...more on level with Iron Age, don't you think...??? You are more the historical expert than I.

-Lanthorn, Cultural Anthropologist
GreySage

Joined: Jul 26, 2010
Posts: 2753
From: LG Dyvers

Send private message
Thu Jan 03, 2013 8:27 pm  

Lanthorn:

Yes, your position does make sense. However, I'll offer that, in my opinion, gaining levels in a character class is akin to gaining the skills of a concert pianist, a computer technician, a doctor, or a special ops soldier and requires a similar level of skill, intelligence, dedication, mentorship, etc. In my opinion, the vast majority of humanoids and humanoid societies simply lack the personal and societal resources to learn such skills.

Now, I don't mind surprising my PCs with a rare Orc leader like Obould, but those exceptional humanoids should be few and far between or their races would easily overwhelm the goodly races.

SirXaris
GreySage

Joined: Sep 09, 2009
Posts: 2470
From: SW WA state (Highvale)

Send private message
Thu Jan 03, 2013 8:38 pm  

SirXaris wrote:
Lanthorn:
Now, I don't mind surprising my PCs with a rare Orc leader like Obould...


You instantly lose your paladin status for invoking the name of a character from Forgotten Realms. ATONE to reclaim your Divine abilities from Heironeous.

Happy

-Lanthorn
Journeyman Greytalker

Joined: Sep 14, 2009
Posts: 172
From: Laporte IN.

Send private message
Thu Jan 03, 2013 9:08 pm  

Many, many, many yeeeeeeeears ago Shocked I ran a encounter where the players came across a humaniod turtle race. Very wise and high level "monsters". A turtle race could live just as long as elves do or even longer. They would have a high AC and hitpoints. The down side is that they would be very slow in combat. Clerics and Wizards would make a good class for such a humaniod.

Just my 2 cp's
GreySage

Joined: Jul 26, 2010
Posts: 2753
From: LG Dyvers

Send private message
Thu Jan 03, 2013 10:58 pm  

BZ: That works well, in my opinion. Such a race would likely reproduce slowly, like elves, to maintain a balance.

Lanthorn: Please help me come up with a better Greyhawk example and I'll use it in the future. Quij just isn't high enough level to qualify, though he does work as an example of a rare humanoid with access to high-level human mentoring, which explains his ability to rise to 4th level Fighter.

SirXaris
Black Hand of Oblivion

Joined: Feb 16, 2003
Posts: 3837
From: So. Cal

Send private message
Fri Jan 04, 2013 12:09 am  

Can't believe somebody else worked out a turtle race. Mine was more...turtle-ish. And no, no ninja classes were involved.

As to giving humanoids class levels, I've done that in all editions. Adding levels to monsters is a part of 3.x, but for 1e/2e I would just say that the humanoid (or whatever monster) with class levels was "an exceptional individual". That is all you really need to do, other than for working out a few h.d./h.p. tweaks here and there.

The are plenty of books for working this out for 3.X, and for 1e/2e I would recommend using the Complete Book of Humanoids, Monster Mythology (for Priests/Clerics/Witch Doctors), and The Complete Book of Villains for pretty much anything.
_________________
- Moderator/Admin (in some areas)/Member -
Journeyman Greytalker

Joined: Sep 22, 2012
Posts: 157
From: luseland, sask

Send private message
Fri Jan 04, 2013 7:14 pm  

I think there are problems in the to hit tables when humanoid monsters are given classes. The thaco for a normal bugbear is 16. The thaco for a level 5 fighter is 16 and 18 at level 4. I don't see the benefit to giving the bugbear for example a "class". OTOH maybe they make gains if a thief/magic-user/cleric/shaman class is used. But then do these classes get a lesser thaco? In the human D&D world the other classes are worse than the fighter in combat so should be the same for humanoids i think.

And Lanthorn 95% of the human guards in the ToEE are 1-1 fighters. I am not so sure that 1HD is the norm for humans in 1e.

Good topic
GreySage

Joined: Sep 09, 2009
Posts: 2470
From: SW WA state (Highvale)

Send private message
Fri Jan 04, 2013 7:30 pm  

SirXaris wrote:
Lanthorn: Please help me come up with a better Greyhawk example and I'll use it in the future. Quij just isn't high enough level to qualify, though he does work as an example of a rare humanoid with access to high-level human mentoring, which explains his ability to rise to 4th level Fighter.

