Is there any reason to take levels in advancing one's base class?
| Author | Comment | ||
|---|---|---|---|
jaw6 |
(AoA) Why take levels in angel classes? |
Lead | |
|
Is it just me, or is there little or no incentive to take levels in an angel's favored class? I haven't seen many special abilities that scale with HD, most scale with some ability modifier. In most cases, you'd get a more capable character by taking levels in some PC class. The progression as an Outsider just doesn't seem worth it; true, you get a medium hit die and good skill points, but you give up some feats (one every four HD, instead of every three levels) and any number of other abilities (spells, bonus fighter feats, etc). And most of the prestige classes and special feats seem to only require generic HD, not a specific level in an angelic species/class.
Is there any reason to take levels in advancing one's base class? |
|||
Banshee |
favoured classes | ||
|
I think the intent's to have the angel character only take levels in one character class. Given the racial "angel" class is the favoured class, the character can only have one character class without taking an XP penalty..
Not sure why it was done this way though...with the LAs these races have, they'll be difficult enough to play with equal leveled parties.. Not that I'm complaining....they're pretty cool.....it's just possible that you'll need to measure how effective they are in actual play. Banshee |
|||
seankreynolds |
Re: favoured classes | ||
|
{I think the intent's to have the angel character only take levels in one character class. Given the racial "angel" class is the favoured class, the character can only have one character class without taking an XP penalty.}
Bashee is correct. A cherub's "favored class: cherub" doesn't mean "I advance in outsider hit dice." It means "If I take one PC class, I'm fine, but if I take more than 1, I'm probably facing an XP penalty." Jaw6, you're also mistakenly using the 3.0 rules for monster feat progression ... in 3.5, all creatures gain feats every 3 levels (instead of 3.0, where each creature type had its own progression, and outsider's was 1/4 levels). --
Sean K Reynolds http://www.seankreynolds.com Check out my two newest books, Anger of Angels and Path of the Magi |
|||
jaw6 |
Re: favoured classes | ||
Quote: Okay, why did you list it this way, then, instead of saying "no favored class"? Quote: It's true that I was using the 3.0 MM. I currently have no 3.5 MM. (And I'm bristling a bit at the suggestion that not having the revised edition makes that a mistake. But oh well.) Even with that, the angel classes seem about as good as a good NPC class, at best. Just curious, was there a reason that the angelic species weren't statted out with AU-style racial progression? That might have made things significantly more PC-friendly. |
|||
seankreynolds |
Re: favoured classes | ||
|
{Okay, why did you list it this way, then, instead of saying "no favored class"?}
Because it _does_ have a favored class: its racial class. Otherwise any cherub that took a level in any character class would suffer an XP penalty (because his 4 HD are more than 1 away from his 1st-level in a character class, thus he'd have "uneven levels" as per the PH definition of when you get a multiclassing XP penalty). This terminology was established in Savage Species. {It's true that I was using the 3.0 MM. I currently have no 3.5 MM. (And I'm bristling a bit at the suggestion that not having the revised edition makes that a mistake. But oh well.)} Well, the book's title page text says it's compatible with the revised D&D rules, but it was written for 3.0 and is backwards-compatible, so "mistake" was a poor word choice. {Even with that, the angel classes seem about as good as a good NPC class, at best.} There are no "angel classes" in the book. You don't advance as an angel, you advance in a character class. There are no rules in this book for advancing in outsider hit dice, as the angels are presented as PC races (just like the PH races, which don't have rules for advancing in humanoid hit dice) and thus advance by taking character classes. {Just curious, was there a reason that the angelic species weren't statted out with AU-style racial progression? That might have made things significantly more PC-friendly.} Because the intent was to advance the angels with character classes, not by taking levels in an angel racial class. Nothing could be more PC-friendly than advancing them using the normal PC classes, hmmm? :) --
Sean K Reynolds http://www.seankreynolds.com Check out my two newest books, Anger of Angels and Path of the Magi |
|||
jaw6 |
Re: favored class | ||
Quote: Ooo-kay then. I didn't realize that Savage Species was required reading to use Anger of Angels. I need to read the title page more closely next time. I thought the PH, DMG and MM would be sufficient, but I was quite wrong about that, apparently. Quote: Uhhh... None of the PC races list their species as their favored class, either. That may be a "Savage Species" way of doing things, but it parses weird for someone who hasn't read that book. Quote: What I think I meant was, "Why not have the angelic levels kick in over the course of several racial levels, ala AU, rather than having such outrageous LAs/ECLs? That would provide a lot more playability for PCs." |
|||
seankreynolds |
Re: favored class | ||
|
{Ooo-kay then. I didn't realize that Savage Species was required reading to use Anger of Angels.}