SirXaris


Turrosh Mak comes to mind offhand, even though he's not fullblood orc. The LGG has a half-ogre rule (Bruzharag) listed of 16th (fighter). I guess they do exist. And I hope you didn't take real offense to my jab. Embarassed If so, my apologies. I kid, people, I kid! Laughing

-Lanthorn
GreySage

Joined: Sep 09, 2009
Posts: 2470
From: SW WA state (Highvale)

Send private message
Fri Jan 04, 2013 7:55 pm  

mcneilk wrote:

And Lanthorn 95% of the human guards in the ToEE are 1-1 fighters. I am not so sure that 1HD is the norm for humans in 1e.
Good topic


In perusing the original 1e Monster Manual after your statement, mcneilk, I guess I have to concede that point. According to that 'ancient' tome, most people are d6. Embarassed Brigands, bandits, etc may be more, with entries given for fighters in their midst, and the like.

Personally, I would not consider somebody a 'fighter' in the technical sense if they had 1-1 HD. To me, a 'fighter' is d10 hp.

As for your comment about 'problems' with classing humanoids when their natural THACO is better, here is a solution I use. I take the better of the two THACOs. However, with the fighter THACO, I take into account any relevant 'to hit' bonuses as modifiers (for Str and/or Dex), so that a 4th lvl fighter bugbear with a high Dex and/or Str bonus may have a better THACO than it otherwise would have as a 3+1 HD monster.

-Lanthorn
GreySage

Joined: Jul 26, 2010
Posts: 2753
From: LG Dyvers

Send private message
Fri Jan 04, 2013 9:42 pm  

No offense taken, Lanthorn, my friend. Smile

I'm sorry to make another 3.5e/Pathfinder plug, but those systems solve the problem of THACO for humanoids with classes quite easily. Basically, a bugbear gets 3 HD worth of hit points, skills, abilities, and To Hit bonuses because of its natural power and the experience the average bugbear gains by the time it reaches adulthood. However, if you have a bugbear that is exceptional for one reason or another, and you choose to give it a level or three in Warrior, Adept, Fighter, Thief (Rogue), Cleric, etc., you simply add the benefits of those class levels to its natural stats. No replacements are necessary. Thus, even adding a single level of Warrior to a bugbear makes it much tougher than the average individual of its species.

SirXaris
Journeyman Greytalker

Joined: Sep 22, 2012
Posts: 157
From: luseland, sask

Send private message
Sat Jan 05, 2013 6:03 am  

so you are creating stats for individual bugbears lanthorn? This would definately change things in regard to AC as well as thaco. It makes sense that the leader of a group of bugbears would be a superior warrior or a spell caster of some sort.

Do you then use some sort of min/max for attributes? I can imagine the minimum intelligence for a goblin would be low but what about the max? The smartest goblin on oerth would be 18?

I am just throwin things out there Lanthorn. I like the idea of classes for humanoids. Our game is pretty much module based but i am already starting to think of a band of humanoids attacking the party inbetween time.

Sir Xaris i like reading your plugs on 3.5. I know nothing of that version and am always interested to learn.
GreySage

Joined: Sep 09, 2009
Posts: 2470
From: SW WA state (Highvale)

Send private message
Sat Jan 05, 2013 8:45 am  

SX, glad we 'are good.' Happy 'Tis never my intention to offend someone, especially someone I deem a CF! friend.

Although I am a staunch 2e advocate, I don't mind hearing about other editions and their mechanics. The system you describe sounds very logical and appropriate. 1e and 2e 'solved' this by allowing chieftains and leader-types to have greater HD, better AC (typically) and do more damage. For example, look at the ogre entry in the Monster Manual and you will note the modifications listed (7 HD for a chief who has an AC 3, etc). I believe that is pretty standard across the board for all humanoids.

However, if you want to "class" them...that is slightly different, mcneilk. What I do is roll their stats (or you can assign them) like you would any other NPC, assign an appropriate class, roll (or determine) their level, and the like. The Complete Book of Humanoids gives guidance about mini/max stats for each humanoid type (the 1e DMG gave average stats! Happy ) and their lvl limits. If you are interested in modifying your humanoids beyond the norm, this book would be of use to you, mcneilk. That's my 2e plug... Wink

Always good to exchange information, including across and between editions.

-Lanthorn
Master Greytalker

Joined: Apr 13, 2006
Posts: 654
From: Frinton on Sea England

Send private message
Sun Jan 06, 2013 6:44 am  

I guess this is almost an edition discussion and the accepted method for unusual Humanoids in 1e/2e is very different from that in later games.

The biggest problem for me with the 3e/Pathfinder approach is realism and credibility, as has been mentioned. The worst example of this, and I might have slated this module before on the boards, is in Return To Greyhawk Ruins for 3.5 where the party has a combat encounter with a Wyvern riding Sorceror and a half-dozen or so Orc "Raiders"; bear in mind I don't have the mod to hand and can't be arsed to dig it out so there may be small errors in my recall.

The Orc "Raiders" are all 4th level Rogues and 1st level Warriors each with the same feats and all with identical kit including +1 Handaxes which they naturally hand over to the party at the earliest opportunity. This is all about game balance and providing the party with a reasonable challenge. Fair enough. But, it makes absolutely no sense. Where have these raiders been to acheive such incredible similarity and why don't we meet them more often? Where did they get those axes from? It's just a very uninteresting encounter and it skews campaign expectations of what an Orc actually is. When you meet the next group of Orcs how are we the players supposed to judge the threat and relative risk in any role playing way?

1e/2e posited that any group of humanoids will have leader types that are a bit tougher than the rest and it would be fair to meet a couple of those in isolation from their gang and, if used carefully, that would be fine. But there would not be any wild variations that challenge verisimilitude. I also believe that meeting an occasional npc humanoid of high level is reasonable but they would be exceptional. And there it is. If the exceptions become the rule then you've got a cred problem for your game.

My final thought would be that although I may have indicated this might be an edition problem it's not. It's an adventure design problem where the designer gets lazy and works to the numbers rather than the story or plot. Worth noting that in the aforementioned encounter the Wyvern rider had a ridiculously low Ride skill and would probably not have stayed mounted for long in any case. Just plain lazy design.

So, how often should you meet "advanced" humanoids?

Occasionally.
GreySage

Joined: Jul 26, 2010
Posts: 2753
From: LG Dyvers

Send private message
Sun Jan 06, 2013 7:43 pm  

Ragr wrote:
My final thought would be that although I may have indicated this might be an edition problem it's not. It's an adventure design problem where the designer gets lazy and works to the numbers rather than the story or plot.


This is well-reasoned, Ragr. It would be the same as Lanthorn using the 2d ed. rules to have his PCs meet a group of a dozen ogre leaders, all 7 HD, wandering through the forest as a random encounter simply because that would provide a challenge for them. If such an encounter were to be set up, it should be an ogremoot (meeting of leaders from various tribes) that the PCs stumble upon. Of course, there should be quite a few regular 4 HD ogre guards about the place as well as ogre shamans, etc. Shocked

SirXaris

P.S. I use you as an example, Lanthorn, because you're the only person left still using 2d ed. rules that I know of. Razz Laughing SX
GreySage

Joined: Sep 09, 2009
Posts: 2470
From: SW WA state (Highvale)

Send private message
Sun Jan 06, 2013 7:54 pm  

SirXaris wrote:
P.S. I use you as an example, Lanthorn, because you're the only person left still using 2d ed. rules that I know of. Razz Laughing SX


(this had me laughing!) Laughing Yeah, it seems that "our" ranks have thinned a bit...I need to start active recruitment! I think the only 2e fans out there would include Mystic-Scholar and...ummm...eerrrr...yeah, OK... Confused

-Lanthorn, Last 2e Follower Standing...
GreySage

Joined: Oct 06, 2008
Posts: 2790
From: South-Central Pennsylvania

Send private message
Sun Jan 06, 2013 9:46 pm  

And Maldin. Mystic Scholar and Maldin. Tsk! Laughing

I'd say "Shame on Xaris" for forgetting that, but then Paladin types are not known for having an Intelligence of 18! Razz
_________________
Mystic's web page: http://melkot.com/mysticscholar/index.html
Mystic's blog page: http://mysticscholar.blogspot.com/
Master Greytalker

Joined: Apr 13, 2006
Posts: 654
From: Frinton on Sea England

Send private message
Mon Jan 07, 2013 12:57 am  

And me. Cool

After much tinkering and wild experiments I've come to the conclusion that for me (YMMV blah, blah) 2e IS Greyhawk. Therefore GH must be 2e. And it's all because I had a good read through the PHB in an idle moment on my laptop and everything resonated with my GH experiences even though nothing I read was specifically about GH.