It isn't. However, just as certain books created terminology for certain game effects, SS -- the definitive book for playing monsters as PCs -- introduced the standard terminology for handling favored classes for monsters. {I need to read the title page more closely next time. I thought the PH, DMG and MM would be sufficient, but I was quite wrong about that, apparently.} No need to be testy. {Uhhh... None of the PC races list their species as their favored class, either.} That's because there are no core D&D rules for advancing as a human, elf or whatever (AU has them and they've appeared as options on the WotC site since AU was released, but they're not core rules). Since it's not an option to do it, there's no reason to state it in the PC race descriptions (just like it's not an option to play a MM zombie as a PC, so there's no "Zombies as characters" section in their writeup with ability score adjustments and such. In any case, "favored class: blah" has NEVER meant "you should/must/can advance in class 'blah'," it has ALWAYS meant "and hit dice/levels in class 'blah' don't count toward an XP penalty for you." So you're reading something into the terminology that isn't there. {What I think I meant was, "Why not have the angelic levels kick in over the course of several racial levels, ala AU, rather than having such outrageous LAs/ECLs? That would provide a lot more playability for PCs."} One, like I said to you in the previous message, there wasn't time or space to put that in the book. Two, you can already play them at relatively low levels. Three, have you taken a look at my Savage Progressions series of articles? That's exactly what you're talking about, and given the 6+ articles in the series there should be plenty of material there to show you how to do it yourself, if you don't feel like waiting around for me to get around to it. --
Sean K Reynolds http://www.seankreynolds.com Check out my two newest books, Anger of Angels and Path of the Magi |
|||
jaw6 |
Re: favored class | ||
Quote: Then our impasse seems to be that you consider angels "monsters". What makes angel species monsters, but dwarves, elves and gnomes whatever-a-non-monster is? I clearly don't understand the dinstinction. Quote: Then you can't really say that the angel species are "presented as PC races (just like the PH races[...)]". That's all I'm saying. From a core books perspective, they *do* have classes, there *are* angel classes, because the names of 11 different classes appear at the end of the each line for "Favored class: ". Or, again, this could all be some kind of Savage Species run-around. Quote: That may be true. I'm interpreting "favored class" to mean that the character is biologically predisposed towards a certain class, which makes it slightly easier to grow in that area (although in a funny way, since the benefit is only realized when the character becomes more diverse). I may be a determinist, but that tells me (implicitly) that *most* characters of a given race will (because their biology or whatever tells them to) take levels in their favored class. Quote: One, no you didn't. You said: Quote: Two, maybe I'm screwing up the math, but Grigori are the only angel species I'm seeing that are (with the new ECL math) playable before level 8. I won't call that "relatively low levels". Three, nope. First time I've seen that article. I appreciate the link, and will see what I can pull together, but the "do it yourself" argument doesn't hold with me. If I *wanted* to "do it myself" I wouldn't have paid for the book. I was curious why you went the direction that you went. The answers seem to be: "didn't have space/time", "the Web articles are good enough for people who want that," and "we intended PC angels to take PC classes." As you said, there's no need to get testy. Originally, I was curious whether there was some reason to advance as a "para" or whatever. Obviously, that's a crazy question, because you're *not* supposed to advance as angelic species' favored class, and the foundation of the question is flawed. |
|||
seankreynolds |
Re: favored class | ||
|
{Then our impasse seems to be that you consider angels "monsters". What makes angel species monsters, but dwarves, elves and gnomes whatever-a-non-monster is? I clearly don't understand the dinstinction.}
"Monsters" in this context meaning, "creatures unlike the PH-standard races, in that they have 2 or more hit dice and thus don't follow the 'uses class hit dice instead of any racial hit dice' rule." Any creature that normally has one racial hit die if it were untrained in anything at all -- humans, elves, dwarves, halflings, half-orcs, gnomes, orcs, goblins, hobgoblins, kobolds, aasimar, tiefling, genasi, merfolk, and any similar example out of another book -- can be played using the rules in the PH because they act just like humans ... pick a class, lose the "racial hit die," use the class hit die, make racial ability adjustments, and start playing. ALL OTHER CREATURES IN THE GAME cannot use that rule because they have more than one hit die. You can't just say "I'm playing an ogre fighter" and just drop his 4 HD and use a Ftr1's 1d10 as it's HD -- suddenly you'd have an ogre _trained_ in fighting that was for some reason weaker than a regular ogre. You have to take into account those extra hit dice. All of those creatures are _different_ than creatures in the first category, and in this case we're using "playing a monster" to mean "playing a creature that doesn't follow the normal rules for level advancement of D&D-standard PC races." {Then you can't really say that the angel species are "presented as PC races (just like the PH races[...)]".