This is why I no longer have an ongoing campaign. Sad

That and real life.

It's not for want of trying as I thought my BRP GH was one of the best things I'd ever devised setting wise but.....it completely broke down.

I'm running a Pathfinder game set in Raging Swan's Lonely Coast (which is very GH Laughing but not GH) and a few one offs in other systems but nothing GH at the mo'.

There will be a return, however, and it will be 2e.
Master Greytalker

Joined: Apr 13, 2006
Posts: 654
From: Frinton on Sea England

Send private message
Mon Jan 07, 2013 1:09 am  

SirXaris wrote:
Ragr wrote:
My final thought would be that although I may have indicated this might be an edition problem it's not. It's an adventure design problem where the designer gets lazy and works to the numbers rather than the story or plot.


This is well-reasoned, Ragr.


To elaborate on this a little. The encounter that I quote from RTGR wasn't meant to wipe the party out it was an intro to the plot so why make it so challenging by compromising the feel. It could easily have had the Wyvern rider (properly statted as what's good for the goose is good for the gander and if a player attempts something with +1 Ride.......), one Orc "Raider" as leader and a half-dozen normal Orcs. The party win the fight and get introduced to the adventure. Happy days. And, they don't get to stroll off with 6 +1 hand-axes rolleyes .

That encounter wasn't even about the rather ridiculous concept of resource depletion as they were heading to GH for R 'n R anyway.
Journeyman Greytalker

Joined: Mar 05, 2007
Posts: 290
From: The Pomarj

Send private message
Mon Jan 07, 2013 1:10 am  



Last edited by BlueWitch on Thu Feb 13, 2014 9:01 pm; edited 1 time in total
Journeyman Greytalker

Joined: Mar 05, 2007
Posts: 290
From: The Pomarj

Send private message
Mon Jan 07, 2013 1:47 am  



Last edited by BlueWitch on Thu Feb 13, 2014 9:03 pm; edited 1 time in total
Master Greytalker

Joined: Apr 13, 2006
Posts: 654
From: Frinton on Sea England

Send private message
Mon Jan 07, 2013 2:05 am  

Even with high quality (masterwork) stuff there still needs be a justification for its presence; I well remember the guards in RttTEE that were all clad in MW Banded Mail and had MW swords. Just who made that stuff? And, because it's very valuable it can rapidly lead to swollen PC coffers. As you say, though, better than an excess of magic kit.

One thing I think is better in 3e/PF is the concept of damage reduction rather than needing +1 or better weapons and I need to think about whether to import that into 2e or not.
GreySage

Joined: Jul 26, 2010
Posts: 2753
From: LG Dyvers

Send private message
Mon Jan 07, 2013 8:03 am  

Mystic-Scholar wrote:
And Maldin. Mystic Scholar and Maldin. Tsk! Laughing


I knew there were a couple ( Evil Grin ) of you 2d ed. guys out there. I just wanted to twist the plastic butter knife a bit by implying that Lanthorn was the only one. Razz

SirXaris
Master Greytalker

Joined: Apr 13, 2006
Posts: 654
From: Frinton on Sea England

Send private message
Mon Jan 07, 2013 8:26 am  

The 2eouth will rise agin.
GreySage

Joined: Jul 26, 2010
Posts: 2753
From: LG Dyvers

Send private message
Mon Jan 07, 2013 8:37 am  

Ragr wrote:
The 2eouth will rise agin.


Nice pun. Laughing

Regarding, Damage Reduction, I don't understand why it's always 5/magic, 10/magic, 15/magic, etc. That means a +1 weapon bypasses the DR just as easily as a +5 weapon. That doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

It should be something like:
Gargoyle, Werewolf, etc.: DR 5/magic +1
Vampire, Vrock, etc.: DR 10/magic +2
Balor, Pit Fiend, etc.: DR 15/magic +3
Demigod, etc.: DR 20/magic +4
Greater god, Tarresque, etc.: DR 40/magic +5

or some such.

SirXaris
GreySage

Joined: Sep 09, 2009
Posts: 2470
From: SW WA state (Highvale)

Send private message
Mon Jan 07, 2013 3:49 pm  

Casts "Dispel Thread Sidetrack!" Happy

awaiting "Classy" responses,

-Lanthorn (but glad to know I am not alone...please start replying to my 2e posts, dagnabbit! I will surely appreciate your input and perspectives about our 'beloved' edition.)
GreySage

Joined: Oct 06, 2008
Posts: 2790
From: South-Central Pennsylvania

Send private message
Mon Jan 07, 2013 7:11 pm  

Lanthorn wrote:
. . . start replying to my 2e posts, dagnabbit! I will surely appreciate your input and perspectives about our 'beloved' edition.


Be careful what you wish for! Evil Grin


Mwahahahahahahahaha!
_________________
Mystic's web page: http://melkot.com/mysticscholar/index.html
Mystic's blog page: http://mysticscholar.blogspot.com/
Apprentice Greytalker

Joined: Aug 13, 2001
Posts: 64
From: Stockholm, Sweden

Send private message
Wed Jan 09, 2013 12:51 am  

I think that all the humanoids should be able to spawn unique individuals that are more powerful or versatile than the average tribesman. I do not like having a lot of classed individuals among a humanoid group but a few are OK, perhaps the chieftain, the champion or the witch-doctor.

I'm also not very fond of specifically making them "classed" but rather give them bumped up stats, e.g. having the orc king have 7HD, attack twice per round with a lot of bonuses instead of calling him a 6th level fighter with specialization.
_________________
Never say blip-blip to a kuo-tua
GreySage

Joined: Sep 09, 2009
Posts: 2470
From: SW WA state (Highvale)

Send private message
Wed Jan 09, 2013 3:50 pm  

I think that 1e leans more towards augmenting HD, #ATT, and the like whereas 2e (or, perhaps 2.5 with the Options system) may lean towards implementing classing humanoids at times (though not all...this is, of course, a DM choice). I think that the main focus of The Complete Book of Humanoids was to allow PCs to become humanoids, but this has the subsequent effect of opening that option up to ALL humanoids. I am OK with this, personally, even though this may not be the preference for everyone.

-Lanthorn
Master Greytalker

Joined: Apr 13, 2006
Posts: 654
From: Frinton on Sea England

Send private message
Thu Jan 10, 2013 1:29 am  

I think either method, classed or additional HD, works well. To me it's more about the context of use and the ongoing campaign; far too many published adventues of the last decade have taken the "kitchen sink" approach without any regard as to where you go next.

Introducing a "superior" humanoid should be an event in itself not an opportunity to further ramp the power for the next encounter or session.

They should also be memorable not for power alone; they should be tactically clever or cunning, be able to utilise their underlings effectively, know when to withdraw and, if necessary, negotiate with pcs to save their position. If they do fight to the death it should be an event; thinking here of the Uruk- Hai facing off with Aragorn and pulling himself onto his blade in a crazy defiant gesture.

Now that's "classy".
GreySage

Joined: Sep 09, 2009
Posts: 2470
From: SW WA state (Highvale)

Send private message
Thu Jan 10, 2013 4:25 pm  

Good points, Ragr. You'll get no argument from me. I do not play my humanoids as stupid. Just b/c they are of low intelligence does not mean they lack cunning and are suicidal. Otherwise, the lot of them as a species would become extinct as per natural selection.

-Lanthorn
GreySage

Joined: Jul 26, 2010
Posts: 2753
From: LG Dyvers

Send private message
Thu Jan 10, 2013 9:51 pm  

Let me ask you guys your opinions on a related question, if you'll indulge me.

In an adventure I've written, but not yet published, I made up a band of ixitxachitl led by a few ix priests and a demon all in the direct service of Demogorgon. Of course, the ix priests have several levels of Cleric, but I also gave the lesser ix in the band several levels of Thief. With their exceptional ability to hide underwater, having the Sneak Attack (Backstabbing) ability really increases their danger level.