} Sure I can ... they're presented in the exact same format as the PC races. In the D&D books, you don't list things that don't need to be listed. You'll notice there's no entry in the PH elf writeup that says "Megapower: Can travel forward and backward through time at will, can cast 20d6 fireballs at will." That's because elves don't have those abilities! Likewise, elves don't have the ability to advance in their racial HD, thus their writeup doesn't say, "Favored class: elf and wizard; elves do not count their elf levels or wizard levels when determining a multiclass XP penalty." In the case of the AOA angels, they don't have a PC-class as their favored class, so it just lists their racial class. There still isn't a racial class in the same sense that there is a fighter class or wizard class. {From a core books perspective, they *do* have classes, there *are* angel classes, because the names of 11 different classes appear at the end of the each line for "Favored class: ".} They don't have classes, there are no angel classes. You don't see a listing anywhere in the book that says "Table ##: The Cherub," with a listing of BAB, saves, and special abilities for each level of the cherub class. Note also that there's not an "Any" class in the PH, even though "Favored Class: Any" appears in the human and half-elf writeup. Let me ask you this. If you are playing an ogre, and you take a level in a PC class, does he have an XP penalty? No, he doesn't. Why not? Because an ogre's racial hit dice do not count when determining whether he suffers an XP penalty for multiclassing. How do you say that in a much shorter way, using existing game terminology? Well, there's the favored class mechanic ... we can just say "favored class: ogre" and everyone who understands the rules should get what that means: it means that like a halfling with rogue levels not countirg her rogue levels toward an XP penalty, an ogre does not count his ogre abilities toward an XP penalty. I mean, c'mon, man, this is basic stuff ... it's right in the 3.0 DMG: Quote: {Or, again, this could all be some kind of Savage Species run-around.} I am sensing an attitude. Look, these are my boards, and I'd appreciate it if you'd talk to me (and by extension, all of the other guests here) with respect. There is no need to take an attitude with me. I'm trying to answer your questions ... the problem is, I'm answering what you are asking, rather than what you think you're asking. If you understood the terminology used in the core books, we wouldn't be having this problem. {That may be true. I'm interpreting "favored class" to mean that the character is biologically predisposed towards a certain class, which makes it slightly easier to grow in that area (although in a funny way, since the benefit is only realized when the character becomes more diverse).} Which means you're interpreting it wrong. The game has a very specific definition of what favored class means. That definition is on page 11 of the 3.0 PH: "A character's favored class doesn't count against the character when determining XP penalties for multiclassing (see Experience for Multiclass Characters, page 56)." That's all it means. It certainly doesn't mean any kind of biological inclination, as that would make no sense for humans and half-elves, which would for some reason have a biological inclination toward their "highest-level class" ... how your biology can check to see what your highest-level class is is a mystery to me. {I may be a determinist, but that tells me (implicitly) that *most* characters of a given race will (because their biology or whatever tells them to) take levels in their favored class.} Except that most characters of a given race are NPC classes, so that can't be the case. This is stated explicitly in the MM: Quote: There's almost identical text for dwarves, gnomes, goblins, halflings, hobgoblins, merfolk, orcs. None of which have "Favored class: warrior" as a listing. {One, no you didn't. You said:} You're right, I had put that in an early draft of my response, and it didn't make it into the final. My bad. {Two, maybe I'm screwing up the math, but Grigori are the only angel species I'm seeing that are (with the new ECL math) playable before level 8. I won't call that "relatively low levels". Dynamis: 2+5 = 7 Grigori: 2+3 = 5 Memunim: 1+5 = 6 Parasim: 2+5 = 7 That's 4/11 of the angel races. On a range of 20 levels (which is what core D&D is designed for), 5-7 is the middle of the low end of the spectrum. {Three, nope. First time I've seen that article. I appreciate the link, and will see what I can pull together, but the "do it yourself" argument doesn't hold with me. If I *wanted* to "do it myself" I wouldn't have paid for the book.} Unfortunately, I can't spend all of my time writing just for you. And given that I read the boards here and on Monte's site, it would be a simple matter to ask, "Hey does this book give level progressions for angels so I can play them at 1st level?" and get an answer in (at most) a day. I'm sorry you spent your money on something that didn't give you what you thought it was going to give you, but nothing in the marketing text for the book, chats about the book, or reviews of the book said anything about presenting angels as 1st-level-equivalent characters, so I don't know what to say. --
Sean K Reynolds http://www.seankreynolds.com Check out my two newest books, Anger of Angels and Path of the Magi |
|||