I did this because the ix are an extremely cool underwater monster and the adventure is for parties averaging 10th level. 1+1 HD opponents just don't pose a threat to such a party, even if I made it a community of hundreds of them. What I wanted was a small band akin to an elite underwater evil adventuring party to oppose the PCs.

That's not just a few higher level/HD humanoids/monsters. That's a band of about 50 of them. Does that sound reasonable, or over the top?

SirXaris
GreySage

Joined: Sep 09, 2009
Posts: 2470
From: SW WA state (Highvale)

Send private message
Thu Jan 10, 2013 11:15 pm  

SX, that depends really on the "power," level, number, and overall experience of your players...

-Lanthorn
GreySage

Joined: Jul 26, 2010
Posts: 2753
From: LG Dyvers

Send private message
Fri Jan 11, 2013 1:28 am  

Lanthorn wrote:
SX, that depends really on the "power," level, number, and overall experience of your players...

-Lanthorn


Well, I said the purpose was to allow ixitxachitl to pose a credible challenge to a party of ~5 PCs of 10th level. But, after reading some of the above comments, including my own, I'm wondering if what I did was akin to throwing a dozen 7 HD ogres at the party. Confused

SirXaris
Master Greytalker

Joined: Apr 13, 2006
Posts: 654
From: Frinton on Sea England

Send private message
Fri Jan 11, 2013 4:30 am  

This is a highly personal view SX but what you're proposing is the very thing I was railing against above; why would there be 50 Ix's with levels in classes? Are all Ix communities this way or just the one that suits the demands of the current group of pcs? I think the world should be as consistent as possible so it doesn't revolve around the pcs or doesn't appear to. This group of evil villains should exist whether the pcs encounter them or not. Additionally, because there will be so many of these variant Ixs they have now become the rule not the exception and will rapidly go from "interesting" to "ho-hum". In effect, you need the bog standard ones in order to highlight the exceptional ones.

Why not just pyramid the group threat?

High Priest Ix Lvl 7-10 (1)

High Priest's assistants Lvl 4-6 (2)

Bound Sea Beasts (6)

Demon (1)

Ix Acolytes Lvl 1-3 (4)

Ix Scout Leader Lvl 4-6 Rogue (1)

Ix scouts with Rogue Lvl 1-3 (6)

Ix Mook/Cannon Fodder (40)

Every group I've ever met loves a bit of mook slaying so getting rid of them quickly and easily ticks that box and confirms that most Ix's are pretty feeble as a challenge. But wait. The scout Ix's present a different combat challenge because they'll use tactics the party won't expect in order to get sneak attacks; it'll probably take the party 2-3 rounds to adjust to this surprise, but once they've got it pegged the surprise and value of the variety is over. Then we're on to the priests with their spells and summoned or bound sea beasts, with the highest level priest staying way out of melee in order to support his comrades and also use distance attacks; not to mention the fact that he can then flee if the tide ( Smile ) turns. The Demon can also play its own game amongst all this.

There's plenty of variety and shifting challenges within this group rather than an elongated fight with the same type of opponent.

That is a highly personal view, of course.

One thing I learnt fairly recently when playing 4e is that sometimes the short and seemingly middling-easy fights are more memorable than long drawn out slogs.
GreySage

Joined: Jul 26, 2010
Posts: 2753
From: LG Dyvers

Send private message
Fri Jan 11, 2013 2:05 pm  

Ragr: Thanks for the honesty. That's exactly what I was concerned with. Not sure it can be changed now, but you'll have to tell me if I justified it satisfactorily once the adventure comes out in Canonfire Chronicles. Smile

SirXaris
Master Greytalker

Joined: Apr 13, 2006
Posts: 654
From: Frinton on Sea England

Send private message
Fri Jan 11, 2013 2:13 pm  

I very much look forward to reading it, SX.

Like I said it's a personal view not a professional criticism and I'm happy that we're on good terms. Cool

That's the GH spirit.
GreySage

Joined: Sep 09, 2009
Posts: 2470
From: SW WA state (Highvale)

Send private message
Fri Jan 11, 2013 7:31 pm  

Goodwill and fellowship. You cannot go wrong with that, Ragr. Happy

SirXaris, I agree that it is really a personal choice. Let us know how it turns out for you.

-Lanthorn
Grandmaster Greytalker

Joined: Jul 09, 2003
Posts: 1369
From: Tennessee, between Ft. Campbell & APSU

Send private message
Sat Jan 12, 2013 11:02 am  

Lanthorn wrote:
mcneilk wrote:

And Lanthorn 95% of the human guards in the ToEE are 1-1 fighters. I am not so sure that 1HD is the norm for humans in 1e.
Good topic


In perusing the original 1e Monster Manual after your statement, mcneilk, I guess I have to concede that point. According to that 'ancient' tome, most people are d6. Embarassed Brigands, bandits, etc may be more, with entries given for fighters in their midst, and the like.

Personally, I would not consider somebody a 'fighter' in the technical sense if they had 1-1 HD. To me, a 'fighter' is d10 hp...


-In AD&D1 and AD&D2 (I didn't really congitate on this yet during the 1 year I was doing OD&D), I used the following progression for fighter types:

1) 0 level Man, 1d6 Hit Die (no weapon proficiencies);

2) 0 level Man, 1d6 Hit Die (1 weapon proficiency);

3) 0 level Man, 1d8 Hit Die (1 weapon proficiency);

4) 0 level Man-at-Arms, 1d10 Hit Die (the AD&D1 DMG had a spread of 4-7 hit points) (3 weapon proficeincies, no specialization allowed);


5) 1st level Fighter, etc.

Taking a note from the Cavalier class, some work on 0 level wizards, and module N4 Treasure Hunt, I think Men-at-Arms had -500 to -1 XPs, while the others were -1,500 to -501 XPs. Your basic garden variety humanoid warrior was the same as a Man-at-Arms, even though the hit point totals were different for everything except Hobgoblins. I generally used 2HD and higher types for leaders and elite troops as per the MM.

When I translate the old stuff to D&D 3.5, I usually turn categories 1 & 2 into 1st level Commoners (yes, they supposedly only have 1d4 Hit Die, but a 12 CON gives you +1 hit point in D&D 3.5), category 3 become 1st level Experts, or sometimes, 1st level Rogues (yeah, they get all simple weapon proficiencies), Men-at-Arms become 1st level Warriors or occassionally 1st level Aristocrats (a little more powerful, but oh well), and fighters are still fighters. For the humanoids, 2HD warriors become 2nd level warriors, etc.

In the same fashion, 0 level clerics became 1st level Adepts.

SirXaris wrote:
...Therefore, only very exceptional and rare humanoid individuals in my campaign have class levels and those levels are almost always gained in Warrior or Adept as I believe that it requires greater intelligence and dedication to learn all the skills of a true Fighter or Cleric...


-I'd say its a combination of natural talent, natural inclination, and the qunatity and quality of instruction. I have a detailed system for turning NPC classes into PC classes. A 1st level warrior or 1st level Aristocrat usually only needs 2-6 months (average) to become a 1st level Fighter, while a decent training program can turn a willing 1st level Commoner in anywhere from 1-3 years. The reason that the Flaneass is not overrun with 1st level Fighters is that most 1st level Commoners do not spend 1 to 3 years learning how to fight, and many of those who do (often conscripts) essentially ignore the training so they can get back to using their skills and feats for their real life jobs; instead, they become 1st level Experts in 3 to 6 months.

On clergy, a 1st level Commoner can become a 1st level Expert, a 1st level Adept or a (rarely) 1st level Aristocrat, and then go on to become a 1st level Cleric or Druid.

Anyway, humanoids can do this too. The lower INT and WIS scores of the recruits, and the lower WIS scores of the instructors, slows the progression down for most of them, but this is partially compensated by their normally higher level of enthusiasm for learning how to kill things as a full time career. Laughing
Display posts from previous:   
   Canonfire Forum Index -> World of Greyhawk Discussion All times are GMT - 8 Hours
Page 1 of 1

Jump to:  

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum




Canonfire! is a production of the Thursday Group in assocation with GREYtalk and Canonfire! Enterprises

Contact the Webmaster.  Long Live Spidasa!


Greyhawk Gothic Font by Darlene Pekul is used under the Creative Commons License.

PHP-Nuke Copyright © 2005 by Francisco Burzi. This is free software, and you may redistribute it under the GPL. PHP-Nuke comes with absolutely no warranty, for details, see the license.
Page Generation: 0.81 Seconds